Every one in a while, fellow freelancers--whether it be on an e-mail list or a blog or a meeting with other freelancers--bring up rates, and I must admit, this topic always gets me edgy. I make what I make and accept what I accept based on my experience, time with the company, and so on. I take lower rates from certain companies because I know exactly what is expected of me, how much it takes to get the work done correctly, and how demanding that work is when compared to another type of work. All of my work, high and low paying, add up to my salary, and I'm happy with that.
It's clear that we ALL should be making the highest rates possible. But all projects are different, and some freelancer (who I probably don't know and can't assess) stating that he or she gets XX dollars from this type of publisher (or worse yet, a specific publisher) and feels that XX should be the industry standard doesn't accomplish much on its own. Maybe the pool has 20 people in it and 5 work much harder and better than you do and 5 do passable work and make less. The only person who knows that is at the publisher, and that person isn't saying. I've been that person (and tried to fairly distribute rates in a range I was allowed to work in). I know.
Yes, yes, if we all know and agree that XX dollars for academic work or XX dollars for fiction work is a competitive going rate, we can all push for those rates and make the world a better place, blah blah. EFA already has a list and that doesn't seem to get publishers all scared enough to offer those rates. And freelancers worry: What if I am accepting a lower rate and the publisher snickers about me because everyone else is getting more? (I recently was happy about a new rate to hear later that it's apparently the metro industry standard. Oh well.)
I guess if this discussion must come up on a regular basis, I would add that the rate needs to be discussed with all the details of the job: How long have you worked for them? What do they want you to do and how do you do it (coding/tagging, electronic, traditional paper, multiple passes, author interaction, PDF editing, formatting, etc.)? What type of schedule are you expected to keep? Are you very fast and computer literate? How long have you been an editor? What is your relevant experience? Where do you live and what kinds of financial situation are you in? On and on. These things all add to what someone will and should accept in a rate.
Here's what I think: Look at the project. Think about the effort it takes you. Look at your rate. Are you happy? When you write out your final invoice, does that total make you satisfied? When was the last time you asked for a raise? If you feel you need more, then make your case and ask, or ask again. If you are denied, do you want to keep doing it at that rate? If not, look for other, better paying work. If you really like the work and can afford to do it at that rate, keep doing it.
Maybe I'm too simple. ...
It's clear that we ALL should be making the highest rates possible. But all projects are different, and some freelancer (who I probably don't know and can't assess) stating that he or she gets XX dollars from this type of publisher (or worse yet, a specific publisher) and feels that XX should be the industry standard doesn't accomplish much on its own. Maybe the pool has 20 people in it and 5 work much harder and better than you do and 5 do passable work and make less. The only person who knows that is at the publisher, and that person isn't saying. I've been that person (and tried to fairly distribute rates in a range I was allowed to work in). I know.
Yes, yes, if we all know and agree that XX dollars for academic work or XX dollars for fiction work is a competitive going rate, we can all push for those rates and make the world a better place, blah blah. EFA already has a list and that doesn't seem to get publishers all scared enough to offer those rates. And freelancers worry: What if I am accepting a lower rate and the publisher snickers about me because everyone else is getting more? (I recently was happy about a new rate to hear later that it's apparently the metro industry standard. Oh well.)
I guess if this discussion must come up on a regular basis, I would add that the rate needs to be discussed with all the details of the job: How long have you worked for them? What do they want you to do and how do you do it (coding/tagging, electronic, traditional paper, multiple passes, author interaction, PDF editing, formatting, etc.)? What type of schedule are you expected to keep? Are you very fast and computer literate? How long have you been an editor? What is your relevant experience? Where do you live and what kinds of financial situation are you in? On and on. These things all add to what someone will and should accept in a rate.
Here's what I think: Look at the project. Think about the effort it takes you. Look at your rate. Are you happy? When you write out your final invoice, does that total make you satisfied? When was the last time you asked for a raise? If you feel you need more, then make your case and ask, or ask again. If you are denied, do you want to keep doing it at that rate? If not, look for other, better paying work. If you really like the work and can afford to do it at that rate, keep doing it.
Maybe I'm too simple. ...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home