Residual income reality

I hear a lot of writers refer to residual income when justifying why they write for sites like Suite 101 or Examiner.com. They say that the stories they place on these sites generate revenue indefinitely. That's better, they say, than landing a story for a one-time fee of $20.

Well, there's some truth to that, I suppose. But what if you query and land a story for a one-time fee of $500? How long does it take, say, an article on Suite 101 to generate $500 worth of income? Will that ever happen? I don't know.

If you want a real look at the negatives of sites that promise writers residual income, check out this post at Jennifer Mattern's All Freelance Writing Blog. She breaks down the real numbers far better than I ever could. You might be shocked, and certainly disappointed, at how little money most people ever make writing for residual income sites.

A nice round number at Suite 101

Well, today I hit 40 stories published at Suite 101. This isn't a great achievement, of course. I had written 25 stories in my first month. It's taken me three more to write my last 15.

My revenues at Suite 101 have tailed off fairly sharply from my first month. During that first month, when I mostly wrote about mortgage topics, I made about $27. Last month, I made an even $10. That's a significant figure, though: You have to hit $10 in a month to receive payment for that month. If you don't, you have to wait another month until you do reach the magical $10 payout amount.

Anyway, I've been inspired to get busy again with Suite 101. I read a forum posting recently from a Suite 101 writer who makes about $20 a day. That comes out to about $600 a month. That's not a fortune, but, it's not bad. My goal now is to get to 100 stories on Suite 101. I have no idea how much money a month that will give me, but it should be a decent addition to my monthly income.

The summer doldrums at Suite 101?

I admit that I've been neglecting Suite 101. I started out like a ball of fire, writing 30 stories in my first month. Not coincidentally, perhaps, that was my best month at the site: That month I earned $28.81.

Now, I realize that's not exactly lottery-winner money. But it's far better than the $14.21 I earned last month, or the shockingly awful $3.60 I've earned so far in July.

Is it just that I've slowed down considerably with Suite 101? After those first 30 articles, which I wrote in March, I've added just nine more.

Maybe it's the summer. People are outside, right? (At least those people who aren't content writers.) They're not reading about low-down-payment mortgages or the first-time homebuyer tax credit. (Bastards!)

One of the writers at Suite 101 recently posted in the forums there that he just finished his 500th story for Suite. I had one thought about reading that: **&%$! (Sorry, this is a family blog.) The writer, of course, didn't give out his earnings at Suite 101. This is a no-no, I understand. There's a lesson here: Most places that forbid writers from giving out their income are paying out horribly low monthly incomes. Why else wouldn't they want their writers telling the world how much they're making?

Anyway, I do plan on sticking with Suite 101 through the rest of the year. My initial goal was to get to 100 stories. The way things are going, though, I might shoot instead for 50.

A different kind of content writing

I've written two stories so far for a publisher who, I think, takes my content and provides it to other Web sites, my byline excluded, of course.

I don't care much what happens to the content after I write it. They're not stories that I'd be able to sell anywhere else. One story focused on new trends in fireplaces, and was supposed to be about 400 words. The second focused on eReaders, and was also supposed to be about 400 words.

Neither story required interviews. The only research I did was on Google.

And, even better, the editor is easy to work with. I haven't had to deal with any revisions on either story. That's the way I like to do business.

The money isn't much: I've made $41 from the two stories. But like I said, it's easy work.

I lump this in as content writing because it's fast, simple and kind of ... filler? I'd suggest to any writer who's working for Suite 101 or Examiner.com to find publishers like this, ones who give you a flat fee for short, quick stories. This money, no matter how small, is guaranteed. That's more than I can say for Suite 101, Examiner.com, Triond or Helium, where you never know how much money you're going to earn for a story.

Publishers like this, which I found through the Absolute Write forums' help-wanted section, won't make you rich. But I treat these little projects as filler money. It's appropriate, I think, for what is largely filler work, right?

I'm beginning to dislike the editors at Suite 101

Don't the editors at Suite 101 know that most writers at the site make peanuts every month? I mean, I have 33 stories up at Suite 101, and last month I made $21.16 off them.

That's not exactly riches, right?

Why, then, do some Suite editors act like I'm writing for the Atlantic Monthly?

I actually put a story up on Suite that had real comments from real sources that I spoke to by phone. I soon received a message that the channel editor had some suggestions to improve my story. Her thoughts? She wondered if I could put in the date when I interviewed each source.

Really? She wants me to date the interview in my copy? For $21.16 a month?

Sorry, I'll be leaving that story alone. In fact, I find that I've been ignoring much of what my Suite editors have to say. Maybe that's a bad attitude on my part. But the only way -- and even this way isn't guaranteed -- to make content writing even remotely economically feasible is to crank out stories in record time. I'm not going to be able to do that if I'm dating my interviews now, am I?

