Having some trouble with a magazine

[architecture]

The owner of a home magazine publishing company i've been working with for the

past 5-6 months has made some changes in the way it's paying photographers

without prior notice. The company has decided to go from $300 per shoot to

$200 per shoot.

 

I am asking for advice on if I should continue to shoot for the magazine at a

lower wage, and possibly more work, or quit completly and see how they do.

 

Stats:

I average about $550-600 every two months.

The Publishing company has 3 bi-monthly magazines that are very ad-heavy and

photo-heavy which are popular in the area.

The company averages about $444,000 per year in sales with 6 employees.

Popular magazine in town with An average distribution of 25,000.

Two different magazines offer competition in which this company is in the

middle, popularity wise.

They use an average of 2 different professional architectural photographers

per issue, the flagship mag uses an average of 3.

Two of the established photographers have quit the magazine in the past few

months for reasons I am not sure of, so I am basically the only pro working

with them.

There are only around 4 professional architectural photographers in the area

and 3 of them are doing other things.

 

I am asking advice on how I should deal with this issue. My first instinct

is to stop working with them and see what they do. On the other hand, an

editor which is a good friend of mine and does not understand the change

either, says I can probably get a lot more work since there will be less

photographers.

 

Does anybody know of options I can bring to the table on this? I don't want

to screw the other photog's in the area over by charging too low, but I want

to get some extra money too.

[john_jovic]

It's not a case of 'screwing other photographers in the area', to use your words, to shoot at such a low rate you would be screwing yourself. Even if you do get more work, which is only wishfull thinking on your part, what's the point if you are only being paid 2/3rds for the same job.

 

Sometimes photogs do supply too much, and maybe doing a smaller cheaper job is more appropriate. Why would you consider doing the same job for only 2/3rds of the price? Why don't you supply 2/3rds of the quantity/quality, that is, if you previously spent 6 hours on a job then only spend 4 hours on the same job.

 

All I can suggest is that you talk to the editor and try to get back your previous rate, which I assume you were happy with. If not then make it clear that you will spend much less time on each job.

 

If you do continue to work at a lower price then you are effectively screwing everyone in that field.

 

My 2 cents.

JJ

 

PS, All I do is work for magazines.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>The company has decided to go from $300 per shoot to $200 per shoot. </i><p>

That's about 5% of the norm. What kind of magazine is this? <p>

[mona_chrome]

First, I would call the photographers who aren't shooting for them anymore and find out

why--it doesn't hurt to get to know your competition on a personal basis. I know most of

mine and we are all very respectful and supportive of each other.

 

Second, magazines are not known for paying well. I don't know what you did for $300,

but that is very low, even for a magazine, for a day shoot--altho not that low, some

national mags still only pay $500 per day(a shoot is a day regardless of actual time)--but

they also pay all expenses usually without too much concern as to how much that might

be. Many photographers have gone to charging, in addition to film or digital processing,

camera and light rental for their own equipment at the rates they would pay a pro rental

house. Additionally, most mags also pay an additional space rate if the photos they use

exceed, in space, the day rate. This can increase the creative fee from the $500 to well

over $3000 in some cases. But a lot of the work is spot and no additional fees are ever

seen.

 

I think if you talk to the other photographers and then determine how important this client

is to you, you will figure out what to do. It seems like a very little amount of money you

get directly, so is the work portfolio work, does it get you exposure that will help get

additional work and do you need this money--these are the questions you need to ask

yourself.

[mona_chrome]

just thought I would add something here. I don't know where you are located, but I am in a

large, but non major city. I pay assistants $250/day--$200 if there is a budget pinch or they

are not as experienced. Maybe it would also be good to have a talk with the publisher/

owner.

[architecture]

Yes, I do realize that $300/shoot is a very small fee to charge, but it has given me a lot of exposure in the past few months, along with portfolio work. I do think it is a small fee, but on the realistic side, every time I have followed advice put in these forums, I have lost the job because I'm charging too much. Don't get me wrong, I really respect every bit of advice put fourth here, but I guess the area I'm in doesn't put too much of an importance on photography. I have decided to give the publisher two different options. Either he can pay me my regular day rate, or I can scale back the ammount of time I spend on a shoot. I will also talk to the other photographers and see why they stopped working for the publication. Thank you all for your advice and support.

[mona_chrome]

David, what you describe is just home town markets--everywhere--no one appreciates

the

local guys. It is always risky to make a stand on fees and that is why you always ask the

right

questions in every situation, of yourself. I always find it a much better thing to just sit

down

with the client and see where they are coming from and explain my situation. In a

friendly,

problem solving way, you are both businessmen--too many make it an adversarial

venture. There are people you will work

for cheap and there are those that you wont work for if they pay you big time--well, it

does

depend how big, I suppose!!

 

Good Luck!

[architecture]

Thanks for the input guys. I had a talk with the editor, and she was kind of the liason between us. Basically, she made a case for me and other photographers and the owner wouldn't budge, said that they got 25 resumes from photographers in town that would like to work for them. The editor is skeptical as I am. She also asked if I would consider coming back to them in a few months if the other photographers weren't up to par. I told them of course and that I enjoyed working with them, but I can't afford to shoot for the price they want to pay me. Maybe they will come back to me in the future, but I doubt it.

 

I am glad now that I'm getting more realistic advice on here. Thanks all

[lb-]

<i>Maybe they will come back to me in the future, but I doubt it.</i><p>

 

you never know. I had a fairly big shoot go that way last year. <p>

 

client approached me, got my bid, went with someone cheaper, only to come back and hire me to reshoot as the cheaper person turned out to be a hack. <p>

 

I think you've taken a resonable position.

 

good luck

[kay_thorogood1]

David - About ten years ago I was an art director for a computer magazine in a fairly large city. The magazine was small but had a very loyal and strong readership. The publisher did not value "art" in any way. He established a fee for photography, illustration and editorial when he first began his magazine and only slightly increased rates over the years I worked for him. He also did not believe that artists owned their art. He would repeatedly use their art for other uses such as advertising, brochures, book covers, etc. without additional compensation to the artists. The assertive artists complained and got paid much to his annoyance. It was a constant struggle for me to bring decent art to the magazine while at the same time be confined by an extremely low budget. In my limited experience with publishers, I think possibly the company you are working for may have budget issues. You can wait to see what happens or move on and find the fee that you feel you are worth. Readers of our magazine thought we were all filthy rich even though we had gone two years without raises. So sales figures are no indication of profitability. I no longer work for the publisher I mentioned. They are close to going out of business and the current art work is a reflection of their demise. As to your question, only you can decide what's right for you. You could meet with the publisher regarding the rate change but I doubt that will change anything. The artists I hired were always looking for exciting challenges and higher pay, so when the publisher kept dropping the rates, they moved on. Good luck in making a decision.

[john_jovic]

David

 

Sorry to hear they were'nt willing to compromise. I think you did the right thing.

 

JJ

[anthony_galeste]

What type of home mag are you all talking about? Are these the new homes for sale magazines I pick up free at the grocery store or a national published mag?

[anthony_galeste]

Anyone?