To Be (Exclusive) or Not to Be (Exclusive) on Associated Content

Writers on Associated Content often debate which level of rights they should assign to their content. When looking to receive an upfront payment on a piece, the two choices are of course Exclusive or Non-Exclusive.

Exclusive is touted as being able to earn you the most money, as you are giving Associated Content the sole rights to publish that article. Basically you write something and hand it over to them. Non-Exclusive gives the writer some more control of their material. You can still receive an upfront payment, although it may be diminished, but you can go onto to republish the article elsewhere or simply rest easy knowing that all of your content is still "yours".

Basically it's a debate of dollar value versus control of your articles. However, what has always been unclear is how much value an Exclusive rights license truly brings to the table. Therefore I decided to conduct my own little trial run to see how different licenses would affect the payment I received on a handful of articles.

To Be (Exclusive) or Not To Be (Exclusive) on Associated Content: The Experiment

Recently I submitted four similar articles for publication. They were all top 5 lists - a winner on AC in most cases - about the best movies that certain actors have starred in. I submitted the articles all on the same day, and ensured they were all extremely similar in terms of style, content, formatting and any keywords used.

All four were submitted for upfront payment, with two being assigned Exclusive rights and two being assigned Non-Exclusive rights. The results did not speak highly for the Exclusive rights license.

Of the four articles, three were approved for upfront payment and one was denied for upfront payment because it was too similar to other content on the site. The three that were approved - both Non-Exclusives and one Exclusive - actually received the exact same upfront payment; $4.82 if inquiring minds wanted to know.

How three get approved, one gets denied, and the three approved all end up with the same value despite different rights licenses is beyond me. However it shows that the Exclusive rights license doesn't really live up to the benefits it touts. Why should any freelance writer give Associated Content full control of their content, when it literally produces no extra value? Even if you do get an extra dollar, or two, what's the true benefit?

Granted, this certainly wasn't a scientific process and the sample size is small. However, the basic facts of the situation show that the payment you receive for your content on AC is some combination of an arbitrarily designated baseline value for the piece, perhaps also taking into account your history on the site.

There's clearly also a human element at play here as well. Just as different umpires enforce different strike zones, different AC staffers may be more prone to accepting certain articles, slightly bending the rules or assigning different degrees of value to a particular type of article.

(Note - This article did not get accepted for upfront payment.)

The Bottom Line

Unless you're hoping to squeeze an additional dollar or two out of your upfront payments every now and again, then as a freelance writer you should stick with the Non-Exclusive rights option. You'll be able to showcase your work on other sites, hold onto the ability to republish and more, and you won't be missing out on much, if anything.