lwidmer | Words on the Page

Quick & Easy Traps

Posted on April 26, 2011 by lwidmer

What’s on the iPod: Fear of Falling by The Badlees What a day yesterday. I’d like to tell you how much work I accomplished. I’d like to tell you how much marketing happened. I’d like to – but I can’t. I managed the Home page for a Web project, a phone call with a potential…

Sprinting

Posted on April 25, 2011 by lwidmer

What’s on the iPod: Restless by Chris Bathgate I hope your weekend was wonderful – mine was despite lots of rain. I drove back home and spent time with the parents, the sister and her family, and some special visitors. My dad’s brother, his wife, and stepdaughter were back from San Diego. It was the…

The Finish Line

Posted on April 22, 2011 by lwidmer

What’s on the iPod: Summertime by Kenny Chesney Got a great deal done yesterday despite a slightly interrupted day. I managed an interview, a resume, an article (800 words), and an oil change (paid for it this time – drat!). I wanted to do more, but I needed to pack. I’m going back home for…

Safe Versus Good

Posted on April 21, 2011 by lwidmer

What’s on the iPod: Lola by The Kinks I’m glad I’m able to get a ton of stuff done in the mornings lately because my afternoon yesterday dissolved quickly. I was good until about two – then the plumber arrived. We had a small leak and a minor fiasco surrounding our water heater, its replacement,…

It’s All in the Perspective

Posted on April 20, 2011 by lwidmer

What’s on the iPod: Ten Thousand Things by The Avett Brothers Yesterday was one of those productive days that makes me glad to be a freelancer. I managed a crazy schedule without interruption because A) I work from home, B) I don’t have to attend meetings, and C) the commute time is better spent writing….

Saying Goodbye

Posted on April 19, 2011 by lwidmer

What I’m reading: Inishfallen Fare Thee Well by Sean O’CaseyWhat’s on the iPod: Small Town by John Mellencamp Sometimes, you can just rock a Monday. Yesterday was one of those days I had a list longer than Route 95 and only nine hours to work with. I managed nearly all of my list, with some…

Monday Bits

Posted on April 18, 2011 by lwidmer

What I’m reading: Inishfallen Fare Thee Well by Sean O’CaseyWhat’s on the iPod: Roll Away Your Stone by Mumford & Sons How was your weekend? We managed to get nothing done on Saturday (amen) thanks to heavy rains. Our trip to Macy’s for their sale proved to be the repeated thought of thousands of other…

Randomness on a Friday

Posted on April 15, 2011 by lwidmer

What I’m reading: Inishfallen, Fare Thee Well by Sean O’Casey What’s on the iPod: Sweet Sophia by Stephen Kellogg and the Sixers Yesterday was gorgeous. Sun was out, birds chirping, flowers in bloom…. too bad I was stuck inside working. I did manage to get to the park at lunchtime and put in a mile…

One More Day

Posted on April 14, 2011 by lwidmer

If you haven’t picked up your copy of The Worthy Writer’s Guide to Building a Better Business, do it today. Remember, the $2 discount is good until April 15th. Then the price goes up to $11.95. Still a bargain for info that could help you boost profits (and is tax deductible). To order, click here.

First the Cart, Then the Horse

Posted on April 14, 2011 by lwidmer

What’s on the iPod: Hick Town by Jason Aldean Unless you’ve been unconscious the last few days, you’ve probably heard about the lawsuit filed by angry writers against Arianna Huffington, demanding $105 million in payment from the Huffington Post’s founder. The writers, upset over Ms. Huffington’s deal with AOL to sell the online venue for…

Lisa Vella

April 14, 2011

Very well said, Lori.

When I started freelancing several years ago, it literally boggled my mind how people would bargain as low as $2 an article on places like Guru.com or elance.com. It made me angry then, as it does today because they've driven the market down. It's those people, who are willing to accept less who have made it harder for real professionals to ask for more.

Fortunately, with a little effort and some excellent writing, there's still plenty of legitimate and decent paying jobs out there.

Hope you are having a great day and thanks for a great post!

Devon Ellington

April 14, 2011

I'm glad they filed it, so at least it might make a few people think. Because, if someone presents an "opportunity", says they "can't afford to pay" and then turns around and sells the site for a lot of money, yes, the writers should get deferred payment.

It happens a lot in indie film — you want to get your project out there NOW with the agreement that, if it succeeds, you are paid later a particular percentage.

However it is all in the contract up front.

I have no idea what kind of contracts these writers were, if they even bothered to put one into place.

I was approached to write a piece for them a few years ago; I refused to do it without pay. They came back with the whole "prestige" thing. I said, "First of all, if you expect me to believe you're not making a profit from this publication, you must think I'm REALLY dumb. You're all getting paid; why shouldn't I be paid? Plus, I don't write for PRESTIGE. I write to put food on the table and keep a roof over my head. For the same reasons you edit — it's a JOB, as well as a passion."

And that was that.

I don't believe they'll win, but maybe these writers have learned something.

Lori

April 14, 2011

Lisa, I think it's a cycle. I cycled through the anger, through the indignant notes back to fools paying these rates (and no, they don't care), to shouting at the top of my lungs to writers to make better choices, to believing that the level of jobs at which these writers are wallowing are so low they don't have any effect on our profession. I'm not sure that last bit is true. It does have an effect, and perhaps it's creating more stupidity from the job posters and a handful of clients. In general, however, I think if we're searching correctly, if we're actively looking, we're not going to come across these things very often. Amen, huh?

Glad you liked the post. 🙂 I hope you have a wonderful day, too. It's sunny and gorgeous here today. If I can get twelve things done in a few hours, I might just get some sun on my shoulders later on. :))

Lori

April 14, 2011

Devon, I agree. I'm glad they filed it, too. I think they're foolish for working for free, but this lawsuit could raise a TON of awareness in the writing community. Don't work for free, people. I'd bet the lion's share of the HuffPo writers will now work much smarter.

Yep, they rode the prestige train – and did so under the power of a lot of writers – to the bank. What I feel about Arianna Huffington is the polar opposite of pity.

Wendy

April 14, 2011

I'm very happy to see it. I don't think there's much of a case monetary-wise, but it does make a great statement. Hopefully, people will think twice before jumping into waters like this.

And, hopefully, Huffpo wannabes will think twice before they try to take advantage of others.

Gabriella F.

April 14, 2011

I'm glad they filed it, but I'm not sure it's going to have a long-term effect. I hope it does.

I think the writers may get a settlement because it might be easier for HuffPo/AOL to settle than to fight. Not sure yet, though, and I haven't seen the complaint or, as you mentioned, contracts, if any.

But I did read that the lead plaintiff is the same guy who sued to keep his stuff out of databases like Lexis/Nexis without giving him payment. And I think he won, so maybe he's got some smart lawyers who can keep this suit from being dismissed summarily.

That said, it should be a huge wake-up call that writers should NEVER work for free or peanuts for sites that are trying to make a profit. Did you hear that? Never.

I never wrote for HuffPo, but I did read it. I unbookmarked it the minute I learned it was purchased for scads and hadn't paid writers a cent. Sorry, I won't support such a model. I also refuse to click on ask.com or demand pieces that come up in any Internet search I perform.

Lori, I'm behind you 100% on this crusade. Underpaid writers are fools who are damaging the pay and respect of an entire profession.

Jake P

April 14, 2011

I'm going to politely dissent here, as far as being glad they filed or hoping they succeed. I wish they hadn't and hope they don't.

The writers who did this weren't forced to do anything, and the bottom line is they thought that they were going to get famous by transitivity. And I'm disgusted at them trotting out the plantation owner meme. That is despicable.

They cut a crappy deal — trading a "Get Famous!" lottery ticket for a living wage — and now they feel stupid. Well, guess what? Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want. Rub some dirt on it, and get back out there.

