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

1. I have still not figured out how to make money at creative writing. Have a manuscript Arisugawa Park that landed an agent after five years. Now, no publishing bites. Too long, too nuanced, too demanding. Not international blockbuster fare. Now I simply write whatever I please, on my own site. An unconventional serial novel, Cowachunga. The cream rises to the top, whether or not the literary gatekeepers care in this auto-tuned world that aims for easily translatable, lowest common denominator blockbusters. #endurancewriter

2. People die from exposure every year. We should be able to afford a warm coat for ourselves. Thank you for bringing this out in the open! The Huff Post has built a $50 mil business on the backs of writers. They may not have the budget allocated, but they certainly have the income to do so. I wish everyone would stop writing for free. It hurts all artists who are trying to make an actual living.

   1. Well put Stacy!

3. I think principle is worth a lot more than any pittance that Huff Post or any other website could offer. Thanks for saying so openly. You do quality work and should be compensated, as should any writer, artist, or anyone who creates.

   1. You can’t pay your rent with principles either.

      1. But sacrificing your principles for nothing (as in zero money) is even more stupid than sacrificing them

         1. If someone volunteers to campaign against racial bigotry, or to help disadvantaged children, they may say that they’re acting on “principle.” By this they mean that they’re motivated by beliefs re sacrificing personal gain in order to help others in certain ways.

            If someone asks me to work for free, and I decline to do so because of economic self-interest, that’s fine, it’s my choice. But I’d really hesitate to say I did so on “principle,” since pursuing my financial needs and wants doesn’t really fall into the same bucket as doing charity or fighting for civil rights.

            1. Hi, It’s a matter of principle because Wil’s choice (as well as his publicizing of it) benefits our industry as a whole. It’s part of trying to ensure that there’s a future (and a present) for all professional creatives.

      2. Very True. But when the net outcome is the same, your principles taste much better than working for free.

         1. When you’re not someone who has been famous since they were ten, or not someone writing one of the most popular webcomics on the planet, Standing by your principles in something like this is pretty much a guaranteed zero gain; whereas opting for exposure (also known as “advertising”) has the possibility of increasing your reach (and income). Wil Wheaton and Matthew Inman may not be in need of free advertising, but the vast majority of writers and artists ARE.

            1. Its also important to note that Wil Wheaton is also using this as an opportunity for free advertising simply by writing this blog about principle and having it shared as much as it has been. I wonder if he will be signing over any royalty cheques to the HuffPo editor for her part in the story.

4. You absolutely did the right thing. When writers, musicians and other artists work for free, it drives compensation down for all artists.

5. As a first time novel writer (sci fi of course) I understand controlling your work and your compensation. Many companies want to either buy your product for a flat fee and have you sign off all rights to any future income even after they hire Tom Cruise and pay him 20 mill to play your lead character, and you walk off with maybe 30k. Period. Or they want to offer you a ‘sweet deal’ where they upfront all the costs and you end up getting a whopping 3 cents on every dollar of revenue they generate. For months or years of hard work and swear for your dream. So I am controlling my own destiny. If I fail it is on me. But WHEN I succeed I will prove that the little guy can stand up to the status quo and make their dream come true. AND get paid for it.

6. “I will kick a promoter’s ass…”
   

7. As an artist, I get this a lot! We own an event business and we also get asked to do this numerous times throughout the year. It’s difficult for people to somehow grasp that your job is equal to the worth of any other job. In reality, culturally rich skills should be valued as that obviously not everyone is capable to do it.

   1. As a figurative and automotive artist, I concur 100%. My comment, to anyone who queries the cost of a canvas, is that it took 4,5,6… weeks to complete. Try booking a plumber / electrician / tradesperson for that time and see what they charge. The creative arts should be no less valued, as Terina G rightly says.

8. You’re lucky they actually asked. Didja see the Oatmeal post yesterday about how they re-posted his comic… HOTLINKING IT to boot?? Screw the Huff Post. They’re scumbags.

9. Thank you Wil for watching out for all of us! Kudos!

10. All artists need to stand up for their intellectual property. The editors and reporters for Huffington get paid, why not their bloggers?

11. Way to stand up for basic writers rights, Wil. You remain, as always, a class act. Creativity takes time, effort, and has tangible costs. If it is enjoyed and viewed it should then be recognized and compensated. Period.

12. As a photographer who constantly hears “can we use your photograph…?” I am completely on board. Whenever I get asked that or “Will you take a picture of us?” I answer with “Sure. BTW, When can I get my free haircut/oil change/house cleaning …”

13. Somebody doesnt understand economics… Why the fuck would HuffPost pay for something like that if they can get it for free? There are lots of people out there who do the very same thing you do that do it all for free, for good fun, for exposure, for future money. You can’t compete.

    1. My thoughts exactly. If he were creating content exclusively for HuffPo it would make sense for him to be paid, but all they are doing is offering to distribute his work to an enormous audience. Websites like BuzzFeed actually ask for payment to distribute third-party content (sometimes up to 5-digit sums), so in my mind HuffPo is actually doing him a favor more than anything else. I myself work with guest bloggers all the time, and do compensate them, but that compensation also means that my company owns the rights to all text and images. Thinking big online companies will pay you for content you’ve already posted on your own blog is just wishful thinking tbh.

       1. Disagree. HuffPo is redistributing his work to generate themselves more revenue, and contribute to the quality of their publication. It doesn’t matter that the source is available elsewhere.

          Put this into the context of a different art-form for a second (this is an oversimplification, but the point is there). If a club plays music, regardless of who the publisher and distrbutor of that music is, or the fact that it can be obtained elsewhere, the creators are absolutely going to get a royalty, and that bar owner is legally required to pay a licensing fee to ASCAP/BMI to use the artist’s work to contribute to the quality of their establishment. It doesn’t matter that more people will hear the song and miiiiiiiiiiight go somewhere else to generate the artist revenue (this is significantly less likely to happen when it shows up on HuffPo because people already see HuffPo providing the content they desire), the point is that the artist’s work is being used to contribute to the quality of the established business, and the business sought out the use of the work, which is very different from the Buzzfeed scenario presented above.

          When my multimillion dollar company uses your work for free because “exposure!”, while I make money off the back of the work that I had no part in the creation of…it’s not an arrangement that has any sense of equality. More importantly, allowing a business to use your work this way helps to legally establish the work as public domain, which it decidedly is not, which can significantly devalue the work.

       2. It’s still his intellectual property. The post belongs to Wil.

          Why do HuffPo want to repost it? Because it will bring traffic to their site and therefore revenue to their company. At the very least, they should be offering a percentage of the income generated by his post, which would be easily calculable via the metrics tools that these sites use for this exact purpose.

          Also, remember that if people read the entry at HuffPo, then they’re not going to come here to read it as well. They’d actually be pulling traffic away from Wil’s own site.

       3. Maurice, you might read up on terms for reprinting articles/fiction. Just because someone pays a writer does not mean the purchaser owns the material. Get some legal advice to see if your purchasing contracts hold some water.

    2. Please, show me these “lots of people.” If they existed, they would not have come to Will for his. Critical thinking, it’s important.

    3. Huh. I guess that’s why when I see an article is a link to Huffington Post or Buzz Feed I generally skip it. You get what you pay for.

14. The same goes for independent contractor relationships (many without agreements or written contracts) where the organization considers the contracted to be an employee and tasks are ordered/assigned as a “condition of employment.”

15. People grab song tracks these days as if they SHOULD be free. The world has gone a little crazy. “I LOVE your song Fearless and all your other songs! I’m SUCH a fan – have been for years…. Oh, there’s somewhere I can buy it? I didn’t know that.” Oh. PALEEZ.

16. A big “Amen, brother” from a freelance sportswriter here. The value of content has plummeted. It’s not a sensible thing to do to try to make a living writing. A journalism graduate can’t realistically hope to buy a house with their newspaper wages. We have to ask for more dollars because self-satisfaction and exposure will keep us in crappy apartments.