Research involves more than Google -- Doesn't it?

This morning I banged out a quick assignment for someone looking for content-mill type stories. The topic wasn't thrilling -- it was on electronic readers, things like the Kindle 2 or Sony Reader -- but the assignment was simple.

I noticed something, though. I wrote the entire story using only Google as a research tool.

That got me thinking. If I'm not writing for a magazine, I generally rely solely on Google to research my stories. No wonder you see the same stories over and over again when you scan sites like eHow, Suite 101, Associated Content and Examiner.com.

It's a bit depressing, isn't it? I mean, when I write for magazines, I interview people -- either in person or over the phone. I read research reports or business prospectuses. I sometimes scan through police reports or court documents. It's really work. It's really time-consuming.

But it's so much more satisfying.

It's not that I couldn't do extra research for my online stories. But with what online sites pay writers, and for what they expect from them, doing that extra research would be foolish. It's better to turn in the junk online sites want and take the peanut money they throw at us.

I still remember the days before Google and the Internet. The first newspaper I worked at still cut and pasted stories onto its pages.

I'm glad Google is around. It's an indispensable tool. I just wish I was writing more stories that required something more than a quick Google search.

A reality check: Content writing doesn't bring enough of them (checks,that is)

I got a big wake-up call yesterday. During much of this year, I've been losing print clients, some big, some small. Many of them simply went out of business thanks to declining ad sales. Others became online only publications. And still others eliminated their freelance-writing budgets entirely.

This has been nerve-wracking. But I've been holding things together. It helps that I also have a full-time, part-time magazine-editing job that pays my mortgage.

Then yesterday, my top freelance client gave me the news I'd been dreading: This trade magazine, too, was cutting back. I'll still get freelance assignments from them. But instead of two a month, I'll probably end up with one every other month. That's a huge, painful drop.

It's sent me back to the world of pitching again. Yesterday I had some success: A real estate agent is interested in having me ghostwrite his blog for him. A newspaper chain may have me write a weekly real estate column for them. And a book publisher might hire me out to write a chapter or two in one of its trivia books.

I felt better at the end of the day, though still nervous. There's no guarantee that any of the above three projects will come to fruition.

What I didn't do yesterday was any content writing for Suite 101, Examiner.com, Demand Studios or any of my niche blogs. When faced with the loss of some very real dollars, the content writing just didn't seem worth it. The payoff is too low.

It reminds me that while experimenting with content writing is OK, relying on it for any serious money is a mistake. When things get tight, it's time to go back to the basics of pitching stories to new publications and reconnecting with editors you've worked with in the past. It's the only way to recover when you've lost a well-paying regular client.

Gotta' love those 6-cent days at Suite 101

I earned six cents at Suite101 yesterday. Yikes. And that's with 32 stores posted, all focusing on either freelance writing, residential real estate or mortgage lending.

And yesterday wasn't the first extremely low-paying day for me this month at Suite 101. Earlier this month, I had 11-cent and 10-cent days.

I thought I was choosing topics and writing stories that would encourage Adsense clicks. After all, the ads alongside my freelance-writing stories feature links to sites such as Triond, sites that freelance writers desperate for writing work would probably click, right?

And the ads alongside my mortgage-loan stories all send visitors to mortgage companies. Why aren't more people clicking?

I suppose this lament is far from uncommon with Suite 101 writers. There are plenty of writers on the site who make solid -- and by solid, I mean $200 to $500 a month -- from their Suite 101 stories. But these are the same writers who, usually, have more than 200 stories on the site. That's a lot of writing for income that is nice but certainly not a king's ransom.

I'll keep plugging away at Suite 101. But, to be honest, I'm not looking forward to throwing up 60-some more stories to get to that magical 100-story point.

Giving HubPages a shot

There seem to be an ever-growing number of content sites out there for writers who want to make a little money.

The emphasis on that last sentence, by the way, should fall on the word "little." So far, I've made enough money on content sites to buy a few fast-food meals. It's a bit depressing.

But I am soldiering on. I've tried Examiner.com, Suite 101, Demand Studios, Associated Content, Today.com, b5 Media and ContentQuake. I've stuck with Examiner.com (though I'm wavering these days), ContentQuake and Suite 101. The others I've fled. They just weren't the right fit for me. I've also created five niche blogs of my own so far, with plans to create more. I've equipped them with AdSense and, in about two-and-a-half weeks, I've made $4.40 in click revenue. See? That's a fast-food meal right there!

I'm now ready to give HubPages a try. I didn't know much about this service until I signed up yesterday. The sign-up process was a snap. Now I'm able to create a HubPage of my own, basically a long story on any topic of your choice, complete with photos, videos, links to other sites, anything you find important.

This is a bit of a departure from most content sites and blog networks. You can create as many HubPages as you'd like.

The income potential doesn't look great at first glance, though. You make money by equipping your HubPages with Adsense and Amazon Affiliates. I already know that neither of these systems is the key to riches.

But who knows? Maybe more traffic flocks to HubPages. Maybe this traffic is more apt to click on a Google ad.

All I know is, it's one more content site to give a whirl. So that's what I'm doing. I'll report back on my progress once I get four or five HubPages up and running.

Besides, it can't be as bad as writing for Associated Content, can it?

Suite 101 vs. About.com: And the winner is?

I've been writing for Suite 101 for about three months now. In that time, I've published 31 stories, all of which have either focused on mortgage loans and real estate or freelance writing. I chose those topics carefully: I know a lot about both of them, which means that I can pound out my Suite 101 topics quickly and with little research.

If I couldn't do that, writing for Suite 101 wouldn't be worth it. In fact, I'm not sure it's worth it now: In three months, my 31 stories have generated about $60 in income. I'm on pace to make a bit more than $20 a month.

Maybe that's why I'm surprised at how vocal the posters on the Suite 101 writing forums have been in defending the company from criticisms made by the freelance writing guide at About.com.

There's a couple of lengthy threads on the forum in which Suite 101's writers have responded angrily to the About.com guide Allena Tapia's assertion that Suite 101 is not worth writers' time. The eventual pay is just too low, Tapia argues.

Now, this is not an outlandish opinion. Many Suite 101 writers say that you'll see a big income boost on the site if you get to 100 published stories. Problem is, that's a lot of stories and a lot of work. And I'm not really sure how big of a boost I'll see when I reach that level. (That's my goal, by the way. Get to 100 and see what happens.)

The Suite writers, though, reacted as if Tapia ate the last drumstick in the bucket. Many even suggested that perhaps Tapia had applied to Suite 101, had been rejected and was now taking out her ire on the site.

That, of course, is insane. For one thing, despite what the forum's writers might say, Suite 101 will accept most anyone who can string more than two sentences together. Why not? They're not really paying anyone. They're just passing out a small percentage of Adsense review to their writers. Secondly, if Tapia can get accepted as a guide at About.Com and has several stories publsihed in print publications, which she has, then she's certainly a talented enough writer to work for Suite 101.

Let's be honest: If you have a choice between Suite 101 and About.com, you'd be an idiot to write for Suite 101. About.com offers its guides a minimum monthly payment for two years and adds residual income on top of that. It's also much more difficult to get hired by About.com. Just visit writer message boards and you'll read the tales of woe from writers who didn't get accepted after applying to be a guide at About.com. Here's a tip: The really good sites are picky about the writers they select. Those sites that aren't picky, such as Suite 101? They generally don't offer all that much in the way of revenue.

I'd love to be a guide at About.com. I'm not. There just haven't been any appropriate topics availble. To be a guide at About.com, you really do have to be an expert in a topic.

This battle between Suite 101 and About.com, then, is a silly one. About.com wins by a knockout. In the first round.

If you think freelancing is bad, try working for a newspaper

There are days when I hate being a freelance writer. They're the days when my phone doesn't ring, my e-mail messages go unanswered and the mailman delivers me the credit-card bill when I was really hoping for that check from a late-paying publisher.

But then, every time I even contemplate chucking the freelance life, I get a reminder of why working for myself is the best job I've ever had.

A former editor of mine -- my very first, actually, from back when I worked for $13,000 a year at my local community newspaper -- sent me a message. He knows that I sometimes write for the comic-book industry, and he wanted to know if the publisher I work with needed any writers. Turns out, my former editor was on an unpaid one-week furlough from the newspaper chain for which he works as an editorial page editor.

Yes, my former editor is nervous. With the state of the newspaper industry -- with solid papers like the Rocky Mountain News in Denver and the Seattle Post Intelligencer failing -- he's worried that he'll soon be out of a job. He's already survived one round of staff firings this winter. He's not sure he'll escape a second round.

So, yes, freelancing can be a tough go. And, yes, there are times when you wonder where your next month's payments will come from. But no matter how bad it gets, at least you're in control. You can scour the Internet, hit the phones, pester former editors and do everything it takes to find work. You can try online writing options for the first time. You can create blogs, equip them with Adsense and hope they take off. You can submit stories to places like Triond or Suite 101 in the hope that maybe, just maybe, they'll generate at least some spending cash.

People who work full time at newspapers and magazines can do all this, too, of course. But if they don't already have that freelancer's risk-taking spirit, they might not diversify their writing lives until they're already out of work and desperate for a paycheck.

So next time your 18-month-old son wakes up 45 minutes early from his nap -- as mine is doing now -- remember, it could be worse: You could be getting a pink slip from your boss this morning.