EVEN TIN POT LOCAL MAG HAS ‘A POLICY NOT TO PAY OUR CONTRIBUTORS’
**Looking for the latest on this story? Scroll down to Comments**
Graduate Fog isn’t sure whether to laugh or cry.
On one hand, I weep for the future of an industry I love.
On the other, this story is hilariously funny.
Every budding journalist knows that unpaid internships happen within national magazines and newspapers.
When you’re starting out, we know that it’s all about collecting bylines at big-name titles.
But when tin pot local freesheets that nobody’s heard of get the idea that it’s okay to advertise for freelancers to write features for publication without paying them, I want to ask “Sorry, just checking – but is this still real life?”
I refer to a recent advertisement sent to me by a Graduate Fogger, Mark Watson.
It is an invitation for writers to contribute their work to a publication called Vine, which we are informed is “one of the most prestigious magazines in Kent” and “stands head and shoulders above its closest competitors.”
(No, I’d never heard if it either. The website calls it ‘The essential free magazine for Sevenoks’. Perhaps Kent-based Foggers will enlighten us?)
And yet – following the managing director’s detailed explanation of how journalists should apply for the honour of having their work considered for publication his prestigious title - we are informed that these writers should not expect to be paid for their work, on the grounds that:
“We have found that being printed in such a high profile magazine is compensation enough- significantly raising the writers profile within the industry and providing unparalleled material for your portfolio.”
Really?
Is it Vine – or Vanity Fair?
Here is the ad in full. Savour the delicious loftiness of this outrageous editor:
“Vine Publishing, the company behind Vine Magazine- one of the most prestigious magazines in Kent- is expanding to London. We are looking for the best freelance journalists to contribute editorial to this new London edition.
“Vine stands head and shoulders above its closest competitors. We pride ourselves on our stunning design, exciting editorial, high profile clients and unprecedented editorial to advertisement ratio (60:40). We have a distribution of 30,000 (and constantly growing) and an estimated readership of 65,000.
“If you are interested in contributing to Vine, please send an email to edward@onlinevine.co.uk, with a copy of your resume, a covering letter, accompanied by your most relevant and accomplished piece of writing. This piece should be either an article or relevant piece of editorial on a subject of your choice. Please do not send pieces over 800 words long.
“We currently have a policy to not pay contributors, and so anything, if your application is successful, anything that we do print will not be compensated for financially. We have found that being printed in such a high profile magazine is compensation enough- significantly raising the writers profile within the industry and providing unparalleled material for your portfolio.
Look forward to hearing from you,
Edward Coram-James,
Managing Director,
Vine Publications.”
Most days, I receive emails from graduates desperate to start their career as a writer and asking me how they can ‘break in’.
Increasingly, I’m at a loss to know what to tell you.
Something very strange has happened.
Publications appear to have stopped factoring ‘content costs’ into their business plan.
You know, little things like paying your writers (and photographers, stylists, hair and make up artists, etc).
We talk about unpaid internships a lot on Graduate Fog.
But the reality is that it isn’t just young people trying to ‘break in’ to media who are fed this nonsense about doing things for the experience, byline, contacts or prestige.
It’s certainly something I encounter regularly – and I’ve been working as a full-time features writer for over eight years!
I try not to take it to heart (and usually just say No), but I admit I do find it irritating.
The major reason is because without exception, the person asking me to work for free is being paid to do their job.
And yet they’re asking me to do mine for nothing. Is it just me or is there something a teensy bit insulting about that?
We all know that the journalism industry is in big trouble – particularly print media, which is struggling to adapt to the digital age.
But the trend for simply not paying your writers is not sustainable.
Journalists can’t pay their rent with bylines.
I just can’t see how this farcical situation can continue.
Without content, there is nothing for people to read.
And you can’t sell advertising against blank pages, for a publication that nobody reads because there’s nothing in it!
If you want to be a writer, my advice would be to find people who are prepared to pay you.
If you can’t, then don’t do it at all.
Because publications who expect you to write for nothing just aren’t a business.
And yes, I’m talking to you, Vine magazine.
“Head and shoulders above its closest competitors”?
You should be hanging your head in shame, more like.
*Do you find this ad insulting, hilarious – or both?
Are you trying to break into journalism? Who’s asked you to write features for free? Are you beginning to wonder how you will ever earn a living in this industry?
This is REALLY outrageous!
To say it is compensation enough is absolute tripe sorry.
If they have 65K readers or whatever, then there is a few quid in between there or where is the editor eating?
Really terrible.
Laughable but a familiar story as anyone who has ever been on Gorkana.com can verify. I’ve never been paid for a piece of writing. In fact, I wrote articles for a freelancer for a while to get experience. I got some great critique on my pieces, but received no money – in fact – no byline either. At the time, I took the experience under my belt but now, I realise I’ve actually got no portfolio to show for it. It remains to be seen whether I’ll get a job as a result.
Jo, go the copywriting route for businesses. It’s more lucrative.
So by this logic, any publication more prestigious than a Kent free magazine should feel no need to pay their writers?
That said, presumably they are still managing to fill their pages. How? This would only be a workable strategy if they were actually finding writers willing to accept such questionable prestige as reward. It is surely the fact that supply so grossly outstrips demand in this corner of the industry that the value of labour is close to nil. Skills are only worth as much as somebody is willing to pay for them. That copywriting, as Kagem notes, might be more lucrative indicates that that’s not the case in that field. Perhaps because it’s not so desirable?
@Kagem and Jo – thanks for your comments, glad it’s not just me who thinks this is total nonsense!
@Lauren – you raise some interesting points.
Definitely not! But I do think if you’re going to claim that the prestige of being in the mag is ANY kind of payment, you need to be sure that there is actually some prestige!
As a general rule I don’t write anything for free. But there are a recognised handful of publications that most middle-ranking journalist would take a significant cut in their usual fee (or even zero fee) in order to appear in them – because it IS genuinely ‘worth it’ to be able to say you’ve written for these mags (nobody needs to know you did it for nothing!). The Guardian, for example, don’t pay brilliantly, but everybody knows it’s pretty prestigious to write for them, which it is, so people accept the money (Which is still within the NUJ guidelines) But I don’t think Vine can claim to be anywhere near the league where they can legitimately ask writers to work for a lesser fee, let alone NO fee at all!!
Yes, they are for the moment – because there are zillions of grads working for free – and zillions of struggling writers still trying to make it work. But I don’t believe this is sustainable – because they are not investing in talent, whether it’s new talent (grads) or more established writers (like me).
In both cases, our positions are showing no signs of improving any time soon. We are not valued – adn we cannot elevate our earnings at all from where we are now. We are all stuck. New grads are stuck at the bottom – I am stuck at the middle.
Lots of journalists like me are beginning to realise this – and are looking at their options and leaving this industry. I think graduates will realise this too, and will do the same.
Unless print media has a brainwave as to how on earth they can continue to make their maths add up, i fear that for the next few years, editorial will be written by unpaid grads who have not yet realised that there is no paid job at the end of the unpaid internship.
All the more experienced journalists will simply go elsewhere, realising that writing for these publications is no longer a sustainable career.
There is some truth in this – but I think we should have stuck to having fewer, properly paid positions, and giving those to the very best candidates. A lot of people can write to an okay standard, but not many are exceptional! Yes, there are a lot of people wanting to do these jobs, but only a handful are properly excellent. But if even these people are receiving no investment (read: wages and training), I can’t see how the UK can still expect to have a high-quality publications when even the exceptionally talented and hard working people end up giving up eventually, because they can’t make it work financially.
Again, there is some truth in this, and i’ve heard this argument before, but i actually find it supremely depressing : ( Are we really saying that people should only be paid to do ‘undesirable’ jobs? Basically, if you hate it, you’ll be paid, but if you enjoy it at all, you won’t?
By that same logic, all singers, actors, dancers etc should work for free too, even if they’re really really good and lots of people really enjoy their work.
And who’s to say that this should only apply to media and the arts? There are hairdressers and scientists and builders and policemen who enjoy their work (which is increasingly competitive) – and we still pay them!
Whatever happened to saying if your work has value to others, you should be paid for it?
UPDATE #1:
I suddenly felt bad that I hadn’t given this editor the chance to reply before slating his magazine – so I have just emailed him the following:
Dear Edward,
My name is Tanya de Grunwald and I run a careers advice website called Graduate Fog.
Many of my users are trying to break into journalism and are working unpaid, so your recent advertisement for writers caught my attention.
Today I have written a blog post about it, because I believe it illustrates the shocking extent to which it has become acceptable to simply not pay writers.
You and I are probably never going to be great friends (!) but if you would like to respond to this at all via email, I would be happy to add this as an update to the blog post.
Alternatively, you are welcome to comment directly on the site – as a regular user would – and I will approve your comment straight away.
With many thanks
Tanya
I’ll let you know if he replies! xx
I am tending to break things down to pure economics, not because I think that’s the way things SHOULD be, but as a way of explaining how this situation has arisen.
I think we full agree that The Vine is in no position to start suggesting people should be pleased to work for free! I do understand what you’re saying about certain, non-Vine publications. And I can fully see why you might accept lower pay to write for, say, The Guardian, the implication being that you’d expect to see the value of the (actually, existent) prestige, and maybe also that it might help you get work elsewhere. I know that I definitely would.
And I am with you on your answer to my question as to how they’re filling their pages for free, and the implications you foresee. What you’re saying, I think, is that the current excess supply of labour will disappear as people leave the industry for better prospects – either in related fields, like digital media, or otherwise.
“There is some truth in this – but I think we should have stuck to having fewer, properly paid positions, and giving those to the very best candidates.”
I agree, and I think this industry seems yet to have grasped the value of investing in staff, something the business world caught on to a long time ago. I’d be interested, also, to hear how you think the best candidates should be found – it seems like it might be trickier here than in other industries.
However, I think you’ve either misinterpreted my comment about desirability, or we disagree somewhat! I’m in no way saying people who enjoy their jobs shouldn’t be paid. I genuinely love what I do and am paid for it! What I was pondering was that because, say, copywriting is not as generally desirable as print journalism, there’s a lower supply of labour and so the value of that increases and it is easier to find paid work. To use my own work as an example, as I say, I do love it, but the supply of labour is comparatively low because of the qualifications that are an absolute necessity to do it and – whilst desirable – I suspect you don’t find as many new graduates saying they want to do it as you do wanting to be journalists, in part because of the perceived qualification barrier I guess.
“Whatever happened to saying if your work has value to others, you should be paid for it?”
As I say, work – in economic terms, and the terms by which industries are driven – is valued only insomuch as somebody is willing to pay you. Which isn’t altogether different from what you say. The problem is that because there are so many people who are willing to work for free, the amount that people are willing to pay for labour has dropped. The way to combat this form a supply-side point of view, is for it to be agreed or legislated that people cannot work for free. And so the value of labour – if artificially – is driven up. But then we come around to the problem of deciding who should get those lucrative positions. There’s no “should” about it, unfortunately. The market dictates payment rates, and the way around that is by intervening.
I think Lauren is spot on regarding the supply and demand issue. In fact if you wanted to frame it a different way you could argue its the huge supply of people willing to work for free (the grads) that is the problem, rather than berating the employers willing to take advantage. After all who is more at fault, the briber or the bribee?
Under Tanya’s model of fewer funded posts, I too would also be curious about who would be the arbiter of who gets those coveted positions. Would it be based on some kind of examination results? Apprenticeships? Patronage? Past track record of writing? I think the same problems around nepotism and privilege would surface fairly quickly here.
As for being paid to do desirable jobs, its not just about being paid for not liking a job, its also about the use of barriers and qualifications to enter into a profession. For example, being a brain surgeon will be desirable to many, but only achievable by few due to the huge barriers faced by anyone contemplating it and the level of excellence visibly required to do this. With literacy being universal in this country, the requisites to write are so low practically everyone feels they can do it. This again brings the price down (apart from a few superstars who do make money).
I agree with Ian, and I think there are two main routes to solving this, really.
One: Supply-side, or reducing the supply of labour so that it rises in value and employers have to pay to get it. As Tanya says, this is likely to happen naturally as people see a career in the media as unsustainable and leave the market, but that process is not a pleasant one and the issue that we are trying to eliminate. This could be removed, as Ian says, by removing that supply of labour as an option for employer. If people did not offer to work for free, they would have to be paid. But getting people to agree to do that by choice would be hard, particularly where those from richer families see it as an opportunity to get ahead. One option would be to institute some sort of strike, in effect, but as with any strike there would be breakers – again, likely those from richer families. At the end of the day, if people really want to -and can afford to – work for free, it is pretty hard to stop them from that side.
Two: Demand-side, or reducing the demand for, specifically, free labour. Either legislate that employers cannot take on unpaid labour, or have them do it by choice. The latter is tricky as it relies, essentially, on good will. Legislation is a possibility, resulting in the model of fewer positions all paid at least National Minimum Wage. But then, again, the problem of how to decide who gets those posts? Any ideas?
@Lauren
First of all, I never said anything about these positions being lucrative – i merely said ‘properly paid’!
@Ian
Sorry, not sure I agree on this one! Young people desperate to break into an industry are vulnerable workers. The employers are not vulnerable. It is their responsibility to do the right thing by their workers. Even if they dont’ think there’s an ethical problem with what they’re doing, there is a legal one. In the UK, we have a little someting called the National MInimum Wage ; ) And yes, it does apply to interns:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7920381/Employers-warned-that-unpaid-internships-could-break-law.html
I’m also not convinced that either of you make a good point in suggesting that it is close to impossible to choose who would get a paid writer’s position – in my opinon this is simply a non-problem. Editors would choose the best candidate for the job, just like any recruiter in any other industry – based on ability, commitment, talent and potiential.
Ian says:
Lauren says:
If the people hiring know what they’re looking for, they can spot potential among young people keen to work in their industry. It’s not hard. If I had 100 (or even 1,000) applications for a job as a writer on Graduate Fog, I would be able to narrow it down to the best 10, with no problem. I would do this in exactly the same way as the boss of an accountancy firm would be able to narrow down applications for an accountant position.
How? Well your assumption that literacy is pretty much the only necessary quality for being a writer – unless i’ve misunderstood? – is flawed. As a writer myself, I can tell you that this is a bit like saying that accountants just need to be able to count! It is a common misconception that an abilty to put a sentence together is the only thing that a writer needs.Professional writers actually only spend a tiny fraction of their time writing.
If I was looking for a writer for Graduate Fog, I would look for someone with: a nose for a story, passion for the subject matter, thorough research skills, dogged determination, charm, an ability to interview graduates and experts alike, a great phone manner, etc etc… Yes, typos in their covering letter to me are a total no-no, but there is SO much more to being a good writer than having good spelling and grammar!
And even if it was close to impossible to choose the best candidate for a job, that STILL wouldn’t be an excuse for simply not paying their workers! It isn’t!
Here, I must draw your attention to the fact that there already IS legislation to cover this – it’s just that most companies ignore it – and nobody seems bothered about enforcing it!
I’m also not sure that it’s ‘good will’ to pay your young staff a fair wage for a day’s work. It’s more like just being a decent, responsible employer who doesn’t thnk it’s right, fair – or legal – to exploit their young staff!
Again, I feel it’s unfair to blame this problem on those who can afford to work for free (many of whom can only just afford to do this, don’t forget!). And there IS a way of stopping people from working for free! We have the minimum wage laws in this country for a very good reason. The unpaid internships scandal is the perfect illustration of exactly why they are so important.
The minute we say it’s okay for employers to ignore them, we end up with this terrible situation where workers are forced to undercut each other at lower and lower wages, which is a disaster for everybody. In fact, this has got so bad that now ‘wages’ are down to ZERO! In fact, it’s worse than that – there are now some internships that interns have to actually PAY to DO!
Lucrative was probably the wrong word. Insert: “sought after”. Or something like that.
I don’t think there was any assumption that literacy is the only necessary quality for a writer at all! I did actually make this more explicit originally, then cut it out to avoid rambling. As an avid reader of good journalism, I’m aware it’s not easy. I think the point was (and I don’t mean to speak for Ian), it is technically possible to become a really successful writer without any qualifications, and so people don’t perceive a barrier to entry and so there’s a higher supply of labour. Different to an accountant in that – whilst you can work your way up to some extent – to do certain things above a certain level, you do have to take those exams, and people are aware of that. Whilst all successful doctors need to go to medical school, say, many visibly successful writers, however, have never completed university or even school. One of the great things about writing is that you can just do it, and there’s no substitute for practice and talent. I actually think that those varied paths can make for better writers, and something I’d worry about a bit if access was more limited.
There is legislation, I realise, but it’s not particularly tight or well enforced, which is why the problem persists. And yes, I fully agree that decent, responsible employers wouldn’t treat young people like that. But alas, in a competitive market place, that’s not the way people are behaving. Under pressure to cut corners, where people are willing to work for free, it seems a convenient get out. These things aren’t ideal, but they are happening.
I don’t think we’re fundamentally disagreeing here, and I wasn’t really trying to push a different point of view. I was really just framing it differently. I’d endorse the idea of more strictly enforced (and thus actually effective) legislation, which might well reduce in fewer positions, thus potentially also nudging those who have trouble making headway (of which there are unfortunately many) to look to other options a little faster. And I don’t think that’s a million miles from what you suggest, Tanya.
UPDATE #2:
Oh dear, it seems our friend Mr Coram-James at Vine – one of the most prestigious magazines in Kent, you’ll recall – does not take criticism well.
Since my email to him (see Update #1, above), have received the following:
I replied:
A minute later, this arrived:
I felt I had already made it clear that I was not going to call, so I chose not to respond again. Besides, does he think I’m his PA or something?
Then – a short while later – came this:
Again, I have not replied.
Er, ‘blacklist’ me?
From what, exactly? From ever writing for his magazine – or any of his friends’ magazines – for NO PAY?
Frankly, I think I can live with that..!
This all happened at the very end of Friday afternoon.
Oh dear, I do hope we didn’t ruin his bank holiday weekend.
; )
You’ll never work in Kent again! Heehee.
This is typical, textbook corporate arrogance and pretentiousness. I’m sorry but who is this person again??? That’s right, the editor of a small and really, in the grand scale of things, relatively insignificant regional paper. I don’t think you have much to fear Tanya!! “Lack of common sense”…! I can’t wait to see how that is explained. It’s absolutely ridiculous that he feels it is appropriate to respond in that way. HE should be apologising and trying to save face NOT threatening and patronising you with immature and rude e-mails.
Tanya, that reply email is hilarious. It reminds me of being at primary school when the headteacher used to put your name in their ‘black book’ for being naughty. This guy thinks he’s got Rupert Murdoch on speed-dial. And since when was working for free ‘common sense’? Sounds like this guy’s gangster trippin’.
@Adam, @Christopher, @Tom Atkinson
Glad you don’t think I’ve got anything to worry about! ; )
I agree, his response is pretty pathetic. And don’t get me started on ’round Robbin’. Tell me this guy doesn’t actually edit copy??
This vine mag thing is utterly hilarious! I’m not a graduate (since 1994), but I found it of interest. Just to give this thing a different angle, I take it you lot are aware of this discussion going on in parallel? Some interesting facts about the mag and its creators
http://www.tvwatercooler.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1517&start=0
…enjoy!
I think you should call him and request an interview so we can learn more about this powerful chap who is has written for the New Yorker and Paris Review, and is capable of having you blacklisted. He seems like someone who’d be full of wisdom.
I’ll bet he’s no older that 21.
How old is the editor!?!?!??!?!? He’s hardly old enough to use a toilet on his own, let alone edit a magazine… http://publishing.yudu.com/Library/Aq3yl/VineTheEssentialFree/resources/1.htm
This magazine is getting more and more bizarre.
Just looked up the Editor, Owen Hunnam, on LinkedIn and it turns out he’s 23 – and training to be a lawyer?
Not sure when it was added but his blurb also says this:
Forgive me but I just don’t see how they can claim their magazine is a huge success when their business model appears to rest so heavily on writers contributing for nothing, having convinced them there is huge prestige in writing for them…
Is this really what passes for a business in 2010?
It’s basically a Young Enterprise project, arranging some articles (provided for free) around advertising. Though Mr. Coram-James claims to be a bit of a high flier, the only one I can find on the internet is a young fellow of about 22/23, “The Honourable Edward Coram-James”, not long out of boarding school and hoping to make it as an actor. There may very well be two, but I’m surprised the established journalist and media mogul isn’t easier to find online given that he’s presumably quite the high flier.
Loving how this story is developing…
The thing is, had he not resorted to blowing his own trumpet or left it at ‘contributors will not be paid’, he would have escaped this whole thing and just merged in with the rest of the UK magazines / free sheets clambering for free writers. (ie. FHM’s 3 months unpaid internship, and several others on Gorkana currently without mention of even expenses being paid…)
The fact is, when you start talking about giving someone prestige – you’re setting yourself up for a fall. Especially when your magazine is a regional freebie sent out to people who have no say over whether they receive it or not.
The comments on the Watercooler forum are pretty funny too.
LOL that’s jokes.
Tanya, his response was so pathetic. Where is their website?? I tried looking but couldn’t find it.
Even if this was a publication by AA Gill, there has be a few quid to pay people.
@Lauren
Since when did Young Enterprise encourage young people to set up ‘businesses’ that rely pretty much solely on free labour, as far as I can see?? That’s NOT A BUSINESS!
Any ideas?
@Jo
I take your point that everybody does it… But that doesn’t make it okay! Got the link to the FHM ad? ; )
And this one wasn’t just about hiring young staff – that was my point really – they are looking for the ‘best’ writers, etc, so presumably people who already have a fair bit of experience and are set up as freelancers – people like me, effecively?
I just really thought it was important to illustrate that this kind of nonsense doesn’t stop once you succeed in ‘breaking in’ to an industry – the outrageous requests just keep on coming!
A whopping 15K copies is the part that kills me the most. If this is the case, start paying contributors.
This exposure nonsense is bollocks as far as I am concerned.
Round robin my arse! Who does he think he is?
NEXT!
That was my point, Tanya, Young Enterprise aren’t real businesses in that they do generally rely on free labour;) Plus, I took part in a YE “business:” when I was about 15, so child labour laws would have been the greater concern there!
I think they’re clearly a bunch of (rather entitled, arrogant) young men who don’t really understand what they’re doing.
@Tanya.
“Young people desperate to break into an industry are vulnerable workers. The employers are not vulnerable. It is their responsibility to do the right thing by their workers.”
I agree that the power rests with the employer, but with their lack of incentives and with government actively pushing people to “volunteer”(cf. David Willetts), this isn’t likely to be enforced anytime soon. I don’t like this, but I can’t see a SWAT style national Minimum wage task force leaping into action anytime soon.
As for writers, I certainly do not feel that literacy is the only thing that is required, but rather that the barriers for entry are low, and that there are many more good writers than jobs for them. Also choosing the “best” writers is far from easy due to its highly subjective nature and the fact that writers have good and bad days. If it was that simple and stable, there would be no need for judging panel to debate literary awards, and the world would be in agreement about the one or two authors that are universally regarded as “the best”
Again, to re-iterate. I am not condoning, just explaining why it may not be so straightforward.
As for Coram James, how about posting an MP3 recording of the call or transcript if no email is forthcoming? (I could do with cheering up)
Dear Tanya,
Although I have a general policy of not replying to emails such as the one I received from you last week, something about the naivety and arrogance wrestled into your words has compelled me to do so. I will be brief, but shall attempt to answer your question.
Before attacking magazines for not paying contributors, it is perhaps best to do some initial investigating. As a self proclaimed ‘writer’ you do yourself a great injustice not to. As a journalist, I am sure you would agree, to not do so is lazy at best, and outright moronic at worst. So, please allow me to enlighten you. To say that my magazine is one of the most prestigious in its area is quite correct. We are one of the most prestigious art’s magazines around. We do not have a website (although you, very bizarrely, managed to materialize one out of the dusty depths of non-existence) or advertise as a matter of principle- we are a paper based magazine, and pride ourselves in that fact. We distribute to the most educated in the areas of our distribution, as well as the most wealthy. Their generous donations are what keeps us afloat. We also provide free subscriptions to any and all who ask. This is why the likes of Paul Muldoon, Seamus Heaney, Joanna Lumley and Sandy Meehan are all contributing free editorial over the coming months. Tell me- what is it exactly that you have done that entitles you to fiscal compensation over such world changing writers and artists? What resounding global, or even local contribution has your website made that empowers you with the ridiculous notion of entitlement that you appear to exude?
Let me introduce myself, so that you have a better understanding of the person who you have been so un-calculatedly attacking. I am, first and foremost a poet, actor and writer. I am, secondly, Editor and Managing Director of an arts magazine. I have recently moved from the USA where, after many years of excruciating and back breaking work, I was honoured by the likes of the great late Diane Middlebrook and Kathleen Namphy as being the ‘next great poet of our generation.’A book of my works is to be released next year. I have set up major poetry festivals, written for countless publications, and am soon to have my first two poems published in The New Yorker and The Paris Review— two of the greatest bastions of literary excellence of our times. Until this year, I have done all of this for- hold your breath- free, and at the age of twenty two.
This is because I am a writer. I know that you trade-unionist-I-deserve-I-deserve-I-deserve sorts like to believe that everything in this day and age must be compensated for- that publication alone is not satisfaction enough. You lack the true understanding of what it takes to be a writer- the talent combined with back breaking work to grow your portfolio so that, eventually, and after a true and worthy amount of effort, you might actually be fortunate enough to be able to make a comfortable living out of this wonderful calling. To be frank, and I do not intend to insult you here, simply to be honest, having read your ‘blog’ I sincerely doubt whether or not you even have the talent.
The truth is that if money is your quotidian proclivity, you should probably go in search of an alternative profession. You could argue until you are blue in the face that ‘this is not how it should be’ like some over zealous and under rationalized performance of Ed Milliband ‘The School Years,’ but the truth is, it is what it is. We have all come to accept it, and to love it for what it is.
So- why do I not pay my contributors? I do not pay my contributors because I cannot afford to pay my contributors. Like Thomas H. Guinzburg in the first few years of the Paris review (I make the comparison as I work very closely with their editorial team) I am yet, myself, to see a single penny’s payment for my magazine. The low levels of advertising and free cost of purchase allow only for the creation of a beautiful format, and little else. My payment is the satisfaction of seeing it go to print each month. This alone is enough. And why can I call my magazine one of the most prestigious? Well. Since I have been awarded over 5 international awards for excellence, amalgamated with the globally recognized brilliance of some of my contributors, from the highest peaks of the literary world, down to the eager talent of my student contributors (from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc) and the amazing team who help me run it, I believe that the word ‘prestige’ is fitting.
As for you Ms Grunwald- I wish you all the best. Your website is that of an angry young girl with little more to do than complain and stomp her feet at her perceived, albeit irrational, disparities. As far as your email suggests, you are a voice of the scourge of the writing community- the spoiled mediocrity. For those unfortunate enough to read upon your invidious portents, I am genuinely sorry. I only hope that some of the undoubtedly brilliant and passionate amongst them can see through your words.
In the meantime I have a suggestion. If a magazine, in constant search for upcoming writers who otherwise might not hear about their publication, advertises through a medium it only rarely uses, an opportunity to send in unsolicited articles with the chance of publication aside some of the world’s greats, take it. If you decide not to take it, don’t then email the editor childish and snarling messages such as the one you sent me. You never quite know who it is that you are writing to… Perhaps he may not be the ‘capitalist pig’ that your ridiculously self important imagination has slap-dashingly decided that he is.
As always, feel free to call me at your discretion,
Yours Sincerely,
Edward Coram-James
Edward,
I am glad you commented on this post but you are completely missing the point about the whole debate.
The fact of the matter is your magazine as a business is absolutely worthless if no one is paying for it and even more so if people are not being paid.
Are you running the magazine as a business? If so, your magazine is not worth half a penny if you are not paying people for the labour they deserve.
Whether you are paid or not is NOT the issue at hand here to be quite honest. If you are soliciting freelance contributions with the magazine based as a business, you have to pay the people who contribute.
The idea that people are paid by seeing it in print is one of the most ridiculous notions I have ever heard in my life.
Were you paid for your piece in the New Yorker? I am sure you were as they are known to pay. No Conde Nast title does not pay for freelance contributions.
You are actually killing the writing profession as a business by creating a magazine as a business that does not pay anyone.
Kagen,
This is the last message that I shall write on this subject. I write solely for the purpose of protecting my magazine and, perhaps, to make an attempt to enlighten a confused minority. That does not apply, I am sure, to the majority of the people who may read this.
My magazine is not a business. It is not run as a business. It is a platform through which to connect artists and art lovers- to give young artists the chance of publication alongside some of their literary heroes, a chance that they that they might not find elsewhere. We are non-for profit.
However, even if it were a business, as many likewise publications are, your notion that a business or entities’ worth is only calculable by monetary means is an extremely sad notion indeed- a telling tribute to the mentality of today’s university graduates- such an undeserved sense of entitlement.
Incidentally, please feel free to research the history of the New Yorker. They did not pay contributors for the first three years. Nor did the Paris Review. Nor did an untold plethora of other mighty publications. This is standard in the world of literary magazines and publications. It is a concept called love not money. Perhaps, as an artist, you may wish to familiarise yourself with this philosophy- the rest of us had to, and many would argue that to debate this would be to debate the very essence of the meaning of ‘artist’ in itself. This, Kagem, is why writers write, and wallowers complain, through the internet, about not writing.
My advice, to all of you who want to enter the wonderful career or writing: It is tough and unforgiving. Talent is enough, but with that talent has to be the willingness to put in the work. This does not always include being paid. Personally, I am grateful for every publication that did not pay me. It really sorted the wood fro the trees.
For any other enquiries, please revert to my previous posting,
Sincerely,
Edward Coram-James
Edward, I find your tone really condescending. I am a published writer and I am a corporate copywriter as well for clients. I get paid for these writing jobs.
If you want your publication to be treated with respect, then you should pay them if you claim it is so high and mighty.
Also, I am older than you btw so stop talking down to people like you conceived us. Next!
Tanya, this is just absolute bollocks and I have to applaud you for calling him out.
Kagem
@ Kagem – OBVIOUSLY, i agree with you 100%. I’m sorry this doofus had a go at you on my site. I trust you are made of strong stuff and will live to fight (and write) another day?!
; )
@ Edward – Thank you for getting involved with the debate. I think it’s pretty clear that you and the Graduate Fog community (including myself) have wildly conflicting views on this subject! You are welcome to voice your opinion, but I must ask you to refrain from attacking my users in such a personal way in future. Kagem’s points were not only valid but also politely written, despite her strong views that you are talking utter nonsense.
Graduate Fog welcomes fiery debate (!), but when contributing your opinion on this site in future, I ask that you address all my users with the respect they deserve.
Tanya
Wow! Kagem- Edward just sent you back to school. Seriously- do you know how badly he just beat your argument. Tanya as well. But Kagem especially. Tany can almost be forgiven… the initial ad he wrote did seem suspicious. But, after that response of his, to then try to argue back, twice, is kinda ridiculous.
Edward- I am with you all the way, and think that what you do sounds amazing. Please keep it up and ignore these people. One day they will understand!
Tanya, you should be applauded for holding this Stephen Fry wannabe up to the light. It does seem odd, however, that he never mentioned that the publication was an arts title in the job description. Anyway, nothing like a bit of lively debate to get the juices flowing!
PS. “Clare’s” post above smells a bit spammy… not that I’m suggesting someone would post a comment pretending to be someone they’re not just to make their own points look better *coughs* Claire is Edward Coram-James *coughs*
@Clare
Can you explain a little more about why you agree with Edward? Do you get paid to do your job? And if not, may I ask how you pay your rent?
@Clare, I mean Edward because I know that’s you LOL.
Anyway I have said my bit.
oh-
and please expect a submission of some of my work. Do you accept short stories and plays? I would love to be considered for your mag.
(you write very well by the way!)
But to add to Edward’s comments:
I do not understand why people are so against doing free writing jobs. Edward is right- if the magazine cannot afford to pay, and is more of a charity than a business (which it seems to be) then how can you expect it to pay for your services. I do a lot of work for The Samaritans, but am yet to invoice them. Free work to help out a group of people is free work to help out a group of people- what is it about some people and just asking for cash for everything they do?
Tanya- no offence as I am sure you are great in real life, and I think your site is great as a whole, but in this case, I think that the direction of your word ‘doofus’ is misplaced. Perhaps direct it closer to home!
Ha ha ha @Adam – spot on mate!
I’m confused. Is it this magazine? (This isn’t a website, it’s a .pdf of the magazine)
http://publishing.yudu.com/Library/Aq3yl/VineTheEssentialFree/resources/3.htm
Because what you’re describing, i.e., akin to the New Yorker or Paris Review, is a literary journal. Something like n+1, to draw a more contemporary comparison. And yes, those are run by passionate individuals who work for free. But what I see here nothing like that, it’s more a local interest magazine. A rather highbrow one, admittedly, with some interesting forthcoming contributors (Seamus Heaney, impressive, I’m not so sure about Joanna Lumley’s literary credentials) but still, alongside interviews with locally-appearing novelists, there’s still discussions about transport in Sevenoaks and a guide for undergraduates interested in “booze and ‘new experiences’”.
Have I the wrong link? Because if not, you’ve an awfully high opinion of yourself. I’m reasonably well versed with the New Yorker, and this isn’t it. I look forward to reading your submission in there soon, though.
Actually I am an English student at Edinburgh. Google me if you want.
Point is, I think that you guys need to grow up a litlt. I mean I really do not see why you think anything said is so bad/ offensive. Point made. Done. Why you just have to insult him and then me I can’t understand. Am I not allowed an opinion?
What a bunch of offensive losers.
oh, and btw,you can also find me on the samaritans website.
You guys are wrong, and also really offensive.
Hi Lauren,
I promise that this shall be the last one! No- that is not the same title. That is a title based in Sevenoaks called ‘Vine’ We are ‘The Vine.’ The titles were one in the same up until two years ago, when we split off to become what we are now. The Vine Sevenoaks still sell our advertisements though as we do not have the man power! As I say, we do not promote ourselves over the internet and thus do not have pdf’s or a website, but if you would like a copy please put a request in writing to:
Vine Arts,
Burnt Norton,
Chipping Campden,
Gloucestershire,
GL55 6PR.
We are based in Gloucestershire, Kent and now London and love new subscribers. Seamus Heaney is wonderful, and if you would like a copy of that particular magazine, it comes out in December. Joanna is not writing as a literary contributor- instead she is highlighting some of her humanitarian work, especially that of the plight of the Indian Tribe, The Dongria Kondh. You are correct- we are not nearly on the same page as the New Yorker, however one day, and with a lot of hard work, perhaps! And yes- please do look out for my work in the New Yorker and Paris Review!
Clare,
Thank you. And of course. Again, please send any submissions to the aforementioned address. Perhaps put a memo at the top describing how I know you!
Adam, thank you for comparing me to Steven Fry. The Ode Less Traveled was sensational and any comparison, now matter how sarcastically made, is a truly kind complement.
Sincerely,
Edward
And just to repeat,
The advertising that we sell is absolutely minimal, and is strictly to cover the costs of the printing of the magazine.
@Clare,
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.
However, I hope that you can understand how your comments could be perceived as more than a little naive and offensive to the readership of this blog. Edward’s comments are incredibly pompous, condescending and patronising and I’m afraid that as you so fervently agree with him, this in turn makes your comments highly unpleasant to read. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t warrant an attack on you and as Tanya said, this is a place for everyone to respectfully discuss their opinions on the subject *without* insulting one another…. That said, my opinion on the matter is that Edward has not really addressed the issue here. In fact, his comments have done little but stir up resentment towards him and his publication and if anything, I believe, will damage his “prestigious” reputation. The utter contempt shown by Edward for young people who have invested time, effort and money in their education and are seeking to gain fairly remunerated, dignified and rewarding work in the media industry (or any other industry for that matter) is repulsive. I am afraid that “love not money” is really not an argument at all. Of course it is essential to have a passion for and profound interest in the industry in which you work. Having said that, for those of us who do not have 1. a large amount of savings 2. a wealthy family to support us or 3. other income which is sufficient to cover living costs, unfortunately “love” does not pay the bills (never mind the student debt!), feed us and clothe us.
Edward, to paraphrase: I know the “New Yorker”. I have read the “New Yorker”, the Sevenoaks Vine is no “New Yorker”.
Pointless pompous twit.
@Edward
My apologies for including a link to a site that is not yours – I now understand how this has come about. I assumed that the Sevenoaks mag was the same as yours because 1) it has the same name but mainly because 2) in your original ad, your email address is stated as: edward@onlinevine.co.uk. I know you’re a print man, but in 2010 the natural thing to do is to use the latter portion of someone’s email address in order to find their website. So I assumed that your website was onlinevine.co.uk.
If this is not the case, may I suggest you change your email address? I surely cannot be the first person who has been confused by this – and have no doubt that any writers who have seen your ad and who are considering writing for you are highly likely to make a similar assumption.
@Edward – “next great poet of our generation”? That’s like being ladylike – if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.
I’d expect the editor of an “art’s magazine” – prestigious or otherwise – to know how to use an apostrophe correctly.
No,
you attacked me for agreeing with Edward. The fact that Edward is the only one making any sense in this place is important though. As I said in my last post, non-for-profit is technically charity. The Samaritans do not pay us as we are volunteers. So why should a not for profit mag pay writers if they are just trying to do a good deed by spreading a love for arts? I also really think that if someone came up to any of you and askd if you wanted to be printed by Seamus Heaney or some of the other people, you would probably say yes, and do it for free. I think you are all missing the point. And you all sound very very very aggressive and opinionated.
A telling repetitive grammatical misuse of hyphens. It’s ironic that it’s the quality of your ‘writing’ – which you so vehemently defend and boast about – that essentially exposes your alter-ego, Clare, as a fraudster.