It’s tough to get a paid job as a writer, particularly online. That’s the cold, hard facts. I’ve written two or three pieces for Crikey over the past 3-4 months, and on the second article, I asked for a subscription, and I was given a 6mth one. Actually I think I’d written my third article by then.

If money is an issue, then ask the editors or subs what the terms are. Then again, that might reduce the likelihood of continuing to get work from Crikey. The arrangement, as I understand it, is that only when you are regularly submitting work, will a financial arrangement be offered. I’ve submitted around a dozen pieces, most of which have not been published. I think Mark was asked to contribute, so that’s a different story.

It’s tough to make it in the arts. I did stand up comedy in 2004, and didn’t get a penny for my work. I probably wasn’t very good. But as I understand it, when you build a reputation, then the money comes. Griping about money isn’t really going to help though, I’m sorry. It’s tough and you’ve got to keep at it.

I would much prefer to see my work achieving a wider audience than to receive the meagre sum that Crikey offers. As I understand it’s pretty lean, and that’s not why I write. I think I have a perspective to offer. I don’t need the money.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. You say that “under the guise of classical liberalism, no contract was entered into …”

Can you expand that statement?

Otherwise I agree with you.

With respect, I don’t think you understand how contract law works.

Under the guise of classical liberalism, no contract was entered into in regards to payment so therefore no payment was required.

That said, that is one of my (and perhaps others) criticisms of classical liberalism.

Andrew, academic journals are an obvious special case. The point is that academics trade in a different currency – reputation. They can convert that into prestige, income and more prestigious and higher-paying positions.

I agree with Graham Young’s point that there’s a wider underlying issue, which is that media generally exploit the intellectual content of contributors, even when they do pay.

Just to conclude as it were. Crikey’s behaviour is on the nose.

Policy, which I edit, does not pay either – though we have occasionally given small sums to people who make their living as freelancers. It narrows the contributor base to early career people who need any publicity they can get, those who support the CIS more broadly, and friends of the editor.

You’ll find that the MSM isn’t much different to Crikey. Generally op-ed editors will pay if they commission you, or if you ask for it up-front, but if they can get away without paying, they will. Many organisations are happy to provide them with copy for nothing because they would feel compromised if they did otherwise.

I discovered the MSM system after initially being paid by the AFR for an article, and then checking the mail in vain after subsequent pieces. When I inquired I was told that if I submitted without asking payment, then they didn’t pay. They subsequently made it up to me, more or less, over the course of a few other articles.

However, even when you’re paid, the income to be earned from free-lancing is pitiful compare to the intellectual content that goes into it, which is the more serious problem.

Crikey had obviously read his informed pieces on East Timor and wanted to, as Ken correctly put its, exploit his knowledge of the topic.

Mark, Crikey does pay for articles when it needs to. The fact that it fobs off some with a free subscription actually bears out my point. A subscription is practically useless unless the contributor had already decided to buy it. Also, it has practically zero cost to the publisher, so payment by subscription is a cynical move aimed at the naive. It is seen that way by publishers.

The point is that Crikey didn’t tell Ken he could be paid if he wanted. They seem to have just, again, exploited his trust in the system that generally applies for commercial media. Ken is correct to feel exploited.

Your comments actually bear out my premise about bloggers being spun by marketers. Here we are discussing unethical commercial behaviour, and yet you choose to provide a marketing spiel for Crikey. It wouldn’t matter if we were talking about top quality media like the SMH. The issue is the treatment of contributors. Similarly, time pressures provide no excuse and are not relevant anyway. If a commissioning editor was racing to deadline, an administrative staffer could have followed up later.

As I said, the issue is quite clear. I think a lot of you are a bit too excited about working with what you think is mainstream media, and let that cloud your judgements.

Put this seems common. Another leading business magazine solicited a 1500 word piece from me, offered no payment and didn’t even send me a copy of the issue.

When newspapers solicit op eds, in my experience, they do pay.

You know what? I’d go back to them and ask them to cough up! If they ask you to write something, they should pay.

But you should ask

If Ken had asked, I’m sure it would have been explained to him. You also have to remember my point about the deadlines for the editorial staff being extremely tight. They don’t have time to talk for long while they’re on deadline.

I think all this talk of shock and “pricks” from Ken is a bit over the top, to say the least. As he says,

Naively as I now realise, I didn’t ask about financial terms.

You wrote:

All in all, the whole love affair with Crikey that’s been seeping over the political blogs lately reeks of clever marketers exploiting naive bloggers.

I’ve seen just as much Crikey bashing. Jason was doing it almost daily for a while at Catallaxy.

In my opinion, Crikey provides informed and interesting news and views that I want to read, and I’m happy to write for them (and as I said, you don’t make a living by doing so). I think it’s a very useful addition to the Australian media mix and a lot is published there that wouldn’t get a run anywhere else. I don’t agree with every article, or hold the same political perspective as all the Crikey writers. But overall, I think it’s a good thing, and one I’m pleased to be associated with.

In the time I’ve been writing for Crikey, I have never had any problems with its commercial practice as a contributor.

I think that’s all I have to say on it.

I notice Nick has written for Crikey a couple of times. I wonder what his experience was.

Ken could have asked whether the story could be submitted for the next day’s edition – their deadlines are very tight as they have to have it together by 11am. When I’ve been rung and asked to write on something that’s broken that morning, if necessary, I’ve negotiated a few more hours, or just told them that I haven’t time.
Which is fine with Crikey, as we’re contributors, not staff members.

The practice of a free subscription being offered for a first contribution, and payment for later ones doesn’t seem extraordinary to me.

To fail to alert contributors to this fact is to exploit their ignorance or good will.

It is a business practice that’s on the nose.

In the case where it made onerous demands of the contributor, demanding a specialised article within two hours, and still withheld that information and payment, that is an extremely dishonourable business practice.

Providing a free subscription is not payment at all.

All in all, the whole love affair with Crikey that’s been seeping over the political blogs lately reeks of clever marketers exploiting naive bloggers.

Now I discover that they do in fact pay contributors, but presumably only if they demand it.

That’s not really quite fair, for the reasons I gave above.

When they asked me to start writing for them regularly, I certainly inquired as to what payments were made for stories, and on what terms.

and still waiting

Have you ever considered putting some Google text ads around Club Troppo, if only to offset the hosting bill? You could possibly even “pay” contributors by having ad payments for their posts directed to them and not the site overall.