People can still accept whatever they accept - so long as they're doing it knowingly. No one can stop someone from submitting to low price bids. But more people probably need to know what the standard is, so that those price bids aren't 0.0001 per word.
We're not gonna ask anyone to work for less than their fair market value. But at the same time, we are aiming for the lower end of the market.
@Sir_Snickerdoodles For lower pay, you'll also have to expect lower quality. Most professionals put in the time they're paid for, so if you're low-balling them, they most likely won't put in their best efforts or go above and beyond to satisfy you as a customer.
The good ol' "You get what you pay for" is very much a thing in the creative industry as well.
Accept whatever you're comfortable with, just make an educated decision. I will say this, though, consistently accepting bids under industry standard normalises those bids. If 100 people in a field of 150 accept $20/hr, that's the standard. If the other 50 accept $10/hr, the standard drops to accomodate that data, assuming they're all of equal expertise. It's a self-regulated market/gig economy. This is why entry-level companies often march in lock-step around rates, so that they aren't pressuring each other to offer higher bids and screwing each others' business models (in ghostwriting mills, for example, this is generally between $0.7 - $1.10 per 1000 words).
That is completely fine. We're looking to get a product out quickly and consistently. Quality comes in third place, I'm afraid.
Also consider rush-fees. A lot have those. So if you're hiring someone and expect the product to be finished within either a couple of weeks or even days, some put in extra fees as they'd have to push other obligations aside to work on your project.
https://twitter.com/benjaminsobieck/status/12895779646996357126
Ben Sobieck also has a good thread showing which clauses to look out for.
Yup! If a company/client wants to negotiate something outside of the agreed scope, you should renegotiate pay as well. The practice of sneaking in extra work under the guise of preferences/tweaks is called scope creeping, and is a predatory behaviour when someone is not fairly compensated for it, or when a client threatens to cancel a commission if the artist does not agree to additional terms.
I'm a freelancer by profession - it's a perfectly valid form of work. It just needs someone to understand more than just the skills they're being hired for. Being a ghostwriter also means knowing how to negotiate rates, how to adjust client expectations around outlines, how to pitch according to a client's needs (some clients may want someone who can recreate their vision with the most accuracy, some want someone who'll create market-ready work so they can recoup their investment, and your pitch has to reflect that), how to communicate progress, how to make clear and achievable promises, how to network (freelancers get a lot of work by getting clients to bring them their friends), how to "stack" projects so that you'll have future work when you've completed your current project, etc. It's a lot of work to do it right, but that goes for any profession.
There's also a premium on speed, not just quality. I think that also needs to be drawn attention to. If someone wants something tomorrow - they should be prepared to pay top dollar. Quick turn around times where someone has to drop everything to make something work means more expensive.
Edited for aditional point: Also - some people will refuse to drop their standards either just to get things out faster because it could reflect on their work if there's a subpar product out there that they've worked on. Freelancers have to know what they're prepared to do as well and take into account their reputation. No one wants to become known as the "well, they get it done fast, but it's only alright if you can't get anyone else" freelancer.
These would be for smallish jobs. Write three thousand words, beta-read three thousand words, and so on.
The sliding scale of TIME, QUALITY, and RESOURCES applies here. At best, you can get two. If you want quality on short notice, as KR says, that requires higher pay. If you want to pay less, you're gonna be lower on a freelancer's priority list, and they're not going to feel incentivised to give anything more than the labour that pay reflects, etc.
I just read through the thread this topic references and oh my god it was a fascinating read. I still don't understand why the OP couldn't do the proofreading himself if it would take "10-15 minutes" and a primary schooler could do it. But I don't want spend too much time on that.
I want to say thank you to @MiloNelakho for this amazing advice! It is very much appreciated! and thanks to @KRWright too!
Considering that doing the math on their chapter output seemed to indicate they barely set aside time for anything other than writing, no wonder they attempted to outsource it.
This is important too. Your client can be a person of their word, but if it looks like they put themselves in burnout-inducing work, be careful so those expectations don't fall on you as well when delivering what you were asked to. Crunch culture in general gets perpetuated by a feeling of "well my boss does it, I should do it too" when the answer is that it's unhealthy for both.
I agree with you. The output volume he relayed to those in the thread seemed wildly unreasonable and unhealthy to me. And his reasoning for it, though understandable, wasn't enough for me to justify what he was doing and what he was asking for. Granted, by the time I read the thread the original post had been edited so I don't know if he gave a time frame he wanted the proofreading to be done in.
