I spent eight years at The Miami Herald, mainly writing features, and when the paper laid me off in 2009, I was humiliated and sad. But people told me getting laid off could be a good thing and I listened to them. “Invent” and “take charge” and “define” are some of the words I remember from those conversations, which left me, in hindsight, manically deluded about my prospects.
I moved to New York, where I’d always wanted to live. I thought I would polish off a few story ideas and a friend’s idea for a screenplay I’d been toying with (it featured, unwisely, a terminally blocked romance novelist); then, after a suitable period, reinvented and redefined and fully in charge, I would find another job as a reporter.
But the screenplay foundered. The story ideas turned out to be not very good and I could not think of new ones. The well was dry. So I started looking for a job, at first confining my search to New York and Washington. There were reporting jobs of a peculiar sort in these cities, and my cover letters included lines like, “My knowledge of the nuclear power industry is admittedly scant” and “Although I speak no Japanese, I know New York City intimately.”
For a long time I did not come close to any job, and then I found Demand Media, which ran help-wanted ads on JournalismJobs.com and Mediabistro.com. Demand’s own site featured a picture of a laptop on a table in front of a beachfront tiki bar. Sometimes instead there was a picture of a good-looking woman sitting with her laptop in a comfortable chair. She looked happy. She was beaming. I wanted to look like that.
Demand, which launched in 2006, doesn’t do news, which is expensive to produce and perishable. It does “commercial content.” If you’ve watched a how-to video on YouTube or read an instructional article on the web, you’ve probably consumed Demand content. More than 2 million pieces were online by mid-summer, with more than 5,000 new ones appearing every day. In September, Demand attracted nearly 59 million unique visitors, according to comScore, the Internet marketing research firm (Nytimes.com, by comparison, the nation’s top newspaper site, had 33 million), to its company-owned websites like eHow and Livestrong, and more to its 350 client sites, which incorporate some of Demand’s content. Among Demand’s clients are websites operated by USA Today, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Houston Chronicle.
Demand and its competitors—there are several, including AOL’s Seed and Yahoo’s Associated Content—rely on algorithms and search data to determine what content consumers are seeking, what content advertisers are willing to pay for, and what content can be profitably produced. There are no news meetings. There are no newsrooms. The editorial workforce is freelance, compensated by the piece, at a rate that varies but is never far from skimpy.
Demand and the specter it represents—what Clay Shirky calls the radical “commodification” of content, without regard to civic value or subjective judgments about quality or any of the other sentimental trappings of the Murrow century—have inspired loathing and awe, but mostly loathing, in the class of people that pays attention to such things. Which is to say, mainly journalists and those who love them. “We’ve got former members writing this stuff,” says Bernie Lunzer, of The Newspaper Guild. “Some are just glad to have work. They’re becoming just a raw commodity bought at the cheapest price and that, essentially, is what Demand stands for. It spells the end of what we consider journalism.”
Or take Ken Doctor, former newspaperman turned news futurist and author of the book Newsonomics: “This is the logical extension of a long-time strategy to eke out profits by squeezing labor and overhead costs.”
Most news organizations already use search-engine-optimization strategies to push their content on the web. Within five years, says Doctor, SEO and advanced metrics will play a prominent role in decisions about what to cover and how heavily to cover it, with reporters and stories graded by the number and value of the consumers they attract. “It’s a box that, once you look inside, you can’t not look,” Doctor says.

Very well written, Nicholas. With the rapid globalization all over, the market is influencing consumption patterns in a way we couldn’t have imagined not so long ago. One hopes many ‘Demands’ will sprout to neutralize what clearly portends a sure death for journalism as we know it. This goes beyond commoditization of news for which quality is already the loser.
#1 Posted by John Onyando, CJR on Thu 4 Nov 2010 at 03:10 PM
I spent 35 years at The Miami Herald departing from my full-time StateDesk night slot post in 1997, then spending two years as a contract copy editor and freelance writer. I saw the writing on the Internet wall in the mid-1990s: newspapers would pay the ultimate price in the 24/7 world and profits were slide down faster than a kid at the playground. I retired at age 62, but didn't stop working -- I kept writing like I do today.
Freelancing is a difficult way to earn a living. Planning ahead is the only surefire way to go. I did and we do well thanks to SS, a pension and freelance revenue. And I haven't touched either of my two retirement funds.
When I saw The Herald was in trouble I offered free articles on horse racing and the 2010 Breeders' Cup that had already made me money. I was told no freebies were accepted and I had to be paid. However, I never heard back why they weren't posted or why not a single staff-or-correspondent produced BC story has appeared.
So my advice is keep looking for a full-time job no matter the journalistic venue. Your article is quite good and clear. Quality does win out sometimes, but perseverance is the key to landing one. Good luck.
#2 Posted by Greg Melikov, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 09:55 AM
Last summer I worked one month for Demand as a copy editor. After the first few articles, I realized I couldn't even do a cursory job within the 10 to 15 minutes Demand allots. I just took my time and worked as I always do, giving the writer as much feedback as I could. Once I sent an article back—big no-no. Copy editors can get canned for that. And most of the pieces I worked on should've been sent back. I made about $200 and then took a break that I hope will last forever.
#3 Posted by Janice K, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 10:01 AM
I also worked for a few months last summer as a Demand copy editor. I very quickly felt like a piece-worker in a factory and wondered who was valued less, the article writers or the copy editors. I made the mistake of signing my name to comments on articles I returned to writers for corrections, a courtesy to which I felt the writers were entitled. It wasn't long until one of the faceless "senior editors" contacted me to say that contact of that nature between authors/editors was prohibited. It was the most miserable couple of months of my career as a journalist, writer, and editor. Like Janice, I too am on a break from Demand that I don't hope will last forever, I know it will!
#4 Posted by R Bailey, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 10:55 AM
Nick, first of all just let me say that you are one of the most talented, wittiest writers I've ever had the pleasure to work with. Your talent is a door opener and an asset to anyone smart enough to hire you. I, too miss my job, those 17 years as a photojournalist at the Miami Herald were some of the best years of my life. But, new doors and opportunities are opening up for all of us.
#5 Posted by Donna E. Natale Planas, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 01:43 PM
Nick, first of all just let me say that you are one of the most talented, wittiest writers I've ever had the pleasure to work with. Your talent is a door opener and an asset to anyone smart enough to hire you. I, too miss my job, those 17 years as a photojournalist at the Miami Herald were some of the best years of my life. But, new doors and opportunities are opening up for all of us.
#6 Posted by Donna E. Natale Planas, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 01:45 PM
Nice essay, thanks. I can relate to much of it. I went $55,000 into debt earning degrees in journalism and creative writing, while also building a professional career. Then, through a combination of bad choices and bad circumstances, I tanked.
I've spent the past year and a half job-hunting and failing at freelancing. I resisted content mills on principle -- and the apparently misguided sense that I was worth more. But poverty has made me cave. I started writing for Demand Studios a few weeks ago under a pseudonym. I too find I'm earning about $5 an hour, maybe less. I just can't seem to do less than my best, even under these humiliating circumstances.
#7 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 02:04 PM
I've written for Demand, and I have a long history in what I'll call more socially acceptable writing ventures. On a good day working for Demand, I will make close to $45 an hour, significantly more than or at least comparable to my other writing and publishing jobs. In this economy, I can't afford to let my writer's ego get in the way of my basic needs to pay bills.
#8 Posted by Hannah Jean, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 02:15 PM
Great article Nick, wonderfully written and observed. I hope you were well paid for it. I am in a similar boat. I'm a freelance journalist who has seen my usual regular sources of work evaporate over the last year or two. Unfortunately, unlike you, I cannot claim unemployment. I am currently moving bits of money around trying to cover the financial leaks that keep springing up while I reinvent myself.
Good luck. To us all.
