PetaPixel reported on Tuesday that the New York Times—doubtless understanding its increased importance as a "survivor" traditional news source in a contracting and consolidating market—will "more than double" its day rate for original photography, basically from $200 to $450 with some exceptions and special conditions.
The Times itself has not confirmed this yet, but PetaPixel has indicated it will follow up on the story. If true, this is some rare good news in a field that has seen far too much bad news in recent years.
Mike
(Thanks to Aaron Greenman)
Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
$1 a month?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Michael Perini: "If true, I think it was the right thing to do, and I'm happy for the photographers who work for them. (They have some great ones.) But given that they probably rarely get a full week of full day rates, it's still a tough way to make a living if you aspire to have a normal life with a family and a house, and maybe send the kids to college. I admire the folks who do it."
glenn brown: "Robbery. A plumber gets more than that."
Mike replies: Hmm, maybe, but it doesn't seem that bad to me. Standard full-time work is 250 days a year, which at $450 a day amounts to a gross salary of $112,500. Considering that only about 20% of American households earn more than $100,000 (according to Census Bureau figures via Bankrate.com), that's far from horrible.
I know that many photographers have to supply their own equipment and have additional overhead costs—the necessity of paying for some of their travel, perhaps—and many do not work every day. But even working two days a week, that's still $45,000 a year gross pay, which isn't shabby considering half of all working Americans earn less than $30k a year. No, it wouldn't make you rich, but you'd have three days free per week by definition, and if you could find other ways to augment your income in your free time (as many photojournalists and indeed freelancers and sole proprietors of all sorts do), then it seems like a reasonable living.
NYT editorial, December 28, 2015 ...
Sooner or later, Congress has to set an adequate wage floor for the nation as a whole. If it does so in the near future, the new minimum should be $15.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/opinion/sunday/new-minimum-wages-in-the-new-year.html
Posted by: Speed | Thursday, 06 April 2017 at 11:53 AM
The impetus for increasing the compensation for photographers is one of many proposals for sweeping changes recommended in an impressive internal report “Journalism That Stands Apart: the report of the 2020 Group, January 2017" (mentioned in the PetaPixel article):
https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/
Worth the read to put context into their commitment to journalism vs. publishing content created by other news orgs. I think it is significant that they recognize the structure, management, and the training/expertise needed to enable rich visual content, and to not just add “more pictures to stories.”
Highlights from the section titled:
“1. The report needs to be more visual.”
“Too much of our daily report remains dominated by long strings of text.
“…when we write about dance or art, our reporters and critics are able to include video or photography but only in a limited way; they lack the proper training to embed visuals contextually, and our content management system, Scoop, makes the placement of visuals an afterthought.
“To solve the problem, we need to expand the number of visual experts who work at The Times and also expand the number who are in leadership roles.
“We also need to become more comfortable with our photographers, videographers and graphics editors playing the primary role covering some stories, rather than a secondary role. The excellent journalism already being produced by these desks serves as a model.”
Copyright for the above excerpts are all owned by the New York Times.
Posted by: John Merlin Williams | Thursday, 06 April 2017 at 12:22 PM
Earning $45k in NYC is like $20k anywhere else. Plus that's gross, not net, and on a 1099 to boot. Crap pay by any stretch.
Posted by: Jim | Friday, 07 April 2017 at 09:38 PM