Is Working For Something Better Than Nothing?

‘… an economics professor at Columbia … was taking martial arts lessons in Japan. The sensei (the master teacher) was not charging the group for training. The students, feeling that this was unfair, approached the master one day and suggested that they pay him for his time and effort. Setting down his bamboo shinai, the master calmly replied that if he charged them, they would not be able to afford him.’
~ from Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely

Recently Australia’s biggest online website for women – Mamamia – announced it would start paying all casual contributors $50 per piece (bringing it in line with The Hoopla). Up to that point they paid their staff writers only. The general consensus among writers has been that this is a good thing as it meant Mamamia was ‘finally showing they valued their casual contributors’.

But is it really a good thing?

Don’t get me wrong. I applaud the sentiment of paying ‘something’ to recognise the fact that these writers contribute to the success of your site. But I wonder about the realities of offering something well below the market rate (which is at least $150-200 for an 800 word online piece).

Might it actually be better for writers if these sites reverted to paying nothing rather than ‘something’?

Dan Ariely’s sheds a bit of light about what goes on in human minds with regard to the above.

When we give up our time for ‘free’ (say we help a friend move house, or design the school newsletter, or coach a local basketball team) social norms apply to that ‘transaction’. As Ariely says:

‘Social norms are wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community. They are usually warm and fuzzy … it provides pleasure for both of you, and reciprocity is not immediately required.’

In other words we will often do things for ‘free’ simply for the ‘feel good’ factor. It is all part of being part of a wider community and feeling connected. I definitely experience this when I write for free. I get access to that publication’s community and a feeling of connection via the comments on the post.

I also get something else however – I now have the reasonable expectation that my goodwill in not charging for my contribution will be returned in some way. While ‘reciprocity is not immediately required’ … I might require it somewhere down the track ( say I write a book or create a product that would be of interest to that publication’s audience). Once I have built up enough goodwill with them through writing for free, I could reasonably expect the publication to offer me the ability to promote my wares.

But, yes, I know – this is all very nice but you can’t buy food with implied reciprocity.

So let’s talk money.

Predictably Irrational quotes a study where three groups are given the same task.

• Group 1 is paid nothing,
• Group 2 is paid below market rate, and;
• Group 3 is paid at market rate.

Guess what? The people in Groups 1 and 3 did the task to the best of their ability but the people in Group 2 did not. This is what happens when we perform a service for payment below market rate – quality declines.

Now you might think that quality should be the same regardless of whether I am being paid $50 for my writing or $0. But it’s not.

When a publication is paying nothing for a contribution it is actually easier for an editor to be ruthless and say ‘mmm, not quite good enough’ than when they are paying $50. When they are paying $50 an almost indiscernible mental shift occurs: ‘Well it’s not as good as I’d like it to be, but hey, I am only paying $50, I can’t demand more.’

There is a shift for the writer too. If you’re willing to write for free for an online publication, then clearly you attach a bit of prestige (or some other benefit) to seeing your by-line on their site. Thus you do your very best work to maximise your chances of getting your piece accepted. When you write for a rate below market value, once again there is a tiny shift in your brain. You can’t help but think ‘well I am not being paid properly for this so good enough will do’.

Not only is the writer not producing their best work, they lose out on potential reciprocity too. The publication owes them nothing now … after all, they have been ‘paid’.

So as you can see, this deal doesn’t appear to work well for anyone. Publishing sub-standard work isn’t good for the publication, the writer OR the reader.

And I can’t help but wonder if the ‘something is better than nothing’ publishers are unwittingly contributing to a shift in market rates. In three years’ time will $50 for 800 words be seen as standard for this kind of work?

For that reason alone I would prefer that if publishers can’t afford to pay ‘properly’ for contributions, then they pay nothing at all. This leaves the power in the hands of the writers.

If you do not wish to work for nothing, there is plenty of well-paid work out there for you. If the vanity by-line is what you’re after for your portfolio, then accept that you may need to suck it up and write for free in order to get that by-line.

What do you think? Is being paid something better than nothing? 

Image Credit