The neverending argument amongst writers is: is there ever any reason why someone should write for free? Some say why not, some say because it drives down how much writers do get paid when there is money to be paid. I think there are valid points to both sides, but today I have some views on when it's okay to give it away (or on the cheap.) If you find these both to be total bullhockey, please, by all means, share your thoughts in a nice counterpointy sort of way for the rest of the readership to enjoy.

This piece is a little old, but Mary Terzian at Absolute Write sees some free writing gigs not only as karma investments but potential future opportunities.

Aside from charity, these free articles hide unexpected opportunities for income. You could treat them as an investment that will earn capital gains in the future, or consider them as mortgage payments over a lifetime for eventual possession of an appreciated estate, in this case recognition or distinction. A writer needs supporters in the community. Everybody, as reader, is an eventual client that will buy shares of his wisdom. Money is not always the determining factor of a person's worth but because it is measurable it is used as a yardstick for success. A proper value system has yet to be created to fathom the depths of our inner world, the quality of our "humanness."

Meanwhile, writer Stevie Wilson saw mb's article "Don't Bother Writing for Print" and wrote in with her thoughts on when she wrote for the web, which usually yielded good things except for the fact that it doesn't pay so well. I asked her to expand upon when she writes for the web, why, so I'll let her take it away with her personal experiences:

Writing for the web can be tough. Typically work isn't paid or it's paid so very little that compared to print, it's no contest. It's not a lot of money!

I don't do hard news; I am more of a "fluff" girl--beauty, fashion, fitness, lifestyle, profiles etc. In those categories, it's even more cut-throat and competitive. Generally, the pay is a pittance--even for the email newsletters. In the last couple years, there have been a rash of new magazines debuting-- and failing-- recently, I can't tell you how many times print books have used my work and then failed to pay me-- because they folded or just didn't pay (I tried to collect for 8+ months, but suing the Florida-based magazine in California, doesn't mean I will get my money). While I love the great-looking clips, I felt that since I didn't get paid, I could tweak the material and use it elsewhere.

When writing a piece, there is the "kitchen sink" version and then I cut from there. Front of Book bits and shorter than 500 word pieces often have more material than gets printed and the style evolves to fit the magazine's style. As I snip, tweak and edit, the finished product does have a faint resemblance to the original piece--but not a lot. The finished product is what gets submitted for pay. The original and the left-overs that have been killed/cut/edited out by the editor or me are reworked so that the piece is fleshed out and regains my voice-- and that's what hits the web.

For the company and the PR company, it's a bonus because they get additional coverage and they are often very appreciative of that It's a bonus to show a different presentation that reflects more of my personal voice. Getting more clips that show my versatility makes me a more valuable writer. I have submitted work to go online that had such a poor layout that I cringed. (It's happened in print but on the web it can be fixed). Those
situations made me re-think working with that publication.

Typically a lot of my content is time-sensitive and whether submitted for print or web, it's got to be out there in a certain time-frame. Having worked with several large websites, it's horrible to submit things on time (or earlier than deadline) and see the website drag their feet getting it online. While there is always editing, it doesn't take a month to edit a
less than 750 word piece that is photo-driven. Having seen two huge websites delay pieces that made them useless (one a paying gig; one not) and was so frustrating--particularly when the editors indicated it was exactly what they wanted. One fragrance article was edited to death and the edits were poorly done. I had them remove my name from the article. Whether I was paid or not, the end result was not something I wanted my name on. Sometimes, that happens with a print article too, I just take my money and keep my original versions for comparison of the print versus what ran.

Part of the beauty of the web is its immediacy. It's there right now and you can post about it. It's fun, hip, happening and brings people from all over the globe together. You can cover something that might be last-minute and scoop other pubs. You can get information or a perspectives that shows off your unique voice or expertise.

I have gotten paid print work based on those online pieces. My reputation as a writer on top of my beat grows--thanks in part to the web exposure. I have broken stories that were later covered by larger news organizations. It's exhilarating to know that I beat a daily or weekly to the punch. I recently did a story that was the "feature of the day" at Gather.com and garnered a lot of interest.

While I contribute to print magazines and newspapers, I also write for Fashiontribes.com (paid gig!) I have a couple of blogs for Fashiontribes.com (Beauty Buzz and LA Story). I contribute to BeautyNewsLA.com site, sister to BeautyNewsNYC.com. I have my own website under development as well.