Olivier Laude contributed a comment to an older post that is a good follow up to my last post:
Back in 97 us 12 fools in SF tried to force the business to turn editorial into a viable business by negotiating better rates with the magazines. It was called Editorial Photographers and it was a miserable failure primarily because photographers in LA and NYC did not follow thru what we were trying to do.
Photographers are as guilty as the magazines who hire them for failing to turn editorial into a business because we bought into the BS philosophy that editorial is a way to brake thru to other more lucrative parts of photography. Essentially always give their clients the stick to beat them with. We are a sorry ass bunch of fools if you ask me but as they say,”divide and conquer” and we were more than willing to jump right in. Sure that model will work for some but the overwhelming majority will fail, regardless of their talent or the efforts they put in it. I, personally have been rather blessed, but like John Loomis says, it can be gone in a hurry. We have only ourselves to blame. Way back when a part of the site was called “cost of doing business”, it said it all. AS interesting as Robert’s musings are, they are old and sad news but don’t blame others for this state of affairs, blame yourself. In the meantime, the mags keep crying wolf but laugh all the way to the bank. Those execs in the publishing, they are the ones running real businesses, we are the ones running fragile egos.
http://www.editorialphoto.com/
I read the EP list back then and man, it was depressing. I guess there is a resistance to hearing truth, and maybe that is a good observation since I hear a lot of younger photographers floating photography 2.0 turds like, “a rising tide floats all boats” (hint-you need a boat, remember?) or photographers need to find a “new model” for doing business. Let’s say it again, this is not a business…wash, rinse, repeat…read on…
That said, I was not entirely inline with the direction that organizations like ASMP, APA, EP were going at that time, it seemed that more than fees it kept coming back to “rights” and contracts, and my feeling was and is, none of us are lawyers, and TimeWarner is going to have some damn good lawyers who could outmaneuver any organization or individual while playing his morning game of squash at Equinox and not break a sweat. I felt that the magazines were happy to entertain us discussing rights, meanwhile, the issue was really compensation. On one level, I really don’t care how many international editions you reprint this story in where you are collecting additional incremental advertising revenue (why do you think anyone bothers with Polish Men’s Health, sorry Poland, I know you are in the Coalition of the Willing and all) as long the rates go UP. Is that such a radical idea, things get more expensive, simple cost of living in New York, it goes UP. If rates simply went up 25$ a year since I started in 1996, that 500$ fee from Fortune would now be 775$. And it was already too low then. But the point would be that the buyer could accept, as they do with any other vendor, and as they do with rentals, film, processing, assistants, etc, that costs are going to rise. Well, it ain’t gonna happen folks, 500$/day is here till we DIE. Unless…
So I know that position on rights is blasphemy, I have just farted in the darkroom, but I am not advocating work for hire, I am just saying give the magazines the rights they want because, they’re gonna take’em anyway folks! Conde Nast is going to reprint all those nice interior photos of beautiful apartments from HG and recipes from Gourmet over the last 30 years as a coffee table book, the Grey Lady is going to make calendars and mugs available, they are going to put the entire archive online (pity the writers too) for free and there is not a damn thing we can do about it…
But-
What if there was a way, a way unexplored, a kind of ju-jitsu way of using the strength of the publishing monster against itself? A shining third path? I have been thinking along these lines lately, and I have come up with some “moves” that might be useful.
We have to assume some things to begin with. Who are you? It is very hard to gain the mindset of a veteran when you are starting out, your priorities seem different. In some ways they are, but in other ways they are not, even veterans have to “reinvent” themselves, they have to start over many times, unless they are Dan Winters…:) So veterans and newcomers all are invested to some degree in doing that thing that Olivier cites, above, trying to break through to more lucrative areas of photography, or to put it another way as Bobby Womack says ‘tryin to git ovah’. So if you assume that some amount of editorial work is good, on a resume, and as experience itself, there is an incentive to take that work.
I think once you get into the mindset of not accepting everything, of not needing everything, that makes a tremendous difference. For one, it necessitates that YOU FIND OTHER FREAKING WORK! Yes, is it so bad that you shoot Corporate headshots? (I do) Is it so bad that you do PR work for publicists? (I do-interiors) Is it so bad that you heaven’s Forbid-Assist other photographers that you admire?(I do-and and it is a privilege) And would it be so bad to do variously; teach, sell prints, consult, do retouching, etc etc? No. I don’t believe so. As long as it was getting you where you needed to be. Which is not a broke editorial photographer. The point is to stay in business long enough to meet enough people, network, build relationships, build work, build reputation, have shows, do books, live your life, and be ready for the big jobs when they come. And they will come. But if you are not in business because you mortgaged your future on magazines, it’s not going to happen. Longevity matters.
So you take the call, you get the assignment, what is your approach? This is the ju-jitsu I spoke of before. You have to use the monster against itself. So the old way was called padding expenses. Rightly or wrongly, (and I believe markup is completely necessary and justified for many but not all expenses) the old way was this: you marked up film, you billed for your own cameras, you padded transportation receipts, you faked studio rentals, phantom assistants, you double billed the day against other jobs, a mountain of paperwork, sometimes an accountant sitting there trying to figure all this out (on the clock might I remind) trying to soak up as much green as possible. But even then, you maybe could get the ratio of fees (including your padding) to real expenses close to 1:2, very difficult to get it to 1:1 or even 2:1. I am talking about location shooters, still life is another story. Basically you still were carrying double the money you were being “paid” two to three months-congratulations, you are an interest free bank for Conde Nast. I have talked about this before. Any cheque you receive, divide those dollars by the number of months you waited, and that was in effect your cash flow for those months. So if you are busy, you probably have a negative cash flow at any one moment. If you are busy it seems manageable, you are carrying fifteen to twenty thousand in debt but you have an AR near the same amount. That means you are in big trouble.
So it takes a radical approach to rethinking how this could actually work, or be revenue neutral, because right now, it is a drain. So these are the RULES:
Byeth not thine equipmentee for Editorial-Never!
There is no rational reason you can argue to ever, ever buy one A-clamp for these bastards! They can rent the entire shebang-camera, grip, light, truck and tolley cart. Buying equipment (for editorial) is the number one quickest way to the shit can. And that is never more true than right now, when a P-30 back for whatever costs 25,000$. But you doth protest-I can bill it out! It can pay for itself-HA!-You had to pay for it FIRST! Every day you carry debt costs you money. Yes you amortize on taxes, but that can only get you to break-even-the point is to profit. And it is just going to get worse, new gear comes out, you upgrade, yadayada, then, the rest of it, oh, I love those Profotos, and those pocketwizards, and a beauty dish, its Beautiful! All of that will easily soak up another five to ten large. Nope. Never. Buy. For. Editorial.
Because, they will always say, and I quote “well we can’t do anything about fees, but, expenses, there we can do…” So let’em do it-let’em pay for every freakin roll of film, polaroid, gaffer roll, gel, courier fee to and from the location, after hours pickup, overtime, and by the same token, make sure you use their “Approved” vendors-they have deals worked out, yes I know you hate going in to Alkit, they know nothing, so get it delivered, And you don’t leave your chair either, you pick nothing up, you deliver nothing, you make those lab couriers come out rush to Brooklyn because that is what it takes and that is what it actually costs.
I am not saying spend irresponsibly, conversely, I am saying use their cost-control against them, if they want to work out deals with vendors to keep their costs under control, and they have the leverage to do it, we don’t, that is fine. What they get in return is the real cost of doing business, and if it starts to chaffe, so what, that is their bed, they made it-how you say-by squeezing photographers fees so hard for so long that they are no longer capable of maintaining a business and studio and keep up with technology and upgrades do service the work at the level they want it.
If they want you to go out with your Pentax K1000 and shoot tri-x, well, fine, use your own gear, because that is about what an editorial photographer can afford on their rates. But if they want the latest, if they want speedy turnaround of digital files, or even just the medium format film norm, its on them folks, it is not our job to service their infrastructure needs any more. We just make the sausage folks.
So you can buy equipment, but only to service those other jobs I spoke about, remember those? The ones that are going to free you of the need have to take this work? I think this is a way to make your purchases rational, based on what YOU need, not what THEY need. Because what they need is not what you need. You need visibility, momentum, interest. This is what editorial can provide, sometimes. And when it provides those things it becomes the job that it can be, and the privilege.
But what about all that markup I am losing?
This is the beginning of the third way…it is not easy to accept, but either your bend like the reed or break like the bough!
Next time, your cost control and your cash flow…
Wright on brotha…!
and BTW, one way to take on the travel, as you mentioned, is to use their travel office and everything else they can provide as a pre-requisite t taking the shoot. I also ask for advances, I know those things are usually followed by dumbfounded silences, but if they really want you, they’ll do it.
I have plenty of, out of business, or nearly out of business, photographer friends, who had to have all Profoto gear, or the EOS 1ds Mk II the instant it came out. They went in debt up to their eyeballs.
Meanwhile, I’ve always maintained that it’s better to borrow, or rent anything you can’t pay off in three months or so. Actually, my general feeling is, if you can’t pay cash for it, you can’t afford it (although, if you can get a no interest loan, do it.).
My number one rule is. Go for something other than editorial. It doesn’t pay enough. Sure I do editorial jobs, if, it fits my schedule, I don’t have to act as a bank, and I think I’ll enjoy it. Working for most magazines is not a privilege, and often times the exposure gets you nothing.
Reality is, there are just too many photographers who will work for nothing, or way too little. To the media giants the majority of shooters are viewed as little more than diamond miners, eminently replaceable, mostly interchangeable and sometimes will bring back a gem.
A very few of us are talented enough, have the right contacts, are aggressive enough, and a big enough sense of entitlement to stand out and get noticed. A trust fund or well employed spouse goes a long way to ensure longevity in this business.
Magazines will continue to abuse those who will do the work an accept the rates, and then discard those who grow fed up because there are always another 150 shooters ready, willing and able to step in and do the work.
The real key is to diversify your income stream as Robert mentioned. There are many types of other clients that need good work and are willing to pay good rates to get it. You just have to be willing to go out and look at the different types of organizations and institutions that use images.
After 20 years of editorial and corporate work, I’m now a full time employee of a university in NJ as their photographer. It’s a good gig, steady pay, benefits, retirement plan, sick days (imagine that!) and all the other hoohaa that goes with it. Not bad really and I sometimes even have time to shoot what I like for pure pleasure. There are other ways to make it work. You might even find that you can be happier in the long run.
All good points above. I am going to do a follow up post with some more ideas, a lot has been percolating in my head.
I think my goal is to get to a place where editorial can be used creatively, because I do think it is a privilege, in some way, although being an interchangeable widget is certainly not. Having the freedom to do what you want by being distinct can go a long way to getting that leverage and freedom, because if they do want you, specifically, things can get a little easier with advances, travel money, etc. But I am getting ahead of myself, I have more up my sleeve than that.
Boy, do I remember those long lost EP days. I think I even wrote something about sailing…Your ju-jitsu is right on the money. I would take it one step further, however. And this might be a tad depressing. But if it’s visibility, momentum and interest that’s the goal, the long tail kicks in here. Why not shoot eitorial stuff for free and or on trade for advertising? And why not just say no to editorial assignments that don’t interest you? That’s the kind of bend that has nothing to do with the publisher and everything to do with you and your goals as a photographer.
Great post. But damn my eyes are suffering from reading the white text on black background…
I’m not in the editorial world, but your words really spoke to me, woke me up. I’m struggling with some of these key ideas, and now I’m inspired and encouraged. Thank you.
sorry about the white on black…it’s cool for the photos tho…
How come no one says they like my picture?
I like your picture Robert!
Reading through the post and all of the comments I see that so many of you have so much more experience than I… so I have to ask… I do often get the opportunity to shoot editorial. I assist, I do production assisting, I accept anything that I believe at the time will benefit my photography. It has worked in some cases, in may it has not. I think though, I have always learned.
Editorial seems to be another monster in itself. I see how it can be a privilege though. It can give you a lot of freedom to show what you love to shoot…. Here is the dilema:
I am asked to shoot an editorial. Cool. I am excited. So I agree… She says she has NO photography budget. I tell her that we need money for permits and a small location fee, that if she wants the 10 shots she asked for I have to pay an assistant and a make up artist. She tells me she has ABSOLUTELY NO budget… but I can shoot what I want, how I want, with the model I want…
So I have this idea. I also have a friend that is an accomplished wardrobe stylist visiting who says she wouldn’t mind helping me out cause she could use some new stuff in her book so I say o.k. and call in favors from everyone I know.
Then the editor calls and says well you can shoot this idea you have but you have to use my advertisers. I will have them fed ex you boxes of clothes. The day before the shoot 3 large fed ex parcel boxes show up. Nothing in any of the boxes contain anything that is remotely cohesive to what where and how I will be shooting. So I call her back and say that there is nothing useable in the boxes. She tells me I can suppliment the shoot with wnatever I want…. but it has to be from her advertisers. So my friend the wardrobe stylist and I call in favors… We go to show rooms, we call friends that work for clothing companies, we drive about 150 miles back and forth from location to location looking for clothing from her “advertisers.”
We get what we can although it is a strech from what we had asked for and what the original idea was we make it work and we shoot.
Here is the clincher for me…. Her “advertisers” are clients that I would like to have. Her magazine is delivered directly to their offices and dropped right down on art director’s desks.
So in the end we have this editorial. There is a little of me in it, there is a lot of compromise and there were a lot of unpaid hours and favors. Is the fact that this magazine with this 10 page editorial will wind up directly in the hands of who I want to see my work worth it? Or will it just be another piece of junk they flip into the garbage can?
That is crazy talk. The only way I can afford to shoot editorial is by owning my equipment. And retouching. And contacting, exc. The smallest invoice I send out is 2k with the average being slightly north of 3k and I can realize more than 65% of all my invoices. If you are too busy to do the things above then you are killing it and don’t need to worry because volume covers outsourcing but if not, like most people I know, you can make an editorial living. And it is fun. I still like photography and am happy to say so. I believe that with planning we all can as long as your work is competitive and you really understand where the system is built to squeeze.
mike-are you in still-life?
If you can earn two thirds of 3000 per invoice then I think you are. Or you are shooting five days and not moving around too much:) Or you are doing what I think should be done that I mention in the next post, billing equipment out at the going rate for rentals. Care to elaborate?