Magazine article payment rates

[2ManySpams]

Some years ago, I had a couple of articles published in BRM and was very pleasantly surprised at the cheques which arrived. It was probably as good a rate per hour for the time I put into it as I have ever had.

I have had a couple of articles published recently and reckoned that the rate per page was around 30% of what I received previously.

As I am one of those people who think they can earn a living from the hobby, it was a bit of a let down as I had hoped for quite a bit more. I should have asked the question first but based on previous experience, I didn't feel the need.

It still represented a reasonable hourly rate based on the time spent but if other magazines are paying more, it will certainly influence me for any future submissions of articles.

I think that's where I'm at (although I don't expect to earn a living off the hobby - a full time job does that). I've written previously for BRM and always thought what they paid was reasonable. I had no reason to think that this had changed until the recent payment arrived which was a fraction of the previous rates. Bit of a let down but yes I should have asked first. Hard lesson learned and a warning to others.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Blimey, A £10.00 page, Submitting a Picture to Aviation news or Aeroplane Monthly is a bit more rewarding I should say.

 

, and Health and Efficiency.

(So someone told me).

 

Mike.

[2ManySpams]

, and Health and Efficiency.

(So someone told me).

 

Mike.

I heard they charged you for that photo...

[Enterprisingwestern]

I heard they charged you for that photo...

 

Hush now little darling!

 

Mike,

[Free At Last]

I can only imagine that some of the articles submitted for consideration to magazines are fairly poor and require a lot of re-work. I can understand therefore why a magazine may choose to use a staff writer to draft the article from a telephone 'interview'.

Understandable, yes, especially when you see the standard of written English on some model railway forums. Although there are some who feel it does not matter.

[chris p bacon]

But, as you well know, all those costs listed are overheads - The procurement of material to form the main product is not.

 

You defeat your own argument by claiming the amount paid to contributors is even less of a percentage of the total cost of the production, and I was not referring specifically to Warners - at the payment rates quoted BRM would have to be like the Yellow Pages!

 

 

But it all comes from the same income stream. 

 

I haven't made any claims about payment, so there is no argument to defeat.

[jjb1970]

I think most people probably write magazine articles for the pleasure and satisfaction it gives them, at the sort of rates quoted in this thread it's certainly not going to pay many bills. I written quite a few articles for a number of magazines and technical journals and never received any payment (amazingly, given I'm only semi-literate) and found that I probably get as much pleasure from writing them as anybody is likely to get from reading them (engine emissions and maritime regulatory matters aren't exactly bed time reading, not for most anyway). And I'm pretty sure I learn a lot more from preparing them as anybody reading them will ever learn. Personally I'd recommend anybody to have a go and treat any money received as just a nice bonus.

[PaulRhB]

Having had three articles published I'm afraid I found the two big media groups, not BRM in this case and one was abroad, paid significantly less than the independent magazine and I also had to remind both about the free mag and payment they had promised. I never got a copy of the mag from either of them.

To be honest for many of us to have some of the top quality photos supplied free and even a tenner a page is rather nice but I can see those who have written regularly as a bit of income struggling to see an advantage in further efforts. I also know of one professional modeller who found the use of his articles dried up with computers and email making submitting articles so much more accessible for the rest of us.

I suppose forums such as this have made access to layouts and our ramblings much easier. If you expect a certain amount and think it is selling their mag then maybe you charge a fee for using images of your 'product' and they decide if the return is justified to them?

[St Enodoc]

From discussions with others, the practice seems to be that BRM just make a payment. Knowing upfront would certainly be better and in future I'll definitely be asking for confirmation in advance. 

In the old days (1987, John Brewer's time) RM paid GBP 8 (according to ONS CPI data GBP 8 in 1987 would be equivalent to about GBP 22 today) per page, photos/drawings provided by the author. This was confirmed in writing before acceptance for publication (although you didn't know in advance exactly how many pages you were filling). Part of the acceptance process was an agreement by the author not to submit the same or similar article to any other publication. That was a fair deal as far as I was concerned.