17. Thanks for the thoughtful post and for allowing folks to comment. As a writer and an editor, I’d like to suggest a couple considerations:

    First, I think it’s worth acknowledging the distinction between being asked to write without compensation and receiving a request to republish something you already posted on your blog. My publication operates a guest blog that links back to contributors’ websites and social handles. The platform was launched at the request of our readers and we don’t pay for the blog content because it is not original or assigned; however, the publication leverages its social channels to promote bloggers who otherwise may have little to no exposure in the very crowded food blog space. The guest blog is also where we source new talent for the magazine — for content which IS original and for which our writers are very well compensated. None of that six-cents-a-word nonsense which, as a writer, I agree is insulting. Our little pub is hardly Huff Post, but therein lies the problem with sweeping generalizations.

    Second, you already have a high level of exposure and this makes your situation different than most. I haven’t read the story about how you rebooted your life, but it will be as attractive to Huff Post for a Wil Wheaton byline as the content itself — and I mean that respectfully, but honestly. Whether or not you expect compensation for reposted blog content is completely your business, but to categorically discourage creatives from considering every opportunity isn’t taking into account that their career could benefit from contributing an already-written post to a certain outlet (or a photograph to an online gallery, or whatever).

    Every artist should make business decisions according to what works for his or her situation, goals and reality. Encouraging discussion around an issue is awesome, but tweets that end in “period” rarely do that. Thanks again for the opportunity to share input!

    1. Well said.

       1. Thank you!

18. As someone who writes full time as a content creator and creative writer, this really resonated with me. I’ve had so many clients offer me “exposure” in lieu of pay, but exposure doesn’t feed my kids or pay for my car. Large blogging sites like this need to understand and recognize quality writing and then pay for what they want to use!

    1. The enormous success these sites have had demonstrates they don’t have to do anything of the sort. Wil Wheaton is a reasonably famous person, he doesn’t need exposure. Ditto Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal. How many people have heard of you or most of the writers at HuffPost? Pretty much nobody. So yes, they need exposure, and exposure IS something with value when you don’t have it. Wheaton and Inman do. It’s a bit absurd for famous people to advise people who are trying to break in to not do things just for exposure.

19. Fantastic, this needed to be said! As a painter, I am frequently approached by persons organizing charity auctions asking me to donate my work, for “exposure”, and I have come to the conclusion that this is a harmful practice. The auctioned work does not fetch the price that it would in a normal sale, so both artist and charity lose out in this deal. And it contributes to the idea that giving away your work is no big deal, that art isn’t worth very much. As far as the “exposure”, none of our most successful artists can say they got their start by performing in this way, having their work appear somewhere gratis..

    1. “none of our most successful artists can say they got their start by performing in this way, having their work appear somewhere gratis..”
       You might want to read a few more artists biographies, this sort of thing has been important for more than a few artists in history. Rodin’s submissions to the Paris exhibitions springs quickly to mind. He produced work and exhibited it gratis (or even at a fee) in the hopes that it would be noticed. Design competitions are exactly the same, you produce work for free and hope it will lead to more work. Who you know and who knows you are the two most important things in almost any field, art included.

20. Exposure without means of monetization, is just paparazzo exploitation.

21. Can I re-publish this on my Twitter?

    1. I am a writer and performer of music and I face this exact problem every day.

       Organisers of festivals seem to think that merely appearing at their event is payment enough for most of the bands. Of course, the top 2 or 3 acts get a hefty paycheck, but everyone else is told “You’re not BRINGING enough people to the festival to warrant us paying you for your appearance.”

       Unfortunately, this is so endemic in the circle of festival organisers, we have to accept this as a reality and pay out expenses to get to the venue, pay our own techs to help us set up and break down gear in the extremely limited time we have and just hope that we sell enough merchandise to break even. Generally, we don’t.

       “But you’re getting exposure” they tell us.

       Too many organisations treat creators like garbage – so many, in fact that’s become the “accepted” behaviour.

       Most annoyingly, we often get the response “Well, you’re an artist, right? Aren’t you doing it for personal fulfilment rather than money?”
       … which is so insulting in so many ways that it doesn’t even dignify an answer.

       All we want as creators is to be treated with some respect. I can’t think of any other group of people that are so consistently expected to work for free.

       1. You should spend some time reviewing the concepts of Supply and Demand. There are lots of artists out there willing to do work for ‘exposure’ because they currently have none. A festival pays performers based on value (or perceived value), if your group’s name being on the bill isn’t going to attract people to their event, then why should they pay you? Why should they even let you on stage if you aren’t going to attract ticket purchasers?

       2. Oh, and as for a group of people consistently expected to work for free more than artists, take a look at student athletes. Student athletes at the HS and collegiate level compete with little to no compensation for the hope of exposure at the next level. Not only are they consistently expected to work for free, there are laws that prohibit paying them.

          1. Which doesn’t make it right.

             Oh, and no, there are no laws that prohibit paying college athletes. Those are NCAA bylaws only. They carry no legal weight whatsoever.

22. Hi Wil, I love this post for a lot of reasons. As a photographer and video producer I get asked constantly to do work for “exposure”. Most of the time, the exposure they are offering won’t do anything to elevate my career or put me in front of potential new clients. However, I would like to play Devils advocate here for a second. I realize that with your celebrity you probably reach a pretty large audience already. Hence the Huff-Po recycling a piece won’t do much for you. However, a year and a half ago, one of my own blogs went viral. One of the offers I received was from a television producer who offered me real money to be on tv regularly. More money than I’ve ever been offered to do anything. The catch was that I would be on Fox News as a liberal talking head. The same week, I was also offered the very same opportunity from the Huffington Post as you received. I actually turned down the tv money and took the Huff-Po offer for no money to blog for them regularly. I felt like it gave me a chance to reach a broader audience and I felt like that audience would include more like minded people. Consequently, that opportunity has paid off in spades. Not only does a platform like the Huffington Post add legitimacy to me, someone who did not already have celebrity status, as a writer, but it has lead to all kinds of perks. People have sent me leather handbags, prescription glasses, clothing, makeup. All of those things have been nice, but with that audience, it has also led to other offers to write and speak publicly which are very well paid. I never dreamed of being a public speaker before I started blogging for the Huff-Po. All in all, those speaking engagements and other writing jobs have added up to ten times what I would have been paid per word by the Huff-Po. For me, I look at like this; My unpaid blog on the Huffington Post is like free advertising and has been a great way to connect, reach and help with people from around the globe. I don’t at all feel like it is something I do for free or just give away. I completely agree with you that it should be the artists choice. That was my choice and I am thankful that I had a choice to make. But I will also say that in this particular case, doing it for the exposure changed my life. Not in a small way, but a huge way that altered the entire path of my career.

    1. Well said Stacie (and congrats!). Matt and Wil are looking at this situation from the perspective of people who have already made it and the readers seem to think that for them as people who haven’t already made it, that this advice is gospel. When nobody knows who you are, getting your name and work out there and in front of people is the most valuable thing you can do. You can’t buy a hotdog with it, but you might be able to pay the rent with what comes as a result of that exposure.

       As for “Exposure”… call it what it actually is. Advertising. Free advertising.

    2. Good job, Stacie. Congratulations on the success and for sharing your experience to make an important point.

23. Totally agree.
    This seems to be the opportunity to ask what one should do about a blogger who accepted valuable ‘payment in advance’ for publicity and supplied zero. Thoughts anyone?

24. I will allow you to use my content, but I want 100% of any ad revenue that ever appears on the same page as any part of my content. Or you can pay me some reasonably defensible amount for my content.

25. Let’s do that math to see how much it could cost The Huffington Post to pay its contributors. Let’s assume that they publish 100 contributors’ pieces per day, and each has about 1000 words (definitely on the long side). Multiply that by 365 days in a year, and you get 36,500,000 words per year. Assuming they pay 6 cents a word, it would cost them US$2,190,000 per year. Their revenue in 2014 was estimated at just under US$150,000,000, and although they reportedly failed to turn a profit, I would venture to say that this would be considered peanuts to a corporation such as AOL (which owns The Huffington Post).

26. Though I’m terrified of offering a counter point due to the internet’s reputation for venomous (and anonymous) backlash, as Brene Brown says, I will “Dare Greatly.”
    I have written for free, in exchange for publicity, and it has proved fruitful. I have a blog I feel strongly about, and a new book to sell–which is advertised prominently on that blog.
    My site is ad-free, and I do ABSOLUTELY no promotions or giveaways on the site (although I think I may have given away a book or two from authors I’ve believed in), because I feel “Disney-fying” my site will dilute my blog/book’s message.
    HOWEVER: If I were approached by a site with heavy traffic, and asked permission to re-post one of my articles, I would probably do it.
    Yes, as long as people provide free content (and as long as people READ free sites! Does no one here read HuffPo?) this model will thrive. But, I would have a choice to make: I can either be proud, principled, and morally correct. Or, I could be realistic about the advantages of a couple of more thousand people who may have never heard of me suddenly becoming aware of my writing, and my name.
    I’m in it to earn a living doing something I love (writing). If I have an opportunity to sell books as a result of a non-paying contribution to an internet mainstay, I would take advantage of it, lest I be truncating an opportunity to grow an audience.
    Simple as that.
    Yes, I would apologize to those who feel I have shortchanged future artists, but in the us and them world of “WWW.”, one must accept what they see as an opportunity, or be drowned out in the internet’s echo chamber.
    Of course, I’m sure my POV will change when I have a best seller on my hands, or a TV series under my belt.

    Always opening to level-headed debate (and never anonymous),
    KB

    1. Very well reasoned. I think the point a lot of folks here are missing (and that Wheaton and Inman themselves missed) is that Wheaton and Inman are already established, significant names. If they were in the position of the average poster here, people with no name recognition at all, they’d probably wrestle with their principles for about 15 seconds and then fall all over themselves saying YES! as quickly as they could.

       Look at it another way. The average company PAYS for exposure. In fact, there’s a whole industry around it called “advertising”. If the HuffPost or some similar site goes to the average company and asks them to write an article about their services which that site will then set in front of potentially millions of eyeballs, for free, that business is going to absolutely say YES because free advertising is a great thing.

27. The Huffington Post is a well known advocate of the socialist platform “spread/share the wealth” as long as its not their wealth.

28. And here I can’t pay anyone to publish my stuff!

29. Thank you! I’m a photographer and have dealt with this for close to 20 yrs. my son is a young writer and I hate that he will experience this as well. Everyone deserves to earn an income, even us in the arts and creative fields.

30. It’s TOTALLY the right call. I know so many people who create – writers, artists, bakers, craftspersons – and who are always asked to do something for nothing, because EXPOSURE! Sheesh.

31. Romans 4:4 ESV

    “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”

32. Congrats to you Wil for your courage and fortitude. So often artists have the tendency to cave and give their services for “free”. Oftentimes, that “free” end up costing all of us a bundle, whether tangible or intangible. We certainly have all earned the right to fair compensation.
    Keep up the good work!

33. I’m a makeup artist. Established. I have a good solid career. Amazon approached me a few weeks ago to do a online promo for their beauty products. Their “test” shoot would be 7 hours. They said they had no budget. AMAZON. Has no budget. I said no. I’m so tired of this crap.

34. As the 738th commenter, I’m sure I’m just screaming at the wind here, but I have two points I’d like to contribute:

    1) There seems to be a “rush to outrage” here. From what you describe, I don’t think HuffPost is trying to take advantage of you. The exposure they provide to writers is not worth $0. It’s certainly worth a different amount of money to different writers, and may be worth a number approaching $0 to you. It’s a market – pure supply and demand. At the value of “HuffPo exposure,” they seem to have enough of a supply that they can fill their demand, so they have no incentive to offer more. If they did offer more, they could potentially have more (and/or higher quality?) supply – that’s the business decision they have to make. At the currently offered rate, you are not willing to submit your content, which is absolutely your right. If enough folks felt like you did, they’d have to pay more. But clearly, that’s not the case.

    INSTANT CAVEAT: I don’t mean to imply for a split second that there aren’t folks who DO take advantage of content creators (especially young/poor content creators). For example, if they were lying to you about how they’d use your content, or were playing on your ignorance or financial need to allow then to profit from your work without your consent, then they’d be violating various laws and/or moral codes. In those cases, it would be swell if self-respecting creators would report these folks, or at least starve them of content until they withered and died. Sadly, that doesn’t always happen – there’s a reason this kind of thing is known as “the world’s oldest profession.”

