---- Is this rate ok for getting original articles?
rbacal - 9:25 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)
Oh, I'm not disputing the certainty that there are many different levels of quality in content. What I'm wondering is why there should be differences in editorial standards between the online and offline versions of the same product, and why rates of pay should be dependent upon whether the work is to be published online or offline - particularly when online versions can have larger audiences.
Because they aren't the same product. In the same way that a StarWars book, a starwars movie, and a starwars broadway production are completely different products, and have different standards and styles for writing, and presumably fees for writers).
Let me broaden this out. Why do webmasters (in the main) see content as something that can be had so cheaply (a few £/$ per 1,000 words), whilst the offline world still values it highly. Why don't webmasters see content as being of more value than they do? Is it because too many webmasters see content as padding for made-for-adsense (MFA) sites?
Different businesses, different business models, different industry maturity levels, different entrance requirements, but do you have any idea what a full page ad in a major publication or trade journal costs? When the advertiser is paying $10k for a single full page ad running adjacent to an article, you'd better believe the standards (and the writer's fees) are going to be higher.
Why should a writer get paid a handful of coins from an online source when, if they were actually any good, they could get paid ten times more in the offline world?
Because in most cases they aren't capable of getting paid ten times more in the offline world, either because they aren't good enough, or don't understand how to run an offline business for writing.