The recent buyout of Associated Content by Yahoo! has generated a lot of controversy on the blogosphere. The majority of it has been regurgitation of arguments against content mills. As someone who has been relying on mills to help keep her afloat while expanding her portfolio and exploring new avenues for income generation, these allegations are frustrating at best and insulting at worst. As such, I'd like to take a moment to address some of these complaints.

This is one of the frequent complaints I hear about content mills. Usually, this argument is made in two veins. On one hand, people will argue that residual earnings will pay you pennies per article that may take months to accumulate. On the other hand, people will argue that the upfront pay sites are paying you a fraction of what they will make off of your content. Let's talk.

On the residuals note, you're right. It can take a long time to make money off of an article. You're also not making the full profit off of the advertisement posted along with your article. I have a couple of responses.

First, you may not be earning money fast enough on those articles because you aren't writing it properly. Online gurus will tell you that formatting your articles to be search engine friendly can get you more exposure, more views, and, consequently, more revenue.

Second, while you may have to wait to start seeing real results from your articles, make no mistake. You can earn a lot off of one article. Freelancing expert Felicia breaks this down routinely on her blog. As she points out, she's averaging over $30 of lifetime income on her residual earning articles per article. That's now. As time goes on, she'll make more per article, and she doesn't have to keep working to make that money keep coming. It may not seem like much, but if you write 3 articles a day for a year, that's over 32k of income in a year, every year that the articles receive traffic. It will only keep growing. Not a bad idea.

You're right. You aren't making ALL of the revenue you could, but this is in exchange for a whole lot of convenience. People new to writing or new to the web usually will not have the expertise needed to effectively market their material or the time it takes to do so. In these instances, residual earning sites take the hassle out of making money. Other options may be more profitable, but if you want convenience, you get what you pay for.

Now, on the issue of upfront pay, the complaints have a little bit of merit. A lot of people who sing the praises of residual earnings through content mills will defame upfront pay for the same types of sites. You're right- Demand Studios will probably make more money off of the lifetime of your upfront pay article than the $5, $7.50 or $15 they pay you. However, if you need cash in a hurry, it's not a bad deal. They pay twice a week, which is more than you can count on while free wheeling on your own. It's consistent work and income opportunities in a centralized location. For people who are writing part-time or just getting started, this is an awesome opportunity. I've said before that I can make a hundred a day working a few hours a day. That's a lot more than I can say for other starting positions in this economy.

What about arguments that say it's below minimum wage? Well, whether or not this has merit is dependent upon the writer in question. Personally, I make over $30 an hour. I'm ok with that for right now. When I'm more experienced, I'll want more, but I'm being paid well for the amount of experience I have at the moment. If it's taking you three hours to write a $15 How-to article, then you're probably not yet qualified for the position you're in. That will change with time, or maybe this job isn't for you. Only you can exploit yourself. On the residual earning's front, after five years of making $30 on an article that took you an hour to write, you're well above the minimum wage, friend.

If you don't like the pay schedule, don't do it. If you don't like working a sales gig that pays 100% on commission, don't do it. If you don't like working for a company that pays you once a month, don't do it. If you don't like a marketing job where you work 80 hours a week for $35 k a year, don't do it. It's a choice.

Every time I hear this, it's like nails on a chalkboard. Where's the data to support this claim? Because I'm telling you, I've searched high and low for some hard numbers, and all I've heard referenced are average pay rates.

Here's why those average pay rates are bunk as a form of proof. There are a lot (and I mean A LOT) of lower paying jobs available now. They far outnumber the amount of higher paying jobs. Average them all together, and you bet that the average is going to be closer to those lower paying jobs than the higher ones. It's going to make it look like the average pay for a freelancer has gone down over the years. Maybe that's right- but it doesn't mean that the AMOUNT of higher paying jobs has gone DOWN- only that the amount of lower paying jobs available has gone UP.

Those plum jobs are still out there. I read all the time about these beautifully paying jobs that these really experienced writers are getting. Fantastic. I couldn't be happier for them, really and truly. However, there are a lot of writers who have valuable things to contribute to our community who don't have the experience to demand that pay yet. Content mills give them a chance to see what works and what doesn't, build a portfolio and get to a point where they can demand higher pay. Is that what critics of content mills are really afraid of? More competition in the future?

You see a lot of fake diamonds out there, right? Look-a-likes that are really plastic or glass or some other stone. It doesn't mean that a real diamond, when you find it, has less value. It doesn't mean that there are less diamonds out there. It just means that you might have to sort through some fakes to get the real thing.

In addition, writing is a business. In any business, there are going to be people who offer lower quality, lower priced items or services and those who offer higher priced, specialized services. People are willing to shell out cash for both, depending on their needs. Sure, there are a lot of people who are willing to sell articles with less expertise for a lower amount, but there are still clients who want a piece with punch and are willing to pay.

Let's say I publish my own book. It's utter horse manure. I may sell some copies, but sitting on a shelf next to Moby Dick, yeah, my book shows for exactly what it is. Same thing here.

There is crap coming out of content mills. Crap smells. You notice it. What you may not notice is the high quality content produced by other writers. To write off (excuse the pun) these quality articles because of other things being published is discriminatory and baseless. As I said before, the newbies writing here probably have a lot of potential, and gigs with content mills can help them explore that.

It can be infuriating to see sites that claim to be there to help new writers lambasting those who are just trying to make it by. Accepting money for your work doesn't make you a bad writer or a bad person. It makes you employed. Comments like that don't help new writers- it discourages them from branching out.

Really? You so sure about that? How about the mom with five kids, lots of insight, no formal training, who has been absent from the workforce for 10 years? How about the college kid with tons of knowledge on accounting but no time for heavy lifting due to their school schedule? Or how about the person trying to earn a couple of extra bucks with their writing ability and just isn't interested in doing things the "right" way?

You're right. You can make money the right way. It takes time, and dedication, but most of all, resources. If you send out a hundred queries in a week and land one gig that pays $200, it probably won't be enough. Sure, with enough time and effort, landing those gigs will get easier. Sure, you might capture some repeat customers. In the meantime, there are bills to pay and obligations to be met.

I'm not discouraging people from self-promotion or demanding better pay. I'm getting there myself. What I am saying is that there is no shame in working for content mills in the meantime. And I'm sick of people acting like it's a scarlet letter.

It's fair because it's a business. Writing is a business. This writing platform company just made a business decision. I've heard people complaining about how writers aren't getting a payout from that $100 million. I'm sorry, when company X buys out company Y, do the CEO's cut the mail clerk a check? No. Moreover, the majority of people writing for Associated Content are FREELANCING. This means you are NOT an employee. If I have a company, and twenty years down the road, I sell it, I wouldn't pay the person I contracted out to paint my offices afterward.

Now, if Associated Content's already published material doesn't get paid for, that sucks. However, it won't be unique. In corporate buyouts today, people have contracts rendered useless and get laid off. It's an unfortunate component of capitalism.

We don't yet know what the results of the Yahoo! buyout will be. Fear mongering bloggers may be right. Associated Content writers may get screwed. Until, and even if they do, content mills shouldn't be vilified.