Studio Blog

I hope that this works out well for everyone in the long run, but I have serious doubts. Everyone I personally know who writes for Demand Studios is a full-time freelance writer. They've been able to do well here because the article submission rules are flexible, they're able to sell numerous articles on the topics they know best and, perhaps most importantly, the compensation is fair enough to make Demand Studios a reliable client. If the rates on most articles are indeed going to be slashed by two-thirds, very few of those writers will be able to continue to afford to work here. They'll probably earn more money in the long run by taking the time they would have invested at Demand Studios and spending it looking for new clients. And even though there will be plenty of $15 articles waiting to be claimed, that won't matter to the majority of these full-time writers. They've only been able to create high quality content and earn livable compensation because they've been writing on topics they know and understand, and there's no way that they'll be able to find enough work on those specialized topics in the $15 pool to keep them active with Demand Studios. My fear is that most of these writers will just move on, and I'm not sure where that will leave those of us who stay and try to find a way to retain Demand Studios as part of a profitable freelance writing client base. On the other hand, though, Demand Studios has to do what it has to do. I've often wondered how they've been able to go this long paying the same rate for their least popular articles as they have for their most popular ones. But I do hope that it becomes possible for writers to learn, through trial and error if necessary, which topics are most lucrative so that they can familiarize themselves with some of those topics. Otherwise, they may not be able to afford to stay for long.

I'm still numb from the news, much as I appreciate the additional update today. The financial problems affecting the nation and the world are apparent. I was part of a dot com implosion in 2001 that smarted for months afterward. However, I was making $220 per story from that gig, twice as much for longer articles. I lived and worked from home in Ventura, Calif and reported to my producers in New York. I think DS should just review this policy asap in order to retain talent. The other point I've been meaning to bring up is that our contracts should be revised so that we don't have to give up all rights. I can't continue to pitch my heart out, knowing that I'll write a gem that's probably worth a book -- but for which I've made $15. The first thing DS should do is change the contract, give us back our rights to sell again after one year. Then don't pay less than $15 period. If that means rejecting titles, fine. Most of mine are accepted. Psychologically, it's demeaning to pay a writer over the age of 21 less than $15. My friends were actually shocked by what I was accepting ($15) until I explained that I could turn some relationship stories around in under an hour. In any event, I'm pleased to stay on for the time being but as stated earlier to the eds., my pitching fingers are focusing on bigger markets. I'd gladly start pitching again if they'd rescind this decision. Undoubtedly, it will lead to losing the most talented of the team. When I told an author I know about this, he said that we are all viewed as one in the eyes of a publisher. We are a commodity. I did not say the name of the publisher I was talking about, just that it was an online source. I really thought - we all thought - we were valued just a bit more than that.

Hi Liana! A million thanks for passing my thoughts along to the decision makers. And since I know that these comments are being read and considered, I'll expand just a little bit more. I'm a full-time freelance writer/SEO, which perhaps puts me in a better position to completely understand why this change is taking place. As a freelance SEO guy, I'm constantly using a variety of tools like the free Google keyword suggestion tool to research and evaluate the strength of keyword SEO value. I don't know what tools Demand Studios uses to research and develop its optimized titles, and I probably don't even have access to those tools. But if I did, you can bet that I'd keep a steady stream of optimized titles coming your way; they would satisfy your needs by having greater traffic value, and they would satisfy my needs because I would still be writing on topics that I'm familiar with and can therefore write about with authority. I understand that setting up such a system is easier said than done, and that the current compromise is the one that we have to work with for the time being. But if you could establish such a system, you could maintain a high influx of articles, maintain the high quality level of those articles and even dramatically increase the SEO value of those articles all at the same time. Unfortunately, the chosen compromise may ultimately allow DS to maintain the SEO value of its articles at the expense of both quantity and quality. If your full-time writers who are dependent on this gig all pack up and go, I think you'll see a drop in both of those areas. Maybe quantity and quality aren't enough to pay the bills, but they're directly tied to the strength of the eHow brand.

Great posts here. Just wanted to say that.

I have noticed that Ds's primary defense is to assure the writers that there will be plenty of suggested titles still available to choose from which will pay the normal $15. I would just like to point out an inherent problem with this statement. Hate to say it, but unless you can feed in an excess of 22,500 article suggestions each week (900X25) then the majority of DS writers will be forced to do those 5 dollar articles or look elsewhere for work. At present there are only an estimated 8,940 suggestions listed. From this we can infer that the majority of DS writers suggest better than half of the articles they write on a weekly basis, taking them all straight from the given list would've left it barren months ago. From that we can also infer that the total number of titles listed has been inflated over a period of months as fewer people choose them in favor of suggesting their own. Thus the total current number of title topics suggested at a weekly rate is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be much, much lower than that which would be required to keep all the writers' queues full of reasonable paying topics. Those article suggestions which DS has posted also include a good number; I underestimate 5% or 447, which are logically impossible to write. A good number of others are indeed possible to write, but require technical knowledge on a collegiate or professional level which is not readily available to the immediate public. This means that while a small number of writers may be able to complete these articles, the majority of us cannot. In order to have everyone with full queues of articles they can write knowledgably about, then there must be much more than the requisite 22,500 articles posted each week, driving the number up further. Looking at this from a numerical perspective, you're assurances are not very reassuring unless you intend to take on more staff in order to provide these titles. I'm guessing it will be empty in less than a week after this Friday at the current rate of input and output. It's possible that this was an oversight on DS's part, but given that this decision was likely made from a monetary perspective in the first place, the fact that the numbers don't add up with what is currently known suggests otherwise and negates your statement that "opportunities are still available" From what I can see, if you intend to make enough suggested articles available to keep your best writers happy, you'll either have to suggest articles at 3 or 4 times your current rate or hire more staff to compensate. The former will likely overwork current staff members, and the money required to make happen the latter would be better spent on the writers themselves. Please do not perceive this response as being angry or threatening. I am simply stating the facts as they are logically interpreted based on official statements. In fact I am quite depressed as I will likely have to look for several supporting jobs and haven't the faintest clue where to get one that pays better than this did.