... and unlike photographers, 'real' buyers of photography don't have in them one of the prime motivations of book (self-)publishing: vanity or appetite for posterity.
From what I understand it is common practice in Japan for the photographer to pay the publisher for the first one or two books to be published. Then you hope to get noticed.
That is a bottom feeding rate for a packaged book, which is what Gregg is talking about.Originally Posted by QT Luong
There are a couple of things going on in the book market that one needs to be aware of. There are books that are published in the traditional way, and there are packaged books. For an example of the latter, in the cookbook field, look for example at the Charlie Trotter books. They are all packaged, indeed that is acknowledged in the credits for each of his books. By acknowedged, I mean that the name of the packager is on his books. And the idea that Charlie Trotter gets paid $25K to produce a book, all in, is ridiculous. Which tells you something about Gregg's example.
You are getting a view of the business of publishing cookbooks from the point of view of a photographer who thinks that he is centre stage and that the chef and the writer (if they are not the same person, although sometimes they are) are secondary. Not to mention, there seems to be no recognition of the fact that if there is real money behind the project, there are people who are selling the chef's persona in other media. The egocentricity of Gregg's position is really quite striking.
Look, to begin with, nobody that we are dealing with is talking about paying us a flat rate for a book. That is not how it works, at least not with legitimate publishers and agents. If someone did, let me tell you that we would reject $25K out of hand. It wouldn't take two seconds to make a decision.
Cheers.
I have standard leather/embosed portfolios, when someone calls requesting to view one, my agent ask them a series of questions, what is the job, what is the budget, who is the client, etc. Then my agent and I decide if we are intersted; if we are, we send the portfolio--or in most cases, my agent travels to their office with the portfolio.
The portfolio we keep on line is an extension of the leather portfolios. When my agent is meeting with a client, the client may express intrest in viewing more work;
my agent then opens her laptop and has access to hundreds of images, intrested in having us shoot french food?, "maybe you would like to see some images of our recent trip to france", ect, ect,
My agent also uses the electronic portfolio to softly sell; she visits all our clients at least once every two months, taking them to lunch or dinner, she talks to the clients about their familys, she listens while they complain about co-workers, ect. My agent
never mentions work, never ask if they have any jobs comming-up, it's more about two friends grabbing a bite to eat; if during the conversation the client ask about a recent project, my agent has access to all my work on line, if the the subject of photography never comes up, then her laptop stays in he bag, and no mention of a job is made (this is called soft-selling).
You need to put things in context, the problem with this forum, and the internet, is it tries to seperate and put ideas in seperate boxes; The way I market is related to, the type of clients that I work with, the type of work I do-and the type of life I live, it's interconnected. It may seem dumb to some, that I do not market on the internet, but thats not how I want to run my business; thats why I have an agent, I prefer a personal human approach.-- I turn down many jobs simply because I do not like the client, or because I have no interest in the job, or simply because I just got back from a trip and want some time off. And even my attude you need to put in context; I'm older, I've owned/opperated commercial studios in New York, and Los Angeles for 29 years, I've made my money, I am in a position to pick and choose.
There has been some chatter on this thread about a cookbook I shot and the amount I was paid. First the client was Random House: the amount paid $25,000. it all breaks down very simply, I charge $3000. per day when I shoot food, we shot for 8 days; 3000x8=24, plus some misc. expenses. Sometimes we charge by the day, sometimes by the job, ( I'm not going to get into usage, reprints etc). Sometimes Random house pays the author a set fee ( as in this case) some times they pay a percentage ( every job, every client varies ). Rachael Rey is a popular TV chef, her first cookbook was published by Random House, they paid her $25,000, for the book, including photography; she went to New York hired a food photographer and spent thirty thousand plus dollars on photography, plus several thousand dollars more on her own publicity (random house did the marketing of the book-but not the marketing of the author). This is a very well known story, Rachael Ray has talked about it on TV ) it is also a very common story in the publishing field. Henery Miller, The Tropic of Cancer--self published--the author recieved nothing on the first printing, but made millions on repete printings. Harry Potter-Rawlings author, first book, first printing-paid less than $20,000, now she is the richest woman in England. Many people use their first book to get them established, very few make money on their first book.
I heard this story once about the finance industry:
Two men were walking by a yacht basin below Wall Street in Manhattan. One was proudly pointing out huge boats saying: "That's Mr. Mellon's yacht, that's Mr. Morgan's, that's Mr. Schwab's, that's Mr. Gould's" and on and on. The second asked, "And which ones are the client's yachts?"
A Publisher will publish your book if they think _they_ can make money from it, not you. A book store will place your book if they think _they_ can make money from it, not you. This is America in the 21st century. "The Photography of Sammy Davis Jr." is high art. "Snoop Dog" is high art. Pictures of Bob Dylan fumbling with his guitar or James Dean slouching are "very desirable" and get featured in high art black and white magazines. Fetishistic Pornography advertised on "youscrew.com" and printed on toilet paper will sell more books in 5 minutes than all the fine artists will in their lifetime. Millionaires pay for original Steichen stuff because some art parasite told them over lunch that it's a good investment.
And why is this? It's certainly not because any of the above is of such stupefying quality that it shines like a high-voltage beacon blasting out of the great swamp of mediocrity. It's because in order to sort the oceans of uninspired dross that cross the publisher's desk at any one moment, the only possible filter is recommendations based on what everyone else is doing, or the efforts of a really good propagandist, or a shot on Oprah or just pure blind luck. Thus has it always been, and thus will it always be. Talent keeps you on top. It doesn't get you there.
Go here: http://www.lumierephoto.com and places like it. They will do on-demand short runs that you can then give away to your friends and relatives. Be prepared for most of the praise to be of the same level of effusion as if the book was blank. A few will know what they are looking at, and from that you will gain some measure of affirmation.
Then go out and take pictures because you damn well like to do it. It's the only thing that will keep you going. Perhaps, with any luck, your third cousin will forget one of the copies in a restaurant somewhere and an influential critic will see it and, swooning, stagger off to a famous publisher who will see the light, burn all the Sammy Davis copies along with the fetish collections and the rest will be history.
gb
I too don't publicize my site. There are, for me, other reasons. I use my site as a fast way for folks I choose to see my work. Painting in my case. Just galleries.
I have no interest whatsoever in trying to sell direct. If I believed it could work for me I would, but seeing some work is utterly different than just an image of it.
I don't carry a portfolio around with me all the time, but I can hand out my url if someone is interesting and interested, and I can whet their interest. While many people sell many things direct over the net, it's not used that way by all. It can be used as a great portable portfolio.
The notion that everyone needs to link to everyone may oversimplify.
C
I have notes that say blurb.com and iphoto books (mac) are good quality printers.
All this is true of me too (29 years with a national clientel) and yet I don't find it necessary or useful to be anonymous and hide my website. I know nothing about you. You may be the real thing. The problem is that the web is full of anonymous bullshitters, who sound knowledgeable. Personally, to me, photography is about images and no matter how knowledgeable someone sounds, the proof is in their images.I turn down many jobs simply because I do not like the client, or because I have no interest in the job, or simply because I just got back from a trip and want some time off. And even my attude you need to put in context; I'm older, I've owned/opperated commercial studios in New York, and Los Angeles for 29 years, I've made my money, I am in a position to pick and choose.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
They're pretty expensive and all they use is UPS... I mean, if you want like 10 or so books published, I guess it's good, but they don't seem like they're the kind of company to go to if you're serious about publishing your own book and want quantaties in the thousands.
It's also full of people who know better with lots of advice to give.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks