Why do people give preference to cost over quality? Isn't it quality that attracts more visitors to your website or sells more of your products?
You make 4 basic wrong assumptions in just two questions. First that cheap content means necessarily bad quality. Second that content equals copy. Third that every webmaster wants to sell something. Fourth that cost is the only issue that affects a customer's choice. Now webmasters do not choose cheap content, they play by the market's rules and choose the best offer. These are two very different things. You will see on most freelancing sites that the lowest bid rarely wins a contract. Also the articles are often meant simply to define the keyword aiming strategy and there are plenty of websites that make money by repelling the visitors they attract and directing them to click ads which show a promise of a more consistent answer. Also selling products on the web never relies on content but on sales copy which is a very different issue and where the writing fees are much higher. Hope that clears things out a bit. Regards, George
Agree with you George, price has nothing to do with quality. Anyway, many people are concerned on driving traffic to their websites or boost their search engine ranking so what they want is keywords density, not content quality.
On DP alot of people of looking for a quick buck -- they read that content is necessary for PR & SERPS so seek content for that reason rather than to build good quality web-sites. In these terms: Content = Traffic = Income Minimise the cost of content and Income is maximised....short term thinking...
Though you may not agree to it, this is the case 6 times out of 10. I should have been more clear with my question. I know they are not the same. But even for sales copy, people sometimes prefer cost-effectiveness and end up losing some of their sales. You dont need good content only to sell something. You also need it to increase readership and make visitors return to your website. Frankly speaking, I dont understand how a customer can know how much a webmaster has paid for getting the content on the website written? After driving traffic to websites, isnt it also important to hold them there??
Well Tom I don't know where you draw your experience from, but it certainly contradicts mine. If you are referring to the content writing contracts on this site, my assumptions are correct as most revenue models used by the guys here rarely rely on the traditional revenue model you take for granted (attract visitors, make them read, make them come back). As for the ratio you are suggesting, even with 4 out of 10 contractors being interested in quality, there is plenty of space to move around and as those webmasters that want cheap content usually make their intentions very clear, it is easy to avoid them. There will always a marketplace for bargains, but it will never mean that good content writers will be put out of business. As for the copywriting market, the bargains are much fewer because it does take a great deal of expertise to write copy that sells and the copywriters usually know their own value. The webmasters that choose bargains usually find out the hard way what good copy means and learn to pay more for quality. In conclusion content writing can be considered a marginal aspect in some revenue models, while copywriting is always center stage and mistakes here cost much more than the copywriter's fee. This is my opinion at least. Best regards, George
Depends good content writing at afordable rates I choese a good prise but olso a good job done becouse i'm very picky about things
You have to understand something pretty basic... most webmasters wouldn't know good, high quality writing if it bit them on the butt. Frankly, they don't need to. "Good enough" is usually all they need, even though the English is often terrible technically, and they'd get better results with better writers (or better yet, with specialists in their niche). As was said, it's sometimes shortsightedness. A few dollars here and there from Adsense is appealing now, and it adds up. It won't ever add up to the kind of money extremely high quality authority sites, written by experts in a given field, will likely make, but it's enough to keep them happy. Also, the majority of webmasters don't set aside enough of a budget to be able to afford anything better. I'd say 6 out of 10 is pretty generous actually, but again, it comes down to a large portion of the client base honestly not knowing the difference. That's why it's your job, as a writer, to market yourself effectively, and show potential clients the benefit to hiring you and paying higher rates for your work. It's not that difficult to do, but you won't find the majority of people on DP willing to pay (of course, there are always exceptions). There are a lot of people willing to pay high rates for quality Web content (or print content). You just have to know where to find them, and you have to know how to approach them. Many businesses do understand the difference, and the effect on their revenue. Not all think about the more immediate income, but rather think about how much more they'll earn down the line. Again, you just have to know where to look. One thing I find mildly amusing is that webmasters seem to have no issue with spending several hundred dollars on having a press release written and distributed for backlinks quickly, which really won't ever be used again, but some of the same would balk at paying just $10 for a high quality article, which has the potential of bringing not only natural backlinks (and for a longer period of time), but also direct readers to your site as opposed to just to your release. It's baffling (although again, not all of the webmasters in that first category do balk at paying well for articles), but it's a reality, because people are wired to look for a "quick fix" - something that in the end generally separates serious businessmen ending up with major corporations from permanent micro-businesses or hobbyists. You, as a writer, just need to know where to find that first group. Look for clients truly interested in serious growth (and not talking about growth as in simply getting more traffic) as opposed to maintaining their status quo, and you'll find reasonable rate levels will increase pretty dramatically. As for copy vs. content, there's a pretty big difference actually. While some still expect copy to be as cheap as content (or again, they honestly are clueless as to what the difference is), many will pay significantly more for copywriting than content writing - often because they can see a quicker, and more direct, correlation between a change in copy and a change in income (as opposed to content taking a longer time to generate similar results financially).
So then, as writers, it is our sales job to help the webmasters understand the value of the product, yes? I have to laugh too I see some guys/gurus post that they write 5+ articles in less than an hour, or 30-50 a day (hmm...), and I can probably guess what those articles look like. That's the work that so many webmaster think is going to get them instant SERPs and traffic, after all, ya just need a buncha keywords, right?
As any kind of independent professional, it's our "job" to help the client see the value of our work. And it's that marketing ability that more often than not sets the professionals apart from the amateurs and hobbyists... even moreso than basic writing ability.
Sometimes I just need traffic to my site that's why cheap content is fine for me. Other times, I write it myself so I know that it's good. It just depends on what my goal is.
Cheap = easier to recoup investment. Most people only browse over info for a few seconds unless its something truely important to them so many webmasters use cheaper content because of this.
Ultimately defining what is ‘good content’ is a subjective exercise (perhaps in a similar way to defining what is a ‘good book’ or a ‘good movie’) and so a post like this one is likely to cause a little debate as each person will define it differently depending upon their personality, their needs, the topic that they are talking about and perhaps even their ethics. Not only will bloggers themselves each have a different view on what is ‘good’ content - but readers tend to also. Future posts in this series is an attempt to unpack some of the elements of content that might go towards making it good - or not. At most points along the way there will be debate but hopefully out of it readers will be able to mix and match the elements and identify what works for them.
Another factor to consider when thinking about ‘good content’ is whether it is ‘unique’. With a blog being created every second and with blogs on virtually every topic you can think of, the challenge for bloggers is to build a blog that stands out from the crowd. I see blogs every day that provide ‘useful’ content that have no readers simply because people are finding that information in other places.
Why do people prefer cheap content? Because (they believe so) they are so tempted to get much more than they pay for. But I do fully support Denise - these people are great sufferers, indeed. It has never been easy to live with myopia.
The reason for most of this is simple. The people who want cheap articles just want something to submit to article directories and ezines in the hope of getting some traffic to their main site. They don't actually care about it as a way of content for their site. They would go to copywriters to do that important work.