Mediabisto Gives Heads Up Over Ad

About a week ago, Mediabistro ran an advertisement for OverTime Magazine, which was seeking "Excellent Freelance Writers." But according to an article that MB ran today, the publication is in deep hoch:

According to interviews conducted by mediabistro.com with five people who worked on the magazine at various times since 2004, McNeil's company, Maven Media Group, which publishes OverTime, owes money to vendors, freelancers, and former staff. One source with intimate knowledge of its finances -- who is owed more than $8,000 by Maven Media to date -- said the company owes "considerably more than $100,000" to former magazine staff, freelancers and vendors. "[$100,000] wouldn't even cover the loans [McNeil's] taken out," she said.

Of course, that's based on a few sources that may or may not be correct, and the publication claims that everyone has been paid. However, there are enough questions raised in this piece that, personally, I'd steer clear. There are too many problems in the business world. Why walk in a direction with signs proclaiming alligators, quicksand, and stinging flies?

Address Problems When They Arise

A noticed a writer discussing a situation that has become too familiar - after taking an assignment and signing a contract, the client wants to change the terms. That in itself isn't necessarily unreasonable. Both you and the client (whether a corporation, a non-profit, or a publisher) anticipated certain conditions, but the client has realized that it made a mistake or that a situation had unexpectedly changed. Each side needs to remember that business, as well as life, has its twists and turns, and sometimes you need to be flexible.

However, changes may have an impact on how you and the client will work together. It may be that your contract addresses that; for example, it might provide payment by length, with additional material generating additional revenue. But what if someone wants to cut an assignment after you are in it and have committed the time that can no longer be contracted out to another client? Does the contract specify a minimum flat fee? Is there an expectation that as the scope drops, your pay drops? Does a flat fee bring into question whether an expansion will gain increased payment?

It's normal for questions to arise, and the time to bring them up is when they occur. Do not continue working until you resolve them. In the case I saw mentioned, the writer was asked to provide more material with an editor saying, "Oh, don't worry, I'll cut it down." Then, suddenly, the editor decided to run something twice the length and now, supposedly, had to get the top editor to authorize something. More likely, the editor in question was hoping the writer wouldn't say anything, and once the writer did, was now caught and didn't want to bring the situation up with the EIC. I had this happen recently with a corporate client that wanted to pretend that some commissioned work didn't happen, asking to be billed for one part and not another.

You cannot let this sort of situation pass, even if you think that you will permanently lose the client. Not only do you set a precedent, but you will feel terrible for letting yourself be bullied. There is a world of clients out there, and no matter what the size of one, you don't need to do business with it. Bring up the problem when it arises and don't meekly accept your fate.

This reminds me of a story an academic and consultant told me of a small manufacturer doing business with Wal-Mart. Over a few years, the retailer pushed for one concession after another. Eventually the small company said, "We're sorry, but it's no longer profitable for us to do business this way," and it walked away. The tiny margin on the volume didn't make up for all the hoop-jumping. Wal-Mart pointed out that it could find another supplier, and did. Interestingly, though, a couple of years later, the chain went back to the manufacturer, asking if it would be willing to take the business under better terms. What happened was that Wal-Mart had forgotten what the small company had remembered - that you have to look at the value of the entire relationship. When it went with another vendor, there were huge customer service problems that increased the overall cost of doing business, no matter how cheap the products seemed to be. But even if Wal-Mart hadn't come back, the company would have been better off, because it didn't back down from what it knew was its own interest.

Whether a client comes back or not is immaterial. There is more to life than money, and to keep your own self-respect, treat your business dealings as though you have the right to equitable treatment. If you won't, no one else will, either.

When Things Go Wrong, Negotiate

Yesterday I mentioned that when things are going well, you should continue marketing with a focus on things you might not ordinarily do. When things go wrong, yes, you market, but you might also consider negotiation. Instead of taking whatever life deals out, see how much you can change more toward your advantage. I had a real example happen yesterday when a publication decided literally at the last minute because of a mix-up on its end that it needed substantial changes to a story. It was pulling the article from the current issue and now the piece was no longer accepted. I did start gnashing my teeth and began writing an email to the editor because I couldn't afford to disrupt my cash flow further than a couple of previous setbacks had already done.

I started the email a few times - got a line or two in and tossed it. Remembering my goal - to get money - I knew that venting at the editor would do no good. So I carefully crafted a message saying that we needed to talk and that while I understood there was a mix-up on the publisher's side because I got the go-ahead from someone new who hadn't known of the history of covering a given topic, I couldn't add another invoicing cycle on top of what I had already waited.

That was the first part of my negotiation strategy - because I wanted a practical resolution, not the emotional satisfaction of screaming at someone. Next, I said that if we could work out payment issues, I'd be happy to do a few extra interviews and the rewrite "to reflect what is now a different angle and article." I was clearly indicating that additional pay over the original fee might otherwise be in question. Could I have held out for more? Sure, but I was considering the most important goal in this case - while realizing that it would largely be a case of reslanting much of what I already had in a somewhat different way.

Later that day I received a counter-proposal - a one-third "kill" fee immediately, and the remainder on rewriting the article. Because I had overbooked revenue above my target goal, I could agree to that, maintain a relationship that I expect to be a profitable one (I already had a second assignment and had negotiated a 20% rate increase between the two), and still have the cash flow for the full goal, with the extra to follow in the future. So I agreed.

Did I get everything I wanted? Of course not! But did I get what I needed then? Absolutely. And if that hadn't done it, I would have looked at other possible negotiation strategies. Negotiating out of a problem won't always work - it didn't do a thing when early this year I had a client declare bankruptcy. But it's a potential tool that might get you out of a jam, so don't assume that you only use negotiation before you start an assignment. Any time an issue comes up - payment, or maybe a sudden change in an assignment or deadline - negotiation is useful. And it's a great deal more effective than tying yourself up in knots or posting on a writers' board how angry you are with someone.