pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (22860 of them)

'do this for low pay because it's good for your career' is a skeezy proposition, but of course PF never proposed that to anybody, they just pay what they pay and people take it or leave, so it's a moot point. i wrote for Pitchfork when there was NO pay but choosing to do something knowing the terms and then complaining about it later is pointless. nobody can determine your price but you.

deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:36 (ten years ago) link

Because apparently there is some confusion on this point, I went through all 28 pages, pulled out the outlets that could conceivably be running music reviews (these are straight from the site, I'm not including any personal anecdotes here).

The piece I linked: $150-250, generally, for online posts; if a piece deviates from this it's more likely to be on the lower end unless you are, like, Teju Cole.
Village Voice Media: $50-75 for a blog post. (One report from SF Weekly has as low as $35.)
The Atlantic: $125.
Complex: $200 for a listicle of 750 words.
The Awl: $50-ish.
Washington Post (Outlook section / opinion): $250. (Probably not music reviews, but I'm including this just as a benchmark of the amount of money vis-a-vis traffic we are talking.)
The New York Times (same): $150, plus $50 for blog posts. (Again, not music reviews, but this is as close to the upper tier of traffic as you can get.)

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. About the only way to even approach the 4x figure is outlets that pay at least 50 cents per word, which are fairly uncommon.

katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:36 (ten years ago) link

The pitchfork pay rates aren't bad.

Tim F, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:40 (ten years ago) link

"nobody can determine your price but you."

as much as it would be good if this were true, the economy means it is not.

katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:43 (ten years ago) link

well i mean this more in the freelancer sense of 'at the end of the day it's your decision to work for a rate that's offered or not.' in most other senses, no, doesn't work that way.

deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:44 (ten years ago) link

Thanks for the clarifications! You were right; asking around did lead to this being debunked pretty quickly.

intheblanks, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:50 (ten years ago) link

to anyone directed here via twitter: hi, sorry I said anything, I will shut up now like a good person

katherine, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:50 (ten years ago) link

hi brandon!

乒乓, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 20:52 (ten years ago) link

lawl

deez so unusual (some dude), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 21:13 (ten years ago) link

would think the best comparison would be spin as that's where the dude works now, right? so does spin pay $320 for a review?

socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 21:38 (ten years ago) link

Don't drag us into Soderberg's thing

obie stompin' moby (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 22 October 2013 21:57 (ten years ago) link

$80 for fifteen to twenty minutes work isn't bad

balls, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:23 (ten years ago) link

Whenever I see this thread get bumped I think, I bet Harvell feels bad for titling it thus. He's too nice a guy.

Mark, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:34 (ten years ago) link

oh i'm sure he's called employers worse

da croupier, Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:47 (ten years ago) link

i mean it's hilarious/awesome that jess wrote a lot for PF years after starting this thread but i doubt he's embarrassed or remorseful about it

omar soul eman (some dude), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:47 (ten years ago) link

good thing I'm still embarrassed and remorseful for even posting in it then

katherine, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:58 (ten years ago) link

hating pitchfork and coming up with reasons why its stupid is a rite of passage for every music fan who likes music that pitchfork covers

乒乓, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 02:04 (ten years ago) link

s1ocki: I don't know if it's that other sites pay 4x as much, it's that they pay a little more for far shorter pieces. At least that's how I interpreted this tweet from Soderberg earlier today.

https://twitter.com/notrivia/status/392744934408585216

intheblanks, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 03:10 (ten years ago) link

If they pay on time that's pretty big. 80 paid quick & on time beats the hell out of 125 you have to email for weeks and months go get... like perhaps certain beloved national FM radio conglomerates that might theoretically owe someone $650 some of it dating back to august.

lorde willin' (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 12:14 (ten years ago) link

oh i totally agree with that

my old paper had comparable rates (80 for a film review iirc) but i got assigned a lot (especially when i was running the section haha) and got paid like clockwork every 2 weeks.

socki (s1ocki), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 14:31 (ten years ago) link

What's up nerds?? So, Katherine's "debunking" of what I said is silly. I don't think comparing the price of say, a blog post for Sound of the City to a Pitchfork review fee is telling of anything. I don't really think those are the same thing. Also, Pitchfork actually has a blog called 'The Pitch' now, so that would probably be a more illustrative comparison. Also, using a Tumblr where anons post pay rates isn't you know, a reliable source (some of those prices she listed from the Tumblr seem accurate, some of them do not). And like, did anyone read what I said and think that The Awl is what I meant by a website on Pitchfork's level? Another way to look Pitchfork's relatively crappy pay: They pay less than an alt-weekly does! That Pitchfork is operating at sub-alt weekly print-in-2013 rates (which in my experience are between 10 cents and 25 cents a word) seems pretty weird to me. That said, I can assure you there are websites that pay 30-50 cents a word and I have written for them and I am 98% sure that when I write for them, I am not being given any kind of special treatment or significantly more money than your average freelancer.

notrivia, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 14:34 (ten years ago) link

ayyyy lmao

乒乓, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 14:38 (ten years ago) link

I really don't have it in me to continue this argument two days in a row. I've been on the phone with hospital billing all morning and trust me when I say I just. do. not. have. the personal strength to get into a fight right now.

katherine, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 14:41 (ten years ago) link

surely a big chunk of the appeal of writing Pitchfork album reviews is the word count gives you the freedom to waffle on? like I hope no-one is expecting them to start paying as much for an 800-word review as they might expect for eight 100-word ones elsewhere

when I was Ted Croker man I couldn't picture this (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:09 (ten years ago) link

I will say, because you insisted on bringing it up again and ruining Wednesday as well as Tuesday (and I'm not using this lightly; yesterday was ruined because of this fight), that you are presenting a grossly skewed version of the freelance market that is out of reach for at least half and probably the majority of freelancers out there today. I'm sure people get paid even $2 a word. I am also sure I will never be one of those people. Right now, with the current state of my career, I am lucky anymore if I can get one cent per word. (This isn't a joke -- I was recently turned down for a cent-per-word job, being told I didn't meet their quality standards for writers. In case you were wondering how good of a writer I am.) I don't think it's productive to go after an outlet in the midrange of the scale because they do not pay the rates that many outlets find unsustainable or reserve for celebrity writers.

(For the record, and I'm really not supposed to talk about this but since you seem to think I'm full of shit, I've been paid 50 cents a word exactly once in my career. The commission it was for was later determined by the publication's editors to be grossly overpaid, and I don't think it still exists online anymore.)

katherine, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:14 (ten years ago) link

this is what's Real-

-p4k freelance rates are low compared to spin where soderbergh writes now but that's a mirage. spin paying inflated rates and bankrupting entire company in process. company was probably fucked anyway.

-spin media (formerly buzz media) now on 3rd ceo since acquisition of spin property. spin mag on 2nd editorial mgmt team in same timeframe (aaron/ganz; aswad/harvilla). Utter disarray. spin performance and product strong but at obscene expense.

-new spin media ceo now maybe a month into his tenure will announce massive layoffs before end of q4, maybe sooner. shareholders want out. expect freelance budgets if not rates to plummet.

-spin media to cut ties with many brands across portfolio, and cut staff across others. for example stero gum, idolotar, punk news, xlr8r, bk vagen, more. freelance rates vary by brand but basically all to be slashed to bone or cut altogether. in house staff to lose jobs too.

-spin edit will remain mostly intact to maintain perception of brand but watch the numbers @ spin media in whole - company will be half size by 2014 or sooner in order to reach profit ability and make sale of entire remaining portfolio attractive to new buyers. current board wants out asap.

-p4k rates for freelance actually very fair. 80 bucks for 500 wd review. compare to vvm or avclub paying single digit rates for content. funnily enough, p4k staffers are the ones getting low rates (rank and file, not top brass). not 1/4 market though, more like 2/3.

-p4k model based on brand not talent. entire team could be replaced tomorrow and readership wouldn't know difference. compare to grantland where every staffer is branded and promoted integral to product (simmons, kloustermann, greenwalt, hyden).

-prediction: p4k to receive lots of resumes + pitches v soon. prob could afford to drop rates actually. haha.

that's all Truth. any insight into ganz-era RS, grantland pay scale, or others greatly appreciated.

-sulf

dashsnowden, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:44 (ten years ago) link

I was just reading up on some Chicago gang history and

Most Folk gangs represent using the six pointed star Star of David, pitchforks, and identify to the right side (e.g., they wear hats or bandanas turned to the right).[2][3]

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3447350752/51ae00039ec9d88b79319a9cf1434893.png

Is Schreiber a Gangster Disciple? You tell me.

how's life, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:52 (ten years ago) link

God help us all if anyone visits Grantland for Steve Hyden.

Murgatroid, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 16:10 (ten years ago) link

-p4k rates for freelance actually very fair. 80 bucks for 500 wd review. compare to vvm or avclub paying single digit rates for content. funnily enough, p4k staffers are the ones getting low rates (rank and file, not top brass). not 1/4 market though, more like 2/3.

so glad i'm no longer trying to pay my rent by writing music reviews. i don't know how anything can afford to live this way.

Mordy , Wednesday, 23 October 2013 16:19 (ten years ago) link

aloof affluent types have the best taste in everything imho

reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 16:52 (ten years ago) link

ty

Lamp, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 16:53 (ten years ago) link

I'm sure people get paid even $2 a word. I am also sure I will never be one of those people. Right now, with the current state of my career, I am lucky anymore if I can get one cent per word. (This isn't a joke -- I was recently turned down for a cent-per-word job, being told I didn't meet their quality standards for writers. In case you were wondering how good of a writer I am.)

: (

for someone like katherine who has been killing it on the regular this year this is really saddening

j., Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:03 (ten years ago) link

single digit rates for content

jfc

JACK SQUAT about these Charlie Nobodies (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:04 (ten years ago) link

Er, FWIW via 'dashsnowden's post there earlier:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/227025/spinmedia-will-lay-off-staff-today/

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:49 (ten years ago) link

we'll have an all-hands

mookieproof, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:51 (ten years ago) link

Although at this point, someone claiming that a media company will announce layoffs is like a psychic claiming that "something bad will happen to you in the future".

Murgatroid, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:53 (ten years ago) link

"I sense that you've....lost someone close to you....it could be a friend......or a family member.....or a pet"

lorde willin' (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:00 (ten years ago) link

anyway this sucks and i hope ilx peeps that work there survive the cuts

lorde willin' (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:01 (ten years ago) link

not pretending to be a psychic just explaining why soderbergh's posting re rates yesterday was fundamentally flawed. if anything p4k have better valuated content (esp relative to brand-building stuff like festivals and interface/tech upgrades) than places like spin which overpay for content chasing traffic to the point of hemorrhage and finally have to cut staff to appease bean counters. traffic no longer = revenue. best revenue opps come from brand-appropriate partnerships, and p4k's brand is stronger than everything else combined.

yes looks like 1st round of cuts went down @ spin media today. pure coincidence, had no idea it was happening today. to return to the original point, this will affect stringers like soderbergh b/c what is not included in pointer posting is the reduction in freelance allowances. i know some spin media people post here maybe they can offer more insight.

finally i dont know anything about the edit/brand-building/revenue model at myspace but that gravy train has to be close to terminal no? any insight is appreciated. grant land too. thanks.

-sulf

dashsnowden, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:22 (ten years ago) link

In terms of edit re Myspace Gary Suarez has said he's been doing well enough over there as a writer so who knows? Credit to him for figuring out another outlet, at least, even if the brand is fundamentally suspect.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:28 (ten years ago) link

while we're roundtabling on the subject, thought i had heard bad news about msn and christgau earlier in the year, did some googling and damn: http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/09/robert-christgaus-expert-witness-blog-shut-down-on-msn/

乒乓, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:38 (ten years ago) link

all MSN editorial was shut down, not just him

katherine, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:40 (ten years ago) link

all freelance editorial. (including me)

maura, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:43 (ten years ago) link

yeah, the biggest casualty of that was ilxor Adrien's Headbang column.

JACK SQUAT about these Charlie Nobodies (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:44 (ten years ago) link

Happily he ended up at Decibel.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:51 (ten years ago) link

Goddammit this thread has taken a depressing turn. I didn't realise how hard it was out there for US writers.

Deafening silence (DL), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:12 (ten years ago) link

It's easier from british writers?

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:24 (ten years ago) link

Dorian: it's always been the case that the only reason I'm writing at all is due to my full time job. Always.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:27 (ten years ago) link

but the problem with that is that if you are a writer, and what you know how to do is writing, that does not necessarily translate to being employable.

katherine, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:32 (ten years ago) link

this is what we all get for attacking arena rock. if only there were a zeppelin or two around now the cash would be flowing!

reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:46 (ten years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.