I may be getting involved with a magazine startup in the near future in an editorial capacity. While in talks with the publisher, we’ve been looking at different models for bringing in a regular stable of writers. I’ve shared my thoughts on the options, and now I’d like to reach out to you for feedback from other writers. I’d like your opinions on the following two models, to pass your feedback along in the process. I hope you’ll be kind enough to share. I’ll be keeping this post sticky throughout this week to try to get additional feedback.
Background: I don’t want to share specifics about the publication. Because we would be accepting research and opinion pieces from non-experts in the subject matter, I’d like to get feedback from writers across the board.
It’s also important that you answer with the understanding that this is not the type of profit-sharing gig you would see spammed all over Craigslist or something. It would backed by an experienced businessman, reasonably funded, and very thoroughly planned out (as in lawyers, accountants, and proper business planning and projections – not a “I want to start a site or magazine, and if it makes money someday I’ll pay you” situation).
The goal during startup is to find a dedicated team of 20 regular writers for the publication, as opposed to different freelancers each month. As the publication grows beyond that, supplemental freelance submissions would be considered from others. Please base your thoughts here on those initial 20 regular writer positions.
That said, here are the options with details and some of the more obvious pros and cons of each. I hope you’ll contribute more in the comments if you think of things I haven’t here:
Part Ownership
The goal is to work from an existing online magazine format, and take it to print in several months. Writers would initially be brought in for one or two articles on a freelance basis at around $200 per article (assume 1000 – 1500 words for most features).
At that point, if the publisher wants that writer to fill one of those regular roles, they would be made an offer of part-ownership to continue.
That offer would involve a small ownership percentage of the magazine, but would also involve no further direct pay for six months (with one article due every two weeks).
After those first six months, all articles would be paid at the $200 per article rate.
After the first year, those 20 writers would be put on a more industry standard salary.
It’s also important to note that the contracts would include an exit strategy that would involve some kind of buyout or compensation for past work – meaning you wouldn’t have to worry about being dismissed in those first six unpaid months and ending up with nothing (I hope you know that for me to even consider getting involved in something like this, I would be absolutely certain writers are treated fairly overall, and in this case I believe they would be under the terms).
Pros
- You would have part ownership in the publication, which not only means profit potential in the form of dividend payments during the life of the publication, but also a percentage of any sale / buyout (and the plan is to sell the startup in a few years’ time).
- That ownership portion would also give your own feedback far more weight with the editorial team and publisher than if you were simply writing occasional freelance pieces – where there would be a hierarchy with reasonable structure, the idea is to create as much of a team environment as possible.
- After those first six months, you would have regular bi-weekly assignments, which could be a plus for those used to having to pitch several publications to keep regular gigs coming in.
Cons
- There would be no direct payment during those first six months after the initial paid “test” pieces.
- As a part owner and employee contracted with the publication, it would become a conflict of interest to write for directly competing publications. You could still freelance elsewhere, but essentially if the piece could belong in this publication, that’s where it should go – not to a competitor.
Up Front Payments
This would be similar in that you would be a regularly contracted writer if you’re one of the 20, and would still be expected to produce bi-weekly features or columns. You would receive the flat $200 per article from the first, and at least through that first year (where you then may also be put on a more typical salary). Having one or two articles accepted wouldn’t guarantee a longer-term commitment. They would still be used to narrow down the best 20 writers, who would be presented with the longer-term contract offers.
However, you would have no ownership in the magazine, and you would earn no profit from its operation or later sale.
(Please note that I’m basing the $200 on features, and for much shorter regular columns pay might be lower, or you may offer the same word count by writing your column alongside a short department piece.)
Pros
- You would earn continuously, from the paid “test” articles and through the contract.
Cons
- Like I noted above, you would earn no profits or portion of future sales proceeds.
- Because you would still be contracted in more of an employee role (nothing set in stone yet, but just assume that for the sake of this comparison), you would still have a conflict of interest. In other words, you still couldn’t write for directly competing publications.
- While your opinion would still be valued and taken into consideration by the editorial team, it might carry a little less weight than if you were a part owner.
In either of these situations, it’s also important to note that you wouldn’t be asked to sign a contract with vague promises. You would have access to the same financial projections and other planning details relevant to your position, just as those in editorial or marketing roles would so you would be able to make a well educated decision before making any commitments.
Those offered a contract who choose not to accept it would not be continuing on with freelance assignments. In the beginning, all of the attention would be going into getting those 20 writers on board. At that point if we needed additional material, we would certainly love to talk to those previous writers again about freelance pieces occasionally, but it shouldn’t be expected as that need is currently unknown.
So there you have it. I’m sorry I couldn’t give you more specifics, but I’m really just looking for general thoughts to pass along at this point. I hope you’ll share yours, and I appreciate you looking through all of this. :)
Subscribe to 
Connect on 
Brie Wallace
Crystal
Lucy Smith
Sonya Carmichael ...
Wow.
Well, first, congratulations on the opportunity! It sounds very exciting, and it sounds like it’s going to be a great chance for you to do something new and cool.
As for feedback, well, you asked for it, so here goes! :)
If I were one of the 20 people you approached to be one of the stable of writers, I’d have to say that I’d rather be paid up front than offered an ownership share. Not knowing any more than I do about your magazine and knowing how magazines (and newspapers) are closing down at a rapid clip these days, I’m sort of scared to base my potential profits on the long-term health of any print publication. Now, if it were an online publication that doesn’t have some of the same types of costs as a print publication, that might change things for me–and doubtlessly, that would change things for many other writers. But I guess I’m not a gambler. I’d rather have the old proverbial bird in the hand, if you know what I mean.
I cannot imagine a scenario in which I would be interested in this payment method. Good, quality publications with well-established track records are having difficulty making ends meet. This sounds like a way for a start-up to delay some bills and cross its fingers that there will be enough money to pay the writers in the end. It doesn’t really matter what the contract says about “exit strategies” and “buyouts” if the publication goes belly-up.
Thanks for the feedback so far. :)
Just on a side note since Jennifer mentioned online publications – this is currently an online publication, and the online version will not be going away as a subscription method or anything else based on current plans. The publisher does understand the benefit of online availability, so it wouldn’t be a fledgling publication with no Web presence to support it.
Keep the comments, one way or the other, coming. I really appreciate it. :)
I also want to note that the publisher is already taking the current magazine publishing industry well into account. Many of the most substantial costs are being avoided altogether (such as real estate), and the startup team is being kept lean intentionally, with future staff needs being fully considered and factored in.
While I’m not giving a lot of details at the moment, I should also mention that the niche is not only in heavy demand in more stable financial times, but even moreso now. If I were personally going to get involved with a magazine now (and keep in mind I ultimately may or may not yet), this is one of very few niches I’d even consider under current circumstances.
Also remember that there would be no real mystery to anything – if the ownership model were used, those writers would have access to financial details and projections to determine personally whether or not they felt it was adequately backed for growth over that first year and beyond.
I just want to make sure I’m giving all of the details I can without getting into the niche and actual publication right now. I do have my own opinions, but I’m not going to outright agree or disagree with anyone here, as I don’t want to steer the comments in one way or the other. I believe everything relevant in the general payment model sense is “out there” and I hope to hear from more of you. :)
I must lend my voice to those who’ve expressed reluctance to gamble on a print startup. While a virtual office environment and some online presence is a good hedge against the economy, the idea of waiting a year for payment (presumably because the publisher believes those saying the credit market may improve in 2010) gives me pause.
Although some niche print books are staying afloat in this tough economy, those areas are becoming smaller and smaller to the point where a print and online operation cannot economically continue. From newspapers to magazines, more publishers are opting for all online ventures.
And why not? While print and TV advertising is slumping, there is an upsurge in online ads as companies seek ways to get their brand in front of the buying public.
While I have no doubt you would make a great writers ombudsman, the concept of work now and get paid later (that is, if the operation is still financially able) is not one most writers (at least those you’d want) would embrace.
I think that there’s too much risk for both parties in the part ownership model. What if the project fails? Not that I’m saying that it will but as with any business, there is always a risk that it may happen. And I think it wouldn’t appeal to a lot of writers.
As with most magazines, writers would prefer to be paid upfront for every piece that they write (or what I would call the ‘traditional model’). Or you could delay the payment at the end of every month so you don’t have to send out cash every week.
Aside from minimizing the risks for both parties, the ‘traditional model’ would help the publisher/owner keep the money to keep the business going. All he has to worry about (I think) is how many more writers he has to pay. All additional income he can spend somewhere else or expand the business.
I agree with the other comments so far as most writers would not be interested in the ownership or they would try starting up their own online magazine. Too often in the past, writers have been burned and are now warned to stay away from the idea of writing for nothing in hopes of a future dividend.
Good luck in your new venture. And I too want to comment on this proposal. As a successful journalist working for several online and print magazines I would never seek employment under these circumstances. First of all, the pay rate per article of that length is an insult to anyone who is working for an established publication (online or print). Second, since most new magazines do not make it past the first 18 to 24 months, the odds are that a writer will be working for free for that time frame in hopes of revenue that in this market is unlikely to ever come. Success depends on the publishers ability to attract advertisers and a lucrative subscription base–something that is clearly not demonstrated in this scenario. I expect to be reasonably compensated for my time and ability and this gig delivers neither.
RC, thanks for your comments. First I just want to emphasize that this is not “my new venture.” I’m not involved in any official capacity at the moment. Second, this also isn’t a “gig” being presented as-is to try to hire writers. There’s a reason we’re gathering information before proceeding further on that front with the print side of things.
I also wouldn’t go so far as to say that this demonstrates neither an ability to attract advertisers or a subscription base. Both are already being actively pursued, and having been privy to the actual numbers on the subscription side stemming from the initial Web-based launch and information available so far on the advertising / marketing side of things, I have no doubt they’re on the right track.
I’ve run quite a few marketing and PR campaigns in the past (and while not specifically in magazines, I have both in print publishing with book promotion and in online magazine campaigns), so I’m reasonably well qualified to understand that side of the equation. I wouldn’t even be considering it if I didn’t feel that it was both A) viable and B) well-planned. That said, readers here weren’t given details on that side yet intentionally, because this isn’t a gig being offered – we’re looking for basic feedback on one very specific aspect of things right now, and that’s all. All of that information would certainly be available to anyone considering a contract involving any kind of ownership model, after being paid outright for the first one or two initial pieces before any offer would even be made – no one’s asking writers to make any kind of commitments without having all of those details.
Again, this is just one small part of the information-gathering process, and one that I’m personally happy to see a new publisher pursuing rather than just jumping in half-cocked and being surprised by writer reactions down the road as so many are.
I do respect your views regarding the rate level. At the same time, I want to clear up that nowhere did I mention someone wouldn’t be paid for 18-24 months. I just want that clear so others don’t assume that’s the case. While I also wouldn’t likely write regular features for a rate of $200, for the type of writing they’re looking for, and the fact that they’re not looking for specialized writers or a great deal of experience especially in the realm of print magazine writing, I’ve also seen far worse from startup publications. So it’s very possible that you and I simply wouldn’t be a good fit in those writer positions for this publication, and that’s perfectly fine. Not all writers are suited to every job, and vice versa.
Again, I appreciate your feedback, and will certainly pass it along. Right now the issue we’re interested in hearing thoughts on is the one of outright payments with no ownership, or the part ownership model giving writers some say in the actual publication and a share of the profits (the reality of which they would all have the opportunity to evaluate and decide on based on the actual financials and projections, or to reject at-will). I hope that at least clears up a thing or two for anyone who may be thinking some of the same things, and I hope to be able to pass along feedback from others.
Thanks all for taking the time. :)
I would be interested in the profit sharing design, which I assume would (unfortunately) also mean loss sharing? Obviously, I would want to know a lot more before I were to sign a contract, just as I would as a freelance writer working for another publication.
While others have expressed solid ideas for not participating, I view it from a couple angles.
First, someone who is a partial owner might do a bit more to support the venture long term. A vested interest to see it succeed and create more money for you. The editorial terms seem to be clear and upfront.
Second, these are changing times in the media industry. Perhaps this is a model that would prove to be effective and lucrative for all participating. (It certainly would be better than writing for free for some of the prestigious online magazines as it is!)
To me it sounds creative and intriguing and I would want to know more before rejecting…or accepting…it out-of-hand.
Elizabeth
Thanks for sharing some thoughts on the other side of the fence there Elizabeth. :)
I believe everybody’s feedback as of now has been sent along. :)
Interesting idea.
If it were me considering such a venture, I wouldn’t necessarily be jumping for joy nor would I be ruling it out completely. I would probably need more information.
I think there are three determining factors that play into whether a writer would find this arrangement to their liking or not.
#1 – More details. I’m not saying you need to post more details, but those details that you admit are not included just may be the kind of information that would make some, but not all, writers think that the proposition could work out for them.
#2 – The writer’s position. A struggling writer who is having a problem making it financially may not be interested in this sort of delayed payment because they are focused more on their present needs. Likewise, an extremely successful writer may look at this offer as something they don’t need to take a harder look at because they may choose to not risk losing the “good money” they are making now for the possibility of making “good money” in the future with this start-up. A writer somewhere in the middle who is comfortable financially at the time but looking for a chance to grow may be enticed by the terms of the deal though.
#3 – The writer’s personality. No matter how you cut it, this offer is somewhat of a gamble, if only because of the nature of start-ups and whether they last or not. There are those people (not just writers) who don’t like to gamble and prefer to only make choices when they have some sort of guarantee or warranty, or at least track record of past performance. There are also those type of people that believe that the best and biggest payoffs come only when something is being risked and they may really like the look of this potential (I said potential) offer or gig.
From a personal standpoint, I see it as a interesting offer but something I would need to know more details about before I seriously considered it. I also understand exactly why these are the only details being released right now though.
Thanks Mark. Wanting more details before saying yes or no to an offer is certainly understandable.
In this particular case, I think it’s important that you first assume you want the job. The only real question I’m trying to tackle right now is, if those writers who did want the job were presented with these two payment / employment options, which would entice them to not only accept but be more motivated (given that either situation is a long-term commitment and not an article-to-article stint):
1. The part ownership model where they’re paid outright after 6 months, but also have stock in the company to benefit from its future growth,
or
2. Just flat out bi-weekly payments for the writing requirements of the job, with no employee stock options.
Maybe that description will simplify for some. :)
Hmm, maybe I did stray from your scenario… just a bit. ;)
Since you are “forcing” me to shed my previous non-committal stance ;) and look at it from the stipulation that it is already a job I am interested in, I would probably go with scenario number one (part ownership model).
I still think it depends on the writer and their current financial position. An interested writer who is concerned about their daily or weekly income levels might want to go for number one, but feel a responsibility to go for number two. Similarly, a writer who isn’t feeling immediate financial pressure may opt for the part ownership model because the need for the regular security that scenario number two provides wouldn’t be as necessary to them.
Looking at it from that point of view, which financial package the magazine offers may determine in a significant way what types of writers end up being eventually interested in the positions.
I’m sure many new as well as established writers would be interested in the part-ownership structure — as long as they understood what it means in terms of $$$$.
OK, let’s extrapolate.
Let’s say that after the first year, the web magazine (I can’t see why anyone would want to start a print mag in this economic climate — but maybe they have an investor on board) is making $30,000 per month. This is on the low side, and it should be making more.
At $30K per month, if the magazine were sold for 20x monthly earnings, that would be $600K. Assuming that the principals keep $300K, that would leave $300,000 to be split among 20 writers… which would be $15,000 for each writer.
What’s not to like? Count me in. :-)
Joking aside, this COULD work very well, depending on:
* The topic
* The management
* The sales team selling advertising on the site
I like it, and as I said, count me in. :-)
Jennifer, I think it’s great that you (and by extension, the publisher) are going through the trouble to find out what writers think about this before deciding which model to pursue.
I think it all depends on what the writer is looking to gain. For a lot of people that are found on Digital Point, all that matters to them is that they want money and they want it now. Sometimes, that is a very important detail, one that I even subscribe to. Sometimes you just need to have money in your wallet and can’t afford to wait. That’s understandable.
What would I do, though? If I have to dedicate my entire life to the magazine and have no time to make money anywhere else, naturally, I won’t be able to go six months without pay. However, if I was able to at least carry a job on the side or do some freelance for other people, I’d want to have a part of the magazine because I’m all about investments.
In the end, it all depends on the details of it. Chances are, though, I’d want to be a part-owner of the magazine.