$200+ Content. Would you buy it?

ben10025 said:
Exactly my thinking. Writing is a skill, and one that few excel at.

Someone mentioned that $3/100 words wasn't crap. Sure, for some cases the content produced at that price is the best fit.

But for a real company blog, a blog where you're trying to build relevance, authority and trust it just isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

It varies by business too. The more educated your target audience is, the harder it is to get good content for $3/100 words.

Exactly, writing content for a company that sells office space is a different beast to writing content for a company that sells bespoke linear motion systems.

It's much easier to write the type of content people consume on the Buffer blog (blog.bufferapp.com) which is by all means great content, than it is to write stuff for a blog like Veracode's (https://blog.veracode.com/).

Buffer's posts can be researched, Veracode's require expert knowledge from within the company itself, which is a tricky beast to extract and convert into something the average e.g. software development team manager can consume.

microphone head said:
Have you thought of maybe setting this up yourself? You seem to have identified a market and a price point already. Is it something you can do profitably?
Click to expand...

Would love to, it's unfortunately one of hundreds of ideas I entertain in my head, but fight to avoid. I'm focusing on building an agency at the moment and can't do much else.

Andrew Scherer said:
Writers come with all kinds of backgrounds. What you're talking about is taking a non-writer expert and trying to get them to produce good content. I've never tried that.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely, but finding a writer with the background you need for a post is a massive problem that hasn't been adequately solved yet. As much of a problem as any is that on most content marketplaces, a writer just ticks their "areas of expertise" and nothing's done to test them. You need a lower tier where writers can come in, write on different topics and get reviewed in that area to prove expertise in a field, so that they can then enter a higher tier (in that one specific area of expertise) and provide content for people that don't want to spend lots of time going back/forth, and are willing to pay a bit more (at least that's how I'd approach it if I were building a marketplace).

The challenge is getting enough writers with broad enough backgrounds, and then getting volume through on the lower tier to drive enough authors through to support demand in the higher tier. It's not an easy job, and presumably is why no one's managed to do it yet, resorting to star ratings, which are largely useless if you want very specialist content. 5* ratings don't mean much when you see that a person has written on 100 different topics. What does that even mean? What does that say about the people buying the content?
 


Content is such an interesting topic, especially when it comes to the Internet. Here's my take:

I don't at all view content as writing or text. I view content as value whether it be distributed as text, video, graphic, audio or whatever else.

On the Internet content isn't judged by how informative it is, how long or short it is, how right or wrong it is but rather by how many shares it gets. And getting shares is less about writing and more about marketing and entertainment. Great content usually crosses between multiple disciplines, that's why it's such a rare thing. Great content is usually the complete end product where the text is just one piece of it. The other pieces may be the presentation, the graphics, the site it's on and so many other variables.

So to answer your question. Yes, there is definitely a need for high quality content but I think high quality content is a lot more than just text. It's a lot more than just well-researched and well-written text -- it's the whole package -- and the whole complete package. Good content is a complete package of value that the user absolutely has to share with people they know. Good content is the images that accompany the text. Good content is the title that perfectly charges people up the right way. Good content is the page with 20 other awesome pieces of content that makes the user want to sit down and really dig in. There is just so much to good content outside of the "content" itself.

I've run so many different types of sites and done so many different types of content that I can usually tell instantly whether a piece of content will be a success or not. And it is hardly ever based on the text itself. It's based on other things like the channels distributed through, the overall reach of the site, the title, the voice behind the text, matching the voice to the audience and on and on. Good content is moreso good marketing. You need to first figure out your audience and how to market to them. You need to first figure out your vision and align yourself to it. You need to first find your voice and differentiate yourself. And all the content I've ever bought never even comes close to this.

Most content writers and companies think in terms of text, but that's not what people really need, even if they don't know it. In order for a high-end content service to really work I think it needs to blend into the administration side of a site completely. I don't think you can just produce text and then send it to a site admin to post. Good content has to have the vision, the presentation and the value all aligned together.

I would rather spend $5,000 on 1 page that makes everyone's jaw drop to the floor because of how badass and valuable it is to them than spend $5,000 on 25 well-written, informative pieces of text with no vision, voice or soul. Good content is about aligning all fields towards one goal of making people have no choice but to share it, and that type of content is hard to produce as a content house. People buying don't understand the value of it and people servicing it don't have the marketing voice to pull it off.
 
slayerment said:
Content is such an interesting topic, especially when it comes to the Internet. Here's my take:

I don't at all view content as writing or text. I view content as value whether it be distributed as text, video, graphic, audio or whatever else.

On the Internet content isn't judged by how informative it is, how long or short it is, how right or wrong it is but rather by how many shares it gets. And getting shares is less about writing and more about marketing and entertainment. Great content usually crosses between multiple disciplines, that's why it's such a rare thing. Great content is usually the complete end product where the text is just one piece of it. The other pieces may be the presentation, the graphics, the site it's on and so many other variables.

So to answer your question. Yes, there is definitely a need for high quality content but I think high quality content is a lot more than just text. It's a lot more than just well-researched and well-written text -- it's the whole package -- and the whole complete package. Good content is a complete package of value that the user absolutely has to share with people they know. Good content is the images that accompany the text. Good content is the title that perfectly charges people up the right way. Good content is the page with 20 other awesome pieces of content that makes the user want to sit down and really dig in. There is just so much to good content outside of the "content" itself.

I've run so many different types of sites and done so many different types of content that I can usually tell instantly whether a piece of content will be a success or not. And it is hardly ever based on the text itself. It's based on other things like the channels distributed through, the overall reach of the site, the title, the voice behind the text, matching the voice to the audience and on and on. Good content is moreso good marketing. You need to first figure out your audience and how to market to them. You need to first figure out your vision and align yourself to it. You need to first find your voice and differentiate yourself. And all the content I've ever bought never even comes close to this.

Most content writers and companies think in terms of text, but that's not what people really need, even if they don't know it. In order for a high-end content service to really work I think it needs to blend into the administration side of a site completely. I don't think you can just produce text and then send it to a site admin to post. Good content has to have the vision, the presentation and the value all aligned together.

I would rather spend $5,000 on 1 page that makes everyone's jaw drop to the floor because of how badass and valuable it is to them than spend $5,000 on 25 well-written, informative pieces of text with no vision, voice or soul. Good content is about aligning all fields towards one goal of making people have no choice but to share it, and that type of content is hard to produce as a content house. People buying don't understand the value of it and people servicing it don't have the marketing voice to pull it off.
Click to expand...

Crap. The Content Marketing Deluge.

Great summary of both what most people are doing when they create content, and simultaneously a perfect example of great content - a slideshow like that from them would probably set you back a few grand (if they even do one-off projects).
 
I believe YES... It can be done. Content of high quality can fetch high price. But the market may not be as large as something that is cheaper and of medium or low quality.

I have seen people posting shitty content but able to generate high traffic/sales. End of day, is it worth it??

You will probably get slower response if you intend to charge high price.

Just my 2cents worth.

Homecashboom

J
 
Andrew Scherer said:
When the hell was $3/100 crap? Jesus christ.
Click to expand...

This.

I paid a couple of writers in different price ranges to write on the same subject and the one who charged the least delivered the best, most authentic content from the bunch so I gave him a bonus. I'd gladly pay MORE for someone who can deliver words that resonate with my end readers more so than someone who just knows how to cover/research technical details. For $0.03/w you better expect both.

Also if you do manage to find a writer that's good and cheap you'll usually wait longer to get your stuff. But fuck it.
 
How exactly would you put a price on content? How is a 400$ article better than a 200$ article?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
People pay for content? Could have fooled me. Every time I log onto FB it's a tide of "viral" blogs that rip off others content but "give them credit." These blogs are among the most popular websites on the planet too.
 
mituozo said:
Crap. The Content Marketing Deluge.

Great summary of both what most people are doing when they create content, and simultaneously a perfect example of great content - a slideshow like that from them would probably set you back a few grand (if they even do one-off projects).
Click to expand...

Great find, Will.

It's so true that we're about to be buried in buzzfeed/upworthy/viralnova nonsense over the next few years. Think your FB feed is cluttered with viral articles now? Just wait until every Dick and Jane gets their ripoff sites up-and-running. There will be a bubble that looks something like the asschild of EMD/MFAs and a Myspace profile that's sporting a glitter background and an autoplay Skrillex remix.
 
StackCash said:
Great find, Will.

It's so true that we're about to be buried in buzzfeed/upworthy/viralnova nonsense over the next few years. Think your FB feed is cluttered with viral articles now? Just wait until every Dick and Jane gets their ripoff sites up-and-running. There will be a bubble that looks something like the asschild of EMD/MFAs and a Myspace profile that's sporting a glitter background and an autoplay Skrillex remix.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to see a revolt by FB fans of the buzzfeed/upworthy/viralnova style of clickbait titles. More and more people are starting to post in the comments of these FB posts that they're tired of these headlines. Huff Post has jumped on the bandwagon too and its fans are especially annoyed, judging from the comments. Of course, they're probably still doing well but I am beginning to see a shift in the audience's attitudes. There are only so many "What Happened Next Will Shock You" headlines that a person can take. It's becoming who can scream the loudest.
 
mituozo said:
Crap. The Content Marketing Deluge.
Click to expand...

Meh I dont' agree with its recommendation that "Great Content Brands" are the answer. Most people on social media, for example, don't know or care where the content is coming from. Grandma sees a catchy clickbait title in her FB newsfeed and clicks on it. She doesn't click on it because it came from a "great content brand." Take an article from Time Magazine and take one from some no-name website, but give an amazing click-baity title to the article from the no-name site and it will destroy the Time Magazine article in clicks.
 
jerry55 said:
Meh I dont' agree with its recommendation that "Great Content Brands" are the answer. Most people on social media, for example, don't know or care where the content is coming from. Grandma sees a catchy clickbait title in her FB newsfeed and clicks on it. She doesn't click on it because it came from a "great content brand." Take an article from Time Magazine and take one from some no-name website, but give an amazing click-baity title to the article from the no-name site and it will destroy the Time Magazine article in clicks.
Click to expand...