#9 Posted by Ann Forbes Cooper, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 02:20 PM
I write for Demand and I like it. Why? I get paid twice a week. Period. I'm a content writer, NOT a Journalist. If I could write as good as you, I wouldn't do it either (really, you had me laughing out loud.) It serves it's purpose, though. Through the years, I've saved a whole lot of money doing repairs, etc, because some cool person shared their research, step by step. That's not journalism, but there's a market. So... all of you real Journalists need not worry, it just gives me a few extra bucks to buy your books and newspapers.
#10 Posted by Pam S, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 02:23 PM
I'm on track to make $20,000 this year as both a copy editor and writer for Demand. That's part-time, 15-20 hours a week, as I still have full-time traditional newspaper job as a business reporter. I made almost $15,000 last year in about 10 months. The trick to Demand is not to treat it like journalism. Don't take challenging topics that will be interesting and require a lot of work. Pick topics that you can easily research on Google or that you can write from memory. It's definitely not for everyone. And by the way, I've read lots of Hayley's stuff; she gets how the process works, and tailors here writing to meet what Demand is looking for, which is why she's so successful
#11 Posted by Mr. O, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 02:33 PM
Nick,
As a longtime Miami resident and a former Miami Herald staffer, I miss your "South Florida, U.S.A." pieces. They not only shed light on some of our more interesting characters and places, they were the sort of serendipitous find that always made that day's paper a better read. Good luck, wherever your future leads...
#12 Posted by Peter Laird, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 04:32 PM
Great article. I'm very intrigued by the observation that Demand's topics are potentially limitless based on the long tail. Obscure and quite specific inquiries could go on forever, fertile soil for new $3 articles on content farms like Demand.
I'm wondering though, how this will be impacted by the recent introduction of Google Instant, which turns the long-tail search method on its head? Basically, Google Instant encourages less typing and less specificity/originality of search terms and increases reliance on the auto-populated choices fed to the user by Google. Certainly, Google isn't the only search engine, but it is the dominant one, and although you can turn off Instant within Google, I'm not sure how many people are doing so. Any thoughts on how this might bear on Demand Studios and the other content farms?
#13 Posted by K. Meyer, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 04:52 PM
I copy-edited for Demand for several months, and I was confused from beginning to end on what they required. I read their writer's guidelines and the various tips for copy editors, and I read the e-how site. Seldom did any articles actually match the guideline's rules for attribution. Most simply rephrased the source material, which borders on plagiarism. When I asked one of the editorial leads about an article that had the same phrasing and information as another article by the writer with a different title -- a violation of the guidelines -- the editorial lead said it seemed different enough to send it through. My final review was a criticism of sending through too many articles that had insufficient information. One article that had been singled out as being dangerous was one that was similar by the writer in which an editorial lead said a simple warning about not setting fire to an aerosol spray without adult supervision was basically sufficient for approval. Your observation about people looking up the most unusual information is correct, and Demand meets that need, but one has to wonder if society is better for having that information at our fingertips.
#14 Posted by G. Rohloff, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 05:20 PM
What you seem to be missing is that Hayley Harrison didn't become one of Demand's best writers because some glass office at Demand decreed it. The company is unlike a newsroom in that way. Hayley earned that designation because dozens and perhaps hundreds of copy editors, acting independently, give her perfect or near-perfect scores on virtually everything she writes. She uses good sourcing, she follows the rules, she writes clear, useful articles, she works hard and she is ethical. Having also been a copy editor at The Miami Herald, I would not rule out the possibility that Hayley would succeed at that level, too. She is a professional writer, period. My impression, after editing a couple hundred of her articles, is that I would not bet against her if she were given the opportunity to write a 3,000-word feature. What she does at Demand is difficult in its own way, and you ought to be more respectful of the meritocracy in which she has thrived and you apparently did not.
#15 Posted by CRS, CJR on Fri 5 Nov 2010 at 06:21 PM
Blah, blah, blah. I've read a dozen anti-Demand articles in a year, and anyone who succeeds as a Demand writer, editor or videographer can see the arguments against Demand are one-sided, which is to say, misleading. Further, any student of the media should see past the "sky is falling" rhetoric of the corner-office naysayers: Newspapers, in the internet age, have a flawed business model -- that's not Demand's fault. Demand isn't putting people out of work; on the contrary, Demand is hiring the professionals that the newspapers laid off.
Nicholas Spangler would have succeeded with Demand had he lasted more than a week. $360 for 40 hours work on his FIRST WEEK as a freelancer? That's great! It might not be much for a Herald writer, but it's more than unemployment pays, or even Taco Bell. Had Nicholas kept at it, he'd have found his groove as did the woman about whom he wrote. I suspect Spangler's weekly income would have become $1000 to 1500 as he figured out the tricks of the task, such as learning which titles he's best suited to write, if his learning curve was like mine:
A (damned good) newspaper and nationally distributed magazine copy editor for more than a decade, I started editing for Demand a year ago. At first making money seemed impossible, as most stories required a lot of work to meet standards (Demand's and my own) for publication. Then one day I made $100 in 4 hours, copy editing. well. Now, $250 days are not unusual and $200 days are my standard. A day on which I make less than $100 is what I call "a day off." Again, maybe that's not Miami Herald money, but it's better than I ever made in an office. Which brings up the perks:
I work when I want, where I want. Last week I edited in Oxford, Mississippi. The week before, Magnolia, Arkansas. The entire month before that I worked from Michigan. Next week: Waveland, Mississippi, an hour from the French Quarter.
But wait, there's more: If you work for the Miami Herald or any other non-internet media, can you make money while sitting at your grandfather's hospital bedside as a caregiver for 12 hours a day, over the course of months? (This is where you say, "Uh, no.") That's what I did from October 2009 to October 2010. I gave up the unemployment cash and made a good living, editing from a recliner at my grandfather's bedside. That, gentle reader, is better than editing from a beachfront tiki bar. Which I wil probably do by February.
#16 Posted by CEG, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 12:26 AM
Interesting article and very accurate. I recently read an article likening Demand Media to a sweatshop. Truer words were never spoken. Despite what all the Kool-Aid drinkers proclaim, it's a terrible place to freelance. They demand quite a bit for very little pay. In the end, the stress is just not worth it.
#17 Posted by BR, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 12:37 AM
This was hilarious. I would rather write straight up commercial content than for crap fests like Demand. And there are lots of them out there. I was never an experienced journalist (I left before getting thrown out). But I can spot companies like this a mile away and I am not that bright.
Someone with integrity needs to start their own news site about news and not cash. There are a lot of these for features but news is more time consuming. True believer journalists band together...start your own news site. And write crappy commercial copy on the side.
#18 Posted by Patrick, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 12:57 AM
Nicholas Spangler is to be thanked for writing an article which raises so many points which have to be faced by so many news writers and news readers alike.
In a country the size of the United States and its ever growing population, there is always going to be a demand for well written, well presented news that is far beyond the capabilities or ambitions of the likes of companies like Demand Media. Simply the fact that a magazine such as the Columbia Journalism Review exists, that it attracts journalists of the quality and vitality of Nicholas Spangler, and that his article evinces so many informed, thoughtful responses by way of comments, is proof of that, if any were needed.
Journalism as we understand it is being redefined. What shape it will take, none of us can at present predict. The old of model of journalism is in decline as Nicholas so clearly depicts. One of the reasons for its decline is that journalists have become complacent.
Much has been said, some of it inaccurate or plain wrong, about globalization and the international market place. What can be said is that competition has increased to a degree unprecedented. No longer is it sufficeint to offer a local product, goods or service. What is offered has to meet or exceed the competition, from anywhere in the world, in terms of price, delivery, quality and service. If not, the fall is swift.
For longer than the rest of us, journalists have been sheltered behind a wall of established newspaper proprietorship. As long as newspaper owners made money, the old model could subsist. A central flaw in this model is that the journalist is not face to face with the marketplace, is not face to face with his or her readership. Neither were the editors or newspaper owners. The new model will change that. Is changing it. Look at how I can respond to Nicholas' article, as have done quite a few others. The CJR's stats system is no doubt set up to see how many visits were made to Nicholas' page. Based on the number of responses, he has a job waiting for him somewhere; its his for the taking.
The old model had me face the fact that, were I to write a letter to the editor, given the odds, I could hardly expect it to see light of day in the newspaper's columns, regardless of the merit of the letter.
Quite frankly, the standard of writing of journalists leaves something to be desired. The national newspaper I purchase every day is full of bad writing. It is one thing to write at a level that your readers are sure to understand. It is quite another to write poorly. Want an example? Nicholas' article has many merits, but who is Clay Shirky? Nicholas does not say, does not explain, does not give a link. He has other links. Why not one to Shirky?
The United States is filled with a very large population of highly talented, highly educated people whose standard of writing in their day to day pursuit of their job or profession, exceeds the standard of writing of even some of the best known journalists in the country.
The standard of writing in the workplace has to be high. Why? Competition. There isn't time for sloppily written reports that nobody can understand. The competition drives clarity in writing. Look at the standard of the writing in the comments made to Nicholas' article. OK, some of the commentators profess to be journalists but, for the commentators who make no such profession, I can't tell them apart.
Do journalists meet that standard of writing? No they don't. Writing is not speech, Newspapers, even on the web, are not television. The television speech model for writing is not adequate. And not every article need be written to the level of an 8th grader.
There will continue to be a huge demand for high quality journalism. Who will meet it and how it will be met are questions still being answered.
#19 Posted by Malcolm DB Munro, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 01:52 PM
Thank you, Nicholas Spangler, for writing the definitive article on the experience of working for Demand Media. It is being widely shared. It is excellent journalism -- for those who don't know what that is, I mean that it follows the discipline of verification. Spangler interviewed someone who is successful working for Demand, as well as trying it himself, to ensure that he had more than one person's perspective. He did extensive research by doing the work, not just for one day but over time. He then checked with a traditional editor to see whether she would accept what he had actually written as journalism. This is verification -- the type of thing we are not seeing in "content farm" stories that people write from airports and their doctors' offices, without ever actually experiencing the thing they're writing about or even talking to someone who has! Pony Rides Without Ponies, indeed! This is journalism without journalists. I'm just sorry that organizations like Demand Media are likely to put the rest of us -- and the standards we once accepted as important -- out of business.
#20 Posted by Dr. Carrie Buchanan, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 01:54 PM
Nicholas, you really started something! Your article " ...is being widely shared."
My apologies to you in advance, Dr. Buchanan, but you are wrong. That is what this discussion is about.
You said, "I'm just sorry that organizations like Demand Media are likely to put the rest of us -- and the standards we once accepted as important -- out of business."
The market for news and for journalism is immense. The rise of fast food restaurants did not drive good restaurants out of business. Organizations like Demand Media cannot and will not meet the demands and needs of all that market. I suppose a better term would be markets. What Demand Media and its ilk have done, are doing, is meeting the demands and needs of a market. One market.
There are many other markets with demands and needs which such companies can never meet, don't set out to meet: high quality journalism and what I suspect you are suggesting are high standards being amongst them.
What we readers and writers have to do is to establish those models which meet those demands and needs. It will take ingenuity to do it.
One place to start is to establish a National Journalist Trust, or some other similar name, to attract people, ideas, funding, etc. and serve as a discussion platform to explore how good journalism and high standards will be sustained and with what models, and as a launch platform for such models.
Demand Media got where it did, and will continue to thrive through drive and energy. We can place our own drive and energy into those areas which will bear fruit for us. We simply have to identify them.
#21 Posted by Malcolm DB Munro, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 03:00 PM
So as it shakes out, the really valuable member of the news team was the lowest-totem-pole staffer who compiled the movie listings and blandest service pieces.
