Great article and great site, I've just discovered you.

I find this such an interesting debate and mostly because I am working at The Punch, a new News Ltd wesbite currently not paying contributors.

I have been really blown away by the fact that this hasn't affected the amount of people wanting to write for us. In fact we are inundated with fantastic writing from eager emerging writers who get just as much 'of a go' as the more established ones.

I know the plan is that we will eventually pay for writing and this is important for the long term. But there is so much to be gained as a writer just by having a supportive outlet.

So maybe it's more about what you decide is important to you.

I personally think you gain just as much from being edited and getting feedback from readers of your article and the senior people that edit your work, than you do getting paid for it.

But in saying that I decided long ago that I would be prepared to write for free as long as I felt my writing was improving. I have also always had other non-writing jobs to create an income.

I do admire people who stick to their guns on wanting to be paid. This is a sacrafice and i hope it pays off for the people that do.

Perhaps the question is not ‘should we write for free – yes/no’ but ‘to what extent should we write for free?’

I agree with this completely. The main questions I ask myself when deciding if it's worth writing for free are a) does the publisher in question have the money to pay me, and b) will this allow me to be part of a conversation I otherwise wouldn't?

I've always strongly encouraged new writers not to offer their services for free to the major newspapers and magazines - they have the means to pay you and up until the past six months or so, it wouldn't have made a difference as to whether they'd publish you anyway - whilst also highlighting the importance of 'paying your dues', for which smaller, indie publications are a great place to start.

I don't agree with Lisa that refusing to write for free is a "sacrifice" - despite the recession, I'm yet to experience a shortage of paying outlets willing to publish my work (although admittedly I don't freelance fulltime and have other sources of income). But I'm okay with doing it when it means writing for my own blog (which I use to have a more interactive discussion about the issues I write about), guest posting for another blog (usually reprints of something I've already published), writing for a friend's (indie) publication, or republishing something I've already written to a news outlet that gets a lot of traffic.

But usually these pieces involve far less research or effort than pieces I am paid for, and my blog aside, I always prioritise paid writing over unpaid writing.

I'd also be willing to do it if there was something I really wanted to write about and no paying outlet would take it, but to date, this has not happened.

I recognise the sitution is different for writers who don't have a publishing record already under their belt, but I still stand by my old advice. Good writing, reporting and analysis takes time and commitment to produce, and it deserves to be paid for - especially if someone's making money off it.

It depends, in part, on why you're writing. I take Lucy's point about skills development. But what if you've been in the industry for 20 years, have honed your skills, and just can't make a living anymore? It's tough. I certainly get asked to do things for free for alot more hours than there are in the day. And there is the issue of being asked to do stuff for free by organisations when others are being paid. ie. when, if they tried, the business could afford it. ON the other hand, I do think it's problematic when authors assume that if there is a print presence, (say a travel guide) and then an online presence for that same material, that there is double the audience. There isn't - it's just a case of the existing audience moving online.

Great point about if a publication is able to pay, then they should pay writers.

Sorry to Lucy but I think it's terrible and exploitative when companies like Huffington Post and News Ltd aren't paying their writers. In the case of News Ltd, who has a print arm that pays their writers, it devalues the medium of web-published writing. Just because writers are willing to write for free (as I do a lot of; I have considered writing for The Punch even), doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of.

I should note here that Vignette Press doesn't pay contributors to The Mook, and it's something that I struggle with. I don't make an income from it either; they only person who makes (a very small amount of!) money from it is the editor and designer of each issue. The Mook receives no funding or advertising money; we are an emerging publication. But I am working towards a more sustainable model that includes paying writers.

A very interesting model from Michelle Haimoff, thanks for posting.

Oops, I meant Lucy before, not Lisa. Sorry about that!

Don't pay writers; pay the readers!

Turn the economics of writing and reading on its head by simply reversing the way the money flows.

Here's how it will work:

Readers get paid for every word they read. Bloggers set the price-for-word (PFW) amount for their writing, and pay readers accordingly. Popular writers might have a low PFW: more people will want to read it so the writer does do not want to pay out too much. Knotty, 'difficult' and/or boring writers (like MA students, or economists bloggers, say) might set a high PFW: no one, except for select groups, will read their blog so they must attract people to their work with a high PFW.
Readers answer three questions at the end of each blog testing if they have really read it or not. If they get all three questions right the writer pays them (via PayPal, Visa, MC, etc).

EXAMPLE ONE Don DeLillo's blog has a PFW of 0.01 of a cent. He writes about 1000 words a day. If one person reads this, and answers the questions correctly, Don will pay him $10.

EXAMPLE TWO PHD student Mary Reynolds posts 1000 a day on her blog about the 16th century German tax system. She sets her PFW at reasonably high 10 cents. She will pay one reader $100 if they read it. If she wants more people to trawl through her diatribes she might lower her PFW.

Paying readers will promote reading, and (mercifully) demote blogging. (Or, at least, make bloggers reconsider the amount of waffle they trot out.) Writers can still of course blog stuff and not pay anyone, but, via natural selection, it will mean that readers will be more attracted to sites where they can earn a buck. Some writers and readers may be PFW neutral: I'll read yours for free if you read mine for free (you'll still have to do the test).

Simple.

The Huff Po example illustrates how the migration of content from print to online is often being used to cut wages. Printing costs are accepted as a constant but the cost of labour power is treated as something entirely negotiable, to be set at whatever rate the market will bear. In the midst of a GFC and with very weak unions for writers, it's proving very easy to establish new norms for online writing that are a lot lower than the going rates in, say, newspapers. I've just been reading a very interesting article that suggests that, in fact, the ideal worker envisaged by modern management theory -- that is, an independent contractor, prepared to pay for his or her own training, and to switch jobs as required -- actually looks much more like a writer or an artist than a traditional blue collar worker. Which is kind of a grim thought.

Ah, Oslo Davis is a gifted satirist. I'd certainly pay to read him. Personally I side with cranky Harlan Ellison I'll happily put up my hand for a paycut when everyone else in the industry does. The recent screenwriter's strike in the US was based around the idea that revenue IS made from online content, but by the time it gets to writers there's a lot of filabustering about "getting good exposure" or "helping your book sales".

"The Punch, a new News Ltd wesbite currently not paying contributors". I am very very disturbed and puzzled by that. Why wouldn't News Ltd pay its contributors? Last time I heard The Monthly magazine is still not making money, but they pay their contributors well.

Goolge tried the same thing with artists and here is one who took a stand:

Artist to Google: show me the money

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/artist-to-google-show-me-the-money-20090618-cis2.html

When a company making as much money as Google is still trying to get artists' work for free, that is insulting to the artists.

"Vignette Press doesn't pay contributors to The Mook...they only person who makes (a very small amount of!) money from it is the editor and designer of each issue" What makes the editor and designer more special than the contributors? Because they are the only ones who refuse to work for free? I'm very curious.

The designer and editors of The Mook of us are certanly not 'more special' than contributors. The editor and designer are not 'the only ones who refuse to work for free'. In fact if you divide how much money they make with how many hours they put in, it would almost certainly work out in the negative - they are, essentially, working for free.

If I could afford to renumerate everyone, I would - trust me, contributors to the mook will be paid before I am, and as I noted in my comment above I'm working towards that creating a model where writers will be paid.

Not paying contribs is something that I struggle with, and after a certain point if I can't generate an income to pay writers then I will no longer publish The Mook; not paying writers is not a part of my long-term game plan. But I am not News Ltd or Huff Po, I am a single person funding a start-up magazine. I like to think that there is a difference between the two scenarios.

I've written for free online at places where I knew the exposure would be (almost) as good a replacement as money - and I was right.

Also, there's us who do make money off our own blogs, who now don't write for others, just ourselves, and are doing okay.

I suppose my point here is just because you can write for free online doesn't necessarily mean you HAVE to. It depends a lot on your motivation and where you want/need to gain entrance to the field.

To pull together comments regarding this that have been on twitter and facebook, I would say that I think the situation is very different for journalists rather than novelists. To quote Rob Corr 'Novels have a longer lifespan. "Free" depends on slower build, I think.' That is, people might read novels on line then go and buy the print version. This is very different than the situation for journalists who are, effectively, having their wages and conditions and eroded steadily.

Lisa, I agree with you, there is a HUGE difference between The Mook and News Ltd. I understand why The Mook doesn't pay its contributors. What I can't get my head around is why the designer and editor are offered payment and the contributors aren't. Doesn't matter if the designer/editor were essentially working for free. They were paid, the contributors not. If they were essentially working for free, why don't they just work for free, just like the contributors? In what way are the designer/editor different from the contributors?

The comments about the editor/designer working for free illustrate to me a basic lack of understanding of the huge roles that these people have in the production of a book. Put simply, without the editor, and without the illustrator, the mook wouldn't exist.

Those who contribute to the mook - and I contributed to the previous mook - understand that they won't get paid. For the exposure to your writing, you forego that payment, knowing that exposure to your work is something you can't pay for, and few people will buy. You get in on the strength of your talent, and the reviews of your work are what carry your reputation.

The second point is that I have yet to meet a designer/illustrator who will work for free. I have been badly burnt by asking a friend (who is a designer) for his opinion, and getting a $500 bill in return.

The third point is that editors' roles are always misunderstood - people think that "dotting i's and crossing t's" isn't worth paying for. But in fact, editors lift works from where they are, to their absolute highest potential: they help to scope the work, to structure it, they help with design briefs... there is a LOT more work here than many would believe possible. Editors' work is the basis of a good publication like this one: writers get recognition (as writers) and gain reputation points by publication in a good book; illustrators' and designers' works are easy to see, and essential to sales (often); editors are completely hidden - and yet utterly essential!

This misunderstanding of who deserves what is something that goes on and on and on - and it's something that I would have thought that the publishing industry should have attempted to address by now.

The reason the designer and editor get paid first is this: a contributor hands in one piece. The designer and editor each edit/design each contributor's piece - that's over 75 pieces in the Death Mook. And that is simplifying their respective tasks immensely. Actually, the designer also does a cover, end pages, bios, and conceptualises and designs the concept of the mook as a whole; the editor has the additional tasks of commissioning and liaising with the contribs through the whole process. The sheer volume of work what the editor and designer do, and what a single contributor does, make it fair, in my eyes, to pay the editor and designers first. I do not say this to devalue the contributor the writers and illustrators make to The Mook - rather, to break it down into simple terms.

That Harlan Ellison is indeed brilliant to watch - I love all that fast-talking rage.

There have been some great responses here, which I think proves the complexity of the issue - particularly the ways in which, as Jeff says, the move online is establishing a 'norm' of writing for free. I think sometimes in our excitement over what the web can do, we forget the importance of valuing writers' work.

Personally, I have written for free for both print and online, and it has been a rewarding experience. But the extent to which I would be willing to continue to do so is limited. Eg. I would always prioritise paid work, which hopefully would make up the majority of my writing. But I would still be willing to write for free to take part in some brilliant emerging pub/blog that caught my eye, both for the exposure and because I think it is still important for this sector to flourish, and I can understand how hard it is for some eds to generate income/profit, particularly if they are ineligible for grants.

Lisa, I admire what you do The Mook and I don't underestimate how difficult it is to manage financially. I appreciate you explaining your reasoning in paying the editor and designers, but not the writers. Thank you.

No worries Simon. And just riffing on what I wrote above... theoretically I could pay the contributors as a whole what the designers and editors get paid. Divided between approx 75 contributors, this would end up being $10 each maximum. I have not done that on the grounds that it would probably be insulting; instead contributors receive author copies and drinks at the launch party (or parties!). Anything beyond that and we would get into territory where I couldn't afford to publish The Mook at all.

Leticia, thanks very much for your post. I don't undervalue the roles of the editor and designer in book/magazine production. My Editing and Print Production lecturers have made their importance crystal clear to us. I wasn't advocating that they should work for free for The Mook, but I was curious how was it decided that, when money was tight, the editor/designer were offered payment and writers not. You comment about The Mook wouldn't exist without the editor/designer is, I'm sure you are aware, equally applicable to the writers.

I don't have a problem with writers contributing to something like The Mook without pay. I'm disgusted that something like The Punch not paying its contributors, which is, of course, not Lucy's fault.

All the non-monetary benefits for the writers you mentioned are equally applicable to the designer/editor as well, but, as you said, you haven't met a designer/editor who would work for free. I received all the non-monetary benefits when I contributed to an anthology and would have contributed for free because I believe it was ground-breaking, but much more importantly, I don't write for a living. However, the publisher's payment to me (they were fully capable of paying) signified to me that they vauled and respected my labour. My bewilderment is this: do publications like The Punch refrain from paying writers because, well, they know they can (as Lucy has testified)? And if writers start acting like your friend, who attaches a monetary value to his professonal opinion, knowledge and output like a lawyer or a psychologist or an accountant or a designer does, would it become easier for career writers to make a living?

Lisa, knowing your motivations and the kind of constraints you laboured under to publish The Mook, I (if I were a contributor) wouldn't see a $10 payment as insult if you told me that's all you could afford. I would keep the note in my author copy and not spend it, or better still, buy YOU a drink at the launch party. Look forward to seeing your next project.

Professionals don't work for free.

The main reason I'd like to be paid is so that I can live without having to work in a boring day job at the same time.

I would write for free if people would read it and I could still live.