| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: They want me on spec NOW??? |
Topic: They want me on spec NOW???
| Author | Message |
| megmuck | Posted – 4/1/2008 2:39:56 PM | show profile Silly me. I responded to a Craigslist ad for a freelance food critic, and included a couple of excerpts from pieces I'd written for my city's biggest newspaper. I had a string of cover articles for the Thursday entertainment section over two years until the paper discontinued that section last year. Boo hoo! My dear, kind editor moved over to another part of the paper which deals with topics I know nothing about. So, in response to my Craigslist application, I got an e-mail today from an assistant editor AT THE SAME PAPER which reads in part: "I'd be happy to hear your pitches. Because you're new to the section, I'd want to do the first one on spec. After that, if all goes well, I'd send out a contract each time we agree on an idea." What do I do? Suck it up and write on spec? Gently remind this assistant editor that I've already published in the newspaper repeatedly, and this whole thing seems a little weird? What is going on here? thank you, m. |
| recovering_jersey_girl | Posted – 4/1/2008 2:54:01 PM | show profile My gut is that this new ed. just didn't recognize your name. I'd write back with something along the lines of, "Small world! I didn't realize XYZ newspaper was the poster of this ad. I've actually written extensively for them in this capacity; here are a few of my clips (if you can provide links, that's ideal here). I really enjoyed my projects for XYZ in the past; I always had great experiences with DearKindEditor and I'm looking forward to the prospect of working with you in the future." I'm assuming this new ed. just didn't notice that you worked with them in the past. Also, if you get your old ed's name in there, the newbie can reach out to them if they desire. |
| Homer | Posted – 4/1/2008 2:58:24 PM | show profile Could today's date have anything to do with this? Perhaps your old editor there is a bit of a prankster? |
| Canadiana | Posted – 4/1/2008 3:55:41 PM | show profile I'll preface this by saying that I've had some good luck with Craig's List and writing gigs. However, I've been talking to some friends (and strangers on CL) and I know there are "editors" who want to take advantage of writers. I myself applied to be a blogger for, what was listed as, a very well-paying and interesting gig. The woman did reply to me and wanted three NEW blog articles on very specific subjects. I did it -- and then never heard from her again. A few months later, I see a similar post on CL looking for a blogger on a similar topic. A few people start replying to that post and we deduce that, yes, this is the same company trying to scam writers by asking for new work and then not actually hiring anyone. Soooo...to make a long story short, I would not do it on spec. It makes no sense since you're an established writer with clips to prove it! |
| Canadiana | Posted – 4/1/2008 3:57:35 PM | show profile Oh, crap. I just read your post again and it's a bit different than I originally thought: you do know the editor. Sorry 'bout that. In any case, I wanted to warn peeps here about the CL blogging scams that seem to pop up now and again. |
| bones | Posted – 4/5/2008 8:57:34 AM | show profile no way If you're an established writer, with good clips, there's no reason you should agree to write on spec. And you probably don't want to work for the editor/organization who asks you to. (Remember, contracts usually give the company the opp to kill your piece for, say, 25 percent of the total fee. So that's all they're risking if you turn in a serious piece, revise it based on their notes, and they still don't want to run it. If they're not willing to take that risk, they're not worth writing for.) The exception to the rule, though, is if a writer is very new with few clips to show. Then you might have to do a few spec pieces--maybe. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 4/5/2008 11:42:08 AM | show profile Never write on spec. Ever. I don't even agree with the folks who say to do so if you're brand spankin' new to the world of writing. If you need clips, and you didn't belong to your college newspaper (those clips count!), volunteer your services for a good cause, a coffee house newsletter, the Rotarian, whatever. But I would never, ever, ever in a million bazillion years accept an assignment on spec. First, someone, somewhere, will pay for it, even if it's a tiny little publication with a low, low rate. The point is to become a *paid* writer. Second, once you write on spec, it tells them you're desperate, and they will use that to chew you down to a lower rate when it's time to set up contracts--if they ever do that at all. Sage words of advice given to me a long time ago that still hold true today. Just saying. |
| InsomniacNOT | Posted – 4/5/2008 1:12:25 PM | show profile I wrote on spec in my mid-thirties when I already had 10 years of pro experience and lots of clips. It was for a major newspaper and it was spec or nothing. My article was published and we forged a working relationship that lasted many years and opened many doors for me. I recount this tale not to say yo should write on spec. The point is each case is different and needs to be examined on its own merits. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 4/5/2008 3:00:27 PM | show profile I would just write it. A writing gig is nothing to sneeze at these days--and it's going to get worser and worser this year. |
| flight risk | Posted – 4/6/2008 3:14:10 AM | show profile Writing on spec isn't an ideal situation. But don't discount it. I got my start writing on spec. I had no clips years ago but was good enough to catch the attention of an editor at a major metro daily with a pitch. I've since done dozens of pieces for that paper, and those clips got me into dozens of other pubs. I doubt I could have gotten as much mileage volunteering to do newsletter work for the Rotary Club. I say remind the editor that you've worked for them and if he/she still insists on spec, why not do it? You're already familiar with what they want so it's mostly a formality to reestablishing yourself with them. Newspapers may not pay the best, but they have a lot of space to fill, are fairly easy to work with (at least the editors I work with) and they pay quickly. How many national magazines pay in two weeks? Outside magazine averages net 90. |
| snappiness | Posted – 4/6/2008 11:36:35 AM | show profile Well, I guess one question to consider is how much work do you have? Personally, I have too many paying assignments to take anything on spec, so I would tell the editor something like, "I'm really sorry, but I don't work on spec, I'm just too busy. You can see my clips and talk with Editor X about my work, and I hope we can work together." But if you don't have the work and you think this can lead to work you do want to take, then I guess I'd consider it. But I would have a conversation up front like "I don't usually work on spec, and I just wanted to make sure you've seen my clips etc. I would only take a spec job if I felt it was going to lead to a solid long-term relationship, are we on the same page there?" |
| seeattleme | Posted – 4/6/2008 3:27:42 PM | show profile No editor is going to guarantee a "long-term" relationship with you regardless of anything. If you're insulted to work on spec, then don't. It'll show in your work. But I don't think this is the time to get picky with editors. JUst because one editor at a publication works well with you doesn't mean another will, and more editors are requiring spec assignments so that their publications--which are hurting financially--don't have to pay for work that doesn't work. That and/or the editor is new and this is simply how he/she works. If you waon't do the work on spec, she'll /he'll no doubt have notrouble finding someone else who will. And you've poisoned a relationship with an editor. Possibly permanently. |
| irishloop | Posted – 4/6/2008 6:06:15 PM | show profile Oh, goodness. No, of course you shouldn't write on spec for this editor, unless you're really hard up and eager to pursue the position. I would provide my previous clips for the paper and leave it at that (no need to point out that his response seems weird). A good editor will want to work with writers who respect their own work. |
| irishloop | Posted – 4/6/2008 6:23:48 PM | show profile Actually, i think Snappiness's advice is good. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 4/7/2008 2:40:37 AM | show profile If this is a NYC editor, he/she may know other editors, may move around, and word will get around that you "don't work on spec". Which is fine if you don't. But some (more and more NYC) editors now require the first piece you do for them be done on spec. Period. It's just the rules of their game. They don't have the kill fees to throw around anymore. First time you work with them, it's on spec, so they see not only how you handle an assignment, but how you handle revision requests, factchecking requests, rewrite requests, and payment negotiations, etc. It's a getting-to-know-you/getting-to-know-me unwritten rule of the game (one of many). I too just did a big piece on spec and have been assured future writing assignments--on spec despite clips in many national pubs, including The New York Times and the L.A. Times. It's not a smart time to be haughty and proud if you write for print media. Refusing work as a writer, I'm sorry, isn't very smart. In the eighties and nineties, when print was thriving, it was prfessionally astute to play hardball. Print is in trouble. Take what work you can get and get your name out there as much as you can. Hopefully an editor you work with will take your name on his/her short list when he/she (inevitably) moves on(line) to Slate, Salon, or Yahoo. |
| Decorama | Posted – 4/7/2008 8:15:58 AM | show profile Counterintuitive I've actually OFFERED to do first pieces on spec. Never been taken up on it. The editors were probably too embarrassed, so any assignments have always been paid. So it can work as a counterintuitive strategy. |
| snappiness | Posted – 4/7/2008 10:09:22 AM | show profile not refusing work? I have to respectfully disagree about not refusing work. I pay close attention to my profit margin and some work is just not profitable. If I wanted to, I could work my butt off with stuff that didn't really pay. Instead, I work my butt off with stuff that does pay because I'm careful about what I choose. And I've found that when you say "no" politely for clear and sensible reasons, editors often respect that and come back with better offers. Saying yes to crap work seems to just lead to more crap work, I have found. Saying yes to good work sets the bar where you want it to be. |
| joyeuxnoelle | Posted – 4/7/2008 12:24:06 PM | show profile about getting on the same page I want to go back to what snappiness said the other day about having a talk with the editor and ensuring you're on the same page. Some editors will say 'uh, huh ok, sure' to get the work flowing. I just had an experience where I accepted less than my normal rate in the spirit of developing what I hoped would be a relationship with the pub that would lead to more regular work. The editor enthusiastically agreed to this idea. Even as I prepared to submit the piece a few weeks ago, I mentioned that I had another idea to pitch. The editor said he was all ears. Then, a few days after submitted the final work and I pitch, the editor says he's happy with my work but suddenly isn't "authorized" to assign anymore work. I say this to exemplify that a guarantee from an editor doesn't mean much. Also, what happens when your piece is good, but other factors prevent the editor from taking it. I was once asked to write a piece on spec at a national magazine I really wanted to break in at. At first, the thing that made me wary was the fact that my piece would not appear until a year later. I just felt that too many things could happen in a year that could endanger my piece that could have nothing to do with the quality of my work. The story was contingent on somewhere I was planning to go in a few weeks. When I got there I, like many on this board, decided not to be "haughty" and take the work. I wrote back with a few thoughts on shaping the piece. The editor responded that changes at the magazine meant they could no longer take the piece because the section it was for had been drastically changed. Several weeks after that, the editor was no longer at the magazine. I say all this to point out that writing on spec really means you have a 50-50 (if that) shot of getting your piece accepted. If you really feel confident that your clips are strong, then I would think long and hard about writing on spec. Good Luck. |
| flight risk | Posted – 4/7/2008 2:58:22 PM | show profile Why 50/50? Megmuck isn't flipping a coin. She's written for them before so know what they want. And the story is something they're interested in. |
| candylilacs | Posted – 4/7/2008 9:52:19 PM | show profile Honestly, there's a chance she just wrote that as form email to others (and you.) I would call her and tell her that you wrote for the paper previously and ask her to lunch/coffee to discuss the job. Can't hurt and in-person makes things a lot clearer. If she takes a rain-check, just be charming on the phone and say you will send her a few copies of your old reviews you wrote (TWO MONTHS AGO!) Good luck. c. ------ http://www.mswritesguide.blogspot.com |
| seeattleme | Posted – 4/8/2008 12:37:01 PM | show profile It's generally my experience (and the experience of most, I believe) that crap work (poorly paid, FOB short pieces) generally lead to better paid, longer peices. But whatever. If you can afford to turn down 'crap' work, by all means, turn it down. SOmeone else will gladly do it. But remember that often means turning down future work as well. You could ask the editor about the spec policy. If she says, 'it's just the way i work with writers when I haven't worked with them before," you have your answer. If she says she assumed it was the policy of the publication, you can mention that you've written for the pub and you've never worked on spec. Either way, the publication may be changing their policies, to combat costs, and this new editor may be enforcing a new policy your other editor was unwilling or uncomfortable to enforce, on you or enforce period. Many publications are changing their policies in 2008 to combat costs, an issue well covered on the newsclip section of this board. When a pub as venerable as Newsweek offers a buyout to 111 of her staffers, things are obviously bad. |
| megmuck | Posted – 4/14/2008 12:13:04 PM | show profile Thank you, everyone I just wanted to thank everyone for responding to my post about writing on spec for new editor at a publication where I had previously published. I really, really, really appreciate the thoughfulness and publishing savvy everyone brings to these forums. I did write a "Small world! I didn't know you worked at X; I did a lot of work for them last year," as someone suggested, and I did put together the piece on spec, because A) It was a quickie which I could finish without losing much time and money, B) It's a topic area I'd like to write about more, but don't have many clips for yet, and C) the editor mentioned a specific month for its publication. Again, thank you, thank you everyone for helping me think through this odd encounter. m. |
