Comments on: This Job, Not That Job

By: Cathy Miller

Cathy Miller — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:07:14 +0000

In reply to Jake Poinier. Classic definition of insanity, isn't it, Jake? ;-)

By: lwidmer

lwidmer — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 14:38:51 +0000

In reply to Jake Poinier.

It’s a great byline, isn’t it? 😉

I thought so too, Jake. But there are far too many sleepwalkers in the world.

By: Jake Poinier

Jake Poinier — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 14:07:46 +0000

Naively, I thought the Huffington Post sale in 2013 (and resulting squalling from freelancers who, rightly, got none of Ariana’s zillions) was going to wake people up. At least some of them. Call me mercenary, but the older I get, the less I care about where my name appears…other than on the “Pay to the Order of…” line on a check.

By: lwidmer

lwidmer — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 17:48:13 +0000

In reply to Paula Hendrickson. I like how you handled that, Paula. Sometimes the cordial truth actually helps. She thanked you, which shows professionalism on her part. And who knows? What you said may influence their rates going forward.

By: Paula Hendrickson

Paula Hendrickson — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 17:28:40 +0000

Well, the other day I saw a job listing for a TV/entertainment writer. Despite seeing they only required two years experience, I decided to apply just to see what was what. (The listing didn’t mention scope or fees.) In my cover letter I even mentioned that it sounded like they might be looking for newer or less experienced writers.

I wasn’t expecting it to pay much more than a tiny amount per click-through, so I was surprised that they offered 8-cents per word.

Given my cover letter, clips, LinkedIn profile and resume all showed that I’m not a beginner and write for markets that pay more roughly 10 times the amount, I was also surprised that they replied with the 8-cents per word offer. Thanks but no thanks.

I politely explained that while newer or part-time writers might welcome 8-cents per word (well, it is better than the LA Times’ new rate), the time it would take me to research and write an article for them would take time away from my regular clients, and since freelancing is my sole source of income, I need to make sure I’m not losing billable hours. She replied immediately and thanked me for my honesty.

By: lwidmer

lwidmer — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 15:10:37 +0000

In reply to Krista. That's sleazy for sure. And you're right -- it sounds simple to me, too!

By: Krista

Krista — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 14:59:25 +0000

In reply to lwidmer. Yes, I did let the editor know, but the submission guidelines are still quite vague. And what they are calling blog posts are in some cases 1000+-word articles! I can't help feeling, though, as sleazy as it is, these publications only keep doing this because they can. If writers refused to work for free, they would have no choice but to pay! Sounds simple...

By: lwidmer

lwidmer — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 14:33:11 +0000

In reply to Krista.

Good for you, Krista! You don’t need that kind of bait-and-switch BS. My guess is those other articles were accepted under the same conditions and the writers, for whatever reason, were afraid to say anything. You did exactly what they all should have done — create a boundary and defend it.

I hope you let them know that the only reason you sent your article was that their own website says they pay. That’s false advertising, and it’s a gross oversight at best and a sleazy attempt at free work at worst.

By: Krista

Krista — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 14:10:09 +0000

Not really a gig but I had an article “accepted” by a publication, whose website explicitly states they PAY for online and print pieces. When I inquired about what I would be paid, they responded they were not going to pay because it would be published on their blog. I told her that I was not in the position to give my work away, as writing is my sole source of income. The worst part? The blog is filled with excellent writing on motherhood that people, for whatever reason, decided to just give away.