you can’t pay your rent with “the unique platform and reach our site provides”

A very nice editor at Huffington Post contacted me yesterday, and asked me if I would be willing to grant permission for the site to republish my post about the seven things I did to reboot my life.

Huffington Post has a lot of views, and reaches a pretty big audience, and that post is something I’d love to share with more people, so I told the editor that I was intrigued, and asked what they pay contributors.

Well, it turns out that, “Unfortunately, we’re unable to financially compensate our bloggers at this time. Most bloggers find value in the unique platform and reach our site provides, but we completely understand if that makes blogging with us impossible.”

I translated this on Twitter thusly:

This set me off on a tiny bit of a rant:  

I’m very lucky to not need exposure or “reach” or anything like that, at least not right now and not this way. I’m also very lucky to be able to walk away from things like this because I believe it’s the right thing to do. If I’d offered this to Huffington Post for nothing, because I hoped they’d publish it, that would be an entirely different thing, because it was my choice.

I don’t know what the going rate is for something like this. At six cents a word, which is SFWAs lowest professional rate for short fiction (not a perfect comparison, but at least something to reference that’s similar), it would be $210. That’s not nothing, but it’s not house payment money. Maybe I should have just taken their fabulous offer of exposure?

I don’t think so, because it’s the principle of the thing. Huffington Post is valued at well over fifty million dollars, and the company can absolutely afford to pay contributors. The fact that it doesn’t, and can get away with it, is distressing to me.

The exchange I had with this editor wasn’t unpleasant, and I know that she’s doing what her bosses tell her to do. I don’t blame her for the company policy. If I’d brought this to Huffington Post and asked the site to publish it, it would be an entirely different situation, I think, (I already posted it on my Medium account, anyway), but this is one of those “the line must be drawn here” things for me. I don’t know if I made the right call, but I do feel good about standing on principle, and having an opportunity to rant a little bit about why I did.

Discover more from WIL WHEATON dot NET

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

947 thoughts on “you can’t pay your rent with “the unique platform and reach our site provides””

    1. This video never ceases to be one of my favorite videos in regards to how people often in more creative spaces are treated.

    1. Everything I publish here is released under Creative Commons attribution-non-commercial-share-alike, so unless you’re making money off it, go nuts.

      1. I’m very glad you chose the CC-non-commercial (+share) … A lot of what you write is really relevant to the creative people whom I share my life with at the hackerspace and beyond. It’s also inspired me to use the same license for the card game I’m putting together for the JoCo16 cruise.

      2. they must be following the music business model! if I had a nickel for every time I was asked to play for “exposure” or “bar tab”
        I would be doing allright! thanks Wil!

  3. Preach it. So called ‘professions’ such as heart surgeons or accountants don’t get asked such things. I know, I’m a CPA. But I’m also an author, artist, and photographer. And in all of the latter three roles, I have been asked to provide my work, talent and product for free. For ‘exposure’. Just because you have a talent at something doesn’t mean it is easy, or that it doesn’t take years of discipline, work, and practice to hone that talent into something marketable. (www.greendragonartist.net)

      1. Doctor asks a lawyer at a party if he should bill for all the questions he is asked. Lawyer says absolutely. Doc gets a bill from lawyer the next week.

    3. Well, that’s not entirely true. Ask some doctors and lawyers how often someone will come up to them at a gathering and ask for advice. Whenever someone is successful, there’s always an insidious belief in some quarters that they should be willing to do stuff for free because “they can afford it.” It’s the same mindset that allows people who download from pirate sites to justify theft. Because that’s all about exposure, too.

      1. I don’t actually think it’s the perception of success, I just don’t think people value any sort knowledge worker. The vast majority of people have no concept how much I paid for that J.D. or the costs involved in running a business.

  4. Don’t get me wrong, I 100% agree with you that platforms abuse this “exposure” idea all the time, and for most people (especially these days) it’s a total scam, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its place. For example, Bob Ross never accepted a penny from PBS, he made all of his money from his own company, selling supplies and classes. The show really was just “free exposure” for him, and by all accounts it worked.

    Granted, that was his idea, and he did it on his own terms.

  6. Must be nice to be a massive house hold (maybe slight hyperbole) name that doesn’t need “exposure”. For most professional, aspiring writers, this would be a god send.

    Conversely, how does HuffPo not have enough money to compensate a blogger?

    1. HuffPo is known for not paying money. I’m not sure of when they do and when they don’t pay. I’ve read a blog where someone showed up to talk on HuffPo TV and it turned out to be an infomercial for a celebrity’s book. One could assume that the celebrity was paying for the infomercial, but not the poor saps that thought they were being interviewed by HuffPo Tv.

    2. It’s not a godsend. It’s a perpetuated scam that undermines the value of all artists.

      If all artists stopped accepting payment in the form of “exposure” then corporations would be forced to actually pay artists what they’re worth.

      Why is it that artists are the only profession that have to work for exposure anyway? It’s because we let it happen.

      1. It’s not just artists in the creative mediums ( writing, video, audio ) … there are programmers who also get taken in by the “exposure” angle … people who work hard on everything from games to phone apps, that get paid nothing-to-peanuts for the chance to ‘make it big’ in the biz.

    3. Yeah, not a godsend. Quite the contrary, in fact, because it allows people who make money from publishing content to think that they should get that content for free… and convinces people who are just starting out in producing content that that’s all they should ever expect.

      If someone is going to be making money from your content, they can afford to pay YOU for your work in creating it.

    4. I agree Jacob. I think it’s a great article but I still think there is a lot of value in reach and exposure. Never underestimate the power of exposure, especially as an aspiring writer. Since I started blogging for the Huff Post (just articles from my own site republished…and a few days later so I have already gotten most of the traffic) doors have opened up to me in every direction. When companies and tourist organisations know you write for sites like The Huff Post, they offer you writing gigs and press trips you definitely would not have got before. I 100% don’t think I would be doing as well as I am if it wasn’t for getting published in The Huff Post. I have been able to quit my full time PR job and work as a travel writer, and soon I won’t need to rely on The Huff Post anymore. But I will be grateful to them for setting me up as a writer on their site, despite getting no payment whatsoever. Just my 2 cents.

    2. Yeah… as I mentioned in my original post, the whole “dying of exposure” is now MY favorite reply when people want me to create something for them for “exposure”. 🙂

  10. As a working artist I got the exposure thing posed a hundred times before I said no. Exposure does not feed my family or pay my rent. Most people think that artists don’t work very hard or it must not be worth much if we can make it in less than a week. What they don’t take into account is the years of training and schooling that goes into being so adept at your profession that you can make it in a week. Like you I am thankful to have a supportive family and a wonderful fan base. Pfft Exposure….that excuse is getting old.

    1. “it must not be worth much if we can make it in less than a week”

      People who think that need to think about how much they make in a week at their paying job, and then consider the fact that that week spent in freelance artistry is your paying job. Now what is it worth to them?

  12. Also, every creator who gives their content away without pay tends to make it harder for other creators to compete in that marketplace. Giving it away for free makes the value of that kind of work = zero.

  13. I absolutely agree with your call. In your case, you have ample followers and exposure already. You don’t really need more exposure. Besides, I provided a link on my site to your column yesterday because it was so damned good. (So there’s you some free exposure right there!) Writers have got to stand up for themselves and start saying no to giving away their work. Unfortunately, as long as writers are gullible enough to give away their work in the name of exposure, such things will never change. I commend you for drawing a line in the sand!

  15. I’ll start by saying that I agree with your decision 100% based on the context of the situation. You don’t need exposure. Considering all factors, it’s actually silly and even insulting for HuffPo to even approach you about giving anything away for free.

    That said, it isn’t like that for most others. For those who don’t already have an audience, getting your signal out there these days, when “everyone” has a blog is pretty daunting. For many, getting a break to be published somewhere like HuffPo would be huge and could mean expanding their audience (and potentially sales if they’re selling something), exponentially. You can like this to TableTop. I imagine dozens, if not hundreds, of games are tossed your way in the hopes of being featured. They’ll gladly give you their work for free , because if they end up on TableTop, they know that’s going to result in not just significant exposure, but significant sales. And, as I think you’ve stated before, it’s not that every great game makes it on to TableTop. It’s an return on investment consideration. Giving a copy of the game for a chance at the return is a no brainer. For many bloggers/writers and others, a shot at HuffPo (or any large outlet) would be worth giving some copy as well. Obviously they know this and have built their business model around it. I can’t say I disagree that they could afford to pay something, but I also can’t say that (at least some of) their contributors aren’t getting anything in return.

    So, again, the ROI potential just isn’t there for a Wil Wheaton and it doesn’t make sense for HuffPo to even approach you, IMO. But that doesn’t mean the same paradigm translates to everyone.

    1. “That said, it isn’t like that for most others. For those who don’t already have an audience, getting your signal out there these days, when “everyone” has a blog is pretty daunting.”

      Doesn’t matter. If you give your material away once, they expect you to do it again. And again. And again. They’ll never start paying you, because they’ll have no motivation to do so. When “not paying you for your work” gives me the same money as “not working”, I’ll always take the second.

      “For many, getting a break to be published somewhere like HuffPo would be huge and could mean expanding their audience (and potentially sales if they’re selling something), exponentially. You can like this to TableTop.”
      Ah, but you’re talking about different things. See, this is product journalism (which I do for a living, not much actual journalism going on, though), in which a product maker will submit their product to a specialized publication for review. This is used in lieu of paid advertising. The company actually saves money by doing this, they don’t give anything away for free, because the cost of giving Wil a game to review (or, in my case, lending me a car to test drive) is always several magnitudes cheaper than the adspace.

      “But that doesn’t mean the same paradigm translates to everyone.”
      Like other people already said in these comments, paradigms don’t pay the rent.

      1. “If you give your material away once, they expect you to do it again.”

        That doesn’t mean you have to do it. Each decision to give something should be weighed against the potential return.

        “Ah, but you’re talking about different things.”

        Semantics really. Plenty of people have books or expertise or workshops or something else to sell and by giving away some blog articles for free, they can essentially get “free ad space” for those items. It’s really not that different at all since advertising those items, as you note, can be incredibly costly.

        “Like other people already said in these comments, paradigms don’t pay the rent.”

        No, they don’t. But residual effects of exposure certainly can when the circumstances are right for it. I’m not stating everyone, or even most people, should do this. It’s obviously not a good idea for everyone in every situation. I’m just saying it doesn’t make sense to make a blanket statement in the reverse either. There’s simply no logic to the idea that no one should ever give anything like this away for free as they’ll never get anything out of it and will forever have to give things for free afterward. If you truly don’t stand to get anything out of it, even as a residual effect, then by all means don’t do it. But that doesn’t mean no one every benefits from this type of model.

        1. “That doesn’t mean you have to do it.” — Of course you don’t. But that’s the old axiom, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.

          “Semantics really. Plenty of people have books or expertise or workshops or something else to sell and by giving away some blog articles for free, they can essentially get “free ad space” for those items. It’s really not that different at all since advertising those items, as you note, can be incredibly costly.” — Not semantics in the slightest. I’m not peddling something else. If I’m a professional writer, my writing is the product. Giving away writing that can be sold, in any circumstance, is similar to giving those books and workshops you’re talking about for free. And besides, it’s not the manufacturer loaning me the car to test drive that writes my text. It’s me. I get paid for my insights on the car.

  16. Before I got hired by G&S I worked for another site. it paid $2/500 article. I got a promotion and had my salary doubled! $4 whole dollars to myself! I could actually afford to eat 1 small meal a day if I kept that meal to a slice of bread with a spoonful of peanut butter on it. Needless to say, life has gotten a lot better since I moved to a site that cares about its writers.

  17. How in the world did you not refer them to the bloggess’s page featuring you collating? Not only would it get the message across, it would also give what seems to be a really nice picture of you some more “exposure”. I think the message between odd pitches and what are essentially pitches after the fact would be so similar as to allow the differences to fade completely.

    I thought it was a great post.

  18. I’ve read many, many bloggers’ rants about the HuffPo policy – sure the exposure is awesome, but awesome doesn’t put food on the table. And it’s ludicrous that a ginormous entity like HuffPo is poormouthing, when they definitely could afford to shell out a couple hundred bucks to their contributors. But I guess as long as they don’t HAVE to, as long as people tolerate being used, then that policy will stay in effect. I wish that all the current and future contributors would rise up and refuse to let HuffPo use their work, and we would just see what they could actually afford…or watch them go belly-up. Heck, most of the writers would probably be satisfied with a token amount, which would still be better than ZERO.
    And yes, it’s a completely different animal if you’ve offered them your work. Good for you, Wil, for not playing the game!

  21. I’m a writer, and you’re a writer, but what you and I do is not the same thing since you write to be a writer and I write as part of a broader, overarching PR and marketing campaign on behalf of my employer. Would we love it if HuffPo came to us and wanted to syndicate something we wrote? Hell yeah, we’d be all over that, pro bono and everything. But it’s not the same thing as being a writer and trying to make your living as one. HuffPo doesn’t really seem to be set up to accommodate that. Writers deserve t be paid, but I’ll grant that it can be hard to separate the writers from the marketers when both want your time and have different priorities and expectations.

    1. HuffPo isn’t set up to accommodate that only because they don’t want to accommodate it.

  22. Exposure – it is valuable if you are selling something other than your writing and the site reaches the audience you want to be exposed to. So sometimes it is basically free advertising, and if you evaluate it that way and it otherwise fits in your business or marketing plan, then exposure can be of value. On the other hand, if you don’t need free advertising at that location at that point in time, then you should always turn down the offer. That said, I seriously object to the current popular business model of making money off of free labor – HuffPo makes money, but if they have built their budget on line items of free content, then they need to be clear about that with their readers, and second, they need to be more straightforward in offering the free advertising by characterizing it as such and offering audience statistics in the same fashion they offer to paid advertisers.

  23. It’s my belief that the editor that contacted you for requesting your article for free has such a duty more often than one would like to believe, so OK, it’s not her fault if that is the company’s policy, but if that is your actual job – getting content for free for a multimillion international corporate – than I don’t really feel like excusing you too much. It’s time to stop it with the “it’s just a job”-thing, because all sorts of nasty things happen thanks to “poor cunts” that just need a job. We must stand our ground or take the blame together with all the produciton line.

  24. Huffington Post only provides exposure if they share your writing via their various social media outlets. I’d wager that 80% of what they publish ends up buried with no social love whatsoever. They used to share my work regularly, but for some reason that stopped cold, and nothing I write for them gets any traction, but interestingly, it does get a lot of views elsewhere, leading me to believe it’s less about the quality of the work and more about their decisions not to share what their contributors put forth.

  25. The use of “unable” in their response is pure bullshit. Arianna Huffington pays herself plenty, and the site is “able” to pay others. “Unwilling” is more accurate.

  26. ………..friends of mine have owned a site “http://www.foodforthought.net/” for 18 years. The have a food business supporting and educating people about local sustainability, organic crops and co-oping. Huffington Post opened up a website a few years ago and not only named it Food for Thought but copied my friends page word for word right down to the type set and lettering style. When repeated requests for an explanation and/or a cease & desist were completely ignored he took to picketing their franchise Chipotle around the country. He has yet to hear any word from Huffington Post… but… do they know they received the letters because they have changed the type set on their page so it isn’t exactly like his originals!!! I think they talk a good game on the surface but….it’s a fake front!!!

  27. Did you send them a picture of you collating papers? Or should it be a picture of Jenny collating? Turn about is fair play after all.

  28. I know I tweeted back to you (not that it matters) but amen Wil! I’ve been blogging effectively for ‘free’ for 9 years. The carrot always dangled was “exposure” with some vague hopes on monetizing in the future. Without fail those were empty and broken promises. Having been around a bit and attempted to branch out to other sites; are the fun demands for more content all the while they offer the same non-existent compensation. Right now, I blog about hockey because I enjoy it and as soon as I don’t I’ll stop. Yet since I know others DO make money off the ads they run on my page etc, I think that should mean I should make some of that ad money back since people aren’t just there to see the ads. I agree, as a human being, if you provide a service you should be compensated for it and ‘exposure’ isn’t adequate.

    For anyone who has blogged and then had some paid person come back and go after your work, or tried to have you shape your content to their preferences. I agree entirely, FUCK YOU (to those people, not you Wil or anyone else who has commented here). Whether they appreciate it or not, I’m an artist and the work I create is what I want it to be. If I’m not getting compensated for it, then don’t tell me how it should be. I just gave you free content, be happy with that you ungrateful pricks. I’m glad I left that place and have been considerably happier and less stressed since.

    I feel the same way as a teacher. If I’m working and doing something I should be compensated for it. I’m a professional. The plumber or the electrician doesn’t just show up and check something out of the goodness of their heart (unless they’re a relative), they show up and even if nothing is wrong they get compensated for doing so. The same should be true for us bloggers too. Thanks for the important and inspirational words Wil!

  29. Will, Huffington Post is valued at well over fifty million dollars exactly because they re-purpose other people’s creative content for free. It is EXACTLY like the Harlan Ellison video posted above.

    But sadly, there will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS be creative people that somehow justify letting bigger sharks steal their content with the hope (and fantasy) that they – the little fish – might get a sliver of compensation in return. What those little fish fail to realize is that those big sharks got to be big, fat sharks precisely because they were so smart in being able to “acquire” assets without having to pay a dime for them. Like The Huffington Post.

    As I mentioned on your Twitter feed, artists, designers and other creators routinely get the oh so common “you’ll get great exposure” line from tons of people who want something for free. Now, whenever I hear that, my immediate response is always “and people have died from exposure”.

  30. You have no idea how much I needed to read this, especially today! My band has taken the decision to refuse dubious offers that promise us nothing but “exposure” – consequently, our gig calendar looks terribly empty. Yes, there are a few people who understand and book us at a fair price! 🙂 If only there were more of them! I know that the exposure scheme doesn’t work (we have tried it!), but not being able to play as often as we want is really unpleasant. Today I felt very low because, although we are firm and certain about our decision, the whole situation sucks … and then I found your article and was reminded that it is the right way to take, nevertheless. Thank you!

  31. Wil, I love your writing, and what a great stance to take. I recently started sailing and wrote about it on my blog site. Someone saw my writing, thought I did a better than reasonable job of organising letters into sentences, and asked if I’d guest write an article for his site. Which, I confess, I jumped at. But I’m not remotely famous, so exposure is a pretty great thing for my writing, especially as I have a novel coming out soon. Or maybe the exchange rate on ‘exposure’ makes it worth more to some and less to others.

    1. Or maybe the exchange rate on ‘exposure’ makes it worth more to some and less to others.

      I think this is an entirely fair point. The key part of it, though, is that it is your choice and not being forced on you.

  35. I wrote a very short hot and steamy romance scene and used it as my bio on a video game I played. (Eve Online if you must know. It didn’t break the EULA. The scene left quite a bit to the imagination and was tastefully done.) I had an author approach me and ask me if they could use it in a novel she was writing. I flat out refused and was told in no uncertain terms she was going to use it anyways. I am keeping my eyes open for it and am ready for the upcoming lawsuit.

  36. Thank you.

    I was recently asked to write two 700-word articles a work ‘in the spirit of creative commons’. I replied that I just can’t get on board with our current culture’s goal of making all artists homeless.

  37. Thank you. It’s abuse when companies try to get work for nothing! And no one should be scammed by those companies. Not even if you’re someone who does need exposure because once you give your work away for free, you have just devalued your work and everyone is going to want it for free. Don’t get abused. Artist, trust me because I am an artist, there are companies out their who will compensate you fairly for the unique work you do! Thanks again Will. I’m going to retweet!

  41. I get this all the time as a artist and more specifically painter. Couldn’t agree more. I like everyone else have Bills to pay and need to eat food to survive.

  42. The way I see it it’s not the publisher vs the writer it’s established writers vs non established writers, for one it makes sense for the other it doesn’t. The one sees the other as a threat, its why unions are created to favour the seniors vs the rookies. It’s pretty much elitism that only screws us the consumer we get an inferior product. For example when I signed up for an actors union they prohibited any new people from receiving any speaking parts requiring you 200 non speaking parts before you were eligible for speaking parts, didn’t matter if you had talent the director loved you and wanted to give you a bigger part you were not allowed so as to protect those who’ve been in the game longer. In the end the end product suffers. Although I can see the motivation of the established looking after theirs the consumer should look after theirs and demand a better product that comes from a free market.

  43. That was the same with me and Moviepilot. If I’m good at what I do, why do I give it to them for free. At the same time I’ve been running my own site now with a great crew but we still don’t make money. From what I’ve seen, exposure is the way to get known quicker. But us doing it for passion and it’s also content that we OWN makes it so much more worth any kind of fame or pay. But I do want to get paid. Such a double edge sword. We’ll get there one day I guess.

  44. Not that it makes the practice acceptable, but I was surprised to read this in a Business Insider article this month when I Googled ‘Huffington Post Profits’:

    “Mark May, an analyst with CitiGroup Research, forecast The Huffington Post will post a loss of about $6 million this year on $100 million in revenue.”

  45. Yep. That sucks that they are so happy to screw people like that. And I am happy that you didn’t cave in to WORKING FOR FREE. But… this is simply LIBERALISM at its finest. Those who DO work get FINED, and those who like to NOT WORK and sit by the pool with a lemonade in hand, GET PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DO NOTHING. If you are a liberal, Wil, please rethink your worldview. Huffpost is a liberal rag, and they do the typical liberal thing: screw workers!

  47. Why are you exposing yourself? I know tons of actors models writers who do their thing for exposure and rarely does their name get out and they often take jobs from those who work in the field. I will never not pay artists and I hope others take the same stance

  48. As an artist I used to be asked how much one of my creations COST me to make. I would foolishly answer with THE ANSWER and laugh and say some of the things I make the materials are so low cost. So “my friends” would ask in “friend” voice if I could make them one or 2 or 3 if they just paid me for the materials………………. Maybe not exactly the same thing, But the idea is the same. Hard to tell a friend no but it has to be done. Which I did(most of the time… alright I m human)

  49. I was offered this “opportunity” once. Many times, really, but one time stands out. I was asked to contribute to an anthology. I was offered exposure. I asked what was being done with the poetry. Well, the book will sell on Amazon. Is it for charity? (I do offer my work to charities.) No. Who gets the money then? Well, the other editor and I deserve to be paid for our time, don’t we? I barely knew how to respond other than, “and so do your writers.”

    I don’t need exposure. Folks die of exposure, I’m told.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

Recent Posts