What’s on the iPod: All at Once by The Airborne Toxic Event
What a busy day! I worked on one project –one that isn’t quite finished — and I have two waiting in the wings. How bad was it? I was sitting here at 8 pm taking my online courses. Today will be full-on work. I intend to take my hour for lunch, but I’m hoping to plow through one project and get the other started before then.
Had a note last week from a writer who has an interesting dilemma. She’s been working with a client for a number of months doing blogging. Now the client has presented her with another job — a certain number of articles per week. Those articles are ones the client intends to use on an article “exposure” site.
Her question: What to do about it?
The details: The site in question does not pay (though the client does pay her for the articles), and they’re free to redistribute any articles at their own discretion without payment. That means if another site wants to use it without paying, that’s fine. Also, they don’t pay writers at all.
Her dilemma was not wanting any site to use her words without payment. So what’s the solution?
I gave her two:
- Tell your client how that would affect their content and their control over it.
- Refuse the work.
I think that is going to be as individual as we are. We all have our own set of values. There are certain clients, topics, and practices that don't fit our values.
I hadn't thought about the possibility that the client was unaware of the set-up. I guess I assumed he/she did. It's tough when two different sets of values meet head-on. For example, the client may see it as no problem = those writers chose to accept the terms – while you may see it as exploitation.
In the end, you have to live with yourself. So, my usual advice in this type of situation – listen to your gut.
I'd also up the price for the article, since it was going to be used and re-used without pay.
I've had this happen. My contract says that I get additional pay for any work involved on my part. But ultimately it's the company's work. I act as a ghost in that case.
Cathy, you make some great points. Here's my take: the client's goals and the writer's are different. The client is looking at these articles as publicity, so the free distribution may make sense. The writer is seeing her name going helter-skelter across the Internet without her being able to control where or what they may do to it.
Who's right? Maybe both in this case. For me, I could separate the "creative" side in deference to the marketing side, but my name would have to be removed. For someone else, the entire situation may not sit well at all. Like you said, different for each person.
Devon, my thoughts, too. If it's going into wide distribution with or without my name on it, I'm going to expect more cash for that privilege.
Amanda, thanks for sharing that. I'd love to see a post from you on how this arrangement works and how you handle it. Would that appeal?
Since it could be widely circulated, I would treat it like a press release. That means no byline, and a slightly higher rate.
The danger comes if/when a less-than-reputable place posts or publishes your work. That's fine if you've been well paid and it can't be traced back to you. But if your name is on it, those sites or publications – some which you might not want to be associated with – are gaining respectability by publishing work from an established writer. If potential clients see your name tied to unsavory publishers or websites, it might cost you in the long run.
I totally agree with your suggestion, Lori, to have her name taken off the byline if she has a problem with it (but decides to move ahead with the articles).
There have been times on ghostwritten articles that I wrote where the client changed them so much, I was glad my name wasn't on them. 🙂 For me, however, if I didn't want my name on it because of copy practices or the topic or what have you, I wouldn't do it in the 1st place. But, that's just me.