I agree totally. There's web content writing, and there's content mill writing. I write for the former, not the latter. I make good money at it, too.

You're totally correct. They are two separate entities.

First of all, I do agree with Deb on one point — that all writeers need to weigh their options carefully and make their own decisions.

I personally found that the content mill I used to write for paid better than the newspaper gig I had around the same time. Of course, there are two caveats: 1) As Lori said, the clips aren't that great, and 2) Times have changed, and it's extremely rare any more to find a content mill paying $15-$25 for a simple article (what I got when I started out). This one we've been discussing requires way too much extra work to make it worthwhile.

I do feel that in our discussion, there needs to be more differentiation between content and content mills. I think much of Deb's arguments (about lack of respect for content writers) have to do with the two being confused. I write content directly for clients and receive good pay and respectable clips. To lump writers who do this in with those who write for content mills is a mistake, in my opinion.

You're correct. Circulating a news release is not plagiarism. These are pieces designed to be circulated. However, your initial post suggested taking articles and placing them in circulation on content mills. Much different.

While there is nothing wrong with circulating press releases anywhere and everywhere, you can't do that without your client knowing. You as the writer do not control the piece. Companies are very particular where their news shows up. With the clients I've worked with, I'd be out of work in a heartbeat if I took it upon myself to place their releases on content mill sites.

I'll say it even more plainly – content mills are not looked upon as trustworthy sources. No company with an ounce of sense is going to align itself with that sort of image. I can poll my current clients and ask them if you like, but I already know the answer.

There's no need to use content mills as circulation points when there are so many outlets already designed for press release circulation – PRN Media, BusinessWire, MediaBistro, etc., etc…. These are reliable, trusted media outlets.

There's that word again – trusted.

Content mills might very well promote themselves to prospective writers as journalism, but I would consider that to be nothing more than marketing hype, sales puffery. In any event I was not referring to the task of writing for them as journalism, but rather to the content of the sites. As Marshall McLuhan famously pointed out nearly half a century ago, the content of a particular medium is not the words it delivers to its audience, but rather the audience it delivers to its advertisers. For content mills, the audience can be inferred from page views and click throughs. Quality has nothing to do with it.

Now, I can't believe that there are not already corporations or advocates for some cause or another or staffers of some agency somewhere who are not churning out material on behalf of their employers or clients. And it wouldn't surprise me to discover that at least some of this material is making its way to content mills. To begin with, there's nothing any client or corporation would love more than to see their news releases used without modification. I doubt anyone would consider publishing a news release as plagiarism. They might have other words to describe a publication that runs news releases with little editing or independent research. Among more disparaging terms, they might even describe them as "small town weekly newspapers", "free community newspapers" or "cable news." I would be hard pressed to describe that practice as "illegal", however.

To take that one step further, an enterprising employer, let's say a local tourism authority or non-profit community group (because I know that most of you are imagining nefarious multinationals promoting highly politicized agendas), might assign one of its staff to write regular pieces about the community and push those out to the content mills. Of course, it would be a waste of resources not to distribute those canned articles further, say to weekly newspapers and cable outlets, but the content mills do present a tantalizing new medium to the mix. If they don't have a suitable staffer, they might consider contracting the work to a freelancer. That's not exactly illegal. More traditional media might run these items unaltered on their op-ed pages or they might publish the author as a regular columnist writing on behalf of their organization, say as a weekly tourism or business column. The problem then is how the story and author are represented, not the medium in which the story is published. Still, that's not illegal.

These are the kinds of problems that content mills invite, as writers-as-entrepreneurs are forced to seek out novel approaches to squeeze a livable income from their work. As traditional media continue to force staffers into contract positions at ever lower rates of compensation, these problems won't be limited to content mills.

Jennifer, welcome! I hope you subscribe to the feed here and drop in often. I love having new peeps in the house. 🙂

Welcome to you as well, Meryl! Glad to have another voice and another opinion join the discussion. 🙂

You brought up great points. We DO work hard at our careers. So why not put that hard work toward higher-paying pursuits, I say? I have. There was a time last year (tax time, ugh!) when I held up two 1099s. One was from a publication that paid me 10 cents a word (this was my "break into the industry" gig). The other from a publication that paid $1 a word. I wrote more for Pub A (stupidly – stop at one article!) and more words per article than for Pub B. The difference? 1099 number 1 was for $1,350. 1099 number 2 was for $12,377.

It was my wake-up call.

Sure, the papers are shrinkin' and pubs closin' — but many writers still succeed as full-timers.

I am busier than I have ever been in my life in my home office career. When I worked in the corporate world, there'd be slow days and I could catch up on many things. Not so anymore.

Like Lori says — despite quarterly taxes, no benefits, no paid vacations (I'm a mean boss to myself) — I LOVE what I do. Best job ever.

I think successful writers are more than writers today (except those best-selling authors who can just write and do nothing else). We market. We network. We manage business. We must stay updated on the current trends to keep on staying successful.

