| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Unbelievable!!!! |
Topic: Unbelievable!!!!
| Author | Message |
| ConfidentDesigner | Posted – 10/25/2007 1:38:18 PM | show profile Check this out from today's MB job board: The Washington Monthly, a small nonprofit political/cultural magazine based in D.C. and published ten times a year, is looking for an onsite art director/designer. The job will involve producing the magazine on a five-week cycle, including photo and art research; laying out text, art, and ads in InDesign; cover design; setting book size; uploading files to the printer; and readying articles and other material to go online. In addition to magazine-related responsibilities, the art director will work with the business staff to design materials for subscription mailings, house ads, marketing, and PR efforts. Experience with magazine design is a must, as is proficiency in Adobe Creative Suite applications (InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and Acrobat). Applicant must be creative and flexible, and work cheerfully and quickly under pressure. This position will pay $25,000 plus full health benefits. The successful candidate will enjoy a dynamic environment, working with a staff of highly motivated journalists. Office easily accessible by Metro. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 10/25/2007 1:47:11 PM | show profile That's insane, especially since they even say magazine experience a necessity. That's an at least 2-person design staff plus a production person, marketing freelancer and even some possibly editorial duties rolled into one job. |
| ConfidentDesigner | Posted – 10/25/2007 1:49:30 PM | show profile I'm thinking it's gotta be a misprint! I wonder if they meant to say $75K. |
| paulie_c | Posted – 10/25/2007 2:25:35 PM | show profile | email poster Unfortunetly, I can imagine that being the case. I just left a "magazine" that was very simlar to that set-up... a 3 person production/editorial department that handled EVERYTHING for an absolutely ridiculous salary. |
| ConfidentDesigner | Posted – 10/25/2007 2:28:11 PM | show profile how the hell do they expect to get a quality professional with experience for that? come on...it's GOT to be a misprint! |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 10/25/2007 2:32:59 PM | show profile I doubt too it's a misprint. SOme places try to get away with way too little for salaries these days. And it's not just design, it's editorial too, remember. For a local mag, they're definitely not going to pay $75K for such a position, but I would have thought at the VERY least $45, and even that seems low. |
| catlondon | Posted – 10/25/2007 3:17:12 PM | show profile The thing to know about DC is that it is awash in nonprofits that pay almost no money. It's also awash in smart, talented, competent young people who come here to work for NGOs. A lot of them are from well-to-do families (upper middle class etc) and are willing to (and want to) live in a group house with six other people in a marginal neighborhood. A lot will have graduate degrees. I have worked for nonprofits in DC and we had no trouble attracting great candidates for very little money. It's a competitive market. Many small nonprofits are staffed mostly by people under 30 who are committed to the issue and advocacy. We had four or five returned Peace Corp volunteers at the last small NGO I worked for. That's the mentality--doing good over money. The Hill pays atrocious salaries, too, and it also is full of young 20-somethings. These jobs are a good foot in the door to something bigger and better--like a lobbying firm, law firm, or partisan PR firm, where you can make a ton of money. However, it's also important to note that the Washington Monthly job is parttime freelance, not staff. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/25/2007 3:17:17 PM | show profile At least they're up-front about the salary and post it right in the ad. Most places don't do that -- they either make you say your requirements up-front or make you to through the whole interview rigmarole before springing the bad news about pay. It that's all this company can afford to pay (or wants to pay), they'll learn the hard way about the kind of employee they can get. And now you know to avoid them! |
| catlondon | Posted – 10/25/2007 3:17:19 PM | show profile The thing to know about DC is that it is awash in nonprofits that pay almost no money. It's also awash in smart, talented, competent young people who come here to work for NGOs. A lot of them are from well-to-do families (upper middle class etc) and are willing to (and want to) live in a group house with six other people in a marginal neighborhood. A lot will have graduate degrees. I have worked for nonprofits in DC and we had no trouble attracting great candidates for very little money. It's a competitive market. Many small nonprofits are staffed mostly by people under 30 who are committed to the issue and advocacy. We had four or five returned Peace Corp volunteers at the last small NGO I worked for. That's the mentality--doing good over money. The Hill pays atrocious salaries, too, and it also is full of young 20-somethings. These jobs are a good foot in the door to something bigger and better--like a lobbying firm, law firm, or partisan PR firm, where you can make a ton of money. However, it's also important to note that the Washington Monthly job is parttime freelance, not staff. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 10/25/2007 3:29:26 PM | show profile How in the world could that job be part-time? I also doubt it's freelance because it says full health benefits. It's still a sad salary for that much work, no matter how you label it. |
| catlondon | Posted – 10/25/2007 3:38:15 PM | show profile On the Washington Monthly web site it's says it's freelance. |
| cabaraba | Posted – 10/25/2007 3:59:29 PM | show profile the root of the problem The root of the problem is that people accept these job offers! Just to be associated with a company...or to get their foot-in-the-door... It's really ridiculous and sad. Companies are pulling these kind of salaries off because they can. I hate this trend... |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 10/25/2007 4:01:29 PM | show profile THe way they word it here and the way they word it on their site makes it sound like two different jobs. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/25/2007 8:40:16 PM | show profile Hasn't anyone here ever reported from Washington? The Washington Monthly is a legendary institution, known for two things. The first is its stellar alumni, who spend two years there at the beginning of their careers before "graduating" into directly into top-flight jobs. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter and Jon Meacham began their careers there, as did the New Yorker's Katherine Boo, the Washington Post's David Ignatius, the Atlantic's James Bennet and Josh Green, the New Republic's Michelle Cottle, the New York Times' Nick Confessore, and many, many, MANY more.... It is, for the money, the most well-written political magazine out there; last won a National Magazine Award for Public Service Journalism maybe two or three years ago. And it is, at heart, a purely idealistic enterprise. As a result... The second thing it's known for is the low pay. The Monthly has NEVER been designed to make a profit, and has always hovered just this side of bankruptcy. The legendary founding editor, Charlie Peters, kept it going on paper clips and shoestring for about four decades, but only by running it "like the Peace Corps" -- i.e., paying slave wages to idealistic young Ivy League grads looking to "give something back." Including slave wages TO HIMSELF (he never made more than 10-12K a year. Even in the 1990s!). The current EiC makes a decent living wage -- you can see it on GuideStar -- and the fairly new non-profit status helps *a bit*... but the recent postal rate increase for small mags may well bankrupt it. Nobody else who has ever worked for the Monthly in its entire history has EVER made a living wage. EVER. They do it as a labor of love, because of its mission... and because it gets read by all the top editors in Washington (and many in New York -- David Remnick recently recruited one of the 20-something young writers there do a feature for the New Yorker, based on the reporting he did for WM). They also do it because being attached to the magazine gives them access to the most prestigious alumni network in all of journalism.... there's practically a conveyor belt from there directly to the Washington Post, and to the NYT 8-i (intermediate reporter) program. I'd imagine that goes for the design folks as well -- you put in a year or two in the "Peace Corps", and afterwards, the world is your oyster... Anyway, just a bit of perspective. Yes, in general this sort of thing sucks... but the Monthly really is a unique case -- a very well-known unique case. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/25/2007 11:00:02 PM | show profile (and no, I don't work for them. I do know some folks who do... it's a struggle, but they think it's a worthwhile investment.) |
| ConfidentDesigner | Posted – 10/25/2007 11:19:55 PM | show profile I don't care if they invented the cure for war, cancer, OR global warming...NOT ACCEPTABLE! Period. End of story. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 10/25/2007 11:40:18 PM | show profile It seems that jobs like this are only meant for the independently wealthy. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/26/2007 8:54:14 AM | show profile Sigh. Let me spell it out for you: 1) They're not trying to cut costs for profit; they operate at a severe deficit every year. The only alternative is no magazine at all. 2) They still provide health benefits, and give employees as much time as they need to frelance for extra pay. Do I need to remind you how rare that is? 3) In the meantime, you're winning the top awards in journalism for a quality product. 4) MOST IMPORTANTLY: What they lack in (short-term) financial benefits, they more than make up for within months with immediate post-mag financial and career benefits, the likes of which are literally unparalleled in American journalism. it MORE than balances out. Seriously, how long have you been in journalism that you've never heard of this place? You work there in your 20s (when most of us get paid crap anyway). Then the moment you leave, you start raking in money and career benefits beyond anything you could hope for without it. Take the last three young staffers to "graduate" from the magazine. They had maybe five years of reporting experience between the three of them them when they started. Stayed just two years each. 1) One of them went straight to major freelance gigs with Rolling Stone, the New Yorker, and the New York Times Magazine 2) One of them immediately became a staff reporter with the New York Times. Has already been promoted twice in two years 3) One of them immediately became national affairs editor for Time magazine. (!!!) I'm usually the first person to gripe about employers looking to screw people over on pay. But this is a unique journalism institution that takes care of its alumni FOR LIFE, and makes sure they hit the career/financial jackpot after just a year or two of dues-paying. What other job in the industry guarantees that? Any other employer, your gripe would be valid. Here, you are so far off-base, I'm kind of wondering how you don't know about the Monthly "system." Are you from out West? In trade mags maybe? How have you never heard about this? |
| catlondon | Posted – 10/26/2007 9:55:42 AM | show profile It's actually a subject of much discussion in the NGO world--the low pay does limit the employment opportunities of people from lower economic backgrounds no matter how passionate they are about the issue or how intelligent or talented they are. Of course, part of that (and I'm not talking about the Washington Monthly) is donor desire that as little money as possible go to overhead and administrative costs, and lower salaries help that out. People who think nothing of spend $50,000 on an SUV have a fit if a non-profit employee makes $50,000 in a year. As for the Washington Monthly, Writes just reiterates what I said--much like working on the Hill, the Monthly is entry-level job that you work for a few years while living in a group house in Columbia Heights (although not for much longer, given what's happened to that neighborhood) and then you've got the experience and the contacts to land something really exceptional. And yes, many of these young people come from certain schools (Stanford, Harvard, Chicago, Williams, Princeton, to name a few) and were born into a fair amount of privilege--which helps them get into those schools, that leads to those jobs. It's a stacked deck. |
| astrahook | Posted – 10/26/2007 10:37:00 AM | show profile free market..I'll bet they got a ton of responses and will make a hire at that salary within no time, and a "qualified one" at that |
| westsidestory | Posted – 10/26/2007 11:02:36 AM | show profile believable Working at Washington Monthly in DC is the equivalent of working at a fashion publication in Manhattan - it's a stepping stone, no matter what part of the mag industry you're in. The ad you've quoted is aimed towards a just-out-of-school kid who took the required software classes recently and whose "magazine experience" includes a college internship. It's not aimed at experienced designers. |
| catlondon | Posted – 10/26/2007 11:07:08 AM | show profile They will find a qualified one. For the most part, these young people are smart and hardworking and not at all spoiled. But they do have advantages and a lot of that is just being brought up knowing the right people. It's an interesting trend though--the increasing elitism of the work place. Google often says in its job ads that they want someone from a "top flight" university. The former president of Harvard said that the dimmest rich kid had an almost 100% chance of getting into a top university while the smartest poor kid had a very small chance. Warren Buffet calls it "winning the ovarian lottery." In a country that talks about diversity, no one talks about the fact that our institutions are increasingly being run by people who know the same people come from the same types of places and go to the same schools where they are taught the same theories and philosophies, by the same professors who also went to the same schools etc. |
| ConfidentDesigner | Posted – 10/26/2007 11:28:28 AM | show profile JustWakeMe: I am a professional ART DIRECTOR (not a hoity-toity journalist) living/working in California. Your tone is so condescending, it's ridiculous. I don't give a damn if this publication is a ticket to eventual "stardom" (I question that as well) for a journalist. The same attitutde doesn't hold true for a magazine art director. No, I'm not isnide the beltway (nor do I want to be) and have no idea what this magazine is about. The average art director doesn't know what the hell it is either. Having that mag. on one's resume doesn't mean anything more than that...it's just another monthly magazine. Now, if being the art director of Wired or Fast Company or National Geographic or some other commonly recognizable pub. was on the CV, those would be quite the feather in one's cap. But we STILL wouldn't do the job for the non-living wage of $25K. My point is: They are looking for an experienced art director with loads of experience. They can expect to pay closer to, at the very least, $50K. And that doesn't go far in DC. Well, unless you're a trustafarian, that is. Oh, and to ask that the AD work "cheerfully"? for $25K? Right! |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/26/2007 11:39:40 AM | show profile i agree -- in our capitalist system, it's supply and demand. If they can find someone who can provide the service they need at that pay, that's what they'll pay. If they can't, they'll be forced to either raise the salary or re-think the product they're offering. The good thing is: They're upfront about it, so if it the job/pay doesn't meet your needs, you don't have to apply. I think the real issue here is the broader one that many of us are working in professions that used to operate a certain way and pay a certain amount, but things in the media industry have changed a lot because of various factors that seem out of our control, and that can be frustrating, scary and demoralizing. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 10/26/2007 11:50:15 AM | show profile Well, from the Washington Monthly's viewpoint, they don't need to meet the career goals and salary needs of 99.99% of the designers in the United States. They only need to find one person who believes in the magazine and what it does and can afford to accept the salary. Because of their unique situation and history, they will. But I agree it's tough times for art directors. I had the head of a marketing company recently tell me he considered writing services to a competitive differentiator for him while design services are more or less a commodity. --ustWakeMe: I am a professional ART DIRECTOR (not a hoity-toity journalist) living/working in California. Your tone is so condescending, it's ridiculous. I don't give a damn if this publication is a ticket to eventual "stardom" (I question that as well) for a journalist. The same attitutde doesn't hold true for a magazine art director. No, I'm not isnide the beltway (nor do I want to be) and have no idea what this magazine is about. The average art director doesn't know what the hell it is either. Having that mag. on one's resume doesn't mean anything more than that...it's just another monthly magazine. Now, if being the art director of Wired or Fast Company or National Geographic or some other commonly recognizable pub. was on the CV, those would be quite the feather in one's cap. But we STILL wouldn't do the job for the non-living wage of $25K. My point is: They are looking for an experienced art director with loads of experience. They can expect to pay closer to, at the very least, $50K. And that doesn't go far in DC. Well, unless you're a trustafarian, that is. Oh, and to ask that the AD work "cheerfully"? for $25K? Right!-- |
