Why I said no to The Daily Review
In this guest post, journalist Andrew Stafford explains why he taken a stand against not being paid for his work
Nearly 20 years ago, my first piece of journalism was published. For a music fan, it was an auspicious beginning: I saw a young You Am I supporting rock behemoths the Beasts of Bourbon at the Mansfield Tavern, one of those great suburban beer barns that gave up on live music long ago. One band was at its peak; the other scaling theirs. My review appeared in a Brisbane street paper, and I was paid $35.
My path was set. Before the cheque had cleared I had spent it, down to the last cent, on an anthology of rock & roll writing. In it, I was introduced to all the greats of the genre: Nick Kent, Lester Bangs, Deborah Frost, Ellen Willis, Greil Marcus and the godfather of music criticism,Crawdaddy! founder Paul Williams, who had a significant personal impact on me. Collectively, these writers taught me everything I knew.
I could always string a decent sentence together, but it still took me years to find my own voice. Like most writers, musicians and artists, I derive little enjoyment from looking back at early work. There can’t be too many rawer forms of growing up in public, and while I still enjoy writing about music, it’s not often these days that I write straight reviews of records or shows, as I did with this piece on the band Television.
I was pleased with the piece and sent it to The Monthly, who knocked it back on the perfectly reasonable grounds that they already had a music writer. Undaunted, I then offered it to Crikey’s Weekender section. It wasn’t right for that, either, but encouragingly, they handballed it to the just-appointed editor of The Daily Review, Crikey’s newest forthcoming offshoot.
On the same day, a piece written by Tim Kreider for the New York Times appeared on my Facebook feed. I read it with interest. His story was depressingly familiar. “I now contribute to some of the most prestigious publications in the English-speaking world, for which I am paid the same amount as, if not less than, I was paid by my local alternative weekly when I sold my first piece of writing for print in 1989,” he said.
Readers of this blog will know that additions have become rarer in recent times. That’s because it’s almost always unpaid work. When I do get paid, it’s because a piece has been picked up and run elsewhere. Others are sad orphans, rejected by all and sundry, with nowhere else to go. Occasionally, I write something purely for its own sake, but not too often. There is too much other work to be done.
The other reason new entries have been sparse is more personal. For the first half of this year I was caught up in another one of those annoying battles with depression that flatten me from time to time. And a big part of that malaise was the dire state of my industry. I was 42, about to get married (my partner and I accomplished this milestone three weeks ago), and still driving a cab two nights a week to keep going.
The editor of The Daily Review contacted me with what appeared on the face of it to be a plum gig. Writing like mine, he said, was exactly what he wanted to publish. He’d seen the Television piece, and knew of my book. Would I like to be the website’s music writer, covering everything from big stadium events to smaller shows that might be worthy of wider exposure? Jobs such as this are rare indeed.
What’s more, I adore Crikey. A day is not complete without a good laugh (or occasional cry) at cartoonist First Dog on the Moon and a hot, caffeinated shot of federal politics from Bernard Keane. It’s smart, acerbic, funny, and asks questions the old media often won’t, or has forgotten how to. And Eric Beecher, the chair of Private Media, is one of the smartest media minds in the country, as well as a deadly earnest chronicler of journalism’s decline.
What’s coming will probably surprise no one. The Daily Review had no budget for contributors. Submissions would be accepted on a copy-share basis, so that anything published on the site would also appear here on Friction. There was the vaguely hopeful prospect, but not a promise, that I might be paid “something at least” when advertising increased at some time in the undetermined future. I’ve heard that one before.
Twenty years, I thought, and my asking rate has gone from $35 to zero.
Do I need to add it would be great exposure? I have no doubt plenty of eyeballs would have been drawn to this blog that weren’t looking before. And of course, there were all the free gigs I could handle, which actually was reasonably enticing, what with Leonard Cohen touring and the summer festival season at hand. But I have been doing this too long to be in it for the tickets.
What was implied, but unsaid, was that I would also attract eyeballs, and advertising, to The Daily Review. Is it arrogant to point out that I have 20 years’ experience, and have built a reasonable reputation within my field? Isn’t that what normal people do when they fill in selection criteria, submit resumes, and attend interviews? In this case, there was no need: for the first time in my working life, I’d been headhunted.
