8907: Slaving Away At Adweek.

Adweek continues its descent towards irrelevance with a piece titled, “AOL’s Slave-Based Business Model.” First, why is a publication purporting to be a journalistic source essentially offering summaries of others’ writings? Second, it’s more than a little ironic that Adweek would position AOL as being driven by financial gain versus quality content. Um, isn’t that a mirror image of the Adweek business model? Finally, the only original phrase in the story—the reference that AOL employees symbolize “modern-day indentured servitude”—is a poor choice of words. For starters, indentured servitude continues to happen worldwide, including within the United States. It’s appalling to compare such heinous actions with the trials and tribulations of a snarky, self-professed slacker. Plus, the usage is not even correct. AOL doesn’t force writers to work in order to pay off some real or imagined debt. Once again, Adweek displays modern-day ignorance.

AOL’s Slave-Based Business Model

Writers become profit-generating robots

By Kari Lipschutz

“Do you guys even CARE what I write? Does it make any difference if it’s good or bad?” AOL Television writer Oliver Miller asked his editor.

“Not really,” was the reply.

This is a brief instant message exchange that took place 10 months after Miller had been hired to “write about TV” for AOL. As he writes in a first-hand account of his time as an “AOL content slave,” what seemed like a dream job for a young writer turned out to be a nightmare filled with subpar writing fueled by unrealistic deadlines, insane working hours with demanding unpaid overtime, and countless pantless Lady Gaga stories.

For $35,000 a year, Miller and his fellow AOL employees, entered into modern-day indentured servitude. The consequences for many were panic attacks and restless nights, punctuated by cold sweats and the fear that perhaps the day’s story quota hadn’t been met.

“One night, I awoke out of a dead sleep, and jumped to my computer, and instantly began typing up an article about David Letterman. I kept going for ten minutes, until I realized I had dreamed it all,” Miller writes.

Miller’s experience at AOL ended when he was fired for what he says was angering a certain Hollywood celebrity/AOL spokesman (ahem, Alec Baldwin), and for complaining about grammatical errors that were actually inserted into his stories by editors. Since being let go five months ago, he remains unemployed and also unable to collect unemployment pay due to the arrangement that AOL has with its writers, deeming them “independent contractors” rather than staffers.

The corporate logic behind this unyielding work environment can be found in “The AOL Way,” a document used to train editors. The manual focuses on boosting writing output, targeting traffic, and luring the reader in with catchy headlines, while keeping costs low. In the case of Miller’s job specifically, a TV writer’s duty is to get the reader so excited by the misleading headline and unresearched story that they want to click the “Read More” link, forcing them to watch a revenue-generating advertisement before reading further.

The AOL Way is also the firing way. Miller is joined by 30 to 40 percent of his colleagues who have also been fired by way of form letter. It’s all part of AOL CEO Tim Armstrong’s plan to cut costs. The whole ordeal provides some insight into the inner workings of a content producing powerhouse like AOL. It also raises questions about how the company’s philosophy might influence its latest $300 million acquisition, the Huffington Post.