[LBRJ]

It would be interesting to see how such rates fare with Minimum Wage legislation

[2ManySpams]

It would be interesting to see how such rates fare with Minimum Wage legislation

Very poorly but I think that's a red herring as there's no contract of employment of any type. They are buying an article not your time IMO.

[2ManySpams]

Perhaps worth adding a bit of background to what prompted me to start this thread.

 

To start I should say that I do enjoy writing and I don't expect to make any sort of living from any payments but what does come in is useful contribution to the layout fund. BRM are a commercial enterprise that take the articles we submit, put them into a magazine for the sole purpose of making money. They are not a charity undertaking benevolent activities for modellers.

 

In the case of Treneglos, the layout was retired from the exhibition circuit and spent the majority of the last five years in storage. The layout is 32' long and, in its component parts, was enough to fill a Transit van. None of us had anywhere to put the layout up to enable it to be used and the decision was eventually made to sell it.

 

The layout was featured in the modelling press between 2008 and 2010 and for quite a number of years Andy Y has been asking to photograph it for BRM. As the layout was in storage and too long to fully put up at home we had hoped that he'd be able to take the shots at a show. Our last show was however about three years ago and, being a 1 day event down in Barnstaple, wasn't suitable.

 

The layout was dug out of storage for the sale and moved in its component parts down into our conservatory ready for collection by the buyer before Christmas. Snow postponed the collection until early in the new year.

 

No longer being in storage and awaiting collection presented a small window of opportunity for Andy to get the photos he wanted. Storage had not been kind to the layout in a few areas and so a number of evenings and a weekend were spent bringing it back up-to scratch purely for the camera.

 

I spent the evening prior to the photo shoot moving furniture in our lounge, putting down dust sheets and putting up the five scenic boards. A very tight squeeze and a big disturbance to the rest of the family.

 

The following day was taken off work for the photo shoot and fellow owner John drove over (about 90mins) to help out. We finished off setting up the layout and had an enjoyable afternoon putting trains on and off the layout whilst Andy took the shots (no fiddleyards remember). We are very happy with the photos that came out of this, a great record of the layout.

 

The article was then written over a day and a whole week of evenings. Andy sent us the photos (many more than appeared in the mag) and John and I spent further time providing captions for them all. Extra bits of info were also requested by the editor and a chunk of time was spent going through 15 years of show photos trying to find a shot of the three owners together - another extra wanted by the mag.

 

All in all I would estimate we put well over a week's worth of time into getting the layout prepared, the day of the shoot and then putting the article together. All this was over and above the effort required to unearth the layout for sale and collection.

 

I'm sure that many of the layouts featured in the mag have permanent homes, are in regular use and are in a 'camera ready' condition. The main effort in those cases would be making time for the photos and then writing the article. If some mags are now self-writing the article from a phone 'interview' then the layout owner's effort is effectively reduced down to a fun operating session and a friendly chat on the phone. In this situation I can see the case for reduced or zero payment - the owner does hopefully get a good set of photos.

 

In our case we put a hell of a lot more effort in to make sure Andy had something worth photographing and to give the editor a good set of words. We know it was a good set of words because BRM's Andy McVittie sent us a message reading:

 

"Thanks for delivering your copy so promptly. It is an interesting read and, more importantly, is pretty much ready to go as it is. It's not very often I can say that, believe me!"

 

And again in a separate message:

"I’m just getting in touch with regard to payment for your excellent article – you’ll have to take it from me that it’s rare for us to have such a complete feature from the outset!"

 

So in our case I can say I enjoyed writing the article, am very pleased with the photos and happy that the mag article is a fitting end to our ownership of Treneglos. I hope the above description helps office bound editors appreciate the amount of effort that some modellers put in to giving them the material that makes up the magazine. Hopefully it also explains the disappointment over the article fee compared to many previous submissions given the amount of effort put in. It was after all BRM that wanted the layout in their mag not us pushing the article for our own gratification.

 

We've been promised a statement from the editor but as things currently stand I won't be wasting my time writing the follow up article about exhibiting the layout.

[jjb1970]

I can understand your disappointment given the above, and it does put your post into context. However I think things like this are best dealt with privately as people and organisations can (understandably) be reluctant to engage in discussion on a matter like this in public and the editorial staff probably have no control over it. Just my thought. I think it would be fair to request that a publisher clarifies their payment rate in public (which I recognise is what your first post was intended to do) but I would try and avoid getting into cases in public. Just my opinion, nothing untoward intended.

[chris p bacon]

Perhaps worth adding a bit of background to what prompted me to start this thread.

 

To start I should say that I do enjoy writing and I don't expect to make any sort of living from any payments but what does come in is useful contribution to the layout fund. BRM are a commercial enterprise that take the articles we submit, put them into a magazine for the sole purpose of making money. They are not a charity undertaking benevolent activities for modellers.

 

I fully understand they're a commercial enterprise and I have no problem with them making money from the hobby, but there is some irony in the sentence highlighted, is that you're writing this on a free to use forum they provide and you've been able to freely criticise them without censure.

 

 

I can understand your disappointment given the above, and it does put your post into context. However I think things like this are best dealt with privately as people and organisations can (understandably) be reluctant to engage in discussion on a matter like this in public and the editorial staff probably have no control over it. Just my thought. I think it would be fair to request that a publisher clarifies their payment rate in public (which I recognise is what your first post was intended to do) but I would try and avoid getting into cases in public. Just my opinion, nothing untoward intended.

 

 

This sums it up to me and I agree with it fully.

 

I do understand where you're coming from, As a club we had a similar instance with a different publication approx 18 months ago and apart from photographs received no payment. It took us several weeks to prepare the room and layout and the stock had to come from 70 miles away, days off during the week for a 4 hour session and when printed it was after our exhibition so we could not capitalise on any advertising.  

I have also been asked about an article concerning a joint project by a 3rd publication, the other party is going ahead but I have asked about rates and advertising in advance and heard nothing back so will not be contributing.

[chris p bacon]

Oh and by the way Warners have not even graced me with the basic courtesy of an acknowledgement to my well presented comments on their errors made via their website. So why would I bother in future?

 

 

I was in agreement with your post to an extent (I have not noticed the use of AXEL) until I read the above.

 

I wouldn't reply either to unsolicited criticism with an expectation of thanks, so I'm with Warners on this one.  

Edited April 21, 2018 by chris p bacon

[2ManySpams]

I can understand your disappointment given the above, and it does put your post into context. However I think things like this are best dealt with privately as people and organisations can (understandably) be reluctant to engage in discussion on a matter like this in public and the editorial staff probably have no control over it. Just my thought. I think it would be fair to request that a publisher clarifies their payment rate in public (which I recognise is what your first post was intended to do) but I would try and avoid getting into cases in public. Just my opinion, nothing untoward intended.

A well reasoned opinion and an approach I'd normally agree with.

 

The point of thread was to see if our experience was shared by others, to see if rates have been quietly reduced by one or more mags and, if so, to raise awareness with other potential contributors that things have changed. The purpose of my earlier post this morning was to raise awareness that there is often quite a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes in producing an article - more than just throwing some random words at a page.

 

The public posts and conversations I've had off thread have highlighted that rates do appear to have been trimmed by some and done away with by others. They have also highlighted that there's a growing number of people who have written previously who are not happy with this change and won't contribute further articles. I think the biggest benefit of the public discussion has been highlighting to others that if you want or are expecting any sort of payment for your efforts (and I understand not everybody does) then you really need to agree this up front so as to not get an unpleasant surprise.

 

I am in the process of writing privately to Andy McVittie to fully express my thoughts but, on the basis I got no reply to a previous email on another subject, I doubt that such action will be anywhere near as effective as the public thread. The thread has raised awareness amongst modellers and I understand has resulted in discussion within the BRM team. Job done.