The sealer was this: the editor (a decent fellow who’d been around the traps for long enough himself; none of this epic complaint letter is directed at him) had sent out a plea on Twitter for a Brisbane-based music writer, and received many enthusiastic replies from people who frankly sounded a lot like me 20 years ago. But that wasn’t what he was after: he wanted “a Crikey-quality writer/reviewer”. And apparently I was the man.
I spoke to him on the phone the next day – after less than a full night’s sleep, having already changed my mind half a dozen times – and told him as politely as I could that if that was the case, then it was reasonable to ask for Crikey-quality rates. These are, by industry standards, rather low, but I said that would be OK, because I respected and believed in the publication, and loved the idea of writing for it regularly.
The editor understood, but there was nothing he could do, other than suggest that if content also suited the main Crikey site, I could be published on that as well, and thus be paid for those pieces. That amounted to the status quo. I suggested a three-month trial – doesn’t everything have a free trial period these days? Again, the spreadsheet said no. I didn’t want to waste any more of his time, or mine, so we paid our regrets, and left it at that.
I’d like to say this was an easy call. It wasn’t. After a while, one gets desperate for the smallest morsel of validation; even the most opaque promises of future reward can make the pot of gold seem close at hand. The desperate are just as easily exploited as the young and keen. But I have spent enough time in my life chasing rainbows. Besides, how would I justify working for free, at my age, to my newly betrothed?
I also thought of my peers, friends and colleagues. If I took the job, I would become complicit in undermining their careers, as well as mine. It felt like providing scab labour, just when so-called content creators were beginning to man the picket lines. I accept that, in writing this, I’m unlikely to get too many more offers from Crikey, but it feels more important to join the chorus of voices saying enough is enough.
I don’t know anything about the business models or balance sheets of Private Media, who publishCrikey. But I think it’s fair to assume that at some point, its principals, Beecher included, sat down in a room together, made a conscious decision to expand their arts and culture coverage, and sallied forth on this new adventure with no budget to remunerate the people best qualified to do the job. This is journalism on credit.
I fail to see how such a strategy does not leave Private Media in the same murky territory as, say, Mia Freedman’s Mamamia. Freedman (whom, incidentally, Keane never misses a chance to give a good kicking on Twitter) has done extremely well out of creating the sort of personal cult around herself that her followers are sadly only too honoured to pay homage to in the form of free content.
Unfortunately, I am sure The Daily Review will have no trouble attracting some bright young thing to do the job. There is always someone out there talented and enthusiastic enough, possibly still living at home, unburdened by the responsibilities of adult life. I’ve been watching them skate past me for years. But, while I can’t eat integrity, I couldn’t swallow what was being served up here, either.
- This post first appeared on Andrew Stafford’s blog Friction. Somewhat ironically, Mumbrella did not pay him for it
Crikey editor Jason Whittaker writes:
I used to be a pest to editors everywhere. As a younger and much less wiser writer, working through university, toiling in jobs that were something less than the dream, I wrote voraciously and pitched incessantly. I knew my best chance of building a reputation and finding the job I really wanted was to get my byline out there. I was too shy to ask for payment and it was almost never offered.
Every writer goes down the same path. And so they should, frankly; the practice makes your writing sharper and your ambition stronger.
But at some point you realise what you’re doing is worth more than that. If you’re going to make a living out of this you need cold, hard cash to sustain it. That’s followed by the even more alarming realisation: almost nobody is offering.
Crikey pays the journalists and writers who contribute to our subscriber product. Sometimes less than their worth, but our resources only stretch so far — and let me tell you, we stretch them in ways that often defy belief. Some writers reject what we’re offering and take their work elsewhere — that sucks, but I always admire them for doing it.
What we have been able to do, as a growing enterprise, is offer positions to more journalists on staff. Our newsroom is more crowded than it’s ever been. I’m lucky enough to work for a company that values journalism and invests most of what we make back into it. There are, sadly, few other examples.
While it hasn’t been core to our product, Crikey has long featured arts content on our website, a mix of commissioned pieces we’ve paid for and a network of phenomenally dedicated bloggers. Our new website, Daily Review, packages that content up in a more attractive way. It is an unashamedly commercial venture; we want to grow Crikey — I want to hire more writers — and we reckon this is fertile advertising ground.
The business has made, for us, a really significant investment. We’ve hired Ray Gill — one of the country’s most experienced arts journalists — as editor. We’ve also hired a staff journalist, a terrific young arts writer who we’ve been able to pluck from the ranks of freelancers.
