How Much Does Sun-Times Media Pay Its Freelance Photographers?

N

noisycheese

Normal(ish) Human
Local time
8:27 PM
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,291
The bottom feeders who run the Chicago Sun-Times will pay you as much as $10 each for your photographs - what a deal!

Any so-called photographer who agrees to be exploited by these bottom feeders is as big of a loser as they are. I certainly hope the Sun-Times gets what they are willing to pay for: Unimaginative, worthless crap images. :rolleyes:

Source: http://petapixel.com/2013/06/25/how-much-does-sun-times-media-pay-its-freelance-photographers/

How Much Does Sun-Times Media Pay Its Freelance Photographers?

Michael Zhang · Jun 25, 2013



Want a peek into how much freelance photographers get paid by Sun-Times Media? The issue is one that may be on many a photographers mind after the Chicago Sun-Times decided to fire its entire staff of photographers. Thanks to a “leaked” memo, we now have some idea.

Media blogger Jim Romenesko has published a memo he received from a reader. The note, which has the subject line “Rates, expectations, etc.,” was written by Geoff Scheerer, the photo editor of Pioneer Press Newspapers.

Pioneer Press Newspapers is one of the newspaper businesses owned by Sun-Times Media Group, the parent company of the Chicago Sun-Times.



In the the memo, Scheerer writes that he has been responsible for booking all of the freelance photography assignments for Sun-Times Media’s suburban newspapers (a responsibility that started four weeks ago), and that he hopes to clarify the rates that will be paid to photographers from here on out.

If you’re given a news or feature assignment, you’ll be paid $65 for your photography. If video is requested as well, you’ll earn $85. (“Cell phone video is fine,” the memo reads. But only if it’s “horizontal, lens in the top left corner as you shoot.”)

Want to shoot sports? You can earn $90 for your coverage, or $110 if the publication asks for some footage.


Scheerer says that photographers should aim to provide at least 5-7 publishable photographs from each assignment. “This gives the editors the option of running something on the cover and inside with the story, and creates a nice web gallery,” he writes.

If you’re a sports shooter, you should produce “more than just the minimum number of photos.”

Assuming $65 is the total compensation for a news/feature assignment, then the freelance photographers are earning an average of around $10 per photograph.

Freelance photographers for the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper may earn a higher rate than the figures in the memo, as they pay their own freelancers. Scheerer carefully notes that, “if [Sun-Times photo editor] Rich Hein calls you for a Sun-Times photo assignment he might offer to pay a higher rate, he has his own photo budget for the year.”
Click to expand...
 
Yeah. Old news. I've read about this a few times already. The truth of the matter is that, like myself, many have ditched there newspaper subscriptions many moons ago. Time to move on.
 
That is generous - our local paper, Århus Stiftstidende, will pay you nothing, but they are kind enough to mention your name, if they remember it...
 
yup

mQlkpZT.jpg
 
Peter Wijninga said:
Yeah. Old news. I've read about this a few times already. The truth of the matter is that, like myself, many have ditched there newspaper subscriptions many moons ago. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

I've read this type of response a number of times elsewhere from other people. Unimaginative and noncontributing. Time to move on from the time to move on response. Ignoring and resigning brings about no change for the better.
 
wouldn't be surprised at the number of volunteers trying to make it big who take those assignments. or the prosumer who has too much time on their hands.

as much as i hate that photographers are being valued less, i can also see why the CST are making these moves.
 
Time to move on from the time to move on response.
Click to expand...

I just saw some footage of the fire in Arizona on the BBC. It was shot by a local resident on his mobile phone, as the reporter was at some pains to explain. It wasn't revealed whether the resident was paid for the footage or was just pleased to have it shown around the world. The use of cell phone footage is now accepted by viewers, so why would you expect broadcasters to pay expensive camera crews when they can get it for free?

Peter may have expressed himself a bit bluntly but it seems to me that his advice is really quite sound.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
I just saw some footage of the fire in Arizona on the BBC. It was shot by a local resident on his mobile phone, as the reporter was at some pains to explain. It wasn't revealed whether the resident was paid for the footage or was just pleased to have it shown around the world. The use of cell phone footage is now accepted by viewers, so why would you expect broadcasters to pay expensive camera crews when they can get it for free?

Peter may have expressed himself a bit bluntly but it seems to me that his advice is really quite sound.
Click to expand...

If the same school of thought predominates at Chicago Sun-Times (and that seems to be the case), they value cheapness of price above all else, including photographic quality. The expression penny wise but pound foolish comes to mind.

This line of thinking is reminiscent of a bride who needs a wedding photographer and expects someone to photograph her wedding for $200, thinking that anyone with a camera can produce a wedding album that is "just as good as" the wedding photographer who charges $3000 per wedding. This bride will get what she pays for - and rue the day she hired the $200 wedding photographer. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this scenario played out.

The situation at Chicago Sun-Times only perpetuates the race to the lowest common denominator in terms of professionalism in photographic standards. If this course is followed to its logical conclusion, photography will no longer be an option as an economically viable occupational choice for anyone who aspires to make their living as a professional photographer.

This brings up the following question: Are photographers willing to passively accept the demise of photography as an economically viable profession in exchange for enabling the perpetuation of corporate greed?

That is precisely what accepting $10 per photograph as so-called monetary "compensation" will result in.

It's all a matter of perspective. No doubt that newspaper publishers will find that arrangement palatable. Hopefully the out of work photographers will enjoy their new jobs stocking shelves at Wal-Mart. :rolleyes:
 
Doesn't this all come down to consumer values? If the have bad photos and that is a deciding factor in the market there is an opening for someone else to come in to the market and fill the gaps. If that happens, the rates go back up as they lose market share.
 
Maybe someone should open an international newspaper where the readers will appreciate the quality of the photography used. Not some mobile phone snapshots (unless they are really brilliant of course). :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom