Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ethics of magazine publisher's?

On another site there are some very upset writers because a magazine publisher has run their articles but has not paid them. It has been my experience that most magazines pay before they publish. My question is: Is it considered acceptable to publish an article and then pay for it? That doesn't seem very ethical to me as I know of at least two publications that do that, and then some how forget to pay the writers. Have any of you writers been burned by a magazine not paying for published works?

Big Sky,

In the outdoor field in general and in the gun magazine business specifically, there are a few magazines that only pay on publication. Frankly, even those that pay on acceptance are sometimes pretty slow in cutting a check. Having said that, in my thirty-two years in this business I think I have only been stiffed once that I can recall and that was many years ago. I have waited a lot longer than necessary often though.

In fairness to the editorial staffs, what sometimes happens, particularly with the bigger publishers, is that the editor tells the finance folks to cut a check and it lays in an accounting in-box until someone, usually the writer, raises hell about it. That, unfortunately, is not an uncommon occurrence. In fact, it seems to me to be more and more common.

You ask if it is acceptable for a magazine to publish an article and then pay for it - it is acceptable if that fact is known up front. I personally don't like working for magazines that pay on publication rather than on acceptance, but have done so in the past. I'm not likely to do so in the future though. Still, I've recently had material published in magazines that supposedly pay on acceptance where I didn't get paid until after publication.

I emphasize that I did get paid though, just later than I should have.

Tom

tsquare, thanks. I can think of at least two magazines that definitely have some problems. I don't know if Sporting Classic's is still being published or not, but they never paid for an article my wife wrote and they published. That was over 10 years ago, btw. The other magazine may eventually pay their writers but it appears that getting money from them is likely trying to get blood from a turnip. Our own Sitka Deer has had his share of problems trying to get paid. I don't know if he ever did. It is a Canadian publication and it appears they are using that fact to make life difficult for US writers. However I know of at least one Canadian writer that has given them a 10 day notice and then he's taking them to small claims court. Just a word of warning. One might want to think twice before submitting an article to a Canadian published magazine with the intiails of B.G.A..

Big Sky--

Both the publications you mention have had their troubles over the years. SPORTING CLASSICS contacted me in the mid 1980's asking me to write for them. I did 2-3 pieces but quit because pay was so slow--though they did pay me, eventually. I have heard from friends who write for them (staffers) that it's better lately, and management may have changed since your wife's piece was published. You might want to contact them again and see what's up.

The Canadian magazine has had such problems that a good friend of mine from Alberta--who was involved by both writing and editing for a while--quit the magazine completely. He claims that many of the folks running it now are mostly in it to trade outfitter advertising for free hunts. Don't know if there's any truth to the claim, but it would go a long way toward explaining things.

I also don't generally write for pay-on-publication magazines either, but there are some honorable ones out there. Like tsquare, I have been totally stiffed by only one publisher over the years, who soon thereafter sold the magazine and went on an African safari.

My general rule of thumb when dealing with a publisher new to me is that one slow check might be a mistake, but two means bye-bye. But then I am in it to make a living, not doing it on the side.

JB

Big Game Adventures has really taken a nose dive in the past year or so. It used to be full of articles written by guys like you and I out hunting the wild. Now half of them are petting zoo fenced hunts and filled with stories from the guide outfitters (apparantly trading hunts for publicity). No doubt what Mule Deer says is true, that rag has gone to pieces. Not suprising they don't pay some of their writers.

280_ACKLEY

Well, I have to agree with that. I have been an avid reader of gun mags since 1958, I used to get a good beating in school for hiding my "Outdoor Life" in my geography atlas, but, the only mags I now look at are "Rifle", "Handloader" and "Successful Hunter". I just got my issue of "Handloader" and am going nuts over Ross Seyfried's picture of the little Greener cape rifle. I would love to have one of those, but, have never been able to find one that wasn't a wreck.

.280---Maybe you should try submitting some stuff to Wolfe Pubs., I would really like to see more issues published, like one a week and some stuff written by Canadians, especially on backpack hunting. The guide-outfitter-video producer guys from B.C. just don't do it for me.

Kutenay--that little Greener is a beaut, ain't she?

Pay on acceptance is vastly preferable from the writer's point of view, of course, but pay on publication is no less ethical -- it's usually a necessity from the magazine's point of view. Many a small magazine has to operate on cash flow, with hardly any capital to advance against long-term pay-back. Any magazine editor has to have a good-size inventory of articles back-logged for eventual publication, and only the bigger publishers can afford to have this much capital invested without any prompt return from it. Pay on publication is the inevitable necessity -- not a matter of ethics.

Failure to pay (a problem that I haven't had, so far) is what's indisputably unethical if the magazine honestly has the ability to pay but dishonestly "forgets."

When I was at Wolfe, one of my most ardent reform campaigns was to be allowed to pay competitive rates, on publication. My only progress -- not long before I left -- was finally being allowed to pay staff writers when I scheduled their work in the up-coming issue. (This, BTW, blew my friend Ken Waters' mind -- twice -- once when I paid him after he'd written the promised "Pet Loads" piece but before he'd mailed it, and again when I paid him before he'd written the piece that he'd told me would be his next one, and I'd scheduled for the next issue.) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I was also finally able to raise staff writers' rates, as I told 'em apologetically, gradually, "from criminal to merely insulting."

When I "took holt o' th' reins" at Handloader and Rifle in 1978, there was a huge back-log of articles accepted as long as five to seven years earlier but not published (therefore not paid-for). The associate editor had rejected a bunch of them, and the editor had vetoed those rejections with the notation "OK with tinkering." He hadn't gotten around to whatever tinkering he'd had in mind, and I (since I didn't feel that after so long, I could ethically reject 'em) had one Hell of a time making some of 'em usable! As soon as I could, I used 'em all and sent the writers checks that must've seemed to them like echoes from their distant past -- which, in fact, some were -- abysmally faint echoes, at that.

