Do People Really Do This?

So, comes an ad on Craig's List seeking "Food Writers for Webpage." Sounds like it could be interesting.

Then I get into the text of the ad. What they're looking for is somebody who can do combinations of food reviews and recipes. The specifics are that you write a 300-500 word "review" of the food type, and provide three original recipes using that foodstuff.

For instance, you might choose Penne pasta as the product. You have to discuss Penne (which might include doing research), then develop and test recipes using it.

For which they're willing to fork over the munificient sum of five bucks.

Oh, yeah, if you're found acceptible (which, I'm guessing, simply means you have the ability to string 300 words together), they expect you to do three of these reviews weekly.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are many reasons why somebody would be willing to write at little to no money. There's the ego involvement of calling yourself a food writer, for instance. And, for beginners, it can be a way to help learn the trade---just like staging at a restaurant. And I can see it, short term, as a way of rounding out your resume and building credentials.

But, really. Five bucks for that kind of work on a steady basis? You can make more money than that panhandling on the streets.

Does anyone actually pursue such jobs?
 
If you ever have, or even think you'd consider it, I'd like to hear your reasons, because it escapes me what the appeal would be.

Not a crazy comparison at all, KK. In fact there are numerous parallels between the culinary and music worlds. For instance, compare the workmanlike performances of a club player and a line cook, then jump to a higher level and compare a top rated chef and a composer.

I think most fields, especially those involving creativity, have a version of, for lack of a better term, mini-appreticeships. And for all the reasons you tick off. You've got to start somewhere and you've got to pay your dues.

One difference between your example and the Craigslist ad, however, is that the conductor isn't asking the young musician to create original music. These folks, on the other hand, are asking for the equivilent of three new sonatas and a libreto.

Especially since much of that could be written off the top of the submitter's head. We're talking 25-50 bucks for something that could be written in a couple of hours at most.

Those of us in the freelance business are well aware how on a time-invested basis shorts and fillers can be the most cost effective writing there is. Years back, Outdoor Life had the best of those deals in its Almanac section. They paid a C note for a hundred word short, and doubled that if they ran a pix of yours with it. Not bad: 200 bucks for about 20 minutes work. Amost any feature story I was working on, back then, could produce at least one of those shorts as well---a nice double-dip.

And look at the kind of dough Reader's Digest pays for all those shorts and fillers. Humor In Uniform doesn't just make us laugh, it pays well too.

When I was editing The Black Bass Journal I had a destinations section composed entirely of shorts. I paid $35 each for them---roughly a hundred words and an info box. The smart guys would file ten or a dozen at a time. As one of them noted, "I don't know how it is in other houses, but around here $350 for a day's work is a pretty good paycheck."

So, yeah, shorts and fillers can be lucrative. But not at $5 a throw when it involves all that original work and research. Ask yourself how long it takes you to develop and test even a single recipe. Now triple that. And add in the time it takes to research and write the ingredient review. At $5 you're probably working for about a dime an hour.

It's basically the main reason that freelance writing is dying out,

Say what? I haven't noticed, and I've been earning my living strictly as a freelancer since 1980.

and as you can imagine it often yields very mediocre work.

Now with that you get no argument. The level of writing, overall, on the net is pretty poor. But that's because we're talking about a media that talks the talk, re: being content based, but certainly doesn't walk the walk.

Another contributor to mediocrity is the ease, nowadays, of self-published and on-demand published materials. Millions of words being ground out by people who think they have ability, but often don't---as any editor could tell them.

I could go on and on, but that's taking us pretty far from our muttons.

I don't think this is quite the same thing, FF.

The net is full of sites that pay almost nothing but make it sound like a lot. We've all seen them; you perform certain tasks and get paid based on the number of pass-through hits it generates.

Let's see: They get paid 30 cents per click, of which they give you 10%. How many of those 3 centses does it take to make any kind of money?

The problem is, people can't, or won't, do the basic math. They envision millions of hits translating into thousands of dollars. And in the end they make about 2 bucks.

At least this ad was honest about its insultingly low pay rate.

I didn't see that article, KitchenSink. But what I'd like to see is the raw material their conclusions were based on. Knowing the Times, they had a predisposed viewpoint, then selectively choose examples to prove it.

 

The fact is, however, that those of us who made a fulltime living from freelancing always represented a fraction of the people who did it on a part-time (or supplemental, if you prefer) basis. There's nothing new about that, and it has not suddenly become more of a supplementary income rather than a full-time job.

 

When I started serious freelancing in the '70s I was one of those part-timers, and knew dozens of others. As an editor, before and during those years, most of the people I bought freelance materials from were part-timers. So, for at least 50 years, I have first-hand knowledge of how it worked. And the evidence would indicate it was always that way.

 

Only thing new is that the Times suddenly realized it. 

 

And if you really care, I can outline for you how the Times has contributed to the mediocrity. Give you a clue: Given it's pay rates and restrictions not too many talented freelancers can afford to write for them, particularly in specialized fields.

 

I can also build a case that, overall, the mediocrity that dominates the field has at least as much (and probably more) to do with poor editing as with poor writing.

 

I'm curious, too, as to why you now agree with the times that the field is expanding, when your original contention was that it is dying?

Well, that's one difference between professionals and amateurs.

 

There are reasons why I might sometimes write for "free." Usually it's as a self-promotion deal, or for other benefits. But to research and write a 500 word essay, then develop and test three recipes to go with it (which, btw, the publisher then owns) for five bucks when there are so many real markets out there is just lunacy---no matter how much you might like to write.

 

If I could fake it off the top of my head  though, a quick bunch of them might add up to pretty good beer money.

 

More than just beer money, Mike. Extrapolate out. Let's say, using your criteria, that it takes as much as 12 minutes to complete one. That's 25 bucks an hour; $200/day; $73K/year.

 

Sound outlandish? OK, let's say it takes you half an hour. That's $10/hour; $80/day; $29,200/year. Still an awful lot of beer.

 

I'm always amused at how people react when you put things in terms of unit labor cost. For instance, I used to ghost write a column that appeared in a trade magazine. Got paid $200 per.

 

I went more than 5 years without a raise, and many of my colleagues scoffed at it, with comments like "I bet the editor has gotten a raise or two in that time." Maybe so. But from the time I sat down until the time I typed -30- those columns took me all of an hour to write.

 

How many of those self-important scoffers do you think were earning 200 bucks an hour? Me, I wasn't going to rock that boat! Rock it? Hell, I'd have been more than happy to row two or three more just like it. Still would, for that matter.