we talk a lot here about magazines and websites aimed at photographers, but i'm interesting in checking out wherever collectors go. seems like if you're trying to find your audience, and figure out how to reach them, these could be good places to look.
so there's focus mag. what else is out there?
Black and White Magazine? At least no talk about cameras and fstops.
You have American Art Collector, but then it is for collectors of traidtional art...that rules out photography..lol....
luminous-lint.com is aimed at collectors, although it is stronger on historical photography than contemporary.
I'm not sure who reads Black and White, but I sense it may be collectors of a more conservative nature. I posted an ad in there about a year ago for my print sale, and got zero response, not even an email inquiry; that's never happened to me before, as I've aways gotten some sort of nibble, at least a question from someone.
The relative appeal of my work and marketing aside, I was left with the impression that its readers may only be buying stuff of a more traditional, even decorative nature. I don't sense that its readers are scrounging the pages of ads we photographers take out in order to pick up prints from new and emerging artists before they become expensive, or rather, they are looking at people's work that already looks like others, be it Adams, Kenna, and such. Just to be explicit, this is my hunch, given my experience, and what I see published.
Photoeye, as a booklist, which is a sort of "magazine", but also the site is a huge draw, I think, which leads me off-topic to this issue: to some extent, I wonder whether or not, outside the gallery system, collectors are to be found to be congregating in any herd size at all where one can market to them as a group. I've had better luck with, for example, non profit photography centers, which attract their own group of collectors at a smaller level.
My sense is that it is better to compile a list of individuals through other means. The unpredictable nature of collectors aside, I also think that markets are fragmenting in a way that makes advertising to groups less effective, as more people are going to more, separate places to look at stuff, creating less concentration in any one spot.
i've wondered about that too, but thought that it might also be a good thing. if collectors are becoming more specialized, it might make it easier to find ones who could be interested in your work, at least in some cases. you'd at least be able to avoid wasting your time with groups of vintage work collectors, or conceptual work collectors, or whatever.Originally Posted by claudiocambon
You have an excellent point. The hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people collecting photography out there have tastes so diverging, it's impossible to cater to every single one of them. Each seperate sub-market of a market which is already considered a sub-market (photography collectors are a sub-market of art collectors, which are a sub-market of the affluent market), you can't narrow yourself down any smaller than to reach as many collectors of fine art photography as possible. Of course, you could try to reach collectors of grayscale photography which I doubt there are more than a couple thousand if that.... but I digress. The magazine business is tough, especially since you have to try to do everything possible to reach as many people as possible who each have such different tastes. While there are so many people who have so many tastes unlike the other person does, you have to imagine that besides liking art photography, they have to have something else in common, some other common denomenator.
Being able to attend shows like Photo SF, Photo NY and AIPAD, has helped me get up close and personal with collectors and find out what they want. Also, talking to gallery owners and curators, and finding out what questions collectors ask them the most, has helped me understand those one or two things they all have in common.
The answer is: Very few, if any collectors have any idea as to what they're doing. They don't know if the photograph they're buying today for $10,000 will be worth $1 million tomorrow, or just the opposite. Very few, if any, understand why the photographs that have sold for millions (except for Steichen) have actually sold for millions and why the greats, such as Bernhard, Weston, Adams, etc. aren't having their works sold for millions. This is why photograph magazine was so well-received when it launched; because it offered monthly exhibition listings, and general information that you'd have to scour dozens, if not hundreds of websites to find the same kind of information. Collectors want to learn and need a guide to help them navigate the waters of this volatile market. It is a goal that I am constantly trying to achieve. I'm not sure B&W set out with the same goal in mind and I feel that photographers are what's keeping B&W in business -- not collectors.
There's also photoconnoisseur.net, it should be launching next week. Although, it's not free like ll is... however, one will have to judge in the coming months whether the available content on photoconnoisseur.net is worth the $29.95 for a lifetime membership.
I get the sense that black and white magazine is less for serious collectors and more for serious hobbyists, desperate amateurs looking for exposure (as proven by its multiple contests), and people who just like looking at, not buying, black and white photography.
Sure, there's that little section in there about what's happening at the auction houses in New York, etc... but that mostly just seems to be a flashy report on what the newest record is for highest selling photograph in a certain category. I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone who can afford Steichen's "The Pond- Moonlight" is getting their tips on upcoming artists and auction info from B&W magazine. They probably hire someone to do that.
I find the ads in the back taken out by "emerging" photographers to be pathetic, pointless attempts at exposure. Honestly, the only people they're advertising to are people just like themselves or people who could care less. I'm not trying to rip on anyone, I probably would look just as foolish if I had one of those ads too.
As someone who bought ad space in B&W, I am embarrased to say you got it in one. I am not sure focus magazine is any different, they will feature an stablished photographer, but they charge "emerging" photgraphers to be featured, more of the same as B&W I guess.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks