Skip to main content

My take on talks

Two of the best bloggers for writers, Jane Smith of How Publishing Really Works and Nicola Morgan of Help! I Need a Publisher have recently weighed in on the subject of payment for talks, particularly at festivals. I thought I'd add my thoughts on the matter. Many overlap with Jane and Nicola, so bear with me if you've already read their remarks.

Jane makes the point that many festivals (some of them big ones) take the attitude 'we won't pay for authors, because they get publicity and sell books.' Nicola picks up on the money aspect and a whole host of other suggestions for festival organizers (including the request to be given a meal but not have to talk to people during it).

I also note one of the comments to Jane's post, where someone who 'organizes [academic] conferences for a living' doesn't see what the fuss is about as his speakers usually do it for free.

Let's get the money thing out of the way first. An academic speaking at a conference is totally different from an author giving a talk. Academics will be paid by their university to attend the conference. The university will probably cover expenses as well. But every time an author attends an event they are giving up earning time. If they aren't writing, they aren't earning. By default, a talk or a festival starts off as a negative impact on the personal finances. And it's not just the hour of the talk. There's preparation time and travel time - it's very rare that a festival appearance won't eat up a day or two's work time with no immediate reward.

Yes, attending such an event will result in some publicity - but typically only with a very small audience. And don't get me started on book sales. The author's cut on the sales of books at a typical festival is probably around the £5 mark.

As far as I'm concerned, giving a talk at a school or festival definitely should be a paid job. As one of our two bloggers suggests, why on earth should festival organizers expect marquee companies to want paying but not authors? It doesn't have to be a huge amount, but a payment is only polite, as is covering all reasonable expenses. I'm not saying I don't do events on an expenses-only basis occasionally. If it's something I particularly support, or I feel I will get a lot of useful publicity, that's a decision I will make - but no venue or event should assume an author will perform for free.

I have to say, I'm less fussy than Nicola on 'riders'. I'm quite happy to share a meal with festival organizers or audience members. I like what I write about and I like talking to people about it. However, I do think any talk organizer should offer the speaker a reasonable level of support. While most schools I speak at are absolutely brilliant, I have had these interesting experiences:
  • Left alone with 400 year 9s while all the teachers disappeared for at least half an hour
  • Thrown into a class without an introduction or a teacher staying
  • Been part of a festival session where the festival organizers arranged a practically inaccesible venue with no signage or any easy way for the audience to find it
  • Arrived at a school for an evening talk after a 2.5 hour drive to find the hosting teachers finishing a fish and chip supper. They offered me a biscuit
... and really that isn't on.

I don't want this to appear like yet another author's whinge. I love speaking at all kinds of events. It's one of my favourite parts of the job (I accept this isn't the case for all authors), but I think simple matters like payment, expenses and being properly looked after are no more than a reflection of the respect that's deserved in the circumstances. After all, desirable though it may seem to some, it's hard to run a literary festival without authors.

Comments

  1. I've just done a free talk (in exchange for book sales) at a local festival and it probably wasn't worth it financially, although it did help with the word of mouth and also give me a few leads for more events which may well be paid, so I'm reserving judgement. And the yurt I was talking in was also free - in exchange for good advertising for the yurt business, so maybe the festival organisers are getting a better deal than you think!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, well said. Money aside, even common courtesy would be nice. Love the poster, by the way....

    ReplyDelete
  3. As I mentioned, Sally, I do sometimes do events without a fee, but it has to be for something special I'm interested in, or that will get me a lot of publicity - you have to judge every opportunity on its merits. But I do get upset if festival organizers don't realize that when you are self-employed, your time costs you money.

    Thanks, Sue, I think should use the poster from now on.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense