Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Finkle says Canadian freelance industry just the right size to make agency feasible

Eye Weekly in Toronto has published a longish interview with Derek Finkle about his nascent Canadian Writers Group agency. He says the current system of compensating writers, which is paying them as they were paid 15 or more years ago doesn't make sense and that, while writing is "a valuable skill, a special skill", writers are often too timid to bring up issues of underpayment because they don't want to ruin the relationship with the editor.
Psychologically it's a lot different when you have an agency doing that on your behalf and the terms are a lot different when that agency is representing a massive chunk of the talent pool in this country.

"This idea, this agency I've dreamed up, this is something that would never work in New York or in the United States, where the industry is so massive. You could never absorb the talent pool to achieve the kind of negotiating position that you need. Here, the industry is just the right size, the talent pool is just the right size, and it's a much more feasible concept here.
The current system, he told writer Kate Carraway, discourages talented and experienced freelancers and they turn to teaching or book-writing or alternative career choices when they can't afford to freelance anymore.
"It affects the whole industry, because they're constantly reliant upon the next round of talent being turned out by Ryerson or some other school where hopefuls eternally reside. The quality totally suffers. We don't have a system that could ever create a Seymour Hersh type of character. It's not that publications here can't afford it, they choose not to afford it. When they say they don't have the money, that doesn't literally mean they don't have the money. Another way to put it is, 'We don't have it in the budget.' When they're saying it's not in the budget, what they're saying is, 'We've chosen not to spend the money on writers.'

"What happens every year is you have an editor going to a publisher, saying 'We need to make the editorial budget bigger' and this is in a meeting in which they've already discovered that they have to jack up the printing budget and the distribution budget … and they get to the editorial budget and everybody is just burned out at that point. And someone says, meekly, 'I think we need to revise the editorial budget' and there's five seconds of silence and they end the meeting. And that's what happens."
[Thanks to David Hayes at the TFEW list for tipping us to this.]

Related posts:

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first link is dead.

12:50 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PREDICTION:

January 2009 – Agency Launches
September 2009 – Agency Goes Bankrupt

1:49 pm  
Blogger D. B. Scott said...

Link is now fixed, I believe

2:25 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prediction, January 2008 Agency Launches
September 2009, quality of published work shows marked decline due to publishers refusal to pay for quality work. Readers wander.
January 2010, publishers found to be spiking content with melamine

6:31 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel like I'm a bit dim/pessimistic, but like the previous commenter I'm a bit unclear on how an agency like this can actually make money, particularly given the current state of (a) print media and (b) the general economy.

I feel like the reason book agents can make a go of it is that part of their job is finding new talent and nurturing it, as well as landing considerably bigger individual deals (maybe?) for their clients, and selling different kinds of rights, a process which is still possible in the slightly less internet-threatened book world.

Even top writers in New York and other top-paying writing centres and markets take teaching jobs. I'm probably just narrow-brained or something, but I'm uncertain whether it's realistic to think that an agency could ever eliminate this practice.

Also I'm wondering what PWAC thinks. Part of its job is to act as a freelancer union, though I understand it's at a much broader, less "exclusive stable" scale.

7:23 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much as I would love to see writer fees go up (and up, and up - hey, we can all dream), my overwhelming sense here is that Finkle has virtually zero grasp on what goes on on the publishing end of this industry. Although perhaps that's true across the board - witness the number of comments on the agency posts vs. the ones posted in the last couple days on closures, death of print, shift to online, etc.

While writers are traditionally a low priority, we're entering a climate where there simply isn't any additional money fin the pot. He's making a lot of promises to writers, and while they sound like well thought out ideas, I haven't seen a single fact or other piece of evidence that in any way indicates that just "bullying" magazines into submission would work. Any surveys on why magazines don't pay more or what it would take to make them do so, for example?

As someone who's worked in the industry at his level, it surprises me to see such a naive analysis of the industry and how money is doled out.

8:45 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home