Author Topic: Sports Illustrated has laid off all six of its staff photographers (Read 7247 times)

No Free Lunch · « **on:** January 23, 2015, 21:47 »

a sign of the times!

Here is their reasons-

" Novak acknowledged that the decision was driven in part by financial considerations.

"As a media enterprise, it's incumbent upon us to manage our business in a way that delivers the best products to our consumers and drives the most value to the bottom line," Novak said. "

Petr Toman · « **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2015, 14:04 »

https://nppa.org/node/69374

ye looks like it was inevitable, the market is driving prices down everywhere, editorial stuff 0.25$ from SS here it comes.

On the other hand, if all editorial freelancers will jump to some space ship with high cost. Maybe the day will come, when they will start hiring again

Mantis · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2015, 17:35 »

This decision was inevitable in my opinion. Even if they aren't using micro stock, it will be much cheaper to buy directly from reputable freelancers who can pool their images into a portal for SI to pick and choose during a big game, like their photographers do/did now. Pretty soon there will just be independent "agency" photographers at big events and no employees of the company, whether SI, ESPEN, Etc. Works that way now.

Dook · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2015, 13:30 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 24, 2015, 17:35

This decision was inevitable in my opinion. Even if they aren't using micro stock, it will be much cheaper to buy directly from reputable freelancers who can pool their images into a portal for SI to pick and choose during a big game, like their photographers do/did now. Pretty soon there will just be independent "agency" photographers at big events and no employees of the company, whether SI, ESPEN, Etc. Works that way now.

You said it right - at big events. Newspapers need small events pictures, too. Also, reportages, interviews, exclusive stories pictures etc. It's not that simple you know.

Mantis · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2015, 13:38 »

Quote from: Dook on January 25, 2015, 13:30

Quote from: Mantis on January 24, 2015, 17:35
This decision was inevitable in my opinion. Even if they aren't using micro stock, it will be much cheaper to buy directly from reputable freelancers who can pool their images into a portal for SI to pick and choose during a big game, like their photographers do/did now. Pretty soon there will just be independent "agency" photographers at big events and no employees of the company, whether SI, ESPEN, Etc. Works that way now.
You said it right - at big events. Newspapers need small events pictures, too. Also, reportages, interviews, exclusive stories pictures etc. It's not that simple you know.

Dook, you're spot on. Smaller business needs require different, and less expensive, sources of imagery. I know people who do this to make extra income. I think the agency was called something like sports 25 where you could go shoot a local event and upload your images for purchase. Same concept as SI but at a local level and much cheaper to the purchasing person because most of those who shoot are not professionals like SI photographers.

Dook · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2015, 13:48 »

I didn't now about them. That's good business idea.
One more thing about SI, they still need contracted photographers, be it freelancers, staff or a wire agency like AP. Because, they can't rely on, let's say, us at SS editorial. What if none of us shows up on a big event? They can't work that way, they still need contracted photographers.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2015, 15:45 »

it has come to a saturation point too. they all look the same (ie lighting) except the women are different. and really, which men looking at these poster care what lighting you use ?
it's the same for all those shoots of famous hot babes by GQ , FMH, Vogue,etc . no matter who the celebrity or model, the lighting is the same .
it's as bad as it has come with microstock as well. anyone can do the job, so why would the organization pay for a well-known name when any photography 101 student could set up the lights to do the shoot.
if you look at all the shoots on youtube,etc of say a GQ shoot of a famous star ,etc... even the poses are same old same old boring model poses, and not a single photographer is coming up with anything interesting in terms of lighting or poses.

Red Dove · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2015, 06:17 »

"bottom line", "adding value", "outsourcing", "streamlining" are power words for shareholders and a source of outright glee whenever they see/hear them being used. I once attended an AGM where the company was basically going to the dogs but shareholders floated out of the hall on a wave of euphoria, simply because the CEO used all the right buzzwords. He could have given them a handful of magic beans instead of a dividend by the time he was finished. Sheeple - most of them.

Difydave · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2015, 07:52 »

Quote from: Red Dove on January 26, 2015, 06:17

"bottom line", "adding value", "outsourcing", "streamlining" are power words for shareholders and a source of outright glee whenever they see/hear them being used. I once attended an AGM where the company was basically going to the dogs but shareholders floated out of the hall on a wave of euphoria, simply because the CEO used all the right buzzwords. He could have given them a handful of magic beans instead of a dividend by the time he was finished. Sheeple - most of them.

Strikes me that once you hear a CEO start to use those sort of "power words" you know the writing is on the wall!

Nobody really seems to care too much about cutting costs to the bone until companies are in trouble. Usually by then it's too late!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2015, 18:26 »

Read this as "Staff Photographers" not all photographers. And it's the last six of the staff photographers. AP already did this years ago. (2010) Huge staff cuts, as have many others. The major newspapers that are still left, let the photographers go and asked the reporters to carry cameras.

Advertising revenue for print publications has dropped as marketing moves to the Internet. You should all recognize that for what good the Internet is for new business, it's kicking the heck out of traditional businesses of all kinds. The obvious point, related to this story and this forum, would be, traditional photography markets.

What this eventually means for SI and the rest is, lower standards of content quality. Less original and less professional insightful work.

They will get most of their shots from agencies (like Getty and USA Today) and these same shots will be available to everyone else. SI used to have the top pros, who know their sports and brought back significant and stunning images, whether it be action or artistic interpretations.

It's all about cost cutting. Income drops, expenses need to be cut. Employees have insurance and pensions and get a salary. Freelance or other agencies, get paid for what they supply, nothing more.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2015, 19:05 »

And so along comes the microstocker.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 26, 2015, 18:26

Read this as "Staff Photographers" not all photographers. And it's the last six of the staff photographers. AP already did this years ago. (2010) Huge staff cuts, as have many others. The major newspapers that are still left, let the photographers go and asked the reporters to carry cameras.

Advertising revenue for print publications has dropped as marketing moves to the Internet. You should all recognize that for what good the Internet is for new business, it's kicking the heck out of traditional businesses of all kinds. The obvious point, related to this story and this forum, would be, traditional photography markets.

What this eventually means for SI and the rest is, lower standards of content quality. Less original and less professional insightful work.

They will get most of their shots from agencies (like Getty and USA Today) and these same shots will be available to everyone else. SI used to have the top pros, who know their sports and brought back significant and stunning images, whether it be action or artistic interpretations.

It's all about cost cutting. Income drops, expenses need to be cut. Employees have insurance and pensions and get a salary. Freelance or other agencies, get paid for what they supply, nothing more.

michaeldb · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2015, 20:38 »

SI is probably shrinking, losing subscribers, like most all of traditional media. They may be laying off others as well as photographers.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2015, 22:49 »

Lose advertising and you lose the means to make the product. Subscriptions earn nothing except proof of distribution and how many people you contact. That's what advertisers pay for. So yes you are correct. It's not the subscriptions, but the rewards from having those subscriptions.

Quote from: michaeldb on January 26, 2015, 20:38

SI is probably shrinking, losing subscribers, like most all of traditional media. They may be laying off others as well as photographers.

BINGO!

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on January 26, 2015, 19:05

And so along comes the microstocker.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 26, 2015, 18:26
Read this as "Staff Photographers" not all photographers. And it's the last six of the staff photographers. AP already did this years ago. (2010) Huge staff cuts, as have many others. The major newspapers that are still left, let the photographers go and asked the reporters to carry cameras.

Advertising revenue for print publications has dropped as marketing moves to the Internet. You should all recognize that for what good the Internet is for new business, it's kicking the heck out of traditional businesses of all kinds. The obvious point, related to this story and this forum, would be, traditional photography markets.

What this eventually means for SI and the rest is, lower standards of content quality. Less original and less professional insightful work.

They will get most of their shots from agencies (like Getty and USA Today) and these same shots will be available to everyone else. SI used to have the top pros, who know their sports and brought back significant and stunning images, whether it be action or artistic interpretations.

It's all about cost cutting. Income drops, expenses need to be cut. Employees have insurance and pensions and get a salary. Freelance or other agencies, get paid for what they supply, nothing more.

Not just Microstock but the marketing methods have changed. Welcome to the Brave New Word.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2015, 09:39 »

Just talked to someone who's recently retired from the sports and newspaper business. He says that all the SI photographers, took a 50% cut in pay a couple years back, in order to keep the last of them working. In other words for the good of the group, something for all of them, was better than nothing for any of them.

Even that didn't work. Too bad. These people aren't just guys with cameras, they are smart, highly respected, experience craftsmen. (or women in some cases)

And this is not new, but just in case someone here missed it. Say The Podunk Daily News, hired a photographer to cover an event. That person gets paid for the day, hands over the memory cards, the publication owns everything, 100% all future rights.

One way we are in a better situation than a stringer or hired shooter.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sports Illustrated has laid off all six of its staff photographers (Read 7247 times)

No Free Lunch

Petr Toman

Mantis

Dook

Mantis

Dook

etudiante_rapide

Red Dove

Difydave

Uncle Pete

ruxpriencdiam

michaeldb

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors