Pricing photos for magazines

Tony Polson wrote:

"Alan Justice" wrote:

Okay. Too bad. It would be nice to have some way to figure what to charge
someone. I think in the past I've charge both too much (no repeat business)
and too little.

Rather than trying to work out what charges the market will bear, try
a different approach. Put a value on your services such as a day
rate, and relate your charges to the time taken. Try $1000 a day as a
starting point.


Day rates are actually a risky game in the publishing market. While some
publications do pay day rates for features or assignments, there are many that
pay by placement, meaning how many images and at what sizes. The few that still
have day rates can be as low as $400 a day, with or without expenses. Some day
rates have fallen over the last few years, and a few have gone up.


Another approach is to look at the rates charges by agencies for stock
photography. The rates vary depending on the type of publication and
its circulation figures, but they offer a good guide to what
publishers are prepared to pay.

It might sound bad to put anything into a publication that does not pay, or pays
very little, but there are sometimes good reasons to take such work. One is that
your images are seen by readers who may hire you for well paying advertising or
corporate work. Another is creative freedom to allow building recognition of
your style and way of capturing images. In such cases, if the publication is
reaching the audience you want, then count the value as what you would have been
charged by them to advertise there. A feature article with a full page image, a
couple 1/4 page images, and name recognition could be worth substantially more
than what you are paid up front for those images . . . but only in the right
publications.

Okay, just so you guys don't feel completely lost, here are a few more common
payment rates:

1/4 page in single-interest magazine $2000 to $4000
1/2 in under 10000 circulation small metro newspaper $1750 to $3750
full page in professional trade publication $3500 to $7000

Of course these numbers vary a great deal. I should also point out that these
are just the rates for the design aspect of a layout that is that size in those
publications, and just the photography can run a little more, or a little less.

Judging by stock pricing is much tougher, since you are not sourcing stock
images and you are providing unique images. Anyway, I don't recommend using
stock pricing, though some of the better stock does bring in high fees. The
value of what you are paid is the up front payment plus the potential of any
future work.

If it seems okay at first, then go with how you started. If you started too low,
and other work is not being generated from those first images, then raise your
rates. Probably much easier to go slightly low and raise rates later, than to
start to high and never get a return call.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon Moat wrote:

Day rates are actually a risky game in the publishing market. While some
publications do pay day rates for features or assignments, there are many that
pay by placement, meaning how many images and at what sizes.

I wasn't suggesting that the OP tried to charge buyers a day rate,
merely that an assumed day rate was another starting point towards
finding an approximate charge per shot. I base nearly all my cost
estimates on a day rate, then modify up or down depending on what the
market will (should) bear.

The few that still
have day rates can be as low as $400 a day, with or without expenses. Some day
rates have fallen over the last few years, and a few have gone up.

$400? It isn't worth leaving home for $400 a day. No-one could rent
a decent outfit from Calumet for $400, let alone pay a photographer.
But to the average wannabe with his Canon 20D and consumer-grade
lenses, $400 a day probably sounds quite attractive.

Tony Polson wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Day rates are actually a risky game in the publishing market. While some
publications do pay day rates for features or assignments, there are many that
pay by placement, meaning how many images and at what sizes.

I wasn't suggesting that the OP tried to charge buyers a day rate,
merely that an assumed day rate was another starting point towards
finding an approximate charge per shot. I base nearly all my cost
estimates on a day rate, then modify up or down depending on what the
market will (should) bear.

Sort of the old way of doing things. Image pricing now is more dependant upon
intended usage, number of impressions, circulation, and annual revenues of the
company for whom you do the work. Sure, some publications have published day rates
still, but that model of payment is fading in many areas. Usage payment can mean
better compensation for your work.



The few that still
have day rates can be as low as $400 a day, with or without expenses. Some day
rates have fallen over the last few years, and a few have gone up.

$400? It isn't worth leaving home for $400 a day.

I agree, though I still see that at some news organizations, and a few magazines.
Again, the idea is to judge whether having your name and photos in a particular
publication would get you more work.

No-one could rent
a decent outfit from Calumet for $400, let alone pay a photographer.
But to the average wannabe with his Canon 20D and consumer-grade
lenses, $400 a day probably sounds quite attractive.

Actually, some stock shooters target the low end of the market, and do try to get
by with low cost gear. A good example of that is Alamy.com, who basically take
anything, though the low commission payments reflect that concept.

Sometimes for low end clients a price to charge can be determined by taking the
rental value of the gear you use on the shoot, add in expenses, then multiply by
four. Often that can be reasonable, though you are providing much more than gear.

Just saw that UK architecture photography pays about double what many rates in
Germany are currently. These rates are similar to major markets in North America.
Lately I have been thinking about getting more into that again.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Tony Polson wrote:

$400? It isn't worth leaving home for $400 a day. No-one could rent
a decent outfit from Calumet for $400, let alone pay a photographer.
But to the average wannabe with his Canon 20D and consumer-grade
lenses, $400 a day probably sounds quite attractive.


What do you get per average *day* Polson?


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

$400? It isn't worth leaving home for $400 a day. No-one could rent
a decent outfit from Calumet for $400, let alone pay a photographer.
But to the average wannabe with his Canon 20D and consumer-grade
lenses, $400 a day probably sounds quite attractive.


What do you get per average *day* Polson?

I am not not Polson :

I would gladly use my own equipment for 400 bucks a pop (and do)
but one wants expenses paid additional especially if using film, film
processing mileage etc. Also it truly depends on many factors like
whether its a feature sometimes which go a lot higher. I have two
magazines I currently work for that range in the assignment fees I can
charge, usually with my expenses factored its above 500. And if one of
the images is compelling I get the cover and more money as well.


I would rather work five times a month at 500 than once at 1200.

That higher pay scale is rather limiting to only the best, highest
profile magazines, and there's only so many of those for a lot of
photographers to fight over. Not saying he doesn't- but I doubt he does.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.

$400? It isn't worth leaving home for $400 a day. No-one could rent
a decent outfit from Calumet for $400, let alone pay a photographer.
But to the average wannabe with his Canon 20D and consumer-grade
lenses, $400 a day probably sounds quite attractive.

Why did you look at me when you said that?

"Annika1980" wrote:

$400? It isn't worth leaving home for $400 a day. No-one could rent
a decent outfit from Calumet for $400, let alone pay a photographer.
But to the average wannabe with his Canon 20D and consumer-grade
lenses, $400 a day probably sounds quite attractive.

Why did you look at me when you said that?


I didn't. But now you mention it ...

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:

"Alan Justice" wrote:


Okay. Too bad. It would be nice to have some way to figure what to charge
someone. I think in the past I've charge both too much (no repeat business)
and too little.



Rather than trying to work out what charges the market will bear, try
a different approach. Put a value on your services such as a day
rate, and relate your charges to the time taken. Try $1000 a day as a
starting point.

Another approach is to look at the rates charges by agencies for stock
photography. The rates vary depending on the type of publication and
its circulation figures, but they offer a good guide to what
publishers are prepared to pay.



What about rates PAID by agencies for stock photography?