In an age where Upwork generates $150 million in revenue in writer costs, and the burgeoning of "Uber"-style platforms like ContentFly, it's becoming increasingly tougher to decide which way to skew your content hiring.

While platforms like ContentFly are becoming all the rage, its not necessarily a cut and dry decision - hiring traditionally is still a good idea, depending on the situation.

We'll go through some of the pros and cons in our (totally not biased) opinion, to help you make an informed decision.

Hiring In-House

Traditionally, if you wanted to get writing, you'd either hire someone full time, or get a contractor to work with you part time. Nonetheless, it's typically a longer-term engagement, so it's important to get it right.


- Good for in-depth, highly-specific content. If you have deeply domain/company specific content that requires a lot of context, it's better to hire and groom

- Domain authority. Companies that rely heavily on being a domain authority need a specific voice. If you look at the Intercom Blog for instance, they have a very specific brand voice that they need to maintain.

- Very high volumes. A full time, salaried writer is typically better for companies with immense scale - provided you have a writer willing to put out that much content (5+ a day) at a rate!


- Lack of variety. You're stuck with one writer, and one voice - there isn't an opportunity to get new ideas, and try new voices. Most top blogs have a team of writers, which is much harder to staff.

- Expense. Hiring dedicated writers is extremely expensive unless you're maximizing their time (see "Very high volumes"). For most people, a writer is only being productive 60-70% of the time - contracting makes you pay only for the hours you get work.

Hiring Copywriting Service

The new thing is on-demand copywriting services like ContentFly, or even engaging with large agencies that function in a similar way.


- Cheaper. On demand services use economies of scale to bring you the lowest prices - you won't have that when working directly with a copywriting, or hiring full time.

- More scaleable. On demand copywriting is a much better option for places that need to scale up their demand past a certain point - particularly agencies, who represent multiple clients.

- Variety. Whereas through the hiring route you might have 2 or 3 different writers writing for you at any given point, an on-demand service might have a dozen quality writers. The distribution of ideas and styles that bring is, in our experience, a huge plus.

- Future-proof. Styles change, and your needs change. Hiring a copywriter means you'll have that writer and their style the entire time. A copywriting service, on the other hand, will flex resources and adapt based on the times, so you always get the best quality.


- Trouble with high specificity. If you have highly domain specific content, or technical content, an on-demand service can be more hit or miss. It's probably still worth trying out since some usually have writers that fit the bill, but you'll probably have to engage a contractor independently.

- Engagement curve. With a writer that you hire, most of the work goes into the interviewing phase - once you're set on one, there usually isn't a huge adjustment period. With copywriting services, you typically need to go through at least 1 or 2 articles with revisions so they learn what you need and adapt the content distribution for you.

On balance, copywriting services are a better option for most people, however hiring in-house still has it's place. The first step is to take stock of your needs - many people put the cart before the horse and hire a writer before they know what they need.

Take some time to actually figure out what the hell you want to write about - seriously, it'll help!

If you need to engage an on-demand copywriting service, ContentFly isn't the only game in town. Companies like BlogMutt, TextBroker and Scripted have been serving these needs for a very long time, so you can consider them as well.

But, obviously... we're a lot better. 😉