by Anonymous
07 July 2017
Recently I started editing a website – and, like most websites, there was a lot of free or cheap content. Many of the writers being used were paid less than industry standards and were often new to the business. Stories sent in were often unclear, needed heavy editing (or total rewriting) and contained lots of errors.
One story published in my first week turned out to be actually written by a health expert (for nothing) and sent in to me almost unchanged by a novice writer. The expert emailed and called (quite irate) about the fact that she wasn’t credited properly despite doing all the work.
So… I made some serious changes to how we sourced content and it was amazing (and quite reassuring) what happened next.
Firstly, I stopped accepting free content from inexperienced writers. If I felt a story was good enough to run, it was good enough to justify the writer to be paid. And if it wasn’t worth being paid, it wasn’t worth being on our site. Result: immediate lifting of standards.
There were some good writers already on the books, but they were being paid well under what I considered to be reasonable industry rates. Articles were too long – often 1500 words – and we were paying just $245 per story. Ridiculous.
One experienced writer had contributed a couple of stories that had done well on the site, but refused to take on any more commissions because ‘it wasn’t worth it’ for her. The other good writers were only writing occasionally, mostly because the low payments meant they weren’t interested in pitching their better ideas to me and only took on the jobs when they were quiet.
The solution was to cut the word count and increase the word rate. We were now paying $360/600 word pieces. At 60 cents a word it’s not amazing, but it’s in the ball park. And because I was commissioning more stories from them, they were getting regular work, which was a reasonable trade-off.
Costs did rise a little, but I found it easier to pull together short, simple pieces myself to save money, rather than spending all my time rewriting bad work. I also did more work setting up stories – clearer briefs, and often lined up interviews with talent/experts beforehand, to minimise the amount of research needed.
And I decided to only use good, experienced writers. People who know how to craft a story, who know how to do interviews and who don’t use Wikipedia as a primary source. People I had commissioned before when I was in other roles, people I knew would turn in quality work – as they did.
The effect was immediate. Time spent on our site increased because readers were enjoying the content more. I didn’t have to do extensive rewrites or engage in multiple emails with sources to make sure facts were correct. Organic growth is up.
It was win/win – to coin a cliché.
There is a myth that good writing is becoming extinct in the modern, online world. As anyone who has been spammed by many SEO companies will attest to, we are told it’s all about keywords, meta tagging and Google.
I’ve even been told by tech people that at some point all blogs will be created by bots designed to capture information on various search terms and pull them into a computer-generated story. Scary.
However, my experience tells me the exact opposite. Quality content will always find an audience.
Indeed, the recurring thread of everything I read (or hear on content creation podcasts), is that while SEO may help to drive new audience to a site, it is quality content that keeps them there, keeps them coming back and promotes engagement.
While I absolutely have no problem with young and emerging writers whose copy might need a little polishing and their careers a little mentoring, I also don’t want to spend all my time reworking stories to knock them into shape.
With the barriers to entry for the media much lower these days – all you need is a computer, a domain name and a Facebook account – there seems to be an incredible number of people out there who think they can write, but haven’t learnt proper structure, proper grammar or possess basic general knowledge.
I don’t expect all my writers to be fully researched on a topic when I commission them, but I do expect them to have the tools to research them themselves. I don’t want to do a quick Google on receipt of the story and discover it bears a remarkable similarity to Wikipedia.
Because it’s not just budgets that are tight these days – so is time.
And, at the risk of sounding like one of those grumpy old subeditors who mentored me back in the days, it’s worth doing a quality job. it’s not just me who is benefiting – so are our readers. And essentially, that’s what it’s all about.
Are you an editor dedicated to sourcing good writing over plug-the-gaps content? Has it paid off for your publication?
Good on you. Reassuring, indeed.
Hear hear! I couldn’t agree more! Great journalism connects.
Yes, heartening to hear such common sense. I was recently approached to write three 1000-word features for $325 each, a rate below the national minimum wage considering the time they would have taken.
Great insights, obviously from an editor who understands the value of good writing and is prepared to pay for it. Clearer briefs, tighter word counts and clear idea who the reader is makes the job far easier for all in the long run.
You brought the writer’s world to attention, not only with your concise beliefs but with the truth. How disheartening it is to read material that has been poorly written, grammar neglected, unpolished, by a writer who expects to be recognised. Even a robot could do better than some of the blogs submitted for publication.
Just goes to show that in writing, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for. You wouldn’t hire a cheap plumber expecting that you’d have to check and redo shoddy PVC joints after he went home for the day. Publishers that refuse to allocate adequate budget for writers simply don’t understand the nature of the business they’re in – and editors are often caught in the middle with woefully inadequate budgets for the type of content they need.
If they’re serious about writing for a living, writers also need to consider the value they’re adding. At the very least they should be insightful enough to be able to proofread their work, identify and fix glaring problems. Understand that editors aren’t just hiring you just to fill sites with words. They’re hiring you to solve a problem – which is how to attract readers, inform them, and keep them coming back.
If you’re not helping solve this problem, you’re making it worse. But many writers can’t identify the group to which they belong, which puts them in the latter group by default. Make your editor’s life easier by doing your job properly – and not making primary-school mistakes like using shocking grammar or copying Wikipedia – and everyone will be happier and more effective.