Rolling Stone Magazine and the Dangers of Pay-to-Play

Today The Guardian broke the news that Rolling Stone magazine would be giving people the opportunity to write for its website and giving them the chance to “shape the future of culture,” referring to such people as “thought leaders.”

On the surface that sounds a little suspect. Having been in the writing biz for a while to some degree or another, I’ve become very aware that whenever someone says they’re going to offer you the “opportunity” to write for them, what they really mean is that they’re not going to pay you. Rather, you should be thrilled at the chance to have anyone look at your writing, and yes please they’ll quite happily pocket the revenue you generate for them.

However, Rolling Stone magazine has taken this model to a fun new extreme. To obtain this opportunity these “thought leaders” must first pony up a $1,500 annual fee, along with a $500 up front charge.

Now this is a problem for countless reasons but I’m going to look at… let’s just go for three of them here.

1. As noted above, they’re not going to be paying the people who are producing content for them. If we assume that this is a sincere effort to have people write thought-provoking pieces that will shape our culture for the better, then those talented, intelligent, culturally-sensitive people should be compensated for their trouble by more than a Rolling Stone by-line, a commodity that I suspect has just plummeted in value. They advertise that “[b]eing published in one of the best-known entertainment media outlets in the world sets you apart as a visionary, leader, and bold voice in your industry.” But if you’ve had to pay for that privilege, does it do any of that? Or just demonstrate that you were in a position to pay for the “opportunity?” Which brings us to our next point.

2. Again, assuming that this is a good-faith effort to aid in the shaping of future culture for the better, this pay-to-play scheme clearly disenfranchises those who are not already wealthy. Call me anti-capitalist, but I don’t think that our culture should be shaped purely on the grounds of whether you already have a lot of money in your pocket, and that publications that claim to represent culture in this way have an obligation to spend the time considering more thoughtful pieces from all walks of society. As it stands, this seems to be a way to reinforce the cultural power of those who already have privilege and a voice while taking space away from those voices that need it most.

3. Finally, this takes the cultural importance of a long-standing magazine and offers its mouthpiece to people who wish to put forth their own agenda. The Guardian notes that two of the articles already published under this system are:

a set of positive predictions for the future of the cannabis industry by a PR executive who represents a cannabis producer, and a piece praising the social nature of sports betting by the founder of an online sports betting community.

– The Guardian

So putting aside the ethical complications and poor (but perhaps expected) treatment of writers, it becomes clear that this move by Rolling Stone magazine has very little to do with shaping “the future of culture” and promoting “thought leaders.” Rather it appears to be a desperate act to stay in business in a world that is ever moving away from print media by selling its pages to the highest bidder, regardless of the cultural damage that might do.