A test for writers: When should you write without pay?

Paywall Parkour: How to Rip Off Your Friends is the first post on the new Dealbreakers blog at Scratch Magazine, a site “about the relationship between writing, money, and life”—and one that has nothing to do with the defunct hip-hop magazine of the same name.

Dealbreakers, an editor’s note reads, “address a personal, behavioral ‘bottom line,’ or what you won’t do (or what you absolutely insist on doing) when it comes to the business of writing and publishing.”

In the first entry, veteran journalist Porter Anderson argues that writers should not pull stories from behind paywalls and share them, because that hurts all writers and it hurts coverage. Paywalls are good, Anderson writes. If readers are paying the freight, Anderson argues, readers are more likely to get “honest, untainted” reporting than if the sensibilities of advertisers must be catered to.

But all that’s not the most interesting thing for me in this interesting post. What I found interesting was a tangent consisting of Anderson’s cogent advice to writers who might be considering writing for free.

The decision to work free for such a medium, which can afford to pay its contributors, is up to each writer, of course. But many of us cringe when we see writers churning out work as free laborers. It undercuts the rest of us who want to hold out for the rightful place of all writers as fully compensated producers. And the Huffington Post example also offers, to my mind, the clearest test of what to do: if a medium has revenue, then it should pay.

I should note that he could just as easily have used Bleacher Report as an example, as B/R, like Huffington Post, has some unpaid writers.

Anderson continues that writing for the site of a friend or a nonprofit or some other situation where funds are clearly not available is a different story, and that he believes fledgling for-profit sites should pay at least a token amount as a show of faith that they’ll pay better when they’re able: “I’m much more likely to work with such an outfit than the Huffington Post, which is, to my mind, simply shirking its corporate duty to a workforce that can be come-hithered by ‘exposure.’”

Here’s where the really good advice comes in. Anderson proposes that writers should ask an important question to help them decide when to write without pay:

Yes, ‘exposure’ may be a worthy substitute for payment in some instances. But this requires a test: How much can you gain by working free? While I’d still rather see you paid for your article, you may decide the trade-off is fair. But writers should never lose sight of the fact that their business goal is to be paid. If there’s a reason for you to work free for one medium or another, be sure you’re asking yourself, ‘Exposure to whom? Who will see my free work here and, I hope, decide I’m worth paying for it? Is there actually a funded medium waiting?’

If the answer is yes, target your every word carefully to that funded medium. Make every freebie truly an attention getter. Don’t let your head be turned by the flattery of being ‘invited’ to write free. And set a time limit for yourself: how long can this go on?

That’s good stuff. As Anderson notes, it should be obvious stuff for any writer. But the obvious isn’t always so obvious.