Dude, I was half kidding. I do want my $700 bucks though. Past 120 days.

They do offer a premium product, and in the coming shakeout I bet they will start printing their mags bigger and better and charging more for them.

I think what PE is getting at here (or at least what I interpret from his pointing out how they are protected from the current market shift online) is that they are selling a PREMIUM product.

Photographers would do well to treat their own business the same way – as a PREMIUM product and stop selling themselves short. This has been a theme on this blog (ie: the post about firing your clients, etc.) and #2′s point about their shrewd business practices is exactly correct. Sure you can say no to signing the contract, and they’ll just find someone to replace you – unless you produce something they can’t get anywhere else.

Meanwhile Conde Nast is as cheap and as extravagant as ever. I salute those among us who manage to surf the middle-ground and make it worth the experience and the credit. I know their “rates” are about the same as they were when I shot for them in like … the 80s. Think ad pages have remained the same?

Regarding its future, I’m assuming Conde Nast will survive, even if/when magazines eventually disappear (which won’t be any time soon). Kinda like how the major auto manufacturers will eventually own the electric market. The fashion and celebrity universe is tiny, and on a certain level Conde Nast owns it.

Yeah, I know a lot of the time problems stem from the “no idea what to do/no authority to act” syndrome that infiltrates huge companies. Been there done that. And, at least for me, it really helps to have an editor/contact who is up front in saying, “Dude, I have no idea, but I’m working on it.”

I don’t get angry until the communication stops, the lies start, or I get the impression that the editor no longer cares about finding someone to get the check out the door.

Conversely, there are people/companies who just don’t care.

I also find that generally, the further you get away from the photo/art department, the less anyone cares about getting the freelancers paid.

After all, there are tons of photogs out there lined up to take up any spaces opened by complaining regulars. I’ve actually been told as much by a major news service.

At best, they can make interest on the cash while it sits on account, and at worst, they can pay their most dangerous (in a legal sense) creditors first if cash is tight.

They know that it’s next to impossible for some schmuck like me to come after a multi-billion dollar company for a couple hundred bucks. And so, net 30 or 60 easily becomes “whenever we feel like it.”

But, to be fair, sometimes things are slow because in the larger companies, paperwork needs to move across three or four desks before it gets to the guy or gal who actually pays the bills.

As an interesting aside, I had a gentleman laugh at me yesterday when I asked for a kill-fee guarantee, and for that kill-fee to be paid upfront as a deposit on the remainder of the project.

Well, their contract had no rights grabs, their photographer fee was higher than most (more than $350 for sure) and they paid all expenses. A majority of magazines now days seem to offer up a flat fee and you need to decide if you want to take the job or not. Sure they may budge a little, but not a lot. I was able to bill CN for my own equipment, my own studio and in a time where digital fees are either not paid at all or in the $100 to $250 range, they paid $500.

My take home (for a small sized shoot) was much more than just about every other magazine I’ve shot for.

Maybe I just had a good experience… or I am THAT good… Uhhhhh, well we all know the answer to that one.

Jeff

“$350 a day, plus the forced signing of an all-rights photographer contract — that’s how we do it!” But I guess a credit line there is worth more than ten Modern Postcards. I guess it says, “I have arrived”.