Exclusive Rights Articles

Every single day, we reject private label rights articles by the dozens.

One of the authors we rejected his PLR content said:

“That article was part of an exclusive montly membership i belong to. I did change the article around some and added more content to it. The article is almost twice as large as the original one. I guess this comes down to how much does an exlcusive rights article have to be changed before it is alowed into your article directory.”

Answer: Your article must be 100% original. Not 99%, not 95%, not 90%, not 60%, not 50%, not 35%, but rather 100% original including the fact that you own 100% of the exclusive rights to the content.

Recommendation: Stop joining these PLR clubs because you are throwing your money away if you intended to join them to send content to us. We don’t want PLR articles and will do everything in our power to reject them.


Denise O'Berry writes:

You know Chris, I’m glad you take this approach. I see so many people wasting so much time and energy trying to make PLR articles different. If they’d just step back and see how much time and energy they are wasting (money too!), they’d realize a better approach is creating completely original articles.

You might be interested in a post I wrote on this very same topic. You can find “PLR Content and Your Website — The Wrong Focus at http://www.allbusiness.com/blog/JustForSmallBusiness/3357/004541.html

Keep up the great work! I’m thankful for all that you and your team do.

Comment provided March 14, 2006 at 7:16 PM


Chris Yates writes:

I absolutely agree with your policy Chris. Why would anyone want to re-publish an article that’s been published before? It’s not good business for the directory owners or for people looking for articles.

Comment provided March 15, 2006 at 3:03 PM


Dave Thomas writes:

I agree with your approach entirely, Chris. However, I am currently in the position of having a suspended account, because somebody has copied one of my articles word-for-word without my attribution on a website (not the first time it’s happened, I might add) and one of your reviewers thinks that I purchased the article.

I didn’t. I wrote the article, fair and square. I don’t like what amounts to being treated like a criminal because somebody else has resorted to foul tactics. It appeared to me that the website in question used black-hat SEO tactics. If they’re prepared to do this then I’m sure they wouldn’t think twice about content scraping, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve put other articles on their site from EzineArticles without the attribution.

I have no way of proving that I wrote the article, so I don’t know whether I’ll get my account back yet.

Comment provided March 20, 2006 at 6:36 PM



Hi Dave,

I also responded to you via email, but we took a look at your case and have reinstated your account. Each suspension is handled on a case by case basis and the info you supplied to us in your email, and this blog comment, was enough for reinstatement. Thanks!

Comment provided March 21, 2006 at 8:21 AM


Dave Thomas writes:

Wally, many thanks for reinstating my account! I hope to supply you with many more articles in the future.

Comment provided March 21, 2006 at 10:16 AM


Tim writes:

This is a much needed step towards stifling the flow of private label articles. I applaud your efforts in this area.

Writing new original content isn’t that hard if you take the time to develop a few points to talk about.

All private label articles do is hurt the honest site owners who put in the time, sacrifice and effort to produce quality content for the benefit of their visitors.

Keep up the good work.

Comment provided March 22, 2006 at 11:39 AM


Jennifer Thieme writes:

Am I the only one wondering why somebody would write to an editor with simple spelling and capitalization mistakes in their email? I know this isn’t the subject of the blog, but I’d be inclined to reject the person on that basis alone. If the small things like spelling and capitalization don’t matter, the larger things, like real content, probably won’t either.

Comment provided March 29, 2006 at 11:08 PM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.