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

1. As a blogger I am happy to write content on fellow up and coming bloggers sites and they do the same. But I would not let something that was published and proven to be worthy enough for a venue like Huff Po to reach out and ask to reprint it for free. We need to be given credit where credit is due.
   Thanks Will for publishing this insightful commentary.
   Kelly

   1. Are those other bloggers paying you to write for them? Is anyone? if they are, great. If they aren’t, then isn’t it worth something to you to get free advertising in front of potentially millions of sets of eyeballs? Inman and Wheaton both refer to this as exposure, but what it actually is, is advertising. They’re both pretty famous, so they don’t need free advertising, as they both indicated, it may in fact cost them money, but for someone who is just starting out or less well known than someone who has been famous since he was ten or one of the best known web comics on the planet, that level of free advertising is incredibly valuable. Value doesn’t come only in the form of a check, smart businesses know this.

      1. May I ask you the last time you actually looked at who wrote an article on HuffPost? Most people don’t look at who the author of online content is. Meaning: exposure is worthless. Even if it’s on a widely read site.

         1. I agree with Lisa. HP is devaluing hardworking writers and artists by not paying their contributors. The exposure is worthless – HP has so many random contributors who write for free, who pays attention to the by-line? No one. Brendan, smart businesses know that investing in a talented person will improve their business in the long run. Trying to get people to work for you for free, especially when you’re a multi-million dollar company is not smart. It’s tacky and lame.

            1. I think this shows in the quality of some of their contributors. Huffpo just doesn’t have the consistent quality of their competitors, and now we see why. Free is often worth just that. Nothing.

         2. Lets assume that she granted Huffpost permission to use the article, but payment was not discussed. They use the article and get a ton of clicks. Would she be able to file a wage claim with the labor board?

         3. I don’t read the HP very often. I do, however, occasionally follow the links to the blogs or webcomics of people whose work I enjoyed when I’m exposed to it for the first time. For instance the other day I read an article somewhere about Captain America. The author linked to several of his other blog posts in the story which I followed and read (and bookmarked a few for later reference) and shared around to a few friends that I thought would enjoy them. The author almost certainly was not paid to write for the site, but he got value out of it. That’s how smart writers work on the internet.
            If you’re not seeing benefits from any exposure you’re receiving, maybe it’s because you’re not capitalizing on it very well. Or you’re just not a very good writer.

            1. All I will say is this, smart writers get paid. Period. Independent of the medium. Exposure does not equal “value”, it just generally results in hypothermia. 🙂

            2. You’re right Norm, in that smart writers DO get paid. You’re wrong in your implication that paid has to mean a check. There’s more than one type of compensation for work, and smart writers know that.

            3. Payment nay not have to come in form of a check, but one thing is sure : exposure is not a type of payment for your work. At best, it is an investment (i.e. goes in the expense column, with « hope » in the revenue column) that will help your other work making more revenue.

               The only context where exposure has value is advertising. If you’re a blogger or journalist, giving away your bread-and-butter work for free to the type of organisation that is supposed to be your revenue source is nonsense, unless the piece helps selling another way of making revenue (an article on topic of a book to sell, a paying blog, lectures, etc).

               If you blog for free on your own site, why would someone make money out of this without you getting a piece of it? (unless it’s charity, but that’s another topic). More people will read that article, sure, but I highly doubt it will significantly rise traffic. Huff’s « exposure design » is simply not made to encourage this.

               Article appearing on Huff is their prime matter. It is the stuff they offer. It is what brings them readership, which brings them (a lot of) advertisement money. The moment you contribute to this, you’re allowed to have a share of it… and you will get the same exposure.

      2. I think you missed the point a little bit. Yes, exposure IS great if that is how you choose to get compensated. I am a photographer and there are jobs I CHOOSE to do for free because I know the outcome and exposure will generate potential revenue. What “the dubs” is saying is that you shouldn’t devalue your worth based on someone else’s agenda. Too many times large publishing houses and clients will try to “compensate” artists with the pressure of “free exposure” or “building your portfolio” and expect you to be gracious for their generous offer. Don’t fall for it unless exposure is your current goal. They should come to you with financial compensation FIRST because they are sure as shit generating revenue from YOUR content.

         1. I’m a photog too and I do the occasional non-profit event photography in exchange for advertising or photo credit. While that kind of work generally creates goodwill and puts my name and face out there, I can’t ever recall in 20 years of doing these when someone has hired me because of that advertising or because they saw my name on an image. Only once recently has someone asked me for a card…and that was because I was giving the poor guy some free photography advice. I didn’t have a card to give him because I’ve pretty much quit carrying them to events. No one ever asks for them.

      3. HuffPost is hardly an entity that doesn’t make any money. If they’re making revenues out of an article, then his or her writer should be compensated for it. It’s as simple as that.

         If they were fair in offering exposure, then the action should be selfless, as in a page free of any type of income mechanism — ads, links to « related articles », etc. — for this article.

         Other than that, they should pay.

         1. Why should HuffPost pay? Why should anyone pay for something when people are willing to do it in exchange for advertising? If people weren’t getting value, perceived or actual, the the HP wouldn’t have people lining up to do it. But they do, because some people realize that value and compensation can come in forms that aren’t led by a dollar sign.

      4. No it isn’t advertising. It’s getting something for free and generating revenue from it. No smart business owner gives away his product so someone else can make money from it. There is a word in the English language for businesses that utilize that business model, bankrupt. If you want to give away your work that’s fine. There are plenty of people willing to take advantage of you.

         1. “It’s getting something for free and generating revenue from it.”
            Are you talking about HuffPost, who is getting content, or are you talking about the writers, who get their work placed in front of potentially millions of sets of eyes?

      5. I disagree Brendan. Not paying for writers articles has become rife within the on-line industry and it is just wrong. If a company wants your work, then they should offer something for it. Like Wil says, what is $210 to a company worth 50 million. Writers need to eat, have mortgages and children too and anything worth publishing should be worth $$$.

         1. Why is it “just wrong”? Why should they have to pay? Do you know why someone has to pay for my services? Because market demand requires it. I HAVE given my services (including writing) away on many occasions for a variety of reasons and types of compensation. Exposure/advertising, unique learning opportunities, simple kindness, the potential of later reciprocity… all of which adds up to me being known by the right people in my field and my services being in demand.
            Simple fact, the demand for the services of someone who is unknown and unproven is pretty small and simply won’t pay well (if at all). Until people know who you are and what you can do, they have little reason to pay you because you haven’t proven you can bring them any value.
            It’s simply astonishing how many so-called creative people have not the slightest idea how to handle basic business concepts.

      6. Brendan, I think you have the relationships here crossed. Content is product, which attracts consumers who will be exposed to advertising, which generates revenue. Revenue is used to compensate contributors for content, which is, again product. Contributors create product using effort and time, which have value. The product itself also has value, which is likely greater than the time and effort put into it. This statement can be applied to nearly anything (retail, manufacturing, discount handjobs at a brothel).

         Ask yourself, if your idea above was translated to any other industry, would it make sense? If you plug in anything in, say manufacturing, would there be a sustainable long term business model? No.

         I understand the idea here is you get to be seen by a wider audience who will be interested in your work which will ultimately legitimize your product in the eyes consumers and employers. This is like giving out free samples at the grocery store to expose the shoppers to your new cookies. Which is fine. Only here the situation is more like the supermarket went to the cookie company and asked them for free inventory to sell to their shoppers for profit, then turned around and claimed they can’t afford to pay for the cookies, but it will make the brand more well known.

         I don’t think Will is saying this doesn’t work, so much as this shouldn’t be the way it has to work.

         tl;dr : It might work but things shouldn’t be this way and people should take a stand. It is like unpaid internships, which are bullshit and don’t really advance anything other than the employer’s financial interests.

         1. Your analogy doesn’t quite work. You see, in general what HP is dealing with is being a supermarket with thousands of cookie manufacturers clamoring to have them carry their product. HP then says “OK, who will give me free samples to sell?” Some of the cookie makers turn away in disgust with their noses turned high, while others give a shrug and say “Yeah I can give you a couple bags of cookies to sell with our business cards and ordering information attached.”
            HP sells the cookies and the cookie makers all wait for a return on investment on the couple bags of cookies they gave away. The cookie makers who both made great cookies AND who marketed and packaged their cookies well then make money selling their cookies directly to the consumers or go to other grocery stores and say “Look at how well our cookies sold at HP, we made great cookies, they sold really well, you should carry them.”

            Hate the model all you want, but it works, and they’re a lot more successful as a business than their competitors are, many of whom are floundering.

            1. Oh, I think your backward-to-straight analogy is still backward, Brendan. Those supermarket don’t SELL the samples. They give it for free to their costumers, in hope they like it and buy the product… which they paid.

               Most of those supermarket don’t even ask for free sample from their furnishers. They use a small quantity from their paid inventory as mean to promote the product and hopefully increase its sales.

      7. Perhaps in this case it was the other way around? The HP wanting to ride Will Whaeton’s exposure wave?

      8. This argument sounds good at first, and yes, there ‘can’ be times when it’s OK to forgo monetary compensation, but let me be very clear right now that those times are few and far between. Do you have a favorite charity? go ahead and donate some of your expertise on their behalf. Does your Grandma need a garage sale flyer? You better make your Grandma a flyer. And… that’s pretty much it.

         Working for “exposure” can turn around and bite you in the butt. If you don’t think your work is worth anything, then how on earth can you expect any potential clients to assign any value to your efforts? I know it sounds somewhat arrogant, but a big part of your worth is assigned directly by you. The more something costs, the better it must be, right? That’s why you spend $100 on the top shelf wine even though in the back of your mind you know the $4 stuff is exactly as good. Your time is a finite resource, which means it has value. People who work in fast food don’t do it for the exposure. People who work in factories don’t do it for exposure. People who build houses DO NOT DO IT FOR EXPOSURE! They invest time and effort. They expect compensation. Why should you be expected to work for a wink and a toothy smile?

         Here’s a fun fact: you can get money and exposure at the exact same time. I know, crazy right? Of course, you have to start at the bottom, but the next rung on the ladder is a lot easier to reach with a little food in your belly. Funny thing, nobody is going to run around and give you references when you work for free. Why would they? You don’t value yourself. They’re not going to recommend you. BUT… if they have to make an investment in you, and their investment pays off, they’ll feel a sense of gratification, and they WILL give you a reference.

         Here’s the bottom line: when a company worth millions of dollars makes an effort to reach out to you, your work is worth real, honest-to-goodness money.

         1. I totally agree with Wil. My sister is an artist and writes and Illustrates her literary work as her bread and butter. There are unscrupulous people out there who know that they are stealing her bread and butter because it is copyrighted and all her contact details are available but they will se her literary work at school reunions for upwards of 400 people with no byline. Other people have used it on wedding menus.these people may have printed this out themselves and paid the printer but the person who provided the intellectual property gets zip, zero. In effect her work which has been published and which she sells from specific outlets has been paid for once and then someone has effectively copied it without permission 400 times and neither asked her permission or even thanked her and given it out free. Luana was at least asked by Huff Post and given the chance to refuse permission. Suing someone for copyright theft is an expensive procedure and so my sister didn’t sue but is incredibly wary of society as a result. She paid for her children’s education and a mortgage with the proceeds of her time and creativity and sadly people steal other’s intellectual property with impunity because they know that nobody will challenge them.

      9. I’ve never heard of “advertising” something by giving 100% of it away for free.

         And if you’re trying to say they’re advertising the writer, that’s essentially the definition of exposure.

         1. You’re right, advertising isn’t usually done by giving it away for free. Usually you have to pay the advertiser to do it. When you do that, you can advertise almost anywhere. Look at the average trade or professional publication. You can take out a multi-page ad in, for instance, Architectural Record magazine and frame it as an article for your work. Alternately, you might be asked by an editor to contribute. Either way you are not going to be paid by that magazine for the days you spend putting together that piece. That’s advertising. “Exposure” is just a snobbish word for advertising, it’s almost the same exact thing. The only real difference is that you usually pay for advertising and you usually don’t pay for ‘exposure’.

            These comments here are proof positive of why so many writers and artists struggle and fail. Not necessarily for being bad writers, but more often because they don’t understand that as writers/artists they are a business and they don’t know how to operate a business. Good businesses give their work away all the time, whether it’s free samples, trials, consultations, donations to charity, lectures and on and on. You won’t find many successful businesses (or artists) that don’t give their work away at some level or another.

            1. Hi Brendan, I’ve been reading your posts on this thread and you are clearly passionate enough about this issue to have written a lot here. I’m wondering what your bias is? What’s your profession and how is exposure working for you?

            2. If you are a professional writer and you give away your writing for free for exposure, that’s nothing like buying an ad for something you wrote and are selling. The former values your writing at $0 and gives it away, so who would buy it or pay you to write if you’re already doing it for free? Buying ads might cost you some money up front, but the idea there is to introduce the work to new people without giving it away and sell enough to cover the costs of the ad and then some. It also does nothing to negatively impact the dollar value of writing. Writing for free is short sighted.

            3. Carla – I work in the architectural field. I’m not ‘biased’ I’ve simply seen how businesses work. I’ve written articles and done work for free (on my own time) because it got me or my company’s name in front of the right people and generated work. If you do all your work for free then obviously you’re not going to get anywhere. But if you do some work for free to give people a taste of what you can do or to prove what you know, as long as you’re picking the right audience, then it will pay for itself many time times over.
               I’m passionate about this because I started out as a fine artist. But I saw not only what a grind the business of art was but that the resources for preparing aspiring artists for that grind was so inadequate, it’s distressing to say the least.
               Additionally, most writers don’t start out with a couple hundred thousand Twitter followers from their time as a hollywood star; so I find it pretty disappointing to see so many blindly endorsing Wil’s perspective on this without any consideration for the situation of the person expressing the view. Of course Wil Wheaton doesn’t need exposure, he’s Wil Wheaton! He has an IMDB page as long as my arm! The average writer though, they DO need that exposure, especially when starting out, because absolutely nobody knows, or cares, who they are.

   2. Wow, 815 comments on this article ?! That’s insane, on top of making no “living” so to speak.. you’ve got to read (well, in fact, you don’t really have to, roger!) all these comments. That’s a lot of work mate 😉 Good on ya standing for principles, I completely agree with you!

2. Thank you for standing up for the creative arts. I have transitioned from the world of finance to that of photography and I am simply blown away at all of the “offers” I have been approached with to do stuff for free (i.e. exposure). This would never fly in the financial world as even the underlings get paid over there. It is insulting and disrespectful! I agree with others in that because people fall for it that it weakens the stand of the entire community. Way to go to stand up for yourself!

3. 1.) Exposure is a form of compensation, and when you are getting started or trying to develop a public image, this is very important. It is the same reason people take internships. It gets them experience and connections.

   2.) People complained about how horrible it is that people do things for free. I write for free. I draw for free. I do design work for free. I do development work for free. I do IT and repair work for free. I like the experience. When I do something that I think requires compensation, such as it will take significant time away from my family or will require tools or hardware that I will have to purchase, then I will ask for compensation.

   Anyone who thinks I am ruining things for others who make money doing what I am doing for free, they can deal with it and bite my butt. I will continue doing things for free as long as I want to. I will not stop because someone else thinks it isn’t fair or that I am making things harder for them. It just wont happen.

   1. Then how do you pay your rent? Bills? In my experience, people who do things for free on a consistent basis are getting support from somewhere else…family/parents, spouse, a trust fund. Internships that don’t pay usually go to people from families who will then pay their college kid’s rent while they’re working them, which only perpetuates class privilege and stunts social mobility. I couldn’t afford to work an unpaid internship in college because unlike almost all of my classmates, I didn’t have parents to help me out. I was working my way through college and I needed to work for pay. I don’t have the luxury to donate all my time and labor for free. Because I’m the only one responsible for my rent.

   2. Exposure is a form of compensation only if Will Wheaton has everything in place to monetise the exposure – e.g an adserving strategy that allows them to sell eyeballs to their blog site, to advertisers and such. After that, it may get a person fame or notoriety…neither of those necessarily translate to cash. As Wi Wheaton said, doing things for free – like you do – of your own free will, is different to being asked to sell your work to a large company, for zero. This means being exploited by large corporations especially if you are no longer in your early twenties. As a media person, I know from experience that free work has its place but media companies will pigeonhole workers into the ‘low cost’ or ‘free’ box for as long as they can…which reduces your value in the marketplace over an extended period unless you can negotiate a paid position out of it eventually. The scenario when that might be possible, is if they publish a series of your work repeatedly and then decide they cannot live without the clicks/eyeballs your work generates to their site…which in turn gives them more advertising inventory to sell. Only then will they consider giving someone a contract or permanent blogging role.

   3. You must be very rich. How do you pay your bills if you do everything for free? I’m not judging you or anything and I deeply respect your choice. It’s just that it’s really hard for us struggling artists to understand how to do work without compensation especially when you have a family to feed.

4. I agree with you entirely. After writing a column for a small daily paper in California I asked for pay. My column runs about 750 words, and was published every other week in that paper and a weekly where I now live (in Montana). Both editors agreed to pay a small sum for each column published. After five more columns (after reaching the agreement) I never did receive pay from the California enterprise. Despite multiple contacts and bills – nothing, so I dropped them (after writing free for over 7 years!). My current arrangement pays in a very timely manner. If the minimum standard is 6 cents a word, I am underpaid, but am satisfied with what I DO receive. A laborer IS worthy of his hire, as the Sidney Poitier character said in Lillies of the Valley. Thanks for your Blog, Wil. 🙂

   1. Not to be pedantic, but that quote is actually a quote in itself from the Bible, either Luke 10:7 or 1 Timothy 5:18. Just sayin’ 😉

      1. I actually knew that, but it was the movie line that came to mind, so that’s where I decided to give credit. The movie gives credit to the Bible. I don’t think you’re being pedantic at all. I think we need more fact-checking; not less. 🙂

5. I’ve been a professional photographer for 33 years, am published in hundreds of newspapers and thousands of websites during each week and I have never had someone call me and say “I saw your picture in the paper, can you shoot something for us?” You can’t buy groceries with “exposure.” My pat answer when someone asks me to work for free is “Do you work for free?” Many thanks Will for bringing this to light.

6. Way to go, Will Wheaton!

7. You power your blog with WordPress. This is open source software that many talented developers have contributed to. If you are going to take this stance I would hope you would consider using closed source software to ensure that everyone was fully compensated.

   If someone asks and the exposure isn’t worth it to you, say no.

   I say this as a software developer, Star Trek, and Big Bang Theory fan… Hopefully you got some royalty off of those ST TNG box sets I purchased.

   1. Not the same. Open source software is intended to be a free resource and WordPress is a great one.

      If Wil had asked a programmer to code for him a new blog interface but not pay for it, offering only credit and exposure, then yes.

      1. If the programmer wanted to do it it that way, sure. No one has to be offended by the offer.

         1. I’m guessing you probably are not trying to make a living in creative services as a proprietor or freelancer.

   2. That’s specifically what Wheaton already identified as a different case. The developers who contribute to WordPress have willingly volunteered their time, and actively decided to forego any financial compensation. There’s no reason his stance creates some obligation for him to abandon the platform they created, and start paying someone else.

