Hi-Fi World November edition

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

Freelance must be massively less expensive than full time staff, what with minimum wage, holidays, sick pay etc, etc. Get a hobbyist to write a few hundred words, bung him 100 quid and let him play with the toys. Job done.

A few hundred words for a hundred Quid. They wish.

[Clive]

A few hundred words for a hundred Quid. They wish.

In the 80/90s HFN paid £150 for 1,500 words. HFW would pay in kits for DIY supplement articles.

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

I find that a staggering amount of money for the 1980s. What do they pay now?

[Clive]

I find that a staggering amount of money for the 1980s. What do they pay now?

It didn't seem like a lot at the time. Pay rates are lower now...when writing for the US it's not worth getting paid due to the cost of cashing $ cheques (checks).

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

I'm trying to think what I earned in the 1980s. It does seem a lot. And how would it be less now ?

[Clive]

Prices are about double since the early 80s.

[Alan Sircom]

I'm trying to think what I earned in the 1980s. It does seem a lot. And how would it be less now ?

Because the rate is between £100-£175 per thousand words today.

In the 1980s, the rate was predicated on the concept that a thorough review would take roughly around four working days to process (listening, measurement, fact finding and/or a telephone interview with the designer, and the write up). Although the time spent running in, fine-tuning the system, doing comparisons etc increases the time spent running the review exponentially (if we billed every hour spent in 'finessing' the review from delivery to collection, you might be looking at many more days) the 1980s time scale for a review seems a fair assessment of the amount of work going into the process.

It still takes about the same time to process a review (although email speeds things a lot) but the rate has not increased to account for inflation.

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

Thanks.

[MCRU]

Because the rate is between £100-£175 per thousand words today.

In the 1980s, the rate was predicated on the concept that a thorough review would take roughly around four working days to process (listening, measurement, fact finding and/or a telephone interview with the designer, and the write up). Although the time spent running in, fine-tuning the system, doing comparisons etc increases the time spent running the review exponentially (if we billed every hour spent in 'finessing' the review from delivery to collection, you might be looking at many more days) the 1980s time scale for a review seems a fair assessment of the amount of work going into the process.

It still takes about the same time to process a review (although email speeds things a lot) but the rate has not increased to account for inflation.

Why not? Cost of living in the 80's was peanuts compared to today. My first ever pint was cider when I was 18 , that was 31 years ago and it cost 45p, rates for writing reviews should reflect the current cost of living surely? Or is the fact that Malcolm Steward is always telling me how rates are poor and pleads poverty (jokingly I hope) a sign that reviewers pay is stuck in the dark ages?

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

A few hundred words for a hundred Quid. They wish.

Which is why I posted this earlier.