pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

the pitchfork advance layout & interface is really weird

The main damning thing in that post is his assertion that Pitchfork pays its writers a quarter of what equivalent sites pay. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?

No, but it seems more damning on those other sites if true. WTF are they doing paying so much at this state in the game?

how is that damning

(I'm not going to get into this for obvious reasons, but the "quarter of what equivalent sites pay" bit can be debunked pretty quickly by going on Who Pays Writers or asking around.)

I assume he's talking about Grantland or Slate, where an individual writer's byline can be more of draw.

someone just spill it how much do they pay, what are you gonna get sued or something

http://whopays.tumblr.com/tagged/pitchfork

also, today (this is more "what people pay in general" but: http://scratchmag.net/free-preview-issue/web-editors-roundtable/ )

Yeah, "damning" was probably overstating it. It just seemed like the most legit grievance in the piece, moreso than "PItchfork editors get defensive when criticized!" or "They paid a performer their asking price for a festival concert!" or "They favor strong editorial control, and sometimes that trumps the opinions of individual writers, even when the writers are experts!"

Of course, now I know that 1/4 figure is a gross exaggeration, so basically nothing "damning" at all in the piece.

as a freelancer i always found the raw dollar amount to be a bit overrated anyway. pitchfork pays on time every month without fail and has a lot of work available if you're proactive. both of those things are as important + sometimes more important than the fee itself.

also the platform is important! as a music critic, pitchfork is pretty much the quickest way for people to become familiar with your writing. everyone grab your barf bag, but it's undeniably very good for your Personal Brand. you get twitter followers, you get more work etc etc. this is how it works now. so yes maybe you take a little less than you could get somewhere else because you want a specific piece to be seen. these are the things that you weigh as a freelancer. pitchfork isn't victimizing anyone.

also an important point -- talk to any writer and you will hear at least one and probably multiple horror stories of people who got very impressive commissions that they're still waiting (after years!) to be paid a cent for

NOOOOO NOT THE EXPOSURE ARGUMENT AGAIN

well pitchfork didn't make me sign a non-exposure agreement

'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.

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.

The pitchfork pay rates aren't bad.

"nobody can determine your price but you."

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

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.

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

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

hi brandon!

lawl

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?

Don't drag us into Soderberg's thing

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

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

oh i'm sure he's called employers worse

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

ayyyy lmao

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.

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

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.)

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

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.

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

-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.

aloof affluent types have the best taste in everything imho

ty

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

single digit rates for content

jfc

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

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

we'll have an all-hands

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".