Me interviewing Keith Malloy back in August 2019. Photo: Jelle Mul
If you’ve listened to my musings during the Stacy Peralta Housekeeping Corner, you’ll know I have strong feelings about the importance of creatives and contributors being paid fairly for their work - especially if as a brand you claim to be serious about inclusivity and diversity.
Yet, even in the year 2022, brands are still offering ‘exposure’ or similar reasons as justification for not paying people fairly for their skills and time.
Still, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve held a hopelessly unfashionable opinion that goes completely against the prevailing status quo.
So it got me thinking - is it ever OK to NOT pay people correctly for their time and expertise?
I think endemic media is a really good example here. I’ve been writing for the snow mags for 25 years and the rate has pretty much remained the same. I also have an idea of the type of budgets publishers are asking people to try and put together a monthly mag for and it is, to put it kindly, a joke. I do still write stories for some of the mags because I want to support them and because I don’t really need the cash, but I think generally at that point if you’re trying to put through a product without paying people fairly you’re basically running an exploitative business model.
Not to have a go Matt but more open it up to the question is this also part of the problem / complexity. If they know they can get it from you for free then is there going to be a chance for some one up and coming to get a chance. On the flip side are you then helping make shore there is quality content for the mag and helping them survive in a time when print media is struggling.
Might be mildly off topic but i fell there is a link . In the small surf bubble that is the UK / Ireland Roger / Matt i have been wondering is this something that that we can attempt to tackle. Over in Irland Clem McInerney and the lads have had an interesting approach to it with the Likes of Magicseaweed and Surfline (now one in the same) but this has taken a substantial effort by a number of individuals to some what police things and in a way its a mix of having to corral photographers and then also manage said online media outlets.
My personal view is that if you're saying you can't afford it, you either have a problem with your business model or you're being extremely disingenuous.
Once I said yes to speaking at an event for free, because it really was a great opportunity for me to (hopefully) show my expertise in front of my perfect audience. And it worked, I got several new clients. I knew and liked the organisers, it was their first event of this kind, and I wanted to support them. They paid for travel, accomodation and got me pissed. But this was a bit of an exceptional circumstance and very much my choice - I looked at it as a marketing cost with a strong potential return.
There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any occassion where a business or brand should ask any creative to work, or provide their work, for free. As many people point out, try asking your accountant to do your books for free "because it'll be good exsposure." Better yet, try asking a plumber.
I understand why a young creator, trying to get noticed, would say yes to a 'cool' brand, but those brands really, really shouldn't. I think it's OK to shame those that do.
On your example here - that’s all fine but I imagine you were in a privileged position where you could make the call to look at it as an investment. I think where it gets insidious is that this excludes a lot of people who don’t have the security to make that call. And it then becomes the basis upon which the brands justify it.
There is a strange tradition of undervaluing and under-compensating creatives from all backgrounds, with brands often treating us as if we should feel lucky to get paid. We NEED to demand a new normal and hold brands and the people behind these decisions accountable.
If you really value me, pay me.
I don't think this type of thing should be too transactional either. It can't JUST be about paying people. What a difference it makes when someone behind the scenes at a brand, agency or event, makes the effort to build the relationship and engage in ongoing respect and support. They paycheck is important, building a meaningful, mutually respectful relationship is equally important.
I do this on daily basis and will fight over every photo stolen online. As photographers we should stop being lazy and always follow up and demand "exchange of value", in a nice, professional manner.
This has been such a big one for me - always feeling like I don’t belong in the space I’ve found myself and not sure what value I can bring - it turns out - a lot! I’ve mostly spoken for free due to being scared to ask for payment as I feel it’s them doing me a favour. I’ve definitely been learning a lot about how to value my experience, my expertise and what I bring to a conversation so I’m finally feeling brave enough to ask for payment - at least to cover my cost (ok so I am realising I’m valued more than diesel prices!) but it’s a really hard thing to ask especially if you’re new to all this. Brands can definitely lead the way by paying in more than exposure. Exposure is fantastic yes - but it doesn’t pay the bills. A lesson in self worth and value is a hard one to learn (I’m still learning to ask!)
Wholeheartedly agree, that it isn’t ok to ask people to speak for free. Exposure does not pay the rent and mostly leads to very little. A small amount is better than nothing. No financial reward sends a clear signal that your work isn’t valued, apart from how you can make money for the organisers. I get the argument about new or emerging events and I’ve got a formula about paying it forward. I think this is a different matter. Also I want to be associated with quality. If they are not paying their speakers what else are they cutting corners on for profit? There have been some interesting posts globally about people turning down Ted
Talks for the same reason, Ted Speakers don’t get paid.
I’ve been thinking about your question. There are situations where I don’t get paid for my expertise but I’m not convinced that it’s justified.
Sadly I work in a sector that heavily relies on free labour. As well as my paid employment, I’m a board member for charitable organisations. In the UK it is against the law to pay board members of charities and yet the governance responsibilities are significant. You can get paid as a non Exec director of a for profit organisation. Let’s be clear that I’m not talking about small local organisations. Some charities have over a $1b turnover. The complexity and commitment is similar, just less valued it appears.
I didn't know that about TED. I'd really be interested to understand how they justify that. Because they must clearly be making money.
On your second point about the sector you work in, am I right in guessing that the net result of that is you get a lot of people from the same demographic in those roles, and a lot of extremely similar thinking as a result?
Having worked in both design and photography, both as freelance and staff, the open-ness that you see in certain sectors of the 'full-time employer' world makes it much easier to get fair compensation – for example, with the help of platforms like Glassdoor, or the transparent pay scale of .gov careers, its easy for a UI Designer to say I should be on around X amount, growing to Y over the next 12 months, or whatever.
With freelance there's not that open-ness, certainly not in the UK, which makes pricing much harder – much harder to have a shared expectation between client and creative. Team that with the fear of not landing a particular job and its super easy to under-charge clients, especially if confidence is low or there are other, perhaps less experienced (although I appreciate that's a generalisation) creatives looking to, or able to, undercut.
I knowingly under-charge some clients, knowing that working for them will, and has, unlocked other doors. Is that fair for those clients to be party to that? Probably not, but rightly or wrongly, in the creative freelance market (in my experience at least) the onus is still very much on the freelancer to walk that line of what it expected or not.
I think you outline the status quo really well. I'm just saying that when brands are clearly making money in a way that relies on essentially exploiting people by the means you describe, its a piss-take and we should call it out as such. Especially when, as many of them are these days, they're making a song and dance about how much they care about diversity and inclusion. The simplest possible way you can back that up with action is to pay people correctly and fairly.
Personally, I've been in the situation you describe over the years. But I made the call to just ask outright for what I believe I should be paid. Interestingly, almost al of them agreed once I asked. The small number that don't, I just won't work with. It was a tough but in the end empowering decision.
Glad to see someone mention .gov. Before the UK government’s Government Digital Service camel along it would never have occurred to me to consider working on government web sites. But there are loads of very creative people doing very good work in an open and transparent way. It’s a great way of learning a lot while, broadly, trying to meet user needs rather than make money for the organisation.
As you say, the pay scales are transparent and the recruitment process is very open and obsessively dedicated to diversity. You do need to crack the language of job titles and job adverts though, which are sometimes different from those in use in the private sector. And you need to learn how the interviews work as part of the process of trying to build in fairness — but there’s plenty of advice about that on line if you search.
Every year in the UK we graduate enough students from the ‘creative’ media courses to replace every single person in ‘creative’ media jobs that already exist. That’s just a fact.
Because of this there is a huge queue of ‘graduates’ behind anyone in a job in the creative industries. I’m sure it’s true that there are some cynical people, who hold the purse strings at some brands, who would seek to exploit this situation.
I do stuff for free, it’s a way to keep interested in what I’m doing. But I make sure that the stuff I do for free is interesting or for the public sector/charity or ideally both.
Don’t let people/brands/companies exploit your work course but perhaps try to discern what the longer term motives are for the brand or client.
Personally I wouldn’t want to be starting out today in the 21st Century as we discussed in our recent interview Matt.
Thanks Wig, great to get your insights. And I think that's really good advice as a way of walking the tightrope, as I think somebody else put it elsewhere in the thread, once you get into the fairly luxurious position myself and you are in of being able to choose whether we make that call
I likely have a bit of double standards here. Let me explain.
In my capacity now I am always aiming to pay the going rate and if a young creative is doing work for us, they should be paid and the 'exposure' thing isn't the way to build a brand especially if you are a for profit entity. If someone works in any capacity they should be paid.
However with that said when it comes to myself I have done a ton of projects, work, given advice, talks without being paid and whilst I probably should have stood up for myself a bit more it also opened many doors for me. That's probably down to not valuing my own work enough or having the confidence to sell it in (all British traits), but yes I am trying to do my piece to set the bar for the next generation in my professional capacity but know I have slipped personally in the past.
