No Demand for Demand Studios

You've probably seen the Demand Studios ads on such places as JournalismJobs.com and Mediabistro. They want experience, they want productivity, they want ... trust fund babies. A thread on Mediabistro's forum is worth reading for comments like this:

I had the same experience when Demand launched the Livestrong site. They asked for cycling and/or medical experts. I was offered work: 10 articles, $300. I wrote back asking if that was a typo and nope, it was not. Not worth it, and at least to me, the low pay puts into question the quality of the site.

A thought that might proceed through the mind of a skeptical journalist could be as follows: "I don't know the poster, so how do I know the observation is accurate?" Good question. I did a quick search on JournalismJobs and found a copy editing ad that mentioned rates. Although I can't guarantee that it will be up indefinitely, I can quote some of what I found:

We are looking for dedicated editors who can deliver quality work in a timely manner and are comfortable occasionally communicating with writers. Some fact checking is also required.

We will only accept candidates with 5 years of demonstrated editing or copyediting experience with a newspaper, magazine or book publisher.

This is a part-time freelance position and all work is done online. While your schedule is flexible, we do require our editors to commit to working a minimum of 12 hours per week, every week.

We pay a flat fee of $3.50 per article, with most editors averaging $20-$25 per hour, paid on a weekly basis via PayPal.

The copy editor must have five years experience, do some fact checking, and receive $3.50 per article. To make even $20 an hour, you'd need to do between five and six articles an hour. That's ten minutes per ... what, maybe 300 to 500 words I'm guessing? From times I've edited and had to hire copy editors, the going freelance rate I found was between $45 and $55 an hour. If the writing rates are equally bad -- and why wouldn't they be? -- the editing must be painful and far closer to mass rewriting.

This type of rate is nothing more than intellectual sweat shop piece work. I'd be surprised if the business owners don't laugh over after hour drinks at the gullibility of those who actually agree to such terms. The scary thing is, this is still better than what you might get at a place like Helium.

[Note: Demand Studios responded.

Contract Review: ProMedia.travel

I had replied to a JournalismJobs.com posting in either late 2006 or early 2007. In December 2007, I finally heard back (which shows that you shouldn't write someone off just because they're not working on your time table). The publisher, ProMedia.travel, has web sites and wanted travel writing at about $1 a word. They invited me to pitch, but I said, "Let me see the contract first." Here's my review (remember, I'm no lawyer and this is no legal advice):

• In General The contract that must have been the basis for this seems to have been focused on corporate design work and not editorial writing. Also, someone made a couple of twists in the redrafting, I think, and unintentionally greatly expanded the scope. In addition, there were some important items missing altogether.


• Due Date The contract uses as a due date a number of days from the signing date, not a specified date. The former is pretty clear to anyone, but the latter could result in late assignments because someone simply miscalculated the number.


• Grant of Rights The contract technically says that only the publisher can use the piece in print or online ever, anywhere, because it uses the term exclusive. Some of the rights are not clear enough. For example, according to the wording, the company could publish a piece in print or "electronic media," but it's not clear that would include online use. They could not make it available in a third party database, because there is no provision for them to sublicense any rights. Because there is no provision to sublicense and no explicit provision for syndication rights, the company cannot syndicate. However, the writer can't either, because the company has exclusively tied up all print and electronic media rights.


• Reservation of Rights In the contract that formed the basis of this one, the creator reserved rights not transferred. But in this case, the client - the publisher - is reserving all rights, which means that now there's nothing the writer can do, even if there was something left open, like basing a book on a set of articles. The contract mentions having rights in "preliminary materials" as well, which could include notes and early drafts (even if completely different from the final one), keeping the writer from using this material in any other way. It's about the most extreme statement in this area that I've seen in any publishing contract. Some of the language also makes it sound, again, as though this were intended for a graphic designer. The company would be better off having separate contracts, because the rights and other issues can vary greatly from writing to photography to graphics.


• Revisions There should be a limit to the number of potential revisions, because as written, the contract allows the publisher to ask someone for revision after revision.


• Miscellany The contract allows for transmitting assignments, edits, and expense authorizations either in writing or orally. That's actually a problem, because then neither side has an audit trail and could have a legitimate disagreement. I'd suggest confirming everything in writing, if you were to write for them.

Think that publishers are trying to trap writers? Nope, sometimes they just don't realize how bad a document is. For example, here's what I heard back: "I'm surprised because I thought it was actually a very freelancer-friendly agreement, based almost entirely on the attached document provided to me at a Freelancer's Union seminar." They said they'd look at the contract and I mentioned that I'd give a bit of time to see if there was a revised version. Having heard nothing more, I thought I'd post this.

Resource: Jane Espenson's Blog

Have you felt the urge to write for television? It means cranking out a spec script to show that you can do what it is you want to do. If you're determined, then to go Jane Espenson's blog. She's a television writer with impressive credits and a willingness to share great information and experience in writing for television and creating spec scripts. For example, her advice the other day was to be wary if you hear some catchy phrase on the street, because by the time you decide to put it into a script, viral distribution will make it seem old. Instead, she suggests, use the structure to develop your own saying. Very smart advice - and, apparently, plenty more.

One Time to Ask for More than Enough

I'm a firm believer in understanding your own bottom line pricing based on your business needs and on value pricing - charging for the value you can deliver, and not the time you spend. But even then there can still be a gap between what you'd charge and what the client might be willing to pay on the upper end. I was reminded of this a couple of times this last week. Once was for a speaking engagement, when I quoted a significant sum, as I'd be out of the office for at least two days in traveling and through that it would be a discouragement. It wasn't and now I find myself getting a good chunk of cash for something where I could too easily have quoted something far lower and found myself resentful that I had gotten tied up for relatively little.

The other occasion was similar in a way. A corporate client asked if I'd be available for a project reworking a web site, but said that it would want to see a sample of how I'd do a page. I knew a bit more about the situation from other sources and understood that the company wanted more "editing" than writing, and so a lower hourly price. I thanked them for the opportunity and added that I wouldn't work for spec, but would be willing to discuss a price for a single page - probably on a flat rate for the whole thing. In ending the explanation, I asked a question about blending information with marketing that I figured would communicate my knowledge of how to bring the two together. Unexpectedly, I received a reply asking for the rate. I came up with something reasonably high, given the actual amount of work as well as the need for some expertise. Again, I was surprised - I was asked to do a fast turnaround on the sample for the pay I requested.

In the second case, again, had I not shot high enough, I would have been irritated because I wasn't getting value for the value I thought I could bring. Furthermore, going lower would have meant indicating that the entire project would be inexpensive. Not the type of corporate writing I'm really interested in doing.

There are many factors in pricing, and one has to be whether you are excited about a a project, both because of the material as well as the conditions. If not, it's generally the time to think outside your personal pricing box. Don't assume that your finanical view of the world is shared by your clients. There's always the very good chance that the client is willing to spend more than you'd ordinarlly think of asking, and there are times that you need to make that kind of money so that the project is worth your time.

Short Guide to Guidebooks at Joshua Berman Blog

Joshua Berman is an experience travel writer and guide book writer, and at his blog he has a great entry about writing guide books. It's in a Q&A format and is a must-read for those who want to write one of these. A short take: better have a good reason to do one because the advance will probably only cover your expenses if you do it right and have to travel to the destination. He notes that he only knows of "a handful" of writers who actually make a living doing this type of work. Even spinning off magazine articles doesn't seem to do the trick, so he takes season work as well to make ends meet.