Giving Away the Milk For Free
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 Question of the day: I queried a magazine who wrote back with guidance on their editorial calendar and asking me to submit the piece for their review without promise of acceptance. I wasn't sure if I should be excited or not! Can you explain what exactly they meant?
Yup, what they meant is that they wanted you to submit on spec. Which means that they want you to put all of the work into the piece without any promise that they'll pay you for it. In other words: all benefit them. No benefit you.
If you've been reading my blog for a few years, you'll know that way back when, I heartily discouraged writing for free. I always said that treating your writing like any other business is critical - it ensures respect and value for your work, and you'd never ask, say, a doctor to treat you and then decide if you wanted to pay him or her, or have your house painted because you thought it was kind and nice advertising for the painter. I stick to this theory, but I will say that in the age of blogging, things have changed. Plenty of people write for free now, but they do so on their own terms, and yes, there is value to this sort of work. You're furthering your brand, you're putting your voice out there, you're building your platform.
What I dislike so much about writing on spec is the imbalance of power that it creates. So much about becoming an established writer is, well, bottling some of your own power and self-worth, that it makes me crazy, c-raz-y, to think of a writer doing diligent research, composing a thoughtful piece, and then having a magazine deem it not worthy. It makes the magazine look greedy - and I don't think that this is a false assumption. I don't care if they're offering $20. You offer to pay someone something in exchange for the service he or she provides. But in asking writers to submit on spec, they're essentially taking no risk - they're amassing plenty of submissions and then can cherry pick which they prefer.
In other words: yuck. I know that it's a competitive market and that you want so badly to get bylines and clips, but in my opinion, it's just hard to validate anything worthy about writing on spec. Again, I've rethought my stance on writing for free, but there's a difference between the two. A subtle difference but a difference all the same. (Again, I'm not endorsing that people give their work away, but with blogs, etc, it's simply a reality these days.) With one, you at least have a commitment and an endorsement of your work, with the other, you don't.
Writers, will you chime in and share your thoughts on writing on spec AND writing for free? Do you, like me, think that times have shifted? And thus, as your attitude shifted too?
Magazines
Reader Comments (14)
It's not just writers, graphic designers run into this spec issue all the time too. Our professional association has a firm "no spec" policy, for all the reasons you've outlined. And the sad thing is, lots of business owners don't realize how detrimental it is for creatives - their line of thinking is that the "exposure" or "opportunity" is so wonderful, you should leap at the chance. But it's extremely rare that the creative gets any real benefit.
Amen, Allison! The power structure *IS* wildly skewed in this situation. I wrote on spec a few times when I was first starting out. Almost every time I ended up getting paid for my work, but the situation definitely made me sweat, because the balance of power was so off-kilter. When you submit on spec, there's no sense of urgency for them to review your piece. At least in this situation, the editor has expressed some small gem of interest. In situations where the writer's guidelines insist that pieces be submitted on spec, the balance of power is even worse because you might do all that work on a topic that the editor is completely uninterested in (perhaps because they've just assigned a similar piece and you had no way of knowing).
Years ago, a national magazine encouraged me to write my piece on spec after I queried them. They said they loved it, etc., etc. but then the editor in chief decided that she would never publish a piece on my topic. So that was that.
I think it depends... (Oy, copout answer, right? Well, maybe.) I think it depends on how much they're asking you to do on spec -- 100%, or a sample? -- and how much they're going to give you in return if they DO like it. I wouldn't be willing to do 100% of the work for 0 pay, but 1/4 to 1/3 of the work, with the assurance that I wouldn't be asked to do 100% unless they were going to pay me, seems relatively reasonable.
Of course I don't know if that's how anything works, but in that scenario, the share of power (or trust, really) doesn't seem so off-balance.
(Now, of course my comments don't apply to being an aspiring novelist, because -- hey-o! -- 99% of the time, we aspiring authors ARE working on spec (in a way). We spend weeks or even years laboring on our mss, with absolutely no guarantee of anything. Maybe that's why, when opportunities like the one mentioned in the question come along, they don't seem so bad/weird to us.)
I do the majority of my writing in the SEO/eBook industry and do not do anything for free. The first time you write for free or give a substantial discount, they tell others about you and then nobody wants to pay you for what you're worth. They figure that if you've done it once you can do it again. I've also begun including book outlines in this policy as well, because more and more people are looking for a writer to give them a jump start, not pay them for the work they've done and then do it themselves or hire someone cheaper than you to do it for them.
