Three questions and three answers from Derek Finkle of the Canadian Writers Group
We've asked three questions of founder Derek Finkle and see what his responses are. Herewith:Q: There seems to be quite a bit of hostility among commenters, at least on this blog (albeit anonymously) to the very idea of negotiating higher freelance fees. Is that something you're finding as you develop this idea?
A: No, not really. I can’t think of a single editor or publisher I’ve spoken to in the magazine world who didn’t completely understand why the Canadian Writers Group has been embraced the way it has by so many quality freelance writers. Despite the fact that the agency isn’t officially in business yet, we’ve already successfully negotiated a few magazine stories, newspaper exclusives (one in the Toronto Star this past weekend), and some great commercial work for our writers. One well-known magazine in Toronto used the agency last week to help fill a senior editorial contract position. Not one person involved in theses transactions seemed fazed in the least to be working with an agency.
I think everyone is used to people venting when rich Hollywood actors go on strike or those cheeky public-transit workers decide to take a walk to get cost-of-living increases. But when a few hundred Canadian freelance writers announce that they want to join an agency – hardly a novel concept in the arts world – to combat the fact that pay rates have remained stagnant for, oh, about three decades, a couple of anonymous bloggers call them “irresponsible” and “whiners.” Considering that the Canadian magazine industry has seen a 35 percent growth in ad revenue over the past seven years, it’s pretty hard to take those comments seriously.Q: You didn't choose to launch this during a financial meltdown, but that's what's happening. Do you think that will make a difference to your success?
A: It’s certainly going to sharpen the focus of our strategy out of the gate, that’s for sure. We’ll be concentrating on specific publications, particularly on the rights front. When I started out fifteen years ago, most magazines were buying first-serial rights only. Now we’ve got magazines like Toronto Life asking writers to sign contracts that give away copyright for a year, along with web and other permanent rights, for no more money than the magazine paid its contributors twenty years ago. Readers Digest wants copyright forever. Creators in other fields – musicians, actors, photographers – have done a much better job of protecting their rights. And freelance writers need to learn from that.Q: How do you respond to people who a) fear some writers will lose out if other writers get paid better and b) scoff at the very notion of publishers negotiating and paying higher fees?
There is actually a revolt going on in Western Canada right now because CanWest has recently forced the contributors of Swerve, a weekly magazine distributed by the Calgary Herald, to surrender just about every conceivable right to their work – in the universe, in perpetuity – for no added compensation whatsoever. I’m told there’s not one single regular Swerve contributor who intends to sign this new contract. Apparently, there won’t be enough content to publish the magazine in a few weeks unless CanWest backs off. A few members of your blog’s anonymous chorus seem to be suggesting that these writers are acting irresponsibly in the face of a contract that the vast majority of freelancers – and editors, for that matter – would find offensive, especially when the writers in question are getting something like 40 cents a word.
A: One of the biggest problems with magazine freelancing is that not only are the rates generally abysmal, there isn’t a sufficient career arc for even the most in-demand and experienced writers. Too many talented people see the low ceiling and drop out altogether. One CWG writer was recently offered a contract for a column with a women’s fashion magazine, and when you factored in how much time this column was going to take each month, the $1/wd they were offering her – the same rate that particular magazine paid me in 1995 – worked out to the equivalent of about $30K per year. This writer had just left an editorial job at another fashion magazine that paid her $55K. So the same way a talented editor can climb up the ladder and make more money, freelance writers need similar monetary inspiration to stay with it. And should CWG writers start to get paid more fairly for the value of their talents and time, that’s going to positively affect all kinds of other writers. So it’s not about a money grab for a select few, it’s about creating a more realistic pay scale or arc for everyone, whether it’s a young talent or a prize-decorated veteran.Related posts:
Do publishers want to start paying more for content? If the past few decades – regardless of the economic climate – have proven anything, it’s that they don’t. But if we represent the majority of a magazine’s regular contributors – and that will be the case for a number of publications – then I don’t think it will be difficult to get publishers and editors to come to the table, especially when most magazines already deal with all kinds of other agencies. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from successful agents all over the Western hemisphere, it’s that even in lousy economic times, quality still sells.
posted by D. B. Scott at
2:09 pm
27 Comments:
Mr. Finkle continues to suggest that asking for first North American serial rights for one year is some kind of newfangled rights grab, but it's been the standard as long as I can remember. What say you others? Really, why shouldn't mags want first rights for a year? After all, there's the issue of lead time to contend with, the magazine's shelf life (whither quarterlies, for example?) and the mere fact that they wouldn't want to see substantially the same piece in a competitor's book just months later.
