Authors boycott non-paying festivals

[Brian G Turner]

Philip Pullman caused a stir this week by resigning as patron of the Oxford Literary Festival - because they refuse to pay anything to attending authors:

Pullman quits as Oxford Literary Festival refuses to pay guest authors

Pullman has been a patron of the literary festival – one of the UK’s biggest – for the past five years, but its refusal to pay authors put him in an “awkward position” as he is also president of the Society of Authors, which campaigns for author pay at such events.

“Other festivals pay and the Oxford festival pays everyone else involved from the cleaners to the people who put up the marquees,” he added.

...

Robert Harris, a historical novelist revealed at the last event he attended those in the front row paid £50, while “I was given a mug”.

“Authors fill large halls, with people paying a lot for tickets, yet they don’t see a penny. People are often astonished when they hear that,” Pullman said. “There are festivals that do pay their authors and good for them. The Oxford festival seems to find it difficult and I don’t understand why.”

Now there's a growing movement to support him, with other authors refusing to attend non-paying events:

A call to boycott festivals that don't pay author fees | The Bookseller

For too long, authors have been persuaded to give our services to the public for free - even though the public is paying in good faith to see us. We are the only people in festivals who are not paid, and yet without us the festivals could not exist. Writing is a vocation but it is also a profession, and it is time we all stiffened our spines, dug in our heels and said No.

 

[Dan Jones]

Fair enough, really! I can't imagine many other industries where somebody is asked to deliver a presentation as a special guest and not paid in some way. Can you imagine if you tried to get some third-rate Z-lister to open your supermarket and asked them to do it for free? You'd be laughed out of town! So I don't see why writers and other types should have to put up with it.

Good for Pullman.

 

[HareBrain]

So I don't see why writers and other types should have to put up with it.

Because they get "exposure"! Something a writer like Pullman sorely needs, seeing as no one has ever heard of him.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think it's important to be clear that the protests are about commercial events, not the like of sff conventions where, basically, no one is paid.

 

[Dan Jones]

Quite so Jo, it's an important differentiation. But industry events are only as good as the quality of speakers, and they should reflect that in what they're willing to pay.

 

[J Riff]

OH? Well lemme see... I'm going to play at this place... tonite... for what, the two hundreth time in mebbe 5 yrs.... and it will COST me at least six bucks. That's how far gone reality is.​

The guy running the show? He gets 60$ for min. four hours. In the seventies, the exact same job paid 150ish.

 

[Nick B]

End of the day, if they are charging for tickets to attend, they should be paying authors to go and talk.

 

[J Riff]

UH, no kidding. Not paying them means they have to cover transportation, time prepping, everything. Rather insulting, actually, no matter how many times it happens, and it happens all the time now.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

End of the day, if they are charging for tickets to attend, they should be paying authors to go and talk.

Most sf convemtions bring along multiple panellists: writers, industry professionals, artists, publishers. None get paid. There are two models:

Everyone gets paid - in which case only headliners will be used because the convention cannot afford to pay those multiple panelists. If so, I lose my voice.

I've been to one con as a guest panellist. I've just paid to go to Mancuricon (and will pay about 700 for the privelge - money I wouldn't spend if I didn't want to and think it was important. It's also reflective of me living in the sticks) and hope I might be considered for a panel. I met professional writers, readers, fans, professionals etc. I got to sit on panels with awesome writers. I got my name on programmes seen throughout sf. If we ask for payment for those sort of events - which are the lifeblood of sf fandom we turn them into the second model, which gives no voice for the small people who need it.

It is run by volunteers, staffed by volunteers, and has no money to speak of.

Model two is the literary festival model (which is the one disputed.) it has headliners, few if any panels, and sells tickets on the basis of those headliners. It often has sponsors.

By all means, the second should reward those attending. The first? To ask for payment would remove sff conventions from the scene, take away exposure for authors and leave the sf scene much the poorer.