I'm reminded of the scene in "Airplane!" where there's the fake Point-Counterpoint TV show: "Shayna, they bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!"

Gabriella F.

April 14, 2011

Jake, I totally see your point. But if this lawsuit wakes other writers up to the dangers of writing for free–or gives places like HuffPo or Demand pause–I think it's a good thing. Perhaps Demand's potential investors in its IPO are looking at its crappy accounting methods and potential value more closely and will end up being less interested.

Lori

April 14, 2011

Jake, in an odd way, we're on the same page here. I'm glad they filed for one reason – it raises awareness among those who need awareness desperately. But damn, they agreed to free, right? Free is what they got.

My reasons for wanting them to succeed are purely selfish. If it sinks a single content farm, it's worth it. Do I think so? Hell no. I think the snakes will find a new method by which to charm naive writers.

In that sense, the mere filing of the case should have other writers doing the palm slap to the head. If not, they deserve the measly five bucks they get for working their tails off.

Lori

April 14, 2011

Wendy, that's my hope. I don't want them to win because they deserve anything. They don't. I would like to see other writers say "Wait a minute…." when looking at their own practices.

Gabriella, I never read anything over there. I have this aversion to places that deem themselves lords of the new media. I'd seen Arianna on Morning Joe enough to know she didn't have much to say that I cared to hear.

Jake P

April 14, 2011

Lori, I think we're on *exactly* the same page in everything you've said, with the exception of the suit itself. Heck, I loathe both HuffPo and Ariana (though I respect her business acumen).

Nonetheless, from a business and legal-precedent perspective, I hope the suit gets tossed out. People need to grow the heck up instead of looking for attorneys to undo their foolish, shortsighted mistakes. (And that reaches far, far beyond these types of freelance follies.)

In the famous words of Rodney Dangerfield, "Hey, you gotta look out for #1…but don't step in #2."

Jake P

April 14, 2011

"Airplane!" and Rodney Dangerfield. Yes, I am really glad I'm citing such sophisticated sources 🙂

Gabriella F.

April 14, 2011

Interesting take by Andrew Sullivan on this exact discussion: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/huffpo-vs-tasini.html

Paula

April 14, 2011

Interesting points by everyone here.

I can't help but wonder if some mill-providers will view this suit as some sort of justification or verification of the whole content mill model. "Look – we're paid more than Huffington post writers, so we must be doing something right."

It's not much, but at least the HuffPo writers gave their work to a site they can list on a resume without too much embarrassment. Can't say that about the other mills.

It will be interesting to follow the progress of the suit.

hugh.c.mcbride

April 14, 2011

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Lori

April 14, 2011

That's the reference! Jake, I love that you dropped both Rodney and Airplane! quotes. 🙂

I agree. People should adopt a LOT more personal responsibility. Let's see, if I own a company and I say "Hey, you can work here for free" and you accept, you've just agreed to the terms stated. If I sell my business, that doesn't mean I owe you a cent for your labor. You'd agreed to free.

I don't know, Paula. I'd be embarrassed to admit I'd worked for nothing and helped someone gain $315 million that I didn't see a dime of….

Interesting, Gabriella. His take is pretty spot on.

hugh.c.mcbride

April 14, 2011

Just wrote a comment that appears to have been eaten by the Internet Gods, so I'll try again. (Apologies for the quasi-duplication if the first one suddenly resurfaces):

1) If I'm a carpenter, & I agree to build you a house FOR FREE (in order to put my mad buildin' skillz on display for all the world to see), unless we've entered into an EXPLICIT WRITTEN AGREEMENT ahead of time, how can I expect to be entitled to a share of the profits should you decide to sell the house?

2) We all knew Arianna was making big $$$ before the AOL deal, & we all know she's making big $$$ now. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the *amount* of big $$$ is now a matter of public record, at least as it pertains to the AOL deal. Not sure how that justifies a lawsuit.

