content
Would you work for free?
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 | Technical writing, consumer culture, content, websites, writing | No Comments
I recently corresponded with Company X regarding a job writing game reviews.
Game reviews are not my normal venue, but what the heck; I like gaming, I like writing and it seemed like a fun way to make some extra cash occasionally (plus, a cool addition to my portfolio).
So I sent an email in with my details and some questions and received the standard response asking for a sample review. It was this part of the response that concerned me:
“Submitted articles become the property of Company X.com, Inc. and may at some time be published in its submitted form or altered by Company X.com, Inc and subsequently published at some later date.”
The “submitted articles” are actually the writing samples they require to make a hiring decision. In other words, you send them a sample review written to specification based on an actual game and they get to keep it, alter it, and use it whether they hire you or not. Bonus for them, they don’t have to give the writer credit or pay them.
I emailed to confirm this interpretation and got the following reply:
“That is correct”
That was the entire reply – no lead-in or sign-off.
I replied that most places requiring samples asked for mock-samples but in the cases where proper samples were required that there was usually something in place to ensure the sample would never be used without full permission of and recognition to the author.
This was the reply I received:
“Thanks for your comments, however, that is our policy. The choice is in the hands of potential freelance candidates whether to submit their sample or not.”
Admittedly, he’s got a point. Anyone reading that ‘policy’ can always make the choice to not work for free. They can choose to write for a company that does not use ill-gotten content.
I was still a little appalled at how much they devalue writers – as though writing isn’t an actual occupation or, for some of us, the only thing we want to do for a living. If you write for a company, you should get paid a fair and decent wage for it – not find it published in an altered form where you get no credit.
Writing for free doesn’t pay the bills – so always read the fine print and ask questions!
Why “Me Too” Blogging Can Be Useful
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 | blogging, content, education, websites, writing | 2 Comments
I checked in with Twitter this morning to see what was new and noticed Justin Whitaker’s Tweet saying that he’d received his first nasty comment on his blog.
That made me curious so I went to his blog and found a post about “me too” blogging.
Justin is of the opinion that blogging is “incestuous” and that most bloggers “treat other blogs [as] grist for their own mill, as mere sounding boards for their own work”.
I agree that much of the content on blogs seems repetitive – and often these repetitive posts offer no new insights or information whatsoever. I’m not sure anyone could argue that all blog content is fresh and original.
However, I agree with Michael Durwin’s comment on Justin’s post that “me too” blogging does serve a purpose. “Me Too” blogging provides more access to content that is useful and relevant to people who might not see it otherwise:
I too often forget that most people in the world aren’t as tech savvy as those I talk to everyday. I talked to a recruiter the other day who wasn’t on Facebook because: “isn’t that site just for college kids?”. So before you accuse bloggers of writing “me too” posts to drive traffic, or to just regurgitate what other have already said, consider that not everyone has read all of those other blogs that you have. I live in Boston, arguably one of the most high tech cities in the US, home to countless colleges. I have 3 family members in college. I regularly speak at my alma mater. You’d be SHOCKED to know how few use Flickr, Facebook, or even know how to use Google.
It would be great if everyone could write new and fascinating content, but can’t blogging be a sort of conversation? You write something and I say, “I agree with that (me too!) and here’s my version and why I agree.” Does it matter that I’m “playing the blogging game” without bringing an “original voice to advance the discussion”?
I don’t think so.
If I were talking to someone in real life over coffee and I agreed with something they said and wanted to pass it along, would it be OK for them to say: “You’re not adding value to this discussion – you should stop talking.”
Again, I don’t think so.
A blog post has value if someone reads it and gets something out of it – who cares if 400 other people wrote about the same thing and hold the same opinion. The point is that the reader saw it and it was useful. It doesn’t matter if the other 399 blogs have the same information because the reader didn’t go there (and now doesn’t need to).
Justin suggests making a “concerted effort to kill “Me Too” blogging” in 2009 – I think our efforts would be better spent on making those “Me Too” posts well-written so that wherever a reader’s travels through the blogosphere lead – they lead to intelligent writing.
As a point of interest, Google “me too blogging” – there are lots of posts about this (including Justin’s), but since Justin’s post was the first one I came across, I stopped there.