When Ken Warner (whom I didn't know at the time) was Editor of The American Hunter, he bought my piece "The Mystery of the Moribund Mallards" but never ran it. Years later, I asked for it back and got it. (It's long since paid-for, and now Rick has it -- gratis -- for eventual use on the Campfire.) So the system works in several ways, from sordid to special.

I guess it just doesn't seem right to me to use someone's talent or ability and then pay them when "you get around to it." If payment were after a reasonable amount of time that's okay, but years after the fact???!!! Seriously if I drew an original, delivered it, and the client didn't get around to paying for it for a several years they would for sure find themselve's in small claims court. Guess that's why I require payment upon completion along with a non-refundable deposit up front. If you were a plumber, housing contractor, car dealer...or whatever and your customer's just paid when they felt like it. I wonder how long you would stay in business? The way I see it those magazine publisher's are using the writing and photography skills of others to sell their magazine. In my opinion they should pay the hand that feeds them first and foremost, then worry about paying the other bills associated with running a magazine. Granted I'm speaking from the outside looking in, but it just seems like poor business practice to profit off others then drag your feet about paying for it.

BGA owes me money and I fully expect them to do so the rest of my life. However, they will never owe me more than they already do.

The big problem here (which we have discussed in another thread already, a few months ago) is that EVERYBODY wants to be a gun/hunting writer, and a lot of us are qualified. Heck, anybody that can put together a sensible sentence, take a clear photo, and knows something about guns and hunting is qualified.

For most such folks, it would be a thrill to see their name and photos in print--and a few extra bucks made over a weekend wouldn't be bad either. So there are a lot of folks out there ready and willing to write and photograph on the HOPE of being published, much less paid.

There are also many folks who would like to start their own magazine, almost always with honorable intentions. Many don't understand the very high cost and risk of starting a magazine--and when they can't keep up with their bills, the writers and photographers get paid last, because the publisher can always find more.

I have sympathy for both sides. But since my bills get paid with checks for my writing and photography, I can't afford to wait. None of my monthly "suppliers" does, from the phone company on up. Consequently I always applaud editors like Ken who fight for professional treatment of writers. I always did the same in my two stints as an editor, because (like Ken) I have been on both sides.

JB

BGA is the only magazine I have ever had trouble with. But, as someone else already said, they will never owe me more than they already do. It matters not to me whether I get paid upon acceptance or publication, but I better get paid.

GregR I recognize that cape buffalo photo from the latest issue of BGA. Sorry about the way the magazine is treating you, but sure did enjoy your article. That zebra of your's is to die for! I guess the thing that really upsets me is from what I understand they still haven't paid that young girl who wrote about sheep and goat hunting with her dad. There is just something really wrong about promising a child money, using their story, and then not paying them. REALLY WRONG!



Mule Deer, I shouldn't smile because some days I don't find it very funny, but basically everything you said about writing could be applied to being an artist. Worst part is, I think there are more people fancy themselves an artist than they do being a writer. I guess it's all an uphill battle, but those that keep hiking seem to win more battles than they lose.

It would be interesting to see how many people think of themselves as artists, compared to would-be writers. After all, it's pretty obvious whn you try to draw a mule deer if the result looks like a mule deer. It's less obvious when you write a hunting story if its OK or "a tale told by an idiot," as William Shakespeare put it.

I have written both kinds.

JB

Mule Deer, to put it in perspective for you how many wildlife paintings or drawings have you seen that the animal doesn't look anything like it was intended to be? I have literally seen thousands (but it's my line of work.) However that never stopped the creator of such works from calling themselve's an artist...didn't stop Picasso either <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

That line brings many taxidermists to mind <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />.

Chuck

Chuck, funny thing is I was thinking that same thing as I typed that line. Doesn't stop those taxidermist's from calling themselves taxidermist's either.



Let's see if this visual works.

When our office was built out a few years ago, my then-boss met with the designer, who asked what kind of art we wanted. Joe said "Well, since we represent sportsmen and hunters I'd like some pictures of ducks."

The designer was not thrilled and came back, as Joe put it, with prints of "Picasso ducks with three eyes and four beaks" -- he put his foot down and said, "No, I want ducks that look like DUCKS." After some more argument from the designer, who thought representational duck pictures wouldn't be modern enough, Joe held firm and we finally got one picture of ... geese.

Big Sky--

I hear you!

On the other hand, most would-be writers don't hang their stuff on the wall. Anybody who's edited a magazine has seen a LOT more unintentionally funny stories than funny ducks and deer!

The all-time classic I ever received, when I was head editor of a defunct magazine called GAME JOURNAL, was the story we called the "The Pink Polar Bear." The typed story was about 1 page long, and mostly consisted of what the guy ate at the airport and in the airplane while flying north to hunt polar bear with a bow.

Then, suddenly, in the last two sentences he somehow immediately went from flirting with a pretty cabin attendant zipping broadheads into Nanook, and it was over.

This fine literary effort was accompanied by several photographic prints of the dead bear, which had been punctured many times both by arrows and Inuit bullets, then rolled around in the snow for a while. The story-writer wasn't much of a photographer, so hadn't compensated for the dim winter light on the snow, and couldn't seem to get the horizon line straight either.

The result was a pink polar bear in the middle of a medium-blue background that looked like some sort of ski hill from hell.

You don't see those on wall every day!

JB

With a discouraging number of gun-makers and gun writers whose names I won't mention or imply here (hear that, CAT?), I've made (and paid dearly for!) the deadly mistake of equating ability with ethics. Now I see the mirror image of that mistake here in this thread -- equating lack of ability with lack of ethics.

I find no value in either equation.