Yesterday’s post got several comments (which I really welcome!) and it generated some emails directly to me. In those emails, some important issues were raised which I’d like to share here.
First, one said that if the advertisers weren’t paying for the photography then Condé Nast must be, right? Well, yes and no. We don’t know how the system is really working internally. Maybe CN is passing on photography costs, maybe they are paying them themselves, but my suspicion is that, whoever is paying, CN is trying to get the photography for less than it is worth and will, in the future, try to even get it for free (or just for “expenses”). There are lots of photographers who really want to shoot for CN magazines; imagine one of them being called up with this line:
We want to consider you for an upcoming feature in Vogue but right now we have a project we need shot for one of our advertisers. We’re not charging them for this work so we really need you to help us out on the fees. If you can do this for us, it’ll really help your chances of getting the Vogue project…
How many photographers would jump at that if they didn’t hear now, ahead of time, from all the pro groups and many individual photographers, just how bad of a deal that would really be!? Too many. If we talk about this now, pro-actively, we can reduce the impact of this.
Another email kind of confirmed the idea of CN trying to get photos for less than their value when the author wrote of having shot “advertorials” for CN and having been paid “well” for the “day” he shot. Warning bells went off as soon as I read the word “advertorial.” An “advertorial” is an invented and coded word for an advertisement, period. Originally, “advertorials” were supposed to look and feel very much like the editorial content in the publication–just be paid for (in cash or trade) by an advertiser–but now the word is being used for entire multi-page inserts which, while they are often more word-y than most ads, are clearly not close enough to resembling the editorial content to fool a brain-damaged monkey, much less an average human reader.
The usage rate for an “advertorial” should never be any less than for any advertising use with the same parameters. They are ads–nothing less.
The use of the word “day” in reference to the author’s fees in his email also had me spooked. Yes, the number he quoted me would be quite nice for a one-page ad in any CN magazine (running one time), but if he shot, say, images for a 4+ page insert in that one day, or if that ad ran in several issues, then he was underpaid. That’s usage value.
Remember, time is a minor part in figuring your Creative Fee but has nothing to do with your Usage Licensing Fee. A total (combined) fee of $X may sound great for a day’s work, but in fact, may be not enough when the extent of the usage is calculated in.
By using the term “advertorial” CN is already trying to get the work for less and may, in fact, already be having some success in that arena (not that I am implying the person who worked for CN did ANYTHING wrong– facts to suggest that are not established). We need to get on this issue and educate our fellow creatives about the dangers of these offers.