[Writing Post] When Irony Burns – Revisiting Paying Creative Professionals
A couple of days ago, John Picacio posted a link to a group – AntiSpec. The post in question mentioned a “contest” put on by the Obama Campaign to promote Job Creation…yeah. The site says it all – Oh the Irony. Every time Creative Professionals try to make any kind of stride to earn a decent, honest living – something like this comes along that unconsciously (at least I hope unconsciously) promotes the idea that Creative Professionals don’t need to be paid for their time and work. This. Has. To. Stop.
If you’re reading this and are a writer – I hope you already know this industry isn’t a way to get rich (quickly or in general) unless you really are in the Top 1% – 5% of the Publishing Food Chain. If you’re one of those who thinks creative professions – writing, art, graphic design – is not “real” work, or that Creative Professionals should be “grateful” for the “exposure” – then it’s Clue by Four Time. No Creative Professional does this for FUN – yes, we enjoy our job and our work or we wouldn’t put up with the crap – this is our JOB. This is what we DO for a living – or try to. The majority of us – at least for writers – hold down second and third jobs just do make ends meet so we can keep doing what we love. And the money we so desperately try to earn? That goes for frivolous things like, you know, FOOD, RENT, ELECTRICITY, and if we’re REALLY LUCKY – HEALTH INSURANCE.
But Rhonda, you’ve said in the past that it’s okay to give away your work. Yes. Yes, I did. In limited exceptions. Yes, I have done Spec Comps (Speculative Competitions). I’m currently riding some impressive press for the one I did in January which was a short script for William Shatner and Amanda Tapping’s web animated series, Zenoids. I did it for a writing exercise at the time. And yes, THIS “exposure” might not kill me. If all goes well, it might even lead to more work.
Then why is the Obama Campaign contest different? One…a web animated series – even with Shatner and Tapping may or may not have the widespread notoriety that a National Political Campaign will have. Two…I won’t have to worry that my name will be forever associated with something as polarizing as a political campaign (which WILL have both positive and negative consequences to the “winner” of the project). And three, I’m not giving something away that supposed to be promoting the exact opposite of what it’s actually saying. And the tons of money? No one’s getting rich of my work for a web animated series.
The other exceptions I consider “good will” donations. That would be charitable organizations, fanzines, and convention program books. Websites like Revolution SF and SF Signal are labors of love – like most fanzines – and don’t pay. Creative Professionals can show they’re connected to their fan bases by contributing – as they can/want – to “grass roots” publications. Again…no one’s getting rich off these things. Most don’t sell advertising. No one is making money off this. Most are privately bankrolled by the ones putting them out. Program books for conventions are the same. It shows you’re willing to help, that you’re willing to do the work that it takes to be part of the industry.
As for charitable organizations (which political campaign are NOT), each individual professional has to decide for themselves if it’s an organization that you want your name and work attached to. It shows you have heart and aren’t a money grubber. Again, make sure it’s something you want following you around, because it will.
But the bottom line – make the decision for your own career. Creative Professionals deserve to be paid. There are no contests for the “most creative oil change”. No contractor is asked to build a room and if the client likes it, they’ll pay for the rest of the renovation. I don’t know any landscaper who’s asked to keep up a lawn FOR FREE in order for others to see it and then perhaps to hire them. Why should Creatives?
4 Comments
Rhonda: Solid post. I think I’d agree with most everything you’ve said here.
Hmmmm……as far as ‘good will donations’, I’d still question an artist who gives away their time, art supplies, and creative energy to contribute to someone else’s business and do it for free. I’m a huge fan of SF Signal and John Denardo (and by the way, I’m ready for SF Signal to finally get a Hugo nomination for Best Fanzine…..overdue!). However, if those folks came looking for me to give away my professional time and energy to create a brand-new piece of art, when my living is based on those commodities, and clients are paying me for the same, I’d be a moron to do that. That’s not even Business 101; that’s just common sense, don’t you think? And that’s no offense to the Signal, whom again, I vote every year amongst my Best Fanzine Hugo choices.
So if you’re saying, “well, — what about the exposure?” See a recent article on Steve Jobs. Sums it up better than I could without it.
Bottom line — this man understood marketing as well as anyone in recent memory. No one would argue that he made the Internet more accessible to the masses, and that his business celebrated making it accessible via his company’s devices. And yet Apple barely has a presence on Twitter or Facebook, and spent very little on advertising via the Internet. Think about that. There’s no question that an artist can gain ‘exposure’ via the Internet, but look at the Steve Jobs example, and it makes you question how much ‘value’ a product (including an artist’s work) gains from the Internet. Again, no one understood creating value in a product better than Steve Jobs did. And yet his company’s money tells you what he really thought about gaining product value via ‘exposure’/advertising on the Internet.
http://adage.com/article/digital/steve-jobs-digital-maverick-marketing-traditionalist/230311/
Now then — I’m certainly in favor of working with fan operations and clients with a lesser budget to see if there’s a piece of pre-existing art that fits their needs on a non-exclusive basis, within a set of fair terms. That can be a reasonable and fair exchange for both parties. And hey — not all exchanges are always about money, but I do think setting expectations for pro art services to be exchanged for zero monetary value and the promise of ‘exposure’ is a deadend. No artist should contribute to that. And I think in large part, your post is saying that very thing!
I’m just not sure you convinced me regarding the ‘exceptions’. 🙂
Aside from that quibble — again, solid post by you.
No, I’m not saying “what about the exposure”. I’m totally for getting paid pro rates for any and everything. However, I will work with Jimmy and John DeNardo at SF Signal for now getting more coverage for artists and myself – on a non-exclusive basis. If/when someone decides to throw money at me? Heck yeah, that’s where I’m going. I choose my “exposure” venues VERY CAREFULLY and VERY SELECTIVELY.
I hear you, Rhonda. I was talking about what I do for a living and how I handle the value of that. If you’re talking about conducting interviews for free, I’ve done a ton of that myself over the years. No doubt about it. And I’m not talking about me giving interviews but me asking the questions and putting together the interviews. It definitely takes time for sure and I did it gratis! But that said, I managed to keep that separate from my art career. Then again, I don’t do it anymore because the deadline schedule has been so demanding the last couple of years. By the way, have I missed any new art interviews over at SF Signal from you and Jimmy? If so, I’ll definitely pimp ’em! 🙂
We derailed some with FenCon last month. Getting back on the horse with those. Promise. 😎 Have a couple of people in the pipeline and some things in the thinking stages for the run up to Spectrum Live!