Comments on: “Web Content Writing” Is Not a Dirty Word

By: Jennifer L

Jennifer L — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:34:13 +0000

I have no personal issues with web content writing…have done some myself and hope to do more in the future..but I think Alicia makes a good point about the stigma. I think the stigma still exists for a reason. There are lots of job ads out there that advertise the pennies-for-articles phenomenon, and that’s what many people associate with the term “web content writer.” They think of stuff that’s literally been cranked out with little regard for quality–because what kind of good writer is going to subject himself or herself to that? (That’s the perception, not necessarily the reality.) But I do think that the stigma is going to lessen over time as more excellent websites proliferate…and as more print publications move to web-only.

By: Alicia N

Alicia N — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:18:26 +0000

I think there is a stigma attached to web content writing that is largely due to the proliferation of horrid writers that gravitate towards the field due to low pay. Writers who have a solid reputation may fear they will get lumped into the same category as those for which English is obviously a second language by even accepting such projects.

I take what I can get in this economy and do not frown on anything as long as I know I am capable of providing quality work and the pay is decent.

Sadly, I recall admitting that I often took on web content writing assignments to an acquaintance, after which the person disdainfully replied, “Oh, I wondered who wrote that crap.”

So, until we get rid of idiots who want to pay less than a penny per for 500 worders ( had a guy who wanted me to prostitute myself at a dollar per 500), then there will always be a dark cloud hanging over the web copy landscape.

By: Jennifer Mattern

Jennifer Mattern — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:26:09 +0000

You have some good points, but here’s the problem. If your prospective clients are looking for you as a “Web content writer,” then you’d better be calling yourself a Web content writer. You’ll not only help them find you in the search engines that way, but you’ll make it very clear as to what you offer. Coming up with other titles for yourself isn’t always a good thing for marketing (and if a writer is bashing what those clients are openly looking for – in this case Web content writers), they’ll gladly take their few hundred bucks a pop and give it to someone else. In this case, the fault is on the writers. By trying to separate themselves from the negative side of the label, they also alienate a great, and growing, client base.

And being a specialist (which I always advocate here) still isn’t a good excuse. You can qualify what you do with that area. For instance, I’m a “business Web content writer”–I focus on business-oriented content (such as small business and marketing). You could be a personal finance Web content writer. Or a parenting Web content writer. Or a health and fitness Web content writer. If there’s a demand on the professional end of the spectrum, there’s absolutely no reason to shy away from a title if it accurately describes what you do.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:17:28 +0000

The problem is “Web content writing” is too amorphous, covering respectable online publications as well as cheap rewrites and seo trickery. The more specific the gig (“I write articles for an online business publication”) the better chance you won’t be lumped in with those less desirable “Web content” providers. “Web content writing” should be shelved, along with “freelance writer.” There is a psychological basis for the change. People often gather all their fears and misgivings about a specific title (say ‘lawyer’ or ‘car salesman’) despite your being a lawyer for nonprofits with 50 percent of your work probono, or a car salesman of high repute. Being a generalist may work in some situations, but if you care what other people think, you want to adopt a more specific title.