Writers

On that point at least I'd have no argument. A syndication quality article isn't worth much to someone who doesn't know how to use it. It'd be a lot like:

Jumps right in. "People wanna listen to you Joe, don't screw it up!"

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes "penning a good story" isn't a good way to get the message across (and definitely not to get it spread). You're correctly pointing out that there is literally no vanilla way for a syndication article to be written. It's very situational.

Right, which is why I agreed with your point in the above post. The buyer has to know what they are going to do with it, or pay the writer even more to be a consult and have them find potential spots for them. That's my reasoning above for the different price ranges. A syndication writer shouldn't have a problem knowing where their work will go in most cases.

Each syndicated article doesn't have to go out to each outlet either. Let's take the Disney niche: I write an article talking about the three best desserts in Magic Kingdom. General sites will take it. Restaurant focused sites will take them. Sites focused on rides, future developments, the conservation program? Probably not going to take it. You don't have to write for everyone all the time.

See above. That's why you don't publish everything everywhere. As I've been saying lately (verify through my post history), this is an area where syndicators are at fault. We make this thing seem easier than it actually is. People follow the four basic steps that get mentioned (1. Your site 2. Syndicate 3. EZA 4. Rinse/Repeat) and think that's it. Then they fail miserably and suddenly the method is invalid. The method isn't, the teaching is. I'll be the first to admit fault in that, but it does not take away from the fact that this stuff works.

Testing. Vanilla answer, but that's how it is. It's a much higher stakes game, but it is what it is. As you recommend, it's probably best for a beginner to play in the shallow end first. When they want to get serious though, it will cost the big bucks.

Yep, you're very right. You aren't just hiring a great writer: you're hiring a great marketer as well. That's why they're more expensive, and like I said they are less likely to be for hire at all. Why do that work for someone else when you can do it for yourself?

Haven't seen anyone say otherwise, although I could just be missing it.

I didn't see us say that in the thread either.

Interesting to ponder.

In this thread, at least, the focus was on writers hired to write. Once the article is written, delivered and accepted, it's up to the buyer to place the article.

Beyond that, there is some distribution that can't be controlled, especially if one chooses to place content on directories and other content sharing sites.

If you are going to put the responsibility for creating a call to action, finding syndication outlets and making contact, you're no longer hiring a writer. You're outsourcing your entire content marketing process, which is going to cost you a lot more than a good writer will.

"Desired action" was a precise choice of words. From a marketing perspective, if the intent is to generate targeted visitors, then an article which generates targeted visitors who go on to subscribe, or take some other desired action, is by definition a "quality article". It may not be great literature, but it's made two sales - a publisher has judged it to be valuable enough to his audience to publish, and a reader has judged it to be valuable enough to desire more and take action to get it.