How The Walrus works

The Walrus magazine is now using an unusual freelance contract that is interesting in two respects: its view of what's fair in terms of kill fees and payment terms; and in giving an insight into the hoops through which the magazine has jumped and is jumping in order to get, and keep, charitable status.

The contract varies in several ways from standard magazine practice and from the standard contract that, for many years, the Professional Writers Association of Canada has been trying to get the industry to accept.

If a manuscript is accepted, but the magazine decides not to use it, the writer will be paid a kill fee of 50%, the contract says. This is unprecedented. Once the writer has done his or her job and delivered a satisfactory article, most editors agree that payment should be in full.

The Walrus contract also says the magazine will pay a 20% kill fee for articles "where the editor considers a manuscript cannot be made acceptable through rewriting" or if "the Publisher concludes that the information available will not result in a satisfactory story". This, too, is a variant on the standard practice of paying a 50% kill fee. Even at this, most writers will do everything in their power not to receive a kill fee because they assume it means that they are less likely to get more work from the publication.

Payment is another area of possible contention, stating that an invoice is due upon completion of a final draft, with payment to follow "from 30 to 90 days of receiving the invoice". This could mean that three or four months of research, writing and revision would be followed by three months of waiting for payment. A freelancer would be dependent upon a final acceptance by the editor, a matter which is entirely within the editor's discretion, even if the work agreed had been completed.

The contract contains an appendix, headed: "Educational Content in The Walrus", which has clearly been written by or substantially vetted by, a lawyer. This is the part that gives some insight into The Walrus's receipt of charitable status, after a long struggle with the federal tax department to convince it that it was an "educational" enterprise.

"The Walrus magazine is owned and published by The Walrus Foundation, a registered charity, and as such, the magazine must reflect the educational objectives of the Foundation. The magazine must achieve an average of a 70:30 ratio of educational to non-educational content (including advertising) over the year," says a preamble. "The Walrus Foundation has appointed an Educational Review Committee (ERC) comprised of independent academics who report to the Foundation's board of directors on the educational content of the magazine."

The guidelines that follow for the educational reviewers say "Research, facts and arguments can be presented formally, but can also be embedded in narratives. Characters can be explored, but not as ends in themselves; rather, characters are entry points into larger issues and ideas. The content of each article, essay, review, etc. must be meaningful, relevant, and useful from a social, political, cultural and/or scientific perspective. All articles must also strive for excellence in terms of their writing."

For "non-artistic" pieces, for instance, "articles on "stuff" or straightforward profiles... do not qualify". Neither do...

• "Generally 'light-hearted' or humour pieces".
• "Articles that present only an author's opinion."
• "Articles that present information and facts without additional argument."
• "Articles that 'tell a story' -- e.g. an author recounting a personal experience or life event."
• "Articles that are topical or entertaining."

For "artistic" pieces

• "The content must either deal with a recognized form of high-end art...or present or exemplify a recognize form of art."
• "Reviews of general arts and entertainment trends are not acceptable."
• "The art presented must be of such a significantly high calibre as to be considered educational."