 

Edit: I doubt rates paid will increase as a result of the thread but I do hope at the very least BRM are more up front with individual contributors on what they will pay and manage expectations better. The current approach is loosing them goodwill.

[Andy Y]

Perhaps worth adding a bit of background to what prompted me to start this thread.

 

Many words....

 

I fully understand that you went to considerable efforts to make it possible and to write the article. I went further than I would normally do in the number of finished images as you're a friend (it was a challenging shoot from a lighting point of view and working around the moving target known as John which meant that the processing took a lot longer than average to give the outcome I felt you deserved) and the supporting material in map form which was not used in the final article. Your captions were extensive too but unfortunately we couldn't use all of the images and captions in the printed article and the digital format doesn't cater for the captions (unless we'd embedded them onto the image, something in hindsight which could have been done with a bit more time).

 

This was a fairly rare situation; at the other extreme a photoshoot for a limited range of pictures may be achieved in 30-60 minutes if the layout is already erected and stocked-up at an exhibition and the inconvenience may be limited to stopping a few trains in certain spots. Leaving the article words aside for a moment there is then a great disparity in the levels of effort, intrusion and inconvenience from one photoshoot to another. Some layout owners understand the process more than others and some jobs can be lengthened due to bouncy floors, moving people, bright clothing/curtains/interior decor, variable lighting etc. but that's something I have to live with and work around. Anyway, those are just some of the factors from the other side of the lens which can mean some jobs take longer than others which again impacts on the layout owners' time, courtesy or temper. So, the time expended can be a big variable and it can be difficult to put a value on that in any payment made.

 

If the payment is viewed solely as payment for the words again this can be a big variable based on how much time and effort the layout owner wants to put into it; we see the full range of bare outlines through to overly complex or technical aspects. The editor than has to shape that into what he believes the readers will find interesting. We often give an article template for guidance, some want to do their own thing (as I knew you would), some disregard it and some work with it - that can play a big part in it. I've looked at the article again and if the text were distilled down to what was used on the page it's about 3.5 pages so the payment made divided between the number of pages the text filled then the payment is not far off rates discussed; it's the other variables which have left you feeling disappointed.

 

We can look at individual scenarios but inevitably it will be impossible to please all of the people all of the time but maybe discriminatory fairness is the best approach to consider in future. The point has been made and we're looking at how to make things fairer.

[Chris M]

This thread has made me think a bit. I admit that those of us who have contributed to magazines do like to receive a little financial thank you but if none of the magazines paid anything I reckon most of us would still be very happy to contribute articles. Any money received is a kind of recompense and should never be thought of as payment for work done because it simply isn’t.

 

Fair play to Warner’s for letting this thread continue this long. They are after all paying for this forum.

[PaulRhB]

Yep the thread as a whole has been measured too on a real potential hot potato. It's nice to be aware of the rates and to be honest I'd never bothered to ask and was very pleasantly surprised with the first while the others were in line with this discussion so I figured it was the big commercial operations having more expensive staff and overheads. I appreciate none of the mags have big teams but when the title sits between tech, car and lifestyle mags I can see more pressure for the margins. We are lucky to still have such variety of choice and no doubt the rise of the net and free forums such as this have undermined the sales too. As I've said before a paper copy still has a lot of value for me but I don't subscribe to any as I go by that months content so I generally buy 2-3 of around 8 mags each month plus a couple of military modelling and aviation titles.

With railway modelling I buy from Continental Modeller, Railway Modeller, BRM, Model Railroader, Garden Rail, MRJ, Railway Express and Model Rail in that rough order.

[2ManySpams]

Thank you for the response Andy, good to have the views.

 

Thank you to all the contributors as well for keeping what could have turned into a right slanging match on a well measured and constructive keel. Everyone will have a view on the topic and for everyone that shares mine there will be somebody happy with the current situation.

 

I would suggest that, as the purpose of the thread has been served, it's probably best to lock it off now.