Shared revenue model to compensate content writers, good or bad idea?

avatar33

avatar33

e-Hustler
Dec 5, 2009
3,839
52
48
Calgary, AB
Any of you tried to pay their content writers using a shared revenue model? (c.f. either by letting them stick their Adsense code in their articles or any other similar way). Or perhaps a combination of base rate + % of ad revenue generated thru their articles?

I am currently looking at a few WP plugins that can achieve this, like this one: https://wordpress.org/plugins/revenue-share-plugin-for-authorsrsp/

For those that did it: did it result in the authors delivering even better content? And were they more inclined to share their articles on social media, forums and other outlets to increase their revenue? I am about to start a large content site and I'm looking for incentives to get my writers to deliver their best content possible.
 


Haven't done this myself but sounds like a similar vain of examiner.com ? With them they ask every time you make a post if you want to share it etc, and I would guess most people say yes as it gets more views and generates more revenue for the writer.
 
All the big content farms do this... Gawker, HuffPost etc...

IMO, it doesn't lead to better content. What it does lead to is a "first to publish" mentality which results in less fact checking and more fabricating so that they can attempt to make shit go viral and make cash.
 
Meatytreats said:
All the big content farms do this... Gawker, HuffPost etc...

IMO, it doesn't lead to better content. What it does lead to is a "first to publish" mentality which results in less fact checking and more fabricating so that they can attempt to make shit go viral and make cash.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. For the OP I'd recommend reading Trust Me I'm Lying for more on how this model works.
 
Meatytreats said:
All the big content farms do this... Gawker, HuffPost etc...

IMO, it doesn't lead to better content. What it does lead to is a "first to publish" mentality which results in less fact checking and more fabricating so that they can attempt to make shit go viral and make cash.
Click to expand...

HuffPost, Gawker... these are pretty successful sites though. I wouldn't mind my writers having that first-to-publish mentality if they delivered content similar to those sites to be honest.
 
I do this, but I also only work with professionals in the field not "content writers"... there's so many variables that no one can tell you how to implement it, and if it will work for you.

Give it a try and then modify your implementation to fit your needs as you learn what works and what is not working.
 
Enigmabomb said:
About.com pioneered this idea back in the day.
Click to expand...

Forbes Online took it and raped the industry with it afterwards. Albeit they also diluted any future quality of news or brand equity, but they really stopped caring about that a few years before it. It's actually kind of crazy now that literally anyone can write for Forbes and the general population is still like in perpetual awe of this genius that made it to this level.... but don't seem to realize, that my grandmother with Alzheimer's can be a contributor on Forbes now.

I've been looking at a solution like this for many years now, as a for of attracting contributors that can produce higher quality content and it makes perfect sense to compensate them for it based on the attraction and viability levels too. But it's proving to be a win in many areas at first and not the smartest thing to do for long term. At least that's the advice I've been hearing back when I've asked big wigs at major news networks and even the Buzzfeed and HuffPo cutthroat operations people. Then again, those people are out of their fucking minds to begin with, however they are killing it on all levels including this kinda one. It's mind boggling what some of them are doing... and now automating too.. eek!
 
Jon said:
Forbes Online took it and raped the industry with it afterwards. Albeit they also diluted any future quality of news or brand equity, but they really stopped caring about that a few years before it. It's actually kind of crazy now that literally anyone can write for Forbes and the general population is still like in perpetual awe of this genius that made it to this level.... but don't seem to realize, that my grandmother with Alzheimer's can be a contributor on Forbes now.
Click to expand...

yeah...Forbes and Fortune are content factories. Once your domain has huge authority, the best way to capitalize on it is to churn out content like crazy and rank for everything.
 
bitfiend said:
yeah...Forbes and Fortune are content factories. Once your domain has huge authority, the best way to capitalize on it is to churn out content like crazy and rank for everything.
Click to expand...

It was the obvious alternative to going the route the New York Times went and mastered with the 'pay wall' obsession.

I swear, all of these entities were laughing stocks initially when they discovered forms of earning monies and profits from the magical interwebs.. but now.. they are just killing it! And of course, killing off any credibility or value too, but that seems to be just fine by all the idiots running around these days.
 
Trust Me, I'm Lying pretty much outlines how this model just turns into a giant traffic circle jerk...with the average piece of content bringing in something like $6 in rev.

Right now, I see a few different options in terms of outsourcing your content:

1) You go with a guy like me who curates writers and proofreads/edits their work
2) Go with a content mill like textbroker and do the proofreading/editing yourself
3) Go the rev share model and get writers puking as much content as possible hoping that something sticks
4) Reach out to influencer's and attract them to guest post on your site because you have traffic they want

IMO, each option has it's own pros and cons. If you want to attract great writers that will continually write for your site, you'll probably need to buckle down and seed the site with some stellar content yourself first.
 
I had a client with a lot of success at this.

The key factor is that they had a reliable way to monetize that traffic with premium memberships. So you pay $5-10 a month or maybe even per year to get access to more content that has higher standards.

Each writer has to do a "blog post" and then a longer "premium post" or long video each month. Those higher quality posts go into a members only section.

The website owner takes 50% right off the top before they pay anyone else (lol). Of the 50% that's left they would divide that up by who generated what percent of traffic or signups that month.

There's two things going on here:

1. You have writers creating a product you can sell with no effort on your part.
2. You have writers generating traffic for you which will end up in a newsletter/buyer's list that you can then sell more products to. You aren't paying them anything when you use that list to slang your ebook.

If you have enough traffic you can force people to write higher quality content because writing for you will get them followers/make them famous.


Another version of this was 100% paid.

1. So you take 4-5 dudes with existing followers/newsletter subscribers.
2. They each make a long form high quality video each month which becomes a $40 a month subscription product.
3. You "put it together" and handle the back end for 10-20% off the top.
4. They send their followers to their own affiliate link.
5. They get a commission on their sales each month.

By pooling everyone together you have a better product that you can sell easier and price higher. They get a FUCKING REBILL they can sell for only 1/4 the amount of work. You can start and sell it instantly with no existing traffic on your end.

Money comes in for you building a site one time and making sure they keep promoting it.

To make either of these work you really need the contacts in place to be able to convince legit people to write for you. At least if you want to make money like next week.
 
Taking this to an inception level. My bro got tired of creating videos for scenario two. So he started having his employees create the videos and he'd pay them 50% of the commissions.

So someone was sharing revenue with a writer who would share revenue with his writers to write content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom