Sports Illustrated lays off photographers just before th e Superbowl

Sports Illustrated's decision to eliminate the token handful of remaining staff photographers makes a strong statement about the employment future of sports photographers and maybe about photographers in general.

Sad to say all sports photographers will now be freelance sports photographers.

DC Fan wrote in post #17396425
Sports Illustrated's decision to eliminate the token handful of remaining staff photographers makes a strong statement about the employment future of sports photographers and maybe about photographers in general.

It probably also makes a strong statement about the future of Sports Illustrated and print magazines in general. Of course it remains unclear how much online journalism values professional photography, but from what I can see the answer is "not much".

just saw this elsewhere and came to post it here.

this is certainly evidence of the publishing industry's low opinion of professionals, but it is also evidence of the general public's opinion of traditional publications.

part of me wonders how relevant SI is these days. They only laid off 6 people, it should have been an obvious course of events. As a kid in the 80's i had a closet full of SI and Nat Geo. I think Nat Geo is still clinging to traditional distribution methods and supplementing with online pubs, but i'm not sure how long it will last. The real disappointment here is the overall marginalization of true journalism. Consumers and content creators are both to blame.

It might have more to do with a fiscal move than with SI's financial health. For years magazines have been doing away with staff photographers so as not to pay salaries nor social insurance, employee's insurance and the rest of the manifold costs that an employee now generates a company. We have our governments to blame for that. Thus mags are moving onto a buyer-supplier relationship where they can commission photography with less overhead. All the while, they keep increasing their advertising rates: it's a business model that works very well for them.

Alveric wrote in post #17397063
It might have more to do with a fiscal move than with SI's financial health. For years magazines have been doing away with staff photographers so as not to pay salaries nor social insurance, employee's insurance and the rest of the manifold costs that an employee now generates a company. We have our governments to blame for that.

Publisher's have decided that they want to pay photographer's less than minimum wage with no benefits of any kind.....and this is the fault of the government? I don't follow that logic. SI want to pay these guys next to nothing. Absent regulation, they would apparently pay them next to nothing, which indicates that paid sports photography is a dead profession.

All the government regulation does is force SI to do some fancy footwork as regards regular employees vs. contractors.....but the result is the same. SI doesn't carry staff photographers because the technology (internet) has changed both their market and their approach.

People do not need subscriptions to weekly sports periodicals in order to view high quality photos with articles. And SI doesn't need to carry full time staff as it is possible to view and buy images from freelance shooters. Actually, that kind of photography is once place where freelancing makes a lot of sense.

It's greed on both sides of the equation. The government has been imposing ever more onerous loads upon businesses throughout the years. As I said above: licences, insurance, &c. and they can always fine you if you don't comply. They're vampiric lampreys. They're just relying on their legislative capabilities to capitalise not only on the successful but on the unsuccessful as well.

On the other side, yes, publications have turned into selfish bloodsuckers also. They keep slashing their rates whilst their standards remain the same or go higher. I should know. I did work for an advertorial-type of magazine for the past two years. Their rate never increased to keep pace with inflation, but their expectations surely did. Recently they established a new policy for photographers: in a nutshell, they want to be at the level of major publications and productions, whilst demanding that photographers do all their shoots, no matter how elaborate within an hour, because they will not pay any more than ONE HOUR. Based on what they're asking, there's no way on Earth, Mars or Saturn that a photographer without an assistant can meet their expectations in the given time frame. Corners have to, and will be, cut somewhere. You can't possibly have Architectural-Digest-quality photos in less than one hour for less than $100 (their actual rate is actually lower, but I don't want do say exactly how much). I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure they have increased their advertising rates. Sound fair? As of this month I fired them.

Everyone everywhere is busy screwing just about anybody. And it'll only get worse.

This is definitely sad. Without a doubt, the business model of photography has radically changed in the last 10 years.

Bryan

So... the swimsuit edition will only be a verbal description w/out images? ; D

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17401282
So... the swimsuit edition will only be a verbal description w/out images? ; D

I'll go on location for that gig. I bet I can verbally describe the heck out of those models

Alveric wrote in post #17397063
It might have more to do with a fiscal move than with SI's financial health. For years magazines have been doing away with staff photographers so as not to pay salaries nor social insurance, employee's insurance and the rest of the manifold costs that an employee now generates a company. We have our governments to blame for that. Thus mags are moving onto a buyer-supplier relationship where they can commission photography with less overhead. All the while, they keep increasing their advertising rates: it's a business model that works very well for them.

And now that photographers are self-employed, they will have to pay for the insurance etc. themselves. That's the way it is over here with freelancers at least. The only other option is that the freelancers decide not to insure themselves or don't stock a retirement fund. Both cases are bad for the industry.