Am I Off Base?

[THMeeks]

I just read this week's articles at WritersWeekly which totally blast anyone writing for "click for pay sites." Here's my response, which I sent to the editor today.... am I out of line? Comments? Even in the days when Epinions paid well (before my time), did anyone think they were on their way to buying a Lexus with their check???
___

After reading through this week's articles, I had to respond. The demonization of all unmoderated (or "Click for Pay") web sites, as well as those who write for them, went a little overboard, in my opinion.

If unpaid work is such a negative, then what about the many literary magazines that offer nothing but contributor's copies? These markets are often held up as places for new writers to break in. Without clips, you don't get taken seriously. Without a willingness to work for nothing more than clips, you often don't get clips. One of my best pieces was done for a local newspaper - a clip I often use - and I received not one cent for it. Eschewing non-paying markets, at least in the beginning stages of a writing career, goes against every bit of writing advice I've heard. The Well-Fed Writer, a very popular book that I've seen linked on your site, advocates doing pro bono work for local charity groups in order to build up samples. I also notice that self-published books are thriving in today's marketplace, which amounts to paying to get work published - a move that used to be considered the kiss of death to an aspiring writer. Now it's considered an acceptable way to get your name out, although with no guarantee of monetary profit.

Your web site does list many paying markets and jobs. I check them every week. I primarily write short stories and essays, though, so it's unusual to find suitable markets in your listing for my work. Take, for instance, this week: I really have nothing to contribute to a publication for emergency services personnel, I know no agricultural people worthy of profile, I am not a teacher or librarian, and I'm not sure that I'm qualified to tackle workplace learning subjects. When I check the job listings, they are usually requesting someone with a degree and/or several years of full-time freelance experience, of which I have neither.

Both your article and author of the article about Themestream characterize writers who contribute to these web sites as poor writers, or even as egomaniacal jerks who are forced to resort to such low forms of self-publishing. Is there ghastly content on these sites? Absolutely. Is there ghastly content in paying markets? I think we can all name several examples of work that should never have been published, for any price.

I enjoy the site I frequent - Epinions.com - as a sort of on-line writer's group. I never thought I would enjoy some huge windfall from the reviews I contribute. Writers expecting to rake in big dollars from these types of sites have unrealistic expectations. I'm able to see the work of the people offering opinions about my work, which is a way for me to judge the reliability of their opinions. This stands in sharp contrast to the canned responses from faceless editors or their assistants. I'm also able to post a link from my web page to this site to offer writing samples. Do I think an editor will cast me aside as some sort of weak-brained idiot for posting this link? I would hope that a potential buyer of my work would judge me more on the quality of my writing than on my participation in what amounts to an online writer's board.

As far as the lower pay being offered to writers in general, I think blaming the writers contributing to these sites overlooks several factors. We are in an economic downturn. The on-going obliteration of smaller presses by corporate giants limits the higher paying jobs to those with the best credentials. With the exception of the highest paying jobs, our economy has witnessed a loss (as adjusted for inflation and such) in many wages, not just those for writers. Besides the "click for pay" sites, you also have several "bid for jobs" sites that offer dismally low wages for work.

Personally, I resent being labeled a problem for doing nothing more than participating in an engaging writer's group - because that's really all these sites are - because some people thought this was their ticket to get rich quick. Far from being some frustrated hobbyist, I am a freelance writer working very hard to build up a portfolio. And yes, I frequently work for pay.

I think a more balanced view on this subject might include some information about the proper way to use these sites as opposed to bashing them so vigorously. As writers, we can find all sorts of non-paying distractions, from journal writing to doing the laundry. I don't see any of those activities lambasted. If people can find a site with some worthwhile writing and treat it as a writer's group - not spent 30 or 40 hours a week there - then they might reap some benefits. Anyone who limits his efforts to one particular market - no matter what the market - is making a serious mistake, unless he's on the staff.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

THMeeks, I thought that was a very good letter. People write for different reasons, all of them valid, and Angela at WritersWeekly doesn't take that into account.

But that said ... I think there is a danger that writers can underestimate the potential commercial value of their work. I'm in a situation now -- I don't want to go into the details publicly because ... well, because I'm paranoid, and also because I'm still figuring out what, if anything, I'm going to do -- but I'm in a situation where something I sold for a very small sum (and a lot of egoboo!) years ago just appeared in a publication which I'm pretty sure pays in the thousands. I got no credit in the publication. I got another teeny tiny little check from the person who sold it. The copyright situation is ambiguous, but I think I may be screwed as far as that goes.

I'm not sure what conclusions I'm drawing here, as far as analogies to Epinions, except to say that it's easy to be manipulated by egoboo, and I think that's something to be aware of.

I guess what makes it complicated and not so clear cut (and why I don't agree completely with Angela at WritersWeekly), is that a lot of online writing traditionally has been done for free. What I'm doing right at this very second -- writing on a board -- has always been done for free. Epinions to me is similar. I never thought that anything I had done there had any commercial value, so it wasn't a big issue that I was writing for a few dollars (later a few pennies, now nothing). But then imagine how I would feel if it turned out, unlikely as it seems, that something I did there did have commercial value, if Epinions sold it for a ton of money and gave me almost nothing. Not that I think that would ever happen ... just saying what would it feel like if it did.

The thing is, it's easy to be overly self-effacing, to think, oh nothing I do could possibly be worth much money, but you never know. I was surprised that the thing that I did (that I'm too paranoid to say what it was) ended up where it did (ditto on too paranoid to say where that was). And I was suprised how angry I was.

Again, not sure how well this relates to Epinions, where I do intend to still post some notes on books and maybe some other things now and then. I guess the main conclusions I'm drawing are: (1) Trust your instincts on how scrupulous the people or organization you're giving stuff to are -- are they the sort of people who will screw you if they get the opportunity? Have they screwed anyone in the past? If so, don't even imagine for a second they will treat you any better. (2) Manage egoboo. It's a wonderful feeling but the downside is that people know that it's a wonderful feeling and can use that to profit at your expense. Let your head swell, but don't lose it altogether!

I guess these are really just notes to myself, but I think most of it could apply to online writing and freelance work in general.

[THMeeks]

The thing is, it's easy to be overly self-effacing, to think, oh nothing I do could possibly be worth much money, but you never know. I was surprised that the thing that I did (that I'm too paranoid to say what it was) ended up where it did (ditto on too paranoid to say where that was). And I was suprised how angry I was.

You have a very good point here, and I think one of things that set me off so about the WW articles was that constructive comments and angles - yours, for instance - were totally ignored in favor of all-out bashing.

Just today I recorded a spot for a local radio show for a miserably small amount of money & had to sign a release stating that they could use it elsewhere, with no more monetary compensation. The thought crossed my mind that "Hey, that just doesn't seem right!" But I do get at least tens of people listening to me!

Terrisa

[kurt_messick]

A great letter.

Of course, on one issue being discussed there is the flip-side -- for every humble good writer, there are probably half a dozen egotistical bad writers who think they should be paid thousands for their work. I don't envy the editors who have to wade through that kind of stuff.

I'm glad you wrote this.

I still mourn the loss of my award-winning short story on Themestream -- I've not been able to locate a copy.

[realtraveller]

Excellent letter, Terrisa.

I, too, subscribe to Writer's Weekly and read Angela's editorial. Angela's best point was that as long as writer's are willing to "give it away for free" pay for writer's will never go up. The best evidence is the NWU study that found that pay for writers was less than it was in the 1960's. Unfortunately, since no special credentials are required to be a writer, no bar exams, no medical license equivalent, it's a market that is glutted with contenders competing with each other. Naturally this drives the price of everyone's work down. It's the immutable law of supply and demand and there's not a thing that can be done about it.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
It's the immutable law of supply and demand and there's not a thing that can be done about it.

I would say not necessarily immutable. There are pockets where things have been done. Look at screenwriters -- they have their Writers Guild, and I think they have minimum scale payments that they work for -- they do have a lot of protection. Or look at the music business. I'm not that familiar with it, and I think it probably still is corrupt, but I do think it's better than it used to be. Record companies used to be a lot more egregious (my word for the day ) in the way they would steal songs or buy them for a ridiculous pittance, with the most notorious example being the way that the early blues songwriters were taken advantage of.

But I do think that Angela at WritersWeekly is tilting at windmills. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who write for even the remaining pay-per-click sites -- not to mention the millions of people who write elsewhere for free -- and she's not going to be able to put a dent in that by bitching about it in her newsletter.

And she is overlooking all the many valid reasons people write for low or no pay. It is valid to write to express yourself, or to make sense out of your experience, or to share feelings or information, or to get feedback or egoboo, or to hone an art or a craft.

The problem, as I see it, is the clash between creative and commercial people. Someone who is caught up in the creative process is getting real rewards -- I've talked about this before in terms of egoboo, but there's actually more to it than that -- and may be inclined to put money at the bottom of the list of things they're after, or keep it off the list entirely, sometimes even thinking that money corrupts the process. Which is fine, except ... when you get someone who is after money, the pool of creative people can look like a bunch of suckers -- a tempting target. This money-oriented person may think, aha! look at all these people doing stuff that I can sell and they don't care about the money so I can pay them as little as I want. What a deal!

There's nothing wrong with being creative, but everybody needs money. The question is how do we keep from being exploited?

P.S. I'm not applying this to Epinions in particular because I don't think they're actually making much money, so I don't think they are necessarily ripping us off. But it's so common elsewhere ...

[THMeeks]

Thank you all for your support - although I heeded my own advice and waited until I was over being angry before writing my reply, I was still a little concerned that I might have gone too far.

As far as diminishing wages, in addition to all the factors mentioned above, I think we have to keep in mind that wages across the board - not just for writers, but for pretty much everyone - seem to have seen a decline. At least that's what I've been reading. Many attribute it to the death of labor unions and the rise of corporations, but of course all that's another topic. And as for the whole issue of whether or not to do any work for free, my mom pointed out to me that almost any branch of the arts - writers, painters, etc. - seems to demand a certain amount of "dues paying" at miserly (or no) pay before you can progress.

Kurt, that stinks that your short story has been lost! I ran Themestream through a search engine not too long ago and it seems to me that it returned with a message about archived material being available.

Terrisa

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by THMeeks
And as for the whole issue of whether or not to do any work for free, my mom pointed out to me that almost any branch of the arts - writers, painters, etc. - seems to demand a certain amount of "dues paying" at miserly (or no) pay before you can progress.

There's nothing wrong with paying dues. It does become a big problem, though if you've already paid your dues, and your work has already become accepted and commercially viable, and (per my rantings elsewhere), you're still being given miserly (or no) pay -- that is, when there is money being made from your work, but you're not the one who is getting it.

P.S. Another thing about what Angela wrote: I think she was factually wrong when she said that people never get "discovered" by writing for little or no pay. One major exception that I'm aware of is the little literary magazines -- you know, "The University of Whatever Review" -- which may pay little or nothing, have circulations of only a few thousand, but they are read by agents, editors, and by the compilers of "The Best Stories/Essays/Whatever of the Year" books. People have jump-started writing careers through these magazines. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.

[THMeeks]

Isn't it a sad commentary, AuntieEmma, that, unless you're Stephen King, so many of us seem to be battling tiny returns on our time, experience, and creativity? Take, for instance, the paltry payout that screenwriters get when you compare the salary they receive to the money paid anyone else involved in a film.... it seems that, as a lot, we are not valued nearly as much as we should be.

There was a very good article in Writer's Digest about the bid-for-work web sites that have sprung up, which I consider to be a cousin to the "click for pay" sites discussed in WritersWeekly. The WD article had very balanced coverage and concluded that while these types of sites might offer some clips to inexpereinced writers, they were a waste of time and talent for those already viable in the marketplace

And you are right on target about literary mags, a point which came to mind right away when I read her article. While not a non-paying success story, witness Melissa Banks' A Girls Guide To Hunting and Fishing which initially appeared in Zoetrope .

And then we have writers like Peter Bowerman, author of The Well-Fed Writer , who claims that you can comfortably write for a living if you forget about articles, short stories, and the like and just turn your sights to business writing. His book cover advertises "Financial self-sufficiency as a freelance writer in six months or less." I put his book down when I got to the part about him sending out 700 proposals to local businesses. Maybe when I have a really big account at Kinkos.

!sigh Maybe I should have stayed at that insance corporate blood-sucking job after all.

Terrisa

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Thanks for the tip about the bid-for-work sites. I had received an email about them and took a quick look at a few and thought they looked interesting, and then I went and posted the email here. Maybe I should attach a warning?

I did read that the founder of Elance had been indicted for securities fraud, for whatever that's worth.

Originally posted by THMeeks
And then we have writers like Peter Bowerman, author of The Well-Fed Writer , who claims that you can comfortably write for a living if you forget about articles, short stories, and the like and just turn your sights to business writing. His book cover advertises "Financial self-sufficiency as a freelance writer in six months or less." I put his book down when I got to the part about him sending out 700 proposals to local businesses. Maybe when I have a really big account at Kinkos.

It seems to me that writing articles or stories and writing corporate reports or press releases is apples and oranges. Someone who enjoys writing stories may or may not enjoy writing press releases -- just as they may or may not enjoy anchovies on their pizza. I don't think there's much relationship between the two kinds of writing, beyond the fact that they both happen to involve words. A story writer looking for a day job might find something completely unrelated to writing to be more appealing.

[realtraveller]

There was a recent article in the Times on the deflation in the amount paid to writers for sitcoms and other TV shows. They are still well paid but took a serious cut. It's the economy stupid. With advertisers paying less, there is less for everyone.

I read somewhere that the average novel that is published only makes back the typical advance--about $3,000. Can that be right? Hardly makes the exercise of spending years of your life working on it worthwhile.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
I read somewhere that the average novel that is published only makes back the typical advance--about $3,000. Can that be right?

I don't know, but ouch!

This writing stuff really is a crap shoot, isn't it? A few people making lots of money, a lot of people making very little money.

BTW, I thought of one more thing, kind of a big thing, that I disagree with Angela about -- when she says that people who write for the pay-for-clicks are driving down the income for other writers. I don't think that's true, especially not at Epinions, because I don't think there's direct competition between the pay-for-clickers and writers elsewhere.

Someone could write a straightforward toaster review at Epinions -- "Two weeks after I bought the toaster, it started throwing off sparks and then it burst into flames" -- and they'll get a few pennies, at most, for it. But that doesn't mean they are driving down the prices paid to magazine writers who write similar personal experience reviews of appliances, simply because I don't think there are or ever were any magazines that ran that kind of stuff. It doesn't mean the review is worthless -- I think it is providing a service -- but that kind of thing just doesn't work in print, and nobody has been able to make a profit, at least yet, by running it online. So I wouldn't look at writing that kind of a review for Epinions as being ripped-off -- I would look at it as a little gift to the toaster-buyers of the world.

It's a more difficult question when you look at the types of things on Epinions that *do* have some commercial value elsewhere, say movie reviews. Problem is, film reviewing is notoriously hard to break into. At least at the major newspapers and magazines (the only places which will pay well), people who get reviewer slots tend to hang onto them until they die. And *their* salaries haven't gone down just because millions of people are writing movie reviews on places like Epinions or on their own personal web sites for little or, usually, nothing.

Where I do think Angela may be right is when you think of things like the alternative weekly newspapers. These pay very poorly (well, the pay is great compared to Epinions, but it's terrible compared to what a major daily newspaper pays, and I think that's the better comparison), and they have traditionally been seen as places for people to break in, where young writers will stay for a few years and then move on. One problem is that some people *don't* move on -- they stay there for many years, sometimes decades, and the pay is really bad.

What makes this unfair in my opinion -- even for writers who are just using it as a stepping-stone to other things -- is that the alternative weeklies are *very* profitable -- their profit margin is actually higher than that of the major daily newspapers. That's a bit counterintuitive, because the weeklies are given away for free, but they have huge circulations and they run a lot of ads, including ads from people that the dailies won't touch. And that doesn't get passed down to the writers. Even more ironic, the newspapers will bitterly fight any attempt among the writers to unionize -- and this is from papers that are always congratulating themselves in print on their far-lefty credentials, on how they stand up for the workers versus the big evil corporations.

So I think *those* writers are being ripped-off, and I think Angela's point does apply there -- because there are so many people eager to break in and get bylines, the owners of the weeklies can get away with paying really unfair rates. If everyone there dug in their heels and refused to take less than a decent living wage, as they would in Angela's imaginary universe, the papers would have to pay more -- and, unlike at Epinions, I they could afford to do so.

I tend to think the answer does lie in writers organizing and unionizing. Writers at the major dailies often are unionized, and they make a decent salary and benefits.

[peresonal rant deleted]

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I think I have to amend what I just said about the alternative weeklies -- it looks as if even they aren't doing very well these days. I just read that one of the weeklies fired their most popular (and highest-paid) columnist who had been at the paper for seventeen years. The publisher said it was because of the downturn in advertising. I dunno. There's something a little weird here -- it was all very abrupt -- and they're playing it out in public, so maybe I'll be able to get more info later. But taking it at face value, it's another example of how the recession is hurting writers.

[THMeeks]

I got a reply back from Angela at WritersWeekly and it was pretty much what I expected.... although very courteous, she maintains her position that "click-for-pay" is an evil, offensive way to sucker unsuspecting writers into sites that promise them great riches and rewards, only to use their contributions to gain money for themselves at the expense of the innocent writers. And though I know the recent IS system in opertion at Epinions would seem to prove her case, I still maintain that there is value to the Epinions site aside from raking in big bucks.

I, of course, replied to her reply -- poor woman -- and mentioned that I felt the warnings needed to be directed more to established, professional writers who would not be seeing an appropriate return for their level of work. As Auntie Emma pointed out, those who have already paid their dues should not be continually working for peanuts.

One of the things she didn't comment on was my defense of writers at Epinions as being good writers, not a bunch of incompetents with fat heads (which was what the original article seemed to say).... so I mentioned it again. While not Joyce Carol Oats, I do feel I do a competent job, and the writers I regularly read at Epinions do good work that should not be maligned simply because of where it appears.

OK, stepping down off the soap box now.

Terrisa

[THMeeks]

It seems to me that writing articles or stories and writing corporate reports or press releases is apples and oranges. Someone who enjoys writing stories may or may not enjoy writing press releases -- just as they may or may not enjoy anchovies on their pizza. I don't think there's much relationship between the two kinds of writing, beyond the fact that they both happen to involve words. A story writer looking for a day job might find something completely unrelated to writing to be more appealing. --AuntieEmma

I spent almost 20 years writing corporate drivel in the standard bureaucratic style dictated by where I worked - a police department - and so was very disappointed when I got Bowerman's book. It absolutely is apples and oranges, and I wish the marketing for this book would have been clearer about the specific type of writing it addresses. I have taken on some editing and advertising work that pays OK, but it's a far cry from my true loves of essays and short stories (which naturally pay next to nothing). I am very selective about the type of work I take on in this area because I don't want to wind up spending time on the same sort of stuff that made me pull my hair out at my former job: "Why yes, Terrisa, your work on the proposal to examine the viability of an altered work week is very good, but could you expand it to include an overview of the past five year's sick leave patterns? And can we also cross-reference that with a chart on the level of training and the net availability of fully trained personnel vs. partially trained people during peak hours? And can we have it tomorrow?" It makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

Terrisa

[hadassahchana[$]]

she maintains her position that "click-for-pay" is an evil, offensive way to sucker unsuspecting writers into sites that promise them great riches and rewards, only to use their contributions to gain money for themselves at the expense of the innocent writers

There isn't a smilie available which shows just how far my eyes are rolling back right now, Terrisa. Because of the evil, bloodsucking Epinions site, which I joined for a laugh, I have had people contact me regarding writing jobs- now how is that taking advantage of me? I have had offers to buy some of my book reviews (by some obviously very desperate people) and one man even offered me a twice-monthly book review column, which I stupidly turned down. Therefore, I would love to hear her explanation of just exactly how that kind of free exposure has damaged my career and earning potential. Before, it never occurred to me that anyone else would want to see the stuff I had been writing for years,and now I'm even trying to get really chutzpadik and mail off some of my stuff to see how it will do in the real world. I think that although sites like Epinions are not for those who want to make serious money, there are lots of other benefits which are at best difficult to come by in the real world of publishing.


Cindy

[THMeeks]

Cindy, I love that! It certainly flies in the face of everything in the WW articles. I really had to exercise a great deal of self-restraint when I composed my reply - I kept reminding myself that I'm a professional, darn it - because I get the impression that no matter what sort of information received to the contrary, she's got her story and she's sticking to it. Oh well, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

She seems to be very focused on only doing work that will attract the attention of editors. I am very focused on doing good work that people will read, editor or not. I always thought that was the whole purpose of writing. Guess I should stop doing that silly holiday newsletter, too, since none of my friends or relatives are editors.

Terrisa

[adonna]

Originally posted by hadassahchana


I think that although sites like Epinions are not for those who want to make serious money, there are lots of other benefits which are at best difficult to come by in the real world

Cindy

Right on, Cindy. I know when I started at Epinions, I really wanted the challenge of changing my writing style, and also the discipline of writing about products. While I'd done product reviews back in the stone ages, I hadn't done any since this whole earth catalog thing, so you know how long ago that'd be. In fact, my writing style had become sort of strictly appellate briefish, which is to say, done in the cadence of the law.

I think that the work I've done on Epinions has actually helped me to improve my brief writing as well as everything else.

Sometimes the benefits go beyond the obvious.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I think one way to look at this is as an exchange. If you write something and then give it to someone to publish, whether online or in print, what are you getting out of it and what is the publisher getting out of it in exchange?

I think the situation you need to be most careful about is when you're getting egoboo and the publisher is getting money. It may seem like a fair exchange at the time, because egoboo is so intoxicating. But egoboo wears off, whether it's the thrill of getting high ratings at Epinions, or getting people to trust you there, or beyond that, getting professionally published, or getting published in a particular market that had seemed inaccessible -- it's a big thrill the first time, but do it long enough and the thrill starts to fade -- and, meanwhile, the exchange is still the same -- the publisher is getting money, which is still worth just as much to him as it ever was, and you're still getting paid at least partially in egoboo, which is worth less to you than it had been before.

In worst case scenarios, the publishers are perfectly aware of this, and when people start to lose interest in getting egoboo as payment, they just spit them out and get some new people in instead, people who are at the beginning of the cycle, who are still excited by egoboo and willing to accept it as at least partial payment.

In my experience, the most reputable publishers -- the ones who aren't running this revolving door of getting people when they're willing to write for little or no money and then replacing them when they get to the point where they''re not -- don't harp on egoboo as an inducement.

I think anytime you see someone say something like, "Get Published!" or "Get Published in [Particular Place]!" or "X number of people will read your work!" or "You have legions of fans!" it should at least ring a warning bell, that they may be playing the revolving door game.

I think what makes egoboo fade is that the thrill comes from feeling that you've done something you didn't think that you were capable of doing -- or, at least, deep down that you had some doubts that you could do it. But once you have done it, then you've sort of proved that to yourself, and if you continue on, then it becomes work like any other kind of work. And I think that's what makes the money for egoboo exchange so creepy -- that the people who are getting the money are making their profits off of other people's insecurities.

P.S. As far as using Epinions, etc. as a writing group -- I think that's more valid. Instead of the exchange being money for egoboo, it would be money for a place to post and a built-in community, so it's more like money for a real service. Still, I think one thing to think about is if you anticipate getting to a point where you may no longer interested in being in a writer's group, will you regret having left a whole body of work behind at Epinions (or wherever) or will that still seem like a fair exchange? (And also the whole discussion about Epinions is sort of hypothetical because they're actually losing money -- so I guess the actual exchange is that we give them our writing and what we get out of it is feedback and community and what they get out of it is nothing -- so it's hard to say we're being ripped off. )