After analyzing this for years the only solution I see is to form a Co-op (Wikipedia describes a Cooperative as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise).

This basically means a company where photographer’s (are like employees or have signed a contract) work off of certain rates. Get a few thousand to join and agree and be a part of this group, and if a client wants to work with one they have to agree to their fees- the benefit of this is an editorial client just can’t go somewhere else (if you have a ton of photographers who are in demand). But again, getting this to happen is extremely tough- most went into photography to run their own businesses and don’t want to be told what to do.

Then you could fight to get the photographer to be a “temporary employee” of the publication (similar to what S.A.G. does for actors) and we would get better rates, benefits, and the problem would be solved.

Getting this to happen is like trying to climb K2 to January by yourself.

That’s way we lost control of our industry in editorial (as well as stock)- photographers said “yes” to everything, including the low-paying bad contract jobs. If Nat Geo could get a high-quality photographer for $10/day, why shouldn’t they? That’s just good business. It’s up to photographers to turn it down.

But after working with ASMP for 10 years and helping to start EP, I can sadly report the effort is futile – photographer’s can’t agree on anything, and most refuse (who think they can do it) to learn the business side- not to mention the 22-year old NYC editor who has no clue of what a photographer goes through to produce high-quality unique work and thinks $300/day is good money.

So I charge appropriate fees and try to educate my client on the benefits of my services- if they don’t get it quickly, I move on while running my full-time photo business successfully.

The late Ruth Brown sang if she couldn’t sell it, she’d rather sit on it than give it away. Debra really hits the nail cleanly on the head. That’s a favorite activity, making assignment photographs that are what the assigning client wants and that have a really good chance of being *exactly* what a stock prospect wants, too. It’s been years since that’s worked for me in editorial, but it still works in corporate direct.

The biggest ego trip of all is the negotiation where the prospect goes away because the price is too high but then circles back, one more time, because the work is too good to ignore and maybe, just maybe, there’s a way to license the work. Photographers (or agents) who don’t experience that regularly are missing out.

The most important part is getting away from the mindset that devalues one’s own work, the mindset that says *any* sale of a license at *any* price is better than *no* sale. It’s good to not feel compelled to close all sales. That mindset, you youngsters, is the first step on the race to the bottom.

@36 Debra, You asked and I’m responding:

“When is the last time you actually looked at a printed magazine, (unless you live in New York), or (unless you were in an airport)?”

I haven’t read a magazine in ages. Maybe that’s part of the problem? I’m just a regular old joe. The average consumer. I think the only magazine I’ve actually looked at was the one in the grocery store line. Not to say there isn’t anything really compelling in there… somewhere.

“There are several problems inherent in looking at imagery online – really bad imagery can look really good, most monitors are not calibrated and reading online to many is not an enjoyable experience, while reading printed material is. ”

Then I’m the best damn photographer online and I should be charging appropriately:)

“Additionally, because so many of us spend so much time in front of the computer, a printed magazine serves as a respite from the relentless work environment.”

Relentless indeed. I don’t want to view or read anything after spending a day viewing and reading everything I need to online.

“Just as stock photography should have become more expensive than assignment work, prices for online use should be equal to or greater than print. This will be an uphill battle as huge mistakes were made when setting up the internet business model.”

This is a huge mistake in the business model of publishers not photographers. We are in the drivers seat. (Always have been actually, unless you’re thinking about money)

You want to be great? You certainly don’t need a magazine publisher to show your work and as for the publisher?

More often than not as you put it:

“… they’ll pay. Just make sure you have what they want. Stop trying to make people like you and make better images.”

And that’s really the question for me.

Here’s my own answer: Don’t worry so much about making images they want. Make images you want and if “they” want them. Well… you get the drift.

What a change in perspective. I think photographers are adapting, evolving and changing to the marketplace quite nicely. And a hell a lot better than the publishers.

Oh, those poor publishers…

-Magazines hire Senior Photographers
-Comanies sponsor Athletes to represent the brand
-Athletes have contracts with bonus payments for published photos in magazines, photo incentives
-Companies hire photographers to get editorial photos produced they would like to see
-Companies advertise in the magazine
-Magazines print the photos produced by their Senior Photographers who got hired by companies to produce editorial they would like to see because the magazines want to make their advertisers happy
-Athletes tend to think they are the shit rather than thinking they are part of the machine

Also on the subject of making some cash money… Andrew cleaned up yesterday via the JB machine 20×200, selling out the small and medium sizes of “Moo Cow” in a matter of minutes. If you are reading this Jen… um, yes please?! Well deserved and great work, my friend. Now who needs a couple of 30×40’s to finish things off?

http://tinyurl.com/57uup5

I was a little surprised that your post didn’t end, Thomas, in a note that you decided to agree to it so that you had access to that subject and would use it as a partially funded promo/portfolio concept (regardless of the bad contract, though I think anyone can vouch that there are MUCH worse – no endorsement, but lets at least be fair). Not that I think you role that way, but that’s how a lot of people think about any call from the NYT, FADER, XXL, and the long list of other titles that operate in the same way (CPOY winners list= next year’s contributors).

5 years ago I shot 50-60 days a year from the Times because it felt right for me at that point in my career and because I really wanted to play a part in journalism. Since then I basically turn each (rare) call from 111-111-1111 on its head and ask the editor to pitch the story to me for my consideration. Most of the editors are pretty thrown off by this (I really don’t know why, I do it with all of my calls, but some NYT PE’s become audibly angry), and I wait to hear the rare smart idea or great opportunity which sometimes leads me to say yes. It’s only happened a couple times in recent memory, but they ended up being week-long projects throughout the South and in Costa Rica in which I had a great deal of control and invitation to personal vision.

Obviously the NYT is a beacon to which other publications take strength and weakness from, and on that account it deserves to have the shit beaten out of it on blogs and anywhere else for its insane approach to paying for photography. God knows their is a long line for beatings these days, if only photographers could find enough sticks. But there are (obviously) other factors involved with the choices that photographers (not at all a monolithic group) make beyond money and business, as Mr. Wright so eloquently (@69) pointed out (see you next week, Robert).

1 editorial photographers who shot stock on the side (under a different name usually)
2 editorial photographers who shot porn on the side (under a differnet name usually)
3 editorial photographers who shot advertising on the side (same name but not always)
4 editorial photographers who do something else on the side (bartending, wedding photography etc)

for a lot of them the side show becomes the main thing so I’m not sure if you can call them editorial photographers anymore but at the end you can call yourself what you want if you work in media or entertainment.

Hope it’s not bad form to post this link but it seems appropriate to this discussion for those who have not seen it … Vincent Laforet on the future of photography and why wedding photography ain’t so bad …

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014

–

I won’t defend the practices of the Times nor those of any other low paying magazine. I respect Thomas’ prerogative to decline the job not just on principle but also solely on a budget that doesn’t match his production costs. No one wants to turn down a gig, especially one with a subject that is compelling for any reason although I do understand why some would reflexively pass.

I’m a bit puzzled however on why Thomas wouldn’t consider exploiting the Times in the way that they were attempting to exploit him. I don’t mean “exploit” in a negative way either.

Is there a reason that Thomas could not have just done the shoot and offered the Times a portion of the take? Maybe just offer one or two images?

With a photo budget ($200 all in) that is equal to a ticket for a Broadway show or an NFL football game, does the Times really expect (or deserve) the equivalent of an ad shoot for Nike or Coca Cola?

Why couldn’t one just shoot the gig and give the Times a couple of shots and keep the rest for ones-self. You’d have extras and out-takes and get a tear-sheet too. What’s wrong with that?

Is that bad or contrary to some editorial credo? Honestly I don’t know. Maybe Thomas or others would find this approach to be somewhat shady although I certainly don’t. Personally I would see it as almost a win-win. As long as the Times’ immediate needs are met why should they care what an enterprising photographer makes for himself/herself especially when the photographer absorbs the production costs.

I’ve never seen a contract from the Times and even if it is work for hire or co-copyright for all intents and purposes it would be unenforceable on out-takes and extras especially if no one from the Times was present on the shoot. Even more so if only a few images were delivered to the Times too. Who’s to say where the Times’ shoot ends and Thomas’ begins? Furthermore the Times would have very little standing when insisting that a photographer is an independent contractor and then claiming that every frame is work for hire. Possession is 9/10th of the law, right? IANAL.

On the other hand it would hurt me a lot to hand over even a single image to the Times as WFH or co-copyright for the paltry amount that was offered. It would present a huge dilemma when weighing access to someone that I found compelling vs. sharing with a company like NYT.

Still, there’s always more than one way to skin a cat.

I love your thinking on this 10/10 concept.

There is this one magazine that I work(ed) for, (one of the very few; I mostly do advertising). But I love this magazine. I love what it stands for; I love everything about it.

Then, I got into this casual discussion with the Editor once about why that only the Writers were ever listed as Contributors in the magazine — yes, it was a literary magazine, but they used photography very well too. I asked him, “Hey, since you don’t pay squat, and since everyone that works for you does it more for love, than for money, why not throw the photographers a bone, and list them as Contributors as well? It might even give them a sense of relation, even though they’re all freelance”.

But they wouldn’t budge on that Contributor issue, and it went from being a casual disagreement to getting downright ugly. I stopped working for them; (hell, I never really “worked” for them, since almost everything I did was for peanuts money).

