How Associated Content Compares to Traditional Freelance Journalism

I have worked as a regional freelance journalist for the past three years, and have been a contributor to Associated Content since October of 2006. The following is a comparison of several aspects of the two journalistic forms.

Upfront Money: Hands down in favor of regional freelance journalism. While Associated Contents' length requirements are much smaller than traditional printed press (approximately 1/3,) a 1500 word freelance article will net you $50-$250. 1500 words written for AC will, in all likelihood, will net you approximately $15 upfront cash, or $0.01 per word, compared to a traditional freelance article where you will earn $0.03-$0.16 per word.

Residual Money over Time: Hands down in favor of Associated Content. I currently have 40 articles fermenting on my CP page, all of which still get page views. My most successful Associated Content article: "Top 10 Ways Myspace Can Ruin Your Life", has easily made as much money from performance pay as I would have made from a low paying freelance article. Further, "Top 5 Ways World of Warcraft Can Ruin Your Life" has doubled the initial surge felt by the Myspace article. In traditional freelance journalism, you are unlikely to see another penny after your initial payment.

Availability of Work: Again, hands down to Associated Content. While freelancing for a traditional print magazine pays considerably more, their need for content and writers is considerably less. The maximum amount of articles you can sell usually breaks down to 1/issue. That's one article per month with max pay $250 for a monthly magazine, if you can beat all the other journalists to the job. With Associated Content, the sky is the limit; write as many articles as you like.

Choice and Creative License: Also goes to Associated Content. In traditional freelance writing you will often be given a topic to cover for the particular issue, or at very least a theme, into which your article is expected to fit. Further, it is likely, in a traditional freelance position that you article will be fact checked, your editorializing will disappear beneath an editors pen, and often some of your favorite points, wordings, and even facts will simply disappear to make room for the new perfume advertisement the magazine has just sold. For upfront or performance pay, Associated content has interfered very little with my choice of topics, and has left my content completely untouched (although sometimes I wish they hadn't - "Top 10 Ways Myspace Can Ruin Your Life," for example, is full of typos and grammatical errors. I wrote it during a bout of insomnia and never really expected anyone to read it.

Credibility: Must be given to traditional freelance for print magazines. None of the articles I've published on Associated Content make it onto my resume or CV. Why? Because with five minutes of investigation a prospective employer will realize that you can publish absolutely anything with the no upfront payment option. And since you can't tell which AC articles are paid gigs, and which AC articles are not, the assumption is always your articles are simply unpaid postings; the equivalent of having a blog.

What is a writer to do?

I try to retain future publishing rights for the traditional freelance work I do. Then post the articles non-exclusively on associated content and give myself a 1%-10% upfront pay raise, while also cashing in on the performance payment. Likewise, if I think an article I've written non-exclusively for the Associated Content might fit a print publication, I send the article to the publisher on spec. Sometimes they buy; sometimes they don't - either way, $5 and performance pay for a spec article beats nothing at all.