I have spent many hours researching, interviewing, and writing magazine and newspaper articles in the past, with no publishing...and, as a result, no money. It's not worth it, and it is definitely not fair. Some editors don't even respond with a heads up that my article won't make it in the paper. However, I do currently write for several blogs for free - but, as you mentioned, it's helping to build my brand and my experience, while I'm finding paid writing gigs on the side. Especially for a writer starting out, you need to build your credibility and your skill set, but you also need to get paid - and you will get paid, by ethical, professional print publications.
I write spec screenplays all the time, however,the industry is different, as there's an expectation of future considerations. If a spec script doesn't sell, however, at the same time, shows off your writing talent, you may get yourself an agent or a writing assignment, depending on where you're at in your career.
As for article writing, I'm at a point where if they want me to write for them, they know I want money. I have enough as you say 'free' writing out there already, that I don't need to submit an article on spec, as I can simply point people to the hundreds of blog entries/articles that I've already written, and if they like my style, I'll get asked to write. And get paid. Like I'm doing for E3 :)
I pretty much see it the way you do, Allison. There's my business--articles, recipes, whatever..and there's my blog, which might just help my business. My blog is like my marketing work. And the only other exception would be essays, which I want to write...well, just because. But it's close to black and white, even if there's a bit of gray in there in the blogging world. And your analogies are spot on...I need to spend my days earning money. Not maybe earning money.
Yes, as you've pointed out so well, it is that imbalance of power which makes writing for free unpalatable. Of course, writing on blogs can be exempt because that's the nature of the situation these days, though I know of one person who charges for all writing - including for blogs!
I agree with you-- the game IS changing. I write things for the web for free because I look at it as a chance to get my name out there. To, as you say, build my platform. And places like Huffington Post just don't pay. So if you want to have your byline there, you have to be ok with writing for free. The same is true of many blog sites. I can't imagine a similar situation in print. Perhaps its because there's no guarantee with print. The Internet has unlimited space. If someone says they want a piece from you for a blog site, the chances are almost 100% that it will be published. And the back and forth editing process is generally less involved. With print, you can work on a piece for ages, revise it ten times, and it could get cut at the last minute for various reasons, some of which could have little to do with the quality of your writing. Also, the pieces I write for free for blog sites are usually first-person or editorial type stories and thus take less time then it would to go out and report a long in-depth piece. If it's going to take a lot of time and resources, there is value to that. I wouldn't go report and investigate a long story for a blog for free, because the payout wouldnt be worth the time invested. But would I write a piece related to my book for platform-building purposes? Absolutely. That's the payment. As you say, it's a subtle difference, but it's there.
One of the best pieces of advice I ever received from a writer I respect very much and who has had a richly successful career as a freelancer was, "Say no. There is nothing better you can do for your career than say no. When you take work you don't respect, it will give people the impression you will continue to take work you don't respect."
I've always agreed with that statement. Your work is worth getting paid, and it is absolutely OK for you to demand that. Writing for free on blogs is different, I agree, but for something that is going to be in print, in a magazine, that they are going to profit from? You need to profit from it, too. It can be heartbreaking sometimes to hear that a certain publication isn't willing to pay you for your work, but the truth is that you don't want to work for someone who doesn't value you anyway. It's similar to dating -- why beg someone to be with you when that person over there can't wait think of anyone they want more than you?
It's a tough call these days, but the tide is turning. IMHO unless you've got something for sale, I don't think you should be blogging, tweeting, have a LinkedIn profile or be on Facebook. And by sale I mean for money. Not recognition, self-expression, barter, etc. If you aren't at least selling advertising, you shouldn't be blogging.
I've drastically reduced the amount of blogging I'm doing, and I'm changing the focus of my site to selling my Twitter tools and services. I've got some affiliate links to the analytics tools I use, but mostly they just pay for the tools. I deleted my Facebook profile because I was wasting a lot of time there. I'm on the edge about LinkedIn - a lot of my old friends from previous jobs are there but I don't think it's a place where I can reach prospects for my current business. Twitter, of course, is where I focus most of my efforts, since what I build is Twitter tools and services.
I queried a national magazine a couple of years ago with no experience under my belt whatsoever. They asked me to submit a piece on spec, which I did without thinking twice. I was so pleased to have my very first query accepted, and their guidelines explicitly stated they only accepted articles on spec.
Of course, they turned down my finished article with a form letter that said they were unable to give any feedback to writers on their reasons for rejection. I didn't really think of it as unfair at the time, because I thought it was great they even responded to my query.
Perhaps if I were an experienced freelance writer with plenty of clips in my portfolio, I wouldn't have been so keen.
Maybe magazines should be a little more discerning in what articles they request, so they can afford to pay a small kill fee if they decide not to run it.
I started reading your post because I saw many readers are appalled with your topics. And proven that you are indeed a great author! I was just amazed by your thoughts.
Canadian Pharmacy Reviews