Friday, December 7th, 2012

Solving The Broken Crossword Puzzle Economy

The crossword puzzle can seem utterly authorless. If you haven't caught the documentary Wordplay, or bothered to look up the name that appears in tiny agate type below the grid in The New York Times, you might join many others in assuming that the crossword is written by editor Will Shortz. Or volunteers. Or a computer.

In fact, crosswords are made by people (called constructors) whose status is roughly equivalent to freelance writers—that is to say, low. Puzzles are sent on spec to editors, who buy them or turn them down, and who fine-tune the ones they accept without, as a nearly universal rule, consulting the constructor. Submissions may sit in an editor's inbox for months or even years before the author hears back. (A few months ago, constructor Tim Croce received an acceptance from The New York Times—for a puzzle he submitted in 2001.) Even after a puzzle is accepted, the constructor may not know in advance when it will run. Attribution comes in the form of fine-print bylines, and in syndication the author's name is often excluded altogether. And this is true not just at The Times, but at other papers that run puzzles, such as Newsday and the LA Times. If you're hoping for riches, you'll be disappointed. Pay is—to use a puzzle term—olid (foul). Most outlets offer less than $100 for a daily crossword and less than $300 for a Sunday-sized, despite the huge number of readers who presumably buy the paper in part or in whole for the crossword, and despite the substantial labor and creative energy that construction requires. For aspiring constructors, things don't look so rosy—but that's changing.

The financial stakes of the crossword are higher than a casual solver might realize. The New York Times, which runs the most prestigious American crossword series, pays $200 for a daily or $1,000 for a Sunday, which is certainly more generous than its competitors. However, The Times also makes piles of money from its puzzles. Standalone, online subscriptions to the crossword cost $40 a year ($20 for those who already subscribe to the dead-tree edition of the paper). In this 2010 interview, Will Shortz, the paper's famed puzzle master, estimated the number of online-only subscribers at around 50,000, which translates to $2 million annually.

Meanwhile, The Times buys all rights to the puzzles, allowing them to republish work in an endless series of compendiums like The New York Times Light and Easy Crossword Puzzles. In that same interview, Shortz called these "about the best-selling crossword books in the country." All royalties go to the New York Times Company, the constructor having signed away—as is the industry standard—all of his or her rights. Visitors to will also be familiar with the crossword merchandise—mugs, shirts, calendars, pencils, and the like—pitched aggressively by the paper, and perhaps also with the 900 number answer line, which still makes some money from a presumably less Google-minded segment of solvers. Finally, the crossword has a significant impact on overall circulation. Lots of people buy the paper, or even subscribe, in whole or part because of the puzzle. Of course the feature has expenses as well, including Will Shortz's salary, the cost of testing, and so on, but these are moderate compared to the millions of dollars that the puzzle earns from a variety of revenue streams. And out of that total, constructors collectively earn well under $200,000.

To be clear, Shortz is not brandishing the ulu (Inuit knife) at this holdup. In fact, he has presided over a humane increase from $50 to $200 for daily puzzles and $150 to $1,000 for Sunday puzzles in his two decades at the paper. The last one, in 2007, came about from what he described as "long, careful persuasion with the Times." (Shortz has also been a hugely important force in the popularization of modern crosswords; the darts in this article are aimed more at the Sulzbergers than Shortz.) The Times has been very conservative about further pay increases, and the issue of giving constructors royalties for republished puzzles has never been seriously raised, ostensibly because of the challenges of keeping track of the bookkeeping but more likely because constructors lack any clout.


When I published my first crossword in 2004, I took a typical path, trying my hand at making a grid on a sheet of paper and, with some mentorship from old hands on the Cruciverb-l email list, eventually refined it to the point of saleability. My first acceptance came from USA Today, and ones from the LA Times and New York Times followed not long after.

