Black and White Magazine's "change" of heart...

[DavidS]

I understand that, but you have to admit, with as much respect as I have for traditional photography, there isn't enough of a market for it out there to run a magazine soley based upon traditional photography alone. There also isn't enough of a market to run a magazine soley based upon digital photography alone. I say this as in catering to photographers as an art magazine, not as a techinical "how to" magazine, which neither B&W, nor Inked, nor LensWork are. I don't know out of how many people are traditional photographers, would subscribe to a "how to" magazine about traditional photography. It would also depend upon the demographic base, what their income is, etc. Again, I wish Emulsion the best luck in the world. With paper and postage costs what they are today, there's a lot of money that goes into creating and running a magazine, money that comes from advertisers.

A fine art photography magazine must display the works of what galleries are showing since most of the advertisers are galleries and since most the readers visit and purchase art from galleries. A lot of galleries are showing digital photography today...

B&W isn't a how-to magazine, either. It's a magazine for collectors, but that photographers would want to keep up to date on to find out what the latest trends are in the fine art photography market. Some of those latest trends are digital, which is why B&W made their decision...to stay more up to date.

For the same reason I "need" APUG. "Smart" business decision are nice - but I do not subscribe to, or read, any publication solely for the fact that it is produced as a smart business decision.


Not why I would subscribe to/ de-subscribe. Unfortunately, most - In fact, ALL of the publications that have allowed "just a few" digitally specific articles invariably change their basic philosophies from that of "art" and "fine" photography to a frenzied, "Take the photograph and why worry about it ... here are the miraculous, wondrous ways you can screw around with it afterwards."

You say there are "many" Fine Art Photographers working with "Digital Photogrpaphy" and infer(?) that the numbers of those who work with film are not sufficient to sustain a magazine. Do you have any "hard" information of those numbers ... which to me, would be necessary to support a "good" business decision, or are assumptions being made? Related - how may "Digitally" oriented (philosophy-wise) magazines are available to those who do work digitally, and how many for those work work with film ... or to put it another way, just what is the competition, and what is a reasonable expectation of sales?

How does this sound?

In a Board of Director's meeting, the information is brought to light - "Only ten percent of our profits are generated by film-based photography. Sound business - We will discontinue film-based products."

At the next meeting - PANIC!!! "Our profits are down by TEN PERCENT!!! - Heads will roll. Committees must be formed, Consultants hired --- to find out WHY..."

 

[DavidS]

You say there are "many" Fine Art Photographers working with "Digital Photogrpaphy" and infer(?) that the numbers of those who work with film are not sufficient to sustain a magazine.

Yes, but I was mistaken to also not say there aren't enough people working in digital fine art photography to sustain a magazine.

Do you have any "hard" information of those numbers ... which to me, would be necessary to support a "good" business decision, or are assumptions being made?

Hard numbers? I have numbers from a survey I took of about 500 photographers and 500 collectors about two years ago. In my official results, 53% of the photographers surveyed are exhibited in gallery at least once a year. Out of those, nearly 65% of them had previously worked in digital photography to create a print or series of prints, while 41% said they work in traditional photography only. There, is of course, crossover of photographers who work in both digital and traditional.

If I were to start a magazine and base my magazine soley around traditional photography, I risk alienating nearly 65% of my readers who have been exhibited in galleries. The other photographers, 47% who had not been exhibited in galleries before, 35% of them said they were currently looking for representation. Out of those 35%, over 80% said they use a form of digital process to create a print, while only 24% said they work in traditional photography only. It's more apparent that the younger generation of fine art photographers are using more digital than traiditional photography.

I'll also base my information off of annual sales of photography labs that deal with traditional photography ONLY. Their numbers are way down from what they used to be. I can't name specific names, but current and previous advertisers from B&W and other magazines are either going out of business or are doing poorly because the number of photographers who are using labs to develop their work are going down. The numbers of labs that do professional digital inkjet printing are going up and more "digital labs" are opening across the country. I added to my survey numbers I received from a photography marketing organization that 5 years ago, less than 25% of traditional photographers used labs to develop black and white film.

Now, out of the number of collectors I surveyed, 86% of them collect traditional phoography and don't collect digital inkkjet prints. This survey was taken in early 2003. My next survey will take place in early 2006 where I expect that number to go down and the number of inkjet prints that are collected to go up.

I don't have any current stastics of fine art photography galleries who are currently selling digital prints.

These are just numbers I gathered from a range of photographers and collectors who I gave subscriptions to as a reward for their participation in my survey.

Related - how may "Digitally" oriented (philosophy-wise) magazines are available to those who do work digitally, and how many for those work with film ...

There are probably about 20-30 photo magazines available on newsstands today. Out of that over 70% of those magazine have 25% or more of their content dedicated to digital photography. This comes from my circulation director who is personal friends with buyers from B&N and Borders.

How does this sound?
In a Board of Director's meeting, the information is brought to light - "Only ten percent of our profits are generated by film-based photography. Sound business - We will discontinue film-based products." At the next meeting - PANIC!!! "Our profits are down by TEN PERCENT!!! - Heads will roll. Committees must be formed, Consultants hired --- to find out WHY..."

In a Board of Director's meeting, they would talk about 10% of their annual sales. They would then look at what percentage of their annual expenses are traditional photography supplies, which if they decided to discontinue traditional photography related products, are either 1-2% lower than annual sales or more than 10% of their annual sales, creating a loss in that category. They would find out why that loss is occuring, see if there was anything they could do to create a bigger profit margin and if not, discontinue the category, like Kodak did.

 

[DavidS]

Photovision, Art and Technique was just such a magazine. As I have been told by one who knows, it ceased to exist for reasons entirely other than lack of interest, advertisers, distribution or any other reason related to its content. It could still be a viable publication had the publisher chosen to continue.

I know why Photo Vision ceased to exist, because of Steve Anchell's decision to leave. I've been working with Steve for two issues and I'm about to start working with him for a third...I gotta tell ya', that man has enough knowledge and smarts in his noggen that he could start and run 10 photography magazines without breaking a sweat. It's truly an honor to work with him. I don't remember why Steve decided to leave, but I do know that the publisher didn't want to continue running Photo Vision after he sustained the loss of Steve Anchell. And after working with Steve for two issues, I can understand why.

 

[DavidS]

Gareth,

Now what is so non-traditional with 'mission statement' we have used that term in the magazine publishing industry for over 25 years now, we did way back in 1980 when I started in the publication industry.

But you can be assured the 'mission statement' has been part of the traditional magazine publishing industry for a long time now, and to top it off, my comments were directed at the publisher of 'Inked' Magazine, which was asking a question about why we should not be able to have a combined magazine.

Nothing to do with you or your so called 'General Comments'

Dave

My comments were in response to someone else who posted on this forum regarding B&W magazine, not Inked and not Emulsion.

 

[DavidS]

The long term future of B&W materials ultimately depends on attracting the digital generation.

Perfectly stated. I don't know if this is necessariyl true for Emulsion since it is also color photography...

 

[Gim]

Dear Inked
It looks like your are publishing a statistical "average" magazine. Does not sound too exciting to me.

Jim

 

[arigram]

I agree with Gim.
When one starts giving out numbers instead of passionate statements, then don't expect too much from them. Little people with sad excuses for their misery bore me tremendously. I wonder why would I or anyone else for that matter, buy a magazine that goes for the typical boring mainstream? I prefer to save my money and support the passionate ones with a "mission". Every now and then, a magazine like that comes out and usually has some impact in the art world. I hope the best of Emulsion.

 

[Gim]

Thanks arigram
You write "my" feelings much better than I can. I would rather end up with 3 issues of Emulsion than 3 years of a "business" photo mag. (and I have a two year subscription to Emulsion) Where is the passion?

Jim

 

[DavidS]

Dear Inked
It looks like your are publishing a statistical "average" magazine. Does not sound too exciting to me.

