Navigating the New Terrain of Online Writing Compensation

Publishers are experimenting with new ways of compensating writers in the online world. Look at this article on a publisher of free dailies bringing on non-professionals to write online with compensation based on page views.

Clarity is looking to get hundreds of people (in 60 cities and 25 different categories) to write for them online, and these writers will get paid between $2.50 and $10.00 per 1,000 page views, Gawker reports.

This isn't an unusual arrangement, at least as a bonus, and Gawker itself uses it. But Gawker has been cranking down the figure because bloggers were too good at attracting traffic, and the company would have had to pay more than it had planned. And paying in such a manner without a ground level amount of compensation for doing the basic work is ridiculous, although I'm sure many writers will jump at the "opportunities."

Negotiation is going to get tougher, not easier, and you're going to need to pay attention and be careful that you don't agree to a harebrained scheme that some publisher declares to be "standard" on the web.

Gawker Pay? Gaak

According to Radar, Gawker has cut the pay schedules of its blggers for the second quarter running:

"We've broken the site budget," Gawker Media owner Nick Denton told the staff in an email yesterday. The only answer, from the company's perspective? To keep getting more traffic—but to pay the producers of that traffic less for each pageview. So for the second and now, according to a new memo regarding the pay rate for the quarter that began this week, third quarters of 2008, the company has reduced the rate of pay per pageview. Other Gawker Media sites, including Jezebel, also had their pageview rate cut.

It used to be that if a writer got a million page views a month, that translated into $7500. Given the amount of work it takes to get that much attention, the money seems short. But now it's even shorter, at $5 a thousand, or $5000 for that million page views.

So more ad inventory—actual pages served—should mean more income for the company—particularly since Gawker seems to be mostly increasing in pageviews not attached to any writer. At the same time, reducing the cost of the creation of that inventory also gets the company more of the income that is attached to a writer. Kicking down less money to the workers seems, at best, cheap.

How about predatory or exploitive? Those are pretty good words, too.

Writer Rationalization

As human beings, we often try to make ourselves feel better about our choices - a process called rationalization. It's not an occasional activity, but constant. Virtually every time you buy something, you make an emotional decision and then come up with rational-sounding reasons for having chosen what you did, because we all like feeling as though we are in control. When we rationalize, we really make excuses so we don't have to face how we really act. Aesop's fable about the fox that couldn't reach the grapes and so decided they were probably sour anyway (source of the term "sour grapes") is a perfect example. And when we rationalize, we lock ourselves into behavior and decisions. That's fine if the choice is healthy, but dangerous when it's not.

If this happens constantly, you might expect that it also rears its head in business, and you'd be right. Writers often rationalize, for themselves and for colleagues, why the low pay they take is acceptable, or why they had to accept the punitive contract terms, or put up with poor treatment by a client.

There are times that a business decision makes sense, and other times that a choice is poor, and you don't want to face it more directly. For example, maybe the 50 cent a word assignment really is so easy that you effectively make $60/hour. But you need to look a bit deeper. Is $60/hour really that good for the work you are doing? Billable time for an independent practitioner often goes far higher on projects, and if you ever wanted to gross six figures, you'll need to be billing more like $75-$100/hour, depending on how many projects you can actually sell and complete. And your calculation presumes that you're accurate about the time you actually do spend, and people often grossly underestimate the figure.

But consider the possibility that the business analysis might also be an excuse to not break into better paying markets or to find more upscale clients. The contract terms might not be something that actually concern you, or you might be saying that because you're scared to try negotiating something better. Perhaps you are an XYZ-type of writer, or you could be scared of branching out into a new area and prefer the comfort of what you've always done. Maybe that editor really is that good to work for, so you take a lower rate, or it could be that you're focusing overly on wanting to be liked and that distracts your attention from improving your business.

No one else can give you the answers to such questions. It could be that in a cold business analysis, your reasoning is sound. Only be sure that you at least ask, and that you scrutinize your own answer. We are creatures who often lie, to ourselves more than to anyone else. And there's one person who gets hurt when we do.