I heard last month that they had begun to add Photographers to the Contributors page. I considered that a minor victory. If we were all honest, we all probably do Editorial more for the love, and for the freedom, and the adventure, than for the money. So why not pick out ten or so magazines, and really try to create a relationship with them? Of course, everyone wants to pick Wired and Fast Company, but I guess there’s nothing wrong with that. But if they won’t hire you regularly, why not another one, (that you believe in)?

But what I love is the idea that you’d have some kind of real relationship with a magazine, and that you’d shoot regular assignments for them. And you’d regard it much more special than “just another editorial job”. I love that concept, even though it’s probably wishful thinking.

Also, I’ve recently been thinking about a promo campaign to be focused specifically on green energy ad agencies. The quandary is…do the people who are receiving said promo material care how it was produced? Should it be printed on recycled materials? Should it be printed at all? Is it worth noting to them how it was produced in a “green” manner?
I phoned an art director friend of mind who owns a green ad agency and asked him this. His response was, “I uhhh..you know? I never thought about that before!”

define self interest and you have something there…

It is easy to define corporate self interest because there are shareholders. Before media became “corporatized” the stock price was not the only element of self interest. Consequently, content mattered more.

Now editorial magazines are focused solely on profit, to the exclusion of content. Because their ’self interest’ is so narrowly defined their pursuit of lower fees is easy to understand.

photographers on the other hand do not always define their self interest so narrowly, profit, exposure, projects, satisfaction, interest, all define the self interest of the photographer.

But it is simplistic to say “all photographers should always pursue maximum profit”. You take jobs for different reasons at different times and reject some you took formerly.

If photographers were corporate entities then they could behave like the corporate entities they serve. They are not however. So their decision making process cannot be whittled down to simple profit-seeking.

There is no doubt that a large percentage of photographers do accept work that they know to be under compensated or somehow deficient. And sometimes they don’t. But the steady stream of new photographers and the steady stream of crap assignments does keep supply greater than demand, and so in this environment, there can be no larger move to higher fees. And it is nobody’s fault. The solution is to move on from the editorial space and do other things. Or become highly differentiated but don’t expect to work very often in editorial. And don’t expect to work very often in editorial…

I’m not trying to be contrary, I’m honestly interested …

Then the bad news rolled in. They offered me the princely sum of $200 flat to complete the job. After I paid my assistant and rental gear I was going to be in the hole a few hundred bucks. I was expected to pay for the privilege to shoot this guy.

This was not a 10 page spread in Fader or Radar but the NyTimes with 5 billion dollars in gross revenue.

Then the contract rolled in. I don’t remember the details but I think they were asking for a work for hire and some kind of joint copyright. I, of course, passed on the job.

I do not blame the Times for this ridiculous deal. If they can get photographers to pay to work for them and then sign away the rights to images then my hat is off to them. Why does a dog lick himself? Because he can.

I am with Debra. Photographers ( especially NY photographers) are their own worst enemy. We are all responsible for this predicament and can not blame publishers for acting in their own self interest.

Rob, I really don’t know what this means. It sounds … like a sound bite (very unlike you). Sorry, maybe I am missing your point.

But who is “we,” as in “we can make changes”? If you are suggesting that photographers need to take more control, become publishers in a sense, or team with 3rd parties to publish and market, you may be right … i.e. mediastorm model … convergence, auctions of content, etc.

In general, you can’t lay all burgeoning media failure at the feet of a “broken economic model,” although that is most certainly true. Traditional editorial, especially in print, has become … boring – boring to the younger generation in an age of cinematic wonders, video games, instant gratification, ritalin, and hyper reality trips without the side effects of the ’60s. People are still dropping out, only the drug has changed … and it’s free. The mindsucker has come home to roost. Reality sucks.

But … I am not all pessimism. I really do feel something is coming, something fresh and new and universally appealing. I can see everywhere little signs of people taking measure, wanting more but not in a consumeristic way, an awakening or at least a rebellion of “traditional” American values. Have you looked at the best seller list lately? What does that have to do with media and photography? Everything.

The publisher’s blustery cry of, “Our readers don’t care about that artsy-fartsy shit,” sounds to me like the cynical death rattle of a dying industry holding onto the ship as it begins to slip below the waters. The new media world I suspect won’t be dominated, it will be a more self organizing, viral, complicated organic system on a global scale. Somehow, money will follow eyes.

And I agree with Parr insofar as approaching things differently, and even his assertions about print, at least in the short term. To put it another way, someone recently said, “if you’re photos suck, you’re not reading enough.”

The king is dead, long live the king … but where is the king? Perhaps the age of kings, and patronage, is coming to a close.

I opened this dialogue because I think it’s time for a change and photo editors are listening.

—-

You mean, don’t be one of these interchangeable/replaceable guys?:

http://tinyurl.com/58×29e