Another Scoop from Angela Hoy?
Angela Hoy, head honcho at WritersWeekly.com, self-appointed protector of freelance writers and semi-professional shit-stirrer apparently tired of her weird war against Demand Studios and decided to lob a few shots at other “content mills” (say that with your nostrils perpendicular to the floor and the pinky on your teacup fully extended).
“Are Content Mills Lowering the Quality of ‘News’ on the Internet?” starts with Hoy “wondering” if content mills are “contributing to the decline of the quality of writing on the Internet” before taking us on a tour of typographical errors and editorial blunders associated with a handful of sites.
If you think Angela Hoy was “wondering” about anything, you’re delusional. “Are Content Mills Lowering the Quality of ‘News’ on the Internet?” isn’t an exercise in investigative journalism. Hoy went out looking for typos to support her existing position.
There’s nothing wrong with telling people how you feel about something and then offering evidence in support of your argument. That’s a good thing. However, pretending as if you conducted some kind of fair and balance truth-seeking mission is disingenuous.
In her opening paragraph, Hoy discusses the “hubbub” surrounding content mills and the way “many” feel as though they’re applying downward pressure on pricing for freelance writing.
What she fails to mention is her personal involvement in generating some of the “hubbub” and how she’s made it clear that she is one of the unnamed “many” she references. Again, she’s entitled to her opinions, but wouldn’t it be a little more honest and transparent to mention her own shit-stirring and advocacy rather than pretending to be an objective, detached observer?
Hoy does mention that she found plenty of great articles, too. Instead of shining a light toward and/or providing a little link love to those gems, she decided to focus on the dark side of the sick, corrupt world of content mills.
Loosing* My Religion: The Unsurprising Discovery
“Are Content Mills Lowering the Quality of ‘News’ on the Internet?” then goes on to point out several articles, found on a variety of content mills, that contain embarrassing blunders, craptastic writing and other goofs. She used her ace detective skills to reveal that way too many people use “loosing” instead of “losing” and to blow the lid off of scandalous cases of neglected apostrophes. She also provided shocking evidence that someone typed “Sshe” instead of “She”.
What does her laundry list of content mill miscues prove?
Hoy doesn’t say.
She starts the article by asking if this content is contributing to the decline of writing quality. However, she stops short of arguing that her long list of “loosing” articles actually proves the point.
Perhaps the article is enthymeme and we’re supposed to connect the dots between a heaping helping of typos and the “decline of the quality of the writing on the Internet.” I’m not one to get up in arms about truncating a syllogism every once in awhile, but I refuse to pretend as if there’s a real argument in “Are Content Mills Lowering the Quality of ‘News’ on the Internet?”.
Here are just a few reasons why it’s silly to believe that the online publication of bad articles using “sever” instead of “severe” proves much of anything.
First, Hoy assumes an overall decline in quality without substantiating its existence. Decline is a relative concept and there’s no baseline against which to judge existing content.
Second, quality is an inherently subjective notion. Even if Hoy was able to somehow prove that the percentage of available content today contains more misuse of “loosing” than it did five years ago, errors of that sort are only a tiny sliver of what quality may encompass.
Third, if the Internet is bloated with lousy content, who really gives a shit? It would seem as though the good ol’ marketplace of ideas would solve for the underlying problem. At the point people are disappointed with the quality of a given website’s offerings, they’ll stop visiting that source. If AllVoices or Associated Content does nothing but publish garbage, they’ll wither away and die in reaction to market forces.
Elitist Concern Trolling and Insecurity?
The gripe about content mill articles strikes me as an act of rather elitist concern trolling, at best. We should all worry about the “Sshe” articles because they’re so bad and the consumers of the material are too damn stupid to correctly vote with their feet/mice? I don’t think so. I have more faith in people than that. Only a masochist would repeatedly expose himself or herself to toxic wordwaste.
In the end, the good stuff always wins. It always has. It always will.
And when the stuff I don’t think is good performs well, it’s proof that my standards are different than those of the greater population—not that it’s time to declare war on the stuff I don’t like.
Look, there are undoubtedly a few thousand blogs out there discussing freelance writing issues. Hoy’s website continues to attract a great deal of traffic in the midst of that frenzied fight for traffic. Why?
If you asked Angela, she’d probably tell you it has something to do with the fact that she tries to supply better information and a higher level of quality than the others do, right?
Hmmm…
I recently commented on a blog post at FreelanceWritingGigs.com about the ongoing drama spurred by Hoy and others who frequently attack content mills and other sites that they feel somehow cheapen the art of writing. I said that I couldn’t imagine Bobby Flay staying up at night, tossing and turning, upset because some jackass was applying for a grill job at Denny’s.
Why isn’t Flay concerned? Because he’s Bobby Flay and the other guy is looking to make a living for awhile with a spatula in his hand.
Those who are good don’t worry about those who aren’t. It’s a waste of time and energy.
They realize that a plate of “Moons Over My Ham-y” isn’t going to destroy the desire for salmon glazed in honey and ancho chiles with a spicy sauce made from black beans.
Bobby also understands that some people are satisfied with a Grand Slam breakfast. I doubt he thinks it’s quality dining, but he realizes that it’s good enough for some folk. That’s their loss. It doesn’t destroy his value.
So, why do articles like “Are Content Mills Lowering the Quality of ‘News’ on the Internet?” keep popping up? I don’t think it is a genuine concern for those poor fools who are incapable of distinguishing a lousy eHow article from Pultizer winner Lane DeGregory’s feature work. I don’t think these folks are genuinely upset that the great unwashed masses are ignorantly exposing themselves to AllVoices instead of the voices of Woodward and Bernstein.
I think it stems from insecurity and fear.
They worry that their ability to avoid using “loosing” in place of “losing” isn’t enough to justify a continued workload. They’re afraid that those “Moons over My Ham-my” will squeeze their breakfast dishes out of the marketplace—or that they’ll need to take a pay cut to compensate for the difference, which others may perceive as being slighter than they do.
They don’t hate the content mills for screwing writers. They don’t hate the content mills for contributing to an unsubstantiated overall decline in the quality of writing.
They hate the fact that the veil worn by members of the priesthood of writing might be slipping. They don’t like the idea of working harder, of working for less or for dealing with more competition.
I can’t blame them for feeling that way.
I don’t like them pretending that they’re worried about the greater good. These arguments against content mills aren’t acts of benevolence. They’re attempts at self-preservation.
If I’m wrong (it happens every once in awhile) and there are people out there who are simply concerned about our society going down the drain because people are inundated with horrible online articles, they’re barking up the wrong tree when they go after the content mills.
Let’s Talk about Google…
Hoy wonders if those weak content mill articles are “news”. She expresses her concern for those poor ignoramuses in the general public who believe that anything they find via Google News is fact.
Give me a break.
If this is a problem, it’s not a content mill problem. It’s a Google problem and it belongs in an article critical of the search engine and its news function, not in an article about the evils of content mills.
And this is where Hoy accidentally finds herself on the verge of making a good point. It would be nice if there was a solid way of finding the best possible news and written content because Google doesn’t do a great job separating nonsense from genius.
In time, I think we’ll see search improvements from Google and others because of that, which would undoubtedly have an impact on the search traffic-dependent world of content mills. If the search engines fail to do a good job of matching content with user desires, people will look for an alternative means of finding what they really want.
We’ve seen a great deal of progress in that area in just a few years. Once upon a time, you could rule the SERPs with a miserable paragraph of keyword-stuffed nonsense and some meta tag manipulation, after all.
No one would really give a rat’s ass about the proliferation of cheap and/or typo-riddled content if it wasn’t for the fact that the material did so well in the search results. At the point people aren’t seeing articles about a “sever nut allergy” on the first page of results, the folks running the content mills will stop paying for the articles.
Unfortunately, the subjective nature of quality and the sheer scope of online content makes it tough for even the most refined search algorithm to differentiate between awesome stuff and things that almost all of us would find nightmarishly bad.
Meanwhile, folksonomic methods of information indexing aren’t catching on as a mainstream means of finding online content and many of the alternatives to search engine-based information acquisition are quickly exploited by those with a commercial interest in the valuable traffic they can provide.
In other words, if there is a real humanitarian/social concern about content quality, people should be focusing on the demand side, rather than the supply side. Instead of pissing on the content mills, I invite those with real concerns to take their case to Mountain View, CA. People pay for and publish lousy content because Google rewards it.
Do that to me one more time…
Hoy wonders how many different ways any site needs to address the same issue. There are multiple articles covering the same territory and supplying the same information on these sites, she notes.
No shit.
I guess we didn’t need West Side Story because we already had Romeo and Juliet.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with different takes on the same material. Freelance writers should be overjoyed that the world is cool with repackaging similar themes and information into multiple presentations. Otherwise, 99.9% of all publication outlets would either be history or they’d simply reprint previously-purchased articles about the recurring topics that appear within them.
Hoy mentions finding a surplus of Tiger Woods-themed articles in the wake of recent events. That’s a reason to hate on the content mills? Look at the papers. Watch the news. Listen, if you dare, to sports radio. Overkill coverage is everywhere and thinking that websites should somehow be different is folly.
However, if the practice is more common on content mills, the responsibility again lies in the way people interact with the web and the tools that facilitate the interaction more than it does with Associated Content, Demand Studios or other sites. Variations, to some degree, stem from the way search engines match content with user queries.
Why do we need an article called “How to Boil Eggs” when we already have “Boiling Eggs: How to Do It,” “A Quick Lesson on Egg Boiling,” “You CAN Boil and Egg,” “Boiling Eggs for Dummies,” “How Do I Boil an Egg?” and “How Do You Boil an Egg”?
In part, it’s because a user search for “how to boil eggs” will yield different results than will one for “how do you boil and egg.” Commercial websites want to secure as much traffic as they possibly can, and this leads them to invest in multiple variations of similar content in order to rank for the various keyword variations.
Hoy concludes by noting her disgust for “rewriting” projects. I’m with her on this one. Some of those jobs are nothing more than invitations to engage in paid plagiarism. In cases when the hiring party has the rights to the content to be rewritten, it’s still an act of drudgery and I personally believe that there are better ways to achieve the results the hiring parties desire.
Why are people offering those gigs? I’ll give you clue. It’s a six-letter word that starts with “G” and ends with “e.”
If you’re really THAT good…
In the end, good content still does better than bad content, overall. Google is flawed and it is possible to generate income using methodologies based on weak content. However, when done properly one will experience better results through the proper use of superior written materials.
This is where it gets ugly for web-based writers. If you don’t understand how and why Bobby Flay can make a client more money than Denny’s, you might as well fight a losing battle whining about content mills. At least it gives you a chance to claim the moral high ground.
Those who want to argue that their ability to distinguish “loosing” from “losing” is worth something in dollars and cents need to be able to explain why. They need to be able to market the difference, too.
Writers also need to recognize that some situations don’t require the kind of quality they feel they provide. In those cases, they need to either compromise their own rate standards and over-deliver or they need to walk off to different pastures.
Associated Content doesn’t need good work to be profitable. If they did, they’d invest in quality articles and they’d take editorial decisions more seriously. The fact of the matter is that the nature of Internet use, the public’s interpretation of adequate quality and a series of other factors have made it clear to them that they can get by with stuff that isn’t all that great.
These sites are not non-profits dedicated to the advancement of literary excellence. They’re operated by people who, just like freelance writers, want to make a living. They’re staffed by people who enjoy paychecks that pay for electricity and groceries. They didn’t take a pledge to protect journalistic standards and they are no more concerned with sticking up for “losing” over “loosing” than most of us are concerned about the fate of endongo lyre music.
The bottom line: Stop whining about content mills, people. If you’re capable of producing superior content, you don’t need to worry about “loosing” to a bunch of hacks–if you understand why you’re worth the money and are capable of selling that skill where it actually matters. In the meantime, it makes a lot more sense to be pissed off about search engines than it does to keep screaming about those dastardly content mills.
*I didn’t proofread this post. Feel free to point out any typos as evidence of its poor quality and to label me as a contributing force in the decline of writing quality. The “Loosing My Religion” thing was intentional, though.
Deb Ng
Anne Wayman
Jessie Haynes / J...
Laura Spencer
Michael K. Miller
Robin Margolis
Sean
TC/Copywriter Und...
[...] Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Online Writing [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DebNg, Carson Brackney. Carson Brackney said: Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Online Writing… http://tinyurl.com/yhyzkw9 [...]
It’s Demand Studios, not “Designed Studios”.
I found your article on Twitter and can’t thank you enough. This topic makes me so angry.
*Never mind how Angela Hoy’s method of investigation involves choosing only letters from disgruntled freelance writers and labeling them as “average.”
*Never mind how Angela Hoy posted this about DS writers on her previous “investigation”
and then paid $40 for this article published on her website this week:
She also posted this item in 2007
Her hypocrisy is showing.
*Never mind how Angela Hoy has no formal writing training but acts as if she’s End All Be All Writer Extraordinaire. As she states in one of her books:
*Never mind how Angela Hoy’s newsletter is only a vehicle for her print on demand business.
*Never mind how the only emails Angela Hoy prints are the ones saying how wonderful she is or the ones agreeing with her.
*Never mind how Angela Hoy has gone after competitors such as Anne Wayman, Jenna Glatzer and Deb Ng simply because they’re competitors.
Let’s talk about her latest investigation. The one that turned up all the articles by the alleged Demand Studios writers who used “loose” instead of “lose.”
If Angela Hoy did a thorough investigation she’d learn these weren’t written by Demand Studios writers. They were either written before DS acquired EH or they were written by non-DS writers who were already part of EH’s residual program. DS is now working to improve the quality of the site and take out the poorly written articles.
Angela will receive a million emails on this from DSers to point this out but most likely won’t run them because they don’t serve to suit her purpose.
It’s time people starting seeing this fraud for what she is. Someone with no formal training who started a POD business and began a writing newsletter as a way to promote that business. Her website is 90% ads for her own stuff and 10% is self serving emails and articles.
Thank you, Carson. I don’t know why more bloggers aren’t afraid of taking on Angela Hoy. I wish more would.
Glad you liked the post, Mike.
For the record, I have no problem with Angela Hoy having an opinion. I do take exception to the way she advances that opinion to the extent that I find the arguments completely non-persuasive.
Much of that stems from the kind of practices you mentioned.
I don’t know if anyone is afraid of Hoy, or why they would be. I’d hope that she’d be happy to have a good debate on the merits of the arguments under consideration.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by carsonbrackney: Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Online Writing… http://tinyurl.com/yhyzkw9…
[...] Read more from the original source: Carson Brackney – Consultant, Copywriter, Factotum [...]
Wow. This was a good article. First off, let me say that I like both Deb and Angela a lot. (I feel kind of like I did when I was torn between James Hetfielf and Dave Mustaine.) And I do work for Demand Studios. And I also have gigs that pay me 10 times what DS pays. But I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. If this were a face to face argument, I would have opened my mouth on several occasions to say, “Wait just a goddang second…” but by the time I started forming an argument you rolled into something that shut me right up. I really dig what you’re saying re: “moons over my hammy” (but who can’t resist a good Dennys reference?). Still, I wonder if it’s more like nutritionists worrying about McDonalds than it is Bobby Flay worrying about Joe Burgerturner. The problem isn’t just the quality of the content – it’s the pervasiveness of it. I do a LOT of web research and I have already learned that Examiner is trash and everything that’s on ezinearticles is a pitch. But the problem is that it ranks high on Google — and high school students and my grandparents DON’T get it. Which leads defty into your next point: it’s not a content mill problem, it’s a Google problem. Excellent point. But Google isn’t quite as nimble as the spammers. It’s kind of like credit cars regulation — you can start writing a law now that will fix yesterdays problems by next July. But the people who are making money will already have moved on to the next exploit. That’s why I think it is very much the content mills’ fault, too. I see it kind of as if it were a bubble, just like the subprime crisis. You’re right – the market will correct itself – and it’ll probably be kind of ugly when it does. But that doesn’t mean there are no bad guys. And it certainly doesn’t mean there is no cause for alarm.
I know I am kind of a double agent in that regard — but like you said, some of us need to make a living. I try to make my DS articles a cut above the rest, and that does kind of help me sleep at night. But as all freelancers know, it’s feast or famine and when the pantry is bare, we all end up slinging burgers at some point.
Anyway, thanks for the cathartic article – this is my first read here. You’ve got one more
subscriber.
[...] Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Writing – by my friend Carson Brackney. Carson left us for a couple of years because he thought he might want to go back to a regular job. His stint returning to the full time work force was as successful as mine and I’m so happy to welcome him back to the world of freelance writing. [...]
I haven’t applied to DS yet, but I intend to. I have published a few articles on Associated Content now. I actually wrote them for a job through oDesk that didn’t work out. Mostly I’m writing on oDesk, but I’m applying to the “content mills” and publishing, recording the results, building information and tracking results. I’ll keep those that work out for me, dump those that don’t and keep trading up.
In the mean time, I’m building a portfolio and working toward the day when I can thumb my nose at writing content for these prices. But i think my advice will probably be to start with the content mills and trade up if I’m asked how to get started down the road. Maybe there’s a better way out there, but no one has shared it with me yet, and I haven’t found it. I’ll try hard not to loose my way, but for now I’m writing, and I’m getting paid for it. I had to start somewhere.
Jack-
I think you may be onto something with your bubble assessment.
And I can understand casting the mills as a villain in our little content melodrama. Just because one *can* turn a buck with low grade crud doesn’t mean they *should*, right?
I stop short of visualizing them with the curly mustaches, though. I’d go into an explanation, but it would probably end up being longer than my already too-long post. Guess I have a new topic for a future blogging adventure…
I will say this much: Your comments make about 200x as much sense as the usual “I hate content mills because they’re so lousy and they pay so little! No self-respecting writer should work with them” stuff that usually dominates the discussion.
I’m a fan of double agents. They tend to understand the perspectives of both sides, which allows them to come up with a more balanced and accurate perspective.
Great comment and thanks for reading!
[...] I don’t feel pertain to this particular thread. In any case, the full article can be found here, and it’s well worth taking the time to read in its entirety because it explains a [...]
Dane-
Thanks for reading. I hope you’ll share those results you’re tracking at some point. I think people will find them interesting, even if they only constitute “anecdotal evidence.”
There are a million and one different ways to make a living at the keyboard. I hope you (and everyone else with the desire to do so, for that matter) finds the right path.
Spot on, mate.
I’ve always been a believer in looking at the WHOLE picture, rather than viewing the market through tunnel-vision. Content sites are just as much a valid market as any other, and when the numbers show that you can make high 5s/low 6 figures writing purely for content sites without wasting your time querying and otherwise….who cares if it’s fluff or not?
Honestly, I’m out to make a paycheck. I’m not here to strut my stuff, get my ego stroked, or talk about how it used to be back in the good old days. I like money, I like what money gets me, and I like living the life that my wife and I want to live. If I choose to do that through content sites (or stripping, or making art out of human feces, or shoveling garbage, or flipping burgers at McDonalds), then so be it. The only person in charge of my life is me.
I get a kick out of the content haters, because 9 times out of 10 those very same writers who claim they are so superior are nothing more than content writers themselves.
Hands-down one of my favorites was that 37k vs 52k article the other day at FWJ. Content writer trumps friend, friend goes on to claim “that wasn’t the point. The point is your writing is shit because you aren’t working for a trade publication”.
Honestly? Who cares? If I’m making more than you it doesn’t really matter as long as YOU are happy with your wage. If you are making 80k a year and complaining that it’s not enough to feed your family then maybe you need to make some changes to your lifestyle.
Anyway, good stuff
You know I already linked it over at my blog so 
Cheers!
[...] latest lopsided rant against content sites and the people who write for them. In his post, “Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Writng” Carson explores who really bears responsibility for bad content. This isn’t to argue [...]
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for this. I’ve been making the food comparison about freelance writing for months and didn’t have a good platform to get it out there. I’m glad you did it here. No lies, it validates me in some way that other people use the same analogy.
My thought is that there is often a definite difference in talents or proficiency or even work ethic between those who work at places like Demand Studios and people who sell pitches for hundreds of dollars. Just like there is likely a difference in talents etc. of those who work at Denny’s as opposed to Bobby Flay.
Or, as another poster mentioned, McDonald’s. I see nothing wrong with working at McDonald’s in any way. Maybe you are doing it as an after school job, maybe it’s your night and weekend job to make extra cash, maybe it’s your career because you are happy doing it and it fits your skill set.
Previously in the freelance writing world there wasn’t that much space for those without fantastic talent who worked hard to make a good living. Now I have a friend who makes the money he needs working 30 hours a week at demand and other content sites so that he has time to other things with his life. He doesn’t need or want to elevate his craft anymore than that, and what is wrong with that? He believes he is being treated fairly and is making exactly the money he needs to be making.
Ok, I think I got off on a little rant there and don’t have time to re-read. Hope it makes sense, and thanks for your article. I like seeing that not everyone agrees that this way of making a living is somehow worse or less important than any other. It smacks of elitism and well, just silliness.
Thanks.
[...] Mills Lowering the Quality of “News” on the Internet? has been dealt with quite well by Carson Brackney. I just want to add that her jab at Demand Studios via errors found at eHow is sloppy reporting [...]
Nicely said.
I have never worried about content mills. They come and they go. Real quality content always wins in the end.
Thanks for the great blog!
[...] Brackney also questions her in his entry called Content Mills, Angela Hoy, Search Engines and the Quality of Online Writing. His title also reminds us that a lot of what’s going on in content mills is trying [...]
Warning, intellectually bereft language. Also: Needs tightening.
Incidentally, Angela actually supports writers and tries to get fair treatment for them. She doesn’t affiliate with the “enemy.”
Warning, completely fails to address any issues raised in the post or subsequent comments. Also: Needs attitude adjustment.
Incidentally, I would never claim that Angela doesn’t support writers. I don’t have enemies. Don’t believe in them.
Catching up on the conversation a bit… Star and her red pen received one-on-one treatment because I think she’s earned it. She’s been snarking at me off and on since late 2005/early 2006. That should be worth something, right?
TW- You may be the only commenter on this post whose mercenary streak is wider than my own! Nice to have someone around shares some of my perspective on the bottom line in a world that often feels dominated by those who can’t believe anything they don’t like could be lucrative.
Brekke- I agree with the “different strokes for different folks” outlook. What gets me is the way some folks feel the need to determine who “deserves” to claim the mantle of writer, etc.
Kristi- Thanks for reading and for your comment. Cream does have a way of rising–it’s just important to realize that quality is dependent upon context.
You are fired up aren’t you:)
I find these bloggers’ claim on “quality” writing laughable. It reminds me of my dog protecting his bone from the other dog. That always makes me chuckle too.
Is the loosing/losing example the best she can come up with? That has been driving me crazy for years. This argument needs a more current example of incompetence to prove its point.
My advice is to just run your business, enjoy your trips to the bank and drop out of this. It’s all over the place, and I am getting so sick of reading about it. I love Deb Ng’s blog, but I can barely read it anymore because it seems like this has become the only topic.
Keep doing what you are doing.
Debbie Ferm
Debbie- It probably does make more sense to just walk away from this whole back and forth. I doubt I’ll heed your advice, though. That’s becaue I do enjoy the discussion on some weird, twisted level and because, as you noted, I am a little fired up. I hope that I don’t get so deep into it that I “loose” you as a reader!
Hi Carson,
As you know my own response was so long I posted it on my own blog. I did want to respond to Debbie to say I ‘m sorry I lost you as a reader. I know I get passionate regarding this topic. The things I want to say keep coming. However, to be fair, I’m talking about other things. We have grant writing and press release tutorials, marketing and networking advice, advice for finding gigs out side the content sites and job boards – and this is just in the past week.
I’m sorry if my “live and let live” stance is driving you away, but I hope you’ll come back sometime to see what else we have to offer.
With the exception of this my post in response to this one, a guest post on another blog, I haven’t gotten into much on the Angela Hoy thing because I’m not interested in going tit for tat with her.
Thanks though. All feedback is good feedback and I appreciate a (former?) member of the FWJ community telling me I’m dwelling on something too much.
Carson, as always, I dig your style and your ability to tell it like it is.
And obviously I didn’t proof the above – but at least I didn’t say “loose.”
I admit that I’m against the content mill companies, but I’m not here to debate. I was a little disappointed in the article. There wasn’t enough beef to the story. While I feel that spelling is important; it’s not enough to prove her viewpoint on the internet ‘news’ aspect. It would’ve been nice to see more things like incorrect facts or something like that to go along with some spelling errors, but all we were given were “loose” vs. “lose” items. Overall, I like Angela Hoy and her newsletters, but this particular article was a bit of a disappointment.
Mercenary is as good a term as any.
My dad is worth over 20 million dollars in assets at the age of 49. He would probably be worth more but he caught West Nile 5 or 6 years ago and developed encephalitis of the brain, which forced into retirement. The point is, he didn’t make become worth 20 million in assets by sitting on his ass and doing things the way everyone else told him to do them. He got out there, did what needed to be done, and made money for his family.
The one thing I took away from him is a sense of business. It doesn’t matter what the other guy is doing. What matter is what you can do to put food on the table and enjoy life the way you want to.
Honestly, you hit the nail on the head with these people bitching about what little ‘ol me (you, or anyone) is doing when they are supposedly making 100 dollars per article and over 80k a year. I had to laugh yesterday when one of the commenters over at AboutFreelanceWriting left a comment on my guest post saying that she doesn’t consider writers in other countries to be a threat to her business. Yet in the SAME EXACT breath she complains about the so-called “low paying content” and the “lack of quality work” available, while at the same time (and again, in the same breath) talking about how she makes so much more money than everyone else that she is “better” than them.