This was a fairly standard path for a constructor. But less typically, I also reached out to alternative weeklies that I noticed didn't run a puzzle, to see if they might be interested in supporting a new weekly feature. Before my Times puzzle had even been published, I was given a trial run at the San Francisco Bay Guardian. I developed an email pitch that promised a sometimes racy and opinionated puzzle with a focus on "contemporary music, film, food, sexuality, art, and slang." A number of papers bit, including the Village Voice and Chicago Reader. The pitch became a syndicated weekly puzzle called Ink Well that I continue constructing to this day. Meanwhile, in 2006, I was offered the editorship of the then-newly launched Onion A.V. Club crossword, which was my first opportunity as an editor. Although longtime constructors told me in no uncertain terms that crosswords could only ever be a hobby, I was increasingly able to scrape together a living from those two features, along with some book contracts, and an assortment of freelance projects.

In fact, I made it through graduate school while splitting my mental energy between fieldwork methods and lurid clues. (Thing caught in the act? (3 letters) … STD.) PhD student stipends don't go very far, especially if you live in New York, so puzzles were and remain a serious part of my professional life. My career in puzzles hasn't been typical, but nor has it been unique; others have carved out careers by combining weekly features with book royalties and editing gigs, for example. Few of us, however, have any job security. Writing puzzles is a lot like freelance writing—except possibly even more marginal.


The anonymity that surrounds puzzle construction undoubtedly helps to maintain the status quo. Puzzle outlets implicitly tell authors that they should feel lucky to have their work appear in a major paper, rather than entitled to honest payment and acknowledgement. And for those who construct only one puzzle a year (or in a lifetime), perhaps the satisfaction of seeing their work published is enough. But for those of us who construct more regularly—who may even consider the pursuit a livelihood—our minute share of crossword earnings is frustrating and unfair.

Until recently, papers like The Times had little incentive to change their policies. The only pressure they have ever felt came from the now-defunct New York Sun, whose editor, Peter Gordon, continually raised his rates to at least one dollar higher than what The Times was paying in order to be able to claim that he paid the highest rate in the country. Shortz would then, in turn, be compelled to petition the Times to raise its rates. But since The Sun folded in 2008, The Times hasn't budged a single ecu (old French coin).

Today, though, things are a bit different. A number of alternative puzzles have become viable through online and in-app distribution. Features like Matt Gaffney's Crossword Contest ( and Brendan Emmett Quigley's twice-weekly puzzles ( rival any major newspaper in quality—and surpass them in edginess: consider Brendan's recent theme answer WAX AND WANK, clued as "Pleasure yourself after a Brazilian?" According to Brendan, "While I still sell puzzles to the Times, I find the speed at which print media operates too stifling. When I make a puzzle I want it to be out in the world almost immediately. Writing for the digital world allows that freedom." The existence of alternative outlets provide an important shim (wedge) in the labor showdown between constructors and publishers. Puzzlemakers with their own sites have full financial control and access to a growing audience. However, not every aspiring puzzle constructor can launch his or her own weekly feature, and Matt and Brendan are self-published authors rather than editors in the main. What is needed is a more equitable model for constructor compensation in edited crosswords, digital or otherwise. What might such a model look like?

As I mentioned earlier, for the past six years I have managed and edited the Onion A.V. Club crossword, which recently moved to a subscription service after being dropped by the newspaper that launched it. As of last month, we are called the American Values Club xword ( ), and we continue to specialize in pop culture/dumb sex jokes. (Example: Caleb Madison's recent "Deal with one's period, perhaps?" (4 letters) … EDIT.) Rather than buying work outright from constructors, we offer a base rate of $100, plus a fixed percentage of all royalties—from apps, books, or anything else. As the feature has grown, payment has risen to an average of well over $200 per puzzle, surpassing The Times and all other outlets despite our comparatively tiny size. Furthermore, there is no effective limit to what American Values constructors might earn, which seems perfectly fair given that they are artists whose creative products are the sole reason the feature exists, let alone succeeds. This model benefits constructors, of course, by paying them a fair share, and it benefits the editor by incentivizing better puzzles. There is nothing arcane about these economics, and their implementation is a simple matter of having the will to put a better system in place.

