Constant Content

I was hoping to get some feedback from writers on this one.

Right now if a customer purchases a "Unique" license, they are allowed to use it as many times as they want in magazines, websites, etc. As long as they own the website or magazine.

The other side of this is many webmasters are looking for people to write articles so they can then submit these articles to other websites and add a link in the article back to their site.

The problem with this is they need to edit the article to add the link AND they are submitting it to sites they do not own. This breaks two of our rules... But we think this should be allowed since many people are looking to do just this.

I wanted to get feedback from the writers to see if anyone would have a problem with allowing buyers of “Unique” licenses the ability to add links and submit these articles any where. As long as they are not reselling them.

What do you think?

I think it is 2 different issues:

1) I don't have any problem with someone adding a link to the bottom of my article to another of their pages.

2) BUT, I DON'T want someone submitting my articles to another site - whether they are selling it or not - if they don't own that site. I don't feel they have the right to do that - I think that is the same as reselling it, but they happen to be reselling it for free.

Ann

If someone buys a exclusive license for me, I'd expect them only to be using it in relation to web sites/venues they own. Otherwise, they are using my content to make a profit in such a way that I did not license them to do so, even though they bought the unique usage from me.

Typically, these terms are agreed upon outside of the exchange of money and article but through Constant Content, the terms are already on the table when you sign up.

I do not believe purchasers here should be allowed to submit content they bought here, possibly selling it if given the chance at a higher price elsewhere, just to get press/exposures or any other attention for their own ventures.

Hi Chris,

I think if they're going to use the article in many more ways for advertising, there should be more expensive options for this type of usage added to their options to buy.

Then, they can buy according to the usage they need. This would save everyone a lot of confusion, and also keep the authors and buyers from losing out. If the buyers are tempted to break the rules every time (as they're doing now), then they'll end up losing in the long run by having Constant and authors angry at them.

On the other hand, authors could lose out if the other options aren't available to the buyer.

In any industry, people are paying specifically for the usage they need, such as the stock photo industry, etc. It would be a natural option to offer. I keep thinking of a friend of mine who's an editor and writer. A magazine just bought an article from him (around 2500 words) for $3000. I know this is far from our pricing, but it does gives us an idea that people who are buyers understand that they're paying for a service, not just words.

If our writer bylines can remain on the article where ever the buyer advertises it, then we get more exposure for our writer name. This would benefit all authors.

If another buyer sees the article and really likes our work, then they can search for us by name in the search engines if they need to contact us - no problem right?

For instance, there could be two exclusive options:

1. An option of exclusive for usage on their "own" site and their "own" printed materials only. If they have a site, ezine and printed magazine or something similar, this is all included. This would be the option offered now.

2. An option for the same above plus advertising at other websites or publications. A little more high in price. Not outrageous, but just to recognize the usage difference and benefits.

This would work really well if the authors get to keep their byline in the articles at ALL times.

Just something to think about.

Sorry to be so long-winded!

Thanks,
Candicep

Hi Chris,

I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone else. I have no objection to a buyer adding a link to the bottom of my article, but do have one with them submitting it to other sites without my permission. However, I agree with Candice that possibly there could be several options for a buyer to have when purchasing content. If the buyer is going to be adding my article(s) to a site they don't own, they could have the option of paying for that privledge. I know that several buyers have already added articles to other sites.

The one thing I strongly object to is the buyer not adding my byline to my article when they post it on any site.

Hope that helps.

But they are not making money off your article, they are just posting it to other sites just to get that link back to their site. I guess I don't see the difference if a person is purchasing a unique license. Your not allowed to sell the article again at this point, so why would it matter if it was posted to other sites for free. I could not imagine an instance where someone would try to resell an article here. In order to do so they would have to remove your name from the article and add there own. That is where you would catch them, but I can’t see this happening. The worst case is you would get more exposure in my opinion.

Of course this is the webmaster in me, I’m not a writer....

I like the possible addition of another purchase option that allow the buyer to what they please (change the article, remove your name, post else where, etc). A complete buy out of the article... like you were ghost writing.

Great... another thing to add to the list

Chris,

I like the idea of the buyer having more choices. I think this is something that is needed. The buyers know exactly what they need when they visit CC. This would make things easier for them. Sorry to add to your work load.

Even though they're not reselling it, that's still getting a whole lot of usage for such a small price. The exclusive means that we can never use the article again (forever), but yet they get to take advantage of it over and over (forever). So, it would make sense to charge more for an option like this. Every similar industry charges more for an option like this also. I think any professional buyer would understand this.

Thanks,
Candice

My concern is that prices could get too high for a complete buyout option. I know many ghost writers that charge what many of us are charging for a unique license. I guess we will just have to see what happens after I implement it.

Chris,

It actually will depend on the buyer. Some will pay very good money for exclusive rights while others won't be inclined to pay as much.

You have a great stable of writers. Those who overcharge won't sell their work. The writers who keep their prices reasonable will sell a lot of work. So, there's options for everyone by implementing this tool.

That's my opinion, but think it will work out well for all involved.

I agree with Malward, those who remain affordable will continute to sell.

I also agree with the others who have said that if the buyer wishes to use the articles on websites they do not own, they SHOULD have to pay more for them.

Chris, you say they are submitting them to free sites. That really doesn't make any difference since their purpose is to draw people back to their own sites where chances are they are attempting to get someone to purchase something. For that reason, they are indeed benefitting more than they would if they post on their sites alone and therefore should have to pay more for that oppotunity.

my 1/2 cent

Kat.

I think what the admin is trying to say is that with all the popularity of keyword writers, if we keep raising our prices, no one will buy. That will only hurt us. There are many writers who are giving away all rights for less than I see some of these articles sell for.

I realize that many writers write for lesser prices than we do, but many websites also pay far more. There's a happy medium and fair price. I've sold for as little as $15 and for as high as $100 for the same amount of words. It depends on the buyer and the useage that he/she wants. On CC I charge approximately 10 cents a words for exclusive and half that for useage. For ghost writing 15 cents is a fair price.

The end result is the same. Those who ask a fair price will sell their work. Those who ask atrocious prices will not. It's about keeping things at an even keel.

I agree with Malward. Let the buyers decide what they will pay - don't assume anything. The problem with undercharging is that the buyer ends up losing the really good writers, and the value of the service goes down in the buyer's mind. Undercharging cheapens the work, just like overcharging makes a person look bigheaded. There is a happy medium for both sides.

People who put their heart into writing will keep giving good work if paid fairly. That's to the buyer's advantage. The buyer wants quality work, not necessarily cheap work. We can see this just by analyzing the articles that have actually sold and their prices. What good is a talented writer if he/she has to go out of business??? Then, nobody benefits from their talents, right?

Candicep