submitting to newspapers

[Stocky]

What is the best way to sell images to a newspaper? I have a few pictures such as the one that I recently submitted for C&C here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=469480) and I am interested in selling it to the news industry. I am willing to write an article to go with it as I feel that there is a good story behind this unit as well.
Is it worth trying to sell a story to a wire service, or would my best bet be to send a letter to individual small newspapers? I haven't had any pictures of writing published previously, so I figure I probably need to start small. I just feel that I am in a good position to start right now, and I feel strongly about this story.

Thanks for your help

[PhotosByCynthia]

Most newspapers already have their photographers who do the news articles so I doubt you will have much chance of selling them images you take. Sometimes they will use a photo you take when they don't have one for a specific event, but they rarely pay. You need to look into whether these places use freelance photographers. I had a photo of mine placed on the front page of the newspaper. Took up half the page. It was of a barn fire at a neighbors house. My pictures were better than the reporters that they sent out there; he couldn't get as close to the fire as I could. I was not that close, but used a zoom lens. I didn't get paid for it, but I got a by-line.

[Vangunda]

You got robbed then Cynthia.

My advice Stocky would be to just email the Photo chief. Thats what I did last year after our bomb threat at my college. No other photographer was able to get down there from the regional newspaper so they bought 2 photos of the bomb squad entering the building and signed me on as a stringer.

[transcend]

Most newspapers already have their photographers who do the news articles so I doubt you will have much chance of selling them images you take. Sometimes they will use a photo you take when they don't have one for a specific event, but they rarely pay. You need to look into whether these places use freelance photographers. I had a photo of mine placed on the front page of the newspaper. Took up half the page. It was of a barn fire at a neighbors house. My pictures were better than the reporters that they sent out there; he couldn't get as close to the fire as I could. I was not that close, but used a zoom lens. I didn't get paid for it, but I got a by-line.

Why the hell didn't you get paid? Invoice them.

[adam LC]

I'm not sure where you're based, but in the UK there is a magazine published by the Ministry of Defence for the UK armed forces. It's called... Soldier (http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/mag/index.htm)
Maybe you have a similar publication where you're from, no harm in trying! Good luck... Actually, I think it would make an excellent stock photo with the likes of Alamy, worth a look!

[PhotosByCynthia]

That's the thing, I wasn't looking to get paid. I merely sent them the photo and asked them if they can use it. I wrote them a few months later and asked them if they hired freelance photographers because I would be interested in a position and received no answer.

[transcend]

Why would you give a for profit entity content for free?

[Citizensmith]

I agree, unless its a newsletter for a non-profit or an entry for cutsey photo of the week, there should really be some cash changing hands.

The bigger question is how much you can justifiably ask a given newspaper. This obviously depends on size (Podunk Weekly vs New York Times) and intended use (Front page vs thumbnail next to some public interest article). And personally, I've got no idea what they'd pay.

[transcend]

You don't specify the pricing for most editorial work (magazines and newspapers). Almost all of them have set rates, you take it or leave it. However, FREE isn't a set rate.

They simply took Cynthia for a ride. Any newspaper that tells you they do not pay for photos is lying through their teeth. Whether from the wires, freelance, stringers or exclusive local content through someone like you, they DO pay for photos. They are notorious for trying to talk their way out of paying though.

[Stocky]

I'm not sure where you're based, but in the UK there is a magazine published by the Ministry of Defence for the UK armed forces. It's called... Soldier (http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/mag/index.htm)
Maybe you have a similar publication where you're from, no harm in trying! Good luck... Actually, I think it would make an excellent stock photo with the likes of Alamy, worth a look!

"Soldier" huh? Ours is the much more creatively named "Soldier Magazine". Both of those might be good candidates; the only problem I see is that I don't know if either of them pay. I could even try to work in something about our one British exchange officer when I sell it to the guys on the other side of the ocean (actually this side of the ocean right now).
The way I look at it is that I can provide a story at MUCH lower cost than the papers that send reporter teams over here to write about us, but I don't know if a story about us being successful would sell.
I did look around at some stock agencies, Alamy included, and found that they didn't have too many good Iraqi Army pictures. I was a little discouraged by Alamy's upsize requirement, but maybe I shouldn't let that scare me off.

[amfoto1]

Many newspapers do not buy soft news photos from stringers or independent photogs. They get them from their archives and services they subscribe to for that purpose. But, it never hurts to ask.

A newspaper syndicate might be a more likely buyer, but the quality of the story and photo(s) all need to be very high.

Some newspapers do purchase breaking news photos from local stringers and independents. Time is of the essence in most cases. If the photo is more than 24 hours old, it's usually no longer usable. (Stop the flames... yes, there are exceptions).

You will probably have better luck selling your photo along with a story to a military-related magazine. USAA publishes a monthly, for example. I'm sure there are many others, too, this is just the first one that came to mind. (www.usaa.com, offering financial and insurance services for military officers, active and retired, and their dependents).

If interested, go to a library and look up copies of Photographers Market for the past few years. There's a section on magazines.

This photo and others like it might do well editorially on stock agency websites, too. A photo by itself is not often put into stock archives, unless it's something truly exceptional (Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald). Usually a photo is one in a larger body of work (say 200 minimum to start, plus 200 more per year... but perhaps more in both cases, depending upon the particular agency).

Unless you have a signed model release from each recognizable person in the photo, you are highly unlikely to be able to sell it for advertising or other commercial purposes (the biggest money makers, unfortunately).

Without model release a photo can only be used editorially (more and more of which are also starting to ask for a release), educationally, or as fine art.

[PhotosByCynthia]

You don't specify the pricing for most editorial work (magazines and newspapers). Almost all of them have set rates, you take it or leave it. However, FREE isn't a set rate.

They simply took Cynthia for a ride. Any newspaper that tells you they do not pay for photos is lying through their teeth. Whether from the wires, freelance, stringers or exclusive local content through someone like you, they DO pay for photos. They are notorious for trying to talk their way out of paying though.


I didn't get taken for a ride. Please stop assuming I did. I GAVE them the image to use on the front page. I got a by-line. This situation was perfectly fine for me. I had NO INTENTIONS on getting paid for the photo. If I wanted to get paid for the image and they refused I surely would not have handed it over to them. I don't HAVE TO make money on every image I take. It's a small town newspaper and I was more than happy to contribute to the story. I also printed off all the images I took and gave a set to the neighbors who lost their barn. Are you going to tell me I should have gotten payment from them as well? Not everything in photography has to be about how much money you can get for your photos. Sometimes giving is a good thing.

[transcend]

I didn't get taken for a ride. Please stop assuming I did. I GAVE them the image to use on the front page. I got a by-line.

Translation: you got taken for a ride. By lines mean nothing. I am not assuming anything, there is absolutely NO REASON to give work to a for profit media outlet, whether they are a small town paper or the USA today.

Did the neighbors make a profit by showing their friends the photos? Didn't think so. The paper, however, DID make a profit via ad sales and issues sales which is directly related to it having daily content.

[amfoto1]

I worked for newspapers for 21 years, 4 different ones in total.

In fact, U.S. newspapers have been hugely profitable (I can't speak for other parts of the world).

The forced sale of Knight Ridder a year or so ago was because investors were unhappy with only 18% profits! (Funniest thing is that many of the properties ended up with McClatchy, which had been running about 17% profits... d'oh!)

The reason the investors felt that wasn't enough and got up in arms about it was because some of the "accountant-run" chains of papers regularly posted 20 to 24% profits until very recently.

Most other types of businesses are ecstatic at 10+% profit, many are quite happy even with 5 to 7% margins.

And small town newspapers are one of the most profitable. There are some rare, small independents, but most are now owned by large corporations who enjoy "printing money". Gannet, for example, specializes in small town newspapers. The reason small papers tend to be more profitable is that they are less impacted by the Internet and more likely to have a monopolistic market position, even though it's a small market. Their property and labor costs are usually lower than a major metro's, too.

In very recent years, newspapers (and other traditional media) have seen their revenue streams increasingly diverted by the Internet and they're really struggling to maintain the same ridiculously high profit margins their owners and investors have enjoyed since pre-WWW. Advertising monies are going elsewhere rapidly, at the same time circulation is dropping as people find other sources for their news!

But don't feel too sorry for them. Newspapers are laying off all their experienced workers, out-sourcing a lot of work overseas and raising their subscription rates ridiculously, all to help maintain what are still very considerable profit margins.

So, before you "donate" your creative property to them, check who actually owns your local paper. Chances are it's a large and greedy corporation that will snicker all the way to the front page with your freely offered photo!

Cynthia, if your photo appeared in the Star News, that looks as if it actually is one of those rare, locally-owned and operated newspapers, and your community spirit might be very well placed! So you can sleep at night knowing you aren't helping line the pockets of some billionaire media mogul on the other side of the country or planet! ;-)

[transcend]

So you can sleep at night knowing you aren't helping line the pockets of some billionaire media mogul on the other side of the country or planet! ;-)

Yup, instead she lined the pockets of a local businessman, instead of her own.



But don't feel too sorry for them. Newspapers are laying off all their experienced workers, out-sourcing a lot of work overseas and raising their subscription rates ridiculously, all to help maintain what are still very considerable profit margins.

And we both know why they can get away with it; because of people who give them work for free.

[PhotosByCynthia]

amfoto1, Yes it is the StarNews. Thank you for your comments.

transcend, I find you to be rather rude. I'm sure the paper didn't sell more issues simply because my photo was on the front page. You are the only one who seems to be worried about lining pockets. Undoubtedly your own. Stop kicking the proverbial dead horse. I don't care if you think I should have gotten paid for the photo. It was my choice and I'm happy with it. At $1 a newspaper in a town of less than 4800 I hardly think my front page photo lined anything but the bottom of a birdcage!

[transcend]

Sorry if you find it rude, the truth hurts sometimes.

You are right, I am concerned with lining my own pockets. I actually do this as a career and make a very good living at it.

Edit: You mentioned you asked if they were looking to employ photographers and didn't hear back. Why would they offer to hire you when you are already giving them product for free? Giving away your work sets a horrendous precedent.

[ChrisRabior]

As many shooters are discovering, it becomes a stigma when you shoot for free. People actually seem shocked when you eventually ask them for payment.

Even if you're only asking for their standard freelance rate, you should still be getting payment for your work.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The tradition of giving a photo to a small town local paper for the sheer thrill of being published is nothing new... it goes back to the beginnings of amateur photography, and will persist likely for the foreseeable future.

Some of the opinions here are needlessly accusatory, and hostile.
There is no need to belittle or attack a fellow photographer and member simply because there own needs and reasons for pursuing photography do not match your own.

This is basic society skills, people have different values. Please do not try to use POTN to impose yours on others.