All of the pressure in the crossword industry today pushes against fairness, but there is an opportunity to turn alee (away from the wind). If more editors come to recognize the upside of increased base rates and royalty-sharing—and especially if constructors grow to demand those things—then puzzlemakers might finally get the recognition and compensation they deserve.

Related: Seven Years as a Freelance Writer, or, How To Make Vitamin Soup

Ben Tausig is the editor of the American Values Club xword, available by subscription, and the author of the syndicated alt-weekly puzzle Ink Well xwords. He has been a freelance and syndicated puzzlemaker since 2004, and writes for sites like The Classical and Dusted Magazine, in addition to working on a PhD in ethnomusicology from NYU.

16 Comments / Post A Comment

mcdonaldcollege (#239,983)

Nice Post…..

OnePageWonder (#239,985)

I love InkWell and OnionAV's crosswords, as well as Jonesin' and a few others on the Iphone's Crosswords app. I've had a nagging question for a while that maybe you can answer. It seems that every week, there are a handful of answers that are the same on a bunch of puzzles. The clues may be slightly different, but it has made me wonder if there was some kind of "crossword constructor newsletter" or something that authors were pulling from because it seemed uncanny that the same answers or their slight variations appear across the puzzles each week. Knowing that you edit both InkWell and OnionAV makes a bit more sense, but still curious.

Ben Tausig (#7,611)

@OnePageWonder It is a little unheimlichkeit that the same fill words seem to show up in multiple puzzles in the same day, but it's nothing but a coincidence. (Unless I'm the only one not getting the newsletter). Mathematically, it's bound to happen.

The truly weird thing is when the same *theme* appears in two puzzles published on or around the same day. That happened to me recently with a Schrödinger's cat-themed puzzle that ran in Ink Well less than a week from a nearly-identical puzzle in the Chronicle of Higher Education. And given the trippy subject of the theme, it was especially unnerving.

grandpa27 (#804)

@Ben Tausig The same words are used because they fit in a lot of tight spots on the puzzle: proa, stoa, anta, ott and many others.

john farmer (#239,981)

I remember a conversation from earlier this year about the extraordinary pay earned by pro athletes. Someone said, Well, they're the best in the world at what they do, so they deserve it. That's something that I think a lot of people believe, but it's a pretty lousy argument; it discounts most of the reasons why some athletes make a lot of money (not field hockey players, for example) and ignores the fact that most people who are the best at what they do don't make a lot. Case in point, crossword constructors. Even the best in the business make peanuts, relatively, and not because crosswords aren't popular. Tens of millions of people solve puzzles regularly, but there just isn't a good system for moving money from the people who solve puzzles into the pockets of the people who make them.

I applaud your efforts, Ben, to promote a model that will give constructors a better return for their efforts. I admire anyone who tries to make a living at creating puzzles. It shouldn't be so hard. It seems there ought to be a way for the best puzzlemakers to earn a good living.

It's easier to describe the problem than propose a solution. The puzzle business has relied mostly on freelancers over the years, with newspapers the major venue, along with a few magazines and books. The freelance model works to the benefit of the publishers: there's a diverse pool of talent to draw from and the costs are low. Almost everyone who contributes puzzles to papers earns a living from another source and makes puzzles as a sideline.

I don't see the freelance model changing anytime soon. It works for the publishers and there's not much likelihood that freelance constructors are going to organize and demand better pay (or rights to royalties, to final edit, etc.)

Even if publishers moved away from the freelance model — hired a staff of writers, say — the pool of money available to pay puzzlemakers is still fairly limited, so you'd probably see a few more people able to make a living but not a lot.

Meanwhile, since the business model is likely to stay the same at the predominant venues, the best you can probably do is be entrepreneurial, as you are, and create new markets. Distributing puzzles can be low-cost via the web, but the real challenge is turning the puzzles into dollars. A lot of solvers are used to getting their puzzles for free (or with their paper, so they don't think about paying for the puzzles). That mindset and that practice need to change if the puzzlemaking business is going to pay constructors better. The Fireball and new A.V. puzzles require subscriptions, so maybe things are beginning to evolve.