Derek Finkle is extremely arrogant and I hope he fails. I would just like to remind him that years of experience doesn't necessarily mean quality work when it comes to things like writing, design, etc. Being an editor, I would work with an eager young writer from Ryerson any day over many of the tired, washed up demanding writers on his list.
He keeps stating that fees for writers haven't gone up but ad revenue has...News to Mr. Finkle things like rent, hydro, equipment costs, software, internet, phone, etc. have also gone up in price.
Also, writers have far more opportunities to be published now then in the past.
I'm very intrigued by the idea BUT I don't think I should have to sign over all my current contacts (including those who have nothing to do with magazines) to this one agency.
Let's face it, if I wanted to put all my writing eggs in one basket, I wouldn't be freelancing.
I'd love to see the agency succeed, but as long as Mr. Finkle isn't open to negotiating the terms with freelancers, I don't see myself signing on.
Earth to Finkle! Earth to Finkle! If this writer of his who didn't get the gig with the fashion magazine can make only $30,000 per year at $1 per word, that's 30,000 words per year, or 577 words per week, or 115 words per weekday. You'll get more productivity out of a City of Toronto road crew.
For a business to succeed, it must deliver value to its various stakeholders. Magazine editors know the writers; the writers know the editors; they hardly need help finding each other and working together. So what value is he bringing to his writers, at least as far as landing gigs with magazines is concerned? Zip. And what value is he bringing to the businesses who would buy the services of his writers? Zip. Looks to me like he's nothing more than a union organizer in disguise.
I'm lost on Mo Temba's logic. North American serial rights for a year is the norm? Not in my lifetime of freelance writing. Nothing like that was demanded throughout the 1980s nor most of the '90s. Upon publication was all that was specified. And what competitor would publish "substantially the same piece...just months later?" If they did, the original magazine's editor & publisher would be delighted to see how lame their competitor would look. None of this reflects the magazine business in which I've been an active player for 27 years. Derek Finkle's agency is really pushing some buttons, though, judging be these & the anonymous comments that follow. I suppose Anonymous #1would group me (note: not afraid to use my name) among the "tired, washed-up demanding writers." Sounds like a tired, washed-up editor to me. Not the sentiments of the dynamic editors, some younger, some older, that I deal with, all of whom understand that freelance writers are in need of representation. All of whom acknowledge that all other suppliers to magazines are paid substantially more than they were in the '70s. Except the writers.
Who would have thought. David Hayes sounds just as arrogant as Derek Finkle...a match made in heaven.
Of course the agency's goal is laudable and fair. But the combative language used (by Finkle especially) is unnecessarily draining on the goodwill of supportive editors.
Hi Mo,
When I submit, I sell the right to publish the work for up to a year after acceptance. After that period, rights revert back to me. That's what most writers sell, not some yearlong guarantee of exclusivity. (Exception: travel pieces that are heavily funded by the assigning magazine. Those mags can put out a lot of upfront money to fund a trip, and, in my experience, they have also asked for a period of exclusivity on that basis.)
As for your concern about "the mere fact that they wouldn't want to see substantially the same piece in a competitor's book just months later?" Dude, what tiny trade pub do you work for? Are things really that cutthroat in Stettler? Do you really think that, say, GQ would jump at the chance to rerun a piece that Esquire ran a few months ago? Do you think...let's leave it at that.
To DB Scott:
I find it so funny that when David Hayes writes something negative about Mo Temba or an Anonymous writer you will post it because you are buddy buddy with him. However when I wrote a negative comment about David Hayes you won't do it.
This blog is a little one sided.
It may be that I rejected your comment, though I don't think so. If I did -- and I do so extremely rarely -- it is usually because of unnecessarily abusive content. I reserve that right; if you disagree, start your own blog.
David Hayes, at least, signs his name and, while he disagrees with another commenter, manages to do so without venom.
Mr. Moderator,
Was something amiss with my last post (my second in this string)? I sent it earlier today, but it's not showing up here. I was polite and everything.
I'm really surprised by the malicious comments. Re: the anonymous "editor" who would rather work with an eager young writer any day... While it's true that experience doesn't *necessarily* equal quality work, surely you are not suggesting that experience and quality have no relationship at all. That's just illogical. Do something for a while and you tend to get better at it, assuming you have some talent to begin with. You don't believe someone who's more experienced deserves more pay? So you'd happily keep the same salary for the rest of your career? I really don't see how someone can defend rates that haven't budged in decades. Anonymous, you may "hope he fails," but you ought to recognize that his agency has hit a chord with freelance writers -- and it would be extremely arrogant of YOU to dismiss all their concerns.
I don't know if CWG has staying power, but I really think that if the agency does negotiate contracts for a few writers this will mean that editors will work with other writers not represented by CWG.
In the extreme, if all the best writers in the WHOLE COUNTRY end up working exclusively with the agency like some sort of literary united front, it will mean that editors will have to do more work with less experienced writers. But, an across the board rise in editorial budgets to accommodate the CWG just will not happen.
I admit that my gut reaction to this is a negative one. Partially because the elitist flavour leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But, mainly, I feel this way because coming from the small mag world, I have spent years in an industry that relies on the free labour of interns and underpays all staff, not just writers. I have worked with over worked and under paid editors, circulators and other staff. Why should I privilege the pay of freelance writers over others? Yes, they deserve a raise, but they are not the only ones.
To: Mo Temba
I don't recall rejecting such a posting from you; as you'll see, I have posted your query about it. Could you resend the comment to which you refer?
So I was thinking that I might start up something called the CPG (Canadian Publishers Group) and form an allegiance to pay writers even less money. I guarantee I could get all of the publishers out there to join before Finkle gets all the writers to join his.
Try surviving without the publishers of these magazines, because they could survive without Finkle’s writers. :)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator, for the invitation to resend my post. I must have pushed an incorrect key the last time. I’ll try to reprise my comments.
First, to the anonymous contributor who referred to me as a dude working on a trade pub in Stettler, thank you for your note. You write: “I sell the right to publish the work for up to a year after acceptance. After that period, rights revert back to me. That's what most writers sell, not some yearlong guarantee of exclusivity.” Thank you, this confirms what I thought, that contributors generally grant first rights for one year. But how is that not a “yearlong [sic] guarantee of exclusivity”? Are you saying you can publish the piece elsewhere within the year-long time frame you’ve granted to the publisher, before, as you write, the rights revert back to you? You can’t have it both ways, surely.
As for your four consecutive rhetorical questions regarding the subject of repurposing stories for other magazines, I grant that perhaps you were thrown off by my use of the term “substantially the same piece” in my posting at the start of this thread. My point was, and is, that freelancers would be remiss not to revamp their stories wherever possible to suit other publications, and thereby make more money. Fair enough. I can see, however, why magazines wouldn’t want overlap. And that goes for both the original publication in which the piece appeared, and those in which a retooled version might appear. Magazines, I should think, like to believe the fine work they present is entirely original.
Now, Mr. Hayes. I’m sorry you are lost on my logic. In presenting my observations and questions, I did not intend to create an intellectual puzzle.
As for the anonymous contributors to this fine blog who find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks on Mr. Hayes and Mr. Finkle, you are showing the weak underbelly of your arguments. Indeed, these two gentlemen should be commended for at least striving to improve the plight of freelance writers, not savaged with such comments. Sure, take issue with how they are going about it, if you disgree. But personal slights and nasty asides have no place in this or any debate.
To the twit proposing the CPG: You're everything that's wrong with the world today.
I say this with my tongue only as far in my cheek as yours is in yours. Which, I venture, isn't too far at all.
Full disclosure: Derek Finkle was a guest at my Ryerson ContEd course on feature writing for the freelance market. As well I am in the exploratory stages vis a vis CWG. And Derek suggested I visit this blog. This is my first post.
I am appalled so many people are contributing under cover of anonymity. That's the 'snickering into the sleeve' Frank magazine (RIP) approach to journalism. Internecine sniping will get us nowhere.
I directly address the Anonymous who refers to "washed up demanding writers" on Finkle's CWG list. I know some of the persons personally but most only through their high-quality writing;"demanding" might qualify but "washed up"? Name some names and let them defend themselves.
As for Derek, his self-assurance is refreshing. He's good and he knows it. I'll take 'arrogant' over 'spineless' any day.
What's missing in these discussions is the role government could play in supporting the magazine industry -- the proverbial rising tide. NAFTA and WTO have forced us to allow Time and Sports Illustrated to poach ad dollars while the government is cutting back on magazine postal subsidies. Federal agencies such as Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board pour millions of dollars into film and TV production under the notion that Canadians need to see Canadian stories; Canadian films account for 1% of the box office in English Canada. Yet our magazine writers -- speaking of telling Canadian stories -- have not had a meaningful pay raise in decades. I know this from experience.
My first magazine piece, published in 1985 in the Globe's (long-defunct) 'Toronto' magazine, paid a dollar a word. It's now 2008. Guess what the rate is at the Globe's 'Report on Small Business'.
For better or worse, the freelance market in Canada is capitalism at its purist.
If a writer like David Hayes can demand $1.25 or more a word, and get it. Then more power to him. Some publishers obviously see a value in his work.
If a writer is only getting 10 cents a word, perhaps that is what he or she is worth.
Mo Temba wrote:
"Thank you, this confirms what I thought, that contributors generally grant first rights for one year. But how is that not a “yearlong [sic] guarantee of exclusivity”? Are you saying you can publish the piece elsewhere within the year-long time frame you’ve granted to the publisher, before, as you write, the rights revert back to you? You can’t have it both ways, surely."
No, I'm saying that the magazine has one year to publish the piece. If they fail to do so within that time, the rights "revert" back to the writer, who is then free to sell the piece elsewhere.
However, once the piece is published by the magazine that originally bought it, all they have purchased is the rights to first publication which they MUST exercise within one year. After they have published it -- after it appears in the magazine -- then all rights revert back to the writer, who is then free to sell it again. So theoretically the piece could run several times in several different pubs, within the year that the original purchasing mag accepted it. Rare, but it can happen.
So, no period of exclusivity AFTER the piece is published, not even within the first year.
By the way, rookie, if you're going to try to inflate your own flaccid stature by pointing out spelling mistakes on blog comments, you should probably get it right before you do. "Yearlong" is also correct, dude.
The kind of poison being directed toward working writers by those of you who are bent on perpetuating a egregious status quo is truly disgusting. How can you, in good conscience, defend the current situation? Is it lost on you that MAKEUP ARTISTS are routinely repped by agents in this country? Is it lost on you that many of the mags that stubbornly enforce the laughable $1 per word rate are owned by public corporations that have continued to deliver increased shareholder returns, year after year, largely at the expense of those who actually write their damned rags?
A pox on your publishing houses.
My, I didn't realize I even had stature, let alone, flaccid stature. And rookie? What's with you guys and getting personal? Apologies for being Canadian-centric on the spelling of year-long. And thank you for clarifying your rights dispensation. I do hope you all get paid what you deserve.
Mo, the simple fact that I had to explain to you how first serial rights works shows me you're either a small-market editor and/or publisher; a new addition to this fine industry; or have lived with your head up your own arse for a very, very long time.
Thanks for the snide kicker. I hope you get what you deserve, as well.
My last post on this.
Here is the problem I have with writers complaining about the fees they are paid:
Being a writer is a choice, not something that a person is forced to do. If they are doing it because of money then they are morons. Illustrators (who are represented by groups such as Anna Goodson, Sharpshooter, etc.) still make far less money then what a writer does (and probably spend just as much time doing a piece of work). However you don't see them complaining or whinning about their pay because they love what they do and aren't in the profession to be rich.
If writers are so upset with what they are being paid, why do they continue to accept the same fees they have been offered for the the past 20 years. Some of the groups members, David Hayes,
Alec Scott, Shaughnessy Bishop-Stall, Denise Balkissoon, etc. have their names published all over the various Canadian magazine landscape. If they are so upset with fees, then why haven't they turned down jobs because they felt the pay was too minimal...if they did that maybe they could make a difference, but they are simply too greedy to do so.
Come on, I really don't think you can call writers greedy. Just because someone chooses to be a writer that doesn't mean they should never get a raise and should be exploited for that choice.
It's not so easy to say that writers shouldn't accept low pay. There are so many writers willing to work for less money. If you turn down a job that only pays $1.00 a word the magazine will find someone else and you will be out that contract, out that money and out that writing credit. Moreover you will also loose a contact for the possibility for further work. How can one writer demand better pay when countless writers are waiting to replace them?
While Finkle and other writers will bang a drum saying that writers with less experience who will write for less will not deliver the same quality, that's more of a guideline than a rule. There are plenty of young and new writers who do write for peanuts and produce very good work for a variety of reasons.
So, this agency is an attempt to do exactly what you suggest - increase rates - but only for certain writers. However, since they can can not and are not interested in representing all writers, I think it is ill fated.
As I said before I do feel for freelancers, but no more for them than others.
There are some impressive names on the list of writers in Mr. Finkle's new group, and I hope that they will be able to negotiate better fees for themselves...
As a relatively new writer, however, I have to wonder what this kind of agency would do for me (assuming it would have me in the first place, since I'm hardly on the level of someone like Gare Joyce.) I think I'd prefer to learn how to negotiate better rates for myself, as opposed to forking over 10% of whatever rate is negotiated by this agency. What's the point in making more money if you turn around and give it to someone else anyhow? (And I know that they're 'expecting' more than a 10% increase in fees... but what happens if they're wrong?)
Anonymous says, "Being a writer is a choice, not something that a person is forced to do. If they are doing it because of money then they are morons." Who's choosing this job for the money? Um, no one. But even if money isn't the main consideration, it's fair to want a decent pay cheque at the end of the day. We're not taking a six-figure salary here, people. Also, let's keep in mind that even $1 per word can wind up being a small amount when you factor in the time that goes into an article -- not just the hours spent on writing, but also the research, chasing sources, interviewing, transcribing, any rewrites, etc. Anyone want to guess what that works out to per hour?
I agree that we should reject paltry rates, but our *individual* choices make little difference -- the editor will just find another writer willing to accept. That's the whole point of the agency -- to gather enough freelancers together that we have more power in the negotiation process. Right now it's pretty one-sided.
Re: Debbie's point about the agency not being interested in representing all writers -- is that accurate? I was under the impression that it will represent any writer who is making a living in the business, which seems to be a pretty broad definition. I know the wording -- "Canada's most talented freelance writers" -- sounds kind of elitist and subjective, but I don't think that's the intention or reality. Derek is not going to be rejecting people because he personally thinks their writing sucks. If you're a professional writer making money, I think you'd qualify.
To Anon above:
This is from the CWG site,
"The agency will take on writers based on their recent freelance income, anticipated future freelance income, experience, quality of work, demand for their work, and, in the case of those somewhat closer to the beginning of their careers, potential."
We are both correct. If you are a profession and pulling in some money and likely to make more, and you are deemed to produce quality work, than you can become a member. If you are a new writer, Derek Finkle will judge your potential.
Here is the link to the question and answer section of the web site:
http://www.canadianwritersgroup.com/questions.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home