I've rambled enough… I think you the gist. Thanks for a great discussion, Lori.

Thanks. This is a great blog. I found you via Writer's Weekly.

Jennifer Moore
JenniferLynn Productions, LLC

Nothing stops writers from taking these jobs. But I object to the often-sleazy tactics – the promises of big bucks, of exposure, of clips, all for a few dollars and a ton of work. And news releases with better writing? Are you kidding? News releases are targeted pieces using very specific wording and industry terminology to capture a targeted audience (I bet you're wishing right now you'd chosen a different example! LOL). MUCH better writing than the average content mill article.

I agree with you strongly on one point – this is certainly NOT journalism. But it's something much worse. Hear me out.

About reselling a corporate client's article, you said, "I think I'd like to clear it with the content mill 'editors' first, making sure they're okay with a writer paid by both the source and the publisher. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with it. They might even admire the writer's entrepreneurial initiative."

And I'd bet they wouldn't even mind the writer's unethical behavior, even if the writer considers himself a business person INSTEAD of a writer. Taking a company's intellectual property (the article in question here) and reselling what ISN'T the writer's property to a content mill? Yea, that's so many ways not cool. And it's grounds for all sorts of legal action against the writer by said company – copyright infringement, breach of contract, theft of intellectual property, trade secrets theft…..

And there again is another issue surrounding content mills – if this type of thinking exists, it's illegal behavior run rampant. No way can you take another writer's – or another company's – property and resell it without owning the right to do so. When I'm paid by a corporate to write an article, that payment is for me to produce THEIR product and to hand it over to them in its entirety – not to sneak off to a content mill and breach my contract with them just to make an extra five bucks.

Also, corporates are not going to target a content mill even if you did do the right thing and attempted to convince them to let you do so. They're aiming much, much higher. The corporates I work for want press, but in credible publications, usually industry-specific ones. They're not interested in their article showing up on the Internet. It has to show up where their audience is. Their audience members are not cruising content mill sites. They're cruising industry magazines and journals, which by the way pay $1/word for the writer.

The real problem I see with this, Darrell, is not where to list this under my resume subheads, but why theft is now being framed as reselling. The reputation is surely going south, but not because the writer chose to work for a content mill – because the writer chose to steal copy in order to make a little more money.

The keyword stuffing job is a long story, but basically, I couldn’t take the stress of pounding out numerous articles with enormous amounts of keywords. I ended up being a grumbling, griping and growling grouch. The quality of what I was writing suffered. Okay, it was crap. But, amazingly, every one I wrote passed through their “rigorous” editing process. Imagine that.

I tried to get other jobs, but because I used the stuffing job as experience; I wasn’t given the chance to prove myself. So, I took on more low-paying jobs, which were just as bad as the stuffing job. Until, one day, I came across a potential client, through networking. They were willing to give me a chance. They just needed to see some clips to get a feel for my style. They also specified that they didn’t want any links to AC.

I wanted this gig so bad. I didn’t tell them about the keyword stuffing job; nor was I going to use any of the crap articles, I had written up to that point, as samples. So, I pulled an all nighter and concocted my own articles and sent them clips of them. In the end, they purchased the articles (after I told them that they hadn’t been published before) and they hired me. They sent other clients my way as time went on and they also gave me a lot of tips and advice as well.

Granted it’s not an approach that would work for everyone, but, then again, how do you know, if you don’t try. I took the risk and it paid off. I still have a way to go, but at least I’m going in the right direction and have transformed my growls into grins. So, keyword stuffing content mill sites- put that in your sock and stuff it!

We all know that the content mills have no pretensions of journalism. They have a business model for driving traffic to their sites so they can make a profit off advertising revenues or other sources of revenue if they are imaginative. The content that they are selling is hits and page visits, not information and certainly not journalism.

That being the case, does it really matter who pays the writer? What's to prevent a writer from finding a corporate, not-for-profit or government client to pay them to write articles for content mills? Think of it as writing news releases, only with better writing.

If you did this for a newspaper or magazine, it would be seen as a conflict of interest. But that's because newspapers and magazines aspire to journalistic or editorial principles. Content mills do not. It's just business. If it were me, I think I'd like to clear it with the content mill "editors" first, making sure they're okay with a writer paid by both the source and the publisher. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with it. They might even admire the writer's entrepreneurial initiative. The pittance earned through the content mill could be seen as residual, kind of like a tip, or the writer if feeling guilty could decide to decline the payment from the publisher. I don't think I would fault a writer who didn't clear it with the content mill publisher. It's just business.

Since the content mill publisher knows the stories have received the approval of their sources, they don't need to worry about threats of lawsuits. Besides, do you really think that the most cautious contributors don't already solicit the approval of their sources or collude with them to produce their content as quickly and cheaply as possible?

Ah, but what about the writer's reputation? Sure, if you think you're supposed to list the work under "journalism experience" in your resume or portfolio. But it's not journalism, even if the writer is only being paid by the content mill and no one else. It's corporate writing, either way.