That may have an impact for a few, but I don't see much changing in the pay for most constructors, the freelancers. The NY Times is the premier brand in the business, with the biggest pool of crossword revenue, but the company has hit tough times. The paper is fighting for survival. As you note, the problem with meager pay is not Will Shortz, who has helped increase rates over the years, and at a higher level I doubt they worry about the pay of freelance puzzlemakers when they're cutting jobs of salaried staffers. (Per the linked story by the freelance writer, freelance sports page articles pay $200 also. It seems to be the Times' going rate.)

The only way to get the Times to raise rates, most likely, is through competition (as in the days of the NY Sun). But even if you create a better-paying model for a small group of constructors, that's not likely to have an impact at the Times. Not unless you're competing for the same freelance pool of constructors and publishing lots of their puzzles.

I suppose I've rambled enough. Thanks for the thoughtful article, Ben, and good luck with your endeavors.

Ben Tausig (#7,611)

@john farmer Thanks for your thoughts, John. I know you've considered these issues carefully and it's great to have your input.

TallDave@twitter (#240,062)

@john farmer Pro athletes don't earn a lot of money because they're really good at their sport; this is a common misconception, that's actually only why they are hired. They earn a lot of money for the same reason other popular entertainers do: lots of people are willing to watch them, in many cases even willing to pay to watch them.

Being the best at something is economically irrelevant. What matters is the perceived value created, which you can convert into money via an economic exchange, and how many people you can exchange it with. That's why Bezos and Brin are free-market billionaires — in contrast to NYT owner Carlos Slim, who acquired his wealth through crony capitalist telephone monopolies in Mexico.

I think there's a wonderful Information Age opportunity for constructors to do better without the NYT monopsony gatekeeping, but they're never going to do a lot better, because crosswords just don't generate all that much revenue.

In the francophone world,the name of the "verbicuciste" (constructor) as opposed to "cruciverbiste" ( the one who fills it) is very often published and many are on regular contract. Some ( like Maurice Hannequart) are famous enough to essentially write their own ticket.

Another model I'm testing is a web based construction tool with an optional fee per crossword, collected from readers. Check out

ahjawnil (#241,489)

This topic has always been one of my favorite subjects to read about. I have found your post to be very rousing and full of good information. I will check your other articles shortly.
stock price news

tewarikikry (#241,750)

I like the way you described the topic with such clarity. This is something I have been thinking about for a long time and you really captured the essence of the subject.
ICD-10 Training

Celine Jefferson (#244,472)

For a project at school I am trying to make a powerpoint presentation that when I click another word on the crossword puzzle shows up. Is there any way to do this? regards, Celine Jefferson

mughal12 (#245,016)

making elaborate products in his incredibly organized home such as duct tape wallets, but also into a phenomenal amount of writing. david bowie t-shirt

mughal12 (#245,016)

This is a great inspiring Article.I am pretty much pleased with your good Work.You put really very helpful information Fitness

Lush Acres (#245,074)

Several buses are available near Lush Acres EC along with shopping centers and restaurants. Lush Acres EC is also near Waterway Point, the shopping, dining and entertainment hub which is scheduled to open in 2 years time in Sengkang. Also, it is right beside Fernvale Link. Entertainment for your loved ones and friends are therefore at your fingertips with the full condo facilities as well as the amenities near Lush Acres EC.
Lush Acres Project Details

Sengkang ec (#245,338)

Lush Acres EC is located within minutes drive to TPE, SLE and Yio Chu Kang Road where owners staying there can get easy accessibility. Lush Acres EC is also within close proximity to the fringe of seletar with food and amenities abundant with Jalan Kayu just a short 5 min drive away as well as upcoming Seletar Mall (opening 2014). lush acres ec

Post a Comment