Comments on: US vs. THEM part DEUX!

By: DamionKutaeff

DamionKutaeff — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:44:53 +0000

Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I’m glad to join your conmunity,
and wish to assit as far as possible.

By: me

me — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:51:51 +0000

I never adopted the phony receipts game with respect to rentals, although I did submit “studio receipts” for film and polaroid. Even with a 100% markup on film and polaroid, it was really not worth the expense of doing it that way especially if travel was involved. For example, marking up film and polaroid might net you another 250-300 on top of a 500 rate, but you needed to spend 250 to get that so it is a wash, add in paying any sort of travel expense and you are cutting into the rate itself from a cash flow perspective.
To make it viable you would need to bill the entire cost of rentals which might be close to 1500/job, and if you are shooting fob or bob stories, there is no way they will take that added cost on a 500 dollar page (or less). You can fudge the numbers all you like but what I am really talking about is a kind of spending discipline where it is all inflows and no outflows. This is mainly due to payment turnaround time. If the magazines could pay on delivery the game would be substantially changed. Or the other way to see it is if you can get all of YOUR creditors to accept payment in 60 days then it makes sense. See what I mean?

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:17:21 +0000

Robert, I enjoyed the articles (so far I’ve read the above as well as part 1). How often have you been able to get your editorial clients to do this–pay rental fees for all your gear? Anyone else out there getting this to work?

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:50:09 +0000

@kevin
not sure what you mean, my point was usage in editorial was a game over long ago. In advertising usage is still the benchmark of negotiations. And at least there is some negotiation/bid/estimate process. In editorial there is none. Which is why I am focusing on cost control, or rationalizing and invoicing for real costs.
With the growth of reps there is at least some counter pressure on rates in advertising.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:29:24 +0000

“In advertising yes, it is all about the usage”

Just wait. If you are not a big name photographer and have been shooting commercially for any length of time, you know by now that there is tremendous pressure on photographers to give more usage for less money. It was even stated by several art buyers in a PDN issue last year.

As long as art buyers have the upper hand, and they currently do, the rates will continue to go down. Getting some kind of “star” status helps, but only as long as the creative art buyers have any control over how much is spent.

When those who control costs really get involved, they won’t care who shoots what. After all, other than people in this industry, nobody Knows the names, nor cares about, any photographers. Go ahead, ask your neighbors and family members. Would any know the name of any living photographer? Some might say, “there’s that guy who photographs dog” or something to that affect, but chances are they won’t be able to name anyone (other than yourself).

I think those with some kind of “star power” are pretty safe, but the rest will have to fight this downward trend for a while. It’s going to take a while for photographers to figure out new ways of monetizing their work.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:09:39 +0000

@christopher-there was/is a double standard where many clients were reluctant, even upset if you tried to sell them your own gear, you got the “carpenter’s hammer” story over and over. As we move into digital it is changing bc the equipment is so much more expensive. My point was they can’t have it both ways, and using bogus receipts to make it look like you “rented” your own gear was the loophole the shows you the reality of the situation, the vendors were making out like bandits. Plus, renting your own out I think many people have never done the math to see what the client would have paid had they gone third party. It can be shocking.

By: Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:47:42 +0000

“the magazines won’t pay us what we are worth to them, fine. But they should pay what it actually costs, even as those numbers escalate.” Robert, why can’t you rent your own gear to them ? — here’s the RW price OR use your vendors who would likely to be significantly more $$. They rent from you and and then you get the extra…

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:49:37 +0000

well, just arrived in my inbox:

Introducing f/ocus Rental, NYC’s Newest Equipment Rental House and Shooting Environment.

Featuring:

Brand New Digital Capture, Lighting and Grip.

For More Info Please Visit:
http://www.focusrental.com

Seems like a growth industry to me. It seems to me that photo budgets must be shrinking at all magazines, coupled with increasing vendor costs. Solution, eliminate the vendors, or lower your overhead sufficiently by taking no expenses at all as I have said. Competition between photographers being played against each other is a factor, but I don’t think it is as large as we think. Even if you play one off against the other, the magazine is still left paying higher and higher amounts to vendors. They are not shooting fewer stories, although that is definitely category specific, in Travel for example, I get lots of emails looking for images of wherever. Getting ahold of expenses seems to be the only proactive thing we can do, apart from leaving the segment, which I am glad to say I have done for the most part.

By: Robert Holmgren

Robert Holmgren — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:25:20 +0000

If there is an unlimited supply of qualified 3rd party vendors getting an ever increasing share of the pie then you’re correct. But there isn’t an unlimited amount of money that magazines have to dispense, and photographers are in the unenviable situation where they can be played against each other.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:48:40 +0000

With respect to my forbearers in EP, I think that while the situation is similar, there are differences that have exacerbated the issue. I am not at all convinced it is a supply-demand issue. If you read what I am writing, and I apologize for the length of the posts and the nasty white on black, I believe it is the result of cost-control on the part of magazines, which is a natural business practice, colliding with the continual exploitations of loopholes by photographers that has built an irrational system of pricing and allowed vendors to step in providing third party services at rates that do increase, this is what is starving the industry. And this has occurred against a backdrop of various photographers organizations campaigning for years about “rights” when it was costs we should have been focusing on. While I agree usage is part of the equation, I don’t think photographers in editorial at least are well served by a business model that requires a buyer to acknowledge intrinsic value, it is too much a commodity item for that. In advertising yes, it is all about the usage. As I said, I think magazines were happy to bargain on rights because it was easy to hoover those up with contracts, agreed, that no-one should sign, but this would be an acceptable trade off if at least my invoice was my invoice. Now we have a system where huge amounts are being paid to third party vendors because that is what is “allowed.” I believe that I can offer a more competitive deal but magazines balk at the idea of paying photographers directly for anything without these phantom receipts. Which is why I suggested this weird cost-control ju-jitsu, if they won’t pay me, don’t undertake the cost, ever. Play the game their way. I think it makes it obvious that they’d be better paying my fees than paying for rentals.

By: Robert Holmgren

Robert Holmgren — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:15:12 +0000

Speaking as one of the founders of EP–although I believe Richard Morgenstein is THE founder–I find the discussion about editorial depressingly similar to the reality of the situation back then. When magazines do their budgets they quickly figure out how much money is available for photography. Realistically they could run fewer photos for more money per assignment, or they could assign more shoots for less. It matters not because all they care about–and all any business should care about–it whether they can make a better return for the dollars spent on pictures. Fortunately for them there are more than enough people willing to work for whatever they offer. Verbal pressure from photographers means nothing. Only when they are unable to get the pictures they need to make a sellable product will magazines free up space in their budget. EP began by boycotting Business Week in Silicon Valley during the internet bubble years. Even that wasn’t a compelling enough argument for change. Supply and demand is king.

By: me

me — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:57:54 +0000

I’m not sure there is a strong correlation between money spent and quality, it would depend on the type of editorial and a lot of factors. The only reason I liked the all inclusive fee when I got it was that it put me in control of my cash flow, if I decided to spend money then that was my decision. Or I could advocate for more money if I had a specific idea that needed it.
Sounds like the UK market is very bad, but it makes me wonder, the Canadian market was awful, and I think they hid behind the big brother/little brother argument, we so much smaller than our American counterparts, we don’t have their money. I think it was a shell game. But it would depend on the title you are talking about.
Definitely there are magazines that are operated on contribution mostly, but the best ones are where they are doing something different trying to get noticed, usually they give you total freedom to do what you want since they aren’t paying, and I believe those kinds of situations are rational, it is a clear case of mutual interest amongst similar sized players. Subsidizing big media doesn’t make sense to me, except in certain cases. I have tried to articulate an approach that might at least make it rational to accept the work that could be beneficial. You really really should not be losing money on a shoot for a big American magazine. Fashion would be the only category where I see no correlation between anything, it is whatever goes. But that market has changed in the last 10 years also.

By: Paddy

Paddy — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:03:12 +0000

—The all-inclusive can be a good thing, at least it respects the photographer and gives them the money to decide how to spend.—

Also encourages low production values and cost / corner cutting to try and retain as much of the budget as a fee as possible. I’m sure that can’t be a good idea can it? In the long run this just leads to lower quality content. This leads to lower quality magazines. I could name a few in the UK where this has become obvious obvious to the point where it looks like they’re going out of business.

By: Alan Farkas

Alan Farkas — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:52:55 +0000

@ Eric- The only reason it will go that way is because people (photographers) agree to it. Next time I want a cake I’m gonna walk in and ask for it for free but promise tell all my friends how great it was. It really is simple, walk away from crappy deals.

By: dan callis

dan callis — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:27:45 +0000

Great stuff! I’ll have to read most of part deux tomorrow because I have a frigging massive headache from reading white text on black…HINT!!!!! Great stuff though, great stuff.

dan

By: olivier

olivier — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:18:12 +0000

Robert-What are you doing up at 5AM? You freak, tad bit anxious you is?

By: Paddy

Paddy — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:59:08 +0000

Thanks Robert. I just can’t help thinking that you guys are so lucky to be getting given £500 to work with. Imagine how many of the shoots you do would still happen if you had to completely finance them yourselves as we often do in the UK. Yes, it’s your “advertising” but it adds up fairly quickly to be quite expensive. I often think many of the people doing editorial in the UK are either temporary (soon to be bankrupt) photographers or rich / trust fund kids who’ll keep going until they’re bored. There are some exceptions to the rule of course.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:26:23 +0000

The all-inclusive can be a good thing, at least it respects the photographer and gives them the money to decide how to spend. I will say more about this in the next post.

As for working for free, you are “free” to do it or not. But you should value the play you are going to get vs. your own paid advertising for yourself, which we all are doing, right??

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:39:08 +0000

I don’t own anything but two cameras and six lenses. That’s it. I rent, and/or, borrow for every shoot, editorial or otherwise.

I just never saw how I could possibly buy all of this stuff and actually stay afloat. Now that I could buy more stuff, I don’t see any reason too. When an industry is in great shape, it makes sense to invest heavily in the company (you), but in an industry that is in such a transition (to who knows what) it makes sense only to put as much money away as possible to ensure you can stay in business.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:20 +0000

I think the US photo market is headed where the UK photo market already is. As Paddy relates above, shooting for free is often the norm. I don’t see any reason why it won’t go that way here.