Jim

Hey, Gim, it's called market research. In order to get advertisers, you need to have demographics. Every magazine that has a chance of making it out there has to have an audience. When advertisers see that you know who's reading your magazine, they see if they have a product or service that they can market to the people who read your magazine. Because other magazines have a demographic, they get companies like Nikon and Canon advertising in their magazine. I don't know what kind of jobs you guys have to make money, but the people that own your company market themselves to a particular client. Emulsion magazine can't just say we advertise to "photographers." What kind of photographers? What kind of income do they have? What's their education level? Every magazine has an audience they want to reach. Even Emulsion.

A while ago I tried starting a literary magazine, a poetry magazine that published un-published writers. Who was my audience? Writers who were struggling. I was going to publish poetry and short stories and compliment it with art and photography. It sank before it even got off of the ground. Why? There's no market for poetry magazines. Now if you expand your content to include creative fiction and also includes tips and techiniques for writers, then you have a magazine, you have advertisers, you have an audience who wants to be published or know someone who does and there are a great deal of companies out there who want to make money off of writers who want to be published. Not only that, but there are workshops and classes to help people improve their technique. There's Writer's Digest, the Writer, and about 5 other writing magazines on the newsstands. They succeed because they reach "the writer's market." B&W will succeed because he reaches "the fine art photography collector's market."

Someone asked for hard numbers to prove that it's a good business decision to create a magazine that doesn't seculude itself to too small of a niche. Because if you don't reach enough people advertisers won't be in your magazine and you won't be able to pay the bills and afford the elctricity... unless you want to do a Poets & Writers type deal and run a not-for-profit magazine. And hey, if that's what you want, if that's what Emulsion is going to be, a not-for-profit magazine with a reader base of 5,000 who donate enough money to keep the magazine going, go for it. Nothing wrong with that, I'd even donate my money to help keep it going if it were not-for-profit. But it's advertising rates are more expensive than mine... and who will they get? Camera companies wishing to market themselves to the photographers who read Emulsion. But limiting it to JUST traditional photography, you're not going to get a whole heckuva lot of camera companies because most of them don't want to spend money in their film sector. I know, I called them myself. There's hardly any advertising budget for traditional camera supplies in any of the major camera manufacturers.

You want a magazine without advertising? Great! Be willing to pay $60 a year for a subscription, don't expect a lot of pages or a high quality paper, and expect it to be difficult to find because of the cost to print on web press is astronomical.

Hate me and what I'm saying, but I only speak the truth.

 

[DavidS]

Thanks arigram
You write "my" feelings much better than I can. I would rather end up with 3 issues of Emulsion than 3 years of a "business" photo mag. (and I have a two year subscription to Emulsion) Where is the passion?

Jim

The business of photography is something a lot of photographers, collectors and curators are very passionate about. How do you market yourself? How do you find representation? What kind of prints are acceptable and have a better chance of being picked up by a gallery than others? What should you limit your editions to? How do you price your work? There's so much to talk about and get excited about and for a photographer who is seeking gallery representation to use as a tool! And then there's the goings on in the collector's side of things too! Fine Art Photography auctions, up close interviews with galleries and appraisers, fine art photography book reviews, how a print increases in value over the years!

You want a how-to magazine to tell you how many angles to shoot a bird from, there are lots of other magazines for that.

 

[lee]

Inked,

could you send me a copy of the first issue so I can decide if I can advertise my wares in your magazine? if so, I will send you my info.


lee\c

 

[DavidS]

I really can't be judged based upon my first issue. Now, I'd be happy to be judged based upon my second issue.

If you go into f8 Fine Art Photography Gallery in Austin (don't know how far Ft. Worth is from Austin) can get a copy of my first issue. The second issue will look completely different though, much more professional looking.

 

[jovo]

You want a magazine without advertising? Great! Be willing to pay $60 a year for a subscription, don't expect a lot of pages or a high quality paper, and expect it to be difficult to find because of the cost to print on web press is astronomical.

Hate me and what I'm saying, but I only speak the truth.

Well...not quite. Lenswork accepts no advertising other than its own proprietary products, prints on high quality paper stock, has a substantial number of pages and offers at least three portfolios per issue as well as other articles. It's also readily available at major bookstores and other outlets (magazine kiosk at Grand Central Station for example). True, it isn't cheap.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Yes, but I was mistaken to also not say there aren't enough people working in digital fine art photography to sustain a magazine.

I've read that line about 10 times now. I think it will take more.

Hard numbers? I have numbers from a survey I took of about 500 photographers and 500 collectors about two years ago...

I only wish I could sit down and discuss all this face to face. It would take more time and effort than I'd like to expend right now to try to correlate the "data from Photographers", and "data from collectors"...

If I were to start a magazine and base my magazine soley around traditional photography, I risk alienating nearly 65% of my readers who have been exhibited in galleries....

I think you meant "potential readers" -- You would have no readers to alienate before you start.

The other photographers, 47% who had not been exhibited in galleries before, 35% of them said they were currently looking for representation. Out of those 35%, over 80% said they use a form of digital process to create a print, while only 24% said they work in traditional photography only. It's more apparent that the younger generation of fine art photographers are using more digital than traiditional photography.

Uh... I hate to be "picky", but "Over 80% and 24%" add up to "Over 104%"
Be that as it may ... I get the impression that Inked Magazine has as its direction, "A publication dedicated to those who are seeking representation".
Am I correct?

I remember a conversation with a rather "odd" businessman, once. He gave me some unforgettable advice: "If you want to make real money, the entire secret is to look around you. Study well what `everyone else' is doing. Don't do that. The competition will be too stiff. The success awaits those who venture into unique areas...."

For every magazine that "jumps on the bandwagon" and converts to the "digital" philosophy, the area free for a unique "Traditional Process" magazine increases, and the competition decreases.
.
I *usually* process all my own work. From time to time, the occasion arises, especially working with E-6, where it makes more sense to use a Commercial lab. That happened about a month ago. I was talking to the receptionist (A gifted photographer in her own right) and commented, "The E-6 business must be dropping off quite a bit lately". She replied, "On the contrary. As more and more labs quit working film, and convert solely to "digital", our business has increased markedly. Even at that, the increase is more than could be expected by the reduction in numbers of competing labs doing the work." -

I'll also base my information off of annual sales of photography labs that deal with traditional photography ONLY. Their numbers are way down from what they used to be. I can't name specific names, but current and previous advertisers from B&W and other magazines are either going out of business or are doing poorly because the number of photographers who are using labs to develop their work are going down. The numbers of labs that do professional digital inkjet printing are going up and more "digital labs" are opening across the country.
....This comes from my circulation director who is personal friends with buyers from B&N and Borders.

One moment while I unclench my teeth. Conditioned response - happens every time I hear the phrase "Personal Friend" when discussing business.

In a Board of Director's meeting, they would talk about 10% of their annual sales. They would then..

Been there. After hearing that "Profits are down 10%" you will invariably see the quickest epidemic of deafness on the face of the planet - and with it, the handmaidens of knee-jerk reaction, panic, bloodlust, terror... Fifty sweepers of the dust and other sundry types who had nothing - or VERY little - to do with profits will be laid off immediately...

 

[Dave Parker]

These are starting to sound exactly like the questions I asked a couple of months ago, when I was consider being a A*hole, but I still don't understand, why it is such a big deal, and why there has to be so much justification, if you magazine is good, people will buy it, if it does not appeal, then they won't, pretty simple equation, the biggest problem I see with Inked Mag, since day one, was it has invaded a group of individuals, who in the majority Want to see Traditional Photography and has spent a good amount of time quoting numbers, that cannont be justified yet, two issues is a long ways from being a sucessful magazine, when asked about hard numbers you quote numbers that were gathered from a cross section of photographers, and then when someone really questions you, you go on the defensive and turn a thread into the old digital vs. analog fight again, I hope you make it, but from experiance, I can tell you, that you are a long ways from hitting the target market, when you make a product, the customer does not care one bit about your costs, they care about their product!

Good luck in your venture..

