Monday, August 31, 2009
Pay Day?
As I now find myself increasingly stepping between the blogging and print worlds, I suppose it was only a matter of time until I waded into the 'writing for free' debate. Prolific Sydney writer Rachel Hills recently posted her thoughts, as part of a broader question posed at Meanjin. I encourage you to read the Meanjin article as well as the comments, but before I add my 2 cents, I've got to share this:
Now, suitably worked up, you may fancy taking a look at Michelle Haimhoff's proposal for paying Huffington Post bloggers.
So where do I stand? Somewhere in the middle methinks. Like any industry that encourages work experience or internships, I can understand the need to cut your teeth, learn the ropes (insert more metaphors here). Plus there is certainly a 'currency' in having certain publications on your CV, and using the exposure to expand your horizons. In these cases, I feel a writer earns something for writing for free. However, where I find fault is the prevailing presumption that a writer will work for nix.
As is mentioned so effusively by Mr. Ellison as well as in many of the comments at Meanjin and Haimhoff's piece, no-one else works on the assumption that they won't get paid! So why should writers? It's a service and most definitely a skill, and while the proliferation of blogging has muddied the waters (or perhaps just saturated them), surely print and established online publications should pay their contributors?
A number of comments on both sites mention how 'embarrassingly low' the pay would be, if certain publications were to start paying contributors. I've actually had this (excuse the pun) priceless reason cited to me. I guess my answer is, let's start with embarrassingly low and work our way up from there.
One HuffPost commentator suggests $250 a month is tantamount to working for free, but surely it's a start? Better than nothing? The point is - embarrassingly low or no - editors and writers should be working to the assumption that contributions are paid for. Not getting paid should be the exception, rather than the rule.
And no doubt there will always be a steady stream of newbie writers (myself included) who are willing to make the contacts and build the experience by writing for free. But my (perhaps rather naive) hope is that this is done in dialogue with editors, where payment - meager though it may be - is always up for discussion.
Here endeth the rant. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting musings, Ali.
I tend to think that there should be no difference between writing and any other job: no one expects a graduate lawyer to 'cut their teeth' at a law firm for free.
The difference is, of course, the way we've come to value arts vs. more vocational instances of work. Or rather, the way 'society' values them. If we can't afford to pay all the writers: we don't!
I think the answer perhaps lies in negotiating how online content should/can be managed. There is a need to have high quality, investigative journalism which isn't just a blog post (no offense intended to us!): long term research is exactly that, and doesn't often offer up the goods quickly.
I think the nytimes.com is going to opt for a subscriber model for their online content soon - will be interesting to see what happens.
In the meantime, and as someone who has completed two unpaid internships over six months full-time, sometimes you have to take what's on the offing. xx
I think you're spot on about the value society puts on arts - and, by extension I suppose, the marketplace. And I agree it will be very interesting to see if/how the big news outlets start charging for online content.
I guess until that huge paradigm shift occurs, I won't be screaming "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" any time soon.
Post a Comment