The Focus Magazine thread

[Michael Gordon]

I'm making this post to hopefully prevent other unsuspecting photographers from enduring the same trouble. You'll find a related LF Forum thread here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17333&highlight=submission). Please forgive the inclusion of trivial facts. I have included them because I expect David Spivak to refute my statements.

Shortly after making a submission to Focus in late April 2006, David Spivak left me an urgent voice mail asking me to call. We spoke on May 1, 2006, and he not only praised my work but stated how well I would fit into the next (at that time) issue, deadline soon approaching. He then proceeded to pitch his $1500 marketing package to me, and when I didn't bite on that, he tried to sell me on his online Focus Gallery. I didn't bite on that either, and suddenly Mr. Spivak no longer seemed interested in my photography or publishing it in his magazine. This concluded my call. He made no comment as to when my portfolio would be returned (for which I included $4.20 in Priority Mail postage).

I sent follow-up emails on May 9, May 26, June 7, and July 11 asking when he would return my portfolio. None of these emails bounced, and in fact, the June 7 and June 11 email recipients included EVERY email address listed on the Focus magazine website (info@, sales@, submissions@, feedback@, as well as dspivak@). Mr. Spivak nor ANY Focus agent has ever contacted me regarding these emails. On July 12, 2006 in the p.m. (PST), I left Mr. Spivak a voice mail on his personal cell phone (clearly indicated by his own voice and message). My call went unreturned, so I called again today, July 13, and got him on the phone at 1030am PST. He claims to have never received any of my emails, nor did he comment on my voice mail. He appeared cleverly ignorant to who I even was. I requested that my portfolio be sent back immediately, to which he said he would only happen at Focus Magazine's convenience (I guess there's never been a convenient time to return my work over the last eight+ weeks). Like others who have had similar dealings with him, I was treated rudely, disrespectfully, and hung up on.

I have given Mr. Spivak more than ample opportunity and patience to deal properly, responsibly, and respectfully with this matter. He neglected to do so, and that's why I am making this story public. My time has been disrespectfully wasted in attempting to communicate with Mr. Spivak and retrieve my portfolio. I fully expect that it and my $4.20 in return postage is a loss.

Unfortunately very similar stories are held by David Aschkenas http://tinyurl.com/gyhda and Arlene Love http://tinyurl.com/gg3rr, and who knows how many others that have not made this public. I urge fellow photographers to NOT SEND any prints or money to Focus Magazine.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If Mr. Gordon would have read the website's html information (http://www.focusmag.info/html/submit.htm), he would have noticed that we ask 12-16 weeks for return shipping. There are times where we don't receive the proper images for an article and must bump it until the next issue at the last second, giving a photographer the opportunity to have his or her work published in the magazine free of charge. This is why we ask for extra time. Also, I am not only the art director, submissions director, sales manager...but I am also a publisher and a father. I cannot just drop everything I am doing for one person. If someone needs their photography returned immediately. Mr. Gordon also sent USPS material, in which we need to make a trip to the post office to mail. If Mr. Gordon would have sent UPS or FedEx, we would be able to make a call and have his work picked up within the day.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If Mr. Gordon would have read the website's html information (http://www.focusmag.info/html/submit.htm), he would have noticed that we ask 12-16 weeks for return shipping. There are times where we don't receive the proper images for an article and must bump it until the next issue at the last second, giving a photographer the opportunity to have his or her work published in the magazine free of charge. This is why we ask for extra time. Also, I am not only the art director, submissions director, sales manager...but I am also a publisher and a father. I cannot just drop everything I am doing for one person. If someone needs their photography returned immediately. Mr. Gordon also sent USPS material, in which we need to make a trip to the post office to mail. If Mr. Gordon would have sent UPS or FedEx, we would be able to make a call and have his work picked up within the day.

Also, if Mr. Gordon would pay attention to the magazine, he would have my e-mail address which is clearly stated in the magazine. The only working e-mail address is "submissions@focusmag.info" all other e-mail address go into a SPAM filter.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Also, I am not only the art director, submissions director, sales manager...but I am also a publisher and a father. I cannot just drop everything I am doing for one person.

No only you can, but you should drop everything when you have someone who has waited for months for you.....your reputation preceeds you even now and your excuses are not helping....

[dtomasula]

Taking a page out of the Steve Simmons school of magazine publishing I see. Not a very good sign I'm afraid.

It always amazes me how magazine publishers develop an attitude that they're doing the reader a favor by publishing their magazine, instead of the other way around. The people who buy the issues and read the thing should be a priority, not the publisher's busy schedule. If you are not willing to drop everything for one person at this stage of the game, maybe you're in the wrong business. When you get to the circulation of Time or Newsweek, then I can understand this attitude, but when you have a circulation of 12,500 copies, a little personal attention can go a long way.

[Michael Gordon]

Mr. Spivak: I'll admit to my ignorance of your 12-16 week return shipping time, but you've yet to account for not answering four emails and a voice mail. And you must go to a post office to mail a drop-box approved mailer? If submissions@... and all others go into a SPAM account, this surely means that you're receiving a low enough volume of email to answer the emails I've also sent to dspivak@... Your ethics and method of response towards me and others are doing little to help the reputation of Focus and yourself.

So, I'll ask again, when are you returning my portfolio?

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Taking a page out of the Steve Simmons school of magazine publishing I see. Not a very good sign I'm afraid.

It always amazes me how magazine publishers develop an attitude that they're doing the reader a favor by publishing their magazine, instead of the other way around. The people who buy the issues and read the thing should be a priority, not the publisher's busy schedule. If you are not willing to drop everything for one person at this stage of the game, maybe you're in the wrong business. When you get to the circulation of Time or Newsweek, then I can understand this attitude, but when you have a circulation of 12,500 copies, a little personal attention can go a long way.

I would never in a million years have an attitude such as "I'm holier than thou" it is in fact the photographers who have helped Focus grow from a magazine of 2500 to 15,000 (as of July/August 2006) in a little over a year. I would never pretend that Focus is better or worse than any other magazine on the market. I try my best to publish the best magazine that I can, and by the rate of sales on newsstands, new subscribers and submissions, we are growing faster than I could have ever imagined... however; I still cannot drop an entire day to head into Manhattan to go to the post office for one submission. Especially this time of year when we are preparing for Photo San Francisco. Mr. Gordon's work, if I recall was excellent and I would have loved for the opportunity to publish it. However; Mr. Gordon as other photographers do also, must understand that by exhibiting their work in the magazine, I am promoting their photography in which there is a high likelyhood they will either sell their work or pick up representation. In order to maintain the high quality standards Focus exhibits in each issue, we must get money to print and mail the magazines...this is, in fact an opportunity...a marketing and adveritinsg opportunity for the photographer in at least three issues to make money for themselves, get exposure and representation. In that light, if a photographer participates in the Photographer Marketing Program, we are helping each other. The Photographer helps me with advertising dollars so I can print the magazine, and I help the photographer by promoting their photos. Many photographers have made money hand over fist by selling to collectors. Some photographers haven't sold anything, but have picked up representation in books or galleries or other publications. Some may just gain exposure that will one day lead them to success. Either way, we are providing an advertising service for the photographer whose work deserves to shown to as many people as possible.

There are some photographers who are not ready to sell their work yet, which I understand completely. For that reason, I ask the photographer to give me at least 2-3 issue's time to see if I can fit their work in.

Please, do not mis-understand. I have no ego when it comes to Focus, I am doing all that I can to provide the best magazine out there that I hope can compete with the others. My time is extremely limited and instead of hiring assistants or other people to help me, I have funnelled all profits into expanding the magazine, printing color work, and expanding circulation and distribution into Europe and Asia.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Mr. Spivak: I'll admit to my ignorance of your 12-16 week return shipping time, but you've yet to account for not answering four emails and a voice mail. And you must go to a post office to mail a drop-box approved mailer? If submissions@... and all others go into a SPAM account, this surely means that you're receiving a low enough volume of email to answer the emails I've also sent to dspivak@... Your ethics and method of response towards me and others are doing little to help the reputation of Focus and yourself.

So, I'll ask again, when are you returning my portfolio?

Your E-Mails were never received until 6/7, which I admit I missed and it was received at submissions@focusmag.info. dspivak@focusmag.info does not exist, info@focumag.info, sales@focusmag.info and feedback@focusmag.info are SPAM filtered E-Mail addresses. My E-Mail address is david@focusmag.info. That is published everywhere inside of the magazine. Because I receive a high volume of E-Mails at submissions@focusmag.info, I missed your e-mail on 6/7. I received another e-mail from you at 7/11, however; the first two days of the week I have been busy with the renovations at the new office and transfering from one office to another and haven't even had a chance to read e-mail or check voice-mail until today...which answers your question about the voice-mail you left for the first time yesterday.

Your portfolio

You admit your portfolio was received 9 weeks ago, which puts you at within 3 weeks of receiving your portfolio back, which is when our Sept. issue will be going to print. Please do not think of this as a bad experience, it is my fault this return date was not made clear inside of the magazine...

What can I do to rectify the situation? It is impossible until the 25 of July to make it to my other office (storage office) and to the post office. If you would like to take this private, my e-mail address is david@focusmag.info

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

No only you can, but you should drop everything when you have someone who has waited for months for you.....your reputation preceeds you even now and your excuses are not helping....

I'm sure you've witnessed the problems Emulsion had with launching. I know first-hand how difficult it is to launch and run a magazine with a limited amount of staff. Please, try and start your own magazine and be responsible for all that I am and then tell me you can do what you ask of me.

I do not ask for sympathy, I ask for understanding.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I've spoken with Mr. Spivak on a few occassions and have sensed that he is a pretty busy person, but I can't say he was ever rude or discourteous to me. I have to believe the upcoming show in SF is only adding to the demand on his time. So far, David has done everything he has committed to do for me and while it is too soon to guage the effectiveness of exposure in Focus, judging from the comments and feedback I've had so far, it's not going to hurt. Magazines that are dedicated to promoting and fostering appreciation for what we do are too valuable a resource to shun.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I've spoken with Mr. Spivak on a few occassions and have sensed that he is a pretty busy person, but I can't say he was ever rude or discourteous to me. I have to believe the upcoming show in SF is only adding to the demand on his time. So far, David has done everything he has committed to do for me and while it is too soon to guage the effectiveness of exposure in Focus, judging from the comments and feedback I've had so far, it's not going to hurt. Magazines that are dedicated to promoting and fostering appreciation for what we do are too valuable a resource to shun.

Not only am I organizing 8 issues this year, I am also responsible for at least 15 photographers and almost 100 framed prints plus over 300 matted prints for Photo San Francisco. We have the biggest booth there (tied with Vintage Works I believe). The entire expense for Photo San Francisco, after all is said and done will be well over $20,000. This is so that I can provide photographers with a way to meet directly with the collector one to one and have a venue to sell their works in one of the biggest places to sell art in the world. Mind you, with the exception of editorial, I control every other aspect of the magazine.

[Michael Gordon]

What you still fail to address is your lack of courtesy and respect for my time. I am a busy person, too. All I have asked is for a simple answer, and you've still managed to evade it; four emails, two telephone calls, and a forum thread later.

I would question me, too, but only if I was the first to report it. Your behavior is becoming a pattern, it seems.

Again, for the ninth time, when do you plan on returning my portfolio?

[Michael Gordon]

If you would like to take this private, my e-mail address is david@focusmag.info

No thanks. Been there, done that. That's why we're here. It's interesting that you managed to receive my email pointing you to this thread, but you didn't get the four before it.

Keep diggin, buddy.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I'm sure you've witnessed the problems Emulsion had with launching. I know first-hand how difficult it is to launch and run a magazine with a limited amount of staff. Please, try and start your own magazine and be responsible for all that I am and then tell me you can do what you ask of me.

I do not ask for sympathy, I ask for understanding.

Sorry bubba, but this is a red herring argument. Whatever problems other people or magazines have, whatever I can and/or cannot do does not excuse you from doing what you should do. Not having the courtesy to answer an e mail is just plain stupid, if dealing with you is going to be a hassle, why would any photographer want to submit work to you when there are other more stablished and reputable magazines like Lenswork, VC, etc, etc?


Mr. Gordon as other photographers do also, must understand that by exhibiting their work in the magazine, I am promoting their photography in which there is a high likelyhood they will either sell their work or pick up representation. In order to maintain the high quality standards Focus exhibits in each issue, we must get money to print and mail the magazines...this is, in fact an opportunity...a marketing and adveritinsg opportunity for the photographer in at least three issues to make money for themselves, get exposure and representation. In that light, if a photographer participates in the Photographer Marketing Program, we are helping each other.


Give me a break here, uh! For the amount of money you are asking I would be better off hiring an agent than your magazine. Second, the magazine is dependent on receiving good work, you are not doing us or any photographer a "favor" any more than we are doing it for you. It is a mutual benefit deal!

Most of all, those who make a living at this do so by promoting themsleves, hitting the bricks and sending submission to all galleries under the sun and keeping at it unceasingly, trust me, getting published in your magazine once is not going to open the flood gates.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Most of all, those who make a living at this do so by promoting themsleves, hitting the bricks and sending submission to all galleries under the sun and keeping at it unceasingly, trust me, getting published in your magazine once is not going to open the flood gates.

Floodgates? Tell that to the photographers who have sold over $10,000 worth of work or the photographers who have gotten representation from Fine Art Photography Galleries in New York City -- AIPAD member galleries. Jorge, you are ignorant and therefore you speak only from your opinion, not experience.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

What you still fail to address is your lack of courtesy and respect for my time. I am a busy person, too. All I have asked is for a simple answer, and you've still managed to evade it; four emails, two telephone calls, and a forum thread later.

I would question me, too, but only if I was the first to report it. Your behavior is becoming a pattern, it seems.

Again, for the ninth time, when do you plan on returning my portfolio?

You admit your portfolio was received 9 weeks ago, which puts you at within 3 weeks of receiving your portfolio back, which is when our Sept. issue will be going to print. Please do not think of this as a bad experience, it is my fault this return date was not made clear inside of the magazine...

What can I do to rectify the situation? It is impossible until the 25 of July to make it to my other office (storage office) and to the post office. If you would like to take this private, my e-mail address is david@focusmag.info

[Brian Vuillemenot]

You don't have time to go to the post office, yet you have time to write multiple page excuses for why you never answered his e-mails or returned his photos? Come on, give me a break...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Floodgates? Tell that to the photographers who have sold over $10,000 worth of work or the photographers who have gotten representation from Fine Art Photography Galleries in New York City -- AIPAD member galleries. Jorge, you are ignorant and therefore you speak only from your opinion, not experience.
LOL...... I doubt this all came about from your rag...... funny though, once Michael did not fall for your con the troubles started, I would say you would be a great used car salesman, but I dont want to insult them....

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Mr. Gordon also sent USPS material, in which we need to make a trip to the post office to mail. If Mr. Gordon would have sent UPS or FedEx, we would be able to make a call and have his work picked up within the day.

I have no horse in this race, but I just want to point out that the USPS offers FREE carrier pickup service for Express Mail and Priority Mail shipments. They will pickup at any business or residence. You can pay online (or use stamps or metered postage if they were provided), print a shipping label and request a free carrier pickup for the next day, or any day up to three months in advance. It takes about 30 seconds to do so on their web site. Full details here (http://www.usps.com/pickup/).

For busy folks, it really is a great service. I rarely wait in line at the post office anymore (the exception being international shipments with insurance over $100 - for some reason you can purchase additional insurance for domestic shipments online, but not for international shipments). The USPS also supplies free boxes, envelopes, etc. Each carrier has advantages and disadvantages, but you might want to check out the USPS web site to see if their services can possibly save you both time and money. At the very least, you can take advantage of their carrier pickup service for returning items that were submitted with USPS return materials.

Kerry

[QT Luong]

I find that idea that you would pay a magazine (or even give them free use) to be published to get "exposure" outrageous. Last that I remember, when Time or GEO magazine uses my images I am paid more than when Ocala Magazine or Berkeley Express does, yet the "exposure" from the former mags looks a bit better than from the latters.

[Greg Miller]

Also, if Mr. Gordon would pay attention to the magazine, he would have my e-mail address which is clearly stated in the magazine. The only working e-mail address is "submissions@focusmag.info" all other e-mail address go into a SPAM filter.

So you present email addresses to the public (including feedback@) and have it go directly to a spam filter. That tells me all I need to know.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I have no horse in this race, but I just want to point out that the USPS offers FREE carrier pickup service for Express Mail and Priority Mail shipments. They will pickup at any business or residence. You can pay online (or use stamps or metered postage if they were provided), print a shipping label and request a free carrier pickup for the next day, or any day up to three months in advance. It takes about 30 seconds to do so on their web site. Full details here (http://www.usps.com/pickup/).

For busy folks, it really is a great service. I rarely wait in line at the post office anymore (the exception being international shipments with insurance over $100 - for some reason you can purchase additional insurance for domestic shipments online, but not for international shipments). The USPS also supplies free boxes, envelopes, etc. Each carrier has advantages and disadvantages, but you might want to check out the USPS web site to see if their services can possibly save you both time and money. At the very least, you can take advantage of their carrier pickup service for returning items that were submitted with USPS return materials.

Kerry

This is a fantastic! I've never heard of this before...I'll start doing this when I get back! Thank you, Kelly!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I find that idea that you would pay a magazine (or even give them free use) to be published to get "exposure" outrageous. Last that I remember, when Time or GEO magazine uses my images I am paid more than when Ocala Magazine or Berkeley Express does, yet the "exposure" from the former mags looks a bit better than from the latters.

This isn't a photojournalism gallery. It is a gallery in which the images are presented in a manner where they are for sale. Think of it as an art gallery inside of a magazine. Collectors read the magazine and get to purchase any image from the gallery for a price the photographer determines.

[Michael Gordon]

Please do not think of this as a bad experience, it is my fault this return date was not made clear inside of the magazine...

It is a bad experience, and indeed it's your fault that none of your provisions are made clear in your April issue's call for submissions. In fact, re-reading this call for submissions, you state that photographers should include "shipping materials for us to promptly return your prints after we've reviewed them". Is nine weeks of waiting considered by Focus to be a prompt return? It's interesting that your call for submissions makes no mention of your pay pay-to-play policy. Is there a problem with being straight and upfront with photographers, or are you fishing for fools? I would never have made a submission if I had known that I was going to get a $1500 sales pitch and then endure an interminable wait for the return of my portfolio.


What can I do to rectify the situation? It is impossible until the 25 of July to make it to my other office (storage office) and to the post office.

If you genuinely care to rectify this situation, you can get my portfolio in the mail promptly (not on the 25th). Thank you.

[Guy Tal]

Forgive this observation, but I don't buy the "I'm too busy" excuse. If you're too busy - either hire help or don't over-commit yourself. This should not be reflected in the service you provide your customers or contributors.

The same for email addresses that point to a spam trap. If you post them online - expect people to use them and monitor for legitimate communications. Anything less is blatant disrespect to your customers, contributors, or anyone else trying to get your attention.

Guy

[Doug Dolde]

Mr. Focus Mag,

You have certainly fornicated yourself as far as readers of this forum go.

Regards,

[Keith Laban]

Let's get this straight, the photographer is expected to pay the publisher? Interesting concept.

[Kirk Gittings]

So what we see in this magazine is thinly disguised advertisiing instead of editorial? Interesting......

[chris jordan]

Well said, Doug. Here's an example of how David could have handled the first posting in a way that might have produced a totally different response here:

"Dear Michael, I apologise, I have been a bit overextended lately. I realize I am needing some more staff around here; this business is turning out to be more complicated than I anticipated. I will send your portfolio back right away, and I look forward to working with you in the future."

[j.e.simmons]

I don't have much experience in photographic publishing, but I do have many years of experience in music publishing. In that industry it is considered most unprofessional for a publisher to charge an artist for publishing. In music, as in magazines, the artist takes the risks involved in creating the work - the publisher takes the risks of publishing. Both hope to eventually make a profit.

juan

[QT Luong]

This isn't a photojournalism gallery. It is a gallery in which the images are presented in a manner where they are for sale. Think of it as an art gallery inside of a magazine. Collectors read the magazine and get to purchase any image from the gallery for a price the photographer determines.

I would find it quite unprofessional, to say the least, if a gallery charged me upfront for exhibiting my work.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This isn't a photojournalism gallery. It is a gallery in which the images are presented in a manner where they are for sale. Think of it as an art gallery inside of a magazine. Collectors read the magazine and get to purchase any image from the gallery for a price the photographer determines.

This is nothing new or special, you can do the same with any magazine that has pictures, all you need to do is call the magazine. For you to say that you are giving a special deal amounts to trying to sell snake oil......it is only good for one thing, to give you the runs......

[Tom N]

You don't have time to go to the post office, yet you have time to write multiple page excuses for why you never answered his e-mails or returned his photos? Come on, give me a break...

I totally agree with this statement. It's all about priorities.


Tom

[Gordon Moat]

I find that idea that you would pay a magazine (or even give them free use) to be published to get "exposure" outrageous. Last that I remember, when Time or GEO magazine uses my images I am paid more than when Ocala Magazine or Berkeley Express does, yet the "exposure" from the former mags looks a bit better than from the latters.

The bigger name publications largely do pay better than smaller publications. PDN seems to have about one issue every year or so that covers what some major publications pay out. There are also many lifestyle magazines that are seen by advertising companies, art directors and art buyers that do not pay photographers for placement, though they are up front about such policies. In regard to such publications, the value to the photographer, if any, would be on potential exposure to those handling advertising accounts. Basically, if it fit someone's target style and market, then perhaps.

There seem to be many more fine art photographers on the large format forum than commercial or advertising shooters. Unless someone wants to get into advertising photography, it might be best to stay away from lifestyle publications, whether they pay or not.

Regarding photography magazines that portray themselves as outlets for fine art, I would be cautious of those that want some payment for showing works. Consider more common ad rates in publications that potential fine art buyers might actually be reading; I would think Town & Country, or similar high end living publications might be more worth the ad space cost for an issue than a limited distribution fine art photography magazine.

There can be a value to being published. However, it needs to be a publication that fits what each photographer shoots, and speaks to a wider target audience of potential clients.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

[jnantz]

i did photography for a newspaper for a number of years.
if a company/person approached the paper -- pitched a story and the paper liked it --that person would be charged a fee for their story since it was kind of a PR piece. i didn't know that publishers charged a fee for putting images in a photo magazine. i wonder how common this sort of thing is ...

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I would find it quite unprofessional, to say the least, if a gallery charged me upfront for exhibiting my work.

Galleries don't have advertising that can reach 15,000 people. They have local direct mail campaigns which only reach people who sign up to receive direct mail. Plus, I don't charge commission off of anything sold inside of the magazine. So you can sell 10prints for $500, have direct contact and control with the client and make $5000. Or you can not sell one print, but gain valuable contacts throughout the photography industry. Either way, photographers have an opportunity to reach at least 15,000 people three times through a coordinated advertising campaign. If this isn't for you, please go ahead and submit to Time Magazine.

It's a shame some people have to be so negative. Many photographers like this idea and have given it tremendous support. Some don't like it. Some people like color photography, others like black & white... some people love Focus, some people love B&W. That's what's so great about freedom of choice... we have the ability to choose what we want in life.

Anyway this is getting out of hand. If you don't like the idea, don't participate. Focus Magazine has hundreds of extremely high quality photographers that have submitted to it in the past year and I cannot wait to receive even more submissions from photographers that will help Focus continue to grow.

Just as with APUG, this forum has helped generate over 100 new hits to my website plus a few new submissions.

I have sat here and explained Focus Magazine's policy to Mr. Gordon, which was what started this thread to begin with. It's very simple, if you do not want to wait for your prints to be sent back, send them UPS or FedEx ground with a return shipping label and envelope or just send a CD of your work.

Anyway, thanks for the exposure, folks.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I don't charge commission off of anything sold inside of the magazine.

Yes you do, the difference is you charge it up front with no assurance of any sales. A gallery takes a risk on a photographer, you want the photographer to pay for your risk...thanks but no thanks!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Yes you do, the difference is you charge it up front with no assurance of any sales. A gallery takes a risk on a photographer, you want the photographer to pay for your risk...thanks but no thanks!

That's not commission. That's for the two ads that come in the next two issues after the gallery is exhibited.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

That's not commission. That's for the two ads that come in the next two issues after the gallery is exhibited.

Black and WHite Magazine also sells ads without resorting to trying to con people into a "gallery". If your work is good enough they will publish it, none of this BS you keep piling on.....

[JW Dewdney]

It's a shame some people have to be so negative. Many photographers like this idea and have given it tremendous support. Some don't like it. Some people like color photography, others like black & white... some people love Focus, some people love B&W. That's what's so great about freedom of choice... we have the ability to choose what we want in life.

That sounds a heck of a lot like bad rhetoric to me. When people refer to others as being 'negative' it usually means that they simply don't like what they're being told, as I'm sure you don't.

I personally feel that the practices you and your 'magazine' are espousing are silghtly sleazy (at best - I'm trying to be POSITIVE here). I feel that anyone who purchases a copy of your 'magazine' (it's not really a magazine, is it?) is encouraging such practices. I, for one, will not be purchasing your magazine in the near future. I will also go out of my way to let others know my feelings on this. Sorry - but you can't really operate this way and expect photographers to support you.

Best of luck.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Many photographers like this idea and have given it tremendous support."

Who? Lets here some testimonials from satisfied clients.

[Michael Gordon]

I have sat here and explained Focus Magazine's policy to Mr. Gordon, which was what started this thread to begin with.

And I've answered your question about how to rectify the situation and am awaiting a reply.


It's very simple, if you do not want to wait for your prints to be sent back, send them UPS or FedEx ground with a return shipping label and envelope or just send a CD of your work.

If this is your policy, why was it not clearly stated in your April issue's call for submissions? ONCE AGAIN: "along with shipping materials for us to promptly return your prints after we've reviewed them". I followed your submission instructions to the T, and you have not honored your written word.

The con you run is despicable, David. Focus does not deserve the respect that any unwitting photographer would give it.

[David Luttmann]

"Many photographers like this idea and have given it tremendous support."

Who? Lets here some testimonials from satisfied clients.

Kirk,

Considering the number of photographers who have had their work published in Focus....I'd say there are probably many that are OK with the idea....otherwise there would be no interest in the magazine at all. We may not agree with this setup, but obviously, it's very popular.

[Bill_1856]

What is "Focus Magazine?" If it's such a big deal, why have I never seen it at my local Barnes & Noble or Borders?

[Kirk Gittings]

David,
He has repeatedly claimed what a great deal it is. I would like to know not who "fell" for the deal and got in the magazine (we know that by looking at it), but who in retrospect actually felt it was worth it. I think it is a valid question.

[Kirk Gittings]

David,
Just to follow up on that. I have had portfolios in dozens of magazines. No one ever tried to sell me an advertising package to go along with the editorial. I have bought ads for shows, but ironically that was never in magazines that did an article. Overwhelminly they PAID ME stock fees to be in their magazine.

What Focus is doing is "Advertorial" publishing. There is nothing wrong with that perse, but it should be made clear and the real value of it should be demonstrated by more than vague claims.

[jshanesy]

Like others who have had similar dealings with him, I was treated rudely, disrespectfully, and hung up on.

My time has been disrespectfully wasted in attempting to communicate with Mr. Spivak and retrieve my portfolio.

That's all we need to know. Thanks for the advice.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

David,
He has repeatedly claimed what a great deal it is. I would like to know not who "fell" for the deal and got in the magazine (we know that by looking at it), but who in retrospect actually felt it was worth it. I think it is a valid question.

Actually, I would like to hear from the guy who sold $10,000 worth of prints from the magazine "gallery".....

[Gordon Moat]

David,
He has repeatedly claimed what a great deal it is. I would like to know not who "fell" for the deal and got in the magazine (we know that by looking at it), but who in retrospect actually felt it was worth it. I think it is a valid question.

Good morning Kirk,

Sounds to me like Focus is trying more for a source book approach, sort of like Le Book, Black Book, or WorkBook. However, all those are not fine art biased, being instead commercial in approach. Near $3000 could get one into an annual source book, though at the top level the return on investment is a better bet. I am also curious about who suddenly got $10k in commissions or sales just by appearing in Focus. Unless their media kit indicates that it is going to top level art buyers or advertising agencies, it seems hard to justify the expense for fine art only.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[Duane Polcou]

Magazines make money by selling subscriptions, advertising, and ancillary merchandise (T-shirts with logos, stuff like that).

Contributors get paid for their contributions (writing, art, photography) so the magazine can have something to publish to begin with.

Any other scenario is slightly.....out of focus.

[Michael Gordon]

I'd say there are probably many that are OK with the idea....otherwise there would be no interest in the magazine at all. We may not agree with this setup, but obviously, it's very popular.

For clarification, I have no problem with an advertorial style magazine, as long as the publisher is HONEST and UP FRONT about the arrangement. Nature Photographer (http://www.naturephotographermag.com/)magazine
is advertorial in nature, but it's made clear in their magazine. No dishonesty, no deceit. Wish I could say the same of Focus.

[Michael Gordon]

Just as with APUG, this forum has helped generate over 100 new hits to my website plus a few new submissions. Anyway, thanks for the exposure, folks.

You're awfully smug, David.

Whoopee, you've gotten 100 new hits! This thread has generated 1800 views at this point, and I'm gonna take a wild guess that a good number of these viewers feel about you and Focus the way that I do. Do you really think that this thread is ultimately helping your business?

[Marko]

Just as with APUG, this forum has helped generate over 100 new hits to my website plus a few new submissions. Anyway, thanks for the exposure, folks.



You're awfully smug, David.

Whoopee, you've gotten 100 new hits! This thread has generated 1800 views at this point, and I'm gonna take a wild guess that a good number of these viewers feel about you and Focus the way that I do. Do you really think that this thread is ultimately helping your business?

I went to my Borders yesterday to look for new issue of VC - it wasn't there yet, and having an itch to buy a magazine, I looked at Focus and Lensworks. Lensworks was, IMO, too expensive for a magazine, but I would've probably bought the Focus mag had I not read this thread earier in the day.

You know what made me put it back on the shelf? The 100 new hits statement.

Errors happen, mistakes happen. This, however, is no mistake. We just saw a publisher publicly ridicule his very target audience as stupid. Well, I don't like being called stupid, never thought of myself as such, therefore I am one of those other viewers who won't be buying the rag any more because of this thread.

[Marko]

Anyway, thanks for the exposure, folks.

And Mr. Spivak, no need to thank us, the exposure was all yours.

[QT Luong]

You're awfully smug, David.

Whoopee, you've gotten 100 new hits!

Michael, he doesn't realize that some individual photographer's sites generate 1 milion hits (30K+ visits) daily.

[Kevin Crisp]

David: I'll bet a million people a day google "cancer." It doesn't mean they want to have anything to do with it. You've started looking like a jackass, at least to this disinterested observer. Quit while you're behind.

[David A. Goldfarb]

This is, after all, the guy who has been known to sign up on various forums (including this one) under assumed names and post about what a smart and handsome young man David Spivak is, and what a great magazine he has. Who wouldn't pay big bucks for marketing strategy like that?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15470

[jshanesy]

I am one of those other viewers who won't be buying the rag any more because of this thread.

I'm another one.

[robert]

LOL....If I was Mr. Spivak's PR man right now his phone would be ringing off the hook. And somebody would be on their way to take his computer.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

as daffy duck says, "What a maroon".

lee\c

So let me get this straight. It's okay for all of you to be assholes to me, to disparriage what I do for a living and what supports my family, but the minute I say something out of line "Well, I'm never reading his magazine again!!" Thanks for poiinting out the double standard, folks...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

No double standard here, I think we all agree you are doing a sleazy thing trying to con photographers into a "gallery" that is worthless, you have not given us names or asked any of the "many" photographers who "support" this kind of thing to let us know how it has worked for them and most importantly, you did not provide us with the name of the guy who sold $10,000 worth of prints. Seems to me you have been caight in a web of lies and you dont like it and because of it we are "assholes" .....let me tell you bubba, takes one to know one....

[Kevin Crisp]

A better approach would have been to return the portfolio and post that fact. This would have been over long ago. From what I can tell, you have time to monitor this, type posts, prolong it, but no time to mail something back. Apparently someone did have "a bad experience" with the magazine; you never piped in to say the claim was in error and you had returned the portfolio. So turn that around and you're done. If you're right about any publicity being a good thing, then you've come out ahead. If you're not, then blaming others for it doesn't help.

[lee\c]

what Jorge said.


lee\c

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very unprofessional indeed. I can't believe your attitude AND behaviour. We sometimes critique Steve's VC magazine in this forum. Steve always chimes in defending VC or agreeing with our criticisms...never as unprofessional as you...at least he admits to mistakes and wrong doing...bottom line is respect. You don't respect us, therefore we don't respect you or how your do your business. Focus can collect cobwebs on the shelf of my local bookstore for all I care. By the way, we are the ones feeding your family.

[e]

Seems to me that Mr. Spivak might make ammends to everyone by eating some crow and publishing some of Michael's work gratis. Come on man....do the guy right and yourself also.
Emile.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

So let me get this straight. It's okay for all of you to be ***holes to me, to disparriage what I do for a living and what supports my family, but the minute I say something out of line "Well, I'm never reading his magazine again!!" Thanks for poiinting out the double standard, folks...

David,

There's really no need for profanity here. It's generally frowned upon and won't help strengthen your position. Also, by referring to all of us as ***holes, you managned to offend everyone who has participated in this thread - even those who tried to help you.

As far as the "double standard" goes, keep in mind you are the only one in this thread trying to sell something (your magazine and ad space it it). You aren't just representing yourself when you post in this public forum, you also represent your magazine and all who pay to have their work published in it. As such, you should be held to a high standard and behave appropriately. The use of profanity and collectively referring to those participatng in this thread as ***holes is very unprofessional and a disservice to those who buy your magazine and the photographers who have paid to advertise in it. I know if I had purchased portfolio space in your magazine, I'd be upset by your behavior here. It makes you look bad and offends those who might otherwise support you and your magazine. This is no way to sell more magazines and certainly no way to convince more photographers to buy space in your magazine.

I tried to help in my previous post by suggesting you use the free USPS carrier pick-up service. Rather than spend the time it takes to reply to my comments above, I suggest you spend a couple minutes at the USPS web site signing up for an account, printing a shipping label and scheduling a carrier pickup for Michael Gordon's portfolio. It will take a couple minutes the first time, but once you have an account it will take about 30 seconds to schedule future pickups. This will get Michael's portfolio back to him and save you time in the long run.

Kerry

[Jay DeFehr]

I am not only the art director, submissions director, sales manager...but I am also a publisher and a father.

David,

I think you need to add Public Relations Manager to your list of titles. As readers and potential clients, we can afford to be perceived as assholes, but as a publisher, you cannot. To get a fledgling enthusiast's magazine off the ground, you need the full support of the enthusiasts. Your attitude towards your customer base can only be described as self-destructive, and your command of the English language as semi-literate. If your intent in posting here was to put out a PR fire, I'm afraid you've only fanned the flames. Better luck with your next venture.

Jay

[Michael Gordon]

Mr. Spivak is carrying on his lies in another forum as well: http://tinyurl.com/o8w23

[Michael Gordon]

My original intent was to keep this topic on this forum alone to give David an opportunity to 'fix' things. Despite the amount of good advice he's been given here, his unwillingness to clean up his mess is disappointing. Every photographer needs to know about David Spivak and Focus magazine, so I am accepting suggestions as to where else I can alert large numbers of photographers. Thank you.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

My original intent was to keep this topic on this forum alone to give David an opportunity to 'fix' things. Despite the amount of good advice he's been given here, his unwillingness to clean up his mess is disappointing. Every photographer needs to know about David Spivak and Focus magazine, so I am accepting suggestions as to where else I can alert large numbers of photographers. Thank you.

Well, the guy was banned from APUG, and you have already posted at PN, so I think you got all the bases covered.

[Dave Parker]

This sounds about typical for the experiance, I had with David on another system, he is abrasive, evasive and most of all focused on himself and his busy life....I would suggest getting out of the magazine business and focus on your fatherhood and such, you got yourself banned on the other system from your continued abrasiveness, you seem to be doing the same thing now....Michael, this is not a new thing with David, he stil has not figured out what he really wants to do, and unfortunately those who fall for his line, pay the price...

Dave Parker
Satin Snow Ground Glass

PS. I was a prospective advertiser in his magazine, but after the exchanges I had with him, would not touch him with a ten foot pole, to many bad things going on here.

[alec4444]

This is a terrible trend that seems to be following a lot of companies, photo or otherwise.

I ordered an airconditioner that didn't work and I'm having problems returning it.
My wife bought some tile grout, got home, and found it was half used. On returning it, the owner wouldn't apologize and she had to fight with him to get a new one!
My dry cleaner wouldn't take responsibility for making my pinstripes turn into wide stripes on my shirt.
I've been waiting for a quote for some window screens from Pella for over 6 weeks.
Then there's Lowes vs. my kitchen.......


Each and every time, it seems like apologizing to the customer (whether they're right, wrong, or otherwise) just isn't done. I keep waiting and hoping for the consumer backlash to this.... I'm also wishing I had the gumption to start my own company!

The *really* dumb thing here, David, is that if you had written an apology about the portfolio and sent it back immediately, we'd probably be doubting the authenticity of Michael's story. No doubt left for me.

--A

[JW Dewdney]

It seems as though the products we choose to buy and the companies we choose to transact with financially is the last stronghold of democracy that we have. Use it or lose it!

[Joseph O'Neil]

This is a terrible trend that seems to be following a lot of companies, photo or otherwise.

--A

-snip-

I don't know about this specific situation, but in general, the #1 reason nobody in business apologizes anymore for anything is liability issues. Once you apologize, the lawsuits start, and your written permission is seen and proof positive admission of guilt.

Rightly or wrongly, this covers the whole spectrum from companis who are boviously at fault, to - well - look at the situation of where the guy just killed himself by blowing up a 4 storey building. The neighbours are suing the gas company, even though the guy who blew up the building cut the lines and broke the law by delierately altering the lines, a deliberate criminal act. But now, according to neighbours, the gas company is at fault.

joe

[BrianShaw]

I so much want to say "bullsh_ _" to what you said, Joe... but I think you are correct! It is a sad state of affairs. Here is So. Cal we see a lot of cultural issues, also. Some cultures don't say I'm sorry, nor do they care to placate customers even when the customer has been wronged. Most of the time I'd gladly forgo an apology and acceptance of "guilt" for simply being placated. I've totally given up on the hope of being respected as a valued customer by most merchants.

[Marko]

There's no such thing as "valued customer" any more. It got lost along with "integrity" and "honesty".

Just listen to what George Carlin has to say about it. He has a whole half an hour or so spiel about "customer service" "servicing the account"... ;)

[Capocheny]

You admit your portfolio was received 9 weeks ago, which puts you at within 3 weeks of receiving your portfolio back, which is when our Sept. issue will be going to print. Please do not think of this as a bad experience, it is my fault this return date was not made clear inside of the magazine...

What can I do to rectify the situation? It is impossible until the 25 of July to make it to my other office (storage office) and to the post office. If you would like to take this private, my e-mail address is david@focusmag.info


David,

The bottom line is.... "When will you be sending Michael back his submission, postage paid?"

This is the second time on this thread that you've posted the above response to Michael asking the same question I am.

So, please don't post the above response a third time. What I'm really interested in hearing is, "when will Michael get his submission back... postage paid?"

[BTW, Kerry has provided you with the information needed to expedite the return via USPS.]

Cheers

[Eric Rose]

Time to put this one to bed don't you think. Enough has been said on both sides. Dead horses start to smell after awhile.

[Michael Gordon]

David, The bottom line is.... "When will you be sending Michael back his submission, postage paid?"

He's made it clear in the photo.net thread (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HICN&tag=):
Your portfolio will be returned between 12 and 16 weeks. Be glad you didn't submit to B&W, they take 6 months.

No offense, Eric, but if the thread stinks you don't have to look at it.

[Marko]

He's made it clear in the photo.net thread (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HICN&tag=):
Your portfolio will be returned between 12 and 16 weeks. Be glad you didn't submit to B&W, they take 6 months.

So, if B&W takes longer to return your submition, does this mean that B&W also charges more money to publish your content in their magazine?

If so, you should be doubly glad you didn't submit to them. You actually saved both money and time by submitting to Focus...

:rolleyes:

[BrianShaw]

[QUOTE=Marko]
If so, you should be doubly glad you didn't submit to them. You actually saved both money and time by submitting to Focus...
QUOTE]
LOL... which is difficult to do with a clothes pin on ones nose!

[Capocheny]

He's made it clear in the photo.net thread (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HICN&tag=):
Your portfolio will be returned between 12 and 16 weeks. Be glad you didn't submit to B&W, they take 6 months.

Michael,

Didn't read that posting on Photo.net...

Let us know if your images arrive as promised, ok?

Good luck...

Cheers

[BrianShaw]

If so, you should be doubly glad you didn't submit to them. You actually saved both money and time by submitting to Focus...

LOL... which is difficult to do with a clothes pin on ones nose!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

This sounds about typical for the experiance, I had with David on another system, he is abrasive, evasive and most of all focused on himself and his busy life....I would suggest getting out of the magazine business and focus on your fatherhood and such, you got yourself banned on the other system from your continued abrasiveness, you seem to be doing the same thing now....Michael, this is not a new thing with David, he stil has not figured out what he really wants to do, and unfortunately those who fall for his line, pay the price...

David, I'm just reading this and not really sure what you mean by this. If you would have read my magazine from the beginning, although the format has changed and the layout and reproduction has drastically improved, our commitment to market our editorial and advertising towards collectors of fine art photography has not changed --ever. Please explain to me how your company markets yourslef to collectors of fine art photography....oh wait, you don't. So why would you advertise in Focus? You wouldn't, we don't market the magazine to photographers. The only advertiser we have ever had who gears himself to photographers, because he offered us a very good deal and guaranteed money, was Jensen Optical and even he is no longer in the magazine.

I don't recall our conversations on APUG. This is the first second of downtime I have had in a week...so yes, I do have a busy schedule.

"Still has not figured out what he really wants to do?"

Where do you get this shit from? Your ass? When was the last time you took a look at Focus, David? Not only do we have the best reproduction out there, our articles and content are more in-depth and convey more information on the market of collecting fine art photography to the collector than any other magazine.

THIS is why photographers should be in the magazine...because of the collectors reading it. Focus Magazine has what other magazines geared to collectors of fine art photography lacks: PASSION. Every issue we are increasing the amount of content, the number of places we're distributed, the quality of the overall magazine and the reproduction...photographers who advertise and who are a part of Focus Magazine have that potential to reach those collectors who are readers. I am working my ass off to provide the best magazine out there for collectors and with competition from magazines such as B&W and photograph, I have to work even harder because their level of quality and their standards are so well regarded by the community I have pull out all of the stops to even be compared to them on the same level. THIS is my passion...Focus is what I've been wanting to do for years before I launched it and I am quite fortunate that I have been able to not only launch it and run it, but see it grow and flourish like a tomato patch on an overdose of miracle grow.

[lee\c]

"Where do you get this shit from? Your ass?' nice talk do you kiss your baby with that mouth? Grow up! Be a man!

lee\c

[Don Hutton]

"I am quite fortunate that I have been able to not only launch it and run it, but see it grow and flourish like a tomato patch on an overdose of miracle grow."

I'd suggest that if your attitude to the creators of the material from which you derive your living doesn't change a whole lot, you could be in for a very nasty dose of mildew...

[darr]

Your so-called PASSION has turned me off entirely. You had sent me a PM over at APUG this past year asking why I was not a subscriber. Well here's your answer.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Where do you get this shit from? Your ass?

This is the difference between you and the editors or B&W magazine and Photograph, you never see them treat photographers like this, even when the opinion is against them....

[jshanesy]

Not only do we have the best reproduction out there

Thanks. Things are pretty gloomy around the office this morning. I needed a good laugh.

[Kevin Crisp]

Has the portfolio been returned?

[Michael Gordon]

Has the portfolio been returned?

Uh, take a guess. David's been very busy, y'know...

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think it is time to ban this twit.

[Steve H]

Ok, consider me the completely independent, new photographer.
Im scared. Is this really the way business is run ? Between the scams on this mag, and the way other mags seem to want to start up (who sells subscriptions to a magazine that only exists in someone else's imagination ?), what does the future hold for photography-related periodicals ?

Here was my assumptions: A successful magazine is supported by its advertisers, not by its subscribers. Its advertisers are supported by the magazine's subscribers. This creates a nice relationship all the way around, as a selling point for the mag is this "We have 500k subscribers...that is 500k potential customers for you !". So the advertisers are happy. .The mag is happy because they can afford to PAY for QUALITY submissions, and that would cause growth. In the end, the subscriber is also happy, because the more successful the mag, the better it will (most likely) become (granted, I think OP has taken a nose dive...).

Sound right to anyone else out there ? If so, then what gives ? Are there not enough advertisers anymore ? Or can we all just blame the internet for lack of printed advertisement ?


Not only do we have the best reproduction out there, our articles and content are more in-depth and convey more information on the market of collecting fine art photography to the collector than any other magazine.

Sorry, I disagree completely. Out of all the mags on the shelf, I would rate your reproduction as average, my personal opinion. Im not a professional, just someone who would actually buy a magazine.

[darr]

Are there not enough advertisers anymore ? Or can we all just blame the internet for lack of printed advertisement ?

LensWork and Brooks Jensen seem to be doing ok without advertisers. AFAIK, the portfolio owners do not pay for their work to be published either. This is what I call true PASSION.

[tim atherton]

LensWork and Brooks Jensen seem to be doing ok without advertisers. AFAIK, the portfolio owners do not pay for their work to be published either. This is what I call true PASSION.


As I recall you a small "honorarium" and a bunch of free copies to give away

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

""Still has not figured out what he really wants to do?"

Where do you get this shit from? Your ass?"

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=17237

Actually David, Dave was being nice about it. I would suggest that for your next venture you open "David's School of Beauty, Charm and Grace" or "David's Business School", you would be equally successful with either as you have been here.

Goodbye David.

[BrianShaw]

As I recall you (MISSING VERB) a small "honorarium" and a bunch of free copies to give away
Tim, there's a verb missing... is is 'receive' or 'pay' ;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Tim, there's a verb missing... is is 'receive' or 'pay' ;)
Lenswork pays I think $250 for a published portfolio plus some issues. Black & White photography (UK) will pay you from 100 pounds and above depending on the published article or photos.

[tim atherton]

Tim, there's a verb missing... is is 'receive' or 'pay' ;)

sorry - receive...

[Sheldon N]

LOL...... I doubt this all came about from your rag...... funny though, once Michael did not fall for your con the troubles started, I would say you would be a great used car salesman, but I dont want to insult them....

You know what's funny Jorge, I think he was a used car salesman at one point! To quote from a 2005 APUG post by David that was referenced earlier:

"A year and a half after I moved back to NY, I got in over my head in debt because I was making a lot of poor decisions for myself and had to move back in with my parents. I took the previous knowledge of sales and applied it to another passion of mine: cars. In 2002, after only 3 months in the car business I became one of the nation's top 50 salesmen for Ford. I stayed in the car business for 11 months when I was getting fed up with some of the dis-honesty and snakes roaming around me."

Oh, the irony! :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You know what's funny Jorge, I think he was a used car salesman at one point! To quote from a 2005 APUG post by David that was referenced earlier:

"A year and a half after I moved back to NY, I got in over my head in debt because I was making a lot of poor decisions for myself and had to move back in with my parents. I took the previous knowledge of sales and applied it to another passion of mine: cars. In 2002, after only 3 months in the car business I became one of the nation's top 50 salesmen for Ford. I stayed in the car business for 11 months when I was getting fed up with some of the dis-honesty and snakes roaming around me."

Oh, the irony! :)

LOL.... the irony is right, but I am starting to see a trend here. He said he became one of the top 50 salesman in the nation for Ford, having seen his approach to get photographers for his rag, I really, really doubt this is true.....

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

You guys are comparing apples and oranges and I really cannot continue on here this much longer...I addressed an issue with someone who wanted me to advertise his product for free in my magazine and all of a sudden it's a scam when a photographer has to pay to advertise himself in front of thousands of people. Obviously, the people who feel this isn't a good idea aren't interested in the business of selling their photography to collectors. There are photographers who have their own websites to promote their photography...but how do they advertise their website? Well, on forums like this, but not many collectors view this forum, because this is a forum for photographers, not collectors. So, they'll generally be reaching the same people who also want to reach collectors. Or some photographers don't have a website and don't know how to reach collectors, so they want to advertise.

By now I think I've eliminated 90% of the people who have posted on this forum. So if you're not interested in actively selling your work to collectors, Focus Magazine's package is not for you and therefore, I've saved both you and myself time and money to ship work to me and for me to review it and ship it back to you.

A photographer who does want to sell their works to collectors can choose to advertise in B&W, which according to their rate card, it's $900 for a full page ad. In order to get 7 pages, it would cost a photographer $6300. Focus Magazine offers a photographer 7 full pages for $214.29 per page or $1500 for black & white.

The old business model of a magazine paying to advertise a photographer's work and contact information is obselete. The market of fine art photography is growing as are the number of photographers who are interested in selling their work to collectors. Focus serves as a meeting point between the buyer and the seller. We act as a service for photographers and for collectors.

By the way, some of you who have mentioned LensWork's reproduction...Lensework is a very small magazine and their circulation is even smaller. Their magazine is printed up in Canada and he does an incredible job...he once gave me a quote for a job the size of Focus and it was 3x what I pay now and he couldn't print more than 20,000 copies. Whereas with Focus Magazine, 16 pages are printed at once on a web form, 1 page is printed on the press and it continues on page by page by page... I believe this is how Emulsion is doing it as well. The way they make their money is off of their substantially high newsstand costs... I don't know if his magazine is very profitable, but it truly is a work of art.

We invite LensWork subscribers to add Focus to their list of subscriptions. One year only costs $24 and two years only $45. www.focusmag.info/html/subscribe.htm (http://focusmag.info/subscribe/)

Good luck to all of you in your photographic endevours.

[Ron Marshall]

The issue is that you are unwilling to promptly return this persons work.

[Artur Zeidler]

Have you read Focus Magazine?

It appears to be the sort of Auto-Trader mag of photo collecting.

I took a look at the current edition and it appears to be the illustrated version of the current "Cliche" thread (but with an overdose of bad nudes).

There would appear to be a good reason why a lot of these people are paying through the nose to advertise their work rather than their galleries doing it for them.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

it's a scam when a photographer has to pay to advertise himself in front of thousands of people

It is when the editor of the rag diguises the advertisment as "gallery promotion", you are not guaranteeing sales nor are you incurring any expenses for the "promotion" like a gallery does. There are far better ways to market to collectors than your rag....getting into a reputable gallery is one, many of us would prefer to spend the same $1500 and take a big ad on B&W magazine than take it out on yours......big difference in quality and readership....

[Marko]

I addressed an issue

You did?

So, the portfolio has been returned after all?

[QT Luong]

My issue would be that there is, let say, a bit of a blur in the lines between editorial and advertising in Focus Magazine. I don't know if you have noticed, but when there is such an ambiguity in well-established magazines, generally they print somewhere a warning that the page or section is an advertisement.

But David is right that given the number of photographers desperate to give their work away to get published (as evidenced for instance by the growth of the so called "micro-stock" model of image licensing, where the photographers grants almost unlimited reproduction rights for about 20 cents per image), from a business point of view, it does make some sense to charge photographers to publish them.

It is naive to believe that internet traffic is obtained by advertising in magazines.

As for the portfolio return, would you please stop beating David on that. He has stated clearly that the portfolio will be returned within a few months.

[Michael Gordon]

You guys are comparing apples and oranges and I really cannot continue on here this much longer...I addressed an issue with someone who wanted me to advertise his product for free in my magazine and all of a sudden it's a scam when a photographer has to pay to advertise himself in front of thousands of people.

Are you referring to me as "someone who wanted me to advertise his product for free in my magazine"? Let's go over this again, since you have a selectively short memory. I responded to YOUR call for submissions in the April issue; I repeat, A CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS. I don't see anything in this call referring to it as advertising or baiting (which is what it was). I wouldn't have let you waste my time and money for a marketing pitch had I known that's what I was in for. And despite having plenty of opportunity and time to return my portfolio, you insist on spiting me by making me wait for your 12-16 week return time. This, too, was false advertising, as your call for submissions said that I would receive my portfolio "promptly" if I included shipping materials and postage (which I did). I'm still waiting, pal.


We invite LensWork subscribers to add Focus to their list of subscriptions.

Uh, NO.

[Michael Gordon]

As for the portfolio return, would you please stop beating David on that. He has stated clearly that the portfolio will be returned within a few months.

QT: why should the beating stop? He makes time to reply here to defend his practices, but doesn't have the time to simply drop my postage-paid package in the mail? His printed word said I would receive it "promptly". He's now had it for just about 12 weeks.

Let the beatings continue....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

We invite LensWork subscribers to add Focus to their list of subscriptions. One year only costs $24 and two years only $45. www.focusmag.info/html/subscribe.htm


I would subscribe to an all digital, about all digital magazine before I would subscribe to yours......

[Michael Gordon]

Here's the Call for Submissions (http://www.mgordonphotography.com/images/storage/focus.jpg) that I responded to on page 68 of the April 2006 issue of Focus.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

SO this guy has a submission fee????...LOL.......Are out there photographers so desperate that would fall for this scam? Lets see, Lenswork ( a much better magazine) pays you a little, VC does not pay anything but at least they dont charge.....This is the first rag that I have seen that has a submission fee.....sounds like this guy wants to make his money from the photographers not the magazine... :rolleyes:

[Marko]

As for the portfolio return, would you please stop beating David on that. He has stated clearly that the portfolio will be returned within a few months.

QT, I really have no dog in this fight except for the old, tired honesty and integrity issue. Call me old and tired too if you will, but I still think that a man is only as good as is his word.

If there are people so desperate to see their works printed that they would pay for it, that's fine with me, it's their choice and their works and not mine. If there are enough of those people to sustain a fully advertorial-based rag, that's also fine, as long as it does not pretend to be a serious, professional publication. It is even ok if they actively go soliciting for customers, for a want of a better word.

But in this case, I find Jorge's used car salesmen analogy very apt and to the point. What I have a huge problem with, purely as a matter of principle, is the whole bait-n-switch spiel, with any other marketing drivel that usually goes with it. Such as "prompt returning" of "submission materials".

While the word "prompt" is rather vague for today's BS-driven marketing, it definitely should not be taken to mean "a few months" by any stretch of imagination. "A few weeks" even would be rather on the edge. "A few months" today might easily mean "Next year", since it is already less than half a year until then!

Even manufacturers' rebates do not take more than "6-8" weeks these days! And I have yet to see anybody who would call THAT prompt.

So, I do feel very much like berating David for not returning that portfolio "promptly" as he claimed he would. It would've taken him a fraction of the time he had already wasted writing diatribes in this thread to simply drive to the post office, drop the package in the mail, drive back and write: "sorry for the delay, your package is in the mail". I won't even mention that such a response would've been much smarter marketing move, because that's his choice to make.

But smart choice it is not, and hence is inviting of a good ridicule.

[darr]

I wonder where Michael's portfolio actually is at this point in time. You would think if the portfolio could mailed back quick, it already would have been. A good business man or marketing professional would see what kind of damage a thread like this could do to them and their publication. In business, referrals and repeat business is the name of the game; that is if you plan to stay in business.

[MJSfoto1956]

sounds like this guy wants to make his money from the photographers not the magazine

This is definitely *NOT* the MAGNAchrom model!

While I was not going to reveal this just yet, our business model is this: MAGNAchrom will be free to anyone who registers on our website starting this September. The only piece of "personal" information we will require is your email address for verification. No phone number. No street address. And we will never sell your email address to anyone, ever. We primarily only want to know what cameras and equipment you shoot with and what film and/or digital backs you use and what country you live/work in. MC is an advertising-supported model. And the low costs of electronic delivery allow us to publish it for free. It is only fair. The best part: each issue of MC will continuously undergo "builds" -- Volume 1 Issue 1 will continue to be improved over the years. (if you ever catch a spelling error or typo it will be fixed pronto! I promise!!! ;) ) There is little cost to us to update an article with new information or addenda (or update an old ad with a new one for that matter -- advertisers take note!). MAGNAchrom is not meant to be a static snapshot of our times. It is dynamic. It is an on-going, living document dedicated to lovers of big cameras. Over time, the MAGNAchrom archives will become a rich, up-to-date, free resource for everyone.

As a side note: we *WILL* sell an annual, limited edition, high-resolution, printed & bound, coffee-table version of MAGNAchrom containing all six Issues in a Volume (estimated at 300+ pages). But that would be for collectors. The online magazine will always be free.

Wish us luck with our launch!

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com (http://www.magnachrom.com)

P.S. We are actively looking for contributors. We will be posting an online form soon for interested, dedicated, medium & large-format users to submit their portfolios (and articles) for inclusion in future issues of MC. We are *definitely* looking for new, fresh faces!! I look forward to featuring many of the artists on this forum in MAGNAchrom. And I promise you this: we won't ever charge anyone for their portfolio or submission! How rude!!!!!

[Ron Marshall]

We are actively looking for contributors. We will be posting an online form soon for interested, dedicated, medium & large-format users to submit their portfolios (and articles) for inclusion in future issues of MC. We are *definitely* looking for new, fresh faces!! I look forward to featuring many of the artists on this forum in MAGNAchrom. And I promise you this: we won't ever charge anyone for their portfolio or submission! How rude!!!!!

Sounds good Michael, I will sign up and definately wish you the best of luck. Wonderful concept.

But I must ask the crucial question, given the subject of this thread: how quickly will you return submissions?

[MJSfoto1956]

But I must ask the crucial question, given the subject of this thread: how quickly will you return submissions?

MAGNAchrom has no official mailing address, and we like it that way (no junk mail. no hate mail or death threats either). We are and will remain a virtual entity. The only way to submit photos for consideration to MC will be via links to your images hosted somewhere on the web. There will never be anything to return. Keep in mind that we want to encourage international participation so this is the "fairest" method I can think of (yes you will need to compete with the Chinese. Get used to it!). I know this puts some people out -- those who hate scanning (or can't or won't). But to keep the costs down (and the tempers cool) we have decided to pursue this method. There are free sites such as flickr and others where you can post protected, private, high-res photos available by invitation only. So the cost barrier to post personal images on the web is no longer a legitimate issue.

Keep in mind that the FINAL accepted high-res images do indeed need to be fairly big (for example, a full page, A4 @300dpi image is approx 2500x3500 pixels oriented horizontally). So yes, once accepted you will either have to provide a CD ROM (yikes, that would mean you need to mail it!) or preferably upload them to our site.

Can I safely assume that we don't need to return any uploaded files??!! ;)

Thanx for the comments.

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com (http://www.magnachrom.com)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Cool! I'll sign up!

[Scott Davis]

Count me in too... although I'll have to re-scan a bunch of my images, as most have been websized for posting places like here or APUG, where bandwidth is a premium.

[Ralph Barker]

Michael's original post about his up-coming publication was intended to show a different publication paridigm within the context of the thread, and was allowed to remain for that reason, even though it came close to violating our "non-commercial" guidelines.

Please use e-mail or other means to respond about the publication itself, so as not to turn this into a "doing-business" thread. Comments about the paridigm, however, would be appropriate.

[Don Hutton]

Michael's original post about his up-coming publication was intended to show a different publication paridigm within the context of the thread, and was allowed to remain for that reason, even though it came close to violating our "non-commercial" guidelines.

Please use e-mail or other means to respond about the publication itself, so as not to turn this into a "doing-business" thread. Comments about the paridigm, however, would be appropriate.

"Jay

Thanks for participating in our upcoming article on staining developers. Can you call our office as I have another possibility to discuss with you.

505-899-8054 m-f 8-5 mountain time

steve simmons"

Ralph

I'd love to know why the latter posting does not elicit the same response from the moderators....

[Ralph Barker]

I'd love to know why the latter posting does not elicit the same response from the moderators....

Simply a matter of time and other distractions. There's also a nifty http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/images/buttons/report.gif icon at the left of posts that can be used to bring questionable posts to the attention of the moderators.

[Michael Gordon]

David: we're rapidly closing in on sixteen weeks since I sent my portfolio (which I've still not received). Have you by chance had any time to get near a mailbox since your last transmission on July 31?

[Ben Chase]

I just finally got around to reading this thread.

Micheal - At this point, I would be contacting a lawyer. After reading what some of this guy wrote from Focus magazine, there is about a snowball's chance in hell of me ever wanting to do business with Focus magazine.

I hate to hear about people trying to take advantage of photographers, it's the kind of thing that makes you angry enough to eat a puppy.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Did Michael ever received his portfolio?

[Capocheny]

Did Michael ever received his portfolio?

Hi Jorge,

As of 18-Aug-2006, 12:43... it doesn't appear as if he has. :(

Why am I not surprised?

Cheers

[Michael Gordon]

This may come as a big surprise to some of you, but I still have not received my portfolio.

I obviously cannot recommend that anyone send work to FOCUS for review, nor can I recommend purchasing a photography magazine that treats photographers this way.

[Kirk Gittings]

Astonishing.....my guess is that he lost it.

[Michael Gordon]

Spivak was generous enough to keep me on his newsletter mailing list, and his Sept 22 newsletter addresses "some talk lately about Focus magazine sacrificing its integrity for the sake of money to publish photographers’ work who are willing to pay for inclusion inside of its pages". Interestingly enough, I notice that Henry Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" in the Dec 2006 issue of B&W addresses the same thing ("On Integrity in Publishing"). I can't help but think that this thread (which is at 10,380 views) has had some impact on Focus, and perhaps indirectly on B&W.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

some talk lately about Focus magazine sacrificing its integrity

LOL...you gotta have integrity before you can sacrifice it..... Michael, small claims court can go up to as much as $5000, I say you better get busy.. :)

[Michael Gordon]

I've enlisted the aid of a lawyer, Jorge. Thanks.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I've enlisted the aid of a lawyer, Jorge. Thanks.

Good for you bubba, good luck, I do hope to stick it to this guy!

[David Luttmann]

Wow....4 months. He's probably hand delivering it via skateboard.

[Michael Gordon]

4 months, David? Try 6.5 now since I sent it off. Skateboard? You can walk across the country in less than this length of time.

[TLGG1]

With the publisher calling so many photographers(potential contributors) names and his recent hiring of Steve Anchell to manage the magazine maybe Anchell better get involved and get the portfolio back and then resign?

[Kirk Gittings]

The hiring of Anchell is probably a good sign.

[David Luttmann]

4 months, David? Try 6.5 now since I sent it off. Skateboard? You can walk across the country in less than this length of time.

You ever tried a skateboard without wheels? ;-)

[jshanesy]

some talk lately about Focus magazine sacrificing its integrity

LOL...you gotta have integrity before you can sacrifice it..... Michael, small claims court can go up to as much as $5000, I say you better get busy.. :)

I don't know how many prints were in the portfolio Michael sent him, Jorge, but from the look of his website $5,000 won't touch the value of his work. I don't think we're dealing with a small claim here. Mr. Gordon does gorgeous work.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I don't know how many prints were in the portfolio Michael sent him, Jorge, but from the look of his website $5,000 won't touch the value of his work. I don't think we're dealing with a small claim here. Mr. Gordon does gorgeous work.

I guess Michael will have to balance the price of the prints against the hassle of using a lawyer and paying lawyer fees as opposed to doing a small claim himself. If he can get a lawyer to take this on a contigency basis, well then he is home free.. :)

[steve simmons]

Michael,

Do you have digital files of the black and white work in the Melange portfolio? If so and if you are interested send them to me as 300 dpi, 9" on the long dimension and we will do a Four Photographs From piece on you.

thanks

steve simmons

[Don Hutton]

Kudos Steve - that's a great response.

[Kirk Gittings]

Great idea Steve.

[Jack Brauer]

I just stumbled upon this thread for the first time; I've got to say it's one of the most entertaining I've read (along with associated tangent threads). What drama and intrigue, and most of all, what a character this David Spivak is! Such a focused salesman he is (pun intended) it's tragic that he shoots himself in the foot with his horrendous PR and abrasive, disrespectful attitude.

[Eric James]

Just returned from Barnes and Noble were I turned all the Focus Mags around and placed a couple Popular Photography Mags on top.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can't believe this is STILL going on!

[Kevin Crisp]

He must have lost the photos. Nothing else would explain this seemingly endless self-inflicted wound.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

With the publisher calling so many photographers(potential contributors) names and his recent hiring of Steve Anchell to manage the magazine maybe Anchell better get involved and get the portfolio back and then resign?

I am putting this post in public so everyone can see we have nothing to hide. The idea of twelve inkjet prints being worth more than $5,000 or somewhere even close to it is ridiculous and entertaining while bordering hilarious at the same time.

I will reiterate the policy of Focus. We are not National Geographic or Time or any other magazine that reproduces photographers in its Focus Gallery section for the sole purpose of exposure. We are not using submissions to the Focus Gallery to compliment articles. We are using them for the sole purpose of promoting photographers who are serious about their career in selling fine art photography to collectors. We are a magazine where photographers receive at least three issues worth of advertising for the purpose of selling their fine art photography to the reader of the magazine. Photographers who are seen in interviews are not part of the Photographer Marketing Program and their inclusion in Focus is based off of the importance of their career.

Any photographer, who does not understand the opportunity to exhibit his or her work in 3 issues, each of which have a potential to reach 45,000 readers (3 readers per copy with a circulation of 15,000 not including trade shows and photography fairs) simply does not understand the value of what we are offering and would not do well with the package. I understand that some photographers feel they should have their work reproduced for free and those photographers who value that old business model will only reach certain levels in todays market in my opinion. While other photographers, who agressively market themselves will be much better well-known and have an opportunity to make contacts with galleries, book publishing companies, collectors, dealers and other photographers for $357 a page for black and white.

Of course, Mr. Gordon rejected that idea. We wish him luck, as I've said publicly and privately, I think his photography is quite good.

I had to temporarily switch the building in which I run Focus out of in June and July and I moved back in August. It was nice having an office in the city...alass $5,000 a month for an office smaller most people's homes is something we could not afford. Sometime during the move most of Michael's prints were lost. We believed they were still at the old location and when we went there to retrieve them, we realized they were lost. This was just realized about a month ago when I asked Michael to call me and left him numerous messages. I'm not going to speak for Mr. Anchell who has done a tremendous job as Editor of Focus, or or anyone else involved in the publishing world, but it has happened numerous times where the staff of a magazine has misplaced a portfolio. I am sorry, there is no excuse except we simply misplaced it in our move from different offices. I put in numerous calls to Mr. Gordon so I could talk to him about this, but he has refused to return any of my calls and now has brought this matter to the attention of lawyers. Most, if not all of the prints submitted to us from March - August is still being returned to photographers...we have far exceeded the time we originally stated it would take to return prints. I have had to hire additional help to work with me on this.

His lawyers will be notified of this and will also be notified that Mr. Gordon's behavior has concerned us for quite some time. There seems to be some kind of intent to damage Focus magazine's reputation. For whatever reason this is, I don't know, nor do I care. It is simply unacceptable.

In a court of law, no magazine has ever been held responsible for lost or stolen prints. It is well known that if a photographer wishes to submit actual prints, that they submit copy prints for purposes of reproduction or if it is an inkjet print, such as Mr. Gordon's, that it be a print not included in an edition and that if it is lost or stolen, it is no loss to the photographer.

If Mr. Gordon takes us to court, then the offer is revoked and we will have to examine further some of Mr. Gordon's statements about the reputation of Focus. There is free speech and then there is the deliberate defamation of a company's reputation and business practices.

I just want to move on from this, which is why I'm offering to pay for the materials. I have the 2007 Guide to Collecting Fine Art Photography to put together, which includes current and upcoming exhibitions from hundreds of photography galleries from around the country, plus free listings for photographers and dealers. This is, by far, the largest task I have ever put together, but will be a huge reference for photographers and collectors.

[Jim collum]

I've been following this thread since it started. As your targeted demographic, I can say that my opinion of your magazine has been more influenced by your reaction and public responses than any negative feedback from anyone I've read. I know nothing about you, except from those responses.. and I can honestly say, you, not Mr. Gordon, have lost me as a customer (and before this all started, I was going to be a customer.

Jim Collum
http://www.susanspiritusgallery.com/artists/images/jcollum/default.htm

[Kevin Crisp]

"In a court of law, no magazine has ever been held responsible for lost or stolen prints."

I hope you didn't pay anything for research of that quality. Speaking as a lawyer who has handled "lost photograph" cases on behalf of magazines, I was convinced that you couldn't handle this situation in a less self-destructive manner, with less common sense. But you've topped yourself. You are spectacularly unaware of how you come across. What is cringe-inducing fingernails on the chalkboard to the rest of the world apparently strikes you a just good grooming. From thick headed bluster to petty sarcasm to this latest mock-aggressive legal delirium tremens -- you've done it. You've managed to make this even worse. And then after all of this to find this thread entertaining...

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

"In a court of law, no magazine has ever been held responsible for lost or stolen prints."

I hope you didn't pay anything for research of that quality. Speaking as a lawyer who has handled "lost photograph" cases on behalf of magazines, I was convinced that you couldn't handle this situation in a less self-destructive manner, with less common sense. But you've topped yourself. You are spectacularly unaware of how you come across. What is cringe-inducing fingernails on the chalkboard to the rest of the world apparently strikes you a just good grooming. From thick headed bluster to petty sarcasm to this latest mock-aggressive legal delirium tremens -- you've done it. You've managed to make this even worse. And then after all of this to find this thread entertaining...

There is no sarcasm when it comes to losing someones prints. We lost his prints and there is no excuse for losing them. We were careless. We offer him the price it cost him to create his prints, which as far as I know, perhaps you know better, is more than any other magazine would ever do. I have heard numerous examples from people who are in the same market who have lost prints and have done nothing about it. We are doing something about it.

And there is nothing funny about the words Mr. Gordon used to describe Focus in other threads. There is no "mock-agressive legal delirium tremens." This is very serious. I'll admit, my previous posts were a bit off-handed. I don't know if you own your own law firm, but if someone attacked your law firm in a public forum, well perhaps you'd respond in kind.

[Kevin Crisp]

There is no sarcasm when it comes to losing someones prints. We lost his prints and there is no excuse for losing them. We were careless. We offer him the price it cost him to create his prints, which as far as I know, perhaps you know better, is more than any other magazine would ever do. I have heard numerous examples from people who are in the same market who have lost prints and have done nothing about it. We are doing something about it.

And there is nothing funny about the words Mr. Gordon used to describe Focus in other threads. There is no "mock-agressive legal delirium tremens." This is very serious. I'll admit, my previous posts were a bit off-handed. I don't know if you own your own law firm, but if someone attacked your law firm in a public forum, well perhaps you'd respond in kind.

You owe him the fair market value of his prints, not "the price it cost him to create his prints," whatever that is. I don't know what the fair market value of his prints is; I am sure he does. Find that out, verify it with purchasers if it seems too high to you, and pay it. It's what you owe. It's the right thing to do. If you'd done that the second you realized you'd lost them (and when was that, exactly? just now?) you would have come across as a stand-up guy that somebody would want to deal with. If this comes to litigation, the only thing that will be argued about is the fair market value of the prints. Next time, don't lose the prints, log them in carefully and return them promptly. Your idea, reading between the lines, may be that you think you owe the cost of 1/50th the price of a 50 sheet box of paper, a fractional amount of what the developer in the tray cost, etc., deducting for the number of prints that could be made before exhaustion with the same solution, etc. It isn't going to work that way, if that was what you meant. I wonder what you are offering for the time it took to make a fine print? If I have misunderstood your offer -- certainly possible given how you phrase it -- then I apologize for that. If you want to, as a tactic, try to scare somebody off by making threats of litigation against your victim, I guess you're free to try that. Good luck. Doesn't work with most people, but you are certainly not the first to try it. And sometimes it works, so long as you don't make the person on the receiving end pretty steamed before you try it. (Oops.)

Your prior posts weren't just "a bit off-handed." You still don't get it. You still have to put "a bit" in front of it because you can't even fully accept that they might have been "off-handed." "Off-handed" means extemporaneous, lacking in premeditation. I'm not sure emails as long as yours can be off-handed. I thought they were numbingly idiotic. Jaw-droppingly inappropriate. Simply astonishing. Painful to read; they make the reader embarrassed for you. I haven't gone back to check but were you not involved in a fake post asking about your own publication? If memory serves that was you. If so, then I add that it was juvenile. Your personality is your worst enemy, either come to grips with how it comes across, and alter your behavior, or have someone else interface with the world for you so it is not an issue.

I do own at least of piece of my firm. If I had lost a client's property I'd fess up the second it happened and there would be no public posts about it. That's the point. (Other than a client saying saying somewhere 'hey, this lawyer lost my file,' which I would certainly deserve.) Giving somebody the run around only (and ALWAYS) makes it worse. (This is such a small community I wonder what on earth you were thinking in conducting yourself this way.) I wouldn't cite my own fine-print property return policy to show that I wasn't yet late in returning it per my own policy, when in fact the prints are never going to be returned since they were lost. The day somebody complained about me, legitimately, I'd make fixing that a priority instead of getting defensive about it. Apologize and send the prints back. Or admit you lost them and settle up. If I strung something out for month after month after month, masking the actual loss of the property with claimed busyness, I wouldn't finally turn around and threaten my victim. That is childish. The damage to your magazine's reputation is self-inflicted. I honestly had never heard of your publication. Based on these posts I now have a very negative opinion of its publisher. What changed my mind? Your words.

And, by the way, I have no problem with your pay-per-view business model, which seems to have bothered some people. If people understand that is how it works, then fine. It's a free country.

[Ben Chase]

Thank goodness this will probably be archived by Google :)

It will be entertaining to read about this later on when Focus magazine "used" to exist :)

And, yes, I got your private message about my work.

No I'm not interested in doing business with your "company".

Cheers :)

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

You owe him the fair market value of his prints, not "the price it cost him to create his prints," whatever that is.

Well, I guess we'll have to see about that. I disagree that I owe him "the fair market value" but that is not up to me. The problem is Mr. Gordon doesn't sell 8 x 10 prints on his website. From what I have seen his prices are too high for the edition size that he offers. These days, editions of 25 are too high and are considered overvalued. His editions are of 50 or higher and the smallest size he sells are 11 x 14. According to his website, the size print he sent me he does not sell.

<quote> I don't know what the fair market value of his prints is; I am sure he does. Find that out, verify it with purchasers if it seems too high to you, and pay it. It's what you owe. It's the right thing to do. If you'd done that the second you realized you'd lost them (and when was that, exactly? just now?) </quote>

As I said, around late Sept. is when I realized I no longer was in posession of his prints. I called him to talk about this, sent him an e-mail to talk about this and he didn't want anything to do with me in e-mail nor did he return my calls. Look, I'm not looking to attack Mr. Gordon, I like his photography... I can understand his anger and frustration at me. If the roles were reversed, I would be angry and fruatrated at the magazine who lost my prints as well...I probably would have come on a public forum and complained. I would not have called his magazine a "scam" though.

<quote> you would have come across as a stand-up guy that somebody would want to deal with. If this comes to litigation, the only thing that will be argued about is the fair market value of the prints. Next time, don't lose the prints, log them in carefully and return them promptly. </quote>

Actually, after looking at the plethora of submissions we received, we decided that it would be easier to take submissions via CD. Other magazines, except LenseWork I think, are using this as well.

<quote> Your idea, reading between the lines, may be that you think you owe the cost of 1/50th the price of a 50 sheet box of paper, a fractional amount of what the developer in the tray cost, etc., deducting for the number of prints that could be made before exhaustion with the same solution, etc. It isn't going to work that way, if that was what you meant. </quote>

This is not for me to decide. This is for lawyers to decide. And if possible, for a court to decide. I don't want to go that route, Mr. Gordon lives on the West Coast and I really don't have the time to go to court.

<quote> I wonder what you are offering for the time it took to make a fine print? If I have misunderstood your offer -- certainly possible given how you phrase it -- then I apologize for that. If you want to, as a tactic, try to scare somebody off by making threats of litigation against your victim, I guess you're free to try that. Good luck. Doesn't work with most people, but you are certainly not the first to try it. And sometimes it works, so long as you don't make the person on the receiving end pretty steamed before you try it. (Oops.) </quote>

It is not a tactic. It is the truth...he has privately and publicly said he wants to damage my business. Laweyrs in NYC are extremely agressive. Listen, I don't even want to talk about this...I don't want any of his money, I don't want to go to court, I just want this over with. I don't think he's a bad guy at all, I understand how he feels.

<quote> Your prior posts weren't just "a bit off-handed." You still don't get it. You still have to put "a bit" in front of it because you can't even fully accept that they might have been "off-handed." "Off-handed" means extemporaneous, lacking in premeditation. I'm not sure emails as long as yours can be off-handed. I thought they were numbingly idiotic. Jaw-droppingly inappropriate. Simply astonishing. Painful to read; they make the reader embarrassed for you. </quote>

Ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. What can I say to counter it? I'm defending myself...I'm not used to being under attack. I'm used to praise as to what kind of a quality product I have.

<quote> I haven't gone back to check but were you not involved in a fake post asking about your own publication? If memory serves that was you. If so, then I add that it was juvenile. Your personality is your worst enemy, either come to grips with how it comes across, and alter your behavior, or have someone else interface with the world for you so it is not an issue. </quote>

On APUG? No, I asked to be removed from there. Non-registered users can't view forums. I didn't want to read any of the posts from there.

<quote> I do own at least of piece of my firm. If I had lost a client's property I'd fess up the second it happened and there would be no public posts about it.</quote>

Ok, but I'm, in public, being honest about this. I feel terrible about this. I respect fine art photographers very much and their work. But in respect to what I would owe one if I lost their work? The cost of the reproduction of his work.

<quote> That's the point. (Other than a client saying saying somewhere 'hey, this lawyer lost my file,' which I would certainly deserve.) Giving somebody the run around only (and ALWAYS) makes it worse. (This is such a small community I wonder what on earth you were thinking in conducting yourself this way.) I wouldn't cite my own fine-print property return policy to show that I wasn't yet late in returning it per my own policy, when in fact the prints are never going to be returned since they were lost. The day somebody complained about me, legitimately, I'd make fixing that a priority instead of getting defensive about it. Apologize and send the prints back. Or admit you lost them and settle up. If I strung something out for month after month after month, masking the actual loss of the property with claimed busyness, I wouldn't finally turn around and threaten my victim. That is childish. The damage to your magazine's reputation is self-inflicted. I honestly had never heard of your publication. Based on these posts I now have a very negative opinion of its publisher. What changed my mind? Your words. </quote>

It counts for nothing that I am admitting that we lost his prints and that I want to make it right with him? If the guy would have called me back a month ago, when I realized his prints were lost, we could have resolved this a month ago.

[TLGG1]

"There seems to be some kind of intent to damage Focus magazine's reputation."

I have been following this topic also and must say that you have done a fine job of it Spivey!

It would have been so simple to come on at first and say "I will return the portfolio immediately" and, since he included return postage, called the Post Office to come and pick up the pre-stamped envelope/package from your office. Those of us in the sticks can do it so why not you big city know-it-alls?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

On APUG? No, I asked to be removed from there. Non-registered users can't view forums. I didn't want to read any of the posts from there.


See, if you are going to lie you should keep track of your lies. Here is the thread where you posed as someone else to generate interest in you rag. Like every other post you make, it just backfired on you...... Oh, and by the way you did not "asked" to be removed, you were banned. Too bad though, you are your worst enemy, if you had kept posting on APUG you would have pissed more people than you have here...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15470

[Brian K]

Sorry to hear of this situation. As it stands this is lose/lose. What Michael can expect to collect is not going to be $5000 for his prints. At most he's going to get what he would sell those for and that's only if he has actually had enough sales of his work to justify his print asking price. After all anyone can ask whatever they want for their prints, but if nobody ever buys them at that price there is no real established value.

Assuming that Michael actively sells his prints unmounted for $200 each, for an 11x14, and assuming that a Judge doesn't notice that the print price relates to print size and doesn't reduce the print value based on that, Michael at most can expect to collect $2400. He will of course have legal expenses that will take away a large chunk of that. Also he may not find a lawyer willing to spend many hours on this for 1/3 or a half of $2400. He may have to pay an hourly rate. He does also face the possibility that a Judge may think that a digital print only requires that one hit "command P" to produce and may think that even $200 a print seems unreasonable. The fact that a digital file exists and these prints are readily reproducible may factor into his thinking. Nothing in the legal system is a slam dunk, funny things happen in courts. He may only end up with the cost of materials.

I have been through the legal procedures enough to know that there will be a huge amount of time spent and an incredible amount of aggravation. The fact that Michael is in CA and Focus I think is in NY makes legal action that much more complicated and burdensome. Believe me the $1200- 1500 that you may end up with will cost you in many ways. Is that kind of money worth all the time you'll need to spend and all the legal crap you'll have to go through? While I can understand the anger that Michael must be experiencing, and Focus' loss of his prints, and many subsequent replies are inexcusable, going to court will only drag out this aggravation, possibly for years if there is a countersuit for any alleged defamation of Focus magazine that moves it out of the realm of small claims court.

My personal advice, Michael drop the suit in exchange for Focus magazine giving you what you originally asked for, exposure. Focus magazine on it's end will need to give you considerably more exposure, maybe a year or two of ads or articles. Try to put aside the personal aspect of it and look at it as business. What is to be gained at what cost. I see this as the only win/win option.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Sorry to hear of this situation. As it stands this is lose/lose. What Michael can expect to collect is not going to be $5000 for his prints. At most he's going to get what he would sell those for and that's only if he has actually had enough sales of his work to justify his print asking price. After all anyone can ask whatever they want for their prints, but if nobody ever buys them at that price there is no real established value.

Assuming that Michael actively sells his prints unmounted for $200 each, for an 11x14, and assuming that a Judge doesn't notice that the print price relates to print size and doesn't reduce the print value based on that, Michael at most can expect to collect $2400. He will of course have legal expenses that will take away a large chunk of that. Also he may not find a lawyer willing to spend many hours on this for 1/3 or a half of $2400. He may have to pay an hourly rate. He does also face the possibility that a Judge may think that a digital print only requires that one hit "command P" to produce and may think that even $200 a print seems unreasonable. The fact that a digital file exists and these prints are readily reproducible may factor into his thinking. Nothing in the legal system is a slam dunk, funny things happen in courts. He may only end up with the cost of materials.

I have been through the legal procedures enough to know that there will be a huge amount of time spent and an incredible amount of aggravation. The fact that Michael is in CA and Focus I think is in NY makes legal action that much more complicated and burdensome. Believe me the $1200- 1500 that you may end up with will cost you in many ways. Is that kind of money worth all the time you'll need to spend and all the legal crap you'll have to go through? While I can understand the anger that Michael must be experiencing, and Focus' loss of his prints, and many subsequent replies are inexcusable, going to court will only drag out this aggravation, possibly for years if there is a countersuit for any alleged defamation of Focus magazine that moves it out of the realm of small claims court.

My personal advice, Michael drop the suit in exchange for Focus magazine giving you what you originally asked for, exposure. Focus magazine on it's end will need to give you considerably more exposure, maybe a year or two of ads or articles. Try to put aside the personal aspect of it and look at it as business. What is to be gained at what cost. I see this as the only win/win option.

I would be open to something like this. We'd have to, of course, work out the details, but I'd be open to it.

[Marko]

I am putting this post in public so everyone can see we have nothing to hide. The idea of twelve inkjet prints being worth more than $5,000 or somewhere even close to it is ridiculous and entertaining while bordering hilarious at the same time.

Well, the perception of value depends on one's perspective and station in life.

It's much like cars - while the used Hunday dealer might indeed find the idea of a car costing $50,000 "ridiculous, entertaining and even bordering on hilarious at the same time", the Mercedes dealer a few blocks uptown might have that very same impression about a "car" that sells for less than $5,000, albeit for totally different reasons.



I understand that some photographers feel they should have their work reproduced for free and those photographers who value that old business model will only reach certain levels in todays market in my opinion. While other photographers, who agressively market themselves will be much better well-known and have an opportunity to make contacts with galleries, book publishing companies, collectors, dealers and other photographers for $357 a page for black and white.

Of course, Mr. Gordon rejected that idea.

Of course.

;)

[tim atherton]

I am putting this post in public so everyone can see we have nothing to hide. The idea of twelve inkjet prints being worth more than $5,000 or somewhere even close to it is ridiculous and entertaining while bordering hilarious at the same time.


Hmmm - you might want to talk to some of those curators you like to interview. I know at least two of them who have bought ink prints for between $3,500 to $10,000....

[Jim collum]

yes, this keeps getting worse and worse. I'll be meeting with most of those curators in Portland at Photo Lucida, and will make sure to point them to this thread.

jim


Hmmm - you might want to talk to some of those curators you like to interview. I know at least two of them who have bought ink prints for between $3,500 to $10,000....

[j.e.simmons]

It's not the words of Mr. Gordon who has damaged the reputation of Focus in my eyes, it's the words and actions of FocusMag. I won't be buying another issue.

