[Edit: Thanks to all the smart, savvy people who have read and commented. The feedback has been fantastic, and instructive. I perhaps should perhaps have been clearer that there were two separate issues with Cook‘s call for recipes: that of payment, which this post addresses, and that of entry into a competition , unknowingly and unwittingly. That’s a different problem and one I don’t go into here, for reasons of space.]
Last weekend, the Guardian launched a new food supplement – Cook, which accompanies their Saturday edition. They also launched a bit of a controversy.
Before the launch of Cook, it seems that lots of bloggers received an invitation to contribute to a recipe feature.
The bloggers that contributed weren’t paid for their recipes – and this is where the debate began. The Twitter discussion on the subject between @MsMarmiteLover, AKA Kerstin Rodgers (a particularly brilliant food writer, blogger and supper-club pioneer) and @TimHayward (food journalist and restaurateur) was so interesting that I knew the subject deserved more space than 140 characters.
So should the contributing bloggers have been paid, as Rodgers argued? Yes… traditionally. According to the new rules of what we used to call journalism? Maybe not.
Things have changed – in food writing, and in all other kinds of ‘lifestyle’ and entertainment writing. Readers are less and less willing to pay for content; advertisers don’t want to pay as much to access a dwinding print readership (and online ad revenue is way below what print traditionally brought in, despite the vastly larger readership) – and, in the case of the Guardian, the publication apparently isn’t willing to ask people to pay to consume any of its content. It wants to make all its content available for free, online. Editor Alan Rusbridger is playing the long game with digital revenue, and it remains to be seen whether he’ll win.
It doesn’t take a genius, then, to see that the Guardian might well be desperate to find cheap ways to generate content (it is, after all, losing £44m a year). But that shouldn’t necessarily override the moral issue at stake here. If someone provides work, then they should be paid for that work. Anything else is exploitation – especially if it’s something that other people benefit from in some way, which they did. Some people working on Cook will have been paid, and the Guardian is clearly hoping to profit indirectly from the gravitas and relevance it acquires by using well-known foodie names.
BUT… it’s not that simple, sadly.
The value placed upon food writing (and many other kinds of writing) has dwindled, and I’d argue that the success of food blogs has actually contributed to this.
After all, it’s the market that sets the price and the value of a product – in this case, food writing. If people are increasingly unwilling to pay to read food writing – be it via an online paywall, or through buying a paper or a book – then the market has collectively determined the value of that writing at ‘nothing’. (Interestingly, cookbook sales are actually pretty darn healthy at the moment. I have a theory about this, which will be the subject of my next post.) No matter how good you think your product, or how much work has gone into it, if you can’t find a buyer, it’s worthless. And it’s difficult for anyone to get paid for food writing at the moment, something which only becomes truer the more that some people undercut those who want payment by providing their own labour for nothing.
It’s ironic, then, that bloggers (and this is a tricky noun, because it encompasses a huge range of people – some write a blog as a hobby without ever having considered it a possible source of revenue) are complaining about not being paid for what they write. Because bloggers have very rarely, as far as I know, been paid directly for what they write. In fact, the entire premise of blogging is that you can publish your writing online pretty much for free, for anyone to read – for free. Just like I am now. And it could surely be argued that the proliferation of excellent, free-to-consume food writing on blogs has actually contributed to the decline in the number of people willing to buy food magazines. (It’s not just blogs, of course – it’s all kinds of free online content. But I know that, at least for me, it’s partly blogs. I can find awesome recipes and entertaining food writing at places like http://www.davidlebovitz.com and http://www.cheesenbiscuits.blogspot.com, so why pay for it somewhere else?)
Previously, some (and not all) food bloggers saw blogging as a way in to what I’ll call ‘proper food journalism’, for want of a better phrase. Become well-known enough as a blogger, so the theory goes, and you might eventually get a paid column, or a book deal. This idea that eventually you can monetise your blogging is often used as a carrot to try to tempt bloggers into contributing their work – it’s worth it, they’re told, because if you raise your profile enough, then you’ve got more chance of making it as a ‘real’ food writer!
But as blogging grows, so ‘proper food journalism’ dies, in an inverse relationship that isn’t entirely unconnected. And so that argument increasingly dies with it. There are fewer and fewer paid jobs going, paying less and less money. Blogging can no longer be a stepping-stone to a profession if that profession ceases to exist.
Kerstin Rodgers argued on Twitter that journalists should consider the precarity of their own situation and be more supportive of bloggers – after all, she points out, perhaps blogging will become most writers’ only outlet, if traditional publications continue to wither. Rodgers may well be right about the lie of the land in future, but that won’t in itself make food writing on blogs any more profitable. Just because traditional publications might die off, it doesn’t mean that blogging will automatically be something that can magically generate a replacement revenue stream, not as long as people continue to expect to consume online content for nothing.
Perhaps it’s not all doom and gloom, however.