I've been a freelance writer for 23 years, cobbling together a living at magazine articles, newspaper columns and non-fiction books. There was ALWAYS the opportunity and/or temptation to write shlock -- press releases, corporate work, advertising, ghostwriting -- and I resisted it. I left the business world in 1987 so I wouldn't have to write that stuff anymore.
You cosseted former news staffers -- benefits, COLA increases, desks and offices paid for, even someone to tell you what to write about every day -- can now figure out what we freelancers had to figure out on the fly, both in terms of making enough money to survive and giving ourselves the opportunity to write well, and write work of which we'd be proud.
My response to the vanishing magazine market in recent years was to be more nimble than the next guy: I found a great URL, made a deal to make it my own, and have begun to publish my own web magazine, and to sell advertising to make it profitable. Check out Oregonwine.com; it's fun to write, fun to try to make a profit from it, and it can be as good (or as bad) as I make it.
#22 Posted by Jim Gullo, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 04:14 PM
It would be unseemly to bang away further on these columns. There are important issues raised here which deserve further debate. Those readers and commentators who wish to engage in debate are invited to malcolmdbmunro.org,
As further grounds, in addition to the points already made, discussion can begin on the nature of one area of immediate need. There are a number of investigative journalism organizations that have an overwhelming need for outlets to carry their findings.
#23 Posted by Malcolm DB Munro, CJR on Sat 6 Nov 2010 at 04:58 PM
Nick,
I've got faith in you. Donna is right, new doors will open up for you. You're a great writer, and it was a joy working with you. I was always entertained reading your stories at The Miami Herald. I too miss the journalism. I miss my talented friends and colleagues in the photo department. I lost a part of myself when I left the Miami Herald in 2008 to accept a job as a staff photographer at Duke University.
But there are great stories here to be told too, even though the storytelling approach may be different.
-Jared Lazarus
#24 Posted by Jared Lazarus, CJR on Sun 7 Nov 2010 at 12:23 AM
My dear Nick, it may well be that your future does not lie in journalism or even in activities that may be considered its cousins. That would be a shame, however, particularly given your clear desire to remain in this line of work and the sparkling talent you exhibited when we worked together at The Miami Herald. I relished your stories. And I was proud to have contributed one story idea from the copy desk (surely you will recall your delightful feature on the fainting goats?).
If you mean to continue in this profession amid the turmoil that has overtaken it and in defiance of what appears to be a grim future indeed, I guess you should brace yourself for more tribulations, including, perhaps, more of the soul-sucking work that you describe in your lovely essay, and press on. All the best, my friend.
#25 Posted by Gilbert B Dunkley, CJR on Sun 7 Nov 2010 at 09:26 PM
>> ...its sec filing...
The SEC does a lousy job - but it's still in all caps.
#26 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 06:57 AM
I read the Herald most of my life.
my family came here in 1919.
The never ending pandering to multiculturalismand one sided pro immigraion bias drove me away. I can remember the story, it was by a woman la raza journalist imported from LA and her story about the Giant Burmese Pythons breeding in the everglades being better for us than the native born pets they were eating as what had the native born pets done for us lately. Something clicked inside me after reading that horrible nasty person.
except for very rare articles by pat Buchanan I never read a single story that represented my worldview.
Reading the morning paper was an addiction, it was hard to stop, but now that I quit i don't miss it and their daily cheerleading for the displacement of those that share my history,language,ethnicity,culture,morals and values.
The Herald could save a a large amount of money by merely having La raza write all of their content.
regards,
delmar Jackson
#27 Posted by delmar jackson, CJR on Sun 14 Nov 2010 at 10:30 AM
A lot of us were wondering what became of you, Nick. I wish the answer were something more cheerful. I still can't understand why a paper with so many average to mediocre writers would dumpthe only one who was consistently excelllent. I believe the plunge in circulation left the Herald with a loyal core of subscribers who like to read and know good work from bad even if they all can't articulate the difference. They need to be fed, not starved, or they'll drop off too.
