In this town, we have four periodical publications: News/North which is the English-language territorial weekly newspaper, L'Aquilon is the French-language territorial weekly, The Hub is the local weekly, and Squawk which brands itself as "Hay River's arts and culture magazine" and is printed approximately once a month.
I've written letters and op-eds for both News/North and The Hub. Why? Because the people must be informed, and the newspapers aren't about to do it. And because I've been published repeatedly in both these papers, the other two have asked me repeatedly to write for them, too.
Yeah: no.
Actually, I did write a commentary on the 2011 federal election for L'Aquilon, but mostly because I needed some place to send it and the other two probably wouldn't have printed it. As far as I know, neither did L'Aquilon.
But mostly, no, I'm not going to write for you, whoever you are. Unless you're The Economist. If The Economist asked me for a piece, I'd probably literally explode with pride. But that's not gonna happen. And therein is the problem: if you're asking me to write for you, I am doing you a favour. If I send you an op-ed and you print it, you're doing me a favour, so that's fine. It doesn't mean I'm all verklempt. I've been published in much better papers than News/North, thank you. Most notably, The Edmonton Journal once ran a letter of mine that provoked such a firestorm of replies that their staff cartoonist actually cartooned my letter the next week. I'm that cool. So no, I'm not all tickled pink when you print my op-ed in your puny paper. I'm just happy that I have a medium to broadcast my message to the masses at no cost to myself. (No financial cost, at least.)
Now if you ask me to write for you, the flow of value is reversed. You're not providing value to me by giving my message a medium; rather, you're obtaining value from me to increase that of your medium. Therefore, I expect you to pay me. Seriously. Real newspapers pay for submissions, and all the more so when they commission a piece from a noted writer - even if that notoriety is only local. They don't pay a lot of money, but they do pay. So if you approach me to commission a piece, you need to come bearing gifts.
Second, there is the matter of whether I want my words in your publication. I am, as you've noticed, a writer of some note locally. Some people recognise my name. Politicians placate me. My words have a certain weight. That's exactly why you're trying to acquire them. And therefore I ask myself: do I increase my words' currency by having them printed in your publication? Will people listen to me more after I've appeared in your publication, or less? In short, does your publication lend me credibility, or vice-versa? If you're approaching me, then the odds are, the latter.
And third, there is the question of whether your readership is the right audience for my writing. I write on certain topics and not others. If your readers obviously have no interest in my topics, why would I wirte for you? Consider the following: at the end of 2011, Squawk asked in a survey what was the most important world event in 2011. The readers answered "the marriage of Prince Whatever." I was appalled. The owner of Squawk asked me to write a piece on 2011 world events in reply. But why would I do that? Obviously your readers have zero interest in world events. It would be a waste of my writing. And a waste of my currency, too. If I start running political pieces in a paper that otherwise prints stickmen drawn by local twenty-somethings and the contents of someone's MP3 playlist, I'm devaluing my word considerably.
I did write an 1800-word piece on 2011 world events, but I didn't send it to anyone. Anyone who would print my take on world events is not the caliber of paper that I want to write for. (Now that I have this blog, though, I might put that piece up. It's my blog, after all.)
I did also write a piece for Squawk. About the lifecycle of the black carpet beetle and how to get rid of infestations. Why? Because most people here complain bitterly of black carpet beetle larvae but don't know what they are or what to do about them, and none of the other papers is likely to run a piece about them. In the end, neither did Squawk. Because the content of someone's MP3 playlist are clearly much more important than insect infestations. And therein is another reason I probably won't write for you: because in all the local publications, fluff is considered more important than information. And I only write for public consumption to share information. (Yes, some of it is information about my opinion. Everyone is entitled to my opinion, after all.)
So no, I'm not going to write for you. Because your publication is fluff, because it doesn't increase my standing, and because you're not paying me. I'll just put my writing on a blog, where only I control them. Kthxbai.
I've written letters and op-eds for both News/North and The Hub. Why? Because the people must be informed, and the newspapers aren't about to do it. And because I've been published repeatedly in both these papers, the other two have asked me repeatedly to write for them, too.
Yeah: no.
Actually, I did write a commentary on the 2011 federal election for L'Aquilon, but mostly because I needed some place to send it and the other two probably wouldn't have printed it. As far as I know, neither did L'Aquilon.
But mostly, no, I'm not going to write for you, whoever you are. Unless you're The Economist. If The Economist asked me for a piece, I'd probably literally explode with pride. But that's not gonna happen. And therein is the problem: if you're asking me to write for you, I am doing you a favour. If I send you an op-ed and you print it, you're doing me a favour, so that's fine. It doesn't mean I'm all verklempt. I've been published in much better papers than News/North, thank you. Most notably, The Edmonton Journal once ran a letter of mine that provoked such a firestorm of replies that their staff cartoonist actually cartooned my letter the next week. I'm that cool. So no, I'm not all tickled pink when you print my op-ed in your puny paper. I'm just happy that I have a medium to broadcast my message to the masses at no cost to myself. (No financial cost, at least.)
Now if you ask me to write for you, the flow of value is reversed. You're not providing value to me by giving my message a medium; rather, you're obtaining value from me to increase that of your medium. Therefore, I expect you to pay me. Seriously. Real newspapers pay for submissions, and all the more so when they commission a piece from a noted writer - even if that notoriety is only local. They don't pay a lot of money, but they do pay. So if you approach me to commission a piece, you need to come bearing gifts.
Second, there is the matter of whether I want my words in your publication. I am, as you've noticed, a writer of some note locally. Some people recognise my name. Politicians placate me. My words have a certain weight. That's exactly why you're trying to acquire them. And therefore I ask myself: do I increase my words' currency by having them printed in your publication? Will people listen to me more after I've appeared in your publication, or less? In short, does your publication lend me credibility, or vice-versa? If you're approaching me, then the odds are, the latter.
And third, there is the question of whether your readership is the right audience for my writing. I write on certain topics and not others. If your readers obviously have no interest in my topics, why would I wirte for you? Consider the following: at the end of 2011, Squawk asked in a survey what was the most important world event in 2011. The readers answered "the marriage of Prince Whatever." I was appalled. The owner of Squawk asked me to write a piece on 2011 world events in reply. But why would I do that? Obviously your readers have zero interest in world events. It would be a waste of my writing. And a waste of my currency, too. If I start running political pieces in a paper that otherwise prints stickmen drawn by local twenty-somethings and the contents of someone's MP3 playlist, I'm devaluing my word considerably.
I did write an 1800-word piece on 2011 world events, but I didn't send it to anyone. Anyone who would print my take on world events is not the caliber of paper that I want to write for. (Now that I have this blog, though, I might put that piece up. It's my blog, after all.)
I did also write a piece for Squawk. About the lifecycle of the black carpet beetle and how to get rid of infestations. Why? Because most people here complain bitterly of black carpet beetle larvae but don't know what they are or what to do about them, and none of the other papers is likely to run a piece about them. In the end, neither did Squawk. Because the content of someone's MP3 playlist are clearly much more important than insect infestations. And therein is another reason I probably won't write for you: because in all the local publications, fluff is considered more important than information. And I only write for public consumption to share information. (Yes, some of it is information about my opinion. Everyone is entitled to my opinion, after all.)
So no, I'm not going to write for you. Because your publication is fluff, because it doesn't increase my standing, and because you're not paying me. I'll just put my writing on a blog, where only I control them. Kthxbai.
No comments:
Post a Comment