3) Though I agree it would be downright wonderful if this lawsuit suddenly caused the masses to rise up in newfound awareness of the true value of the world's ink-stained wretches (virtual & actual ink, of course), I'm not as optimistic of that outcome as some here appear to be. To paraphrase the great philosopher Donaldus Rumsfeldius, I expect that the effort to promote writers' worth will remain "a long slog."

4. Not sure what this says about *my* level of sophistication, but I was nodding my head in agreement w/ Jake P's comment before I got to his "sophisticated sources" — and then I found my self nodding even more enthusiastically. Looks like I picked the wrong week to start feeling all refined & cultured 🙂

Lori

April 14, 2011

Got your comment out of the Spam folder, Hugh. Sorry. Occasionally it demands food. I saw it was very close to what you'd written before, so I went ahead and deleted the repeat. Is that okay?

That's what I'm not quite aligning with in terms of this lawsuit. She made money prior to selling. She was raking in ad revenue.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue…..

Gabriella F.

April 14, 2011

I agree with much of what's said, but don't forget that in the law, you can have a claim whether there's a contract or not.

In this case, the writers' claim might be for unjust enrichment, which essentially means someone is so unjustly enriched by the work of another that it creates an obligation to pay for the services he's been enriched by.

There's also a concept of unconscionability, which says the terms of a contract are so unconscionable as to be shocking.

I'm guessing the idea of profiting to the tune of $315 million off of unpaid labor might make a claim of unjust enrichment or unconscionability more colorable than most people think.

Not saying either is destined to work, just that there are equitable concepts in the law that may work for these writers.

And that, my friends, is about all of the law I can stomach in one day anymore! (Just kidding!)

WordVixen

April 14, 2011

"and demanding restitution for what they feel was her using them to increase the value of her commodity." = Duh?

Seriously, what did they think Huffpo was doing? Generously offering a place to showcase their talents out of the goodness of their hearts?

Sorry to be a little snarky towards the writers, but this is the problem when someone jumps into a new profession without learning at least a little about all ends of the business. In a business, the top level is always out to maximize profits. While the business model itself changes from industry to industry, it's always about profits at the top, and the best employees one can get for the least amount of money at the bottom. That doesn't change just because it's the internet.

Lori

April 14, 2011

LOL! I hear you, Gabriella. You sounded really smart, though. 🙂 Thanks for the info – it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Amen, WordVixen, amen! And there is the whole issue. These writers cannot convince anyone that they were unaware the site was making money. Yes, they were offered "exposure" but honestly, who falls for that? People who think they can't make it on their own?

Paula

April 15, 2011

Ah but Lori, I've run into more than one mill writer who lists the mills on their resumes.

Rational people would be embarrassed to admit it, but…

Wendy

April 15, 2011

I agree that they don’t deserve to win any money, since they knew what they were doing when they signed on. They do look like fools and will look like bigger fools if they lose the case. But, I’m still happy to see it, because of the statement that’s been made.

Those that wrote for them, probably never realized that their hard work would get stampeded on like it did with the big sale of the site. I can see their outrage, but again, it’s something that should’ve been looked at in the beginning . Not after the fact.

Use them as examples for new writers or those who have been around a few years, but are still struggling to make it. Signing up for places like this can have implications that they need to take into consideration before giving the go ahead.

Writer’s Worth day is coming up, isn’t it? This would be a good example to show our worth, don’t you think? LOL.

Lori

April 15, 2011

Exactly, Wendy! They are the PRIME example of understanding your own worth and not letting someone take advantage.

Paula, true. You'd think people would be embarrassed. Alas, the world is full of proud, naive people…

Bill Swan

April 19, 2011

There's a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt – "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." In other words, writers who give their time and words away now don't have the right to demand it later.

Lori

April 20, 2011

Bill, I agree completely. And I think a lot of the kerfluffle is stemming from their feeling of outrage – they may feel duped into helping someone grow a business with nothing in it for them. That's true. But it was as true at the beginning of the relationship as it is now. So maybe this is seated in embarrassment? I don't know.