Art PACT: Paying freelancers in exposure

[Morrus]

So, @Klaus put me onto this a while back. I recently spotted someone asking for freelancers to work in exchange for exposure with nebulous promises that working for free for them might lead to a job in the industry - something I honestly thought folks had stopped doing 10 years ago, but I'm not a freelancer and don't do it myself [I'll admit that I did it over a decade ago back when ENP was Natural 20 Press and we produced our ezines, but I hope I've learned since), so I guess I should have been paying more attention. Anyway, it reminded me of Art PACT, which was an organization Kickstarted a while back and dedicated to getting fair pay for artists.

It's not just artists, of course. Writers, editors, graphic designers - they all get asked to work for exposure.

Over the last decade, I've felt that there has been a lot of movement to increase perception of why this is a bad thing. That's why it surprises me to see it in 2013; it feels to me like I'm seeing an anachronism from years past.

I myself always work to pay artists, writers, etc. a fair amount. I like to think that's why folks like Claudio Pozas are always willing to work for ENP, and I also feel that a healthy relationship like that leads to better results. To be fair, I'm far from perfect; over the years there have been times when I've been late in paying freelancers, sometimes inexcusably late.

Anyhow. I'm interested in the thoughts of freelancers and of publishers. Not just art (Art PACT is just a visible example), but all RPG freelancing. If you're a freelancer, have you done work for exposure recently? If you're a publisher have you commissioned work for exposure? What do you think of the practice?

To be clear: I myself am fully against paying in exposure and believe I'm morally obligated to pay freelancers a fair rate. I *hope* that freelancers who have worked for me feel that that is the case.

So this Art PACT idea seems a good one to me (though I feel there should be something similar for writers, editors, etc.). The only minor reservation I have is that they plan to have an anonymous rating system for companies; and we all know that even amongst the wonderful folk that make up the artist community there are unethical people who screw publishers over with poor, late, or non-existent work (it's happened to me a good couple of dozen times over the last 10 years), and who might use such a tool for the wrong reasons if the publisher hurts their feelings in response. I'd much rather that not be anonymous so that an artist with a personal vendetta can't harm a publisher without good reason - they should be accountable. But that's just a minor aside, it's a tiny percentage of freelancers and not typical behaviour in the slightest, and I'm sure it won't cause a problem.

 

[Janx]

I am against free internships and against "exposure" as pay as they generally result in free labor with little payoff off for the worker.

In the tech industry, we pay interns $15-20/hour for their existing skills that are of use to us (even a high school nerd has experience fixing a computer/using one). We pay so little compared to the full time staff because we are teaching them stuff while they perform actual work for us.


Industries like journalism don't pay for internships. Those people have to drive around town to interview people on their own dime, work late on election nights, etc. And they don't get anything to pay them to live.

While there's always been the stereotype of the starving artist, it costs money for supplies, and the artist needs food to eat and a place to sleep while they create (and in between creations). They inherently need to be paid then if we want art made out of quality materials instead of another garbage statue made by a smelly homeless person.

 

[billd91]

Free work for exposure is the role of an art or job fair in which artists can bring their own work and show it off, hopefully drumming up some business in the process. But then, of course, they're really working for themselves. Asking someone to work for you for free should be regarded for what it is - exploitation.

 

[delericho]

It's a tricky question.

I don't think it's inherently wrong for a business to offer "payment by exposure". The freelancers involved can then weigh up whether it's worth their while to agree to that, or whether to tell the business to get stuffed.

Of course, it's also worth noting that "payment by exposure" only works if the product is going to see sufficient exposure, which means that it's probably a really bad deal unless you're doing the work for a 'big' company - a 'small' company isn't actually in a position to really offer exposure anyway. And I'm not sure that there are any RPG companies big enough to make it worthwhile. So, probably best to stay away.

One other thing: in general, if you're serious about being in a business, you should really be operating in a businesslike manner. And, to me at least, that suggests that freelancers should get paid. If you find yourself offering "payment by exposure", or similar gimmicks, then maybe it's time to rethink whether you want to be in the business? (And if you really can't pay freelancers, there is always another option - instead of hiring a freelancer, bring someone with the requisite skills into the fold, complete with a share of the profits.)

(So: yes, you can offer "payment by exposure", but you probably shouldn't. And freelancers faced with that sort of an agreement should probably not accept.)

 

[Morrus]

I don't think it's inherently wrong for a business to offer "payment by exposure". The freelancers involved can then weigh up whether it's worth their while to agree to that, or whether to tell the business to get stuffed.

A problem lies there, in that the freelancer usually isn't in a position to make that determination. And the exposure would have to be pretty darn wonderful (i.e. not 7000 downloads of a free ezine). That's kinda what things like Art PACT are trying to do: inform and educate artists so they can detect when they're being fleeced and when they're not, and can feel confident to stand up for themselves. Besides do ANY art directors read free ezines to find artists? I don't! I also - and this may be my bias showing - don't like to use artists who are too cheap; not for their benefit, but because I kinda feel I'll get what I pay for.

I think I'm of the opinion that if you can't afford freelancers, you can't afford freelancers. I can't afford plenty of things: so I don't have them.

 

[delericho]

A problem lies there, in that the freelancer usually isn't in a position to make that determination. And the exposure would have to be pretty darn wonderful...

Indeed. I said as much in the rest of my post.

Basically, I was put in mind of Marvel's handling of the contracts for Chris Hemsworth or Chris Evans, where they've signed previously-obscure actors in relatively high-profile roles. Marvel were able to get them for a relatively small fee because taking the role meant that their profiles have increased dramatically.

And yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy, since Marvel were offering "exposure" in addition to a relatively small fee. But the principle is much the same - trading "money" away for "exposure". For the right project, then, a person could consider giving up any money in return for enough exposure.

But, as you said, and as I also said in my previous post, it would depend on the exposure being good enough. And I'm not convinced there are any RPG companies big enough for it to be worthwhile. WotC is a possible exception, since they can offer exposure to other departments within Hasbro... but that's a moot point, since they pay their freelancers anyway.

 

[kitsune9]

I don't think the economics of our society can beneficially provide pay for exposure anymore. It's just far too expensive to have internships or similar positions exist.

 

[Morrus]

And yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy, since Marvel were offering "exposure" in addition to a relatively small fee.

Yeah; plus that relatively small fee was undoubtedly still a decent living wage at a minimum. That makes a difference.

 

[delericho]

Yeah; plus that relatively small fee was undoubtedly still a decent living wage at a minimum. That makes a difference.

That's true, and an important point. But, realistically, almost nobody can make a living in the RPG business (and I'm aware that you're one of those few!). It's almost always going to be a sideline done in addition to something else. That makes it slightly, but only slightly, less essential that it must in all cases pay the bills.

There are various reasons a person might do work unpaid: they might be seeking work experience to pad a CV. They might want to hone their skills in a "real-world" task. They might be doing an unpaid internship in order to meet contacts they'll need later. It might be a labour of love, or charity work, or similar. Provided the reason is enough for the person doing the work, I don't consider any of those to be inherently problematic. Sure, they can be, absolutely, but there's a step from that to saying that they must be.

Would I take on a job working for 'exposure'? No, almost certainly not.

Would I recommend someone else do so? Again, almost certainly not.

But do I automatically assume that a company offering such work on that basis is doing something wrong or unethical? No. It raises an eyebrow, but it's not enough by itself for me to take that step.

YMMV, of course. In particular, when it comes to the RPG industry, such as it is, I'm happy to bow to your experience of such things.

 

[billd91]

Basically, I was put in mind of Marvel's handling of the contracts for Chris Hemsworth or Chris Evans, where they've signed previously-obscure actors in relatively high-profile roles. Marvel were able to get them for a relatively small fee because taking the role meant that their profiles have increased dramatically.

I'd say they were mainly able to get them for a relatively small fee because the actors had relatively little market value at the time they were contracted into the roles. Their profiles may have increased dramatically, sure, and that probably figured into the actors being willing to sign onto a blockbuster that will probably see some pretty good profit since their fortunes will rise. However, the movies could have tanked like John Carter did. What did the exposure of that movie do for Taylor Kitsch? Maybe too soon to tell, but it doesn't seem to have helped. I won't even get into the exposure Ryan Reynolds manages to get yet can't seem to get into a decent film...