Once again into the fray
about freelancer's pay
Globe columnist Russell Smith spends a good deal of his time fussing about double-breasted suits and whether or not to take off your hat, but for some reason he's on a magazine toot recently. A column a week ago was about The Idler magazine which is fondly remembered by many, but which foundered because it was so precious it simply couldn't find a large enough audience.
This week (sorry, it's considered so valuable, the Globe makes it available only for a fee), he's essentially counselling that only writers who are fools would do work for magazines because it doesn't pay enough. He didn't have anything constructive to say, but let's take his column as a starting point, or an excuse, to talk again about money for freelance magazine writers.
The payment of freelancers continues to be a bugbear of the business, of course. It's why there is a movement to start a freelancer's union (a movement that is, unfortunately, taking a very long time to get airborne). It's why seasoned freelancers tend to peel off into corporate work where the pay -- if not other rewards -- is better and the working conditions somewhat more lavish. There seems to be an inexhaustible supply of young hopefuls clamouring to get into the business.
In the first post of the 2007 year, we made the case for increasing freelance rates across the board. We calculated -- not altogether tongue-in-cheek -- that the average hourly wage of a freelancer was about $14.26. In another post, we calculated that, based on a Professional Writers Association of Canada survey, the inflation-adjusted annual income of a typical, full-time freelancer was less than $20,000. And we made a statement, which has never been challenged, that an across the board 20% increase in freelance rates, right now, would cost the industry about a 1% increase in its total costs. And the average would still be something less than $1 a word.
The situation won't change until a) publishers and editors see it in their best interests to pay decent money to keep good writers available to them, b) writers get more forthright and aggressive talking about and demanding better money from editors and c) we get more magazines on a solid business footing and with sufficiently large audiences that allows them to raise rates.
This week (sorry, it's considered so valuable, the Globe makes it available only for a fee), he's essentially counselling that only writers who are fools would do work for magazines because it doesn't pay enough. He didn't have anything constructive to say, but let's take his column as a starting point, or an excuse, to talk again about money for freelance magazine writers.
The payment of freelancers continues to be a bugbear of the business, of course. It's why there is a movement to start a freelancer's union (a movement that is, unfortunately, taking a very long time to get airborne). It's why seasoned freelancers tend to peel off into corporate work where the pay -- if not other rewards -- is better and the working conditions somewhat more lavish. There seems to be an inexhaustible supply of young hopefuls clamouring to get into the business.
In the first post of the 2007 year, we made the case for increasing freelance rates across the board. We calculated -- not altogether tongue-in-cheek -- that the average hourly wage of a freelancer was about $14.26. In another post, we calculated that, based on a Professional Writers Association of Canada survey, the inflation-adjusted annual income of a typical, full-time freelancer was less than $20,000. And we made a statement, which has never been challenged, that an across the board 20% increase in freelance rates, right now, would cost the industry about a 1% increase in its total costs. And the average would still be something less than $1 a word.
The situation won't change until a) publishers and editors see it in their best interests to pay decent money to keep good writers available to them, b) writers get more forthright and aggressive talking about and demanding better money from editors and c) we get more magazines on a solid business footing and with sufficiently large audiences that allows them to raise rates.
Labels: Canadian Freelance Union, freelancers
posted by D. B. Scott at
12:15 pm
10 Comments:
Smith has a point though: The magazine industry as a whole is grossly underpaid when compared with other entertainment sectors.
It would be good if you'd remember that freelancers aren't always just writers. Photographers, too, are expected to work for magazines for a fraction of the money they'd receive from an advertising or TV-industry gig.
Somehow the great swindle is the ongoing recruitment of a new generation of interns who believe that working for free is the "new normal" and who therefore will accept whatever scraps they receive for the freelance work they eventually do.
Quite right. I had not intended to exclude photographers.
A friend points out that the larger issue is underemployment as much as underpayment.
There is no data available for what proportion of various classes of magazine are produced at little or no cost, but in some sectors stuff written by volunteers, interns and the like probably does drive down the perceived average income for freelancers who work semi-regularly for the small number of magazines that do pay market fees.
From an intern's point of view, I can see how freelance work is being cut. I am doing work that freelancers would normally do, but for free. The magazine is saving thousands of dollars, presumably, as i write features and small news briefs...and while I need the experience and clips, I feel both guilty for taking away someone's pay check, and frustrated that I'm perpetually broke. I do think there needs to be a change in the system...
Maybe it's because I'm young and naive, but personally I think a lot of freelancers need to quit whining.
I've got a journalism diploma and did my time working for little to no pay as an intern and what did it get me in the end? Working in a call centre for $10.20/h. I'd love $14.26 to do the job I was not only trained to do, but doesn't leave me wanting to go home at the end of the day and cut myself while listening to Johnny Cash (seriously, call centres destroy your soul!)
Not only that, but I HAVE to take low-paying freelance writing gigs just to make ends meet ($10.20 doesn't get much, especially when your job keeps getting outsourced.)
I get pretty mad when I hear my few classmates who did get jobs at newspapers complain about getting ONLY 20K per year...I'd kill to be making even that much right now.
Obviously I agree that rates should go up, but I think this dire situation and need for a so-called union is highly exaggerated. As World of Warcraft players are so fond of saying: "less qq, more pew pew!"
Would a business model structured on the premise that you don't pay some of your most important employees fly in any other industry?
Can you picture asking your plumber if he'll fix your toilet for free so he can "gain valuable experience" or because "you're a non-profit household with limited funds so anyone who fixes your house is expected to do it out of a passion for the craft of plumbing?"
The industry needs to stop tolerating these publications. Perhaps you should start a Wall of Shame blog for pubs that don't pay, D.B.
Rob, those comments do make you sound very young and naive.
Just because you're underpaid now in a completely unrelated industry does not mean there isn't a serious problem in the magazine world. In 10 or 15 years, will you still be thrilled with $14.26 an hour doing the job you trained to do?
As depressing as it sounds, I don't really see the situation changing. There are too many people enticed by the glamour of the job and willing to do it for free (or pennies).
Some excellent points. I wish Smith would write about that kind of stuff more often.
And yeah, I don't think Rob would be too thrilled to be still making $14.26 an hour when he's 40 and trying to make mortgage payments.
Don't forget illustrators, too!
At the risk of sounding like a complete curmudgeon, we have a very serious supply (too many writers) and demand (too few readers) problem in this industry which no one wants to talk about. Wages will never rise as long as every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a pen (that would be all of us) wants to pursue their creative self-fulfilment, as we've all been taught to do since day one.
Talent has become a complete sidenote to the pursuit of creative satisfaction, which means there are unhappy j-school and writing program graduates lurking on every corner in this country (particularly places like Toronto)- I've generally noticed that the better writers rise to the top and, even if not well-off, don't tend to find themselves waiting tables or working call-centres. The rest do, and I'm sorry to say, but perhaps we shouldn't be encouraging so many people to go into this profession.
Our anonymous curmudgeon makes a valid point: there are too many freelance writers out there. And my experience as the editor of a national publication suggests most of them cannot produce copy of the quality Canadian magazines need to compete with foreign titles and other media for the limited bandwidth of readers. Just because you hang out your shingle as a writer — even with a J-school degree — doesn't make you a writer.
If I were to fire one of my editorial staff tomorrow and plug the savings into my freelance writing budget, my mag's per-word rate would jump 50% and be one of the best -- it not the best -- in Canada. But I wouldn't see a commensurate improvement in freelance submissions. So I ain't gonna fire that editor. (She can rest easy, now.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home