A little disappointed...

[Financialbull]

Hi guys,
I think you guys have a great platform here at CC. However, with all due respect, I have to say I'm a little disappointed, and I'm hoping to post my concerns and get a little feedback from some site admins of their opinions.
1. There's no "submitted" feature on the public requests. Writer's don't know when a public request has been fulfilled or how many people have submitted work. It would be nice to know if a buyer has found what they're looking for so writers can spend more time on projects that aren't getting fulfilled. A little more transparency would be great.
2. The approval time is slow and painful. My article sat for 10 days, only to get declined for one misspelled word. I immediately fixed it and went to go submit the article for a public request - only to find out that by now, the public request had been withdrawn. Oh well.
3. Is the commission for CC really 30%? If so, that seems incredibly steep. Paypal engages in an industry that is much more capital, investment, risk, and manpower intensive, and they only charge 4% for their services. CC has no costs (perhaps besides hosting, servers, and storage, but even all of that can only be a few thousands of dollars per year). Maybe 30% would make sense if CC does the proofreading, formatting, and submissions to the client, but all that also has to be done by the writer.
Thanks,
Tom

[michaelsmoker]

I believe the commission is actually 35%, but it's supposed to include the cost of promoting articles on our behalf.

I've never had to wait 10 days for an article to be reviewed. I did once wait six days because of a four-day holiday weekend, but usually my articles get reviewed in about three business days.

Your suggestion for an "articles submitted" and "articles purchased" tracker is excellent. I would love to be able to see how much competition there is for a particular request, and, more importantly, whether the request has already been fulfilled by the time my article gets reviewed. (I know that customers are asked by CC to close their requests once those requests have been fulfilled, but in practice not all customers bother to do that.)

I also think that the CC marketplace model is better than the revenue-share model most writing sites use because it has far greater transparency. On revenue share sites, you have to trust the site owners to be nice guys and accurately report your revenue, and the site in turn has to trust Google and other ad providers not to rip _them_ off. On CC, we know how much we're charging and how much the site is collecting.

In terms of editing, my definition of "editor" is partly someone who alters submitted copy prior to publication as opposed to just rejecting copy because of a refusal to alter it, but CC appears to use a different definition.

Michael

[Judith]

I don't know how old either of you are, your writing credentials or how long you have been writing. I am probably much older than either of you and I have been writing professionally for over forty years. The type of writing CC requires is not the type of writing I have engaged in for so many years. However, that said, CC requires the type of writing they need and the typeof writing that sells. They do an excellent job of marketing our work. I have been here about four months now and have sold over half of what I have submitted. I need to submit more and will this winter as I am goofing off in the Florida sunshine!!

We have the privilege of setting our own prices. We receive 65% of that amount. I don't know why anyone would think CC doesn't have any expenses. This website alone has to be a considerable expense. It's written in PHP, a server side language. Someone who knows PHP and can code in PHP, CSS and XHTML had to be paid to build a very complex site and it has to be maintained. Every time a piece of code is changed it has to be paid for. The hosting has to be paid for and with the amount of bandwidth this site must use I am sure it is not cheap or perhaps they have opted to have their own secure server since so much money passes through. That costs too! Payroll twice a month is a huge undertaking, yet CC offers us that choice and CC pays the PayPal fee. We don't lose one penny of our 65%. I certainly hope the staff gets paid for the work they do because they do a lot and I am sure they do it as fast as they can. Are the owner's allowed to make a little profit for their own pocket? I think they should be... don't you? Comparing Paypal to CC is like comparing sausage to strawberry shortcake

It would be nice to have a web site that catered to every writer's wants but that would truly be impossible not to mention costly beyond belief. This is a great site for selling your writing online. I'm sure they make a mistake once in awhile... they are human. Sometimes it takes a bit longer than we like for our work to be reviewed but this is the only writing site where you can truly earn a living if you put in the effort. My suggestion for everyone is to ignore the imperfections and concentrate on the positives. Then, sit back and enjoy the money!

[Celeste Stewart]

CC has no costs (perhaps besides hosting, servers, and storage, but even all of that can only be a few thousands of dollars per year).

Yeah, CC consists of just a guy with a GoDaddy account. And that guy does it for the love of the written word. There's no cost involved in attracting thousands of customers and writers to serve them either. None. Advertising on the Internet is free after all. I know this because I read it on the Internet.

Seriously, set your prices with the commission in mind and you may find that you don't begrudge the cut a bit. I sell writing here and on my own and I can tell you that selling writing here is much easier - and I earn what I want to earn for each piece. Plus, there's no need to track down payments or spend money trying to get work.

[Financialbull]

Guys, I didn't mean to say CC has no costs - of course they have considerable costs. I'm a developer who is intimately familiar with deep PHP coding and I know servers can be expensive. But according to mywebsiteworth.com, the company's domain name alone is worth $60,000 (based on data compiled from public disclosures and records). I think it's safe to assume that CC is making great money doing what they're doing. Which is awesome! But is it at a naive, steep expense to us?