'witz
#28 Posted by Arnold Markowitz, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 02:05 PM
Doesn't see anything? Puleez. Your standout writing was one of the few contributions that made the Herald worth opening. It was impossible to put down your gripping, surprising, artful stories. Undoubtedly, there is a new, amazing chapter out there for you once you're ready to set your mind to it -- and tap it out. I can't wait to read it.
#29 Posted by Kathryn Wexler, CJR on Sun 5 Dec 2010 at 09:58 PM
Investopedia.com is commercial content and it's damn good! For those of you budding journalists worried about Demand media taking your job, this is like the seamstress getting anxious that the butcher is about to take her job. Being a hack has its perks.
#30 Posted by whoisafraidofassange.com, CJR on Fri 10 Dec 2010 at 01:12 PM
Your writing is as good as you make it. It does not have to depend on who you write for. The underlying assumption is that you have to write well to be hired by a national, or even regional newspaper, and that may be true. Does not necessarily follow that you can get away with bad writing for Demand Media. Their editors are strict in demanding accuracy and clarity.
The issue is more the fact that it is a content mill churning out thousands of articles a day. Indeed the output is prodigious, but it is varied. As for the pay rate--it is low enough that working there has been described as slave labor. Except one is not coerced into writing for Demand. It is always a choice. As with any other job, you have to learn the ropes.
#31 Posted by Amit, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 11:08 AM
Nick, thanks for a thorough review of Demand Media. As a former Herald reporter, bureau chief and copy editor, I also considered writing for them, but their standards seemed sophomoric. Freelancing has always been tough for many of us. I've written pieces and submitted my photos to a magazine that first asked for them, then rejected the submitted material, then published it a year later, with no compensation. I had a series of articles with my art published in a regional magazine and looked proudly on those well-wrought works until my new wife pointed out that my compensation hovered around the minimum wage level. For the sake of a stable income, I surrendered to the bureaucracy. After two dozen years producing publications, news releases, and hundreds of speeches for the local school system, I retired to form a company called Applause Guaranteed! for speeches, copywriting and books. Now I'm having too much fun writing books for myself, along with writing for my wife's art gallery, to do work for anybody else. I remember being impressed with your work at Mother Herald, and I'd like to suggest you also might enjoy writing books. These days most of us will have to do all our own promotion and selling of our self-published works, but if one of them hits it out of the ballpark the rewards are unlimited.
#32 Posted by Bill DuPriest , CJR on Fri 25 Feb 2011 at 11:25 AM
Nice piece, Nick. I am reviving this year-old thread to alert anyone who may come upon it that demand media is tanking, badly and rapidly.
I toiled there for 14 months and made slightly more than $60,000. It sucked the very soul out of me. Nick's refernebces to anonymous editors are far too polite. The company would wseem to employ power-crazed losers who are intoxicated at earning $4 for their editing efforts.
That aside, Google's Panda program has hammered content mills, which were always about squeezing maximum profit out of the absolute minimum in expense. Demand Mediaa's publishing activities will cease in 2012 and the founders will cash out.
People will read again. And thankfully, it won;t be drivel on demand media's eHow site.
#33 Posted by Neal Casson, CJR on Tue 7 Feb 2012 at 09:11 AM
It is absolutely delusional to believe anyone at demand media cares about quality. Oh, sure, they provide much lip service to notions of quality, but they don't deliver. Case in point: the company has nearly 100 articles on how to make a tossed salad, posted to its eHow website. I'm all for variety, but the world does not need 100 such articles. The "content" is designed to game Google's search results in order to put eyeballs in front of advertising. Demand Media "articles" are simply placeholders around which to frame Google ads. Period.
It took Google much longer than necessary to roll out Panda because Google is in bed with Demand media. So long as Demand makes money, Google gets a piece of the action. But eventually, Google users cried foul and held their noses for so long at Demand content -- and that of other content farms -- that Google had to do something.
#34 Posted by Neal Casson, CJR on Tue 7 Feb 2012 at 09:19 AM