Dave

 

[lee]

Inked,

Austin is about 200 miles south of DFW. There is a photo gallery in Dallas that has been in business for over 35 years. It is called the Afterimage (www.afterimagegallery.com) did you send any to Ben?

lee\c

 

[DavidS]

Inked,

Austin is about 200 miles south of DFW. There is a photo gallery in Dallas that has been in business for over 35 years. It is called the Afterimage (www.afterimagegallery.com) did you send any to Ben?

lee\c

I did, actually. Ben was an advertiser for our first issue, as well.

 

[lee]

I will contact Ben and see if he has any left. I was there around Memorial Day and did not see any but I was not looking for it. Did Ben run an ad for the second issue also?

lee\c

 

[DavidS]

Uh... I hate to be "picky", but "Over 80% and 24%" add up to "Over 104%"

Right. But, I said some use digital and some use traditional. I did not say ONLY use, because then those numbers would be more evened. There is cross-over, i.e. a lot more photographers use digital than traiditional who would fall under the status of "emerging photographers who are seeking representation."

Be that as it may ... I get the impression that Inked Magazine has as its direction, "A publication dedicated to those who are seeking representation".
Am I correct?

No, not at all. Inked's direction is covering the market for black and white photography. If I niche it down any further, I risk not being able to get advertisers on board who want to advertise in a magazine with 100,000 subscribers...which is years away from happening. A group of people who are readers of Inked are photographer who are seeking representation, though you wouldn't know it by reading the magazine, because our first issue only had one advertisement from someone looking for representation and our second one had none. I'm trying to stay away from the directory listing idea that B&W has. I'm very anal about the layout and look of the magazine after our first issue, and putting in a directory for photographer seeking representation seems to put a hinderance on the layout.

I remember a conversation with a rather "odd" businessman, once. He gave me some unforgettable advice: "If you want to make real money, the entire secret is to look around you. Study well what `everyone else' is doing. Don't do that. The competition will be too stiff. The success awaits those who venture into unique areas...."

Great! Then I know I'm doing something right! Inked, unlike B&W actually talks to its readers who are photographers. Although we're not a "how to" magazine, we still cover the business of black and white fine art photography.

For every magazine that "jumps on the bandwagon" and converts to the "digital" philosophy, the area free for a unique "Traditional Process" magazine increases, and the competition decreases.

We're not like Lenswork in that we don't cover the creative process of photography. We're not like B&W in that we only talk about collecting photography. Anyway, I'm not in this forum to talk about Inked.
.

I *usually* process all my own work. From time to time, the occasion arises, especially working with E-6, where it makes more sense to use a Commercial lab. That happened about a month ago. I was talking to the receptionist (A gifted photographer in her own right) and commented, "The E-6 business must be dropping off quite a bit lately". She replied, "On the contrary. As more and more labs quit working film, and convert solely to "digital", our business has increased markedly. Even at that, the increase is more than could be expected by the reduction in numbers of competing labs doing the work." -

That's just a great example of supply and demand. The vast majority of film labs are doing poorly compared to business 10-20 years ago. We could blame the economy, but then why are digital labs doing so well? There's still demand for labs, just not so much supply left. The ones that are in the right areas (location, location, location) will do well today.

Been there. After hearing that "Profits are down 10%" you will invariably see the quickest epidemic of deafness on the face of the planet - and with it, the handmaidens of knee-jerk reaction, panic, bloodlust, terror... Fifty sweepers of the dust and other sundry types who had nothing - or VERY little - to do with profits will be laid off immediately...

They wouldn't say profits are down because they discontinued a line. They discontinued a line because the expenses from the line were hurting profits. By discontinuing the line, they wouldn't have the expenses which were more than the income. Either way, no profit.

 

[DavidS]

I will contact Ben and see if he has any left. I was there around Memorial Day and did not see any but I was not looking for it. Did Ben run an ad for the second issue also?

lee\c

No, actually. Ben was a one-time advertiser and didn't like the quality of my first issue..which I completely agreed with him on. The second issue I'm sure he will love and come back to us for our third issue.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... Anyway, I'm not in this forum to talk about Inked.

Oh. You had ME fooled.

BTW ... I'm sort of disappointed. No one asked about the identity of the "Odd Businessman".

He also said, "I made my first million by sheer, DUMB luck. That is of no interest. The next 899 million - is another story".

And:

"I think it is easier than ever to become wealthy, and do it with integrity. It is easier than ever now - and it will become easier still in the future."

J. Paul Getty

 

[Jorge]

The business of photography is something a lot of photographers, collectors and curators are very passionate about. How do you market yourself? How do you find representation? What kind of prints are acceptable and have a better chance of being picked up by a gallery than others? What should you limit your editions to? How do you price your work? There's so much to talk about and get excited about and for a photographer who is seeking gallery representation to use as a tool! And then there's the goings on in the collector's side of things too! Fine Art Photography auctions, up close interviews with galleries and appraisers, fine art photography book reviews, how a print increases in value over the years!

You want a how-to magazine to tell you how many angles to shoot a bird from, there are lots of other magazines for that.

Jesus men, we got it already, you have reapeated about 5 times that you dont think an analog only magazine will succeed without digital. Many of us happen to think you are wrong. Wrong in your opinion and wrong in your assesement of the market.

What really is starting to piss me off is that now that you have crapped all over your self with your first issue, here you are trying to discourage the creator of Emulsion magazine, yet for all your disagreeing about an all analog magazine, here you are peddling your rag.

Yes, yes, I know you have written you are just responding to the issue of B&W magazine, funny that you fail to mention it yet continue harping about a magazine with "how to articles". B&W does not do "how to articles!" if you havent notice, so you must be referring to Emulsion magazine every time you say this. So let me set you straight in a few points.

The saying explains that when you "assume" you make an ass out of u 'n me...well the saying is wrong, you mostly make an ass of yourself. You are assuming that Emulsion magazine will be a "how to magazine." You could not be more wrong if you tried! There will be some how to articles, but in your ignorance of analog processes you think all the articles are about...how did you put it? ....ah yes, "How to shoot a bird..yak, yak, yak".......Let me give you an example of the kind of resources Aggie has in APUG. I will be submitting to Aggie an article on special tricks to print in pt/pd, these are very simple tricks, but I have not seen them in any book, which I developed to print those negatives where I messed up the exposure and/or developing. I think this will be an article of interest to many, and even if the reader is not doing pt/pd I hope it will be something they wont mind reading, as opposed to an "Ultrachrome ink jet prints and the new 4800 Epson printer, the greater thing since sliced bread, you all need to shut down your darkrooms" article, or an article like you did on your first issue about digital vs analog.

Is digital here to stay? absolutely! yet you fail to mention that analog processes will always have a market, there will always be people and collectors who will appreciate an analog print.

Lets move on to your response I quoted. Do you think you are the only one who has a lock on these topics? Have you done a search on APUG and read all that was said on the same topics, many of the responses given by people who are represented by galleries and have gone through the process.....tell me, how many galleries are you represented by? Do you think you are the only one capable of talking to Gallery owners and curators? I am sorry to disappoint you, but it is as simple as picking up the phone and dialing many of them, I have done it myself.

It is not enough that Aggie announced a contest and then one week later you came on this same forum announcing yours, but now you are here telling us how an all analog magazine wont make it and giving us all the "statistics", when it is obvious you are not very knowledegable of analog photography. So why dont you have some courtesy towards us and stop assuming we are idiots and cannot see through you and your intentions. Let me remind you that when Sean had the idea of creating this site, he was told he was an idiot, moron and a fool, that nobody would want to participate, and here we are 2 years later with a great membership and most importantly the greatest concentration of analog knowledge ever.

So enough with the digital crap and your efforts to undermine Emulsion magazine already, if you feel this way go advertise your magazine on another site and spare us your opinion, we got it the first time you wrote it!

 

[Ed Sukach]

Gee, Jorge ... Could you be a little more direct? I mean ... All this beating around the bush... :rolleyes:

 

[Jorge]

Gee, Jorge ... Could you be a little more direct? I mean ... All this beating around the bush... :rolleyes:

Oh, so you want me to tell you how I really feel....?

 

[Flotsam]

Jorge, I was _THIS_ close to going digital and then you screwed it all up.