A Questionable Gig

[blemmet]

They clarified. Each editor will have a budget funded by the company and can choose to either pay a writer from the preferred list $5 per post or pay herself $5 for a post from her budget. The editor will always get revenue sharing. So that is how you get paid both for the post as well as share in the revenue.

As for the person in question who was banned...You weren't there to see the extremely unprofessional rant and attack on the forum. She did not ask nicely. She accused and was very demeaning to several of us over there. She also publicly quit during her tirade. If she was banned after that, it is only her own fault. If it was MY forum, I wouldn't allow someone to continue to act that way toward everyone there.

And for the record, they left the entire posting up, and it has not been edited. They didn't have to do that. But I appreciate that they have. The person in question now has the term "guest" beneath her name.

The big difference between you, Dana, and the other person is that you conducted your inquiry OFF of the forum through private email. That was handled professionally.

She didn't. I felt it extremely unprofessional and I was very disappointed to see such behavior.

Just my 2 cents worth...

[SueWalsh623]

Originally Posted by marleymauve

My last bit of understanding is that I would not be getting $5 a post plus revenue sharing. It was that it was entirely commission based and the only time $5 per post came in to play is if myself as an editor chose to pay that to a writer to do blogging for me. If that's not correct, the company in question didn't clarify. When someone else in the training asked for clarification about that point they banned her from the forum..

You misread...they said you can choose to pay YOURSELF or another writer.

As for any banning, I don't know anything about that-that would be between the member who got banned and the admin, and certainly none of my business.

[marleymauve]

I asked for clarification about whether or not the offer made to me was commission only, I was told it was a partnership and a sweat equity position worth 60% commission. I said I couldn't work on 100% commission and wished them well. They did not come back and clarify. They told me "All the best." If I was wrong, why didn't they tell me that $5 per post was part of my budget?

Andrea requested clarification about the $5-$25 per post and was banned. No one told her that YES, we would get base pay plus commission. If she'd had her answers, perhaps she'd still be in training.

I don't know anything about anyone else but I do know that both Andrea and I respectfully requested clarification and were both left to believe that it was commission only in my case or that questioning their compensation plan in Andrea's case warranted being banned.

I'm not sure if they went back to the drawing board and came up with a new plan but the fact remains that three people all individually felt that something wasn't right and at least two of us handled it professionally and respectfully and got no clarification.

Whatever happens, I wish everyone luck but as I said, I am merely providing information to my online friends. Many of those online friends have helped me in the past with warnings and alerts. I didn't call out the company publicly and didn't attempt to harm anyone's reputation. I simply advised what happened so others would have that information before signing up. That's all.

[Rane]

I too felt that something wasn't right in what we were originally told, so I will not be continuing with this, but I wish everyone else good luck and happy writing!

[adbullock]

</span>My intention by asking publicly was so that others would also have a chance to seek clarification. I assumed (I guess incorrectly it seems) that if I was having a problem with it and it seemed to be dishonest to me that others would have felt the same way and have the same questions.

I asked questions hoping that they would be answered and not expecting to be accused "picking apart her words".

Here's the difference to me. The original post called for bloggers that would make a fee per post PLUS revenue sharing...just for blogging not for editing. Before training even began everyone was offered positions as editors (quite honestly that was my first red flag and I should have bowed out then but I decided to stick it out because perhaps I could learn something). Once we're partway through the training though it comes out that as editors we can choose to pay someone to post or post ourselves and participate in revenue sharing.

I'm sorry. It seems to me like a raw deal for the editor when the original position was supposed to be pay per post PLUS the revenue sharing. And if the editors want someone else to write the posts they have to pay them to do so?

I actually do not consider it unprofessional at all to ask in the open. I find it far more tasteful to ask in the open than to let it simmer and resent it blindly in the background. This board in the past has worked hard to look out for others and give warnings whenever something didn't strike us as quite right. This one didn't.

I got my start in this community and have contributed to it for years. I even remember when it was the old boards. But this is becoming a rather snarky place all of a sudden. I wish you all the best but I will not apologize for calling a spade a spade==especially when I didn't stand to gain anything at all from doing it and only hoped that someone else would get their questions answered. I wouldn't even have joined in this particular conversation if someone hadn't started attacking Dana for giving a heads up.

At any rate have fun and good luck.

[SueWalsh623]

Originally Posted by adbullock

.I'm sorry. It seems to me like a raw deal for the editor when the original position was supposed to be pay per post PLUS the revenue sharing. And if the editors want someone else to write the posts they have to pay them to do so?

You really didn't bother to actually read anything did you? It sounds like you skimmed and then jumped to conclusions. It was clearly stated that editors receive a BUDGET and we can use that to EITHER pay ourselves for each post or pay another writer to post for us. We're not expected to pay them out of our own pocket. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. And despite your admant refusal to accept it, it is indeed per postAND revenue, if we want it to be, or we can pay another writer to contribute posts. Again, nothing wrong or shady about that.

[adbullock]

Yes it is Sue, because originally the writers were going to get paid per post and revenue sharing. Now the editors get it and not the writers. The original post was for blog writers. The editors, who have MORE responsibility than writers are getting what the writers were originally being offered.

[Brandi]

Originally Posted by SueWalsh623

You really didn't bother to actually read anything did you?

Really? You called someone else unprofessional?

[gottaluv4]

Originally Posted by Brandi

Really? You called someone else unprofessional?

You know Brandi, I was just about to point this out, this was the same kind of attitude she took with other forum members at 451press.

Sue, I think that she read it and read it well and just like Dana started out with some reservations and as they learned more and discovered that the original ad was not what they were indeed getting out of the gig. There is NO way we can fault or come down on them for making a professional decision that a gig isn't for them.

Acting unprofessional and condescending here doesn't help anyone. [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]

BTW... in case you haven't noticed my login problems have been fixed and I AM BACK. (not that I was missed LOL)
_popupControl();
Edited by: gottaluv4

[marleymauve]

Thank you, Brandi!