   3. This post has gone viral and has produced far more exposure than the AOL Huffington Post would have, and the original article is very well written. I agree that it shouldn’t have been given away, but I still don’t have a problem with them having simply asked.

8. What’s nicest about this is that your stance is affecting the person who’s just getting started. If Wil Wheaton insists on getting paid, the effect trickles all the way down the line. Plus, between you and The Oatmeal, some light has been shed this week on the fact that HuffPo profits by not paying its contributors.

9. Did you see what HuffPo did to The Oatmeal yesterday? I think it might tie in a bit. They took it down but he has screen shots.

10. “Exposure” is a cynical, insidious code word for “devalue.”

    The notion that random exposure opportunities have systematic, endemic value is ludicrous. Offering freebees as part of a marketing plan is one thing; giving away your stuff to the world of commerce on the dubious promise of exposure is quite another.

    If what you produce adds value to someone else’s product, then you should be compensated when they want to use your product.

    Creative artists need to be paid.

11. You did the right thing. As a writer/journalist, I’ve gotten the whole “exposure” thing and it’s bullcrap. Some big media companies here in Canada got slammed hard when they were caught taking advantage of unpaid interns. The law in Canada states that the only time an unpaid internship is legal is if it contributes towards academic credits that will lead to an intern graduating. While I do occasionally volunteer an article towards a local media outlet, I didn’t go through college to get told that I’d be getting “exposure.” It’s wrong and, like you mentioned, they CAN afford to pay contributors. They just don’t want to and it’s awful.

12. As a full-time freelancer (VO, writer, media designer, tee shop owner), I’ve been asked to work countless hours for ‘exposure’, and it’s always insulting. My favorite was the guy who said (and I quote): “Now that you know what work we need, how much will it cost me? Bear in mind, you get to work from home doing what you love, and isn’t that really compensation-enough?”

    I’m with Wil. If someone is going to be benefiting from your work, you deserve to get paid for it. End o’ story.

    Good looking out for the little guys and creative types, Wil. 🙂

13. Wil, thanks for speaking out on this dishonest practice within the business community.

    As a graphic designer, I’ve received plenty of offers to work on projects for no pay and I turn them down because I can’t afford to take unpaid projects. Not only is work how I keep the lights on, but it’s also unfair to my clients who do pay market rate for my services.

    Whether it is Huffington Post or the mom and pop business down the street, there is always a line item in the budget for other professional services like legal and accounting. Why should writers, designers, photographers, programmers and anyone else who gets paid for the work they produce be expected to work for free?

14. As a (wannabe) photographer, I can definitely report that this is rife in the photography world, and see it all the time. From small businesses, nightclubs, all the way up to multi-million £/$/whatever companies. They so often come out with excuses as to why there is no budget and to why they can only offer “exposure” for your work.

    Why do they do it?

    Because they can get away with it. Because there’s always someone who doesn’t know better and will accept this as the “norm”. Because they also want to be “published” – to have their ego stroked. There will always be some up and coming photographer, painter, writer,. etc., who will want that “recognition”.

    However, sometimes, doing work for free can be advantageous. Perhaps it gives you experience in your chosen field, perhaps if you are a beginner blogger, writing for a site like the HP could be to your advantage (having a link from a web site such as HP’s to your site could help rank your web site higher in Google, for example, as long as they allow Google to follow it). But you have to weigh it up and not let them pull the wool over your eyes. I have, in the past, guest written for a blog site with 6+ million visits a month, each article had my name and a direct link to my web site, but I found, looking at my stats, that it provided very few referrals to my web site, and definitely nothing more beyond that.

    Someone like Will (I wonder if that editor realised who Will was and how famous he is?), doesn’t “need” exposure, others may. So, I would say to weigh up the pros and cons and not just give up your work without due consideration, after all, that creation still needed talent, time and effort to bring to life and even if it isn’t that good, it still has a value (and if you value something, you just do not give it away without a second thought, doing so devalues it).

15. Definitely the right call!

16. http://www.thebeaverton.com/culture/item/1828-local-artist-paid-with-dies-from-exposure

17. Wil,
    Isn’t it fair to say that by HP republishing your article, HP is also receiving exposure? You deserve to be compensated equally.

18. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure

19. Artists are asked all the time to donate work to charity auction galas in support of the arts. Some of these auctions return 50 to 70 percent of sale to the artist, and are doing the ethical thing. But it’s the exposure that is most “sold” — artists really don’t get much “exposure” at all. Personally, I’ve never found out who bought a piece, nor where it went after the purchase, but that’s ok.

20. Bravo! A blow for integrity.

21. Thanks for posting – As someone who does participate in the write-for-exposure venues, it was at least leveling to hear that even when there is a known name attached to the article, that it still is not deemed worthy of actual monetary compensation. I write to drive traffic to my website /podcast & therapy practice so I’ll take free advertising where I can get it, but for those who are trying to live as writers or other creatives as their sole income, the internet can be a financially barren starting place.

22. Well, then you should atleast get the AD REVENUE generated on that page – how’s dem apples?

23. So basically the Huffington post is the goodwill for writers and bloggers. Totally agree…if your work is good enough for someone to want to use for their project then it’s good enough to be compensated for.

    I’m constantly being asked to do free illustrations for books, game projects and portraits for family and friends. It’s nice to do things for people sometimes but when you pay your bills that way, it’s hard to give away that work.

24. When I read this blog post I shared it to my professional fb page. I can understand someone brand new in the biz or in college doing this for credit, to be able to say they had been published….but here’s my experience:

    When I saw this I felt I had to share it. When I worked for AOL who bought out Huffington Post I was running camera on the event that they did in Miami at the Fountainebleau Hotel…it was the event where they announced to their employees that they had acquired Huff Post. I was freelancing for a production company. I was well paid for my “creative services” over 2-3 days in Miami. My transportation from Baltimore and room were provided. They did not ask for my services pro bono because it would be “good exposure. ” They flew at least 500 of their people to Miami, put them up in one of the best hotels, fed them and partied. I don’t know what the budget was, but it would have paid a lot of bloggers nicely for many articles.In many organizations, if you can get it for free, it just adds to the bottom line. Without writers and thinkers who create the pieces, they have no product…this shows what and who they value.

    1. Hi Mike, thanks for sharing that! It puts things in perspective

25. Kudo’s to you Will Wheaton! You did the right thing. Being a photographer, I understand this.

26. This reminds me a lot of the world of academic publishing, where authors, and often editors and reviewers as well, are not paid by journals. This started in the days when journals were run, often on a shoestring, by academics. Now most journals are run by large companies, which pay their CEOs and other senior administrators seven-figure salaries. What’s more, authors are required to assign their copyright (or pay a large open-access fee) in order to be published—a practice that would not be considered acceptable anywhere else in the publishing industry. This happened to me with a paper I wrote for a mathematical journal published by one such company, and I’m still pretty upset about it.

    1. And academics can’t just avoid this, because any hope of career advancement depends on being able to point at your published research.

27. Thank you. Thank you for taking a stand, and thank you for talking about it. People who let their work be published without compensation are not only cheating themselves out of deserved pay but this behaviour also devalues the creative industries as a whole, making it even harder for writers/artists/designers/photographers/etc to receive pay for their work. The only reason companies expect to able to pay with “exposure” is because too many people have accepted that as “payment” for far too long.

28. Perhaps next time if it comes up, a strategy might be to respond to their their bargaining position of “please do it for the exposure/no pay” with: “That’s an interesting offer, but I should inform you that I do expect fair compensation for my work. As I’m sure you do in your editorial position. And as a HuffPost reader, I’d be taken aback if I thought for a second HuffPost exploited writers by asking them to work for free and generating revenue streams from their work. Is that what you do? I’m so surprised! It feels so much more of a I’m sure many HuffPost readers are not yet aware of that. That would make a very interesting article, or blog post, don’t you think? But back on our topic, I’d be interested in discussing this opportunity with Huffpost further, including structuring some kind of fair compensation. I completely understand if, assuming you might typically not pay/exploit writers (I don’t know…), that this might be doing things differently, and that you might have to consult with your Editor in Chief/Sr. Editor/Boss. Perhaps they could get back to me, and you or your editor/boss/more senior person and I can discuss further a fair compensation package worthy of the HuffPost brand and representative of its values.”

29. Musicians too! Check out the Content Creators Coalition. http://www.c3action.org/ – I am not a member yet, but I think I will be soon. The worm is turning and artists are starting to demand their due again!

30. Thank you, Will Wheaton, for saying no. As a freelance writer, I can’t pay my mortgage or grocery bill with exposure. I never click on a HuffPo article. If I Google a topic, HuffPo and other news sites will pop up. I click on the others. Really, a big Thank You!

31. Oh for the love of…

    The original post was broadcast to the world, for free, on your own site. The e-equivalent of standing on a streetcorner speaking to any person who passes by and is willing to listen.

    To then later turn around and expect to be paid for it just because someone can “afford it” is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s a near-perfect example of why our society is rapidly going down the drain.

    1. RE: Oh for the love of…

       Wil publishing for free on his own site is for his own benefit. It provides real exposure that benefits his careers.
       (most of his current professional success can be traced back to the site.) He links to stuff that does make money for him – his books. Publicizes his acting (voice, TV, and web) where the views/listens result in success that leads to repeat work.

       Publishing on HP for free would most likely hurt Wil more than it would help. It steals hits from his site when the article shows up in searches. .In his case, he would lose more than he would gain.

