Writers, here’s the plan: We’ll screw you.

November 7, 2013 •
Paying writers what they are worth

Today, I read a rant about writers and readers by Jane Gilmore, editor of The King’s Tribune. And now I’m pissed.

She complains:

“…every outlet is struggling to cover costs. No one is deliberately devaluing the writers who are our bread and butter.”

Then she tells writers:

“Don’t promise an article and deliver it late, full of typos and factual errors. Don’t reword something that has been written by 15 other people, add no original ideas and then charge full rates for it.”

In one breath, she tells writers:

“You’re not entitled to get paid, you have to be worth paying.”

Yet in the next, she says:

“Ten or more years of free content online has inculcated everyone with the idea that good writing is a valueless service. It’s not. But paying writers what they are worth is not going to happen until that ingrained attitude changes.”

I know that what she’s explicitly saying is writers can’t expect to get paid for crap, writing for free is a bad idea, and good writing costs money. And I’m 100% with her, there.

It’s her overarching position I’m opposed to. Here’s how I read it:

Writers, “it’s on you”. We’re not going to pay you what you’re worth, until readers pay US what WE’RE worth. So here’s the plan. You keep writing original, thought-provoking articles, as fast as we need them, with no typos or factual errors. I know it’s tough to type while you’re taking the bus to your third job, but them’s the breaks. Oh, and make sure they’re exclusive to us. And for that, we’ll pay you a nominal fee. That way, YOU can cover OUR costs. Because unlike you, we DO deserve to be paid, even when other publishers are offering the same stuff for free. OK? Think of it as an investment in your future.

Jane, why is it up to writers to work cheap so you can cover costs? What about THEIR costs?

They could equally ask why don’t you wear the risk? In fact, that’s probably a much fairer request, given that most publishers have more resources at their disposal than the average freelance writer.

So why pass the buck? If they’re really your bread and butter, why aren’t you investing in them? Like any other business has to. Invest in better content, and show readers YOU’RE worth paying.

Feel free to comment...
comment avatar
Shauna wrote on November 7th, 2013

I wonder why this argument seems to be used so frequently in connection with writers (as opposed to other professions). It does seem like we're asked to justify our pricing and services more than other service providers and to be prepared to offer free services until we've 'proved' ourselves. In a world where information is available on so many mediums 24/7 it really is time for publishers to start valuing quality content for its own sake - invest in people and their work, be discerning in your choices and your investment in the creator will eventually pay off. Writing is a skilled profession, it's time people recognised that.

Reply
comment avatar
Sarah Mitchell wrote on November 7th, 2013

Hi Glenn, Honestly, I think writers - good writers anyway, have a friend in Jane Gilmore. I agree, she started the article a little whiny. (She did admit to being sick.) It definitely was a rant. We all know who she's talking about and I don't think it's you and I hope it's not me. She closed with this, "Finding good writers is far more difficult than you would imagine. Finding good writers who are an incentive to paying customers is even more difficult." That tells me she's ready and willing to pay for good writing if she can find it. She's looking for it. I wish more publishers were willing to put out that call to action and less willing to publish junk like this: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/reality-bites-for-miranda-kerr-20131031-2wls7.html

Reply
comment avatar
Kate wrote on November 7th, 2013

This is the most I have sighed and nodded all day.

Reply
comment avatar
Susan Oakes wrote on November 7th, 2013

I am confused Glenn. I would have thought businesses that succeed today have a solid model to get sales and cover costs without decreasing the sales of others. I understand what she says about typos, badly written articles, but it may be the case of you get what you pay for. If they make their money through subscriptions, then they need quality articles. This means you need to pay for them at a reasonable rate I would think. Perhaps it is a case that only inexperienced or lesser skilled writers will submit articles because of the nominal fee. Out of interest what is the fee?

Reply
comment avatar
Susan Oakes wrote on November 7th, 2013

I read the article again and one part of my earlier comment was probably wrong. I thought they only paid a nominal fee. It could be the case that they pay okay for well written work.

Reply
comment avatar
Kate Toon wrote on November 7th, 2013

I haven't read Jane's article so shouldn't really comment. But I will. There are crap writers and there are good writers. Just like with every other industry. Articles like this (hers not yours) are so yawn. I've heard it all before. Yawn!

Reply
comment avatar
Glenn Murray wrote on November 11th, 2013

This issue has once again cropped up. This time on Mumbrella, about Crikey: 'Why I said no to The Daily Review' - Journalist Andrew Stafford explains why he taken a stand against not being paid for his work http://mumbrella.com.au/said-daily-review-188696. The post also makes mention of mamamia's claim that it pays contributors (when it pays only $50!).

Reply
comment avatar
Glenn Murray wrote on November 11th, 2013

Thanks for your comment Sarah. Whether we have a friend in Jane, outside of the article, I couldn't say. I know nothing about her, and she may be a top sheila. But I can't see how her post implies she's ready and willing to pay for good writing if she can find it. In fact, she says exactly the opposite! "...paying writers what they are worth is not going to happen until that ingrained attitude changes."

Reply
comment avatar
Glenn Murray wrote on November 11th, 2013

Yep. Very disappointing.

Reply
comment avatar
Glenn Murray wrote on November 11th, 2013

Yeah, I don't know Shauna. I think there are a lot of reasons, but ultimately, I think it'll be relatively short-lived. False economies never last.

Reply
comment avatar
Glenn Murray wrote on November 11th, 2013

Hi Susan. I'm not sure what they pay. The point is she's asking writers to cover costs until readers are willing to pay for value: "...paying writers what they are worth is not going to happen until [readers'] ingrained attitude changes." I bet all the staffers there are getting paid market rates...

Reply
comment avatar
Glenn Murray wrote on November 11th, 2013

Yeah, it's a bit tiring seeing it all the time. Have to agree.

Reply
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *