magazines, etc. for collectors

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

luminous-lint.com is aimed at collectors, although it is stronger on historical photography than contemporary.

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.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

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.

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.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

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.

Correction: We do not charge to "feature" anyone. Every single column, news item, review, listing and interview inside of the magazne is paid for by me, to the writer. That's it. In my last issue we featured Lisa Holden, Arthur Tress and Jerry Uelsemann. Neither of those photographers paid one dime to be featured. One criticism that we have received over time and that I am inclined to begin to agree with is that we are only interviewing established photographers and not emerging photographers along with established photographers. We are currently in the process of changing that for sometime mid next year.

The Focus Gallery section is where photographers can advertise their work to collectors in a unique format, but I have made it very clear from the get go to all of our readers that the Focus Gallery section is paid for advertising and I do not pretend that it is anything else other than that.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I took up focus on their generous offer for a free ad. It wil be interesting to see if anything comes of it (not that i'll know anything for sure if I don't get replies...).

I'm also not sure who their readership actually is. At least they position themselves as being for collectors ... we know who they'd like their readership to be.

That issue will be hitting galleries and newsstands in about a week and a half.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Correction: We do not charge to "feature" anyone. Every single column, news item, review, listing and interview inside of the magazne is paid for by me, to the writer. That's it. In my last issue we featured Lisa Holden, Arthur Tress and Jerry Uelsemann. Neither of those photographers paid one dime to be featured. One criticism that we have received over time and that I am inclined to begin to agree with is that we are only interviewing established photographers and not emerging photographers along with established photographers. We are currently in the process of changing that for sometime mid next year.

The Focus Gallery section is where photographers can advertise their work to collectors in a unique format, but I have made it very clear from the get go to all of our readers that the Focus Gallery section is paid for advertising and I do not pretend that it is anything else other than that.

Correction:

http://focusmag.info/submissions/

I am sure Jerry Uelsmann does not need to pay to be featured, in fact I guess you are lucky you did not have to pay him to appear in your magazine.

You did not make it "clear from the get go" , in fact you still call it a "submission" instead of advertisement.

[Tim Hyde]

Focus Mag:

(By the way, I would sure be more comfortable if you would use a name rather than a logo to sign your posts, but maybe that is just me.)

This is a gentle, mild admonition: Focus Magazine has become strong and indispensable enough that you no longer have to undercut or belittle B&W magazine every chance you get. I think it is still a must-read for people who are serious collectors. The fact that every major auction house advertises full-page in it should tell you something. The Fan Ho article in the September issue is an example of what I'm talking about: here is an important but neglected photographer who is beginning to get critical recognition, and B&W is helping make that happen.

Is the magazine better than Focus? No, just different. And equally beautiful to hold and read.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Focus Mag:

(By the way, I would sure be more comfortable if you would use a name rather than a logo to sign your posts, but maybe that is just me.)

This is a gentle, mild admonition: Focus Magazine has become strong and indispensable enough that you no longer have to undercut or belittle B&W magazine every chance you get. I think it is still a must-read for people who are serious collectors. The fact that every major auction house advertises full-page in it should tell you something. The Fan Ho article in the September issue is an example of what I'm talking about: here is an important but neglected photographer who is beginning to get critical recognition, and B&W is helping make that happen.

Is the magazine better than Focus? No, just different. And equally beautiful to hold and read.

I was not undercutting B&W. I am entitled to voice my, just as any other person is entitled to voice theirs, opinion. I do see a lot of areas of improvement in B&W. I see a lot of areas of improvement in a lot of magazines on newsstands today...INCLUDING mine. Focus is by no means perfect and still has a ways to go before I'm 100% content with the product. I have, on several occasions, mentioned other magazines and their superior quality to Focus. Those are the bars I have set for myself to achieve and surpass, just as one day B&W was a bar to surpass. There are many more bars to achieve and surpass than have already been surpassed....many, MANY more. I apologize if my previous comment sounded arrogant... however, I believe my experience lends me a unique perspective in the market of photography magazines overall. There are several magazines who I have stated here in public that I look up to and feel their product is just oozing with awesomeness for lack of better words.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Correction:

http://focusmag.info/submissions/

That's not a correction, in fact, it reinforces my earlier statement that we have been up front about this being advertising as we list the prices in which we sell the Focus Gallery sections for in that link.

You did not make it "clear from the get go" , in fact you still call it a "submission" instead of advertisement.

As I am selective about the photographers in which I publish in the Focus Gallery, it is indeed a submission. It's unfortunate that you're so negative about this whole thing. I think you're an excellent photographer and very much enjoy your work. You may not "like" the idea of paying to be inside of a magazine, but how else are you going to reach the attendees of every single major photography auction (excluding sothebey's) this autumn? How else are you going to reach the collectors at Paris Photo? How else are you going to reach the collectors at Photo Miaimi and AIPAD Miami?

I digress. This entire thread isn't about me. If anyone is interested in collecting photography, besides using photograph, B&W and Focus as guides, the best resource for collecting photography you could ever want is the curator at your local gallery. If you're in New York City, I would recommend making a trip to the Gitterman Gallery. He has such a vast wealth of knowledge about the market and he's very low pressure on the sales end. If you're not in NY, an e-mail to a gallery in NY, LA or SF would suffice just the same. There are many dealers located on www.photography-guide.com who you can call or e-mail looking for advice and then they know dozens more people as well. It's very easy to find information if you know the right questions to ask.

[Doug Howk]

The Fine Art Photography issue of Photo District News (Sept 2007) has an article on the "TasteMakers" = the galleries, museums, etc. that influence directly or indirectly the collector of photography. The only magazines featured or mentioned were Blind Spot and New Yorker for its art critic Vince Aletti. This PDN issue is very informative for those who want to sell their photography in the fine art market.

[Sylvester Graham]

What a quote-fest!