Some writers who contribute to the website won’t be paid. We’re honest about that from the start; we have to be. They can choose not to write for us; some have. Unfortunately, as we start this thing from scratch, having made the investment in two journalists, the cupboard for contributors is bare. I wish it wasn’t the case, and we’re hoping we can get this thing to the point where we can pay these talented, generous writers.
As someone who’s been down the same path, I’m pushing for that harder than anyone.
Well said Andrew and a strong stand.
User ID not verified.
Thank you Andrew, it can’t have been an easy decision. I don’t think you’re the only one losing sleep about the state of our industry either.
User ID not verified.
Standing up for yourself is empowering and never a losing proposition. Well done.
User ID not verified.
“Unfortunately, I am sure The Daily Review will have no trouble attracting some bright young thing to do the job. There is always someone out there talented and enthusiastic enough, possibly still living at home, unburdened by the responsibilities of adult life. I’ve been watching them skate past me for years.”
Sums up the dangers most older writers face.
User ID not verified.
Maybe you could go into content marketing?
User ID not verified.
This is a worthy contribution to an important debate for all of us in the media.
I’ve offered a response above. Look forward to any other feedback.
Jason Whittaker | Editor
Crikey | http://www.crikey.com.au
User ID not verified.
Love your work mate. That cheque’s in the mail.
User ID not verified.
I’d like to thank Jason Whittaker for his response. Jason, I did think of taking it up with you directly, but came to the conclusion that some things need to be said, and said loudly. It should be obvious that I respect Crikey and everyone that contributes to it. But I cannot help but be disappointed in the approach here. By the way, I offered this to Mumbrella gratis – consider it a a community service…
User ID not verified.
Journalists/writers have never been paid well because the industry is simply not lucrative. Understanding complex issues and writing really well is such a skill! Seems very unfair that some of the nation’s brightest toil away – for little pay – so we can stay informed about the world.
User ID not verified.
What Jason Whittaker has outlined here is a crystal clear case for why The Daily Review should not be launched. At least there is now on record an instance of an editor unashamedly saying that they want to grow business for their publication but that they don’t want to pay for it (because it will somehow come to pay for itself later? What amazingly specious reasoning.)
If Crikey believed so much in its product and mission, then it would be wonderful to see all its staff and editors working for free. Which will never happen, because that is a special position reserved only for the writers who are building the business in the first place. Without writing you would have no product to sell to your subscribers. Congratulations on playing your esteemed part in creating a new class of serfs.
User ID not verified.
Hits close to home. Disheartening for a young writer burning the midnight oil, pushing to work in an area of interest and spurning the aforementioned responsibilities of adult life while trying to build credibility, hustle some cash and live up to the lofty standards of research and reader intrigue of the big time journos and writers turned critics. Nevertheless I am hopeful. Together, we control their words!
User ID not verified.
If you don’t understand what’s happening to you Andrew it’s called neoliberalism. You could start with the book ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’ Philip Mirowski.
User ID not verified.
Hey Jason Whittaker. Do you work for free? No? Didn’t think so. Then stop discounting the worth of other people’s work to zero.
User ID not verified.
I’m going to express a view here. I’ve written about this before, but it seems relevant here.
At Mumbrella we pay our journalists. By my calculations we now employ more of them than our main trade press rivals. When we’ve freelanced out features for our sister title Encore, we’ve also paid for that at the going market rate per word.
But when you read the opinion page here, you are reading content that nobody has been paid for. Let me explain our thinking…
The model is this… We have budgeted to have enough content in order to deliver the number of page impressions required to deliver the number of page serves our advertisers have bought.
So anything above that is in some ways a bonus.
So I form the view that if you want to write a piece for us (or anyone else such as The Daily Review) and you have another motivation other than payment which makes it worth your while, then that is of mutual benefit.
That, of course, is often the opportunity to position yourself as an expert or take a stand on a particular topic. And most people who write opinion pieces for us are not journalists – they are people working within the wider communications industry who want to get across a point of view.
So I would argue that sometimes a transaction can take place in which content is delivered in exchange for something other than cash. It’s then simply up to both sides of that transaction to decide whether it’s a deal they are happy with. And to walk away if not.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Tim this idea of delivering skill, labour and content for something other than cash could catch on.
User ID not verified.
Jason Whittaker says, “It’s an unashamedly commercial venture…”
Not a very good one if you don’t pay people who do the work.
John Howard’s WorkChoices wet dream.
User ID not verified.
They want the best writers, so that they can build their business and eventually pay the writers who build their business. You can’t enter the debate about how to sustain this industry if you’re launching a product with the intention of not paying writers. That you’re honest about not paying writers is neither here nor there, it would be more honest – and you never hear editors say it – to admit that you know writers have nothing to leverage and you can flash ‘profile boosting’ as some kind of pseudo payment. I think it’s a great call by Andrew to put this out there – there are too many Daily Reviews, launching despite not being able to pay the guys that are going to build their product, getting their house sorted out before worrying about the guys that build it, trading on the goodwill of cyberspace and the desperation of creatives. I remember when the starting point was 50c a word for a writer. *takes rose-tinted glasses off* Now, you start a negotiation at zero. The Daily Review just shows that those that run successful online news operations like Crikey haven’t done the thinking required to sort this out or – more likely – aren’t intending too until they’ve made enough money to really get serious about it. They know that good writers today will work for free. Simple as that.
User ID not verified.
I’m sure the people writing for free for Crikey and growing their business are receiving equity in the business so their contribution to it’s success is rewarded in the future when it is viable.
No?
User ID not verified.
Everyone is entitled to be paid for their work if it is carried out under direction and is aimed at bringing a profit … and editors direct the work of their writers (or they did in my day) and are usually driven by profit (even if, as in this case, it is a future profit, which has nothing to do with the employees; as far as I know, Crikey is not a collective where all workers divvy up the proceeds of their labour equally)! If the columnist is being given free rein, and wants a platform for his opinions UNFETTERED except for legal concerns thus building a profile which is of mutual benefit to the publication, fair enough. But if The Daily Review wants a say in its content, it has to pay. Letters to the editor etc are free content because writers want their opinions heard; worryingly, this type of input is becoming part of the general ”news”content BECAUSE it is free.
User ID not verified.
same same
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151666687266269&set=a.10150474576666269.358131.34967896268&type=1&theater
User ID not verified.
I have never written for free.
I’m surprised by the number of people who say that every writer goes down the writing-for-free path. It’s simply not true.
The sooner writers value their own work, the sooner editors will value it. Keep chasing the paying gigs. It’s worth it.
User ID not verified.
Freelancing arts and culture writers are in a particular bind. Passion for our field is what drives most of us, and it is a keystone of our expertise.
That same passion makes us more exploitable than others, perhaps, and willing to work for rates that have eroded substantially over years. Love for the job also helps offset the lack of work-related expenses, super, sick and holiday pay.
Andrew has put a floor price on his passion and that is admirable. Will it keep mid-career arts and culture writers from being offloaded in favour of “profile-lifting” cut-and-pastes from the blogosphere and people happy to write for free tickets, I don’t know. But you have to try.
User ID not verified.
Billy C. No. You are dreaming.
User ID not verified.
I have no problem with highly trafficked sites allowing writers to contribute unpaid pieces for credibility / links. But there’s a big difference between that and being asked to be a publication’s main writer.
These publications need to man up. Not just because what they’re doing is wrong, but because sooner or later someone will develop a clever alternative that will undermine the model altogether. People will only bankroll your success for so long before they – collectively – start thinking about bankrolling their own.
And the “bright young things” who’ve always been prepared to work for free from their parents’ dining table? I’m sure they’ll be just as happy to write for money under a clever new business model.
User ID not verified.
Hi Andrew,
I agree with Tim: don’t do anything for free if you don’t see a mutual benefit.
However you are incorrect in stating that Mamamia does not pay for content. We do and have been for some time now.
Mamamia and ivillage also employ 10 full time journalists, 8 part-time journlists and a growing number of regular columnists.
We are in the process of hiring more journos at a time when most major media organisations are making them redundant.
Would appreciate you correcting that.
User ID not verified.
I’m sorry Jason Whittaker but that is BS.
NO business makes money when it is just starting out. That’s why finance and business are fields that are notoriously hard to start out in. You need capital to get it moving.
The payment of staff and professionals to get a business off the ground and into the competitive marketplace is handled by what we call Business Loans and sometimes even Investors.
