Constant Content's Aversion to Promotional Content

[HiredGun]

Can anyone clarify the reasoning behind Constant Content's aversion to promotional content? You would think it would be a lucrative opportunity, especially when webmasters need promotional content for their affiliate marketing sites.

Also, how do you determine when content is too promotional? Is an article "Top 5 Chrome Extensions for Gmail" too promotional because it promotes Gmail? Where do YOU draw the line when submitting content to Constant Content if you want to avoid the "we do not accept promotional content" rejection email?

[Lysis]

I've done some things specifically for some products like Google APIs and things. Is it a popular brands? I haven't gotten that rejection yet.

[HiredGun]

I've done some things specifically for some products like Google APIs and things. Is it a popular brands? I haven't gotten that rejection yet.

So have I (and sold plenty of 'em). It seems if you offer multiple items on a specific brand it isn't considered promotional, yet if you offer only advice on only one brand, they consider it promotional. i.e. 5 Chrome Extensions for Gmail vs. 5 Reasons Gmail is Awesome


FYI: Cannot find anything in Constant Content's Extended Writer Guidelines; only this snippet in Constant Content's Terms and Conditions:

D. Author Terms
1.An "Author" is any Member who makes specific Works available on the Website for use or purchase.
2.At the time a Work is uploaded to the Website, the Author represents and warrants to Constant-Content and further covenants that: 1.the Author is the owner or otherwise the duly authorized licensee of all right, title and interest in and to the Works;
2.neither the Works nor any web site or other promotional or marketing material of the Author will contain any content which in the opinion of Constant-Content is or may be construed as being defamatory, obscene, pornographic, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate, or otherwise contravene the Can-Spam Act of 2003 (United States) or other similar legislation applicable either to the Author or to Constant-Content;

[Lysis]

I never try to interpret some of these rogue rejections. lol Last year at this time, I had to stop submitting because some editor was just saying "errors" and then purging my content. Wait a few months and another editor thinks it's fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[HiredGun]

I never try to interpret some of these rogue rejections. lol Last year at this time, I had to stop submitting because some editor was just saying "errors" and then purging my content. Wait a few months and another editor thinks it's fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I haven't had any 'promotional' content rejections lately; just trying to understand CC's aversion to promotional content. With growing competition within the 'articles for sale' sector, it would seem a lucrative niche to pursue i.e. ecommerce merchants needing promotional content for their sites (since Constant Content's parent company is RevenueWire.com). There are also plenty of young companies in need of content promoting their up-and-coming products/services. #HugeOpportunity

[Lysis]

There are a few ways I think they are falling behind, personally. No images, no links are two I can think of.

[bridger]

There are a few ways I think they are falling behind, personally. No images, no links are two I can think of.

Or removing the Use license, for that matter. Maybe there were other reasons to do so, but it seems like it artificially shrinks their pool of available content. I guess the contention was that no one was interested, but I still make about 1/3 of my sales off use-licensed articles that were grandfathered in.

[Lysis]

I'm guessing the removal of use was from the writers complaining that the rule was to have their byline. Just a guess though I don't know. I can't see how it was a bad thing for business but of course we're all on the outside and maybe there is a legit reason for it.

[HiredGun]

I'm guessing the removal of use was from the writers complaining that the rule was to have their byline. Just a guess though I don't know. I can't see how it was a bad thing for business but of course we're all on the outside and maybe there is a legit reason for it.

Or that it was just too much trouble and too time consuming to go after buyers each time they didn't include the byline or changed an article they purchased for usage rights only.

[Lysis]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Wonder how many people complained that they didn't have a byline and then they are forced to contact the customer. Probably why unique went away too but I think that had more to do with nobody ever bought unique lol

[Gail Kavanagh]

Speaking of bylines, I was just told not to put my name and year of publication at the bottom of the article. I have done this ever since I joined in 2010 but I guess this is also due to the end of usage rights. Still it feels strange not to include it.

[bridger]

Or that it was just too much trouble and too time consuming to go after buyers each time they didn't include the byline or changed an article they purchased for usage rights only.

See, I thought about that, too, but nothing I've seen here ever suggested that they spent much time going after violators in the first place (and it's not like removing usage eliminates the possibility of license abuse), so I doubt that was it. Nor because writers were bitching about it, because we bitch about stuff all the time anyway.

Like Lysis says, it's hard to see inside the business, but the only justification they gave was "...there is more demand for unique content that the purchaser has ultimate control over, and is not found anywhere else." Which, just based on my sales numbers, seems true as far as it goes, but shows a pretty narrow perspective. The inference seems to be "if we don't allow writers to sell use licenses, they have to sell full rights content, for which there is more demand!" but that's sort of a toddler-level view of how markets work. Really it just removed the supply for a different sort of demand completely, eliminating that revenue stream. While, if you follow their theory all the way through, increasing supply and therefore lowering market prices for the full rights content.

Which would be one potential explanation for the sales slump which most of us saw in Q3/4 last year, I guess... I hadn't thought about that before.

Anyway, getting back toward thread topicality, I just remember thinking that the licensing options they had here when I signed up were quite a bit more innovative than most and reflected a position ahead of the curve of content use and production. But most of the steps they have taken recently seem increasingly out-of-step with where the market is heading, at least from what I'm seeing elsewhere.

[HiredGun]

Anyway, getting back toward thread topicality

This thread was originally started to discuss Constant Content's aversion to promotional content. I have since received a reply from Constant Content regarding this matter. Consider this thread closed.