       1. I’ll say it again. The original post was done for free and broadcast on a public website.

          The links you mention = exposure. If exposure truly is worthless, then it’s just as worthless on his own site.

          Hypocrisy is not appealing and doesn’t justify intellectual dishonesty.

32. Thank you so much for speaking out, Will! I have encountered this attitude too often as an artist, writer and graphic designer. It saddens me that giant corporations who can afford to pay for content, line their pockets with the hard work of starving artists. Moreover, it depresses me that they have managed to spew a rationale that has convinced the artists, as well as themselves, that they are actually doing these artists a favor by giving them exposure!

    I believe this trend is indicative of a larger attitude about the nature of creatives. We often write off art in every form as nonessential work. Think of a fine artist compared to a doctor: which one would you take in an Armageddon bunker? And somehow we unconsciously rank occupational fields according to this survivalist mentality and pay them accordingly: never questioning that 1. as a society we are not in a situation where our survival is in jeopardy, and 2. that our priorities need to shift as we are no longer a society of sparsely connected and underpopulated wild west settlements.

    Is any president ever without his speech writer? Is any company or non-profit charity without a logo or advertising to garner support? Would NASA have gotten funding to start planning a manned mission to Mars without you and the cast of Next Gen, Will? No, because we are no longer a society where we can go to the Post Office/Saloon and discuss something with everyone in the town. Our vast numbers require different methods of mass communication and this is one of the many arenas in which creatives are Necessary, with a capital N. It’s time our society starts viewing our worth.

    Thanks for letting me soapbox on your thread! Keep living out loud, Will, we need your voice! 🙂

33. Pretty perfect representation of this….

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure

34. Does HuffPo have any metrics to back up their stance?
    It’s one thing to offer nebulous benefits and validation.
    It’d be something else if they could show actual click-throughs / traffic increases / revenues for authors that take their deal.
    I don’t think “unique platform” and “reach” tracks in Google Analytics in the same way HuffPo is describing it as an incentive / opportunity.

35. I didn’t search through all the comments but I was a little surprised not to see one of John Scalzi’s posts mentioned in the couple of pages I did search.

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/12/09/a-note-to-you-should-you-be-thinking-of-asking-me-to-write-for-you-for-free/

    Perhaps that editor should read or reread (and recommend that their bosses read or reread) that post, ESPECIALLY points 5 and 6. Okay, you’re not John Scalzi so the numbers in point 5 might be a little different, but the spirit of the point still applies.

    1. Thanks for sharing that. I enjoyed it and the follow up post. Scalzi is just the right touch when I am getting fatigued with (especially my own) politeness and dithering.

36. I read, “the line must be drawn here” in Picards voice.

37. This principle applies to many professions. As a professional, full-time DJ I frequently get approached with low or no pay offers that promise ‘exposure’ to potential clients. The problem is that these gigs often do generate leads, for more ‘exposure’ gigs. Free work will definitely generate more offers for free work.

38. I’m reminded of Rick Redfern’s plight in Doonesbury. Here’s a strip from a few years back: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/2012/04/Doonesbury5001.jpg

39. What I find interesting is how in 15 years in the freelancing world, we went from “paid decently” to “paid nothing” because “you should be happy with the exposure we provide you.” We can bow to globalization all we can or even consider it awesome, the rates some people accept are unacceptable.

    I was a full-time translator until 2010. I had to stop because rates were getting way too low. At some point, I received offers that were akin to what you would get paid in a sweatshop. (I’m not even kidding)

    Too many people say “yes” to “awesome opportunities” because they don’t think about the consequences on their actions on the rest of their industry. I understand that it’s financially challenging for many. But the more we accept such conditions, the worse it will be.

40. It’s sort of a silly model on their end as well, especially when you’re asking someone with a little more name recognition to contribute. Just as they can say we’re giving you exposure, isn’t the point of asking more well know people to contribute to get more people to read your blog/site? Aren’t they ultimately making money off of your content, or did I miss where huffington post became a non-profit?

41. Ms. spiritual A. Huff & Puff gets rich by not paying anyone for content. Legal slavery. Happening all over this land of the free in all kind of industries. Free for the already rich and powerful but not for anyone else. Tax the poor but not the rich. Internships anyone? And creative people are supposed to be just happy providing our labor for nothing because we love what we do just that much. There otta be a law…

42. The consensus seems to be that any fool can express himself in writing (thanks, Interwebs), so the written word has practically no value. But by all means, pay Brad Pitt $12MM for 12 weeks of moderately challenging work.

43. As a musician, I run into this kind of BS all the time. I’m not famous, I don’t have any records on the radio, I have a few songs on Soundcloud and about 300 to 500 followers on Facebook. I play cover songs with an acoustic guitar and DJ for private events. I can tell you from having played in countless bars, schools, sporting events, country clubs, and backyards that free exposure has never gotten me any business. unless its a charity event for a cause I truly believe in, there is little to no motivation to do my job well when I show up to perform if I know I’m not getting paid. the best exposure I ever get is from customers that I charged full price for my services and got paid what I’m worth for them. these are the people that recommend me to their friends and tell them that not only was i professional and good at what I was doing, but I was also affordable, generous, went out of my way to make sure that their event had the perfect soundtrack and their guests we’re so impressed that they in turn called me to book me for their own events. anybody who says they want you to perform for exposure when you make a living doing what you do is just insulting you, your intelligence and your profession. the fact of the matter is that even though some people completely under value what we do and have no consideration for the fact that this really is work for us, we are all providing services that are deserving of proper compensation. nobody would ask a plumber or an electrician or handyman if they would come and fix something in their building for the exposure. Its bullshit and it needs to stop. The only time I would ever do anything like that for free is if I finally put out my own original music and just want people to hear it. I would do one or two promotional shows just to have the Music in front of people but you better believe that I would have a merch table and would be selling my stuff for full price.

44. Agreed. This era has unfortunately been the death of many creative fields. If you think writing is bad, take a look at illustration and photography. Worse by far… It’s pretty much slave labor for all but few. And exposure is a laughable concept. Welcome to the downside a capitalist society. The lowest cost is what people will pay, even if they have the money (and often its the people who don’t have the money to pay that actually will). The worst part is that we’re taught that this lack of respect for creative/analytical work is acceptable…

    Atleast my mom still appreciates my work…..

45. There might be a couple of misunderstandings. HuffPost bloggers are mostly not “writers” in the sense of this thread, and are not “working” with their HP submissions. Most are in other professions, and use blogging for many reasons unrelated to money. For most, there is no aspiration to make money from writing. Second, there is an implication in some comments that HuffPost does not pay for any of its content. HuffPost maintains a regular newsroom of about 300 people, all with salaries/benefits. HuffPost has two content divisions: News, and the Blog. The Blog is not designed for professional writers. It has a team of editors (all paid), like the one who reached out to Wil. They spend most of their time reviewing and publishing an immense volume of submissions from many thousands of bloggers, most all of whom are happy with the platform. I used to run the HuffPost blogging program. And by the way, I also once contracted Wil (for pretty decent money) to write columns for one of my sites. He was great. Hi Wil. 🙂

    1. Hi Brad, thanks for the details. Does HuffPo pay for freelance articles?
       My take on the blogging: Even if, as you say, the blog writers aren’t generally making a living as writers, they are still providing work that adds value to HuffPo’s site. A token payment that acknowledges that value would be fair dealing IMHO. People who blog, but earn their living as say a veterinarian, still are contributing the value of their words, education and life experience. If an editor gets paid to search for these blogs, why not the authors?

46. Dishonest and shitty.

47. To answer the posts saying that it’s normal to give free samples of your work away … Yes, you’re right. But giving a post to a website as a one-time deal in order for them to profit is NOT a sample.

    When you give a sample away, it is with the understanding that future PURCHASES will take place. As a music creator, I’ve given away one song from a new album in order to generate sales. But I’m not going to give away the whole album – especially now that everyone thinks it’s fine to rip CDs, give them to friends and upload them to torrents.

    As I said in my previous post, the complete lack of respect and appreciation for creators that a large percentage of people show is staggering.

    Would you ask for a plumber to fix your leak for free?
    Would you expect a car dealership to give you a “free sample” for exposure, when once you HAVE that free sample, you won’t need to buy from them at all?

    And what about you? What is your job?

    Would you do the entire thing for nothing, knowing that that single freebie wouldn’t generate income or a single other job? And even if it did get you another job, the fact that you gave away your services is probably what brought the new customer in, expecting another freebie.

    A free sample has to lead to future income, and has to be only PART of what the original customer wants. Otherwise, you’ll never make a penny.

48. To commenters pointing out the hard work going on at Huffington Post, no one is suggesting that HuffPo work for nothing. That’s kinda the point.

    How often does Huffington Post allow us to read something on a page without a massive banner advert?
    Literally never! What about a free sample for US, HuffPo?

49. I applaud your decision. I wish more bloggers valued their time and insisted on compensation, that would at least greatly reduce the shameful requests I receive on an almost daily basis.

50. Thanks a lot, Will Wheaton. Now I feel like I have principles. Darn it, I agree with you. I’m a tiny, new blog with big goals and plenty of hard-earned learning under my belt. My next attempt to grow my blog was to contact Huffington Post and similar sites to try to get exposure. Even with my principles, it’s still the best choice for me. They still offer amazing value for people trying to build a platform from a few sticks and good ideas.

    Then, to make matters worse, I knew I had some changes to make on my site and tried to do it before posting this reply here only to discover that the changes I tried to make broke my site. Now not only am I a little fish with principles who still needs expose through Huffington Post, but I am also commenter number 849 on this post. Good job, me.

Comments are closed.