Mike, maybe my submissions take 10 days to approve because I'm raising questions about how fair CC is. If that's the case, then whatever...I've been making money writing online since April 2009 on a full-time basis without the help of article brokers like CC, and I'm just having a hard time accepting that making 65% is better than making 100%, especially when you factor in the intrinsic costs of time, frustration, etc...

Regardless, thanks for everyone's opinion, I appreciate it!

[Celeste Stewart]

A lot of us do both - earn 65% here and 100% elsewhere. CC is what it is. Depending on where elsewhere is and what your CC articles sell for, 65% can indeed be better. For example, 65% of $50 is definitely better than 100% of $15. It can also be less, of course, in which case it makes sense to go with the higher paying market. I charge a lot more to my non-CC clients, but it also takes a lot more work to find and land those clients. Doing a mix of CC and non-CC work works well for me as did doing mostly CC work for several years.

As far as review times, I doubt CC would take longer to review a writer's submissions based on questions in the forum. The review priority goes like this: Private requests get reviewed first, public requests second, general submissions last. From there, I imagine that the work of established writers may occasionally get approved faster than that of newcomers to the site.

Anyhow, I hope you stick around long enough to experience CC's positives.

[michaelsmoker]

I wonder why people get so defensive when someone dares to question the golden sunshine purity and heavenly beauty of CC. It's a phenomenon I've observed on seven or eight different writing site fora--you can't even _appear_ to diss the host site or people jump down your throat. The OP raised some reasonable points that turn out to have been based on solid knowledge and research. If s/he had cited the research in the original post it might have been better received, but still....

Michael

[Judith]

Michael,

CC is a very good site. There are other very good sites. I worked in journalism, both print and broadcast for over 35 years. I worked as a book editor for over 16. I have been ghost writing for over 30 years. Before you start figuring out my age, let me say some of those years overlap! All of these fields require different styles of writing and I will defend each one as I will defend CC. It isn't a matter of CC being better than any other writing opportunity. It is what it claims to be and it is dependable.

I have a literary agent. I've had him for years. He is costly in time as well as money. But he is who he is and he does a great job for me and my clients. He earns his keep. CC earns their keep as well. When I read some of the comments and complaints I recognize many people who have designated themselves to be writers. They haven't put in the educational time, interned for 18 hours a day with no perks other than free coffee, they haven't written literally thousands of pages that will be credited to other people just for the opportunity to know someone, who knows someone, who knows someone... They also have not worked "by the hour" as many beginning writers do.

CC is an opportunity for a lot of people who aren't writers, but like to write, to earn money. CC doesn't require you to have a large vocabulary, or have a masters degree in English. All they ask is for their writers to follow a few simple rules, keep the writing uncomplicated and geared to the average reader. In return they pay them 65% of the price the writer sets. It's a nice little gig with no investment other than some time and perfect for me as I prepare to retire from working 15 to 16 hours a day to a schedule that will allow me time for all the things I love to do.

I haven't seen anyone get defensive re: CC. I haven't seen anyone jump down anyone's throat for appearing "to diss the host site." And what reasonable points were based on sound knowledge and research? I must have missed them. CC is an opportunity and that's all it is. It is not an employer. No one has to be here. If someone does not like the way CC operates they can always take their amazing talents and skills to a higher bidder. I think people would make more money if they concentrated on writing articles instead of writing complaints. If CC makes one million dollars a day it means that lots of other people are making money too. CC has a right to make as much money as it can. So do you and I and everyone else. It is not CC's responsibility to make less money so we can make more. I know we live in a society that seems to think anyone who makes money should give it to the people who didn't make it, but life isn't that way.

And now I must get back to work. Not for CC but for myself. I own and operate web servers, build web sites and have a photography business...

[BarryDavidson]

In response to the original post, I too had some concerns when I first started here. However, I'll limit myself to the points raised here.

1. I doubt there ever will be a "submitted" feature. You see, even if the customer has already bought an article, there's always the chance they'll buy more. I've seen customers buy ten-plus articles when they only asked for one. Another point here is that the time spent writing the article usually isn't wasted unless the subject matter is something obscure. It's also not a bad thing to have many examples of your writing available on the site, even if it does take a while to sell.

2. I too sometimes get frustrated at the turn around time for getting general submissions approved. Honestly, I liked it better when articles were basically reviewed in the order they came in, but everything changes.

3. I've never had much of a problem with CC taking 35% of the asking price. As Judith pointed out in her last post, writing is a tough game. The time spent looking for places to submit, researching the articles, formatting them to fit the publisher's requirements, waiting for weeks for approval or rejection, and any one of a hundred other "jobs" is a real pain. I write fiction, poetry, articles, and others in several different genres. I'll take this over many of the options available out there. Hell, finding an agent who is actually accepting new clients is a full time job. Sending in query letters to publishers who accept unsolicited material can take up to 90% of you time leaving little for the actual work.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not coming down on anyone who has posted their concerns. I am merely offering another perspective from which to view CC's policies from. I love having a place where I can place my work where others come to view it and purchase if they wish. Many of the other sites I'm a member of have Draconian formatting and submission policies, don't allow the author to set the prices, don't pay out unless some high number is reached, or pay very well in general.

[Celeste Stewart]

MIchael, you also came to CC's defense, praising its transparency over revenue share sites. Nothing wrong with that.

Writers who've experienced the positives of CC are quick to point out its merits because we've been here long enough to realize that we can make decent money here, despite the commission. The original poster is new and has the same concerns many of us had at first. Hopefully the voices of experience will help newcomers realize that CC is worthwhile. If not, they can pursue other options and leave us poor, naive suckers to be taken advantage of.

[jadedragon]

Writer types up the article and submits it - gets 65%
Site builds site, reviews the article (maybe twice) to catch writer's errors, advertises, finds the clients, processes the payments, pays credit card charges (3% off the sale price), pays the writers their share, pays the paypal fees, pays server expenses, pays staff, pays 5% to the writer that referred you to CC... for 35%.

Writer picks the price they ask knowing full well that they will get 65% of the sale price. Seems reasonable to me.

[Celeste Stewart]

While we're on the topic of the 35% commission - here's something to ponder: Would we object as much if we set our own take home price and then CC put a different, 35% higher, price on the site? End result would be the same but perhaps writers wouldn't feel as much ownership over that portion of the sales price.

[michaelsmoker]

I still note a defensive, even somewhat hostile, tone in at least one of the responses since I last posted in this thread.

If the moderator or admin objects to something someone has posted in this forum, that's fine. It's their job. But I have a problem with other ordinary forum members trying to censor a fellow member by bullying him into silence. And let me state again that I've observed that phenomenon on every single one of about seven or eight writing sites. The more socially-oriented members of the forum mistake the forum for a place to socialize and exchange pleasantries, and of course to avoid anything that might be seen as a negative because that just isn't done in polite society. But I don't think this forum, or any other writing site forum, should be a coffee klatch. It should be a place where writers who submit material to this site discuss issues of concern to us. Sometimes that requires raising and discussing problems. Attacking the OP because he raised issues is just plain wrong.

Nor do I think the fact that the writer is new is justification for velied rudeness and sly personal attacks. In that I include all types of malicious irony and sarcasm.

I am also making a formal complaint about being told that I am not a "real" writer because I don't meet another ordinary member's standards of what a "real" writer is. That kind of personal insult should be unacceptable to the mods and admins. Only the CC staff have a right to voice an opinion whether someone who has had articles approved by the CC editors is a "real" writer or not.

Michael

[Celeste Stewart]

If Tom or anyone else is offended by this thread, my apologies. Maybe I'm missing something but I honestly don't see dissing of CC or personal attacks.

As far as my own comments, granted, I was a little sarcastic about us CC-loving writers being naive and the GoDaddy account thing. Was I rude and on the attack? I don't think so, but again if I came across that way to anyone, I'm sorry.

As far as anyone saying that Michael is not a real writer, that I totally am not seeing. Judith made a broad comment about CC being a place for people who are not writers but like to write - maybe that was the offending comment? While I don't agree with that comment (because how do you really define a real writer?), I don't believe it was a personal attack against Michael or anyone.

CC's forum is a pretty civil place. We've had our moments, and I'm sure we'll have more. Hopefully Tom doesn't feel jumped upon and will accept my personal apologies if he does.

[Judith]

When I said, "CC is an opportunity for a lot of people who aren't writers, but like to write, to earn money." I was referring to people who were not professional writers prior to coming here. I wasn't saying they weren't qualified to write, simply that CC gave them the opportunity to be writers (professional). When I said CC doesn't require their writers to have a huge vocabulary or a degree, that wasn't an insult, it was relating the great opportunity that CC offers to anyone who is willing to follow their rules. Nothing I said was meant to be offensive and if anyone was offend I certainly apologize.

I guess it bothers me some times when I see people who are new to writing expecting big money right away. It may be possible, but not probable and if they get discouraged they may give up. If they are a good writer, everyone loses. "Before the internet" it was not as easy to get writing opportunities as it is now. Us "old" folks know this. I interned at the LA Times back in the 60's. We were not paid. We did get coffee. When you got your first writing job at a newspaper or magazine it was an hourly wage and usually minimum. It was barely enough to eat and if you had student loans to pay you had a second job as well. But you didn't care because you were getting a chance to prove yourself. You took every assignment no one else wanted and you didn't get a byline. We worked our butts off to finally get an assignment that would get us a byline and eventually a little raise. It often took 3 or 4 years and many got discouraged and went into other fields. We had dues to pay before we could even call ourselves journalists. A masters degree impressed your parents and grandparents but to a "journalist" you were just a wannabe until you proved yourself.