The other day, writer Nick Mamatas mentioned pulling a story submission from a magazine because the magazine had instituted submissions fees (see the Storify here: https://storify.com/NMamatas/against-submission-fees). As it happens, I’d spent the day before seeking markets to submit stories in my typically semi-incompetent, shaggy dog kind of way, and I’d gotten frustrated after hitting three markets in a row that required submission fees of $2-$4 or thereabouts. It’s not a lot of money, maybe, but I didn’t submit to those magazines, because I agree with Nick: Submission fees are exploitive, and demonstrate that the market in question doesn’t value writers very highly.
It comes down to this: My work has value. The essential belief involved in fiction markets is that people (readers) will pay magazines and publishers money to read the things we write. If a magazine charges readers for the privilege of reading my genius, they should pay me for the right to publish it. If no one pays the magazine, that’s not my fault or my problem. They’re free to stop buying my work if I’m not bringing in eyeballs.
And I am free to not submit to markets that charge a submission fee, so what’s the problem? Well, I know that a few decades ago when I was just getting my legs under me, I might have paid some submission fees, because I was dimwitted and desperate for some professional street cred. And $2, even in those ancient days, was low enough that I could have considered it the cost of doing business. And all that would likely mean today is that I would have spent $500 on submission fees and likely not sold a damn thing, because the stories I was submitting weren’t all that great.
Being inundated with awful slush from idiots like me isn’t a good reason for submission fees, either. As Nick points out somewhere in there, a) reading slush is the price you pay for accepting submissions, b) there are ways to throttle down submissions if you’re being crushed by crappy subs (most easily, reading periods or very tight guidelines) and c) fees won’t stop the awful, it just monetizes it.
Money should flow to the writer, because we created the shit you want to read. It’s that simple. Yes, publishers get a cut for providing infrastructure. Others might get a cut for facilitating or assisting, who knows. But writers shouldn’t pay to play, period. As Nick points out, everyone else associated with getting a magazine out to its readers gets paid – why shouldn’t writers? And if people choose to volunteer for a magazine out of love for words, that’s great, but has nothing to do with submission fees.
Now if someone wants to talk to me about paying me for my submissions, I am open to that conversation. I’ve got a lot of stories, people. A lot of stories.
How many magazines can really survive on just subscriptions, though? $2 to $4 doesn’t seem so bad considering some make you pay $20-$30 to enter a contest…
Caren, I think if you can’t make a business (which is what a magazine is) work, you shouldn’t start charging the people who supply what you sell to make up the shortfalls. It’s one thing to be up front about not paying writers (paying in ‘exposure’), something else to leech a few bucks from every writer. All my opinion, of course.
Indeed, well said. I also find this to be an insult and would never submit a work of fiction to such a magazine. (Although for professional scientific writing submission fees of like $50-100 are becoming common in the higher tier journals – but reviewing a scientific article requires organizing anonymous peer review which has a lot of administrative overhead so in this case I think it could be justified).
I propose that this is just one more consequence of a flooded labor market. Remember, the economic value of a commodity has NOTHING to do with its intrinsic utility or quality – it’s only the relative balance of supply and demand. In a world with billions of desperate starving smart people, your writing really isn’t that valuable. I mean, it may be good, and take you a lot of effort to write it, and it could be useful in bringing in eyeballs to a magazine, but if the magazines can get work of your quality for free, then your work is (economically) close to worthless. The world does not owe you a living just because you are smart and work hard…
Those of us who grew up in the west when our labor markets were protected from the third-world, and skilled people were valued, are going to have a very hard time coming to grips with a new era where even smart and hardowrking people are effectively disposable…