Has Medium Bought into the Idea of the Starving Artist?
When higher performing articles pay less, there’s a problem
Medium has always been a place where I’ve felt supported and appreciated. It’s been the platform that pays writers when others seem to expect us to work for exposure, which is another word publishers use when they mean exploitation. But lately, something has changed. It’s not just my imagination.
“Art is too often discounted as a secondary priority. The writer is necessary to society.” ~Kayla Rae Whitaker
In my Stats, there are two articles. Both have similar read times. One article has 3.7K views and 2.8K reads while the other has 8.2K views and 5.7K reads. Would it surprise you to know that the lower performing article paid over $400 more?
Logic would tell us that twice as many views should yield twice as much pay. If the lower performing article made $600, shouldn’t the one that did twice as well make $1,200 and not $200? I understand that the algorithm is proprietary, but this doesn’t make sense.
If you’re wondering what the difference is, it’s curation.
One post was boosted, and even though it has less readers and views by half, it still paid significantly more. Something is wrong with this picture.
Boosted stories should earn more money. They’ve got that editor’s seal of approval. Yet, lately, it feels rare to get that boost. I’ve watched my income fall to a new record low — lower than it’s been in years.
“Five common traits of good writers: (1) They have something to say. (2) They read widely and have done so since childhood. (3) They possess what Isaac Asimov calls a “capacity for clear thought,” able to go from point to point in an orderly sequence, an A to Z approach. (4) They’re geniuses at putting their emotions into words. (5) They possess an insatiable curiosity, constantly asking Why and How.” ~James J. Kilpatrick
I’m a full-time writer, and I work my account like a full-time job.
Medium used to pay my bills. Lately, I’m scraping by, and I’m wondering if the organization has bought into the idea of starving artists. How else can I explain the fact that older stories which still get traction are hardly paying anything? How else can I explain that a story with twice the views got less than half the pay of a similar article?
I have appreciated this platform. I’ve brought other authors in. I believe in what it can do for us, but I also believe that we need to hold the organization accountable for changes that directly impact the livelihood of writers. This is not our hobby. For many of us, it’s our passion. It’s also a career. It’s not unreasonable to expect that career to pay a living wage.
I know that not everything I write is successful. It’s always going to be hit or miss. But this new curation process seems to be creating an unfair advantage for boosted articles while ignoring the better performing articles on the platform.
“That’s what we storytellers do. We restore order with imagination. We instill hope again and again and again.” ~Kelly Marcel & Sue Smith
I’ve been doing this for 6 years. I’ve loved it. I’m not leaving it or making any declarations of protest. I’ve picked up extra jobs while still giving Medium my heart and soul. I’ve been investigating what has changed and why. I can only see my own stats, and what I’m seeing is a decrease in performance with no outside explanation.
I don’t have any answers. I’m simply suggesting that perhaps Medium Staff can take a look at these processes and policies — and how it directly impacts writers. Because we’re here, working hard. We’re the ones bringing in the readers. We’re sharing our talent, knowledge, and ideas. We shouldn’t have to be starving artists on a platform built on the strength of our work.
