Take It Or Leave It

A look at photography pricing from both sides of the negotiating table

Some readers have expressed displeasure upon discovering a post has a late paywall. So consider this a warning: proceed with caution. While the majority of the following is free for the taking, there is some sensitive data — including actual dollar amounts and one helluva storytelling payoff, if I do say so — preserved for premium subscribers’ eyes only. (You can become one right here.)

---

I’ve got a foot in two worlds. I’m a photographer, but sometimes I’m also a client.

Photographers are my people. So it feels a bit gross when I find myself opposite them at the negotiating table.

It’s not an everyday occurrence, but I wouldn’t call it rare, either. When I hire a photographer to cover for me, for instance. Or when I reach out in my role as magazine writer to license someone’s images. In each case I have a budget, but it also benefits me for these photographers to receive the highest rates possible. Because what’s good for other photographers in the short term is good for me, a photographer, in the long term. It’s always nice when self-interest aligns with generosity.

Still, I often wish I could pay photographers more.

When I hire someone to photograph on my behalf — a second shooter at a corporate event, perhaps, or a portrait session for a client who needs a particular date when I’m already booked — I pay that photographer a reasonable rate and mark it up (to account for my role in the process, now limited to pre- and post- production). It does me no good in the long run to pay a photographer an unsustainable rate, because we have a symbiotic relationship. I need their help, so I want to ensure they earn enough to continue working and — selfishly — keep helping me going forward.

I’m not suggesting this is altruism. It’s just that I have a vested interest in the long-term success of my cohort. And, selfishly, it seems like good business to ensure the people you rely on earn enough to continue being reliable. Call me a socialist, I guess?

When it arises, I take the opportunity to increase the fees of the photographers with whom I work. (Did it just yesterday, in fact.) When I get more, they get more. I don’t like the idea of taking advantage of anyone, but especially not photographers. Because they’re my people.

I periodically reach out to photographers with good news: “We’d like to profile you in a magazine.” Twenty years ago, that request included news of a decent payday, too. It was good news followed by better news.

But in the intervening years, as magazines have dwindled, the usage fees for the ones that remain have declined. Significantly. Which means the conversation has become slightly less exciting and, because photographers are increasingly wary of being taken advantage of, puts them mildly on the defensive. I find myself in the position of a client offering a photographer too little money. Not “too little” as in I’m keeping more for myself. “Too little” as in, there simply isn’t more available. The market, it seems, has recalibrated.

I’m not sure most folks understand quite how thin the margins in publishing are these days. (Or maybe you do since you haven’t bought a magazine in five years.) A 100-page publication that had 35 pages of ads in 2015 might now have five. And, given that advertisers spend most of their money on data-rich digital spends, those five print ads don’t garner the fees they once did. Fundamentally, anyone who was paid for anything in a magazine ten years ago is now paid significantly less for the same work.

In actual dollars, when it comes to the publishers with which I have experience, you used to be paid…