Forum Moderators: not2easy
Seems like there is a large, unfilled need for quality content writers. Am I correct?
>Or do you find that is too expensive?
Expensive is not the phrase I'd use. It's all relative and cost is always an issue.
With an agency you get a greater pool of experience and capabilities.
Freelancers go on holiday at some point in time (or at at least they should).
Honestly, if you employed a student you would not get the experience of a senior freelancer or agency.
If your budget is really limited, try fishing for interns from colleges or perhaps grad students struggling to get by on fellowships.
Welcome to WebmasterWorld, Jerseygirl!
You could be surprised at what you get :)
Debs
IMO, if you are looking for the highest quality content, your best bet is to find a writer who has written about your subject area (or a similar one) in the past (i.e., don't expect someone who is great at writing informational articles about new veterinary medications to be great at writing promotional copy about women's shoes. He/she might be able to cross over, but they might not.)
This also applies to the type of writing you're looking for. Some folks are great at how-to content, informational articles, FAQs, etc., but couldn't write a salesy-promotional paragraph to save their lives.
I recommend that unless you know the writer really well, the per-article setup is the best. That way the writer has incentive to write quality work, but do it fairly quickly. (I had a four-year relationship with the company that paid me by the hour - they knew how much content I could crank out in an hour and they preferred to pay on an hourly scale. But it can be a bad idea to pay hourly because an unethical writer could really drag out the hours and drain your resources quickly with little to show for it.)
You then have to decide whether you want to pay a flat rate per article or on a per-word basis. There are pros and cons to both; these days it seems like more folks hiring writers want to pay per-article rather than per-word.
I'm new to this topic, and also bring in a rather contrary viewpoint.
Of the two, content and mechanical web design, I think content is more important. I would rather say that you need to achieve at least a minimum level of acceptability with web design, but then the real results depend on content.
I think any webmaster will be more successful if he starts with being his own content provider and learns the mechanics of web design.
The other way?
It's a highly skilled mechanic having to learn how to recognize and then find good content.
Goog content requires, I think, "Fire in the Belly," and is not just ordered by the page.
How does a good web mechanic, who thinks he or she is not a good writer -- how to become a good writer?
By writing.
If you don't think your writing skills are as good as you'd like I would say it is time to take a sabbatical from web design and "practice" writign.
How?
By writing.
There are tips and texts that might help, but the best writers wrote a lot of junk before they got better, then good.
I consider myself a good writer. I've had to learn how to design webs because THAT seemed too expensive to hire.
Oh, "Fire in the belly?" Also, I don't think a good writer puts on the humble cloak!
If there were some interest, in this forum, I could present some writing tips.
But, probably the first "writing" tips would be to reduce the clutter on so many pages and push for data that is truly valuable as well as interesting.
I've enjoyed Jacob Neilson, particularly back in the days when his advices were detailed and free. Now they are teases and the full volume is expensive.
But he gave early advices which I found very valuable -- somewhere between "writing" and "web design."
Well, enough, already.
One tip?
The mechanical level of web design, alone, without consideration of data content, should be sufficient to make people want to re-visit the site. That is the level of minimum acceptability you need to build on.
So, what do YOU think arouses EMOTION in terms of web design. It is an emotional reaction you want. It should be a positive emotion that brings the visitor back.
Karl
Say if you charge per-article and the publisher defines how many words you write, won't that end up with the same problem as that with pay-per-word?
In my view, the whole idea of per-article rather than per-word is a step toward protecting the publisher. I've seen per-word contracts abused by writers. So if the per-article charge is there but the publisher specifies a word count, I don't see how that can hurt. The publisher is getting what he wants, the writer has agreed to a per-article rate, and assuming they agree on the approximate wordcount, it's probably good to go.
Dragonlady7 has the right idea - make sure that things are clearly laid out in the contract ... that will go along way in making sure that the pay for work performed is fair for both parties.
Bottom line: if you are shopping for content and writers, be sure you know what you are looking for and what the writer is capable of producing. Technical writing, ad copy, and news articles are quite different, and most writers will be most comfortable in one or two categories.