A Call for Action on Calls for Content

Associated Content had a Call for Content tonight that actually paid money for a sports-related article. I was very excited, until I realized that they topic made writing it impossible. They were looking for five ways, three of which were unique, to buy Atlanta Braves tickets. The problem is that the Braves don't sell out, so the answer for this particular call is a one-line response.

Walk to the box-office cashier at Turner Field and purchase tickets at face value.

Now, that wasn't going to get me close to the 500-word minimum that this Call for Content required. So, I clicked "close" instead of "claim" and went on my way. But I've been meaning to write about the Calls for Content ever since they introduced them and this seems like a particularly good time to do it.

For those of you reading this who don't write for Associated Content, each day the site lists what it entitles Calls for Content, in which it asks for articles on specific subjects. These are a mix of upfront paid and non-paid articles which are allegedly targeted to your writing strengths.

I really like the idea of the Calls for Content but the execution leaves a little to be desired. The targeting doesn't really work. I frequently get calls listed for live events in other states, I'm many years removed from my prom and I don't care about when celebrities announce their engagement.

My biggest complaint is that the sports Calls for Content almost always are non-paid ones. Basically, they want us to write an article of their choosing and as compensation they offer the "unlimited earnings potential" derived by page views. And we all know what a crock that is.

Now, I probably submit more non-paid articles than most people at this site because I want to write about what I care about, when I choose to do so. Like this article. That freedom is worthwhile to me.

But I think it is terrible that they issue non-paid Calls for Content on a specific subject with a definite time deadline. If these pieces are desirable for Associated Content, would it kill them to offer a token compensation package? There have been several Calls for Content that paid just $1, a couple of which I submitted. I believe they should do this with all of them.

Within the past two weeks, I submitted two non-paid Calls for Content because they were preview articles of NCAA Tournament games that I was attending live and I figured that was a nice way for me to prepare for the contests. But it is not something I anticipate doing in the future.

The worst example of the non-paid Calls for Content came in the music category. Associated Content was looking for articles for top 10 songs by your favorite artists. The reason this one is particularly galling is that when I first started writing for the site in 2006, they asked for these articles (it wasn't titled a Call for Content back then) and paid $10 per article with a limit of five per content producer.

I wrote four of these music ones back then and they are some of my highest-viewed articles. I know that page views are but one consideration in judging the value of a specific article to Associated Content, but it seems odd that one that has a proven track record of results is not worthy of even a token payment.

Now some of you may be wondering why I think it is okay to submit an article for $1 yet balk at doing one for free. Since it's clearly not about the money, it is obviously about the principle. You have got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. If Associated Content wants us to write articles of their choosing on their timetable - the least they can do is compensate us for the effort. And I mean more than the fraction of a penny per page view that they call "unlimited earnings potential".

I still check out the Calls for Content on a regular basis. It's a good idea and I'm not willing to give up on it. But I do think the idea could be run better by the site, starting with the elimination of non-paid calls.