Doing burlesque and drag taught me a lot about the value of time and labor because even the stagehands who picked up discarded costume pieces and set up props were paid. On the flipside, I still do panels at comic/anime cons for free and submit poetry to publications that don't pay (although I'm getting more selective because there are venues that do pay). The line between hobby and profession get blurry in creative spaces, but I do think brands, especially ones that are churning, should compensate people. Even if it's a "flow" situation where you give product to an up-and-coming influencer or cosplayer (because only handful of cosplayers ever make money from that), but even then I think that should be a pipeline that leads to monetary compensation if the person wants to stick with the brand versus leaving people in space where they only ever get free product because that's a cop-out too.
Really interesting point on the blurred line between hobby and profession, but again I think this territory is where people can be exploited if they’re not confident and careful to stand up for their own worth.
The fact that this seems to be so prevalent for creatives and not elsewhere is what stands out for me - and it seems to be even more common with brands in outdoor/action sports.
I’ll do work for free for a charity or initiative that isn’t intentionally for profit, and feel strongly that the work for exposure deal is massively bad practise for brands (and makes no sense for creatives). It devalues the work, and sets a precedent that’s really hard to change. I suppose it comes partly from so many creatives being self employed and from this unquantifiable thing that is creative thinking. And nowadays, brands are more likely to benefit from being featured on a creative’s channels than the other way around - and individual athlete or creative social media accounts tend to have much more engagement from their audiences than brands (that personal connection thing).
But there’s always someone wanting to get into filmmaking or photography and wanting the outdoor lifestyle who’ll be prepared to do work for cheap or free to get a foot in the door (and who can blame them - that’s still the way in for lots of sectors like TV & film). As a brand though, would you want to be known as not paying properly for creative work? In the US outdoor brands seem to allocate much bigger budgets to marketing and the creative side - of course a lot of them are bigger companies anyway, but if you want the higher spec film and video that seems to be the norm now, you can’t expect to have that without paying for it. I made the decision a long time ago working as a designer in a small outdoor community, that I wouldn’t have ‘mates rates’ and if I wanted to do something for free it had to be for a good reason. I’m always happy to share information and take part in exchanges that could progress things in the industry (better representation, sustainability practises), but if someone is asking me to do something because of what I know or can do which they can’t, then that has a value. The book Logo design love by David Airey has a great explanation of the value of a logo… it can apply to all areas of creative work.
The obvious answer to this question is 'no' and I'd argue the question is leading because it says 'pay people correctly' 😉, but I actually think there is a bigger conversation to be had here about transparency. In the outdoor sector there tends to be huge discrepancies between who gets paid and who doesn't, who gets their travel covered and who doesn't. Often the higher your profile the more you can ask for and get, which obviously disadvantages those with smaller followings or less exposure (which also - surprise surprise - tend to be underrepresented groups due to all the systemic bias bleeding through into what opportunities are available on the way up and how they are viewed by the 'mainstream', whether they have had the privilege to work for free to gain exposure etc). What I'd like to see more of is brands and event organisers being upfront - this is what we have in the budget for everyone or this is how we are organising what we pay people if they are paying different fees for what could be viewed the same work. And then that needs to be communicated widely. We get opportunities sent to us through All The Elements and I get the budget (or lack of) from the organisation, then pass to people to make an informed choice. Sometimes if it's local, less work and has good reach or future contacts, it can be worth it. But new people to the scene need to know if the rest of us think its crap pay or a bad deal. I often pass things along with 'you're worth more than this but you might want to do it because of x, y, z'. Transparency and informed choices put the power back in the hands of the creative or contributor. Without that we're all being taken for a ride.
I think that sounds like a brilliant way of managing and helping people understand how to navigate what is obviously a tricky and nuanced scenario. And you’re right, on reflection the way I phrased it was a little leading 🤟
I wonder if there is another perspective here; what the creative can ‘take' from the brand beyond finances and ‘exposure'? Specifically how the creative can use the job to grow and evolve their own practice. It’s definitely not a long term strategy so requires honest reflection and foresight of what you the creative wants long term. When learning a new craft there is only so much you can do with your mates / on your own, at some point you need to step up your practice. In the example of a photographer there are the jobs where you get paid x amount to turn up and document an event/take a portrait etc with very specific direction and I would say this is broadly the ‘exposure conversation’. And then there’s also the type of jobs where the conversion is ‘we have x amount in total for this production’. These are the type of jobs where you can make a choice to be paid correctly and do the job strictly in the parameters set out, or you can use x amount of the budget (and x amount of time within the shoot) to 'try a new technique, try a new lens/lighting set up, hire a DOP versus shooting it yourself etc… specifically to develop your creativity. You choose to take the hit financially in terms of your take home pay, but you ‘take' from the brand a body of work you would have been unable to create without what they have given you. Again, not a long term or multiple job strategy but rather I would say there is a grey perspective as well as a black and white one. Finances are one aspect of what a creative can take; as a creative I think we should be open to seeing what else is in the equation.
Ideally you want both tho, right? As in the chance to develop, and the chance to be paid for your time and expertise? The scenario you outline does depend to a degree on financial independence, right? Without that luxury it’s going to be difficult to work for free however you internally spin the benefits of the opportunity. Which again limits who gets to ‘be’ a creative or work creatively.
Totally want both. Of course. And without doubt brands should pay correctly and fairly. I however don’t want to gauge every decision based on financial metrics. If I did there would be considerable work I’ve loved making that I wouldn’t have made, both commissioned and personal. Whilst being mindful of the finances, I personally need to ask the question, 'is there anything else within this job that brings value to me?’ The driver for that is in my own case I walked away from a nice and reasonably paid 10 year salaried career to find something that would fulfil me. I was burnt out in that job doing the same thing every day, which in my opinion is a dark hole for being creative. I hear the perspective that it’s spinning it internally. Perhaps. In truth, I don’t know if that’s the case.
When you take clients on at ACM, is your sole appraisal on whether to work with the client if pay correctly or are their other factors involved that effect your decision? Ditto with writing gigs.
Yeah good question, and with the various things I do I find myself on different sides of the question. With ACM, we only work with people who pay the right amount for the extremely niche expertise we offer. Especially now we have a fairly big team. It just isn’t possible to run a profitable agency otherwise, and it isn’t fair on our team to ask them to work on accounts that aren’t paying properly. A big part of our early stage chats are about working out of the brands we’re speaking to have a) a realistic budget or b) a clue what a realistic budget is. When it comes to paying staff and contributors, we research the going rate and industry standards and make sure we at least match them.
A big part of the reason I set up Looking Sideways was for the reasons you also outline. I wanted an outlet unencumbered by commercial considerations, and that I could use to explore creative ideas and collaborations. I recognise that this was only possible because I had a certain financial security tho, and because my experience means I could navigate this nuanced conversation in a way I felt happy with. So I’ve turned down countless sources of income to maintain that integrity. But again I recognise that’s a position of privilege. I also pay my rare contributors (for example my editor and intern) the market rate at least. With Owen it’s a little different but we take those cases as and when. If it’s a cash job we work it out depending on the scenario. If not we both essentially work for free but again that’s because we’re essentially choosing to do the work as a hobby because it’s creatively fulfilling. If we are asked to work with brands, we charge our proper rate and if they don’t want to pay it we don’t work with them.
With writing, yeah it’s a bit more like the situation you outline. For endemic mags I take the going rate which in most cases is poor or way below market rate. I choose to do that to support the titles and the culture, and because again I enjoy the work and don’t really need the money. But again I recognise I’m in a privileged position to even make that call.
I guess I’m posing this question to brands and companies like ACM, who are clearly making money. If you’re not paying people, why not? I’d genuinely love to hear the justifications, because I think from the thread and event this exchange, it’s clear that the idea that underpaying creative is normal is widely shared and seemingly accepted as part of the game. Even more reason to talk about it tho. Especially in light of the diversity conversation which all brands are participating in right now. It's a fairly glaring impediment to being a genuinely diverse industry.
My experience of trying to publish in the scientific literature-world (i.e., journals) might be of some relevance here. With independent research (read ‘unpaid’) you either have to find a publication that will take pity an publish without costs or find upwards of £1500-£3000 for the honour of publishing. These papers are then reviewed by other scientists, for free, in order to be considered accurate and worthy. These titles then charge everyone to view them (needed to perpetuate new research. Total racket. I mean it’s not like it changes when you become ‘published’ and it’s not ‘creative’ but it’s an example of a model that exists to benefit the bottom line not the individual. There is pressure for scientists to publish (and be a reviewer) within their work and so the publications continue to benefit. It also drives a bias in findings but that’s a whole other thing.
That’s pretty fascinating. And as somebody that doesn’t work it particularly know that world, the thing that leaps out is with such high costs involved you could, presumably, fairly easily alter that system to enable the periodicals to keep going AND ensure contributors get paid. That’s why I think the debate is often so bogus. Ultimately deciding not to pay people correctly is always a deliberate, conscious decision, however you dress it up. Same with the core magazines in the world I come from. If the only way you can make your thing is by not paying people the going rate, then like I said elsewhere you either have a business model problem or you’re not being transparent and honest.
I’m in this world too. As you say, it’s an absolute racket and we should all be outraged that these companies have become the gatekeepers of who has access to publicly-funded knowledge!! I don’t pay for open access so thank goodness for rights to publish pre-proofs!
In the old days I used to get offered product in place of payments from brands of all sizes for photo work they used or commissioned. Sometimes it was a better deal financially to take the offer but it would mean flogging everything, quite the ball-ache.
Sometimes this appealed, but in the end you’d always end up wearing the clothes they sent or giving them to mates instead and struggling to make ends meet.
It took a long time to get the confidence to bring this up with brands but I managed on occasion to argue my point. I think eventually it was only really addressed once the industry caught up and got it’s shit together. I think historically video guys got it worse to be honest, no one ever wanted to pay for video. I imagine it’s the other way around now but I clocked out about 5 years ago so can’t be sure.
as my good friend once told me (yesterday, after showing him this thread... "future work doesn't pay today's bills"...
so I guess it depends on if you have bills to pay? sure when I was younger, had less overheads, I did work for some brands well under the going rate, to be honest, mainly out of naivety (I just didn't understand the value) some of that work is still in my portfolio today and 100% opened doors for my career. Now, I've got a family to feed and bills to pay, so I have to think about things a bit differently. I still take on the occasional job for nothing or cheap, but I've got to ask a few questions... is it helping friends or people in need?, is it going to benefit me? (creatively or in my career), and will it mean I get to go surfing?
I think my main point can be summarised as 'It shouldn't matter whether you have bills to pay'. The fact we're all so inured to thinking it's normal to underpay younger/less experienced people is, I would suggest, a bit problematic.
true... my friend also said this, which I would be interested to hear your thoughts on... "it's
built on old traditions and by creatives. We let ourselves be exploited for so long, then we start our own agencies and expect others to do what we did. Everyones as bad as each other up top"
Even more reason to have this conversation then, I'd say. As somebody who runs an agency and a media platform, I'm consciously trying not to do this. Like so many things in the world of marketing, just because it's the way things have been done forever, doesn't mean it's the right way to do things.
So your mate runs an agency, consciously undercharges people and then justifies it by saying that's just the way it is and has always been? Sounds like a catch!
he doesn't, he has been on the commissioning side for brands, but is now freelance like me, so the cynicism came after us both being shafted by agencies this year.
Its good to hear your values and ethics, and I agree with you, things shouldn't stay the same. I also think there is a lot of brands out there that could do with sharing similar values in terms of paying freelance creatives fairly and in a sustainable manner. There is a non stop battle in our industry (photography) to be paid fairly from brands, negotiating a fair fee is harder than ever, and this is probably partly due to a queue of younger/less experienced people ready to sell their work for less in return for association with that brand, but also marketing teams willing (or unknowingly) to exploit that.
Wouldn't it be amazing for a brand or agency to be open and say 'we want to support young/new creatives and the industry, so will make sure they are payed fairly. We have set a minimum (fair) fee for content... etc etc '
One of the reasons we set up the DB x LS Fund tbh. But yes of course I totally agree which is one reason why I started this Thread. The number of similar tales people have even on this short thread is so depressing.
I would say this plays a huge roll in my not working as a “creative” in the outdoor industry. If had my share of seasonal jobs, but I’ve now entered the salaried world and I don’t know if I’ll ever leave.
Would I love to go back to the outdoor industry world, yes! But if people don’t get paid or struggle to get paid. That’s not a way to support one’s family.
This seems like just another form of ensuring that the entitled continue to get exposure because the can afford to not get paid. It’s sad because then we get a continuous echo chamber of ideas and content.
I think you put it really well in your final paragraph. I think one of the things I’ve found interesting about this thread is how the majority of even ‘successful’ people commenting seem to have accepted (and even found pretty elaborate ways of justifying) the exploitation as a sad fact of life/rite of passage that’s just part of the game. Which is, of course, also how the people underpaying justify it too.
You just invoked Betteridge’s law. No, it’s disgusting to take advantage of anyone for any type of work. Would you expect a young plumber to fix your toilet for exposure?
He he. Well spotted. As somebody else pointed out, the question is a tad leading and my views are pretty clear. What I’ve found fascinating is how many people who’ve been on the receiving end justify it as just part of the game. Guessing that also doesn’t happen in the plumbing game.
Need some plumbing influencers to get that clout. Bizarrely school’s seem to have proliferated this ideal that you do a silly degree, then you work for free for a year in an “internship” (we used to call that work experience) then you might qualify for a shitty grad scheme. Such a mess
I honestly think that as an entry, showing what you can do for free isn't a bad thing. But when management begin to take advantage of that...then we have a problem.
I worked for a brand for a long time who would have a constant revolving door of interns and then when it came to projects, there would always be a push to hit up local universities or to find a fan of the brand as they would work for free.
No one would move from intern to staff and at points you could see they were there not because the help was needed but because it was just free labour.
I got quite awkward as everyone coming through believed they were the first person doing this and a shoe-in for a job.
Can you expand a little on why you think asking people at the start of their career to work for free isn’t a bad thing? And what’s your view on the idea that this closes the door for a large section of people without the financial security to enter into it on those terms? Do you think that’s a healthy thing as well?
I do agree that this can close the door on folks without financial security, yes. Although perhaps not everyone - because if you already own a camera or have the tools to paint/draw, etc. then I think certain things are achievable.
I never had the financial security and that was a route I had to take, working other jobs to keep me afloat whilst hoping that something would come from trying to do what really excited me.
As for asking folks at the start - exposure, connections and experience. You've got to get that somewhere, so it is a trade off. And I think can be a fair one. It just isn't most of the time, it seems.
No, it’s not. But maybe, another important way to ask this is “Is it ever okay to not be paid for our time and contributions?” Because my answer to that is a definite yes! This question shows that we sometimes (for different reasons) have choices on this - that it can be more complicated. Because I’m in a position to, I’m happy to forego payment for content as a way to support people and projects I believe in or to allow them to pay someone else more. But this is always a decision made with knowledge of a project and the people running it. And I never take this choice if there is some kind of income from advertising involved.
Just realised this is a little convoluted so, to clarify…. I get a salary for my research job, so I am in the position to forego a writing fee when I want to. If a publication has oodles of advertising, I tend not to forego payment because my work is not just associated with the project I’m contributing to, but the advertisers’ brands as well.
It depends. If there’s equipment or some other kind of equity, a kind of future whereby a creative can make an investment for them to gain from their endeavours at some point, why not. It’s a case by case decision. I’ve a 25 year old Santa Cruz powder board that’s still got the original sticker on the Ptex sitting in the office. I swapped a couple photographic usages for this rare snowboard, I liked the swap then and I still do. These days with a lot of big corp work and still shooting our sports shooting on a Red V Raptor, Komodo, Canon C300M3 and an R5C, cinema lenses etc it’s easy me to raise a solid eyebrow when the word ‘free’ enters the conversation! When your sat on your arse with f all work, you’re girlfriends left you and you don’t have enough money for a pint, wondering wtf your going to do with your life and your camera, as I’ve done more than once and someone offers an all in trip to Hawaii, as I’ve done, whose going to turn that down?! I’ve chosen ’free’ wisely, on most occasions! Only when I know it will benefit me in the long run. If it’s a good, kind hearted, cool project I I’m happy to contribute free too as sometimes a project needs to be supported that don’t make sense but deserves a place in our world. I will donate the fee if the project is heartfelt to charity if it’s a passion project too. The minute large corps try ‘free’ on though ye olde eyebrow goes up again sometimes backed up with a few choice words. If they are in the game to make profit, so should the creative, I think after 40 + years in this game it’s a simple equation, if you think it stinks, it probably does.
In a competitive industry where people keep their cards quite close to their chest, and where renumeration can vary so much between jobs, it’s difficult to get a grasp on how much your contribution to the world is actually worth. It’s quite a vulnerable position being unsure of yourself, and as creativity is so personal that insecurity can run quite deep. I think that being led to believe it’s fair to work for free can make that even more confusing and daunting. It’s a massive generalisation to say this, but I think there is somewhat of a correlation between creative thinkers and self-doubters. Maybe that’s a contributing factor to why this is so widely accepted as the norm in creative industries.
The bigger issue really, as folks here have already pointed out, is the unlevel playing field it creates. You’ve got to be pretty lucky to have the support to offer your time for free for any sustained period, and what does that do to the variation of stories we see in creative media? – and in turn the inspiration that permeates back out into the world? There is a significant drive to present more inclusive content with stories featuring more diverse people, but if that enough? Surely it’s important for stories to be told BY everyone, not just ABOUT them. Creating a more even point of entry is only going to be a good thing all round. Simply making it easier to get started by always paying young people fairly and equally is one step towards cultivating an organically diverse culture that is more open to everyone.
There is of course value in having a way of getting started. People want to see what you can do. Whether that’s a showreel or portfolio, you need to have something to show for yourself when pitching for a job. You could go out and make a personal project with some friends, but not only do you need the time to make it, but you also need equipment, locations, cast etc. At least with taking on a free project for a brand there is the possibility for a bit of budget to hire a camera, maybe they have athletes you can film and can get you into a place to shoot it. In a lot of ways, it can be the perfect opportunity to walk away with a piece of work for your reel that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford to make. I can probably track back every major ‘break’, or solid relationship I’ve built to some project I did for free early on. I also think that that hustle, and the skillset derived from making an idea work on a shoestring, is quite a formative part of developing as a creative professional. It teaches you to be resourceful.
But going back to the main point, is it fair that the point of entry requires some degree of privilege to entertain? It’s not exactly an issue confined to the creative and outdoor industries. University fees are frickin’ nuts these days!
I’d love to hear anyone’s ideas for how to change that status quo. I guess Matt, your fund with Db is a great example of offering a way in that anyone with a good idea has a chance at. But it’s a narrow field, how we develop a systemic change that allows equal access to creative careers and the outdoors in a meaningful way is a big question.
I think if a brand or agency is going to ask for free labour from young people, they should consider what they can do for that person after that project is finished and deliver on it. I don’t mean hanging a carrot of false promises, but actually have a pathway laid out for promising talent to grow into. Whether that is a paid internship scheme, working on their next campaign or simply taking an active role in helping that person build a meaningful network.
I think it’s ok for projects from time to time to get started before there is sufficient budget to pay those involved. It can be very challenging to get ideas funded before there is something to show. But relying on people to work for free as part of a business model or campaign strategy is just exploitative and is only going to perpetuate disparity and weaken the industry as a whole moving forward.
I think there are some exemptions - the main one being amount of money available.
Most charities literally couldn't exist without free support, as they legally have to be directed by trustees who in turn (mostly) cannot legally be paid! But they exist to make the world a better place without financial profit. David Spurdens said this well with "If they are in the game to make profit, so should the creative".
Another seems to be around on amount of work done where it's generally impractical or not done to pay for quick initial chats or interviews. Then again some like lawyers can be paid from the go so perhaps it doesn't have to be that way.
Sitting a bit in both camps is... podcasts?! Podcasts aren't inherently that different to speaking at an event but it sounds like in the majority guests don't get paid. Would be interesting if you'd mentioned the looking sideways stance on remuneration if discussing event speaker fees. Most don't make much if any money, it's difficult to monetise than physical events so would it be possible to do so I most cases? But shorter planning to be a guest than present and generally reduced travel requirements make it feel less problematic
Late to the party here, so I’ll ask a related question I’ve been pondering - is the Substack model for real / viable, or effectively just a pyramid scheme?
When you turn on subscriptions you mean? You might have to explain a bit more what you mean? Just cos it seems to me to be a fairly simple subscription model. Could be missing something obviously
What I mean is that it sells itself as this internet 2.0 space where creative people can get paid directly and fairly for their work, but really the pool of talent becomes so diluted that few can reach / build an audience - just like socials. Ultimately it’ll only be the top 0.5% that can make it work, and most of them are being paid by Substack to promote it and make it appear to be a brave new world where everyone can earn.
This thread is brilliant and thought I'd share my experience of taking advantage of low-paid/free work. As a freelancer of 7 years, I started by filming weddings/theatre shows/cheesy local business videos; there was absolutely no way I thought I’d ever work within skateboarding, although it’s what I’ve lived & breathed since I was 11 years old (now 30). Residing in sunny Blackpool, ‘skateboard jobs’ are, as you can imagine, pretty non-existent.
Up until I took a role at a skatepark in Feb 2020, I’d only ever been paid in hoodies, caps, bearings or stickers for filming anything skateboarding related, not that it was/has ever been about the money, and I was always grateful (just trying to paint a picture). That role at the park was extremely low pay for what I was doing and for where I was at in my career, but at least my expenses were covered, and the role was mostly within my field of interest. I took it as an opportunity to network and meet the right people, which is precisely what happened. There were opportunities from the get-go, some paid, some for free, but it gave me the platform to showcase what I could do as a filmmaker/“content creator”(yuck). Two & a half years later, I’m full-time at Skateboard GB and get to work with many reputable skateboarding brands on a freelance basis. Most importantly, I get to work with incredible skateboarders. I’m so grateful to that skatepark for that opportunity, despite the starting pay (which they did increase over time, legends) because as I say, it was never about the money… my life/work life has now totally changed.
Without taking that low-paid gig at age 28, I would still be filming work I’m not passionate about and paying my bills in bearings.
When I was out of uni, I wrote plenty of stuff for boardsport magazines and websites and also did a double page piece for The Guardian.
The Guardian was the only one that paid but I didn't hold it against the others because most of them were completely enslaved to the brands giving them peanuts which they couldn't share with monkeys like me without starving themselves. I basically ran out of money in between winter seasons but more importantly ran out of stoke working in a bar in the night and writing in the day.
15 years on and the corporate beast is on my back and there's no way I could keep the family afloat by going back into that world. Equally, if I had the time again, I would have loved to have a mentor who could have helped me prolong that period to see if it would have worked.
I saw it as a rite of passage rather than exploitation to be honest and I think it was a lack of experience that made me quit. I was young enough to survive the lack of money but didn't have a well trodden path that made me realise it might all work out in the end.
Well there is that but the other option is to moan about it... which isn't going to get me anywhere and isn't exclusive to me so I thought I'd spare people the violins ;-)
Also, having ran 3 of my own businesses, I'm not sure it's any different anywhere else. One brilliant investor in my only averagely-successful business said that start-ups are a rich boy's game... and I think trying to muscle into an industry is exactly the same scenario. It just takes a long time to get good, know what people want and know who and how to ask for it.
Ultimately, money often helps people get further in life. Sheer bloody-mindedness AKA a willingness to survive on baked beans longer than anyone else is just another currency?
Interesting you see it as a binary choice: 'moan about it/bring out the violins' or 'accept it as rite of passage'. I mean, plenty of people on this thread seem to agree with you.
I'm just mildly suggesting that there might be an easily attainable middle ground: that paying people fairly, whatever stage of their career they're at, might be a good idea. Especially if you're serious about this diversity thing that everybody is banging on about.
Also, having run businesses of my own, and indeed run this platform, I do think it's a choice. Looking Sideways makes fook all money tbh, but when I work with people I make sure to pay them properly because I want to help people who were in your position a) get a proper start and b) understand their value. Does that make me a mug?
Again, I also find it completely fascinating that not one person on the other end of the transaction has come on here (somebody running a magazine, say or an event) and said 'I do underpay people, but it's a conscious decision because I believe in survival of the fittest and I think it's a useful rite of passage'.
It doesn't make you a mug but I would hope it delivers value to you in return in the long run. Also, Looking Sideways doesn't make £££ but maybe the hours you put in gets you stuff off the back of it that does pay? Would All Conditions Media be the same without it?
I remember talking to a guy called Mark who ran a small boardsports magazine in the noughties (won't name it here but you probably know him I would guess) who I chatted to at length a few times. He worked directly with brands with a great little product and couldn't make ends meet. Unless he was lying to me which I don't think he was, my heart went out to him cos it seemed like he was dying inside.
I'm guessing the various boardsports brands' success is ultimately the winner in all of this which either makes us dumb as consumers of the lifestyle or shows what a ruthless streak and/or brilliant marketing prowess they have.
I think endemic media is a really good example here. I’ve been writing for the snow mags for 25 years and the rate has pretty much remained the same. I also have an idea of the type of budgets publishers are asking people to try and put together a monthly mag for and it is, to put it kindly, a joke. I do still write stories for some of the mags because I want to support them and because I don’t really need the cash, but I think generally at that point if you’re trying to put through a product without paying people fairly you’re basically running an exploitative business model.
Not to have a go Matt but more open it up to the question is this also part of the problem / complexity. If they know they can get it from you for free then is there going to be a chance for some one up and coming to get a chance. On the flip side are you then helping make shore there is quality content for the mag and helping them survive in a time when print media is struggling.
Hey Mike yeah totally fair point. I mean don’t it totally for free, but for the low rates they offer. But your point still stands obviously….
Might be mildly off topic but i fell there is a link . In the small surf bubble that is the UK / Ireland Roger / Matt i have been wondering is this something that that we can attempt to tackle. Over in Irland Clem McInerney and the lads have had an interesting approach to it with the Likes of Magicseaweed and Surfline (now one in the same) but this has taken a substantial effort by a number of individuals to some what police things and in a way its a mix of having to corral photographers and then also manage said online media outlets.
Charities maybe, occassionally, but brands, no. Never. As a freelance film-maker I know says (shouts) "People die of exsposure."
My personal view is that if you're saying you can't afford it, you either have a problem with your business model or you're being extremely disingenuous.
I wonder are some brands writhing writhing this in to there business model. I get the felling it a yes and a relay quite calculated choice.
I’m not sure it’s that calculated. I just think there’s an expectation/acceptance that culturally it’s fine. When it really isn’t.
Once I said yes to speaking at an event for free, because it really was a great opportunity for me to (hopefully) show my expertise in front of my perfect audience. And it worked, I got several new clients. I knew and liked the organisers, it was their first event of this kind, and I wanted to support them. They paid for travel, accomodation and got me pissed. But this was a bit of an exceptional circumstance and very much my choice - I looked at it as a marketing cost with a strong potential return.
There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any occassion where a business or brand should ask any creative to work, or provide their work, for free. As many people point out, try asking your accountant to do your books for free "because it'll be good exsposure." Better yet, try asking a plumber.
I understand why a young creator, trying to get noticed, would say yes to a 'cool' brand, but those brands really, really shouldn't. I think it's OK to shame those that do.
On your example here - that’s all fine but I imagine you were in a privileged position where you could make the call to look at it as an investment. I think where it gets insidious is that this excludes a lot of people who don’t have the security to make that call. And it then becomes the basis upon which the brands justify it.
Yes 100%
There is a strange tradition of undervaluing and under-compensating creatives from all backgrounds, with brands often treating us as if we should feel lucky to get paid. We NEED to demand a new normal and hold brands and the people behind these decisions accountable.
If you really value me, pay me.
I don't think this type of thing should be too transactional either. It can't JUST be about paying people. What a difference it makes when someone behind the scenes at a brand, agency or event, makes the effort to build the relationship and engage in ongoing respect and support. They paycheck is important, building a meaningful, mutually respectful relationship is equally important.
Preach 🙌
I do this on daily basis and will fight over every photo stolen online. As photographers we should stop being lazy and always follow up and demand "exchange of value", in a nice, professional manner.
This has been such a big one for me - always feeling like I don’t belong in the space I’ve found myself and not sure what value I can bring - it turns out - a lot! I’ve mostly spoken for free due to being scared to ask for payment as I feel it’s them doing me a favour. I’ve definitely been learning a lot about how to value my experience, my expertise and what I bring to a conversation so I’m finally feeling brave enough to ask for payment - at least to cover my cost (ok so I am realising I’m valued more than diesel prices!) but it’s a really hard thing to ask especially if you’re new to all this. Brands can definitely lead the way by paying in more than exposure. Exposure is fantastic yes - but it doesn’t pay the bills. A lesson in self worth and value is a hard one to learn (I’m still learning to ask!)
You outline really well why this is about much more than just the money. It’s a power dynamic that frequently gets abused.
Wholeheartedly agree, that it isn’t ok to ask people to speak for free. Exposure does not pay the rent and mostly leads to very little. A small amount is better than nothing. No financial reward sends a clear signal that your work isn’t valued, apart from how you can make money for the organisers. I get the argument about new or emerging events and I’ve got a formula about paying it forward. I think this is a different matter. Also I want to be associated with quality. If they are not paying their speakers what else are they cutting corners on for profit? There have been some interesting posts globally about people turning down Ted
Talks for the same reason, Ted Speakers don’t get paid.
I’ve been thinking about your question. There are situations where I don’t get paid for my expertise but I’m not convinced that it’s justified.
Sadly I work in a sector that heavily relies on free labour. As well as my paid employment, I’m a board member for charitable organisations. In the UK it is against the law to pay board members of charities and yet the governance responsibilities are significant. You can get paid as a non Exec director of a for profit organisation. Let’s be clear that I’m not talking about small local organisations. Some charities have over a $1b turnover. The complexity and commitment is similar, just less valued it appears.
I didn't know that about TED. I'd really be interested to understand how they justify that. Because they must clearly be making money.
On your second point about the sector you work in, am I right in guessing that the net result of that is you get a lot of people from the same demographic in those roles, and a lot of extremely similar thinking as a result?
Having worked in both design and photography, both as freelance and staff, the open-ness that you see in certain sectors of the 'full-time employer' world makes it much easier to get fair compensation – for example, with the help of platforms like Glassdoor, or the transparent pay scale of .gov careers, its easy for a UI Designer to say I should be on around X amount, growing to Y over the next 12 months, or whatever.
With freelance there's not that open-ness, certainly not in the UK, which makes pricing much harder – much harder to have a shared expectation between client and creative. Team that with the fear of not landing a particular job and its super easy to under-charge clients, especially if confidence is low or there are other, perhaps less experienced (although I appreciate that's a generalisation) creatives looking to, or able to, undercut.
I knowingly under-charge some clients, knowing that working for them will, and has, unlocked other doors. Is that fair for those clients to be party to that? Probably not, but rightly or wrongly, in the creative freelance market (in my experience at least) the onus is still very much on the freelancer to walk that line of what it expected or not.
I think you outline the status quo really well. I'm just saying that when brands are clearly making money in a way that relies on essentially exploiting people by the means you describe, its a piss-take and we should call it out as such. Especially when, as many of them are these days, they're making a song and dance about how much they care about diversity and inclusion. The simplest possible way you can back that up with action is to pay people correctly and fairly.
Personally, I've been in the situation you describe over the years. But I made the call to just ask outright for what I believe I should be paid. Interestingly, almost al of them agreed once I asked. The small number that don't, I just won't work with. It was a tough but in the end empowering decision.
Glad to see someone mention .gov. Before the UK government’s Government Digital Service camel along it would never have occurred to me to consider working on government web sites. But there are loads of very creative people doing very good work in an open and transparent way. It’s a great way of learning a lot while, broadly, trying to meet user needs rather than make money for the organisation.
As you say, the pay scales are transparent and the recruitment process is very open and obsessively dedicated to diversity. You do need to crack the language of job titles and job adverts though, which are sometimes different from those in use in the private sector. And you need to learn how the interviews work as part of the process of trying to build in fairness — but there’s plenty of advice about that on line if you search.
Every year in the UK we graduate enough students from the ‘creative’ media courses to replace every single person in ‘creative’ media jobs that already exist. That’s just a fact.
Because of this there is a huge queue of ‘graduates’ behind anyone in a job in the creative industries. I’m sure it’s true that there are some cynical people, who hold the purse strings at some brands, who would seek to exploit this situation.
I do stuff for free, it’s a way to keep interested in what I’m doing. But I make sure that the stuff I do for free is interesting or for the public sector/charity or ideally both.
Don’t let people/brands/companies exploit your work course but perhaps try to discern what the longer term motives are for the brand or client.
Personally I wouldn’t want to be starting out today in the 21st Century as we discussed in our recent interview Matt.
Thanks Wig, great to get your insights. And I think that's really good advice as a way of walking the tightrope, as I think somebody else put it elsewhere in the thread, once you get into the fairly luxurious position myself and you are in of being able to choose whether we make that call
I likely have a bit of double standards here. Let me explain.
In my capacity now I am always aiming to pay the going rate and if a young creative is doing work for us, they should be paid and the 'exposure' thing isn't the way to build a brand especially if you are a for profit entity. If someone works in any capacity they should be paid.
However with that said when it comes to myself I have done a ton of projects, work, given advice, talks without being paid and whilst I probably should have stood up for myself a bit more it also opened many doors for me. That's probably down to not valuing my own work enough or having the confidence to sell it in (all British traits), but yes I am trying to do my piece to set the bar for the next generation in my professional capacity but know I have slipped personally in the past.
Doing burlesque and drag taught me a lot about the value of time and labor because even the stagehands who picked up discarded costume pieces and set up props were paid. On the flipside, I still do panels at comic/anime cons for free and submit poetry to publications that don't pay (although I'm getting more selective because there are venues that do pay). The line between hobby and profession get blurry in creative spaces, but I do think brands, especially ones that are churning, should compensate people. Even if it's a "flow" situation where you give product to an up-and-coming influencer or cosplayer (because only handful of cosplayers ever make money from that), but even then I think that should be a pipeline that leads to monetary compensation if the person wants to stick with the brand versus leaving people in space where they only ever get free product because that's a cop-out too.
Really interesting point on the blurred line between hobby and profession, but again I think this territory is where people can be exploited if they’re not confident and careful to stand up for their own worth.
The fact that this seems to be so prevalent for creatives and not elsewhere is what stands out for me - and it seems to be even more common with brands in outdoor/action sports.
I’ll do work for free for a charity or initiative that isn’t intentionally for profit, and feel strongly that the work for exposure deal is massively bad practise for brands (and makes no sense for creatives). It devalues the work, and sets a precedent that’s really hard to change. I suppose it comes partly from so many creatives being self employed and from this unquantifiable thing that is creative thinking. And nowadays, brands are more likely to benefit from being featured on a creative’s channels than the other way around - and individual athlete or creative social media accounts tend to have much more engagement from their audiences than brands (that personal connection thing).
But there’s always someone wanting to get into filmmaking or photography and wanting the outdoor lifestyle who’ll be prepared to do work for cheap or free to get a foot in the door (and who can blame them - that’s still the way in for lots of sectors like TV & film). As a brand though, would you want to be known as not paying properly for creative work? In the US outdoor brands seem to allocate much bigger budgets to marketing and the creative side - of course a lot of them are bigger companies anyway, but if you want the higher spec film and video that seems to be the norm now, you can’t expect to have that without paying for it. I made the decision a long time ago working as a designer in a small outdoor community, that I wouldn’t have ‘mates rates’ and if I wanted to do something for free it had to be for a good reason. I’m always happy to share information and take part in exchanges that could progress things in the industry (better representation, sustainability practises), but if someone is asking me to do something because of what I know or can do which they can’t, then that has a value. The book Logo design love by David Airey has a great explanation of the value of a logo… it can apply to all areas of creative work.
I couldn’t agree more with this.
The obvious answer to this question is 'no' and I'd argue the question is leading because it says 'pay people correctly' 😉, but I actually think there is a bigger conversation to be had here about transparency. In the outdoor sector there tends to be huge discrepancies between who gets paid and who doesn't, who gets their travel covered and who doesn't. Often the higher your profile the more you can ask for and get, which obviously disadvantages those with smaller followings or less exposure (which also - surprise surprise - tend to be underrepresented groups due to all the systemic bias bleeding through into what opportunities are available on the way up and how they are viewed by the 'mainstream', whether they have had the privilege to work for free to gain exposure etc). What I'd like to see more of is brands and event organisers being upfront - this is what we have in the budget for everyone or this is how we are organising what we pay people if they are paying different fees for what could be viewed the same work. And then that needs to be communicated widely. We get opportunities sent to us through All The Elements and I get the budget (or lack of) from the organisation, then pass to people to make an informed choice. Sometimes if it's local, less work and has good reach or future contacts, it can be worth it. But new people to the scene need to know if the rest of us think its crap pay or a bad deal. I often pass things along with 'you're worth more than this but you might want to do it because of x, y, z'. Transparency and informed choices put the power back in the hands of the creative or contributor. Without that we're all being taken for a ride.
I think that sounds like a brilliant way of managing and helping people understand how to navigate what is obviously a tricky and nuanced scenario. And you’re right, on reflection the way I phrased it was a little leading 🤟
I wonder if there is another perspective here; what the creative can ‘take' from the brand beyond finances and ‘exposure'? Specifically how the creative can use the job to grow and evolve their own practice. It’s definitely not a long term strategy so requires honest reflection and foresight of what you the creative wants long term. When learning a new craft there is only so much you can do with your mates / on your own, at some point you need to step up your practice. In the example of a photographer there are the jobs where you get paid x amount to turn up and document an event/take a portrait etc with very specific direction and I would say this is broadly the ‘exposure conversation’. And then there’s also the type of jobs where the conversion is ‘we have x amount in total for this production’. These are the type of jobs where you can make a choice to be paid correctly and do the job strictly in the parameters set out, or you can use x amount of the budget (and x amount of time within the shoot) to 'try a new technique, try a new lens/lighting set up, hire a DOP versus shooting it yourself etc… specifically to develop your creativity. You choose to take the hit financially in terms of your take home pay, but you ‘take' from the brand a body of work you would have been unable to create without what they have given you. Again, not a long term or multiple job strategy but rather I would say there is a grey perspective as well as a black and white one. Finances are one aspect of what a creative can take; as a creative I think we should be open to seeing what else is in the equation.
Ideally you want both tho, right? As in the chance to develop, and the chance to be paid for your time and expertise? The scenario you outline does depend to a degree on financial independence, right? Without that luxury it’s going to be difficult to work for free however you internally spin the benefits of the opportunity. Which again limits who gets to ‘be’ a creative or work creatively.
Totally want both. Of course. And without doubt brands should pay correctly and fairly. I however don’t want to gauge every decision based on financial metrics. If I did there would be considerable work I’ve loved making that I wouldn’t have made, both commissioned and personal. Whilst being mindful of the finances, I personally need to ask the question, 'is there anything else within this job that brings value to me?’ The driver for that is in my own case I walked away from a nice and reasonably paid 10 year salaried career to find something that would fulfil me. I was burnt out in that job doing the same thing every day, which in my opinion is a dark hole for being creative. I hear the perspective that it’s spinning it internally. Perhaps. In truth, I don’t know if that’s the case.
When you take clients on at ACM, is your sole appraisal on whether to work with the client if pay correctly or are their other factors involved that effect your decision? Ditto with writing gigs.
Yeah good question, and with the various things I do I find myself on different sides of the question. With ACM, we only work with people who pay the right amount for the extremely niche expertise we offer. Especially now we have a fairly big team. It just isn’t possible to run a profitable agency otherwise, and it isn’t fair on our team to ask them to work on accounts that aren’t paying properly. A big part of our early stage chats are about working out of the brands we’re speaking to have a) a realistic budget or b) a clue what a realistic budget is. When it comes to paying staff and contributors, we research the going rate and industry standards and make sure we at least match them.
A big part of the reason I set up Looking Sideways was for the reasons you also outline. I wanted an outlet unencumbered by commercial considerations, and that I could use to explore creative ideas and collaborations. I recognise that this was only possible because I had a certain financial security tho, and because my experience means I could navigate this nuanced conversation in a way I felt happy with. So I’ve turned down countless sources of income to maintain that integrity. But again I recognise that’s a position of privilege. I also pay my rare contributors (for example my editor and intern) the market rate at least. With Owen it’s a little different but we take those cases as and when. If it’s a cash job we work it out depending on the scenario. If not we both essentially work for free but again that’s because we’re essentially choosing to do the work as a hobby because it’s creatively fulfilling. If we are asked to work with brands, we charge our proper rate and if they don’t want to pay it we don’t work with them.
With writing, yeah it’s a bit more like the situation you outline. For endemic mags I take the going rate which in most cases is poor or way below market rate. I choose to do that to support the titles and the culture, and because again I enjoy the work and don’t really need the money. But again I recognise I’m in a privileged position to even make that call.
I guess I’m posing this question to brands and companies like ACM, who are clearly making money. If you’re not paying people, why not? I’d genuinely love to hear the justifications, because I think from the thread and event this exchange, it’s clear that the idea that underpaying creative is normal is widely shared and seemingly accepted as part of the game. Even more reason to talk about it tho. Especially in light of the diversity conversation which all brands are participating in right now. It's a fairly glaring impediment to being a genuinely diverse industry.
My experience of trying to publish in the scientific literature-world (i.e., journals) might be of some relevance here. With independent research (read ‘unpaid’) you either have to find a publication that will take pity an publish without costs or find upwards of £1500-£3000 for the honour of publishing. These papers are then reviewed by other scientists, for free, in order to be considered accurate and worthy. These titles then charge everyone to view them (needed to perpetuate new research. Total racket. I mean it’s not like it changes when you become ‘published’ and it’s not ‘creative’ but it’s an example of a model that exists to benefit the bottom line not the individual. There is pressure for scientists to publish (and be a reviewer) within their work and so the publications continue to benefit. It also drives a bias in findings but that’s a whole other thing.
That’s pretty fascinating. And as somebody that doesn’t work it particularly know that world, the thing that leaps out is with such high costs involved you could, presumably, fairly easily alter that system to enable the periodicals to keep going AND ensure contributors get paid. That’s why I think the debate is often so bogus. Ultimately deciding not to pay people correctly is always a deliberate, conscious decision, however you dress it up. Same with the core magazines in the world I come from. If the only way you can make your thing is by not paying people the going rate, then like I said elsewhere you either have a business model problem or you’re not being transparent and honest.
I’m in this world too. As you say, it’s an absolute racket and we should all be outraged that these companies have become the gatekeepers of who has access to publicly-funded knowledge!! I don’t pay for open access so thank goodness for rights to publish pre-proofs!
In the old days I used to get offered product in place of payments from brands of all sizes for photo work they used or commissioned. Sometimes it was a better deal financially to take the offer but it would mean flogging everything, quite the ball-ache.
Sometimes this appealed, but in the end you’d always end up wearing the clothes they sent or giving them to mates instead and struggling to make ends meet.
It took a long time to get the confidence to bring this up with brands but I managed on occasion to argue my point. I think eventually it was only really addressed once the industry caught up and got it’s shit together. I think historically video guys got it worse to be honest, no one ever wanted to pay for video. I imagine it’s the other way around now but I clocked out about 5 years ago so can’t be sure.
as my good friend once told me (yesterday, after showing him this thread... "future work doesn't pay today's bills"...
so I guess it depends on if you have bills to pay? sure when I was younger, had less overheads, I did work for some brands well under the going rate, to be honest, mainly out of naivety (I just didn't understand the value) some of that work is still in my portfolio today and 100% opened doors for my career. Now, I've got a family to feed and bills to pay, so I have to think about things a bit differently. I still take on the occasional job for nothing or cheap, but I've got to ask a few questions... is it helping friends or people in need?, is it going to benefit me? (creatively or in my career), and will it mean I get to go surfing?
I think my main point can be summarised as 'It shouldn't matter whether you have bills to pay'. The fact we're all so inured to thinking it's normal to underpay younger/less experienced people is, I would suggest, a bit problematic.
true... my friend also said this, which I would be interested to hear your thoughts on... "it's
built on old traditions and by creatives. We let ourselves be exploited for so long, then we start our own agencies and expect others to do what we did. Everyones as bad as each other up top"
Even more reason to have this conversation then, I'd say. As somebody who runs an agency and a media platform, I'm consciously trying not to do this. Like so many things in the world of marketing, just because it's the way things have been done forever, doesn't mean it's the right way to do things.
So your mate runs an agency, consciously undercharges people and then justifies it by saying that's just the way it is and has always been? Sounds like a catch!
he doesn't, he has been on the commissioning side for brands, but is now freelance like me, so the cynicism came after us both being shafted by agencies this year.
Its good to hear your values and ethics, and I agree with you, things shouldn't stay the same. I also think there is a lot of brands out there that could do with sharing similar values in terms of paying freelance creatives fairly and in a sustainable manner. There is a non stop battle in our industry (photography) to be paid fairly from brands, negotiating a fair fee is harder than ever, and this is probably partly due to a queue of younger/less experienced people ready to sell their work for less in return for association with that brand, but also marketing teams willing (or unknowingly) to exploit that.
Wouldn't it be amazing for a brand or agency to be open and say 'we want to support young/new creatives and the industry, so will make sure they are payed fairly. We have set a minimum (fair) fee for content... etc etc '
One of the reasons we set up the DB x LS Fund tbh. But yes of course I totally agree which is one reason why I started this Thread. The number of similar tales people have even on this short thread is so depressing.
I would say this plays a huge roll in my not working as a “creative” in the outdoor industry. If had my share of seasonal jobs, but I’ve now entered the salaried world and I don’t know if I’ll ever leave.
Would I love to go back to the outdoor industry world, yes! But if people don’t get paid or struggle to get paid. That’s not a way to support one’s family.
This seems like just another form of ensuring that the entitled continue to get exposure because the can afford to not get paid. It’s sad because then we get a continuous echo chamber of ideas and content.
I think you put it really well in your final paragraph. I think one of the things I’ve found interesting about this thread is how the majority of even ‘successful’ people commenting seem to have accepted (and even found pretty elaborate ways of justifying) the exploitation as a sad fact of life/rite of passage that’s just part of the game. Which is, of course, also how the people underpaying justify it too.
You just invoked Betteridge’s law. No, it’s disgusting to take advantage of anyone for any type of work. Would you expect a young plumber to fix your toilet for exposure?
He he. Well spotted. As somebody else pointed out, the question is a tad leading and my views are pretty clear. What I’ve found fascinating is how many people who’ve been on the receiving end justify it as just part of the game. Guessing that also doesn’t happen in the plumbing game.
Need some plumbing influencers to get that clout. Bizarrely school’s seem to have proliferated this ideal that you do a silly degree, then you work for free for a year in an “internship” (we used to call that work experience) then you might qualify for a shitty grad scheme. Such a mess
Is this something we could bring up and use ISPO Munich as a launch pad for it ?
I honestly think that as an entry, showing what you can do for free isn't a bad thing. But when management begin to take advantage of that...then we have a problem.
I worked for a brand for a long time who would have a constant revolving door of interns and then when it came to projects, there would always be a push to hit up local universities or to find a fan of the brand as they would work for free.
No one would move from intern to staff and at points you could see they were there not because the help was needed but because it was just free labour.
I got quite awkward as everyone coming through believed they were the first person doing this and a shoe-in for a job.
Short version: Yes. But don't take the mick.
Can you expand a little on why you think asking people at the start of their career to work for free isn’t a bad thing? And what’s your view on the idea that this closes the door for a large section of people without the financial security to enter into it on those terms? Do you think that’s a healthy thing as well?
I do agree that this can close the door on folks without financial security, yes. Although perhaps not everyone - because if you already own a camera or have the tools to paint/draw, etc. then I think certain things are achievable.
I never had the financial security and that was a route I had to take, working other jobs to keep me afloat whilst hoping that something would come from trying to do what really excited me.
As for asking folks at the start - exposure, connections and experience. You've got to get that somewhere, so it is a trade off. And I think can be a fair one. It just isn't most of the time, it seems.
Interesting stuff, thanks for commenting 🙏
No, it’s not. But maybe, another important way to ask this is “Is it ever okay to not be paid for our time and contributions?” Because my answer to that is a definite yes! This question shows that we sometimes (for different reasons) have choices on this - that it can be more complicated. Because I’m in a position to, I’m happy to forego payment for content as a way to support people and projects I believe in or to allow them to pay someone else more. But this is always a decision made with knowledge of a project and the people running it. And I never take this choice if there is some kind of income from advertising involved.
Just realised this is a little convoluted so, to clarify…. I get a salary for my research job, so I am in the position to forego a writing fee when I want to. If a publication has oodles of advertising, I tend not to forego payment because my work is not just associated with the project I’m contributing to, but the advertisers’ brands as well.
It depends. If there’s equipment or some other kind of equity, a kind of future whereby a creative can make an investment for them to gain from their endeavours at some point, why not. It’s a case by case decision. I’ve a 25 year old Santa Cruz powder board that’s still got the original sticker on the Ptex sitting in the office. I swapped a couple photographic usages for this rare snowboard, I liked the swap then and I still do. These days with a lot of big corp work and still shooting our sports shooting on a Red V Raptor, Komodo, Canon C300M3 and an R5C, cinema lenses etc it’s easy me to raise a solid eyebrow when the word ‘free’ enters the conversation! When your sat on your arse with f all work, you’re girlfriends left you and you don’t have enough money for a pint, wondering wtf your going to do with your life and your camera, as I’ve done more than once and someone offers an all in trip to Hawaii, as I’ve done, whose going to turn that down?! I’ve chosen ’free’ wisely, on most occasions! Only when I know it will benefit me in the long run. If it’s a good, kind hearted, cool project I I’m happy to contribute free too as sometimes a project needs to be supported that don’t make sense but deserves a place in our world. I will donate the fee if the project is heartfelt to charity if it’s a passion project too. The minute large corps try ‘free’ on though ye olde eyebrow goes up again sometimes backed up with a few choice words. If they are in the game to make profit, so should the creative, I think after 40 + years in this game it’s a simple equation, if you think it stinks, it probably does.
hey Dave good to hear from you. I think I remember hearing about that Hawaii trip. Hope all is well 🤟
Thanks Matt for the great contribution you give our world. Awesome.
Only if brands give you their product for nothing.
In a competitive industry where people keep their cards quite close to their chest, and where renumeration can vary so much between jobs, it’s difficult to get a grasp on how much your contribution to the world is actually worth. It’s quite a vulnerable position being unsure of yourself, and as creativity is so personal that insecurity can run quite deep. I think that being led to believe it’s fair to work for free can make that even more confusing and daunting. It’s a massive generalisation to say this, but I think there is somewhat of a correlation between creative thinkers and self-doubters. Maybe that’s a contributing factor to why this is so widely accepted as the norm in creative industries.
The bigger issue really, as folks here have already pointed out, is the unlevel playing field it creates. You’ve got to be pretty lucky to have the support to offer your time for free for any sustained period, and what does that do to the variation of stories we see in creative media? – and in turn the inspiration that permeates back out into the world? There is a significant drive to present more inclusive content with stories featuring more diverse people, but if that enough? Surely it’s important for stories to be told BY everyone, not just ABOUT them. Creating a more even point of entry is only going to be a good thing all round. Simply making it easier to get started by always paying young people fairly and equally is one step towards cultivating an organically diverse culture that is more open to everyone.
There is of course value in having a way of getting started. People want to see what you can do. Whether that’s a showreel or portfolio, you need to have something to show for yourself when pitching for a job. You could go out and make a personal project with some friends, but not only do you need the time to make it, but you also need equipment, locations, cast etc. At least with taking on a free project for a brand there is the possibility for a bit of budget to hire a camera, maybe they have athletes you can film and can get you into a place to shoot it. In a lot of ways, it can be the perfect opportunity to walk away with a piece of work for your reel that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford to make. I can probably track back every major ‘break’, or solid relationship I’ve built to some project I did for free early on. I also think that that hustle, and the skillset derived from making an idea work on a shoestring, is quite a formative part of developing as a creative professional. It teaches you to be resourceful.
But going back to the main point, is it fair that the point of entry requires some degree of privilege to entertain? It’s not exactly an issue confined to the creative and outdoor industries. University fees are frickin’ nuts these days!
I’d love to hear anyone’s ideas for how to change that status quo. I guess Matt, your fund with Db is a great example of offering a way in that anyone with a good idea has a chance at. But it’s a narrow field, how we develop a systemic change that allows equal access to creative careers and the outdoors in a meaningful way is a big question.
I think if a brand or agency is going to ask for free labour from young people, they should consider what they can do for that person after that project is finished and deliver on it. I don’t mean hanging a carrot of false promises, but actually have a pathway laid out for promising talent to grow into. Whether that is a paid internship scheme, working on their next campaign or simply taking an active role in helping that person build a meaningful network.
I think it’s ok for projects from time to time to get started before there is sufficient budget to pay those involved. It can be very challenging to get ideas funded before there is something to show. But relying on people to work for free as part of a business model or campaign strategy is just exploitative and is only going to perpetuate disparity and weaken the industry as a whole moving forward.
I think there are some exemptions - the main one being amount of money available.
Most charities literally couldn't exist without free support, as they legally have to be directed by trustees who in turn (mostly) cannot legally be paid! But they exist to make the world a better place without financial profit. David Spurdens said this well with "If they are in the game to make profit, so should the creative".
Another seems to be around on amount of work done where it's generally impractical or not done to pay for quick initial chats or interviews. Then again some like lawyers can be paid from the go so perhaps it doesn't have to be that way.
Sitting a bit in both camps is... podcasts?! Podcasts aren't inherently that different to speaking at an event but it sounds like in the majority guests don't get paid. Would be interesting if you'd mentioned the looking sideways stance on remuneration if discussing event speaker fees. Most don't make much if any money, it's difficult to monetise than physical events so would it be possible to do so I most cases? But shorter planning to be a guest than present and generally reduced travel requirements make it feel less problematic
Thanks Dom! And I'm amazed nobody else asked me this question, ha ha. Blog incoming on just this question....
Late to the party here, so I’ll ask a related question I’ve been pondering - is the Substack model for real / viable, or effectively just a pyramid scheme?
When you turn on subscriptions you mean? You might have to explain a bit more what you mean? Just cos it seems to me to be a fairly simple subscription model. Could be missing something obviously
What I mean is that it sells itself as this internet 2.0 space where creative people can get paid directly and fairly for their work, but really the pool of talent becomes so diluted that few can reach / build an audience - just like socials. Ultimately it’ll only be the top 0.5% that can make it work, and most of them are being paid by Substack to promote it and make it appear to be a brave new world where everyone can earn.
Wait till you find out about NFTs....
This thread is brilliant and thought I'd share my experience of taking advantage of low-paid/free work. As a freelancer of 7 years, I started by filming weddings/theatre shows/cheesy local business videos; there was absolutely no way I thought I’d ever work within skateboarding, although it’s what I’ve lived & breathed since I was 11 years old (now 30). Residing in sunny Blackpool, ‘skateboard jobs’ are, as you can imagine, pretty non-existent.
Up until I took a role at a skatepark in Feb 2020, I’d only ever been paid in hoodies, caps, bearings or stickers for filming anything skateboarding related, not that it was/has ever been about the money, and I was always grateful (just trying to paint a picture). That role at the park was extremely low pay for what I was doing and for where I was at in my career, but at least my expenses were covered, and the role was mostly within my field of interest. I took it as an opportunity to network and meet the right people, which is precisely what happened. There were opportunities from the get-go, some paid, some for free, but it gave me the platform to showcase what I could do as a filmmaker/“content creator”(yuck). Two & a half years later, I’m full-time at Skateboard GB and get to work with many reputable skateboarding brands on a freelance basis. Most importantly, I get to work with incredible skateboarders. I’m so grateful to that skatepark for that opportunity, despite the starting pay (which they did increase over time, legends) because as I say, it was never about the money… my life/work life has now totally changed.
Without taking that low-paid gig at age 28, I would still be filming work I’m not passionate about and paying my bills in bearings.
I mean it can work. It worked for me as well. But I'm not too sure it follows that because it worked for us, there's nothing wrong with the system...
Usually my response when people ask me to work for good exposure : « I’m sorry, I don’t have time to work for free to help you make money right now… »
When I was out of uni, I wrote plenty of stuff for boardsport magazines and websites and also did a double page piece for The Guardian.
The Guardian was the only one that paid but I didn't hold it against the others because most of them were completely enslaved to the brands giving them peanuts which they couldn't share with monkeys like me without starving themselves. I basically ran out of money in between winter seasons but more importantly ran out of stoke working in a bar in the night and writing in the day.
15 years on and the corporate beast is on my back and there's no way I could keep the family afloat by going back into that world. Equally, if I had the time again, I would have loved to have a mentor who could have helped me prolong that period to see if it would have worked.
I saw it as a rite of passage rather than exploitation to be honest and I think it was a lack of experience that made me quit. I was young enough to survive the lack of money but didn't have a well trodden path that made me realise it might all work out in the end.
Thanks Dom! I do find it fascinating how many people who've kinda been spat out by the way things are defend it as a rite of passage.
Well there is that but the other option is to moan about it... which isn't going to get me anywhere and isn't exclusive to me so I thought I'd spare people the violins ;-)
Also, having ran 3 of my own businesses, I'm not sure it's any different anywhere else. One brilliant investor in my only averagely-successful business said that start-ups are a rich boy's game... and I think trying to muscle into an industry is exactly the same scenario. It just takes a long time to get good, know what people want and know who and how to ask for it.
Ultimately, money often helps people get further in life. Sheer bloody-mindedness AKA a willingness to survive on baked beans longer than anyone else is just another currency?
Interesting you see it as a binary choice: 'moan about it/bring out the violins' or 'accept it as rite of passage'. I mean, plenty of people on this thread seem to agree with you.
I'm just mildly suggesting that there might be an easily attainable middle ground: that paying people fairly, whatever stage of their career they're at, might be a good idea. Especially if you're serious about this diversity thing that everybody is banging on about.
Also, having run businesses of my own, and indeed run this platform, I do think it's a choice. Looking Sideways makes fook all money tbh, but when I work with people I make sure to pay them properly because I want to help people who were in your position a) get a proper start and b) understand their value. Does that make me a mug?
Again, I also find it completely fascinating that not one person on the other end of the transaction has come on here (somebody running a magazine, say or an event) and said 'I do underpay people, but it's a conscious decision because I believe in survival of the fittest and I think it's a useful rite of passage'.
Wonder why that is?
It doesn't make you a mug but I would hope it delivers value to you in return in the long run. Also, Looking Sideways doesn't make £££ but maybe the hours you put in gets you stuff off the back of it that does pay? Would All Conditions Media be the same without it?
I remember talking to a guy called Mark who ran a small boardsports magazine in the noughties (won't name it here but you probably know him I would guess) who I chatted to at length a few times. He worked directly with brands with a great little product and couldn't make ends meet. Unless he was lying to me which I don't think he was, my heart went out to him cos it seemed like he was dying inside.
I'm guessing the various boardsports brands' success is ultimately the winner in all of this which either makes us dumb as consumers of the lifestyle or shows what a ruthless streak and/or brilliant marketing prowess they have.