I recently read another writer’s blog post that ripped the idea of making a living out of writing for content mill sites that pay via ongoing ad-sharing arrangements or residuals based on page views into tiny little shreds.  The author reported the results of some limited testing and concluded that it just doesn’t make sense to write for residuals.

That’s an argument we’ve seen elsewhere, too.  You read things like, “I submitted twenty articles and I made $2 in residual earnings after a month.  The articles will need to produce like that for years to make it worthwhile.”  When you realize that the likely per month payout is marginal, consider the time value of money and realize that the sites you’re using could call it quits or change their terms at any moment, it becomes fairly obvious that writing for residuals is a poor way to spend your time.

I’d never write anything with the primary intention of securing residual earnings.  I could make much better money doing just about anything other than shopping.  I’ve tested several sites that pay this way over the years and I’ve only experienced one situation that even hints that the practice has legitimate earnings potential.

Several years ago, I wrote an article that I submitted to Associated Content as part of an experiment.  In addition to a modest up-front payment, the article continues to rake in the page views month after month.  Since 2006, that article has been earning me a few dollars per month in residuals on a consistent basis.  Four years of that adds up.  That article is an exception to the rule, though.  I hit the right keywords for the right demographic and was lucky enough to have the article receive some big fat link love from a few other well-trafficked sites.  It was a residual perfect storm and it would be extremely tough to duplicate the experience.

In most cases, my results look a lot like those usually reported.  Each article submitted for page view-based ongoing payments generates well under a buck per month.  Those admitted with Adsense revenue sharing usually do even worse.  I should mention that I’ve never bothered trying to promote the content (with the exception of a new, ongoing experiment utilizing an homegrown automated system).

So, does that mean you should never, ever submit an article for residual payments?  Not really.

It means you shouldn’t use those mill sites as a primary means of content monetization.  You shouldn’t write an article with the intention of putting it up at Bukisa or anything like that.  However, there is space to use residual mills to your advantage.

That’s because many of those sites don’t have an exclusivity policy.  You can publish your articles for residual earnings at a series of different sites.  Surprisingly, there doesn’t seem to be much difference in earnings between content submitted exclusively to one site and that which is self-syndicated across multiple mills.  That’s either evidence that Google isn’t quite as tough on repeated content or let’s us know that these mills can produce some level of traffic internally, allowing your material to get views regardless of search engine performance.

Here’s a scenario for you…  You write an article that doesn’t end up being used for some reason and it’s a poor fit for your site or those of your existing clients.  Instead of letting it gather dust, you could sell it with non-exclusive rights and ongoing residual payments to Associated Content.  Once they’ve published it, you could then place the same content on 10-15 other sites that don’t require exclusive materials.  You won’t get rich this way, but you’ll probably make more from the content over time than you would writing a $15 DS piece.

The problem with that is the time involved in submitting the content to multiple sites.  That’s why the technique would really only work if you could efficiently submit a relatively large number of articles at one time.  Many writers will never be in that situation.

Here’s a personal example.  I have a nice little marketing business that chugs along in the background.  I primarily do affiliate marketing, promoting a handful of Clickbank projects and several Amazon items.  One method I use to drive traffic and to develop links for those projects is article marketing.  I publish the articles to EzineArticles.com and other directories.

The volume of content I produce justifies using those residual sites.  I usually submit in blocks of ten articles.  I can publish the articles at the directories and all of those residual sites (many of which will happily allow you to create outbound links to my money site).

Under those circumstances, it makes sense to use those little residual mills.  I make enough overall due to sheer volume to justify the time expenditure.  The content already exists, I’m not sinking any time into the writing process.  I can drive more traffic to my affiliate pre-sells using the syndicated content and I create a few links for my money sites in the process.

The bottom line?  Writing for residuals is silly.  Using the opportunity for residual earnings to increase the overall value of existing content, on the other hand, isn’t always a bad idea.

Unfortunately the fact that those sites can have some genuine value is often lost in the argument about rates.  Most arguments against residual sites are based on faulty assumptions.  Critics think in terms of one-site submissions written for the purpose of residual earning and don’t consider the possibility of wider distribution and the other potential benefits of utilizing the sites.

I’ve found real value in submitting to sites that pay based on content page views even though I agree that treating them as a primary means of income generation is unwise.