One of my earlier blog entries here talked about getting even instead of getting mad.
This plan had two prongs of attack. The first prong entailed continuing to write for Demand Media Studios (DSS). The second prong involved those who could no longer write for Demand Studios.
My explanation, on Demand Studios Sucks' (DSS) forum, would've included a third prong. Here's how my proposal would've gone.
1. If you still work for Demand Studios, continue to write for them.
Since many DSS posters only had DMS as a client, this wouldn't have been a problem. Instead of venting on DSS, they should submit their complaints through Demand's grievance channels. It would've been a simple matter of converting their complaints to a constructive message... then sending it to Demand's editorial team.
Let's face it. If a writer continues to write for Demand Studios, the former ratifies their agreement with the later.
Here's a glimpse of the basics of this agreement.
The writers write for Demand Media. They agree to Demand Studio's working arrangement. In exchange for this service, Demand pays the writers a certain sum of money per article. This working relationship requires the writer to work with DMS' cadre, to include voicing questions, concerns, complaints and suggestions.
What if Demand Media Studios' owners end up filthy rich, because of the writer's efforts? This shouldn't stop the writer from completing his end of the deal. Why? The writer agreed to DMS' working and compensation conditions.
Many freelance writers chose to "take the abuse," just for $15.00 per article. Many of them run to Demand Studios Sucks and complain about Demand Media despite this fact. Ethically, this isn't right.
So, I would've advised them to "milk" Demand Media Studios for all it's worth. They would've written as much articles as they can before DMS removes their writing privileges.
If groups of DSS writers provided constructive feedback, they could get attention. This is important if specific Content Editors abuse their positions.
2. Fight back against Content Editor shady practices, while building individual writing portfolios.
Many DSS posters complained about Content Editors (CE) shady practices. This included editors stealing a rejected writer's work as their own... then getting those articles approved for publishing.
A writer for Demand Studios can apply for other DSS positions. They had other employment options. Many of their writers were also Content Editors. Some of these editors didn't have scruples. First, they'd copy and paste the writer's work, then reject an article. Then they'd log out of their editor account. They'd log back in as a writer, claim the article, tweak the writer's words, then submit that article as their own.
The posters on Demand Studios Sucks didn't have to take this sitting down.
Once they received a rewrite request, they'd evaluate their chances of resubmitting their re-writes. If they felt that no matter what they did, their article would get rejected, the writer could simply sit on the re-write request.
They have 4 days to submit the rewrite. Freelance writers could use this time to repost, what they've written for that article, to another website. All they have to do is rewrite the title. When 4 days are up, the title goes back to the writer cue.
If an unscrupulous CE stole the writer's works, he'd be guilty of plagiarizing. That's because the writer had already published that same, or very similar, article elsewhere. The writer could then wreck havoc... by complaining to the client that received his article, as well as to those that operate the search engines.
With multiple writers doing this, Demand Studios could become a plagiarizer many times over.
Continued in the post below this.
No comments:
Post a Comment