Content Runner Review

URL: www.contentrunner.com


Content Runner could be grouped among the "content mills", but I'm not sure that term is fair in this case as clients can set their own prices and the site does encourage them to pay rates that are still lower-end, but fair for easy work and/or inexperienced writers. You'll certainly see clients grubbing around trying to pay exploitative content mill rates, but you'll also see clients paying fair rates at times too.

This particular platform has two components; a standard "general pool" that registered writers can grab assignments from on a first-come first-served basis, and the ability to create a profile page and pitch clients directly at a per-word rate that you select (clients can then send direct orders or form their own private assignment pools for a select group of their favorite writers).

NATURE OF WORK AND PAYMENT

As far as the jobs that anyone can claim go, they're posted on a centralized board, and you can get email notifications when new jobs pop up. Clients set the rate they are willing to pay and the min / max word counts as well as a deadline of their choosing. One unique quality is that the deadline time period begins when the writer accepts the assignment rather than when the job is posted, so clients will choose "X" number of days from job acceptance as their deadline.

Payment is exclusively through Paypal. Writers can cash out at any time, but automatic weekly cashouts won't occur unless you have more than $30 in payments in your account. Content Runner charges a variable fee of 7% to 15% on each job, but it's assessed at the client end so it's effectively invisible to the writer -- the posted rate for each job is the full amount you end up getting once the client accepts the work.

SITE HISTORY / LEGITIMACY

Content Runner appears to have been in business since late 2013. I have personally had an account with them since late 2014 and have experienced no issues with late or missing payments for sporadic work dating from then to about mid-2016. In as far as I have seen they are a completely legitimate operation based in the United States. They appear to be headquartered in Seattle and co-founder Chad Fisher appears to be their primary public face.

INTERNATIONAL ACCESS

Content Runner does require writers to be citizens of the United States and will ask you to submit proof (in the form of tax information and possibly a driver's license scan) before you can cash out any payments.

STARTING OUT

Content Runner is a bit unique in that they don't do a screening test or require a writing sample; you just sign up and then demonstrate your worth by grabbing assignments and creating your profile.

You'll have an ongoing "star rating" which is based entirely on how clients rate your work. Content Runner does not edit the work you send to them. Clients may choose to filter writers who are below a certain star level, and I've heard from a couple of other people who write there that most clients filter below four stars, so it can be tough to get initial work to start out.

PROBLEMS WITH CONTENT RUNNER

None of significance to report thus far, although to be fair my sample body of work there is also small.

FINAL VERDICT - SOME POTENTIAL 

I'm much more anti-content-mill then I was when I first started this blog, but Content Runner is one of the very few I don't mind and will keep an account open with; I like that they allow clients to name their own price and develop ongoing relationships with writers rather than locking them into industry-bottom rates. The only serious issue is that they almost never have any work! And unfortunately, when articles do appear in the general pool, more than 50% of the time it's someone looking to pay bottom-of-the-barrel prices in line with the bottom-feeder agencies like iWriter and Textbroker.

There is the ability to maintain a profile and pitch clients, of course, but if you already maintain a website and/or LinkedIn presence that seems redundant and not to your advantage. Why get their fees involved when you can do the same thing independently (and have more flexibility in negotiating usage terms?)

I give it the "some potential" rating solely due to the seeming lack of regular work at fair pay; were that to ramp up consistently this would easily be a recommendation, as everything else about it seems to work quite well.