want an internship? that'll be $8,000 please

Apparently not only do some internships not pay, but they also cost money to get. A story in the Globe and Mail reports that one charity is auctioning off internship placements (some going for as much as $50,000), and another company guarantees a two-month internship for $8,000 (both US dollars, both offering spots in publishing).

While the author and most of the commentators are outraged – another way for the upper class to get the upper hand, they say – I simply think it's just a stupid idea, not an affront to meritocracy.

In the case of the auction, it's just the charity trying to find clever things to sell and companies donating the placements saying, "sure, we can have some idiot follow us around and ask questions (and do some grunt work!) for the good of some nonprofit." It looks like each internship is only a week or two – hardly an impressive stint to put on a resumé, regardless of what company the internship is with.

And the $8,000 guaranteed placement: Details are slim, but it looks like there is some sort of screening and interview process; it's not only money that will get you the job.

It's the people who pay that I think are stupid. With ingenuity, drive and perseverance, one should be able to arrange their own internship. Why not take the money you'd pay for the placement and live off it while doing the job, since you're not getting paid.

Thanks to Clare Douglas for pointing out the Globe article to me.

"it's a great opportunity": working for free

Everyone at some point in their magazine career, and especially those just starting out, will be asked to do editing or writing work for free. It seems to be the nature of creative industries that because it's hard to quantify their value, people have no qualms about asking to have work done without paying for it.

I know a well-established artist and illustrator who, many years ago, did some work to appear on a concert t-shirt of a superstar world-famous band (i.e. they're filthy rich). When the subject of payment came up, the band's rep said the artist should be willing to do the work for free since it was an incredible opportunity, great exposure and a great honour to do work for said band. They could afford to pay so the artist dug in her heels and demanded a fee, which she got.

There are, however, times when working for free is ok. In a guest post on New York Times' Shifting Careers blog, veteran freelancer Michelle Goodman writes

[C]onsider when giving it up for nothing can work in your favor:

You have no clients or portfolio. If you left your staff position without any customer testimonials or work samples, you may have to do a freebie or three for a worthy small business to prove to paying clients that you’ve done this before. Pick short-term projects (several days, tops) so you’re not stuck working pro bono until the next decade.

Your dream client has shallow pockets. Writers, artists and performers are all too familiar with this phenomenon. Example: The indie magazine that barely pays its freelancers but, thanks to the power of PIE [Paid in Exposure], has landed many of them agents, book deals and art shows. For business consultants, speaking at a highly publicized conference might yield similar results, in the form of new clients and paid speaking gigs. Be sure to build such unpaid work into your annual promotional plan (which can be all of two paragraphs) so you don’t give away too much time each year.

You’re donating time to a worthy cause. When donating your services to your favorite nonprofit or charity, my motto is, “Give big.” Think high-profile auctions, galas and fund-raising marathons; the more PIE potential, the better. Although you’re doing the job gratis, send the client a short, informal contract clearly stating what you will and won’t do, and when.

Goodman also lays out when to avoid unpaid work, citing payment schemes like "credit for your work" and being paid on spec as red flags.

[Thanks to David Hayes of TFEW for drawing attention to this.]

are big publishers treating professional writers as hobbyists?

A few days ago, I attended a panel discussion put on by the Rotman School of Management's Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto. Entitled The New Economics of Selling Digital Media Online: How IP [Intellectual Property] Protection Fosters Economic Prosperity, the discussion covered the usual refrains of intellectual property, the right of creators to charge for use of that property, and the lack of enforcement of IP laws in the "Wild West" of the internet. Most of the comments related to the music industry and the difficulties it has had with peer-to-peer networks, including a point made by the Canadian Recording Industry Association's president, Graham Henderson, in his closing remarks. He brought up Chris Anderson's article on the free economy in the March issue of Wired magazine, and took Anderson to task for the following passage from the article:

Some artists give away their music online as a way of marketing concerts, merchandise, licensing, and other paid fare. But others have simply accepted that, for them, music is not a moneymaking business. It's something they do for other reasons, from fun to creative expression. Which, of course, has always been true for most musicians anyway.

Henderson bemoaned the attitude that musicians shouldn't expect to make money at creating music, and that the creative class may increasingly come to be viewed as hobbyists.

It got me thinking. Are publishers treating professional freelance writers as hobbyists? Since writing, both online and in print, is subsidized by advertising, and readers already expect to get content for free or nearly free, it could be argued that the assault on freelance writing income comes not from those who consume it, but from publishers who are asking for more rights for less money. There are even those who expect writers to produce well-conceived copy for free. My question is, are publishers relying on the for-the-love-of-it drive in writers, and in turn revealing their disrespect for the profession – or perhaps "hobby" – of writing? Are publishers turning professional writers into hobbyists?

your work is worth something

A friend sent me the link to this video in which science fiction writer Harlan Ellison talks about not getting paid for his work. He's speaking of Hollywood, but it's the same in magazines: When amateurs (and newbies) so readily give up their writing for free, people stop wanting to pay, even for first-rate work from professionals.

will work for free

At the recent Ed2010 Toronto Happy Hour, I was asked about volunteering and writing without getting paid. At some point, every writer and editor feels the pressure and need to work for nothing in order to build up his or her resume. But whether it's money or some other benefit, you should always get something for your time, effort and talent. Here are a few quick thoughts; watch for more on this subject (and about internships) in the coming months.

• Volunteering for a cause or nonprofit organization is a good thing. Getting involved with groups like Ed2010, the National Magazine Awards or your charity of choice gives you an opportunity to learn, network and give back to the community (yes, the magazine industry is a community worth giving back to).

• Writing for free makes sense only if you need the clippings. If you're not getting paid, there needs to be another benefit to doing the work. If you're at the beginning of your career or trying to cover a new beat (say, you're a business writer aching to wax poetic about food), sometimes the only people willing to give you a chance are the ones who don't pay. Advancing your career is a perfectly good substitute for cash.

• Working as an editor for free is an entirely different thing than writing for free. Taking on the editorship of a small independent should exempt you from doing an internship. And it's much better experience.

• Don't do it forever. No matter how much you love it, eventually you'll burn out. Always ask yourself, "What do I get out of it?"