My first freelance editorial work was for Time, Inc's PEOPLE mag, and i went on to shoot editorial for Time, People, Newsweek, NYT, USA Today, Forbes, Business Week, and most of the other US and many international mags. It was FUN! -- when I was 30, and a Nikon F2 cost one day's assignment pay: $250.
As the cost of gear went up, the day rate stayed the same: from $200 (NYT) to $350 (Time Inc and the others mentioned above). and the mags became pathetically cheap:
One of the Time Inc mags did not pay me for almost 90 days -- and i had already paid for airfare for myself, assistant, rental car, meals, hotels, etc. When i finally got paid, the finance charges i had added each month were, of course, not included.
Sicilians say "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold." When that same magazine asked for rights to re-publish one of my images from that shoot, I charged them THREE TIMES the normal editorial rate. They paid.
Or the photo editor at a Capitalist Tool biz mag who refused to pay lunch on an out of town assignment because i hadn't stayed overnight (i only was gone for 12 hours and produced two completely different images -- by myself). from then on, I suddenly needed to bill for two boxes of Polaroid (@ $20/ box) on every assignment.
Another business weekly chopped $1.50 out of my $11.50 lunch bill -- which was for myself AND the subject, who had given me his day off -- because, as my editor said, "our lunch allowance is $10... and, after all, it's ONLY $1.50."
What's amazing to me is how so many comments here tout the same old line about this practice being the "industry standard" as justifying it as an ethical policy. This kind of behavior is antithetical to the very phrase "industry standard" because the phrase implies that there is one. (Standard, that is.) When pinching freelance employees to get a business enterprise to honor their legally binding debts becomes the standard, it's time to find a new phrase that captures the odious conduct. Maybe from now on when businesses employ this technique, we can say they have met the black-hole model of business ethics and standards which is so strong that not only can light not escape its influence, neither can money.
@Swifter: Yes, but is this 25 days 0.5% on top of the random four months or so they're usually late with a 'payable upon receipt' 30-day net invoice? And does 'paid' mean when they print the check? Or when they postmark it three weeks later? Or when they walk it from the postage meter to the 'mail out' pile three weeks after that?
The terms, as printed, aren't so bad. But I've been freelancing 20 years, and.....
@stevehowe435: Your only real options are to withhold future services or sue if you're not on the actual payroll. Small businesses have been dealing with this since forever.
@Motoko Kusanagi: How do you collect though? Anyone can charge interest for late payment, but you can't do much if they ignore it and simply pay the original sum. Unless it's a very very large bill (in which case, you'd get at least a down payment), that 1% isn't going to amount to much.
@tongue-tied: You don't unless you are "anyone with any leverage". Also that's 1-2% monthly, not annually. The bottom line is that from the moment you finish the work, they are essentially borrowing the money they owe you. You are entitled to to interest, so you should ask for a reasonable "cost of money" interest rate in your contract. If you don't have the leverage to get the contract term, or enforce it, c'est la vie. That's why they're big and you're not. As Bill Gates said on the Simpsons: "I didn't get to be a billionaire writing checks."
Early payment discounts are pretty common, but usually are involved when the purchaser is paying a lot of money. This sort of flips it on it's head and takes advantage of already taken-advantage-of workers. I swear, it's time to organize, you NYers! Then hire me as your lawyer. Please?
@daveyjonesisdead: and those are pretty high percentages, to my mind, and it's unusual for them to be so graduated. Usually its just something like, 2% if you pay within 20 days, instead of 30 or 45 or even 60, which is not uncommon. Again, it's just taking advantage of the desperate.
@iplaudius: Freelancer contracts are almost always Net 30 to Net 90 so it's still within the contract. Tons of vendors will offer this to get invoices paid quicker, pretty common.
The gambling potential of this device is just limitless. Also, if they can create proprietary files for their comic book content (Time Warner owns DC Comics), they will sell a godzillion of these things.
You had me until "the advertising will also be more dynamic". Sigh. Oh wait, you got me back at "what if it [the swimsuit issue] came to life." Bring on the all-singing, all-dancing advertising! say I.
12/06/09
As the cost of gear went up, the day rate stayed the same: from $200 (NYT) to $350 (Time Inc and the others mentioned above). and the mags became pathetically cheap:
One of the Time Inc mags did not pay me for almost 90 days -- and i had already paid for airfare for myself, assistant, rental car, meals, hotels, etc. When i finally got paid, the finance charges i had added each month were, of course, not included.
Sicilians say "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold." When that same magazine asked for rights to re-publish one of my images from that shoot, I charged them THREE TIMES the normal editorial rate. They paid.
Or the photo editor at a Capitalist Tool biz mag who refused to pay lunch on an out of town assignment because i hadn't stayed overnight (i only was gone for 12 hours and produced two completely different images -- by myself). from then on, I suddenly needed to bill for two boxes of Polaroid (@ $20/ box) on every assignment.
Another business weekly chopped $1.50 out of my $11.50 lunch bill -- which was for myself AND the subject, who had given me his day off -- because, as my editor said, "our lunch allowance is $10... and, after all, it's ONLY $1.50."
Ah, the joys of editorial photography!
12/04/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
The terms, as printed, aren't so bad. But I've been freelancing 20 years, and.....
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
Also, you left out that anyone with any leverage gets 1-2% interest on late payments, which is the cost of holding back money.
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
Welcome to the tank, Time, Inc.
12/03/09
12/03/09