Lenswork - Ouch!

[lenswork]

I forgot to address the "trick" comment.

Some of you may not be aware how the magazine distribution business works. I have no secrets, so I'll tell you. All the magazines (technically periodicals, identified by their ISSN #) that appear on the shelves at Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc. are purchased from the publisher without any guarantee of payment. If we send 10 copies to a given store, they pay us (6 months later, I might add) only for those that sell. The rest are destroyed and we are not paid for them. Of course, we must pay the costs of producing all of them, but only are paid by the distributor for the ones that sell. We don't even get them back so we can try to sell them ourselves. They are shredded and recycled.

Worse yet, we are paid less (considerably less) than half of the cover price for those that do sell.

Worse yet, if they are stolen off the store shelves, we are charged for the store's shoplifting loss. (Figure that one out. How is this fair to us?)

Worse yet, we pay the shipping from the printer to the distributor.

Worse yet, we pay for the shipping from the distributor to the individual stores.

Worse yet, we pay for the advertising the distributor sends to their customers (the stores) so they know about our magazine.

And we pay an annual fee for the privilege of selling them.

When all is said and done, magazine publishers NEVER make a dime on any of the copies that are distributed through retail outlets. So why do it? It's a stupid game, and here is how it works.

Most magazines survive on their advertising revenue. Their advertising revenue is determined based on how many copies they distribute. So, if they place 50 copies of their publication into a retail store, they can report 50 copies have been distributed -- even if they don't sell. The more copies they send to the store, the more copies they can report are distributed, and therefore the more they can charge their advertisers. The dirty little secret is that most of the copies in the store remain unsold and are eventually destroyed -- a fact that no one in the industry really wants to talk much about. For all those destroyed copies, there is no benefit to the advertiser, no benefit to the retailer, it's a terribly inefficient use of resources from the environment -- but is a game that is so inculcated in the industry that it continues. Magazines typically do everything they can to pump up their numbers simply so they can charge more from their advertisers, regardless of the impact on the quality of the magazine, waste of resources, or insanity of the system. We simply refuse to play this silly game.

And, by the way, this also is precisely why most magazines are printed so poorly compared to the available technology. In order to place as many copies as they can into distribution -- in spite of the knowledge that most of them won't be sold -- they must choose the least expensive printing they can in order to keep costs-per-copy as low as possible. That's why magazines are typically printed on web presses rather than single sheet book presses like we use for LensWork. If so many of the copies of a typical magazine are never going to be actually read by a consumer, why pay for the extra quality in printing -- especially when numbers count more than quality?

We think this entire scenario is just silly. We've always operated on a different principle. Since day one, we've said that LensWork will survive (or not) based on the quality of the publication. Period. No games, no advertising hokum, no phony distribution numbers, no compromise in printing quality. We stopped taking any outside advertising in 2002. We place our faith in the quality of our publication, the care we put in selecting the content, the efforts we expend in reproducing the images with state-of-the-art printing, and the assumption that there are enough people out there who share our passion in photography to care that a publication like LensWork exists. If we produce a magazine that you think is worth it and adds to your photographic life, then we hope you'll buy it. We really hope you'll subscribe to it -- where there is no waste, no destroyed copies, no silly distribution games. We've continued to place LensWork into retail distribution simply so people can find it and then, hopefully, subscribe to it. It's exposure to new customers, nothing more.

I've never been afraid of going against the grain if I think the principle is right. This is just an example of that philosophy in action in the business world.

So, that's the primer on the magazine business for any of you who might be tempted to start your own publication.

This January newsstand price increase is not a "trick," but rather the necessary response to the cost increases we've absorbed over the last 5 years since our last price increase. By holding our subscription rates the same, we obviously do hope more of you will subscribe. That's why we produce it. No tricks. We honestly hope you think it is of value to your photographic life and worth the subscription price. If it is, welcome aboard. If not, I guess we'll just try harder to make it so.

Brooks

 

[JBrunner]

Thanks Brooks,

I have always admired the way you lay it on the line. I knew many magazines get destroyed, but I never had the true insight into the "game". I see now there are good stewardship reasons to subscribe beyond cost savings.

 

[Drew B.]

I just go to Borders and read (all of) them in the cafe. Did you read the article in Focus about how b&w is starting to make a minor come back in the fine art world! Is this guy an idiot?

 

[Jim Chinn]

As the costs of photography goes up I have to cut costs somewhere, and that is magazines. I can buy great photography books used for pennies on the dollar if I am patient, but magazines are sort of a perishable commodity.
I still buy issues on ocassion, (usually View Camera and B&W and maybe one or two issues of Lenswork a year) but usually they get viewed over a cup of coffee at Borders. At one time I spent $60 a month on mag subscriptions or off the shelf purchases. That's a good chunk of money for film, paper and chemistry.

Lenswork is a great magazine and if the price increase is needed to keep it going with its usual high standards, then we have to accept that fact. I wish them well.

 

[roteague]

I have no problem with the cost of the magazine. If I pick up a copy at the local bookstore, and I like it, I'll purchase it. I don't browse magazines over coffee or read them cover to cover at the bookstore, I buy them. Having said that, the primary reason I don't purchase every issue (or subscribe) is the digital content. Good composition + technical flaws = crappy pictures. I know what digital is capable of, and it isn't fine art.

 

[JBrunner]

I guess sitting down in a store and reading something cover to cover and then putting it back on the shelf is accepted practice, but I wouldn't feel right about doing it. YMMV.

 

[lns]

Brooks, thanks for that excellent (and rather horrifying) explanation of magazine retail sales. I'm glad you distribute individual issues, because I do leaf through the issues and buy the ones I like. But I think I have to agree that however beautifully printed your magazine is, the content has seemed less interesting to me over the past year. I don't know if the cause is the growing amount of digital work in the magazine, but I wouldn't rule it out. I'm not anti-digital, but I think black-and-white digital images often are less interesting, slicker, or with less depth, or something. Just my opinion -- and I know it's not always true (there was work very recently that had an overprocessed digital look to me, but was shot on a Nikon F100). I guess what I'm saying is, I would gladly buy a magazine at $12.95 if the work inside seems worth it, but I likely won't subscribe nor even purchase individual issues otherwise. Of course you can't please everyone. And I appreciate your desire to show different types of photography in the same issue. What I appreciate most is that you often present the work of a well-know photographer alongside that of unknowns, as in the May-June issue when you had some work by Hiroshi Watanabe alongside beautiful work by Josef Tornick after Paul Strand. I never would have encountered Tornick but for your magazine. Similarly, there was a photographer from Mexico City, whose name I forget, who made lovely images I have to dig up again. And I like Bill Jay's Endnotes. Geez, I'm kind of convincing myself to subscribe.

Well, best regards, and keep up the high quality of the selections. -Laura

 

[espressogeek]

I originally suscribed to lenswork to help expand my vision but I have seen the same subject matter covered a few times in there in a year. That sort of bummed me out. I love my trip out west for example but I don't like seeing three different people cover it because there is only so much truly new content coming out of that area and subject. Now I did see one gentleman that I liked very much that DID shoot digital and it inspired me because it reminded me that I should not get stuck in the minutiae of photography. I now just browse the mags at the store and buy the ones that have something fresh and new.

 

[MP_Wayne]

I forgot to address the "trick" comment.

When all is said and done, magazine publishers NEVER make a dime on any of the copies that are distributed through retail outlets.
Since day one, we've said that LensWork will survive (or not) based on the quality of the publication. Period.
I've never been afraid of going against the grain if I think the principle is right.

Brooks

Brooks - thanks so much for your clarifying posts! I must say I now have a considerable growing contempt for the wasteful practices of retail bookselling industry. I am shocked and speechless about such a reprehensible industry practice. So much for environmental awareness (snort)...

My consumption habits are typically [1] Lenswork [2] View Camera and [3] occasionally B&W Photography UK. For [1] and [2], I typically purchase every issue, and for [3], I am content selective and purchase selected issues.(No need to belabour that point as it has been discussed ad infinitum in another thread).

I purchase Lenswork for the sheer enjoyment of the art presented and for several reasons already cited: [a] high production quality/value a source of inspiration/ideas [c] virtually no advertising. A friend lent me a copy of his Enhanced version too, and I was extremely impressed with the quality and enjoyment of that unique, innovative product. If costs are driving up the continued production of a quality art publication, so be it. As for the digital vs analogue commentary, perhaps we, as APUGgers should respond to the challenge thrown to us by Brooks! Start submitting instead of whining!

For View Camera, the publication of methodologies is what drives my decision for that purchase and, to a lesser extent, the artistic content. In my mind, these publications serve two completely different purposes.

So Brooks, based on the magazine retailing education provided by you, I hope to convert to a subscription for the new year 2008. I am hoping against hope that you will offer that same Regular+Enhanced offer as last year for new subscribers (hint hint)... I am still kicking myself for not getting on it last year.

Either way, keep up the good work and your principled publishing! Thanks!

 

[Dave Miller]

An interesting insight into the magazine publishing world. Contrary to most that have posted I must say that I generally enjoy your handiwork, which is possibly why I have a subscription to it.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I haven't seen the latest lenswork issues but I felt that in '04 it was expensive.
I too was bothered by the focus on digital. One portfolio was of
'garden pictures' taken by a mechanic who 'takes garden pictures' in his spare time. Awful. Flat. I couldn't understand why they'd 'choose' that but oh well.

 

[copake_ham]

I have no problem with the cost of the magazine. If I pick up a copy at the local bookstore, and I like it, I'll purchase it. I don't browse magazines over coffee or read them cover to cover at the bookstore, I buy them. Having said that, the primary reason I don't purchase every issue (or subscribe) is the digital content. Good composition + technical flaws = crappy pictures. I know what digital is capable of, and it isn't fine art.

As is the case with Robert, I too am rather price insensitive such that the cost is not a reason why I don't purchase or subscribe to Lenswork.

Brook has previously here defended his migration to digital and I respect that that is right to do so with his business.

I cannot speak for everyone here - but the actual cost (whether on the newsstand or subscription) has to be relatively minor for most. Certainly, if you value the magazine you'll find a way to purchase it.

 

[clay]

I'll forward this thread to MOMA so they can arrange for some garbage haulers.

Seriously????

But I digress.

There is an additional point I would add to Brook's posts. Another reason that magazines with advertisers charge subscribers anything is that the subscription price is a way for advertiser's to indirectly measure both the seriousness and the financial liquidity of the subscribers to whom they are hawking their goods. A really slick magazine that has adverts aimed at big spenders would have difficulty if it gave its copies away in kiosks on the street, because the likelihood of reaching the target audience is pretty low. The number of copies needed to reach their target demographic would be exorbitantly expensive. On the other hand, a high-priced magazine designed to appeal to a particular market segment is signaling to its advertisers that its subscribers are both interested and well-heeled.

One exception to this are companies like American Express who can specifically target a particular income demographic because they have their card holder's charge history. They will send out very high-quality, slick magazines loaded with ads for luxury goods to card members that run up charges over a certain amount each month.

Having said that, the primary reason I don't purchase every issue (or subscribe) is the digital content. Good composition + technical flaws = crappy pictures. I know what digital is capable of, and it isn't fine art.

 

[eclarke]

I forgot to address the "trick" comment.

Some of you may not be aware how the magazine distribution business works. I have no secrets, so I'll tell you. All the magazines (technically periodicals, identified by their ISSN #) that appear on the shelves at Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc. are purchased from the publisher without any guarantee of payment. If we send 10 copies to a given store, they pay us (6 months later, I might add) only for those that sell. The rest are destroyed and we are not paid for them. Of course, we must pay the costs of producing all of them, but only are paid by the distributor for the ones that sell. We don't even get them back so we can try to sell them ourselves. They are shredded and recycled.

Worse yet, we are paid less (considerably less) than half of the cover price for those that do sell.

Worse yet, if they are stolen off the store shelves, we are charged for the store's shoplifting loss. (Figure that one out. How is this fair to us?)

Worse yet, we pay the shipping from the printer to the distributor.

Worse yet, we pay for the shipping from the distributor to the individual stores.

Worse yet, we pay for the advertising the distributor sends to their customers (the stores) so they know about our magazine.

And we pay an annual fee for the privilege of selling them.

When all is said and done, magazine publishers NEVER make a dime on any of the copies that are distributed through retail outlets. So why do it? It's a stupid game, and here is how it works.

Most magazines survive on their advertising revenue. Their advertising revenue is determined based on how many copies they distribute. So, if they place 50 copies of their publication into a retail store, they can report 50 copies have been distributed -- even if they don't sell. The more copies they send to the store, the more copies they can report are distributed, and therefore the more they can charge their advertisers. The dirty little secret is that most of the copies in the store remain unsold and are eventually destroyed -- a fact that no one in the industry really wants to talk much about. For all those destroyed copies, there is no benefit to the advertiser, no benefit to the retailer, it's a terribly inefficient use of resources from the environment -- but is a game that is so inculcated in the industry that it continues. Magazines typically do everything they can to pump up their numbers simply so they can charge more from their advertisers, regardless of the impact on the quality of the magazine, waste of resources, or insanity of the system. We simply refuse to play this silly game.

And, by the way, this also is precisely why most magazines are printed so poorly compared to the available technology. In order to place as many copies as they can into distribution -- in spite of the knowledge that most of them won't be sold -- they must choose the least expensive printing they can in order to keep costs-per-copy as low as possible. That's why magazines are typically printed on web presses rather than single sheet book presses like we use for LensWork. If so many of the copies of a typical magazine are never going to be actually read by a consumer, why pay for the extra quality in printing -- especially when numbers count more than quality?

We think this entire scenario is just silly. We've always operated on a different principle. Since day one, we've said that LensWork will survive (or not) based on the quality of the publication. Period. No games, no advertising hokum, no phony distribution numbers, no compromise in printing quality. We stopped taking any outside advertising in 2002. We place our faith in the quality of our publication, the care we put in selecting the content, the efforts we expend in reproducing the images with state-of-the-art printing, and the assumption that there are enough people out there who share our passion in photography to care that a publication like LensWork exists. If we produce a magazine that you think is worth it and adds to your photographic life, then we hope you'll buy it. We really hope you'll subscribe to it -- where there is no waste, no destroyed copies, no silly distribution games. We've continued to place LensWork into retail distribution simply so people can find it and then, hopefully, subscribe to it. It's exposure to new customers, nothing more.

I've never been afraid of going against the grain if I think the principle is right. This is just an example of that philosophy in action in the business world.

So, that's the primer on the magazine business for any of you who might be tempted to start your own publication.

This January newsstand price increase is not a "trick," but rather the necessary response to the cost increases we've absorbed over the last 5 years since our last price increase. By holding our subscription rates the same, we obviously do hope more of you will subscribe. That's why we produce it. No tricks. We honestly hope you think it is of value to your photographic life and worth the subscription price. If it is, welcome aboard. If not, I guess we'll just try harder to make it so.

Brooks

Well said and you turned me around on the B&N thing, I will subscribe this week. You also struck an interesting chord with the disposal aspect of the magazines. My wife is undergoing chemotherapy at Froederdt/Medical College of Wisconsin (no sympathy required, it's a separate issue) and they have 30-40 chemo stations going all day. These miserably ill, despondent people only have 3 year outdated magazines to read while they go through this torture. There are worse treatment places in this hospital, dialysis etc. Why can't these greedy corporate merchants do something constructive with this material they throw away, donate it and get some positive advertising? How would one go about contacting somebody in a position to do this??..Thanks, Brooks...Evan Clarke

 

[lenswork]

Thanks for all your feedback. Much appreciated.

I sometimes think our readers are more aware of the trends in LensWork than we are -- I've been occasionally surprised at the connections some people see that we don't! Just as a check of the comments about analog versus digital, I did go back and look at the last 2 years worth of LensWork to see what we have published. I found that of the last 44 bodies of work we've published in the magazine, 24 portfolios done were with analog cameras and 20 done with digital cameras. Exactly the same numbers for those who make analog prints and those who make digital prints. So, looks like analog folks are still in the majority -- a fact that doesn't surprise me considering the dedication to one's photography that is required to excel in darkroom-based media.

I agree with a previous poster who suggested the best way to influence the content of LensWork is to submit work! Our objective is not to push one medium over another, but rather to push the best photography we see out there for others to see. I suspect darned few APUG regulars have sent in work for us to review -- hint, hint. I'd love to see more! Consider yourselves prodded -- albeit it gently.

And if you have sent in work and we didn't select it, don't be discouraged. Sometimes it's a matter of timing. Sometimes it's a function of what else we have to choose from. Many, many of the portfolios you see in LensWork are a second, third, or fourth submission from a photographer. Persistence is a virtue -- but I suspect I needn't remind darkroom folks of this universal truth.

Brooks

 

[Curt]

I just go to Borders and read (all of) them in the cafe. Did you read the article in Focus about how b&w is starting to make a minor come back in the fine art world! Is this guy an idiot?
__________________

They actually encourage the preview with a Latte. They figure what ever gets you to stay and buy a drink. I don't do it but I see people using the book store like a library. I saw the latest Lenswork but passed on it, and not because of the price.

 

[Black Dog]

That reminds me, I must send some work in myself (especially as I have a few free months to spend in the darkroom).

 

[Ole]

The new newstand price for Lenswork will be $12.95 starting in Jan '08. Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuchhh!
Will you still buy it, or will you finally break down and subscribe?

Does this mean it will get cheaper, to those of us in the rest of the world?

 

[michael9793]

i get lenswork extended and that is nice because you get tours of darkrooms and interviews along with podcast and seeing extended portfolios. I like that much better than the mag. and you are right all you see is canon and nikkon digital cameras everywhere in the book. though some of the work i have seen you had to do 35mm and digital has replaced that as far a journalism or anything of that sort at this time.

mike

 

[Dave Miller]

Does this mean it will get cheaper, to those of us in the rest of the world?

It does, especially if you take out a three year subscription.

 

[roteague]

It does, especially if you take out a three year subscription.

The way the US dollar is tanking these days .... I would take advantage. Even the Aussie dollar is almost at par.

 

[jovo]

Magazines typically do everything they can to pump up their numbers simply so they can charge more from their advertisers, regardless of the impact on the quality of the magazine, waste of resources, or insanity of the system. We simply refuse to play this silly game.

*** *** *** *** *** ***

We think this entire scenario is just silly. We've always operated on a different principle. Since day one, we've said that LensWork will survive (or not) based on the quality of the publication. Period. No games, no advertising hokum, no phony distribution numbers, no compromise in printing quality.

Which begs the question relating to the thread about the UK Black and White Photography: to what degree do these considerations influence its' choices about content? Pleasing advertisers of digitalia (sounds vaguely erotic doesn't it ) would be a rather overwhelming pressure using Brooks's information. David Corfield (and certainly Ailsa as well) has/(had) a tough row to hoe here to keep advertisers happy while still trying to please we of an analog bent.

The other thing that makes me curious is the presumption we make that the editors (who are also the art directors it seems) have the depth and breadth of knowledge to choose the best work from what must be an enormous number of submissions. I've yet to see from Brooks, Henry Rasmussen, David Corfield, or even Ailsa what they bring to the task of making those choices. Some magazines, clearly, have the staff to delegate such responsibilities, but among the few I usually enjoy, I think the final cut rests in the hands of the above named suspects. Obviously, I approve of much of what they choose or I wouldn't bother with their magazines, but it would be nice to have a sense of their credentials nonetheless. What we don't see, of course, is the 'discard' pile. What we also don't know is whether of not there's an editorial nudge toward the makers of digipics over photographs in any or all of these periodicals (and it isn't even possible in LensWork for sure) in order to satisfy advertisers. (The disconnect in Outdoor Photographer (US)) borders on the laughable since there's not one scintilla of editorial content that isn't extolling digigraphia while, nonetheless publishing analog portfolios....how dense does that editor think his readers are? Maybe the answer is: "Very!")

 

[symmar_man]

Well, Mr. Jensen, as I expected, you have ignored my point totally and turned your point of view into a crying environmental issue in order to position yourself in the roll of a hero by offering subscriptions to save the environment. Shame you are not running for public office, you would make a great politician.

I reiterate, your stand on selling your prints for cheap is to get art out to the public. Why do you not do the same with your magazine? Just because you do not make a living from your print sales, does not mean that others do not. You cheapen the market for everyone else, and make photography look cheap, yet you raise the price of your magazine so you can make a profit. That is my point. You cannot be at both extremes at the same time. Why does your business philosophy differ so much? It is hard to be on both sides of the fence at the same time, at least comfortably.

One other note, I see you haven’t updated your audio blog since Sep 05, 2007. . . I miss the entertainment immensely. And I do appreciate what you do. And I do think your magazine is a quality product. Just remember that quality has little worth without content. I have the greatest respect for you and your endeavors, I just don’t understand why you continuously contradict yourself?

B. Dalton

 

[Curt]

Just remember that quality has little worth without content.

Well said.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Since day one, we've said that LensWork will survive (or not) based on the quality of the publication. Period. No games, no advertising hokum, no phony distribution numbers, no compromise in printing quality. We stopped taking any outside advertising in 2002. We place our faith in the quality of our publication, the care we put in selecting the content, the efforts we expend in reproducing the images with state-of-the-art printing, and the assumption that there are enough people out there who share our passion in photography to care that a publication like LensWork exists.

I don't care for every portfolio, but there is always one or two that I like, and some of the editorials sound a bit too much like motivational sermonizing, and sometimes Bill Jay's on, and sometimes he's off on a tangent, but the physical artifact that is the magazine is always well produced, and this is why I subscribe and keep back issues of LensWork.