Magazine shooters - your thoughts?

[Picture North Carolina]

The magazine sector is suffering. Ad revenues are down (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/06/08/daily21.html), resulting in reduced editorial content, resulting in less work for photographers and writers. This seems to be happening across all subject sectors.

As a person who shot lots of magazine stuff, I began to rethink my business model a while back, wondering if reducing magazine work was a good idea. But something happened last week that got me thinking and that pushed me over the edge decision-wise.

Radio & Records Magazine went out of business (http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=36948). For those unfamiliar with it, it was one of the top publications in the industry. But it's the way they did it that got me thinking - without prior announcement, they just locked the doors.

Publishers I work for pay on publication date, not material delivery date. Because some have a two month lead time, I am concerned. A lot can happen in two months, and it would be possible to have a door slammed shut with open, unpaid invoices inside. Get in a line with creditors? Forget it, a waste of time.

So I'm wondering if there are any other mag-type shooters out there, what your feelings are. How are things going in your part of the industry? Do you plan on deemphasizing the publishing work and building other existing areas or branching into new areas altogether?

[sfaust]

I've noticed the same in the industry. Magazines are having a very tough time, and the present economy isn't helping at all. I don't pursue magazine work anymore because the rates haven't changed in 20 years, they are pushing for lower rates while asking for more usage, full re-print rights, etc, and are asking you to bend over backwards while doing it. It's just not worth it anymore when commercial work pays 4-5 times their rates, and advertising is even higher.

The only work I still get from magazines are dribbles from past clients or magazines that found me, as I don't market to magazines at all. If I have an photo essay or idea I want to do, I may contact a magazine that would be very specific to that content. But in general I've moved away from magazines and have been doing commercial and advertising for a number of years now.

And yes, a lot can happen in 2 or 3 months. I always negotiate payment on delivery, or invoice on delivery with a 30 day net for well known mags, or I'll just pass on the work. In these times it is too risky to wait 2 or 3 months for payment, especially when you have outstanding expenses (models, assistants, etc). Loosing the fee is hard enough, but loosing a few grand in expenses is like adding salt to the wound.

[Jim G]

Around here more and more magazines are using free photographers rather than paying professionals. There's a horde of groups here based on Flickr and the like who are willing to give away their works for free just for the sake of getting into a gig or getting their name printed in a magazine of one sort or another... and the publications are cottoning onto this and the fact that quite a few of them have good kit, like 5D IIs and an L lens or two.

As someone who did regular work with the magazines a couple of years ago I made some very good money for the work... which has all but dried up now. I haven't shot anything for a magazine for a couple of months at this point.

I think that the economy bombing has only accelerated the process... it was beginning before the economy trouble started, though.

I don't know of any way to get around it, either. I've just written off magazines as a source of income for the most part now. I was chatting to a staff photographer of the largest local newspaper a while back and she said that their photography staff had been cut by 1/3 or something like that with further layoffs looking likely... she largely pointed the finger at the economy, stock and free-shooting amateurs.

[breal101]

Everything said so far is right on. Magazines are far less liberal with fees and expenses than 20 years ago. Some of the smaller publications then were paying more than the big ones today. I only take magazine assignments when the only expense I may have is for travel by car.

[Gentleman Villain]

magazines = R.I.P.

Photographers have to free their minds and forget about the old media. Editorial work was never known for paying well and most photographers only did it as a way to advertise or gain access to new stylists, subjects, and locations in an effort to diversify portfolios. It's time to think of a new way to self-promote.

[Karl Johnston]

I looked at magazines..well I have been approached, recently, by one featuring me as a top rising young entrepreneur/artist. Otherwise it's freelance stuff, and most of it for free..one magazine I looked at wanted me to pitch a story and then pay them to print it. I think it was like 125$ or something ??? Bit backwards eh?

National geographic and Canadian geographic still pay out pretty big, but if you can get with them then you probably don't ever need to worry about not finding enough work as a freelancer.

Lots of freelancers I talk to tell me about how they get their shots in magazines and for magazine adverts and then when I ask how much they were paid they seem flabbergasted that they should be paid more than $50.

It's pathetic really. I'm just finish an advertising commission and that was paid for and called "reasonable" at $3000. I think its all attributed to lack of experience. A part of me half a year ago, before I started rising, couldn't figure out why people charged so much (thousands a day!) for a shoot...and now I won't do one unless I can see that money coming to me first. Or at least 40% to confirm the commitment.

I generally avoid free jobs unless I can barter something out of it (like free monthly advertising; got one of those instead of being paid per photo and article).

[Picture North Carolina]

Lots of freelancers I talk to tell me about how they get their shots in magazines and for magazine adverts and then when I ask how much they were paid they seem flabbergasted that they should be paid more than $50.

I saw the other comments in here about magazine pay scales and wondered, but this one kicked the dog. I had no idea some magazines were paying so little. I wouldn't sell for $50 either.

Perhaps there is large disparity in the industry. The publishers I did work for paid on a scale set to printed size. They varied a little, but basically were around: $500 for a cover shot, $450 for a double-page spread, $350 for a full page and on down from there on a relative scale.

[sfaust]

You can still get some good paying editorial work, but not for anything other than national well known magazines, and even some of those are tight fisted. Getting a couple grand for a cover image is still out there for some mags, but before long it will be $50 and a credit line and there will be lots of uneducated photographers lining up to get their photo "on the cover of the rolling stone" ;) Yes, the abundance of amateurs entering the market has taken its toll on the industry. :(

The only thing still attractive with editorial work is the creative freedom. Advertising and commercial work can be very tightly controlled in artistic direction, production quality, etc. Many times you are working off a comp and need to recreate it exactly. With editorial, there is a lot of expressive freedom. I'll miss that part of it.

National geographic and Canadian geographic still pay out pretty big, but if you can get with them then you probably don't ever need to worry about not finding enough work as a freelancer.

From what I've heard in the industry, a lot of the work for National Geographic is freelance, where the photographers are fronting their trips, expenses, etc, and then selling the images to NG. I don't know if they still have any staff photographers.

[Karl Johnston]

I think they have a couple, though you are right NG is 90% composed of freelancers..but they're not work for free guys.

The last guy I talked to told me that his pay out from the project article he did for them was $10 000 for the cover and then a couple more for the collection of other images he did. (then again I don't remember last year very well, I think it may have been 10 000 for the lot of it...)

I've yet to meet a freelancer who receives a million dollar pitch...I was reading a thread on her about the Inuit (I think his name is Majik or something) and I ran across him turning down over 500 thousand for the rights to the images.

I blame ignorance...it's a big ego booster to have your shot displayed in an advert or a magazine, and the more well known the better. I think its just lazy photo editors taking advantage of the fact that everyone wants to be a professional photographer (and why not?..but it cheaps out the industry and makes it a lot harder for rising up (myself) or established professionals (sfaust and you lot) to get work).

[sfaust]

I've also heard that they still pay very well for usage, but that the freelance photographers plan and execute the trips, cover all the expenses, with no guarantee of NG buying the images. If NG doesn't buy the images, the photographers are out the expenses and need to find other outlets to recoup their costs. If they can't sell them to some other decent paying magazine (what, of the 5 that are left :) ), then they could be out the expenses. Basically, like shooting stock with no guaranteed sales outlet. To be fair, I've heard it third hand so reality could be slightly different.

[Karl Johnston]

Yup, you've got that right ^