There is a system already in place for start-ups so that they can afford to employ other valuable members of society. If your website is growing such that your staff of two writers cannot handle the consumer demand for content – then that is a PERFECT opportunity to look for investors and get business loans based off a marketable product i.e. your website.
Business is meant to enter into an equal contract with workers – these contracts are falling off all over the place because executives fail to realise that THEIR JOB is also to employ people and contribute to society, not just squeeze as much work out of employees for a little money as possible.
User ID not verified.
I don’t know whether I admire or pity the author’s persistence in trying to pursue a paid career in an industry that has been paying less to fewer writers for at least 15 years now. I worked as a journalist for The Age in the early 1990s and circulation had stopped growing even then. The most recent circulation figures show a 15% decline in weekly sales. A journalist friend who still works there comments on the acres of empty office space in their already downsized office space. Paid written journalism is dying, and there is no prospect that it will ever reinvigorate.
User ID not verified.
Andrew’s piece inspired a supportive response from myself:
https://matthew-sini.squarespace.com/blog/2013/11/9/the-price-and-the-value-of-writing
The more noise made about these issues, the better.
User ID not verified.
“However you are incorrect in stating that Mamamia does not pay for content. We do and have been for some time now.”
Only after you were shamed into it.
User ID not verified.
Hi Mia, I have appended this clarification to my original blog:
Apologies to Mia: I missed the news last July that, following prolonged criticism, Mamamia would begin paying its contributors a flat $50 fee for articles. However, as someone who was paid exactly ten times that amount – in 1995! – for my first op-ed column in newspaper, and never less than $350 since, I have to say (as many others have already) that Mia’s insistence that “newspapers and magazines have traditionally not paid writers of opinion content” is simply not true. I find that a baffling assertion from a professional with so many years in the industry. I’m also sceptical that a profitable and exceptionally popular website that employs 10 journalists is somehow absolved from paying its contributors a fairer rate because it is “not a big media corporation”. Less than 12 months ago, when Freedman defended not paying her contributors on the grounds that they were receiving, you guessed it, valuable “exposure”. Unfortunately, judging by the comments stream, many of Mamamia’s fans still consider it an honour to write for the site for nix. So I’m letting that second-last paragraph stand, with a direction to this clarification – AS
User ID not verified.
Mia Freedman, $50 per piece is not pay. That is tokenism. If you have so many paid staff, then stop paying babysitting money to people as contributors. Either create all the content with your paid staff or pay market rates if you want praise for “paying” writers.
User ID not verified.
Bit rough that Crikey editor Jason Whittaker is being sent out on behalf of the new publication. He’s the editor, but surely this is a commercial decision and should be defended by Private Media CEO Marina Go or publisher Eric Beecher.
User ID not verified.
This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.alliance.org.au/ from:
Lloyd Bradford (Brad) Syke
From: Lloyd Bradford Syke
Subject: Re: Crikey’s The Daily Review: why you shouldn’t volunteer for a for-profit media organisation
Date: 11 November 2013 10:18:18 AM AEDT
Byron Bache
Jason Whittaker , Ray Gill
_________________________________________________________________
Dear Byron,
Amazing timing. I was all set to initiate and spearhead such a move myself. I was having a discussion about this, just yesterday evening, with a photographer friend, who was describing how he’d come across a project ‘offered’ by Tennis Australia, with very specific criteria, that promised exposure and reputation, rather than remuneration. I was outraged, knowing that Tennis Australia is an almost ridiculously cashed-up organisation. My outrage underscored my own gnawing, nagging, practising hypocrisy, however. Since Ray Gill importuned me to continue my prolific contributions as, effectively, Sydney arts editor, I’ve been more restless and tormented than usual. Having spent much of my life working in advertising as a copywriter and creative director, I spoke out loud and clear when, in the eighties, certain fashionable agencies took on hungry, young, talented interns, on a similar basis; often times, exploiting said talent to produce multi-million dollar campaigns. I slammed
it as
unethical and something that really should’ve been illegal.
By sheer chance also, I stumbled on Andrew Stafford’s piece, late last night, after returning from a concert I was to write-up for The Daily Review. The synchronicity was stunning, as I’d been discussing with my friend a plan to bring the MEAA into the picture. I’m at one with you, Andrew and other writers. I love the Crikey brand and have been a fervent advocate on its behalf. I admire Jason Whittaker’s effort and commitment; it was he who first recruited me to Curtain Call, after years writing for Australian Stage, which (again, much as I like Simon Piening, its founder and editor) is guilty of similar breaches. I respect the work of Ray Gill and have already found him to be a very painstaking editor. But this is wrong, wrong, wrong. As you say, if Crikey can’t pay contributors in starting-up an arts portal, the portal isn’t viable, so don’t start it up. I’ve worked day and night for Crikey, for years, and have never been paid a cent. I knew nothing about the sliding scale
of
which you speak and the knowledge makes me me feel sad, disappointed, used, resentful and infuriated, all at once.
In short, I’m on-board, as of immediately. Please add my name to the list. If a mass (ideally, universal), virtual walkout of all unpaid contributors to (for-profit) Australian publications was to happen, it would force a negotiated settlement, as it would bring much of Australian publishing to a grinding halt. I hope we won’t encounter a situation where scab labour fills the breach and this moral and ethical decay is allowed to fester.
More power to us. This message should be spread as far and wide and fast as possible.
Best,
Lloyd Bradford (Brad) Syke.
On 11/11/2013, at 12:40 AM, Byron Bache wrote:
Freelancers and current, past and future Crikey contributors:
Today, Crikey is launching a new arts website called The Daily Review. It has no contributor budget.
We are writing to ask you not to contribute to it for free, and to tell you why we won’t be doing so ourselves.
This is about fairness, and recognition of the value the work of arts writers has contributed to a publication we are immensely proud to write for. It’s about beginning a discussion. To that end, we have CCed Crikey’s editor Jason Whittaker, The Daily Review’s editor Raymond Gill, and Private Media CEO Marina Go and Chairman Eric Beecher on this email.
Crikey’s arts, entertainment and culture coverage was always an extra, an add-on, a side street. Thanks largely to Jason’s championing of the coverage, it’s now a big deal: it’s a large enough piece of the Crikey pie that it’s getting its own website, with a significant investment of money. The Daily Review already has a paid full-time editor, and a paid full-time journalist.
Crikey’s arts coverage has, until now, been on its blogs. Crikey bloggers are paid on a sliding bonus scale. (Those contributing to Curtain Call may not even be aware of this, given the blog’s multi-voiced nature.)
Some Crikey blogs make money. Some even hit the high end of this scale every month. If you’ve blogged for Crikey, you may have been regularly paid for your work or you may have never seen a cent.
The bonus system—one that values content based on the audience it attracts, a flawed system that doesn’t value writers or writing—was at least a nod to the worth of the content it rewarded.
Not paying contributors (and the based-on-pageviews payment scale) made a degree of sense before. Now it looks like an organisation getting greedy. At its launch, and at least until the end of the current financial year, The Daily Review has no contributor budget at all.
(Some existing Crikey arts blogs will remain in their current form, with their content syndicated on The Daily Review and in its twice-weekly email iterations. Pageviews on Daily Review will not count toward bonus payments.)
Contributors to the Crikey subscriber email are paid per piece, at rates starting at $150, regardless of word length. Crikey considers their writing to be worth money, but not yours. The contributor budget for the daily email runs to tens of thousands of dollars every month.
For those of you who’ve been writing for Crikey for years now, the announcement of an arts portal should have been an exciting thing; it should have meant money in your pocket—financial recognition of the contribution you’ve made to the Crikey brand. Instead, it’s a slap in the face. Your work has made Crikey’s arts coverage the go-to destination it has become; without it, The Daily Review would be an unimaginable proposition.
The switch to an aggregated arts site means that, for contributors, there will be no bonus scheme in place. If you choose to contribute to The Daily Review, you will be writing for free, and you will be doing so for a website that makes money. You will be doing so for a website that pays over $100,000 a year in salaries to its two staff, but pays you nothing.
It is ethically reprehensible for a company to expand and actually stop paying the people who produce its product. A company which asks its readers to pay for content doesn’t feel the same obligation when it comes to its writers.
In a statement on Mumbrella, Jason Whittaker described The Daily Review as “an unashamedly commercial venture” and “fertile advertising ground”. The Daily Review will make money.
The Daily Review’s success depends on its content. If you can’t afford content, you cant afford to launch an arts website. If you can’t afford to launch an arts website, don’t launch one.