 

[FibonacciEddie]

... agree with the sentiment ... Writers should be paid (it's like a gig) ... but "supply/demand" means that there will always be people (like me) who need/want the exposure and are happy to go for free on the hope that after twenty appearances (I've had one and a half!) your brand gets a bit better or you meet someone who it connected or ... ... ... whatever ... ...

just saw Jo's note ... so to be clear my response is Lit Fest based

the SFF conventions (run by volunteers) are as Jo says

 

[J Riff]

The cons were always fun, and you bet that the writers were paid. However, when Jack Vance requested some musicians to back up his banjo playing, no funds were available. I found some trad jazzers for him, but when I said no $ they laughed and said NO and you should do the same if they ask you to give your time away. If you are independently wealthy with lots of spare time- same answer.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I've been going to SFF conventions for forty years, appearing at them for thirty. At none of them has anyone been paid. Around here, guests-of-honor get their expenses paid: room, travel, food. Everyone who appears on panels gets a free membership (also usually an extra "guest of a guest" membership) and access to the Green Room and the snacks therein. That's always been it. (The exception is WorldCon where panelists pay for their own memberships and if the convention makes a profit they get their money back.) No speaking fees for anyone.

Those running the conventions are volunteers, and the memberships they sell barely cover expenses. Some of the folks running the conventions had rooms paid for by the convention, but that makes sense because they needed to be there.

Comic-Con is an exception, I think, because I doubt some of the media guests would come if they weren't getting paid. (But maybe they would.) And also I think Comic-Con probably makes more money even than a Worldcon. But I could be wrong about that. The facilities they rent could be more expensive, etc.

 

[J Riff]

There you go, the times have changed. How much would it cost to fly up here, book a hotel, cabs, food. Thousands. A succesful writer in the 70s-80s may well show up, but not anymore, unless they are a major success. SF was not mainstream at all, and fantasy was not nearly so visible. These are now mainstream categories, and no sign of any of them at free cons. I miss SF cons they were pretty loose and fun with costumes, music, talks and weirdos. We always worked as volunteers because we got to hang out with the writers, and they were a fun bunch, mostly. Vance was funny, so was Silverberg, Anderson and others. SF seemed like a bit of a private party in the 70s, no particular attention from anyone but actual fans. No big money on the line, not until Frank Herbert and Dune, around then. So it's hard, for me, to keep that separate from writers as a whole, who should not line up for free 'exposure' in my opinion.
There's waaaaay more people writing now, we see the quality self-published doing well, but all that means is it is selling, somehow. Appearing for free - spending money to do so - still seems wrong to me, even though I am doing it at this very second! Arghhhhh!

 

[Nick B]

Model two is the literary festival model (which is the one disputed.) it has headliners, few if any panels, and sells tickets on the basis of those headliners. It often has sponsors.

By all means, the second should reward those attending. The first? To ask for payment would remove sff conventions from the scene, take away exposure for authors and leave the sf scene much the poorer.

As I understand it, we were in fact talking about these literary festivals? That's what the thread is about.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

As I understand it, we were in fact talking about these literary festivals? That's what the thread is about.

Yes, but the furore has been extending to conventions and as your post stated if people paid - and they do for conventions, too - there should be a remuneration I thought the distinction might be good to put into the thread

 

[WaylanderToo]

it is an interesting one - from the perspective of a non-author I can see that if something is a commercial enterprise which makes the organiser money then the speakers at that event should also be paid something. If it's a convention where the costs are barely met and any surplus goes into organising the next one/covering costs then the answer is less clear cut.

I guess one of the issues I can see is that by an author turning up they are gaining exposure (aka advertising) not only for their latest work but also for their (potential) back catalogue. The question then becomes why should people be paid to give them a platform to advertise their 'business'? Obviously I'd expect reasonable costs to be met but beyond that I have my doubts.

 

[Toby Frost]

Another article on the same subject. I think the writer is right in saying that there is a culture of this: I get the feeling that there's a view in some quarters that, if you enjoyed your work or got something out of it, you are being unreasonable expecting money for it. He also makes the point that the refusal to pay effectively prices some authors out of the market.

Why English writers accept being treated like dirt - Spectator Blogs

 

[chopper]

probably interesting to note Juliet E McKenna's post on the subject of SFF cons vs literary cons.

Key differences between Literary Festivals and SF Conventions when it comes to payment

 

[thaddeus6th]

Saw this on Twitter recently. It seems, as per the consensus above, pretty straightforward. Paying everybody except the author is bizarre, and indefensible.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Saw this on Twitter recently. It seems, as per the consensus above, pretty straightforward. Paying everybody except the author is bizarre, and indefensible.

You are absolutely right. But where nobody else is getting paid then it's a different matter.

On the other hand, I wouldn't personally do panels at a convention where I wasn't at least getting two free memberships out of it. We all have our limits when it comes to what we will do without any recompense at all. People can always say no if they think that the organizers of an event are trying to exploit them.