Forum Moderators: phranque
My sites had become a good amount of tedious work and it was about that time. "That's what employees are for"... is one of the messages I got from this past New Orleans conference hosted by WW.
If you are doing well with Adsense, don't stop. And, don't limit yourself. Good luck, everyone.
Best of luck to you!
This is taken from the first thread on this forum. While this statement has some truth in it, it sounds very harsh, something like exploitation.
In my opinion employees are not to do the tedious work, but they are members of the team to help to achieve the organizational goals.
An organization cannot last long if it employs the wrong approach and exploits its employees. Times of slavery is long gone and the Roman Empire ceased to exist because the economy was based on the slave labor.
Also, I am not saying that "That's what employees are for" meant to be that harsh, but do you agree with me that it sounds harsh?
This now leads to my second and third question.
How much should you earn to be in a position to hire an employee?
What do you pay to your employee, and what is a fair wage?
Thank you.
"That's what employees are for"
I said this out of context, oops. I meant... when your sites become so much tedious work that you can't move on... it's time to hire an employee. No harm meant. I'm certainly working toward getting my first employee very involved and a big part of the company, but it will take time. I'm just taking things slowly.
How much should you earn to be in a position to hire an employee?
What do you pay to your employee, and what is a fair wage?
Between swebbie paying writers $10 an article and the NUJ recommending a payment of 250 GBP (approx $500) for a 1000 word article, there seems to be a big gap.
The only danger of paying people what they're happy with (as little as $10, perhaps?) is that they might not realise the true value of their work.
Given the possible $10,000 value (swebbie's estimate, not mine) which will be generated over time from an article with adsense attached, paying a one-time fee of $10 to a writer who doesn't know any better sounds like rank exploitation.
Saying "Oh, well if they weren't so stupid / ignorant / talentless, they'd publish their article on their own website with their own adsense account and then they'd be in a position to realise the true value of their own work," is not good enough.
I think my favoured solution will be to track the earnings from adsense panels around contributed articles using channels. At the end of every month, I will send a majority percentage (say 85%) of those earnings to the writer as a royalty payment.
That way, the writer is in a much better position to realise over time the true value of the article they have written. It also gives writers of high quality articles a major incentive to write more.
Given the possible $10,000 value (swebbie's estimate, not mine) which will be generated over time from an article with adsense attached, paying a one-time fee of $10 to a writer who doesn't know any better sounds like rank exploitation.
This is my fault, as I didn't make it clear that $6-$10 is the going rate for a 250-300 word article at places like Elance. Anyone paying anywhere near $500 for a 1,000 words is allowing themselves to be ripped off (big-time). Even on a topic requiring serious research, that's ridiculously high for one article.
I'm definitely not exploiting anyone paying $10 for 300 words. That's what people bid on the freelance writing sites. I didn't tell them to, nor did I tell them that's all I'd pay. Market forces at work. Save the silly "exploitation" nonsense for your Socialist professors. LOL
I don't care if it's 3000 words, 300 or 3. No article takes less than an hour to write *and check*. Add in the time involved in negotiating the contract, delivering the article, doing the accounts for the transaction, (possibly) chasing payment, cashing the cheque, etc, etc and from a professional viewpoint I need $50 absolute minimum to make any job worthwhile.
Yes, you can get people for $5. Some of them are really good - some of them aren't.
Maybe you'll get lucky and get a really good result. Or maybe you won't.
Your site lives or dies by the quality of the content. Why risk spoiling the ship?
If you don't want to pay cash, offer a (direct HTML) link to the writer's site from the page on which the article is published. That's usually worth more than $5 to me!
At the end of every month, I will send a majority percentage (say 85%) of those earnings to the writer as a royalty payment.
The thought that comes to mind is, "Why?"
It almost sounds like you don't think of yourself as a publisher, but as an "agent" --someone in the business of promoting another person's work for a 15% commission.
I've been told that there is some work involved in getting traffic... Don't you want to be paid for that, or is that what the 15% is for?
Anyway, if I understand your offer correctly, I would absolutely *love* for you to publish my articles for 85% of ongoing revenues! (Of course, I will outsource writing them, for about $10-$25 per article; I think that's called arbitrage...)
--
offer a (direct HTML) link
Yes, I do that (over and above payment in $$)! The writer is quite happy with that --and it probably motivates him to turn out high quality stuff, since his reputation is on the line...
25 bucks to cut front and back and minor weed eating. When I was a kid I hustled lawns, front and back, for 5 bucks a pop...
Oh well...
I hired one too... he's 13 years old and his official title is groundskeeper. His responsibilities include, but are not limited to, keeping my grass cut so I don't have to.
I think this post may be one of the most important concepts that I bet most of us who work from home overlook completely. I was just thinking about this on my way back from a trip to the store the other day (an hour round-trip for me, living in the boonies). How many hours/week do we all waste doing things that could be handed off to others (family members or hired neighbor kids)? It occurred to me that even saving 2 extra hours/week = 4-5 more pages of new content on one of my sites. That's 250 more pages at the end of a year. That might be as much as $1500 more per month to my bottom line. Man, think about that!
In my case I'm simply lazy though, and I have big yards. I'm also old and fat and these aren't really good "yard mowing" properties to have.
This is my new employee though, courtesy of adsense..
Next I'll be hiring a bar tender.. applications now being acepted...
If I get audited, my tax preparer will be at fault, not me. I've already gotten this in writing.
Great, that's smart. You're covered then. The tax and procedural implications of Empoyee vs. Independent Contractor are significant especially if you misclassify (according to the IRS) and pay an employee as an independent contractor.
I only chimed in because it seems from your posts that the person you've hired is actually an employee rather than an independent contractor. Of course, you and your tax preparer know all of the details.
No matter what the situation, I'm glad to hear you have a guarantee from your tax preparer. It's great to hear that your business is going so well!
Times of slavery is long gone
While you may have morals and values and feel that this should transcend into business, many people understand what it is like on the bottom and would do anything to not be there. Many people understand that the bottom is VERY large and it doesn't take a hell of a lot to get there. One car accident and a few medical bills later and your out of business. It's a dog eat dog world, sometimes you have to be cold and ruthless in business otherwise you may end up shutting down your business and working for the cold and heartless guy that put you out of business.
A real situation,
A somewhat isolated small town, that is about 30 miles away from the next small town. This small town is doing pretty well, most of the area around this town is economically depressed. Walmart is now building a store in this town which is going to put many local business owners out of business. Most have lived in the community their whole lives and their friends and family are all their. So leaving isn't really an option. They all have house payments and families. Most will probably, after years of successful business have to shut down and take jobs at the new walmart working for minimum wage. Thats the real world. The web is slowly going to become more and more like this. Make your money now because soon your chances may be gone. Spend all your time trying to make your employees happy and you may find yourself being one, and not for someone that cares whether or not your happy.
Walmart is now building a store in this town which is going to put many local business owners out of business.
Yes, and it will employ hundreds who otherwise would not have jobs, or would have worse jobs. I live near a small town, and Walmart's entry literally saved it. Yes, some local businesses undoubtedly went belly-up. Competition is tough. But the net gain was massively on the plus side. If you think the Mom & Pop stores were paying employees more than Walmart, you're dreaming.
A somewhat isolated small town, that is about 30 miles away from the next small town. This small town is doing pretty well, most of the area around this town is economically depressed. Walmart is now building a store in this town which is going to put many local business owners out of business. Most have lived in the community their whole lives and their friends and family are all their. So leaving isn't really an option. They all have house payments and families. Most will probably, after years of successful business have to shut down and take jobs at the new walmart working for minimum wage. Thats the real world. The web is slowly going to become more and more like this. Make your money now because soon your chances may be gone. Spend all your time trying to make your employees happy and you may find yourself being one, and not for someone that cares whether or not your happy.
Yeah...right... it's a fact. It's also called free enterprise. You would have it some other way?
Suppose the small town passed an ordinance that disallowed walmart and other walmart type stores to locate there. Who gains by this? Walmart brings jobs and lower prices on commonly purchased items. Trash bags now will cost 2.99 instead of 3.50. Jobs will be added and the community as a whole will benefit. Those that get put out of work or have to close their stores can even be said to have been short-sighted, else they would have taken steps to minimize the impact.
The world ain't perfect. Best to get used to the idea....
Most will probably, after years of successful business have to shut down and take jobs at the new walmart working for minimum wage.
If those small business owners aren't providing any additional value for the additional money they charge, or that outweigh the convinence of being able to shop for everything at once, then they will lose the business.
I go to Wal-Mart for my garbage bags because I see no value in going to a store where I may be paying more.
I do buy my music at a local record shop. Why? Because I trust the opinion of the owner. He provides value that justifies the extra $1-$2 I may spend. He also carries records I can't get at Wal-Mart.
But it's all about value. The best businessmen thrive in the presence of mega-stores like Wal-Mart, because they give people fantastic alternatives. Those people usually tell others about the great experience, etc., etc., etc.
Same principle as restaurants: TGI Fridays vs. That awesome local restuarant. The best chefs in the world aren't cooking at Fridays. The best retailers aren't working at Wal-Mart, either.
BTW, spaceylacie, congratulations! It's a great feeling to be running a successful business that is growing!
The best businessmen thrive in the presence of mega-stores like Wal-Mart, because they give people fantastic alternatives. Those people usually tell others about the great experience, etc., etc., etc.
Given the possible $10,000 value (swebbie's estimate, not mine) which will be generated over time from an article with adsense attached, paying a one-time fee of $10 to a writer who doesn't know any better sounds like rank exploitation.
This is rather an extreme viewpoint. Let's say your hosting fee is $10/month and you make $10,000 from the website. Do you feel guilty about the $10 you paid the hosting provider and figure he ought to have at least half of your earnings?
The terms you describe are more for a "premium business partner", not for an employee, and certainly not for a contractor. There's nothing wrong with that sort of relationship either if it fits your goals.
Let's say your hosting fee is $10/month and you make $10,000 from the website.
But the hosting company doesn't build the website, does it? Whereas the article author does in fact author the article.
Are you willing to pay the article author what their article is worth? Or are you content to maintain that the majority of the revenue generated by the article has nothing to do with the words on the page and everything to do with all the other pages linking to it and the page design surrounding the words?
I think paying 85% advertising revenue to the article author on a monthly basis is not unreasonable.
But tell me - what would you expect as fair pay, if you were the author of the article, and you knew how much money it would generate over time, month after month?
My point was,
Sure, you may feel guilty and instead of paying someone $5 for their article you give them the $500 their article is worth. You feel good about yourself and you are a good person. Well your off feeling good that your paying your talent what their worth, some other person is out their paying $5 for peoples article. Sure, he is ripping people off but he is taking that extra $495 that they aren't spending on articles and spending it on better, faster hosting and buying advertising like crazy. Soon, they put you out of business because you just can't compete with the guy paying $5 for his articles. Now the people you were paying $500 are also out of luck, now they, in desperation, will have to start working for the guy paying $5 an article.
So, that being said, pay your employees as little as you can get away with, because that is what your competition is doing. Just like walmart, whose employees are just numbers on a sheet of paper to them.
First of all, no one is being "ripped off" when they're paid $5 or $10 for a basic article. They BID that much. In other words, they VOLUNTEERED to do the work for that price. I don't know, maybe you've got that old school union mentality, where you think it makes sense to pay someone $30/hour to put bolts on a car bumper all day long. Never mind that such ridiculous wages make cars cost $20,000.
Re: Walmart, same concept. Sure, they could pay folks $30/hour to stock shelves or be cashiers. Would you like to pay $5.00 for a loaf of bread? Would you like to make the poor people around you pay a lot more for basic essentials? That's what happens when you artificially inflate wages. It killed U.S. manufacturing. Those people complaining about the loss of manufacturing jobs don't even realize it was their unions' demands for ridiculous wages that did it.
To bring this back around, I might pay $50 for an article if the topic was highly technical or otherwise required advanced knowledge or researching skills. Just like I'd pay an electrical engineer in a company more than I'd pay an unskilled laborer. Otherwise, it's totally foolish to pay more when the quality of the writing isn't significantly better.
Just like walmart, whose employees are just numbers on a sheet of paper to them.
No one forces anyone to work at Wal-Mart. You could be a garbageman, a doctor, an air traffic controller, or a babysitter. You could be a website designer, a webmaster, or maybe a programmer. Wal-Mart does not kidnap people and force them to work. Therefore, I do not feel bad for people who complain about having a bad job at Wal-Mart.
FYI: Wal-Mart's average wage is $10/hour, nearly double the national minimum wage. Leaving the fact that minimum wage is a terrible idea gone really, really bad from an economics perspective, Wal-Mart certainly isn't doing the bare minimums as you seem to be implying.
You feel good about yourself and you are a good person.
People that run their business purely from an emotional perspective will go out of business. I've learned that lesson the hard way.
Wal-Mart does not kidnap people and force them to work
Hahahahahahahaha. LOL. <breathe> Hahaha. That was hysterical.
FYI, the author's article isn't what makes a site a success it is all in the website's marketing IMHO - if they knew how to make a website a success, they can go for it at any time. Last I checked, anyone is able to register a domain and and grab hosting and build a site. Some people aim to be a CEO, some don't. It isn't the CEO's fault that he makes money off the work of his employees. They know how to do their jobs, but he knows how to tie it all together to make a successful company. As for "fair pay" - If someone is accepting it without a gun to their head, they must think its fair. Otherwise, they can grow a pair, speak their mind and demand more.
But the hosting company doesn't build the website, does it?
And neither does the article writer
Whereas the article author does in fact author the article.
Are you willing to pay the article author what their article is worth? Or are you content to maintain that the majority of the revenue generated by the article has nothing to do with the words on the page and everything to do with all the other pages linking to it and the page design surrounding the words?
While holding the article writer up on a pedestal, you are sure trivializing the role of the webmaster.
Though I know that there are several people with the ability on this forum, I do believe that talent to be able to turn 300 words into $10000 to be rare. I wish I could do it; I may try. The ability to write a 300 word article is not rare. That's just the facts. So, yes, I would put more value on the person that can turn pebbles into gold than the person who can dig up the pebbles.
I think paying 85% advertising revenue to the article author on a monthly basis is not unreasonable.
But tell me - what would you expect as fair pay, if you were the author of the article, and you knew how much money it would generate over time, month after month?
It's not that hard. Whatever would give me a greater return on my time than the other work I have available.
In my day job, I am the author of software. The Fortune 500 company does not attempt to pay me 85% of the full value of the software I write. Not even 15%. They pay me market rate for a software engineer. The market rate goes down when they are able to find cheap programmers in China and India. Nonetheless, I don't waste time thinking that I am being exploited.
I will be contributing hundreds of articles that I bought for $10 each.
As long as they're all up to the requisite editorial standard and you're happy to have your byline and photo on every one, that's fine. I might ask you to rewrite one or two sections. I'll also be asking you one or two questions about what you've written, and you will probably need to look up one or two missing facts. If they don't make the grade they won't be published. Too many submissions which don't make the grade and you can go and "freelance" for someone else.
I'll come back in three months time or something and let you know if it has been a successful development of my business model to pay the freelance writers I take on ongoing monthly royalties from the advertising surrounding their articles.
While holding the article writer up on a pedestal, you are sure trivializing the role of the webmaster.
Not really. The rest of the website will continue developing as normal - the article writer will only be receiving a majority share of the advertising revenue around their article(s).
It almost sounds like you don't think of yourself as a publisher, but as an "agent" --someone in the business of promoting another person's work for a 15% commission.
Publishers are exactly the people who do pay royalties. Granted, 85% is high, but the idea's the same. A publisher is in the business of making someone else's writing available to the public in order to make money for itself (speaking generically, as most "publishers" are corporations these days, not individuals). Ideally, the writer's an expert at writing and the publisher's an expert at marketing (probably through its marketing department). People (like me) who publish their own writing on their own websites are, in effect, self-published. Self-publishing can be successful, but usually more money is made overall if the writer writes and the publisher publishes; I know I'm basically a writer--my marketing skills suck.
In the world of royalty-based publishing, there are a lot of rewards for writing well, not all of them tangible. The financial incentives are (1) having your work accepted for publication and (2) receiving royalties based on how much the publisher earns from your work. The publisher's financial incentives are to (1) buy good writing that other people will find valuable and (2) market that good writing as well as possible so that the most money is made overall. Both parties have incentives for putting their best effort into the work that they're best at.
Note that under the royalty system, that's all a writer gets; there's no pay for simply providing the material. And these days, unless you're a "big name" author, you're probably not going to get an advance from a publisher (an advance is an "advance" payment of royalties you'll earn later-it's not something extra). So, under the royalty system, the writer doesn't get paid anything until (or unless) his or her writing starts making money for the publisher.
Any way this system could ever become feasible on the web? Could publishers actually become publishers? It's pretty hard to use royalty payment for print article writing; if someone buys a magazine, how do you know they bought it because there's an interview, article, or short story by [...] inside? But there are ezines that use a system where readers vote on the best work, and many sites that post a list of their most-visited pages. With the tracking abilities available on the web, could it work?
[edited for typos]
[edited by: Beagle at 5:00 pm (utc) on July 26, 2005]
If you can afford it, it makes a lot more sense to farm out the writing of new web content. It frees you up to spend your valuable time marketing your site(s) and researching new ones. Heck, hire a researcher too and put your process into overdrive. That's where I'm heading, but until I've got the disposable income to do it, I'll be wearing all the hats in my publishing "empire." :)
OTOH, as a currently "self-publishing" writer, I have no desire to sell my articles to anyone. But royalty payments might be a different story.
Also, wouldn't the writers need to trust what the publisher says their actual royalty earnings are?
Also, wouldn't there be some incentive for less ethical writers to click on their own article ads?
It seems that this system could work with affiliate program advertisements, but then articles that don't lead to sale conversions could leave the writer with very low or non-existent royalties for the articles they produced.