The slideshow itself is targeted at companies selling to other businesses firstly.

And secondly, whilst that's currently true, it won't be true for long. It's happening on such a huge scale, and people are getting sick of them. They'll get less effective with time, and it also won't surprise me if Facebook starts to take further action. It's not too hard to imagine a world where to get visibility in newsfeeds you have to run a tracking code on your site that measures how engaged a visitor from Facebook is with your stuff. If your content is crap, then you're not going to get the visibility.

It's a major problem with Facebook. They don't want user newsfeeds to be full of spam, because it stops people from checking them.
 
Johnathan said:
I"m surprised no one has mentioned Demand Media and their ridiculous content buying spree a few years ago.

The Answer Factory: Demand Media and the Fast, Disposable, and Profitable as Hell Media Model | Magazine | WIRED

I remember reading this in Wired. They basically had an army of content generators. I don't know how well the content was crafted but I think the story will help with research and idea generation.
Click to expand...

Trust me, Demand Media's content is total crap for the most part. I would never rely upon it.
 
Esquire said:
Trust me, Demand Media's content is total crap for the most part. I would never rely upon it.
Click to expand...

So some inside information that may shed light on both Demand Media and the extremely high dollars/word content world.

I had a client that was paid ~$700 for an average blog post to be featured on a major website owned by them. He could regularly get these prices for his guest posts.

99.9% of what DM puts out is complete shit. Yet they will pay a dude to write a ~1000 word article $700. Further more they will pay this dude to write the article that they want, which will be keyword targeted and heavily edited so that it will be kinda shit when it's done.

Why?

You pay high dollars, not for good content, you pay high dollars for the author's name.

This client had a newsletter of about 10k people, a fair number of whom are real buyers. He's going to pimp his guest post to his newsletter.

In his niche he is reasonably well known and respected. His writing allows them to borrow his legitimacy to spread all over their turd sandwich of a website to cover up the smell.

The words an author writes will never be worth these absurd dollar amounts unless we're talking landing pages and sales copy. The author's reputation, existing list, name recognition, etc. is where the value is.

If you want high dollar content you must have the branding. This author is an EXPERT on this subject. It doesn't matter if he is an illiterate retard (common in my fitness niche), if you want to be like him (squat 1000 lbs) you must do what he says.

Without this type of author your pricing is going to hit a ceiling. If you can assemble experts in a niche who are pseudo e-famous, have lists, can drive traffic, then you can charge absurd rates, because the return on investment is much higher.

People only buy content to get traffic. The value of that content is only a function of the traffic it attracts.
 
fatmoocow said:
You pay high dollars, not for good content, you pay high dollars for the author's name.
Click to expand...

You also pay for destination, as in where the article was published.

The words an author writes will never be worth these absurd dollar amounts unless we're talking landing pages and sales copy.
Click to expand...
This has been similar to my experience. I am asked to write content occasionally, and the price I get is always lower than for sales copy.

I think this deluge in content has brought down the quality. Inc. and Entrepreneur are in my Facebook feed, and they get lots of respect. Yet the quality of their articles is mediocre to poor. Oftentimes the headlines are irrelevant to the article, as they're tarted up to get the clicks.
 
^ and ^^

For the most part these things are true in my experience as well, and copy is always offered higher rates than content in my experience.

But there are a few exceptions when it comes to having to be known to get high rates for content.

For example, over the years I've had a good number of clients who pay $1+ per word for non-sales and general information content. It all depends on the market they are trying to reach. Right now I have two clients who are happy as hell to pay those rates. One's in the medical device arena and the other is in the waste management arena.

Their products are highly technical and the non-sales content (as well as the sales copy) has to be accessible to purchasing agents. Most purchasing agents don't know the technical details about these products, but they still have to know how they work, why they work, and the practical ways the products can be implemented in their worlds. Having an expert that was also well known and a great communicator would be awesome. Unfortunately, those people are few and far between. So you typically go for the great communicator.

They're willing to pay those rates because this type of content isn't something that is going to be churned out in an hour or two. It requires source material, background material, and lengthy discussions with the experts. Then the communicator can parse all of that information and turn it into something that the non-expert can understand.

Top dollar for your run-of-the-mill website probably isn't going to happen unless you can bring an audience with you. But once you niche down into complex specialty topics, even content writing can bring in pretty significant cash; to the tune of $50-75 an hour at the start, and up to $150+ an hour once the writer is familiar with the industry.

Keep in mind that this type of stuff isn't usually advertised and it most often requires you to reach out to places. Sometimes they'll find you on their own, but in my experience, you'll find more of these jobs by knocking on their door than you will by waiting for them to knock on yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back