EXACTLY. They have very little overhead with an online pub — no printing costs, to say the least — so why are writers being punished? If the editor from The Atlantic is any indicator, it’s because they have a ton of content to put out now, whereas with a magazine they have a lower amount per month, not per day.

Still, that should never equate to my problem as a freelancer. I’m running a business, as well. Giving away work isn’t smart business. At all.

I’ve NEVER understood the arguments for why online contributors are paid so much less than contributors to some of these top-line publications. The costs to run a website are minuscule compared with a print title – no printing costs, no shipping costs. Sure, they command a heftier price for ad sales, but since it’s the same company spread the wealth. (And I’d expect that most of those ad deals probably include online advertising as part of the package, anyway.)

Paula, that editor was arguing what she herself would never accept as a fair wage. I wish she were the exception, but I’ve seen far too much of it. The Atlantic online editor got roasted when he tried justifying why online content wasn’t compensated. An editor I used to work with was embarrassed that she could offer just 10 cents per word for heavily researched articles. Another potential editor client wanted something similar to what you were offered. It would have amounted to $80 per week for four articles a week. Uh, no.

Yes, like you, I’d rather take the chance with the mothership publication. At least you’re not working your ass off (and occupying precious billable hours) for pennies on the dollar.

If they make money off my work, so should I. And a fair wage, not these promises of more that will never, ever come.

The editor replied quickly and set up a call. All went well until she described their fee structure: a $250 monthly stipend for I think it was 4 or 5 articles per month. She said the articles could range from 250 words to as long as I needed, which is not a good sign since it shows they’re focused on quantity, not quality, BUT writers had the “opportunity to earn more” based on like half-a-cent (or something equally outrageous) per page view. As I recall they had two tiers of the “bonus income” – one rate for the first couple of weeks, and a lower rate for long-term views. She said one contributor regularly earned $1500 a month.

I had to explain to her how professional writers get paid for our work, not for marketing and promoting their site. It’s not feasible for me to spend that many billable hours cranking out articles for $250 plus the hope that maybe one of my articles will generate enough traffic to earn a couple bucks more.

While the editor worked for the digital side of this well-known publication, she said there was always a “chance” that the magazine would pick up one of the website’s pieces. She tried arguing that it was better to earn $250/month for guaranteed work than try to sell a one-off article to the mothership. I told her I’d rather get one well-paying assignment and have time to work for other clients than write multiple articles for $250 and click-throughs.

Oh, I agree with bartering. I bartered a few times back at the beginning of the career, but it’s not feasible anymore.

Your locals are crazy. No way they’d work for those rates, I’d bet. In fact, I’d be tempted to respond to their crappy offers with that very fact: “Oh, that’s the rate? Tell me, would you work for three cents an hour?”

Sadly, I think they wouldn’t understand how to vet quality writing from bad writing. That’s apparent in what I see in some local areas. Misspellings and lousy grammar aren’t even hitting the radar. Ugh!

Unfortunately, where I live now, most clients ONLY will deal in per hour rates — and they don’t want to pay more than minimum wage, because, you know, writing is something they “could” do if they have time. It’s not a “real skill.” I can’t tell you how often those exact words are used. What they consider a “fair” hourly rate ends up being about .03 an hour, if you break it down, and I’m not working for that. Which is why the bulk of my clients are not local. I have a few, with whom I have a good relationship, but the majority of locals who ask for a quote want it to work out to be 2-3 hours at minimum wage for something that should, at market rate, be a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand dollars.

In my previous location, I’d get pushback on my rate, they’d hire someone cheaper, it wouldn’t work out, and they’d come back to me and hire me at my rate + the rush fee. Here, they’d rather pay less for low quality work, because it’s more important to feel they got a deal than to get good work that would actually grow their business.

The other thing, here, lately, is barter. When I was in my twenties in Seattle, the barter economy was big and workable. But now, it’s not useful. Especially since most of the potential clients who suggest barter are offering me something I wouldn’t normally use anyway. I find the demand for barter especially strong in the over-crowded “health supplement” field. It’s not a field to which I pitch, but at local networking events, 40-60% of attendees are solopreneurs trying to earn a living from selling supplements. So you meet them at these networking events, and they don’t want to pay for their marketing materials. They want to offer you supplements in return. No, thanks. I can’t pay the rent or my utility bills or buy gas with supplements.

Therefore, most of the clients that pay real money are remote.