This morning, Robert Peston made an interesting analysis of the (possible) death of high-street music/entertainment retailer HMV. (This is relevant, I promise). He argued that while the demise of large, long-standing companies like HMV is devastating in the short term – especially, of course, for their employees – in the long term, the old generation of companies and business models need to die off before new models (which are more suited to the current climate, habits and customers’ needs) can grow up. The process is actually healthy and necessary for economic growth. If it doesn’t happen, the old businesses become ‘zombie businesses’, hangin’ on in there, absorbing and hogging resources that are thrown at them to try to keep them alive. What’s more, I’d argue, they continue to perpetuate old models of thinking, old frames on which to hang our ideas – and that makes truly innovative, new, from-the-ground-up business models harder to conceptualise and develop.
The Guardian is a bit like this – stuck with much of the infrastructure (vast staff, expensive offices) and thinking of a media business of yore, despite the very many brilliant and forward-thinking individuals that it employs. To put it bluntly, if you were going to set up a media empire today, starting from scratch, you probably wouldn’t design it to look like the Guardian Media Group. And yet it and other old-media behemoths continue to have a lingering effect on the way other kinds of writing are thought of and are done.
Imagine, for example, that there was no ‘traditional journalism’ end goal – or that it was so limited as to be of little import. You wouldn’t be able to see your blog as a stepping stone to that. You’d have to innovate even more, think of new kinds of revenue, and new ways to make online content pay – from the outset. (Or, just accept that it would never be more than a hobby…) People like Rodgers are, in fact already doing this, leveraging their online presence to run successful events, for example. But as long as the illusion lingers on that the old-fashioned print media paid-to-write model kinda works in the same old way, in the same volume – and linger it will, until publications like the Guardian finally decide that they can no longer absorb their massive losses – the imperative to create new ways to make writing pay isn’t quite there. (Or perhaps Rusbridger will be proven right. Let’s hope so.)
Once that illusion is taken away, the world will be much scarier – but out of it, perhaps something quite brilliant will grow – something that will once again properly reward talent, hard work, and expertise on the part of those who write.
canalcook said:
A really thought-provoking piece, and something all food bloggers should be thinking about.
cakeandfinewine said:
Thanks for reading and for commenting – v glad you appreciated it.
Blonde said:
This is possibly the most sensible post I have read to date on bloggers vs journalists and new vs old media. I think the crux of your argument – that people choose to blog for free – is crucial. And yes, the landscape is changing, etc, but when it comes down to it, the bloggers who contributed to the piece presumably knew the terms of their contribution, had a choice about whether to participate or not.
cakeandfinewine said:
Thanks very much for the kind words – I’m glad you enjoyed reading the post. Actually, I think there was some confusion about how the bloggers’ contributions would be used by the Guardian, though moves were made to clear this up as soon as it became apparent.
Blonde said:
Ah, if they were promised money for the recipes and didn’t get it, then that’s a different thing entirely. If you’re writing in exchange for agreed payment, then you should be paid: blogger, or professional.
cakeandfinewine said:
I don’t think payment was ever on the cards – but there was some confusion over whether the submitted recipes would be used in a competition feature. I can’t recall all the ins and outs and didn’t receive the original emails myself so can’t refer back to them.
Chef Hermes said:
Excellent post. I followed the whole conversation yesterday. I think everyone would agree that the print versions of media are on the way out, Mr Hayward’s own pride & joy ‘Fire & Knives’ was a point he raised (people write for free etc).
Online clearly is the way forward, & this is where potentially bloggers may start to bring more to the table. It is becoming apparent that some are thinking themselves as brands, creating a following etc.
Bloggers also seem to be a lot more comfortable with the new social media revolution than conventional writers and thus can react quicker to breaking stories.
Ultimately everybody would like to be paid for their hard work, blogger, writer or journalist, but there is only a finite amount of money to go around.
cakeandfinewine said:
Glad you enjoyed.
Following the conversation spread out over dozens of tweets was fascinating but unwieldy.
Yes, personal branding is important. But again, only if the product you’re branding i.e. yourself is something that people will pay for – in some form or other. That might be events, consultancy, classes, supper clubs…
Sally said:
I also followed the Twitter exchange between Tim Hayward, Kirsten Rodgers plus an input from Fiona Beckett (blogger and journalist) with interest. Well done for being so quick off the mark to follow this up and to sum up the points so succinctly. I agree that it’s not just in the area of blogging vs journalism where the lines between free and paid for are blurred or breaking down, it affects all creative fields and is still having a massive impact on companies and jobs within a range of industries (from music, to advertising, to photography).
Fuss Free Helen said:
There are actually two separate issues with the Cook supplement.
Firstly the Guardian asked various food writers, who also have personal blogs, to contribute recipes for the Cook Supplement. I did this as a one off out of goodwill and as an experiment to see if it bought any traffic to my site. Of course being featured in the supplement looks good on my As Seen Page. It was my choice to do this for free and to submit old material I had previously blogged.
The second issue is that when writers were approached for their content it was presented as contributing to a weekly supplement containing themed recipes. At some stage this morphed into a contest, with a Guardian writer being PAID to critique the recipes. Many food bloggers in the UK did start off with their blog as a hobby, many now derive much or all of their income from food writing, are published authors and have a number of clients who they write recipes for. As professionals many they do not wish to have their work pulled apart by someone who might have had more journalist experience (and a higher profile), but certainly no more professional culinary training than them.
cakeandfinewine said:
Thanks for the comment – I’m so glad that someone directly concerned can explain exactly what happened. I wanted to address some of the more general, broad issues raised, but as you say, there were issues very specific to the way that recipes were requested and subsequently used in the supplement, and the competition element was definitely very problematic – I couldn’t agree more.
That said, when you’re picking the ‘best of’ for a publication, it’s not necessarily culinary training that qualifies you, though perhaps it should. It’s journalistic ability/profile. Just as a scientist might know more about science but not much about writing screaming headlines that will make people pick up a paper (in fact, their knowledge would probably prevent them from doing so!), there’s a difference between being a) a journalist – who might write a lot about food – and b) being someone who knows a lot about food. That’s the way all journalism works, really, for better or worse.
Kerstin Rodgers (@MsMarmitelover) said:
First of all, thank you for your kind words about my writing.
@ ‘Blonde’
Bloggers were not told how their content was going to be used and this is an essential element of this story. We weren’t told we were going to be part of a ‘competition’ against readers and other bloggers. Once we objected, we received an email saying they wouldn’t use our material like that but they went ahead anyway.
This is why many bloggers are, to use their words, “furious”.
Most of them will not speak out publicly, (only myself, Chris Pople and Maison Cupcake have done so), because some of them have an advertising deal with The guardian and some are still hoping The Guardian will use them in the future.
I do not agree that the entire premise of writing online is because you can do it for free. The most important aspect of it is democracy and accessibility. The print media is notoriously nepotistic and closed, worse nowadays than it used to be in the 1960s when my dad, as a working class lad, managed to become a journalist with no connections or money, just sheer hard work and guts.
Everybody wants to earn money for what they love doing. Some people want to do it so much they are happy to do it (for a while) for free while they build up their skills and confidence. What I do for my blog for free is one thing, I have control over it, but once a commercial operation wants to use my work, I expect payment.
I do, rarely, give recipes away for free but only if I get something back. To give my time and expertise (and let it be remembered that ‘bloggers’ such as myself and Rosie French of Salad Club cook for the paying public so we are not amateurs in that we are paid for our cooking), should be valued. They should be making a song and dance about it, not sticking it into some reality show competition they’ve devised without telling us. That devalues our reputations rather than enhances them.
cakeandfinewine said:
Hi Kerstin,
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment and thanks for kick-starting the debate in the first place and bringing up so many of the issues.
I’ve added a slight caveat to the start of my original post now to reflect your point that there were actually two issues (at least) at stake here – payment, and the hidden competition element. The latter is a totally different kettle of fish and one that I haven’t even tried to address… though if I’d been in that position I would have been ‘furious’ too. The fact that the Guardian’s media sales programme prevents people from speaking freely for fear of losing ad revenue obtained through it is even sadder.
When I said that the premise of writing online was that it was free – to publish and to read – I didn’t so much mean the REASONS for writing online – those vary enormously from person to person – but rather the premises of the system itself… we CAN blog because it’s free to do and free to read. If I had to pay to publish this and you had to pay to read it then neither of us would probably be doing either of those things. It’s also what distinguishes blogging from other forms of publishing similar content, where you’re actually paid to write and where you pay to consume it.
I agree that work should be valued but quite simply that’s not always practical. Work is only valued at what people are willing to pay for it, and while I think people are very willing to pay for food expertise in lots of ways (consultancy, marketing, PR, paying to be cooked for, taking cooking classes – some of which I myself have done in order to earn something from my knowledge and enthusiasm for food) they’re not necessarily willing to pay for much of what we know as traditional food writing. And, sad to say, no matter how much someone wants to be paid for what they love, if there isn’t a market for it then they won’t be. There ARE ways to monetize passion and skill and knowledge about food but I think some of the old ways are on their way out, simply because consumers aren’t accustomed to paying for them anymore.
And finally…yes, journalism is much much harder to get into these days. Partly I think because of the slow death of print media. Apprenticeships on local papers were so important a way in for ‘ordinary’ kids. Now those local papers are all but gone and you have to get in on a national or nothing, and often that has to be via an unpaid internship, and having contacts… But this is a whole other can of worms.
Kerstin Rodgers (@MsMarmitelover) said:
Sorry I didn’t see Fuss Free Flavours comment before I put mine but my comments concur with hers.
Sharking for chips and drinks said:
Reblogged this on Sharking for chips and drinks… and commented:
A great piece on the changing of the media guard (great HMV analysis), the argument that food journalism is dying and that blogging “can no longer be a stepping-stone to a profession if that profession ceases to exist.
Pingback: Pay me, I’m a blogger
Le Frou Frou said:
Really enjoyed your article, it made me think! Have written a response on my blog… http://www.gannetandparrot.com/2013/01/18/pay-me-im-a-blogger/
cakeandfinewine said:
Ooh, will have a good read and respond in kind…
Thanks for stopping by.
thedailyout said:
Very interesting post, or article ;). I find the comparison with HMV debacle extremely fascinating, and very much possible.