For what it’s worth, I can name a few bloggers that I read on a regular basis. I don’t know a single name of any writer from The Chronicle which I’ve read for years.

The thing that annoys me is that online writers have to write much faster, because they get paid far less for their work.

So it’s tough to compete with the quality of some of the stuff you see in glossy magazines. Some of those writers can afford to spend a week writing 1000 words.

That said, I don’t know how anyone can make a living writing exclusively for offline publications anyway. You would die of starvation waiting to get paid.

A few years ago, I wrote some fillers for a weekly magazine. Almost a year later, I received a cheque – I didn’t get an acceptance letter or anything. And I never got to know what date they were actually published.

Of course, in traditional print there are people who can do that for you, once you’re famous

I suppose that’s true online too, or it is getting that way (people re-tweeting you and so on).

As you said, you have to do a *lot* of work when you’re starting out, or no one will notice you.

Some of the best writing I’ve seen, has been out here.

Some of the worst… in traditional print.

‘Nuff said.

The stigma is here and I doubt it will disappear soon. The whole idea about this post is to make people aware that there is a host of online talent that matches published (in print) authors. So why are many clients only prepared to pay a pittance for a freelance writer’s work? See, this is not ending right here… it forms the basis of the general conception that online freelance writers don’t deserve the accolades, pay rate… etc. of offline ones simply for the fact that THEY are not famous. It’s crap.

For the same quality of work I do, I can fetch several hundred dollars offline while fetching less than $50 for an online client. It’s madness.

Thanks for stopping by.

I don’t know. But what I do know is that offline writing does carry more weight with most members of the non-writing public. Why? You tell me.