    2) On an unrelated note, one of my biggest pet peeves is this notion that “the company is worth $50 million, so they can AFFORD to pay their creators.” This is prejudice – nothing more and nothing less. $50 million is the agreed upon value of the company’s assets; it says nothing about what they can afford. Some companies (cough….Twitter…cough) are worth billions, but have trouble turning a profit. Others are profitable precisely BECAUSE they don’t pay more for things than those things are worth. The idea that someone involved in the company is wealthy, and should therefore intentionally pay more than the market demands does nothing to advance the world’s understanding of economics, and takes one more small step toward vilifying people and/or companies simply because they are successful.

    Again, I say: if your argument is that HuffPo is trying to take advantage of people, then I’m behind you 100%. If your argument is that your writing is worth more than “HuffPo exposure,” then I’m still behind you 100%. But if your argument is that ALL writing is worth more than “HuffPo exposure,” then I’d respectfully suggest you allow others to make that call for themselves. And if your argument is that HuffPo should pay more for content than it’s worth on the open market, simply because they have the cash to do so, then sorry, that doesn’t make sense at any price.

35. Why is it that HuffPost has been able to amass those 10s of millions of dollars? Because (1) apparently, there are plenty of people willing to share their writings for free, and (2) there are plenty of people willing to visit the site to read these non-compensated writings. I don’t see any evil in either of these reasons. I don’t believe it’s illegal or immoral to share writings for free, nor to read writings that are shared for free.

    If someone wants me to teach them chess for $20/hour, it’s up to me to agree or pass it up. It’s a calculation based on what I want. Likewise if they want me to teach chess for $100/hour, or for free. It’s calculations based on my desires; it’s up to me to decide how I want to direct my time and efforts. I don’t see how it becomes a matter of principle. If someone wants to write for HuffPost for free, or not to do so, it’s a personal life choice… I just don’t see how “principles” (ideas of good and evil) enter into it.

36. I’m an artist but do not think like a “normal” artist and know that I deserve to get compensated. My response when someone questions not only paying me but what my rate is, “when I need a plumber I hire a plumber. The plumber doesn’t take compliments as a payment. He takes money.”
    And obviously they see value (which results in ROI) but not the value in compensating you? Stupid stupid stupid. Actually it’s not stupid but pretty smart to try to get something for free that in turn makes them money. But very douche baggery.

    1. Say you live in a community filled with people who are willing to do plumbing for free (as long as you compliment them). When your toilet breaks, you seek one of these folks to fix it… rather than going to someone who charges money. Does that make you a douche bag?

       1. Maybe the free plumbers don’t do as good a job as the for-profit plumbers. You need to decide whether the extra skill is worth the extra money (much like internet readers decide between a free HuffPost and a paid subscription to New York Times or whatever). It seems to me like an economic decision… not an ethical one. Since when does an economic decision (“I’ll buy a cheap used car rather than an expensive fancy new one”) make anyone a douche bag?

       2. Of course, not.

          I would use the idiot. And then I would use the other idiots too.

          The idiots would, eventually, notice they have no money for food and rent and probably should start doing what professionals do: charge money for a skilled job.

          1. Right… the plumbers would try to find people willing to pay for their skills. If they found no such people, they’d try acquiring other skills that could be sold for profit. All this would happen through the natural process of economic activity. Moralistic pronouncements about what’s “principled” and who’s a “douche bag” would be an irrelevant waste of time.

             1. Also, when that plumber decides to start charging money for his skills, he/she may have developed a loyal following of customers who like his/her work and would call him/her before any other plumber, even if others would do the work for free, because trust has been established. If that happens, the work the plumber did for compliments would have turned out to be very valuable indeed. Valuable enough that we’d probably think twice about calling him/her an idiot for having done it.

37. Bravo, Wil, you absolutely did the right thing! If you work is worth nothing, then work for nothing. Otherwise…

38. Dig it, Will! This all comes down to artists saying… “No – I need to live, and won’t work for free.” And producers saying… “Yes – any person helping me toward my vision (or goal, or magazine, or record, or play, or…) should be paid”.

    ARTISTS — unless you have an insider emotional connection to a project or producer, and feel it’s worth going out on a limb as a volunteer, you have to demonstrate your own value by at least getting paid a living wage of some kind…even if you’re just starting out. McDonald’s doesn’t ask you to work for free. That’s business. That’s fair practice. And if we all take this approach and stand firm – that’s power.

    PRODUCERS — Move beyond just the project at hand. I’ll get to that… But first ask yourself — shouldn’t the process getting there be just as important? An enjoyable, comfortable atmosphere of collaboration where you treat people fairly…including, paying them to create work that will make you shine? So that they, in turn, can also shine and…well… buy groceries, pay rent, put their kids through college?

    Also, there really, really is a difference between decently funded projects and insufficiently funded projects. I recently sat through blocks of screenings at two film festivals where this was abundantly clear. Sure, there are always misguided adventures of admirable passion tragically supported by mediocrity and down-right lack of talent. But the real tragedies are genuinely talented artists and great ideas mired in terrible execution. Directors who should have hired a writer, writers who should have hired a director, scenes insufficiently lighted, horrendous actors, terrible sound, grainy visuals, etc…

    If you don’t have a reasonable budget, don’t produce the project. Figure out what you need to do it right, and stand firm. Have patience. Have faith.

    Shaky productions don’t make people think… “Hey, that was a good effort, can’t wait to hire them or fund them.” It only makes people think you make bad films.

    So, c’mon! It’s a win-win proposition for both sides. Quality of work notwithstanding, it’s also simply a fair and equitable practice. Work for payment. As old a concept as the valuation of gold itself. We’ve gotta end this insane cycle!

39. Even hookers don’t work work for free… and they get exposure!

40. HuffPost just got trolled for livelinking to a comic from The Oatmeal. When Oatmeal found out what happened, he replaced the comic with an image of his hosting bill – and some naughty bits.
    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/28/cartoonist-the-oatmeal-trolls-huffpo-over-images-published-sans-permission?CMP=fb_us

41. Matthew Inman also made a similar comic to your post. (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure). Also check out the footer: All artwork and content on this site is Copyright © 2015 Matthew Inman. Please don’t steal.

42. I read a great article about this on the RedShark blog, concerning videography specifically, but it applies equally here.

    http://www.redsharknews.com/business/item/2915-the-culture-of-free

    It echoes a lot of the views expressed in this article and its comments, but there was one interesting tidbit within that needs to be mentioned.

    If you have a “client” that happens to be a non-profit or charity, that you want to help, but you don’t want to devalue your work, give them your work as a DONATION. Write up all the invoices at the full price you would normally charge, and then have the client give you a receipt for your donation. This helps eliminate downward pressure on your rates, and allows to you help an organization that you may find deserving.

    1. Arrgggh… I thought the idea I referenced was on RedShark… but I don’t see it there anymore. Perhaps it was in the comments on an article I can’t locate. Anyway, I thought it was a great idea.

       1. OK, in fact this idea was posted in the comments of the referenced article. It was the second comment posted. I just had to click on “see older comments” to find in. Sorry!

43. If you’re good at something, never do it for free…

44. You made a good decision rebuffing PuffHo’ … and your blog article has nevertheless received some positive buzz. Count me as a new fan.

45. Here is The Oatmeal’s take:
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure

    And for context as to why this happened (read until the end!):
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/baby_vs_cat/oatmeal_huffpo.jpg

46. I have an online business selling handmade toys, and I get messages from bloggers all the time asking me to send them free stuff, and they will feature me in their blog. Their blog that, more often then not, has a handful of posts and not a single comment on any of them. I’ve gotten to the point of just flat out ignoring them all.

47. I posted on this very thing in regards to video production a few weeks ago. Freelance isn’t free.
    http://foucaultdesign.com/3-reasons-to-hire-a-pro-for-your-next-video/

48. Cute. We want to use your content to attract readers so we get $$$ from advertisers, but we are `unable` to pay for content because, well, we just don`t think we should have to pay you for creating something people want to read. Much like the excuse used by e-book pirates. All that PUBLICITY! But not a penny to pay bills with. Bravo, Will!

49. There is a solution, of course: http://bit.parts/entry/the-ultimate-counter-to-the-exposure-pitch

50. Right on Wil!

Comments are closed.