Crikey is the only site of its size and scope that regularly publishes large amounts of content by unpaid writers. Indeed, there are far smaller sites that pay their contributors; Junkee, Mamamia, The King’s Tribune, Writers Bloc, SameSame and Mess+Noise all pay for the pieces they publish. Contributors to Daily Review should be paid, and they should be paid at the same rates as regular Crikey contributors: a flat rate, starting at $150 per piece.
Arts journalism is a small pond, and it’s likely you will be asked to contribute to The Daily Review at some point, as the number of writers willing to give their work away shrinks. Don’t work for free.
By refusing to volunteer for a for-profit media organisation, you’re beginning a conversation about your value. If that value is zero, there are other outlets that will pay you for your work.
Please feel free to forward this email.
Sincerely,
Byron Bache, Laurence Barber and Bethanie Blanchard
with
John Birmingham, A.H. Cayley, Sam Cooney, Paul Donoughue, Daniel Dalton, James Douglas, Lisa Dempster, Ben Eltham, Clementine Ford, Daniel Golding, Amy Gray, Rebecca Harkins-Cross, Elmo Keep, Brodie Lancaster, Patrick Lenton, Brendan Maclean, Jess McGuire, Kat Muscat, Roger Nelson, Josh Nelson, Lefa Singleton Norton, Connor Tomas O’Brien, Geoff Orton, Karen Pickering, Judith Ridge, Rochelle Siemienowicz, Ellena Savage, Rachel Short, Matthew Sini, Angie Smith, Andrew Stafford, Peter Taggart, Sam Twyford-Moore, Alex Sol Watts, Stella Young
User ID not verified.
I think you did the right thing. You are helping to grow a site from scratch for nada. There is only one inner in that scenario, and it ain’t you!
I don’t write for free. I do not have the time.
User ID not verified.
Mia,
$50 a piece is a joke and you know it.
I was paid $110 for my first published piece in The Canberra Times in 1995 and have never written (or taken photos) for anyone for free since.
I currently work in a different field and am no longer a freelance writer because of changes wrought upon the industry by opportunistic business models like your own and the one being advanced by The Daily Review.
It’s a very simple equation: being able to pay rent, bills and eat > ‘exposure’.
User ID not verified.
Launching a site to make money off people’s work for which you pay no money. Yup, makes total sense.
User ID not verified.
Ah, the irony of a generation that refuses to pay for media being unable to find paid work in media…
Well, you got what you wanted – journalism, music, movies, tv series all FREE thanks to the wonders of the internet.
But here’s the sting in the tail. You demanded the media industry adjust its business model – now it’s time to adjust your expectation model.
Something about reaping what you sow…?
User ID not verified.
@factoryreset
Andrew’s generation didn’t grow up demanding that the internet be free. It was all grown up before the internet was even invented.
(Andrew published his first story in the early 1990s, which was about the time Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web)
User ID not verified.
Question for their journalists/writers feeling wronged by not being paid … would you accept being paid on a performance model? ie – $10-15 per thousand reads of a story? (assuming average total CPM yield on a page considering self through etc is maybe $30)
This way you are paid related to the gross revenue the work generates. It aligns the interests of both writer and publisher (which are generally not aligned).
I can’t see what would stop The Daily Review from doing this. Or any other publisher. I am not saying it is the answer but it has to be better than not being paid.
User ID not verified.
At least most people here have had the courage of their convictions, ‘factory reset’, and proudly put their actual name to their comments. I, for one, am 54 years old and not part of a generation that’s refused to pay for media. In any case, you’re conflating and oversimplifying two complex issues which can neither be conflated or oversimplified.
User ID not verified.
“conflating and oversimplifying two complex issues”
Not really no.
Simply put, most people in the first world have little comprehension of the historical struggle for the liberal democratic rights they now enjoy. Hence the popular embrace of a ruthless “free market” ideology by smug anarcho-utopians who’ve grown up middle-class with employment rights and entitlements enshrined in law
They justify theft of intellectual property by blaming the “business model” and calling for the “solution” as being reform of copyright law. So the fact that they are consuming product without paying for it is rendered irrelevant by cognitive dissonance.
Businesses need revenue, journalists, musicians and content creators need to put food on the table – but it’s all just a huge joke to be sniggered at and mocked by the “I’m alright jack” crowd whose idea of content creation is posting an animated GIF on Reddit.
If content creators don’t earn enough money, they should just get a real job, right?
But god forbid you deny yourself the ability to read/listen/watch the content they produce without paying anything for it…then bemoan the increasing prevalance of “click bait” and press releases passed off as articles, the gradual erosion of investigative journalism and “dumbing down” of society…
Of course, these same anarcho-utopians will squeal like pigs when a conservative government comes to power and they too are made to “compete” in the real world (ie: have employment conditions eroded, public services sold off, safety nets dismantled…)
I do understand many here are from an older generation, but have seen much triumphalism from these same generation as they gleefully forecast the rise of independent blogs and the demise of “mainstream media” – ie: media that can afford to pay you a decent wage and can afford to defend you in a court of law if you undertake serious investigative journalism.
Welcome to the “post mainstream media” utopia folks…
User ID not verified.
Well, ‘factory reset’, you seem to have identified a real or imaginary enemy and classified it with precision, but I’m wondering who, precisely, falls into these tight parameters. And you still haven’t identified yourself.
I’ve seen little or nothing of the triumphalism of which you speak and, while there are elements of truth in your analysis, the pastiche you put sounds suspiciously like a paranoid fantasy.
User ID not verified.
factoryreset is doing a nice job trolling this topic. But don’t tell me to reap what I sow, mate – I pay for every cent of my music, books and everything else (and will soon have the removal costs to prove it) 🙁
User ID not verified.
As Morris Newman would triumphantly say ‘Stop conducting a class war you workers’
User ID not verified.
Imagine someone opened a cafe, rented the building, leased a machine, bought tables and chairs and then – oh wait – no money for coffee – can i have some please? I got no money but I’ll be doing you a favour, people will drink it.
User ID not verified.
Have you seen that The National Library of Australia has threatened to pull its advertising from The Daily Review unless it pays its writers? Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business.....z2kOn89N6F
User ID not verified.
If a shop keeper were to suggest to his or her teenage staff they work for free whilst he built the business, the Herald Sun would be all over it.
Why is it some work is worthy of paying with no question, but the arts, journalism and the like not? Is it because it’s not ‘hard’ work or menial labour?
Why aren’t we allowed to exploit kids yet those on far higher salaries with far more to gain seem to operate with a dodgy moral compass?
I’ve long said to aspiring juniors in the ad game to never work for free. Sure work for almost nothing, prove yourself over a brief or few – but if you’re prepared to work for free for me, why on earth would I want to pay you?
If journos are supposed to work for free, or a pittance because it’s a new venture, then the payoff should be at the end – a bigger split of profits. And not that piddling figure I’ve seen banded about.
User ID not verified.
I want $4 for my comment.
User ID not verified.
We love Crikey and we would love to promote our exhibitions in the Daily Review but hey, we re a self funded ethical Indigenous Gallery supporting remote art centre communities which rely on art sales to provide much needed income and social programs. We can neither afford the rates nor would we support a publication that doesn’t pay it’s staff. Ethos. What’s happening?
User ID not verified.
touche, jason.
User ID not verified.
I say…. “You there!…builder man, with all your tools and things.”
Now look young fella, ive got this block of land, you could build a lovely house on it for me and then when i sell it, i might give you some of the money for all your time and bricks etc.”
“Off you go, the sooner you get it built, the sooner you might get paid”
User ID not verified.
Brilliant, offal. Spot on. 🙂
User ID not verified.
I would just like to add that this can also be applied to most of those employed in the creative sector.
We are completely undervalued, and as much as technology has improved commerce and other business exchanges and ventures, creatives and their skill set are becoming more and more undermined and undervalued as time goes on.
Executives and non-creatives believe the arts – writing a feature, investigative journalism, designing a logo, creating a corporate brand aesthetic/identity in the media world – can all be done in a short time-frame, with limited resources because “It’s the 21st Century and anyone can do it” and new websites which feed off of the skills of others, or exploit young designers trying to catch a break (which, mind you, have spent over $30,000 on tertiary education as the bare minimum) create this idea that creative content is easy to make, and artists, musicians, writers, filmmakers are all so passionate and desperate doing what they love that they will crumble and go for exposure over pay. “Your portfolio will look amazing with this!” “Your byline will be viewed by at least 100k subscribers”
but how will I create when I can’t afford to pay my rent let alone my electricity bill to email you the article?
There needs to be an overhaul on the way society has changed their views on art and it’s value. By allowing these corporations to milk us and exploit our talents for their own financial gain we are essentially allowing society to think that it is ok to undervalue our creations.
User ID not verified.