Wanting New York Times writing for Podunkville Gazette fees

I've been running into small publishers lately who want wonderful, imaginative, creative and witty writing, and that isn't like anything already on the Web. That's fine. But these publishers also want to pay piddly amounts for this amazing writing.

It's a bit frustrating.

For instance, I just signed up for a new blog. This week, I turned in my first posts. The publisher wrote back to tell me that my posts were a bit too negative. He mentioned that people are already depressed by the economy, and that they didn't need new blog posts to remind them of this fact.

Fine. That's a valid point. But then the publisher directed me to the blog run by Penelope Trunk. This, the publisher told me, is an example of a good blogger who has something original to say with every posting.

Again, the editor was right. Trunk's blog is a must-read. It's fascinating and funny and incisive.

But this guy isn't paying enough to get Penelope Trunk. He's paying enough to get a blog post that I can squeeze out in 15 minutes or less. That may sound harsh, but it's a reality. I can't spend too long on a post that doesn't bring in enough money.

This publisher brought up the low pay rates by explaining that he hoped that the bloggers on his career site weren't writing just for the money, but for the joy and satisfaction of blogging.

Well, nuts to that. I do write for the money. I support my family this way, often by forcing out stories on topics that are so dull I want to scratch my eyes out. But it's a living.

It wouldn't be a living, though, if I spent all day working on a blog post that paid peanuts. Shame on me for accepting this low-paying position in the first place.

Hoping to add another blog to my list

Earlier this week I completed the second phase of a tryout for a new career blog being launched later this month. I made it past the first hurdle: The editors behind the blog liked my submission package. The second phase involved me writing two sample blog posts -- which I get paid for. The editors will then select four of a final eight writers to contribute regularly to the blog.

It's a bit of a jumping-through-hoops process, but the work should be easy. And if I do get the job, it'll be one more steady bit of income.

Granted, the income's fairly small. But it's worth it for the amount of work required. It will also mean that I'll have six blogs that I write for that pay me by the post.

This is the only way to go with blogs, by the way. (Well, a flat monthly rate is fine, too.) Don't ever think you're going to make money from blogs that pay you according to how many people visit or click on ads. You'll be lucky to make a dollar every month with this kind of payment schedule.

I'll keep everyone posted as to what happens with this career blog. I'm proud of the two sample posts I wrote. Now it's in the hands of the editors.

The power of niche blogs

I spoke with an entrepreneur today who runs 40 niche blogs, blogs dedicated to such specific topics as martini glasses, electric fireplaces and the Kindle 2.

Her goal is to see these blogs each generate about $100 a month. That, of course, comes to a healthy $4,000 a month. Not bad for what the entrepreneur eventually hopes will be a passive income stream. Once the blogs are filled with content, the entrepreneur will just sit back and watch those $100-a-month payments trickle in.

She's equipping some of the blogs with Adsense, but has had better luck with affiliate programs run by Amazon.com and eBay.

It's an intriguing idea. The thought of filling all those blogs with enough content is a little intimidating. But the entrepreneur I interviewed must be doing well enough; She's hiring writers -- at about $12 a story -- to fill her sites with content.

The sometimes ugly realities of content writing

I've pretty much dove deep into the content-writing pool these days. It's a bit of a necessity. My best print-magazine client is struggling and, last week, told me to stop sending them my monthly quote of stories. From now on, I'd work on an as-needed basis for them, and it doesn't look like their need for me is as great as my need for work.

So, I've attempted to boost my monthly writing income with more online content writing. This week, for instance, I'll be writing a series of short, 125-word stories on topics such as martini glasses and electric fireplaces for one publisher. This will bring in $50, but the hope is that I'll be able to write the posts in as little as an hour-and-a-half, making my per-hour pay about $30. (Don't feel like doing the exact math right now.)

I'm also turning in a series of eight short blog posts -- on life insurance, auto insurance and weightlifting (one of these things isn't like the other) -- for $106, and am negotiating with another client to turn in a keyword-heavy 750-word story. I'm hoping to get about $40 for that post.

All told, these three assignments, all of which I grabbed yesterday, will pay me, hopefully, about $190. That's not much, but for a month of weeks like that, you're looking at $760. That's a bit of a boost to my regular writing jobs, which, of course, pay far, far more.

Today, though, writers have to take on a lot of jobs and do them all fairly quickly. In addition to my content-writing, I ghostwrite for three corporate blogs -- which, again, provides far more income than content-writing -- and rotate through about 10 (used to be a lot more) regular print-magazine clients for assignments each month. It's hectic, and more hectic now than it's ever been. I'm not sure how much I like it, but you have to do what pays the bills, right?

Why I won't write for Today.com

When I first heard about Today.com, a popular blogging network, it didn't sound like such a bad idea.

Considering that the company was paying at that time $1 a post, that shows how far my standards have fallen during the recession. But the posts took me minutes. And I got to write about whatever I wanted. Because I was running two blogs on Today.com at the same time, I usually made about $60 a month from the company.

Again, because my standards have fallen so low, that didn't seem so bad.

When Today fist burst onto the scene, it advertised like mad for writers. In fact, many freelance pros wondered just how legitimate the company was since it seemed like they'd accept any writer who bothered to apply. I remember reading on one online writers' forum about writers who filled out gibberish -- incomplete sentences, tons of grammatical errors -- on Today.com's application form. Invariably, these writers got accepted.

And, yes, once I began writing for Today.com, I noticed that there was plenty of terrible writing on the blogs the company ran.

For some reason, though, I liked that guaranteed $60 a month. It was insignificant when compared to my regular monthly writing income. But the short blog posts -- I believe Today.com required every paid blog post to be 100 words or more -- were the perfect break between "real" journalism or scheduled phone interviews.

Then came the change. The powers that be at Today.com changed the pay structure for blogs that weren't generating thousands of page views a month. That included mine. Each of my blogs generated about 400 views a month. And they were rising.

Today.com sent me a very poorly worded message that my pay structure was changing from $1 a post to $2 for every 1,000 page views. To generate my $60 a month, then, I'd need 30,000 page views combined for my two blogs. Sorry. That was not going to happen.

So I ended my time at Today.com.

Now, a blogging network has the right to change its pay structure. It would have been nice, though, to have a more coherent explanation as to why. It also would have been nice for Today.com to acknowledge that it takes time to grow a blog's traffic. I was pleased that my blog's traffic was inching upwards every month. Apparently, though, it wasn't moving up fast enough.

Also disappointing was the extremely defensive tone taken by the people behind Today.com when bloggers questioned the pay changes to their blogs. The powers-that-be seemed amazingly offended that any blogger would be upset. After all, all bloggers had to do was spend 40 hours a week promoting and writing their blog. Maybe then they'd get that $60 a month.

So here's another recommendation: Stay away from Today.com. It's just one more blogging network that cares little about quality of writing. Today.com, like most other blog networks, cares only about page views.

Writing for peanuts with ContentQuake

If you're hoping to get rich writing online, well ... I don't know what to tell you. If you want to make at least a little bit of a guaranteed money, then a blog network might be for you.

I haven't always had the best luck with blog networks. I've had some bad experiences with Today.com and b5 Media, two networks that suddenly changed the way they paid their writers. The changes, of course, would have left me with a monthly income that was drastically reduced. A drastic reduction from peanut-level money didn't sit well with me.

I still write for one blogging network, ContentQuake. You might not have heard of it, as it doesn't seem to be nearly as well known as b5 Media, Today.com or Examiner.com.

It's a simple setup here: You get paid for each post you write. You also get money for page views. (Don't rely on the page views, though. I've struggled mightily to get more than 200 or so page views a month on my ContentQuake blog.)

The pay is low, of course. For the first three months you write for ContentQuake, you get 50 cents for your posts. The next three months you get $1. Three months later it jumps to $1.50. Three months later it goes up one more time, to $2. And don't think you can simply write 100 posts a month. ContentQuake will only pay you for 20 posts a month. You can write as many as you want, of course. But anything over 20 is payment-free.

I'm currently in the making $1-a-post stage at ContentQuake. That means I'm making peanuts. For instance, I made a little bit over $18 for February.

Now, I'm writing for the network's business channel. If I was writing about celebrities or a popular TV show, maybe I'd be making more money per month because of increased page views.

There are positives, though: For one thing, it takes me about 15 minutes, tops, to write a ContentQuake post. And I'm hoping that the longer I write, the more monthly page views I'll attract. We'll see.

On the whole, I find blogging networks to be a bit of a waste of time. I can't explain, then, why I'm sticking with ContentQuake when it certainly qualifies as an extremely low-payer. Maybe it's the laid-back nature of the place, or the fact that it gives me something to do when I'm waiting for return phone calls or e-mail messages.