Discussing money

[Tom Baines]

Afternoon all, quick question on pitch etiquette, really:

At what point in the pitch do you start discussing money? Do you outline your rates from the word go, or wait until somewhere further down the line, such as after submission of a draft, or even when all is done and dusted and you're going to press? I've often felt a little awkward and have left this until the end, and only really discuss it upfront with editors who I've worked with before and already have a rough idea what I would cost.

Thoughts, opinions and experiences would be greatly appreciated! Cheers!

[Tim Stevens]

After your proposal is agreed upon and you've finalized all the details (length, frequency, due dates, etc.) but definitely before you submit anything. Chances are it won't make a difference either way, but it certainly shows that you're expecting a reasonable compensation vs. being glad just to get any work.

[Nathan Meunier]

The money end of things comes after I've contacted an editor and they're prepared to give me an assignment or start working with me. At that point I need to know what their proposed rates are and other terms to be sure it's even worth tackling. This isn't a problem with most bigger pubs that offer good rates. You can pretty much expect it's going to be good going into it, but for some other sites it's important to find out, since they might look slick and fancy but have zero budget to work with.

[Jared Newman]

It can definitely feel awkward to ask when an editor isn't forthcoming about it, but you've got to ask beforehand. I'd question the legitimacy of any publication that refused to tell you.

[Pat 'iTZKooPA' Mulhern]

Sadly there are many publications that won't tell you until you sign some contract, or give you the runaround. "Oh, it all depends on how popular your articles are" and shit like that. It's one thing to give you bonuses for a huge traffic driving article (although I tend to hate that to), it's another to base your rate on it.

As Jared suggested, I didn't bother with either of these places, but it was many because of the horribly unfair contract I was supposed to sign.

[Jared Newman]

Actually traffic-based can work out really well, especially at a large publication where you know there will be a lot of visitors coming in. But even then you need the editor to be up front about the payment formula, to the point that you can calculate it yourself.

[Troy Goodfellow]

Assuming you have access to traffic data, of course.

[Pat 'iTZKooPA' Mulhern]

Both good points. I also hate comment-based payments.

I guess I like my compensation being a bit more static, and have bonus items based on overall traffic/comments. If you can deal with the ups and downs, then that kinda stuff can work out.

[Nathan Meunier]

I definitely don't like the concept of having a nubulous fee that may or may not pan out depending on whether people read the article or not. I'm sure it works out nicely when you managed to get a ton of hits, but how many times do you write something that tanks traffic wise and you end up with less?

I stick to a flat-fee for for most pieces or (a bit more rarely) a per word rate when possible.

[Nathan Meunier]

Usually when an editor isn't forthcoming about money, that's not a good sign. I've done lots of inquiries for good-look, non-AAA sites, but when it comes to money, which is usually the last thing discussed, it's often (but not always) some absurdly low amount (no offense to anyone who frequents this board) Or even worse: "uh...we actually don't pay." That's why I get so pissed when freebie/volunteer sites don't state that up-front, because it's a huge waste of time for legit freelancers who make a living doing this to have to go through the whole interview/back and forth process only to find out everyone's time has been wasted.

The horrendously low pay (aside from the major pubs and sites, which is actually quite good in most cases) found throughout the industry is a whole other issue I could rant about for hours. Pay people decently, have high standards, and you'll attract good writers that are worth keeping.

[Pat 'iTZKooPA' Mulhern]

Wish there was an agree button.

[Ben Kuchera]

There is nothing I dislike more as an editor than someone who dances around the money issue. If you don't value your work, you're telling me I don't need to, either. I was dealing with one freelancer who had a solid, upfront number the first time I contacted him about payment. It was actually a little above what I was thinking, but it shows me he was dead serious about the work and felt comfortable in a professional environment.

This is not a time to be timid.

When someone pitches me, and I hit them back with a question about their rate, it means I'm at least somewhat interested in the work. If I get a wishy washy answer back, my interest wanes. If I get a solid number without any fuss that means the person is serious. The worst thing anyone can tell you is no, and a counter-offer is just that. Stand up for yourself, and ask what you honestly believe you're worth.

[Chris Cesarano]

What would you say is a good average for folks starting up? I've had enough people tell me good things about my writing (and I'm not saying closest friends either, I mean people that completely surprised me with their compliments because I never expected it out of them), so I feel it has value. However, I've only heard one sort of figure about how much someone can get for an article from bigger magazines and sites (not just in video games, but rather broadly). However, it still has me feeling uncertain. If I say $100 am I being so conceited that it's a joke? Or is it more "pfft, this chump doesn't know what he's doing at all"? I also understand that it depends on the success of the site itself, but it would at least be good to know where the starting point is so I can increase or decrease my rate based on the site.