Modern Business: Am I completely wrong, or is THIS completely wrong?

[seawasp]

EDIT: See my apology post. I'm not deleting this one because (A) the general principles are still true, even if the specific instance was incorrectly portrayed, and (B) I don't think one should go pretending they didn't screw up in public.

EDIT: Closing comments on this one since it seems non-useful to continue.

In my view of starting a business, if you decide you're going to start a business, you should expect that this will be a long, hard row to hoe, and -- most importantly -- it will cost you money and time. Online may not cost nearly as much (after all, you don't need to buy or rent that 5,000 square foot building, pay utilities, etc.), but you (or you and your partners in the business) should be shouldering the cost from the get-go.

So it boggled me when I saw, on LinkedIn, a guy looking for an editor for what appeared to be an SF magazine -- as an unpaid position. I stated that I thought this was unprofessional, and the gentleman responded rather woundedly, the gist of his response being basically that he was "building a brand and a name" for the launch of the actual product, "it's just a blog" now, that he had "117+ professionals" already contributing to it, and that he certainly intended to be paying competitive rates on launch of the magazine.

Now, this just seems to me to be wrong-headed. "Building a brand" is what you do as *part* of your business. You build it by providing your product or service, advertising, word of mouth, etc., but you always PAY for this. In the regular world a would-be owner of a bookstore doesn't expect someone will donate him the first year of rent free, send him a good supply of books as a starter, and so on; they pay for it all, up front, cash on the barrelhead.

Have I done free blog posts for other people? Yeah, sometimes; it's a professional exchange, partially. But if the person's stated intention was to use my stuff, and that of other people, to build him free publicity and hits so he could launch a business?

Is it just me, or does this just sound wrong?

Comments

[shanejayell.livejournal.com]

It's wrong. If he was running a fanzine I could see this, maybe as part of a club or something. No way he should be asking pros for free work.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

It's worse than wrong: it's amateurish.

There is an old saying: "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".

[seawasp]

What really got me is that this is the guy attempting, with fanfare, the relaunch of _Amazing Stories_, possibly the most well-known name in SF mags. And he's trying to do it by getting free editors?

[cedar sanderson (from livejournal.com)]

Yeah, I had to wonder about that when he was talking about it in the blogging group emails. I am one of the vast pool of unpaid bloggers who contribute to ASM. In my case, I do so on a weekly basis. I started doing it when a friend told me about the endeavour, and said "they need help" so I offered to help out, thinking it was a nice project, and I could use the writing exercise to stretch my mental muscles. I've been involved since February, I believe. For me, I see that it puts my name, which as an author is my brand, out in front of people who might not otherwise see it. So it's worth the time.

However, the editor would get… what? I'm pretty sure the readership is low, as I keep hearing exclamations of surprise in other industry gathering places when someone brings up ASM's revival. So even if she gets her name somewhere prominent on the magazine, it's not that big a boost.

In addition, I personally am beginning to have serious doubts about the bias allowed into the posts. I and others have brought it up, but the man in charge seems to think politics are fine, while I would prefer they be kept out of posts, and the one that caught my attention was rather nasty in tone, something that isn't allowed in comments on posts, so why in a post?

By the way, so far as I know he has no intention of paying bloggers, which is fine, and as of now, despite what it looks like, is not publishing fiction.

[seawasp]

I'm not sure that I see the reason that "not publishing fiction" makes a difference in this context. And I, personally, am leery of the precedent of "not paying bloggers" when the specific goal of the blog is to give him the visibility to make the magazine a success -- a PAYING success, on the strength, presumably, of literally years of unpaid work.

If he already HAD a huge audience, then not paying bloggers might make sense because for many bloggers the exposure would be worth it in terms of additional sales. But in THAT case, he wouldn't need to "build" the brand, he'd already have it and be able to pay everyone associated with the production.

So it seems to me that he's taking advantage of the way online stuff currently works to do something you couldn't do in meatspace.

[cedar sanderson (from livejournal.com)]

The not publishing fiction was a side note, not a reason. I believe he does plan to buy and publish fiction in the future. As a blogger, I could have an excerpt of my work on the site, I have been lazy and haven't done that yet.

[shanejayell.livejournal.com]

Back up.

He has no intention of paying anyone?

Then this is a fanzine.

[cedar sanderson (from livejournal.com)]

Pretty much, Shanejayell. I know he wants to generate income, and publish fiction (paid) at some point in the future. So he will likely pay his editor eventually, he seems to be a nice guy. But the bloggers - well, there are something like 100+ of them, most posting irregularly, not weekly, and that would be vastly more income than the site seems capable of.

[melchar.livejournal.com]

IMO it is very, very wrong and if folks go along with it, then it will reduce 'the brand' down beyond the fanzine level. This would be a very bad idea. Worse is that if he succeeds in trivializing an editor's job, that others may well emulate his idea.

[murstein.livejournal.com]

From what my artist and musician friends tell me, it's common for "job offers" that pay nothing, but "put your name out there." He's just treating the editor like many folks treat their artists and musicians.

It also goes well, IMO, with the trend of viewing the employees that do the work of the business as takers, rather than makers.

[kengr]

That trend may be due in part to accounting practices that count employee compensation (wages, salaries and benefits) as an "expense" (like electricity or taxes) rather than a "cost" (like materials or stock).

I probably have the terms wrong, but the practice exists. And is one of many things messing up business.

[nuranar.livejournal.com]

That is an excellent point, and one that has never occurred to me before. (And I with an accounting master's.) Then expensing (yes, Firefox, that's a word) wages is part of GAAP?

[kengr]

I can point you at posts on various web sites of business owners (ones with *real* brick & mortar businesses) trying to do the same thing to graphic arts folks and web designers.

Or expecting projects at rates that amount to *pennies* an hour.

I think part of it is the "it's not that hard" attitude that folks who've either never had to do it themselves or are so incompetent at it that they don't know they are lousy at it have.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

May I direct your attention to the For the Exposure Twitter feed. Expecting artists to work for zero pay is a common attitude.

[lwe.livejournal.com]

Oh, darn -- someone beat me to it. I was going to point this out.

[terry austin (from livejournal.com)]

The proper approach would be for him to offer stock in the corporation in lieu of pay. That's an age old business model, and it can work very well. What he's doing is beyond amatuerish, and in to douchebaggery.

[seawasp]

And yet, I'm sure (based on his first response to me on this topic) he's firmly convinced there's nothing wrong with it.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

I believe the meme response to this is:
"Fuck you, pay me!"

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

For a fanzine it would be fine. But as an approach to a professional magazine? Not so much.

I was just reading David Drake's new short story collection "Night & Demons". He talks about his friend who started Whispers in a couple of the intro's and specifically mentions that he advised his friend to pay for the stories he sought for it. Making the point that you get what you pay for.

[dsrtao]

It's wrong. If you wanted to, you could *invest* in his business, in which your contribution would be professional writing and your remuneration would be a share of ownership in an actual company... but frankly, I wouldn't advise that.