Riiiiight. If you are so much “better”, and so “secure” in your 100 dollars per article, 80k+ a year, then why do you care whether or not other people are making similar wages with content studios. Bottom line? You are terrified of competition, and terrified that writers like little ol’ me are jeopardizing your haloed position as one of the “elite” that used to be kings of the hill. Terrified that the Internet has opened the doors to writers all over the world who are JUST as qualified.
Deb,
I apologize if you felt I was bashing what you are writing about. That’s not the case at all. You have a fabulous network, and provide a very useful service. I am not a former reader at all. I still visit, but I been reading several sites where this argument has been raging which is probably why I have hit my limit. Yours happens to by my favorite, so it’s probably why I mentioned it.
I am certainly not disagreeing with your opinion of “fairness for all”.
Here’s my problem with this argument.
You, (and Carson, and anyone else who is on the same page) are not the ones bashing.
The same people keep spouting their opinions in a hostile way, which will always put you in the position of defending yourself. I hate seeing you raked over the coals, and there is no way that you are ever going to change their mind. There is no possible way to win this argument. By responding to it over and over, it just gives legitimacy to the bashers.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion certainly, and I can see how writers who have worked for years to improve their skills are a little disgusted with some of the junk they see. It’s a natural response.
With that said, basic respect for others and their choices does not go out the window just because there is a disagreement. I teach sixth graders and even they know that. The issue is not the difference of opinions, it’s the presentation (theirs, not yours).
Despite my plea for civility, a part of me wishes that I would see another blogger bring up the decisions you’ve made regarding YOUR OWN BLOG, and you would respond, “Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on.”
(Carson, I understand if you need to moderate me out:)
Have a good day.
Debbie Ferm
The thing of it is, quality hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s still there. It’s just that now the content is being written by writers from every corner of the globe, rather than a select few from the previously dominant countries.
It’s not just writing. Having been blessed enough to travel all throughout Europe in the past decade, I’ve seen a wide variety of evidence from both sides of the fence, but time and again I see people from the United States up in arms about how much better they are than someone from (insert another developed country that isn’t the United States). It doesn’t matter that these people from (insert name of other country) have higher levels of education (point in case: almost every high school graduate from a European country can speak a minimum of two languages fluently; in most cases it is three languages. Then look at the rates of illiterate graduates in America, the “no child left behind” policies, and how kids are lucky if they can read and write English fluently, let alone even know of another language), better economies (especially in light of the economic crisis), and a firmer grasp on the English language than most people in the United States.
It simply boils down to self preservation. Many of these writers from the United States are literally in a panic because there are people from all over the globe who can do exactly what they do…only faster, more efficiently, and for lower rates because their cost of living is lower than what the United States has. The immediate reaction of these “elite” writers is to decry anyone living in another country (or from another country) as “beneath” them, or “less educated”. This is absolutely not true. It simply boils down to those elite writers not wanting to share the mantle of power they were able to hold for so long until the advent of global high-speed connections. And who can blame them? It’s a natural reaction when your feeding grounds are threatened by another tribe expanding into your territory.
At the end of the day it is vitally important to understand the global workings of the market and adapt accordingly. Notice I’m not bitching about a lack of work or rates, nor is anyone else who understands the concept of writing in the 21st century.
[...] Carson Brackney weighs in with his take on Angela’s article, pointing out that she never really reaches a conclusion to her question about content mills being responsible for a general decline in writing on the Internet. He points out too, that quality is a subjective thing, and her article makes no real statement about the measure she uses, save her mentions of grammatical errors. In short, the reader is left to make their own connections between her premise and her citations, using innuendo as the sole glue between the two. Carson’s main problems with the article center on Angela’s treatment of her agenda in the piece and her failure to complete her argument. [...]
[...] them as they arise, but this isn’t the WritersWeekly Grudge Report. Two out of my last three posts have dealt with WritersWeekly and that’s good enough for [...]
[...] that if it gets bad enough, consumer-driven market forces will solve the problem (that’s my position and I’m sticking to [...]
Finally! Someone who puts it right on he line. I think you are 100% correct in your opinion that those of us who choose to write for places like Demand Studios make the old guard nervous. Loved your post.
Kathryn Pless´s last blog ..Demand Studios-My POV
[...] observers (such as Carson Brackney in this post) argue that there’s a place for lower-quality writing, and that web users aren’t as fussy or [...]