Demand Studios (Leaf Group Ltd.) defeats Demand Studios Sucks

Since my last series of rebuttals against some posters on Demand Studios Sucks, I regularly checked their website. Not long after the last series of posts that I had made in rebuttal to these individuals, the website started to slow down both with blog updates and with forum posts. Eventually, both the blog and the forums came to a complete stop. First it was days, then weeks, then months, and then years passing since the last posts.

During its final active months, the frequency of postings on Demand Studios Sucks dwindled, then dropped. One topic that sparked that site's community's interest was Demand Studios' (now Leaf Group) fate. Specifically, who would win, Demand Studios, or Demand Studios Sucks. Demand Studios eventually went through a change, to include a name change to Leaf Group as well as having stocks.

"Patrick," Demand Studios Sucks' owner, declared victory based on the name change alone. However, this was a phony victory. "Patrick," as well as the last remaining members on the site, became excited when it appeared that the stock, for what formally was Demand Studios, performed relatively poorly. However, Leaf Group continued to perform its mission years after Demand Studios Sucks "went silent." Their stock continued to go up and down depending on market conditions. 

Recently, while looking for the Demand Studios Sucks website, nothing showed up. Well, not what usually shows up when you click on the link leading to Demand Studios Sucks. The link leading to Demand Studios Sucks is still active, but what was once Demand Studios Sucks is not what you would see.

Instead, as of the time of this posting, if AI generated triple "X" mature adult content appeals to you, then Demand Studios Sucks is the website for you.

During my short participation on the website, and then during my subsequent back and forth with the members of Demand Studios Sucks, I noticed a common trait. They had the tendency to be emotional, vindictive, combative, etc. It appeared to be a website where individuals could complain about actual and alleged unfairness, and even mistreatment at the hands of Demand Studios. There was also a sense of "eat the young" mentality." 

Any kind of active solution to actually deal with Demand Studios, a constructive way to deal with them, was shut down or dismissed. In many instances, not even considered. "Patrick" even attempted to corner this niche by creating forums for the different content farms. The name of the forums was based on the name of the content farm site and the word "sucks." 

Could this website have continued to run, and be active, beyond its actual run? It is possible. The reality changed when algorithms, impacting content farm websites, changed. The gravy train stopped providing gravy. We had a bunch of writers facing a new reality to where their main or a significant source of income was threatened and eventually ended. 

This was a perfect opportunity to form a community of writers, with similar experiences, to share their knowledge and to help other writers in the community. "Patrick" could have steered the website, and the mission, towards one where writers can give and receive help and advice. This effort could potentially have led to a source of income. A community of writers could have been built, grown, and sustained based on their experiences with Demand Studios and with other similar sites. 

Multiple possibilities existed that "Patrick" could've steered the site, and community, towards accomplishing. However, creating a site for the purposes of venting and complaining guaranteed a short life. The reality is that the vast majority of people will move on from the subject of their complaints. They normally pursue other activities and "forget" about the topic of their complaint. Leaf Group (formally Demand Studios) made this adjustment and change. 

I also had my suspicions, still do, regarding who "Patrick" and some of the posters were. The site owner apparently wanted to project an image of a man. However, the tone, the demeanor, etc., indicated someone who was a woman. Towards the end of activity on the site, some of the commenters came across as "Patrick's" sock puppets. 

I would not be surprised if the final Demand Studios Sucks interactions on that site were between the puppeteer and the sock puppets... A "one person show" after everybody else had moved on. I also would not be surprised if the majority of those who wrote for Demand Studios, who subsequently participated in Demand Studios Sucks, had returned to brick-and-mortar operations at least until the pandemic.

Demand Studios Sucks' disappearance came with it the disappearance of the threads related to my arguments with certain members of that site. What still exists are my rebuttals to those on that site who foolishly chose to continue to argue with me. The smart thing for them to do would have been not to try to argue with me in the first place. Had that been the case, The disappearance of the Demand Studios Sucks website would have also resulted in the disappearance of the rebuttals to them that I generated and posted to this site. 

So, the reality is that both Demand Studios/Leaf Group and I defeated Demand Studios Sucks, and we won our respective engagements with a straight cut victory. In Leaf Group's case, they won against Demand Studios Sucks without even firing a shot in a contest they did not realize they were engaged in. 

I posted about Demand Studios Sucks commenters on this blog from 2011 to 2013. In one of the posts, I predicted that Demand Studios Sucks would end its run. The above is a partial explanation behind why I did not think that the Demand Studios Sucks community would last. 

Don't Get Mad at Demand Studios, Fight Back!

You found your title from Demand Studio's title's list. It felt like you've spent an eternity finding something you could write. You get right to work. You pour through one website after another finding material you could add to your article.

You start writing. After what felt like a headache, and an hour of research and writing, you did it. You've got a finished product.

You take a break, then come back.

You go through your article making sure that your work is grammatically correct. You check all your spelling, then double check all your data. You push your keyboard away and sigh with relief.

You've done it. You've created an article that you hope will mean an extra $15.00 in your account. You hit submit and move on to your next article.

Days go buy without content editor comment. You keep writing articles. Each time you hit "submit," you tick your pay counter in your mind. Then it comes. You receive an email saying that your article need edits.

You look at the feed back. You're ready to bang your head against the wall. The Content Editor obviously had no clue about the subject matter that you wrote about. Getting the information that they asked for is either impossible, or would require expanding time, money and/or resources.

You have two choices at this point.

You can abandon the article, or you could rewrite it as best as you can. You chose the second option and submit it. The Content Editor rejects your article.

A couple days later, you're browsing on eHow and what do you run into? You see an ehow article on display, that looks familiar. It's not that different from how you wrote it. Yup, that's your work, your words. Someone rejected your article, then turned around and submitted it. It quickly got approved.

The person that rejected your article earned $15.00 for your sweat, time and effort. It took him less than 1 minute of effort to get your credit. You're left standing there with an empty bag while the person that rejected your article added your $15.00 to his account.

So, what do you do when you're faced with your next article rewrite?

It's your call. If the changes make sense, and are actionable, then make the changes. But, if the changes are ridiculous and aren't actionable, then you have a couple choices. You could erase everything that you put in there, save it, and then abandon it.

Or, you could copy and paste the article, change the title, then use it for another client. If you don't have another client that'll take your work, post it on your blog. Don't have a blog? There are free blogging sites you could create a profile for. Blogger.com is an example of a site that'll let you blog for free.

At any rate, if you don't plan on resubmitting the article, republish it elsewhere.

Remember, Demand Studios doesn't own the rights to your article until they flag it for payment. Until then, what you've written is yours. You have the rights to it, just rework the title.

What does posting it, elsewhere, do for Demand Studios?

It puts them in the wrong a second time if one of their editors decides to repost your rejected article. You have 4 days to rewrite your article. This means that if you repost it, either on your blog or though another client, it ages for 4 days.

If a Content Editor "steals" your work, they'll be posting a duplicate of a four day old post.

If that happens, report them to the people that run the search engines.

If you're no longer a writer at Demand Studios, here's a strategy for you.

Find an eHow article that's no longer accurate. Write a counter article with the correct information, contradicting that eHow article. Post this counter article on your blog... or sell it to your client if his or her "terms of use" permits such articles.

Once you get it posted, push it to your social networking site. Log onto facebook, go to that eHow article, and reply to that article with your rebuttal. Give enough information to discredit the whole article, or a good chunk of it.

What do these two strategies do?

They slowly wage war against Demand Studio's credibility over a long period of time. This is your chance to get back at them... while building on your own writing portfolio.

Letter to Demand Studios Editorial Team

Thanks for sending me the best message you've ever sent me.

You didn't need to say that you "regret" to let me know that I lost writing permissions. I didn't take that message as bad news, but as good news.

Why?

I stopped writing regularly for you guys back in early 2009. Since then, I wrote two articles for you. I wrote the first one in the fall of 2009. I wrote the second one in July 2011.

Your editors kicked both back, I subsequently abandoned both articles. I did so because of the history I had with you guys the last weeks I wrote for you.

After the first article abandonment, Demand Studios sent me a survey. You tried to gage why I wasn't writing for you guys. Though I was tempted, I didn't want to tell you guys what I really thought.

Lucky for me, your survey found me while I was combat deployed to Iraq.

All I had to say was that I was deployed, and that I didn't have time to write. That seemed to satisfy you guys. That was a legitimate excuse. I honest to God didn't have time to write for you guys.

But, it wasn't the main excuse, nor was it the only excuse.

What was my first reason?

Many of your Content Editors are incompetent when it comes to article subject and audience.

I say "incompetent," because many of your Content Editors didn't have working knowledge on the topic they were editing. Many also didn't understand the audience.

For instance, I wrote an article on moving household goods to a specific country. Your Content Editor requested that I provide specific, for that country, moving procedures.

My previous logistics experience, with the military, dictated that including those procedures was unnecessary. International moving companies take care of the "specifics." They provide guidance to their customers.

These "specifics" were also too broad for a simple "how to" article for eHow.com. They required articles of their own.

And, depending on new laws, or laws being repealed, those specifics could've poisoned the article's accuracy.

This is just one, of many, examples that lead me to give a reaction. This involved dropping my jaw, raising one eyebrow, and giving the "Huh?" reaction to their feedback.

Many of your content editors consistently failed to understand the target audience. For them, this was guesswork. This was something they did while working as staff editors.

Or, they relied on your reports on reader trends.

That's nothing like going to unedited "how to forums" on the internet, seeing what's highly rated, seeing what tone and structure works best, and seeing what the audience wants to see.

Consequently, your Content Editor's requests didn't meet the, "would this keep the reader up at night," litmus test.

That's just one example of audience research. Your software may get numbers and trends, but they won't capture human emotion. We're talking about the very thing that motivates people to read the article through.

You're not going to get that through guesswork, or by saying, "I think the audience would want this."

The audience doesn't care if you're trying to win the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. They don't care about your editorial contributions to the article. They care about getting information that'll enrich them, or help them solve a problem.

They want to receive it without the article talking down to them, or treating them like they're retarded.

They want to receive that information as if it were coming from a normal person... speaking with conversational English... not some point Dexter sounding like a library hermit.

Conversational English doesn't always lend itself to strict grammar rules. Your "quality and standards," don't allow for the normal rhythm and flow of conversational English.

What was my second reason?

Your content Editors are anonymous to the writers.

I've written content for publishers and marketers. I knew their names, and what they looked like. Their feedback, professionalism, and people skills are far superior than what I've received from your content editors.

Their feedback was both, professional and actionable. They treated me like an adult, and didn't talk down to me.

Now, there were some Demand Studios exceptions. I've received respect from three of your editors; Richard Lally, Soren Bowie, and the editor that responded to my survey comments. They presented their names to me.

Since CE's are anonymous, they could act in ways they wouldn't act in public. I'm not the only one that has had issues with the CE's abrasive attitudes.

There's a website that former and current Demand Studios Writers frequent. That website is chock full with writer complaints over CE behavior. This includes feedback delivery. These complaints are legitimate. I received better treatment from editors whose names I knew.

What was my third reason?

Many of your content editors don't do as they preach.

It's true that their comments won't be published. But, as Content Editors, they're in a leadership position. They have to lead by example.

Don't like the leadership concept?

Well, as the subject matter experts on formal writing, they need to lead by example. If they have issues with a writer's writing, they should express it with comments that follow proper grammar, structure and spelling.

I don't know about you. If someone is going to give me a grammar lecture, while writing like a D+ average 5th grader, I'm going to give him/her a grammar lecture. So will many other writers.

Here are some ways to lift moral among your writers.

* Assign CE's to subject areas or assign writers to CE's.

* Require CE's to have a profile, with their real name, accessible to the writers. This is important. Writers have the right to know who they're working with when they receive feedback.

* Remove the two strikes and you're out penalty with article kickbacks.

* Allow for a way that writers can evaluate their content editors. These ratings should be averaged, and have an impact on the CE. Assign rating levels to the CE, partly based on this feedback.

Good luck with your future operations... you'll need it.

The writers at the website that I referenced are just the tip of the iceberg. Most won't tell you about your shortcomings.

Many need your money. Angering you will risk that cash flow. Many hope that things will get better with you. They'll give you more chances, like I did.

My last two, sporadic, articles, was me giving you two more chances. With, or without, your "writing permissions removed" message, I would've never written another article for you.

If you guys continue on your trend, many of your writers will "slip into the foggy mist" and quit writing for you.

A happy writer is a productive writer. Your business depends on having a legion of writers producing your content for you. Without your writers, you'll have to produce your own content.

Since many of your Content Editors think they could write better, that probably wouldn't be a bad arrangement for you.

If your writers aren't happy, you're going to end up with a high turnover rate.

Best Regards,
/S/

P.S. Doesn't meet your standards of quality?

The more accurate term is, doesn't meet your subjective criteria.

Let's face it. Ehow.com has become the tabloid version of Wikipedia, holding as much credibility. Your recent Ehow.com articles leave plenty of room for improvement.

P.P.S. Please delete my Demand Studios Account. Thanks.