As for a new business model, there's nothing new about trying various ways to get artists to pay for publishing their material. I worked in the music business for decades, and there have always been folks trying to get musicians and songwriters to pay for their own publication - something ASCAP, BMI and The American Federation of Musicians strongly disfavor. Focus is not operating on a new business model.
juan

[Brian K]

Guys talking about what Michael wants for his prints is meaningless. If he sells them publicly for $200 each, he can't ask someone who loses prints for a price of $416. each. So the talk of ink jets going for $3500 to 10,000 has no application here.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

OTOH if he has documentation that he has sold a print for more that is all he needs to get more. I thought this was a case for small claims courts, no need to get lawyers involved. OTOH I do think Spivak should pay something, you mention working something out. What is there to work out? the guy lied for months and finally fessed up he lost the prints. Would you send another set of prints to him if you were in Michael's shoes? At this stage IMO trying to work something out is only an opportunity for a greater disaster. If Spivak had confesed he lost the prints at the beguinning I think MIchael would have been more amenable to work something out. 6 months later, after all the BS spivak wrote, it is understandable that MIchael is pissed and wants money for his prints.




Guys talking about what Michael wants for his prints is meaningless. If he sells them publicly for $200 each, he can't ask someone who loses prints for a price of $416. each. So the talk of ink jets going for $3500 to 10,000 has no application here.

[tim atherton]

Guys talking about what Michael wants for his prints is meaningless. If he sells them publicly for $200 each, he can't ask someone who loses prints for a price of $416. each. So the talk of ink jets going for $3500 to 10,000 has no application here.

that wasn't quite the point being discussed in the last couple of posts - rather Spivak's general ill-informed and incorrect broad-brush statement that: The idea of twelve inkjet prints being worth more than $5,000 or somewhere even close to it is ridiculous and entertaining while bordering hilarious at the same time.

[David Luttmann]

OTOH if he has documentation that he has sold a print for more that is all he needs to get more. I thought this was a case for small claims courts, no need to get lawyers involved. OTOH I do think Spivak should pay something, you mention working something out. What is there to work out? the guy lied for months and finally fessed up he lost the prints. Would you send another set of prints to him if you were in Michael's shoes? At this stage IMO trying to work something out is only an opportunity for a greater disaster. If Spivak had confesed he lost the prints at the beguinning I think MIchael would have been more amenable to work something out. 6 months later, after all the BS spivak wrote, it is understandable that MIchael is pissed and wants money for his prints.

Jorge,

I just noticed your new website....looks great.... nice and clean. Are you able to repost the images with less JPG compression? They look quite blocky and don't do the work its real justice.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

I just noticed your new website....looks great.... nice and clean. Are you able to repost the images with less JPG compression? They look quite blocky and don't do the work its real justice.

See, that is the think about the internet depending on the monitor, browser used the images can look good or not. In mine they look fine and very clean. Did you look just at the thimbnails or did you clik on any image? If you clik on any thubmnail you get a bigger version, I hope that would help!

Thanks anyhow for the nice comments, the web site is all Kevin Saitta's work with his integrated management software.

[PViapiano]

Jorge,

I think David is referring to the JPG artifacts on many of your photos, if you look closely enough. I checked out one of your large images and it clocks in at around 27k. You can really post a much higher quality JPG (in the neighborhood of 200k-400k, depending on the physical size of the photo) and it will look much, much better...and don't worry about the hit on download speed to the user's browser. Most everyone is on a broadband connection these days...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

I think David is referring to the JPG artifacts on many of your photos, if you look closely enough. I checked out one of your large images and it clocks in at around 27k. You can really post a much higher quality JPG (in the neighborhood of 200k-400k, depending on the physical size of the photo) and it will look much, much better...and don't worry about the hit on download speed to the user's browser. Most everyone is on a broadband connection these days...

Thanks, I will try that.

[QT Luong]

From what I have seen his prices are too high for the edition size that he offers. These days, editions of 25 are too high and are considered overvalued. His editions are of 50 or higher and the smallest size he sells are 11 x 14.

My 8x12 are offered for $150 bare (based on surface, a 11x14 would be $240). The fact that I have sold close to two hundreds seem to indicate that the price is reasonnable. Those prints are issued in open edition. Moreover, I explicitly target the "decor" market. I would think that the collector market (isn't it the focus of Focus ?) would pay more than that. Or is there something I don't understand about pricing ?

[robc]

I wonder how many other photographers photgraphers images were "lost" in the move.
Perhaps teaming up with them would make the legal costs much less per person. Or was it just this one portfolio that mysteriously went missing during the move? That would be rather curious wouldn't it.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I wonder how many other photographers photgraphers images were "lost" in the move. Perhaps teaming up with them would make the legal costs much less per person. Or was it just this one portfolio that mysteriously went missing during the move? That would be rather curious wouldn't it.

I appreciate the interest in this matter, however; Mr. Gordon has made a settlement offer, which we accept. As soon as everything else is agreed upon, Mr. Gordon will be renumerated his asking price for the twelve 8 x 10 inkjet prints.

As I said, I wanted to do the right thing here. Giving him his asking price for his lost prints, I feel, is the right thing.

[jnantz]

michael

thanks for bringing this whole thing to light.
i hope it doesn't take as long to get your check,
as it did to learn your work was lost ...

john

[robc]

Pity it took the threat of legal action to make you do the right thing but then considering that you previously signed up to the list with a false identity with the sole intention of decieving the entire list, then its obvious to everyone that you really couldn't care about doing the right thing unless you're forced to.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Pity it took the threat of legal action to make you do the right thing but then considering that you previously signed up to the list with a false identity with the sole intention of decieving the entire list, then its obvious to everyone that you really couldn't care about doing the right thing unless you're forced to.

That is simply not true at all.

If you would have taken the time to read my posts, you would have seen that the day I found out about the lost prints, I called Michael and asked him to call me back. Not only that, but I had my assistant Jennifer and one of my salespeople Erica E-mail him. I E-Mailed him, my assistant E-Mailed him and I called him and left a message. Somehow, by some kind of magic, he never got my e-mails or voice-mails. I have two different Vonage phone records for two different phone numbers plus my cell phone records and e-mail records that prove all of this.

I'd say about two weeks later, he e-mailed me back after I sent out a newsletter asking for the return of his portfolio. At this time, I was preparing for my exhibition at Photo NY, so I had no time to do anything else for the magazine, not even work on my overdue December issue, but I still found time to call him yet again and leave yet another message for him to call me back regarding his portfolio.

By the time Photo NY was over, I received a letter from his lawyer. There is almost zero chance that any judge would order us to give him anything more than the cost of the materials to create his prints. He offered us a fair retail price for his 8 x 10s and we accept, not because we were forced to, which believe me we were not, but we wanted to do what we felt was the most right thing to do. It is a photographers work we lost, not some piece of paper with ink on it. We felt we owed it to him and as soon as the final details are agreed upon, he will receive his check for the amount he asked for without ANY negotiation on the price by us.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

There is almost zero chance that any judge would order us to give him anything more than the cost of the materials to create his prints.

:rolleyes:

[Marko]

That is simply not true at all.

If you would have taken the time to read my posts, you would have seen that

(...)



The only thing that can be seen from your posts is that writing them took at least double the time than it would have to pack the photos, drive to the post office and then back. Maybe even write an email about it. That's assuming that the post office is really far away.

You know, if you put your foot in your mouth, you'd achieve double the benefit - you'd move it away from your gun AND you'd prevent your mouth from working.

:rolleyes:

[Capocheny]

We felt we owed it to him and as soon as the final details are agreed upon, he will receive his check for the amount he asked for without ANY negotiation on the price by us.

Mr. Spivak,

I, for one, am pleased to see that you are stepping up to the plate to settle this most unfortunate situation. Furthermore, I'm please to see that you recognize that you owe this to Mr. Gordon.

So, in keeping with the spirit of your comment above, I would assume that you would also be covering Mr. Gordon's incurred legal expenses?

IMHO, this would really be "the ethically correct thing to do."

Cheers

[j.e.simmons]

Somehow, by some kind of magic, he never got my e-mails or voice-mails.
:D

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Mr. Spivak,

I, for one, am pleased to see that you are stepping up to the plate to settle this most unfortunate situation. Furthermore, I'm please to see that you recognize that you owe this to Mr. Gordon.

So, in keeping with the spirit of your comment above, I would assume that you would also be covering Mr. Gordon's incurred legal expenses?

IMHO, this would really be "the ethically correct thing to do."

Cheers

I do not know what Mr. Gordon is asking for each indidivudal print and I do not know the status behind the people who "represented" him. I know one figure that Mr. Gordon asked for and that is, with a few other details agreed upon by Mr. Gordon, what we will agree to. I don't know too many law firms in Illinois that will do anything with a client in Long Beach, CA to talk to a business out of New York City for something less than $1000. I assume this was a friend or family member. Either way, Mr. Gordon gave us an offer and we accept it based upon a few conditions that are being worked on by our two lawyers. After that, Mr. Gordon and I will have no further business with each other and we will wish him luck in his endevour to sell his fine art photography.

[Kevin Crisp]

Mr. Spivak: You did the right thing and announced it with a professional email. Now be quiet. The thread will die unless you feel a self-destructive need to prolong it with defensive claims about "the cost of materials," etc.

[David Luttmann]

Mr. Spivak,

I, for one, am pleased to see that you are stepping up to the plate to settle this most unfortunate situation. Furthermore, I'm please to see that you recognize that you owe this to Mr. Gordon.

So, in keeping with the spirit of your comment above, I would assume that you would also be covering Mr. Gordon's incurred legal expenses?

IMHO, this would really be "the ethically correct thing to do."

Cheers

Being that Mr. Gordon never returned emails or voice mails, I think the legal fees are his own problem.

[Jim collum]

well, the interesting fallout from this, is if you google focus magazine and Spivak, you get this thread in all it's glory with the title "Bad Experience with Focus Magazine" as the first hit. searching focus magazine and photography will also put this thread within a few hits from the top of the page.

[paulr]

for what it's worth, it's a bad idea to ever send valuable prints as a magazine submission. i don't know about focus, but every other magazine submission policy i've seen specifically states that it takes no responsibility for lost or damaged anything. considering all the ways that a submission can get lost or damaged, no magazine can afford to take on that liability with original artwork.

i learned this lesson the hard way. not having any reproduction prints (or press quality scans of my work) i sent a dozen prints to a magazine that was doing a feature on me. as might be expected of any magazine that choses to do a feature on me, they went out of business before my issue went to press. and the editor vanished.

three years later the magazine was reincarnated with a new name and new editor. against all odds, the new editor was able able to find my box of prints and send it back unharmed (and aparently unopened!).

i got lucky ... the much more likely outcome would have been the total loss of a portfolio that existed in editions of three to ten. when i told my more savy friends about my dilemma, they looked at me like i must have had a head injury for sending original work to a mag. never again!

[Rick Russell]

I too have now had a bad experience with Focus Magazine, which I now deem to bear repeating.

In a posting today, Mr. Spivak made an offer of a free listing in his publication. I responded in what I believed to be a civil manner. The exchange I am referring to is elsewhere in the forum. Following my post on the subject "2007 Guide to Collecting Fine Art Photography", the following exchange occurred via private messaging:




The "fisco" you speak of will be over quite quickly. Rick, you can have your name, phone number, e-mail address, website, city/state, and type of photography you create in one listing. If you want a black and white image to accompony the listing it's $100, if you want a color image to accompony the
listing, it's $200. A listing with no image is absolutely 100% free. If you want an e-mail or something else with 100% legal guarantee that the listing is free, I can provide that to you.


Thank you, but no.



Rick Russell

Your loss.

Mr. Spivak,

Yes, in the interest of having the last word it is my loss. Or perhaps my gain, depending on one's perspective. In any event, the fact that you have no idea who I am, what kind of photographer (other than probably a large format photographer), or whether I have prints worthy of your magazine, really speaks volumes.

It was my intention (and remains so) to be courteous and civil. In my intial post it would have been quite simple for me to make an incendiary statement, but I chose not to do so.

Photography is a hobby for me, and I am relatively new to large format photography. My day job, unlike some on this website, is as a lawyer, so I am not new to dealing with people who are rude and seek to have the last word.

IF I had photographic images which I deemed worthy of publication I might consider attempting to have them published one day, but presently I do not have such worthy photographic images. Nor do I have a website displaying my work, and therefore no website.

Again, my response, which I thought civil under the circumstances did not merit the snide remark from you. The fact that I know Michael Gordon, and in fact offered my assistance as a lawyer on his behalf to resolve his situation with you, makes your snide remark all the more unfortunate.

The net result of our communications, and specifically the smarminess exhibited by you, is that there now exists one less possible customer for the product you sell. And I will tell everyone I know who might possibly be interested in your publication not to buy it. Hardly effective marketing.

Rick Russell

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Rick, count yourself lucky. See this is how this thing is going to go down. You would send your info for the "free" listing (and we all know there is nothing free in life) and now the used car salesman has your info. Pretty soon you will be receiving spam about the rag, and even worse, the guy urging you to sign up for his "3 issues" feature for more than 3 grand. Since this guy is out to make a buck by screwing photographers I would not be surprised if he then turned around and sold the info to an internet advertising company, resulting in more spam for you....all this for a "free" listing.....like you I am afraid I have to say, thanks but no thanks.

BTW, I forgot to ask, what size was the pictures offered for $100? It is most likely a thumbnail, something I doubt very much is worth $100....


I too have now had a bad experience with Focus Magazine, which I now deem to bear repeating.

In a posting today, Mr. Spivak made an offer of a free listing in his publication. I responded in what I believed to be a civil manner. The exchange I am referring to is elsewhere in the forum. Following my post on the subject "2007 Guide to Collecting Fine Art Photography", the following exchange occurred via private messaging:



Mr. Spivak,

Yes, in the interest of having the last word it is my loss. Or perhaps my gain, depending on one's perspective. In any event, the fact that you have no idea who I am, what kind of photographer (other than probably a large format photographer), or whether I have prints worthy of your magazine, really speaks volumes.

It was my intention (and remains so) to be courteous and civil. In my intial post it would have been quite simple for me to make an incendiary statement, but I chose not to do so.

Photography is a hobby for me, and I am relatively new to large format photography. My day job, unlike some on this website, is as a lawyer, so I am not new to dealing with people who are rude and seek to have the last word.

IF I had photographic images which I deemed worthy of publication I might consider attempting to have them published one day, but presently I do not have such worthy photographic images. Nor do I have a website displaying my work, and therefore no website.

Again, my response, which I thought civil under the circumstances did not merit the snide remark from you. The fact that I know Michael Gordon, and in fact offered my assistance as a lawyer on his behalf to resolve his situation with you, makes your snide remark all the more unfortunate.

The net result of our communications, and specifically the smarminess exhibited by you, is that there now exists one less possible customer for the product you sell. And I will tell everyone I know who might possibly be interested in your publication not to buy it. Hardly effective marketing.

Rick Russell

[Rick Russell]

Jorge,

I don't know the size, it wasn't specified. I do know that based on Michael Gordon's experience, and my dealing with Mr. Spivak, Focus Magazine has no place whatsoever in my future. My loss.

Rick Russell

[Capocheny]

Being that Mr. Gordon never returned emails or voice mails, I think the legal fees are his own problem.

Hi David,

Granted. :)

As a CEO of a corporate entitiy... when we run into situations such as this (which is not often at all, Thank God!) we had our legal fees funded by the other party.

I just hope Michael remembered to calculate this cost of doing business into the settlement!

From an ethical point of view... I think it's only right that Michael is compensated for his legal costs based on the, "If not for... , then... " principle.

It wasn't Michael that caused the need for his legal representation. Therefore, IMHO, he should suffer no loss as a result thereof.

Anyway, FWIW, this is just my humble opinion. :)

Cheers

[RSL]

I hear what you all are saying, but consider this: David has created a potent fine art photography magazine from nothing in a very short period of time and he’s racing like mad to make it grow. It’s already what I’d consider serious competition to Black and White, and if he keeps it up, it’s going to be the top magazine in its field. I agree that it’s sometimes hard to get hold of him, and it sometimes sounds as if he’s disoriented, but I also know that if I were trying to do the things he’s trying to do and had the kind of work schedule he must have, I’d be hard to get hold of and occasionally disoriented too.

Think about it: For roughly the price of a single full-page ad, he’s giving you a five-page spread. Yes, it’s unusual to charge for what appears to be editorial material in a magazine like this, but considering what you get for what you pay, the price is pretty low. I had to think about it for a while before I was ready to shell out the price, but I finally saw that it’s probably the best bargain out there for promoting my work. There are three alternatives:

1. Ads. I suspect that the kind of quarter page ad that runs in the back of Black and White is almost worthless unless all you want is an ego boost when you look at your ad. There’s not enough space to show what you really can do. Of course you always can buy a full-page ad, or even a several page ad, but the price is far in excess of what Focus is charging for five pages.

2. Contests. Well, let’s not kid around. Most contest judges have a specific bias toward a certain kind of photograph. That’s not necessarily bad, but it means that a contest isn’t going to show the range of stuff Focus shows. No matter how good you are, if your photographs don’t happen to be within the judges’ bias parameters, your stuff won’t show. It’s always worth a shot, though.

3. Galleries. You can walk in with a stack of prints and say, “Are you interested in taking any of this stuff on consignment?” But unless you’re on the road all the time, your gallery range is pretty limited, and most of the time the answer is either a hard or a soft “no.” With a magazine like Focus you can reach a lot more galleries than you can in your car, and with a five or more page spread you actually can show enough of your work to let the galleries see whether or not it’s worthwhile contacting you. Furthermore, if you decide to walk into a gallery with your prints, you can take Focus with you to bolster your case.

When you try to promote your work you’re dealing with a messy business. There are going to be lots of disappointments. On balance I don’t think Focus is one of them.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Can't we please let this dead horse go in peace!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...this is either posted by the jerk himself or he paid someone else to do it, same BS different name.....


I hear what you all are saying, but consider this: David has created a potent fine art photography magazine from nothing in a very short period of time and he’s racing like mad to make it grow. It’s already what I’d consider serious competition to Black and White, and if he keeps it up, it’s going to be the top magazine in its field. I agree that it’s sometimes hard to get hold of him, and it sometimes sounds as if he’s disoriented, but I also know that if I were trying to do the things he’s trying to do and had the kind of work schedule he must have, I’d be hard to get hold of and occasionally disoriented too.

Think about it: For roughly the price of a single full-page ad, he’s giving you a five-page spread. Yes, it’s unusual to charge for what appears to be editorial material in a magazine like this, but considering what you get for what you pay, the price is pretty low. I had to think about it for a while before I was ready to shell out the price, but I finally saw that it’s probably the best bargain out there for promoting my work. There are three alternatives:

1. Ads. I suspect that the kind of quarter page ad that runs in the back of Black and White is almost worthless unless all you want is an ego boost when you look at your ad. There’s not enough space to show what you really can do. Of course you always can buy a full-page ad, or even a several page ad, but the price is far in excess of what Focus is charging for five pages.

2. Contests. Well, let’s not kid around. Most contest judges have a specific bias toward a certain kind of photograph. That’s not necessarily bad, but it means that a contest isn’t going to show the range of stuff Focus shows. No matter how good you are, if your pho

tographs don’t happen to be within the judges’ bias parameters, your stuff won’t show. It’s always worth a shot, though.

3. Galleries. You can walk in with a stack of prints and say, “Are you interested in taking any of this stuff on consignment?” But unless you’re on the road all the time, your gallery range is pretty limited, and most of the time the answer is either a hard or a soft “no.” With a magazine like Focus you can reach a lot more galleries than you can in your car, and with a five or more page spread you actually can show enough of your work to let the galleries see whether or not it’s worthwhile contacting you. Furthermore, if you decide to walk into a gallery with your prints, you can take Focus with you to bolster your case.

When you try to promote your work you’re dealing with a messy business. There are going to be lots of disappointments. On balance I don’t think Focus is one of them.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

LOL...this is either posted by the jerk himself or he paid someone else to do it, same BS different name.....

Or this is a satisfied client of mine who you've asked for to come onto forums such as these to tell us all how they feel about being in the Photographer Marketing Package. Go ahead, download the preview, see his photography.

www.focusmag.info/dec06preview.pdf

[lee\c]

LOL...this is either posted by the jerk himself or he paid someone else to do it, same BS different name.....

Jorge,

my bs detector is going off and I can't get it to stop.

lee\c

[Jim collum]

well, i downloaded the dec. issue, and RSL is RS Lewis, and has a portolio in that issue.. so that sounds legit.

jim

[Gordon Moat]

So perhaps R.S. Lewis is an example of a potential advertiser in this directory. A quick look reveals a retired life-long amateur photographer looking to sell some fine art photographic prints. I suppose if someone wants to make some extra income on the side from their photographic endeavours, then advertising is one way to do that. Getting your work out in front of more people might result in some sales, or maybe requests to display your work in a gallery. If you live outside a major city, or don't want to deal with the work involved in directly contacting potential galleries, then advertising might be a choice.

A glance through the preview shows some nice work, some very random organization in some ways, and some of what I feel is a bit mundane. I remain unconvinced that this is a path to fine art photography success and riches, though judging by nearly every accounting I have seen of fine art photographers incomes, I don't think there is much that could be done to improve the situation. So Focus Magazine remains a choice, but to what purpose and how effective? Sell a few prints to pay your expenses and maybe some of your cost of gear and taking photos?

I seem to find more people making money off others trying to do fine art photography than I do those involved in it. The people creating these works seem to be having quite a rough time, judging by a vast array of comments. Expressing and sharing a creative vision is a noble endeavour, but why do I get this bad feeling everytime I read about someone making money off the people trying to pursue and express their creative vision? Anyone else ever feel this way?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Gordon Moat]

Another thought in this: fine art is advertised in many publications outside of photography magazines. In fact many of those can be in other areas of the newsstand. Pick up a copy of Robb Report, or several of the fine architectural magazines, and you can find examples of fine art, or advertisements for galleries or fine artists (not strictly photography). If someone was going to gamble on advertising, hoping for some monetary return, why not investigate these other choices?

Even a year long listing in the Fine Art category at WorkBook.com might be another choice. There are also new card sized advertising sections in CommArts, geared towards photographers or illustrators, and not strictly for those interested in commercial work.

In the end, those who spend on advertising fine art are taking a gamble on improving their return on investment. Focus Magazine is far from the only choice in advertising. I hope this makes a few people think about choices more, and maybe helps someone.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Jim collum]

Getting work in front of gallery owners is more of a battle than creating the work. I'm currenlty represented by the Susan Spiritus Gallery, and have talked to her, and MV Swanson (a photo fine art marketting consultant) about the whole process.. do's and don'ts, etc.

The default answer from most of the galleries is "we're not accepting new work at this time". (although you can frequently view new work appearing on their web page). Cold calls typically result in the opposite.. a very unprofessional view of the photographer... as do unsolicted portfolio's. So far, the main way of getting attention is through portfolio reviews (most of the gallery owners, curators and publishers do the reviewing), winning some of the bigger photographic 'contests' (Photo Santa Fe, International Photo Award, PDN's various venues, etc).

B/W magazine was a dominant magazine used by galleries to view new work, and from talking to a couple of the galleries, Focus is starting to fit into this role as well (especially for color work)

jim

[robc]

Why not just put a web site and email the galleries a link to your website. That way you get to pick the galleries that interest you and cut out the hassle of dealing with a very low circulation rag.

Where the idea that a magazine is the answer to "fine art photographers" dreams comes from I have no idea ;)

[Jim collum]

Why not just put a web site and email the galleries a link to your website. That way you get to pick the galleries that interest you and cut out the hassle of dealing with a very low circulation rag.

It's the rare email that gets noticed, and even rarer that is followed to a web page. The best chance you have to get work noticed is to have it referred by either another gallery (chicken and egg sort of problem), or to have someone represented by that gallery bring your work to their attention.

most emails (and they get a *lot* each day), have images you'd find in pbase attached or pointed to.

jim

[Gordon Moat]

I don't understand why someone trying to market fine art photography would not use similar methods as someone wanting to do advertising and commercial photography. Sure, the audience is gallery owners instead of art directors, but what makes the approach different?

I always have to wonder about successful fine art photographers, especially after seeing the pay levels indicated in PDN a few issues ago. Outside of those making an income off workshops, which to me seems more like a business, are there more than a few dozen fine art photographers making a living off selling prints? Maybe the goal for those wanting an income off fine art photography should be doing their own workshops, then they could generate some income?

To Jim Collum, Jack Flesher, or any of the other few successful fine art photographers reading here, how good do you think opportunites are for fine art photographers with very little exhibit history? What level of spending (budget) and time effort would be reasonable to insure some return on investment? Should beginning fine art photographers only look towards doing workshops at some point as a better source of revenues? Thanks in advance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

P.S. - Moderators (or others) please feel free to move this to a new thread, if that would be more appropriate.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

So perhaps R.S. Lewis is an example of a potential advertiser in this directory.

Responding to your post which is something that I hear a lot of from a lot of photographers, is the uncertainty factor. There are photographers who have sold nothing, but received great web traffic. Who knows who will look at the magazine in the future and decide to buy a print? There have been photographers who have said no to me simply because of the uncertainty factor. Is your photography something the readers will like very much and want to purchase? I give a photographer who does color work the opportunity to be in 4 issues, 1 gallery and 3 ads. That's $437.50 per page for 4C work...you cannot find that value anywhere else. And then there are the photographers such as Dennis Mecham, who has sold almost a dozen prints from Focus, nationally and internationally. There are photographers who have advertised their books who have sold dozens of books from us.

The August '06 issue had an order for 12,460 newsstand copies domestic and
international. According to the latest numbers, we sold 8110. That's 8,110
people who now know about your photography that never knew about it before,
plus 1500 subscribers, that's nearly 10,000 people. Plus the august '06 issue had 500 copies distributed and sold at Photo San Francisco and another 500 at Photo NY. That's 11,000 people. For someone who paid $2500 for a black and white portfolio to be exhibited in that issue, they paid 23 cents per person to look at their portfolio.

I cannot promise sales, but I can promise exposure for a value that cannot be found elsewhere.

By the way, Focus will have a very, very limited distribution of our December '06 issue at Photo Expo Plus this weekend for anyone who wants to stop by lightcrafts.com's booth (#282) and stop by to pick a copy up for free.

[Jim collum]

To Jim Collum, Jack Flesher, or any of the other few successful fine art photographers reading here, how good do you think opportunites are for fine art photographers with very little exhibit history? What level of spending (budget) and time effort would be reasonable to insure some return on investment? Should beginning fine art photographers only look towards doing workshops at some point as a better source of revenues? Thanks in advance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

P.S. - Moderators (or others) please feel free to move this to a new thread, if that would be more appropriate.



I'm far from successful.. i'd say i'm just starting to break in (and it's very possible that just starting to break in is as far as one gets). I'd consider someone who makes their living selling their prints (ie Roman Loranc) as being sucessful.

With very little exhibit history, i think the first thing someone should do is find out if their current body of work is something that galleries would consider. Most of these suggestions would be for someone geographically close to the US... i have had no experience talking to galleries outside of here (and if anyone has *please* add comments!!)

I'd say one of the cheapest ways of getting work to the most number of galleries is probably the portfolio review. Make sure the list of reviewers match the target audience for your work. As an example, here photo lucida reviewer pdf (http://www.photolucida.org/downloads/Photolucida_05_reviewers_info.pdf) is a document that has the 2005 reviewers bio and 'wishlist' for those bringing portfolio's. This will give you a good idea of what they're looking for. For any of these events, you should have a cohesive body of work of about 20 images. Cohesive means 20 images you'd hang on a wall that follows some theme (your 20 top images doesn't count.. your top 20 b/w images showing the delta region of California does). You should also bring along a small number of samples (5-10) of up to two additional bodies of work. Prepare these as though your entire photographic life depended upon it. In addition, you'll want to bring marketing material to leave with each person that reviews your work. This should be something that stands out and will make them remember you after 4 days of looking through a couple hundered other portfolio's. If you take a look in the latest PDN issue, you'll see some samples. This will also be a fairly hefty expense (a binder with inkjet prints isnt' going to cut it...).

Photo Lucida, Photo Santa Fe are two of the biggies.. but there are others out there. Aperture magazine has one as well.. (in fact , there's a mini review in Hollywoood, Ca in Dec.. check the Aperture website.. it's only $100 for 20 min in that one).

Mary Virginia Swanson is a photographic marketing consultant, who also has a book, that every photographer trying to enter that market should have http://www.mvswanson.com/ . It's cheap, and she update's it every year. This will list deadlines for all the portfolio reviews, when specific galleries have a call for entries, publishers, etc. A private consultation with her is also well worth the money. She'll give you honest feedback about your work, and discuss a business plan on how to get from point a to b (or even let you know if you should be trying to get to point b).

hmmm. there's more.. i'll add some later.

jim

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

All of your ideas are good ideas and all of the magazines you spoke of are fantastic magazines. However, the reason why there are new, niche publications on newsstands today is because there is a need for them. Look at some of the more famous magazines, Art in America, Art on Paper, ArtForum, etc. They are very, very broad based for any gallery or artist to advertise in. When looking at the Trends in art collecting in 2005, (http://press.artprice.com/pdf/Trends2005.pdf), fine art photography played an extremely small role in the market overall. Fine art sold for $4.15 billion last year and out of that photography made up just 2.2%. That shows there's a lot of money in fine art paintings, drawings and sculptures, but compared to those three, photography is nothing in overall sales at auctions.

This is why the major art magazines only dedicate 1 or perhaps 2 issues to photography each year and when I say dedicate, I mean they have one or two feature articles on it.

Looking at the success of B&W, LenseWork, CamerArts and other fine art photography publications (all of which have a much above average sell through rate), there is a demand for a magazine that reaches those interested in fine art photography. Considering the market price for a photograph 30 years ago vs. today, and the number of museums and galleries selling fine art photography, there is a growing demand from collectors of fine art for photography. As far as I know, Focus and B&W are the only two publications whose editorial content is geared towards this, both of our publications are enjoying a great success on newsstands.

Some general assumptions can be made when you consider the readers of both of our publications...one is that there are many people reading our magazines who are interested in buying fine art photography for their home or office or add to their collection. This is direct, targetted advertising that will guarantee you better exposure. What I am saying is that people who read other publications aren't reading it just for information on the market for collecting fine art photography. People who read B&W and Focus most likely are..and if that's not their intention, they'll be reading about it anyway.

I'm sorry, I'm rambling. What I am saying is that if you're a painter and there is a magazine that reaches collectors of fine paintings, then you would more likely be able to sell something or get better exposure in that magazine than a magazine that discusses collecting all types of art.

So, really, I believe and I could be wrong...the two options you have are B&W and Focus. And if you're a color photographer, well, B&W isn't really an option unless you want to convert your color to greyscale.

Anyway, you brought up some good points, I hope your posts generate discussions for photographers who are interested in selling their works. Focus is not for everybody, but I do hope every photographer gains useful information from discussing and exhcanging ideas with each other.

[Jim collum]

There's another avenue for fine art photographers that hasn't been discussed as much here. That's starting your own gallery as a business. I've had no experience with that, and it typcially puts the work outside the mainstream art market (whatever that is). .. but i guess if the desire is to sell images, and make a living doing it.. then this might be an avenue with fewer compromises than mainstream galleries.

anyone out there with knowledge/experience here?

jim

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Getting work in front of gallery owners is more of a battle than creating the work. I'm currenlty represented by the Susan Spiritus Gallery, and have talked to her, and MV Swanson (a photo fine art marketting consultant) about the whole process.. do's and don'ts, etc.

The default answer from most of the galleries is "we're not accepting new work at this time". (although you can frequently view new work appearing on their web page). Cold calls typically result in the opposite.. a very unprofessional view of the photographer... as do unsolicted portfolio's. So far, the main way of getting attention is through portfolio reviews (most of the gallery owners, curators and publishers do the reviewing), winning some of the bigger photographic 'contests' (Photo Santa Fe, International Photo Award, PDN's various venues, etc).

B/W magazine was a dominant magazine used by galleries to view new work, and from talking to a couple of the galleries, Focus is starting to fit into this role as well (especially for color work)

jim

Don Dudenbostel, who is an example of a photographer who did not sell anything with his campaign with Focus, picked up representation from Winter Works on Paper... a very well-known and established gallery out of NYC.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

There's another avenue for fine art photographers that hasn't been discussed as much here. That's starting your own gallery as a business. I've had no experience with that, and it typcially puts the work outside the mainstream art market (whatever that is). .. but i guess if the desire is to sell images, and make a living doing it.. then this might be an avenue with fewer compromises than mainstream galleries.

anyone out there with knowledge/experience here?

jim

I believe craig blacklock does that...he's in a very rural area of Minnesota, I believe. I don't know what his success rate is, but he's been around for a while.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Why not just put a web site and email the galleries a link to your website. That way you get to pick the galleries that interest you and cut out the hassle of dealing with a very low circulation rag.

By the way, our next issue will have a circulation of 17,500 with our continued expansion into Europe. Our last three issues have had around 15,000. "Very low circulation" would be something of less than 5,000.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I doubt that very much, given this is a person with only one post and most of what this person wrote is bullshit. As much as I am sure you would want it to be true, your rag is not even close to be competition for B&W. The prices this person talks about are far from true, I know I advertise with B&W. The rest is all a nice deflection to try and make people forget all you are doing is taking advantage of photographers by attempting to scam them into your 3 month BS. So, nope I dont need to download your preview, I have no interest in knowing how you plan to try and scam me or any other photographers.


Or this is a satisfied client of mine who you've asked for to come onto forums such as these to tell us all how they feel about being in the Photographer Marketing Package. Go ahead, download the preview, see his photography.

www.focusmag.info/dec06preview.pdf

[tim atherton]

Getting work in front of gallery owners is more of a battle than creating the work. I'm currenlty represented by the Susan Spiritus Gallery, and have talked to her, and MV Swanson (a photo fine art marketting consultant) about the whole process.. do's and don'ts, etc.

jim

If I'm not mistaken MVS recommends not using the term fine aret photography on your road to success

[Jim collum]

If I'm not mistaken MVS recommends not using the term fine aret photography on your road to success


correct.. but that's what's been used during this discussion.

personally, i sell photographic prints... normally platinum prints, as the terms i use. if i happen to sell inkjet, then they're inkjet prints.

if the label 'fine art' is ever applied.. then someeone else would be doing that (and, if i recall, that's another *long* thread somewhere on this forum :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well folks, here is a personal message from our good friend the sleazy used car salesman.

orge, stop posting your bullshit about Focus magazine being a scam or you will receive a cease and desist letter from my attorney. You are not posting a fact, you are not even posting the truth. Focus magazine is reputable publication that serves the fine art photography community and has given every single advertiser what it has promised them. If you attempt to damage the reputation of Focus magazine again, you will suffer the consequences. This is not a threat, this is the truth.

Apparently I am supposed to post facts when he only posts fiction and BS. Well, I wish him and his lawyer well, I have one pretty good myself. Of course, if I get sued I will also sue, maybe Michael and I will meet in NY....LOL....

[tim atherton]

By the way, our next issue will have a circulation of 17,500 with our continued expansion into Europe. Our last three issues have had around 15,000. "Very low circulation" would be something of less than 5,000.

Okay, different markets for sure, but the circualtion for a small regional special interest magazine in Canada is 30,000

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Okay, different markets for sure, but the circualtion for a small regional special interest magazine in Canada is 30,000

How long are they around?

[robc]

By the way, our next issue will have a circulation of 17,500 with our continued expansion into Europe. Our last three issues have had around 15,000. "Very low circulation" would be something of less than 5,000.

Well anyone with a properly set up website could easily get 15000 visits a month and more and that would be month on month for the year and every year. Kind of puts your circulation into perspective and makes you understand why advertising rates obtainable by magazines have dropped off as advertisers have got wise to the fact. And the web has a huge potential audience compared to any magazine. And as already stated, you can run your own direct marketing via your web site to potential galleries and not assume that people picking something up from a newstand to read on the train are potential buyers.

[TLGG1]

"orge, stop posting your bullshit about Focus magazine being a scam or you will receive a cease and desist letter from my attorney. You are not posting a fact, you are not even posting the truth. If you attempt to damage the reputation of Focus magazine again, you will suffer the consequences. This is not a threat, this is the truth."

O boy, a cease and desist order from a California Liar all the way to Mexico. Hope this tough member of the Bar (legal type, though the rotgut whiskey type might apply here from what we have read from Fukupmag) can make it through the border crossings OK and doesn't get cut to bits by the banditos. Good luck getting a legal action going against a Mexican citizen who calls a spade a spade. Bet Spivey would complain if he were hung with a new rope too.

How can anyone damage the rep of Focus after seeing what SpiveyBoy has done with his posts right here on the forum?

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Well anyone with a properly set up website could easily get 15000 visits a month and more and that would be month on month for the year and every year. Kind of puts your circulation into perspective and makes you understand why advertising rates obtainable by magazines have dropped off as advertisers have got wise to the fact. And the web has a huge potential audience compared to any magazine. And as already stated, you can run your own direct marketing via your web site to potential galleries and not assume that people picking something up from a newstand to read on the train are potential buyers.

I'm confused. What? When I talk circulation, I talk printed circulation, not print run, circulation...the number of magazines on newsstands, given away at shows and subscriptions. The PDF is just for people to view what the magazine looks like...the real thing is feeling the 1.5 pound, quarter inch thick magazine in your hands.

focusmag.info does not have 15,000 visitors per month. Nothing near that as the website needs a complete overhaul and even I admit, the way it looks right now is terrible. I wish I knew someone that could help me with the web design, but I haven't had time to search for resumes.

[jshanesy]

It must be Halloween, since this undead thread ceaselessly wanders the forum chanting "Brains...must eat brains".

Reading it has certainly chewed my brain into mush.

[Marko]

I'm confused. What? When I talk circulation, I talk printed circulation, not print run, circulation...the number of magazines on newsstands, given away at shows and subscriptions. The PDF is just for people to view what the magazine looks like...the real thing is feeling the 1.5 pound, quarter inch thick magazine in your hands.

That's an awful lot of trees gone to waste! Despite the circulation.

;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

"orge, stop posting your bullshit about Focus magazine being a scam or you will receive a cease and desist letter from my attorney. You are not posting a fact, you are not even posting the truth. If you attempt to damage the reputation of Focus magazine again, you will suffer the consequences. This is not a threat, this is the truth."

O boy, a cease and desist order from a California Liar all the way to Mexico. Hope this tough member of the Bar (legal type, though the rotgut whiskey type might apply here from what we have read from Fukupmag) can make it through the border crossings OK and doesn't get cut to bits by the banditos. Good luck getting a legal action going against a Mexican citizen who calls a spade a spade. Bet Spivey would complain if he were hung with a new rope too.

How can anyone damage the rep of Focus after seeing what SpiveyBoy has done with his posts right here on the forum?

Yeah, besides I will love to get his lawyer's letter so my lawyer can tell him all about the bait and switch scam this guy has going on. Shame I am not in the US, I would have loved to take this one to court and get some money out of this bufoon.....

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Yeah, besides I will love to get his lawyer's letter so my lawyer can tell him all about the bait and switch scam this guy has going on. Shame I am not in the US, I would have loved to take this one to court and get some money out of this bufoon.....

Come on, Jorge. If you're going to say something say it in full instead of beating around the bush. Either be a man and tell everyone here what you feel is a scam, or shut up. Present to us in detail what you feel we bait photographers with and then switch them on. Or is this just another one of your stupid little tactics that you'll wind up paying for in court? I'm serious about this, Jorge, shut up or you WILL be hearing from an attorney.

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . .

I cannot promise sales, but I can promise exposure for a value that cannot be found elsewhere.

. . . . . .

See, now that's where I respectfully disagree with you. Perhaps you feel that you have some unique combination, which I would grant you as possible. However, a trip to any Barnes & Noble or Border's Books will reveal many art publications, some quite noteworty to art buyers, though not always specifically photography. While you might only consider the photography publications, I would imagine an art collector would be looking at the art publications. Art on Paper is one such publication.

As for me and what I do in photography, my fine art exhibiting has been to build an exhibit history to get into a Master's Degree program. I sell enough to pay for my efforts, have many juried exhibits in my current history, and managed to get three awards for my work. However, my emphasis is on commercial imaging. An marketing efforts I put towards commercial imaging will be a better investment than trying to push my fine art. Besides, if I really wanted to push my fine art, I would be working more at getting my paintings noticed. No offence intended.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Jim Collum,

Just noticed your reply, since I was reading in line and in order on this thread. I also notice that Kirk Gittings has just launched a newer dedicated thread on this, so i will move over to that one for further discussion. Thanks for the comments.

Ciao!

Gordon

[QT Luong]

I believe craig blacklock does that...he's in a very rural area of Minnesota, I believe. I don't know what his success rate is, but he's been around for a while.

If you are trying to go this route, better try to look at Tom Mangelsen, Peter Lik, Ken Duncan, etc... as models.

[Michael Gordon]

I refer you to this thread (http://tinyurl.com/y9ov9u).

For those who have been following this thread with interest, I am reporting a conclusion. Recall that thread was the result of David Spivak/Focus Magazine refusing to return my prints to me in a reasonable time frame, and later informing me that my prints had been lost.

After having reached an agreement wherein Spivak agreed to pay and I agreed to accept a particular sum in exchange for his having lost my prints, Spivak later conditioned payment of the settlement amount upon my issuing a public apology to Focus Magazine on both the LF forum and photo.net for allegedly libelous statements I made on those forums, which he asserts have harmed Focus Magazine. I have made no libelous statements about Mr. Spivak/Focus Magazine, and therefore will issue no apology. The irony of the matter is that on October 22, after receiving initial communication from my lawyer, Mr. Spivak left me a lengthy voice mail suggesting that we "be men about this; let's be adults about this".

I was going to push forward with this and pursue compensation in small claims court, but I have been advised by others much wiser than myself to let it go and move on. My time is valuable, and I have already given too much of it to David Spivak.

[chris jordan]

Referring back to my lawyer days: one of the legal requirements for a statement to be libelous is that it must be untrue. Opinions are neither true nor false, and so a statement of opinion cannot be libelous. I have seen nothing in any statements made here, by Michael or anyone else, that looked oe me to be anything other than statements of opinion, so his claims about libel can be ignored. If it were mine to do, Michael, I'd accept the payment (to which you are entitled), and then write an "apology" that would make Spivak regret that he had asked for one.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am sorry to hear you got screwed in the end, but I expected no less from a guy who under the guise of "submit your photographs so we can publish them" would then do so if you agree to pay him, typical bait and switch scam! If your prints were good enough to publish if you paid him, then why not publish your print in at least one issue for no pay. His magazine relies on photographer's work, for him to try and scam the people that make the content of his magazine is a low down shame and something that needs to be put out there for photographers to know.

Let me put it this way, I would submit prints to VC before I would to Focus. At least Simmons does not loose your submission and returns the prints in a timely manner, and of course he does not charge you to publish you if he thinks your work is good enough...

[Michael Gordon]

Jorge: as a result of that first thread, Steve Simmons was kind enough to ask me for samples of my work for publishing in an upcoming edition of View Camera.

Thanks for all your support.

[BrianShaw]

Michael,

I'm glad to see that you are concluding this situation. I have followed it with mixed interest and mixed emotion. Sorry to hear that the ending was not equitable.

"Harmed" is a funny concept in this story -- I wonder how many people actually decided to boycott Focus based on your publicity, versus how many looked at Focus for the first time as a result of your publicity and decided (like I did) that they weren't very interested in it anyway.

I look forward to seeing your work published in VC.

[Marko]

Disapointing but unsurprising.

Well, the good news is that one of you two has kept his face, while the other has put a price on his.

I too am looking forward to seeing your work in VC.

[Brad Rippe]

Michael,

I'm amazed and saddened at the outcome of this fiasco. I thought certainly Mr. Spivak would take the very helpful initial advice from Jorge, QT, Kerry and the others and show some integrity and resolve the matter in an honorable way. Sadly, he made terrible decisions. It's incredibly hard for me to believe he 'lost' your portfolio.
He should be banned from participating in this forum.

-Brad

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I refer you to this thread (http://tinyurl.com/y9ov9u). Spivak later conditioned payment of the settlement amount upon my issuing a public apology to Focus Magazine on both the LF forum and photo.net for allegedly libelous statements I made on those forums, which he asserts have harmed Focus Magazine.

This is untrue. Mr Gordon had put a clause in the agreement, that by signing the settlement agreement, we agreed to release you of any libaility from your words on other forums. This settlement agreement was because we had mis-placed your portfolio, not because of your words and actions on other forums. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You should have taken that clause out and then we would have signed the agreement. You refused to take that clause out, so therefore, we could not accept the settlement agreement.

We felt you deserved a set amount of money to repay you the price you asked of for your portfolio. We agreed to that, but did not agree to release you from any liability. If you would have submitted to me a new settlement agreement, minus that clause, you would have had your money by now.

Whether or not anyone here or even myself thinks what Mr. Gordon said was libelous is irrelevant. The money and the settlement agreement was to repay you the price of your lost portfolio and nothing else. Why did you even add that extra clause in there? So you could go back on here and run your mouth how we're a dis-honest company and not doing what we promised we would do?

This is on the record, Michael. As I said to you in an e-mail weeks ago and my lawyer told your lawyer months ago, submit to me a new settlement agreement, minus the clause and you'll have your money as soon as my lawyer releases it to your lawyer. I'm not promising you or even threatening you that I'm going to go after you, I'm just trying to protect my company.

[Harley Goldman]

Hope VC publishes your images. I would love to see them in the mag.

[domenico Foschi]

I have followed the diatribe in the background when it was happening sometime ago and my outrage for your behaviour,Mr Editor( you'll have to pay me if you want me to name your publication) has reached the limit.
I wish I didn't see your name anymore in this forum, you don't deserve free publicity aimed to the very people toward whom you have been dececeitful.
Your very words exhude disrespect, unethical self interest and they are based on a foundation of deception.
I repeat, I am sorry that you got an anormous amount of free marketing out of this and Mr. Gordon was left with his mouth sour.
Even by knowing that you have gained a bad reputation in this forum and very few members see you favorably, you still show your face, and that speaks mountains about you.
Love,

Domenico

[Richard Fenner]

Enough with attempts at cleverness from both parties. Any agreement should be final and cover the entire dispute, and no apology should be provided by either party (Michael undoubtedly feels Spivak should apologise for losing prints and taking a while to compensate him - Spivak feels he was defamed: apologies? IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!). Afterwards, both parties should shut up about the whole thing. Nobody in their right mind would waste money on a defamation action for anything as trivial as this, and asking for apologies just raises hackles, so let's skip the posturing and end this.

[Brian Ellis]

When two parties reach a settlement with respect to a matter that's been in dispute it's common practice for each to release the other as to all other matters that are or could be in dispute in the future. That's the usual purpose of a "settlement" - to end all disputes between the parties. It isn't always the case but it's usually the case. Using a possible libel claim as justification for not paying for prints you lost looks more like you're inventing a reason for not paying rather than a legitimate concern about releasing a possible claim against Mr. Gordon.

[Kevin Crisp]

I also suffer from a little legal education so let me point out the obvious: If the agreement is bilateral and both sides release each other for everything...and then the photographer goes out and says something defamatory, it would not bar the magazine from suing the photographer for the new disparaging false statement. So the magazine's accusatory speculation on why the photographer would want this particular clause in a mutual release qualifies as "stupid." Where, as here, the magazine has made some threats against the photographer, it would be expected that anyone drafting such an agreement/release would include a clause requiring the parties to mutually give up their claims against each other (even if the magazine's claims are imaginary) up to the point of the agreement. It doesn't mean that the photographer thinks the magazine has done anything but produce egotistical, inconsistent, cringe-inducing blather on the subject of The Lost Portfolio. The photographer might not want to spend any more time dealing with the magazine, should the magazine seriously actually intend to pursue litigation over the content of the prior thread.

[BrianShaw]

I also suffer from a little legal education so let me ...

I'd LOVE to know how Judge Judy (or any other TV or real judge) would resolve this issue, and what "counseling" would be given to the two parties. Somehow I think I know, but don't want to speculate in public.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I also suffer from a little legal education so let me point out the obvious: If the agreement is bilateral and both sides release each other for everything...and then the photographer goes out and says something defamatory, it would not bar the magazine from suing the photographer for the new disparaging false statement. So the magazine's accusatory speculation on why the photographer would want this particular clause in a mutual release qualifies as "stupid." Where, as here, the magazine has made some threats against the photographer, it would be expected that anyone drafting such an agreement/release would include a clause requiring the parties to mutually give up their claims against each other (even if the magazine's claims are imaginary) up to the point of the agreement. It doesn't mean that the photographer thinks the magazine has done anything but produce egotistical, inconsistent, cringe-inducing blather on the subject of The Lost Portfolio. The photographer might not want to spend any more time dealing with the magazine, should the magazine seriously actually intend to pursue litigation over the content of the prior thread.

This settlement agreement is for the settlement of the price of the lost portfolio and releasing Focus magazine from any further liability in the case of the lost portfolio. My lawyer advised me and I agreed, that releasing Michael of any liability would mean that we don't hold Michael responsible for any of the remarks he made in the past regarding Focus magazine, whether they damaged us or not. Michael chose to make those remarks, we did not force him. We are each responsible for the actions we make and there are consequences for each of the actions we make. Michael made some very poor decisions when he chose some words on earlier forums and there have to repercussions for that. Someone has a right to complain about a lost portfolio, but they do not have the right to communicate a statement that makes expresses or implies factual claim that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, group, government or nation.

The two issues are seperate.

[Scott Davis]

This settlement agreement is for the settlement of the price of the lost portfolio and releasing Focus magazine from any further liability in the case of the lost portfolio. My lawyer advised me and I agreed, that releasing Michael of any liability would mean that we don't hold Michael responsible for any of the remarks he made in the past regarding Focus magazine, whether they damaged us or not. Michael chose to make those remarks, we did not force him. We are each responsible for the actions we make and there are consequences for each of the actions we make. Michael made some very poor decisions when he chose some words on earlier forums and there have to repercussions for that. Someone has a right to complain about a lost portfolio, but they do not have the right to communicate a statement that makes expresses or implies factual claim that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, group, government or nation.

The two issues are seperate.

A very important word here: "Factual". As long as his statements were indeed based in fact, I don't see where a case can be made for defamation. Bill Clinton would never have been impeached if you couldn't make statements about people's negative behavior based in fact in a public forum. Ron Wisner would be a millionaire from all the lawsuits he could have filed for people complaining about his poor performance over and over again in public forums. Defamation would be "David Spivak has sex with pigs" if he in fact knew that you do NOT have sex with pigs. Just because it is unpleasant, doesn't make it untrue, and doesn't make it actionable.

[Kevin Crisp]

Until you are smart enough to not tell the world the content of your discussions with your lawyer, you might want to stop adding to this thread.

[BrianShaw]

Good recommendation, but isn't it a bit late for that advise? This issue has been fully aired in the court of public opinion. I seriously doubt that any further discussion will make a bit of difference. But maybe I'm incorrect in that assumption.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

but they do not have the right to communicate a statement that makes expresses or implies factual claim that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, group, government or nation.

The two issues are seperate.

Sorry, but the reputation damage was all done by yourself and your behavior in this forum. So far as I know, Michael did not state anything that was not true, you lost the portfolio, you refused to acknowledged it, once you could not come up with any more excuses you admitted you lost it and then it took the threat of legal action for you to decide to do the right thing, even so you then backed out if your word with this silly excuse. Ad to this your bait and switch scam and it is clear to anybody who has read these threads that you are nothing but bad news to photography...... and photographers who want to promote their work.

You keep this up and I just might start contacting the galleries that advertise in your "magazine" and start directing them to these threads, and yes you are welcome to come to Mexico and sue me....lol...

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I thank you all, especially those with knowledge of the legal system for your help and advice. According to Mr. Gordon, this matter is closed. If he considers the matter closed, we do as well. We wish Mr. Gordon good luck in the future with his photography and hope that his portfolio being published inside of View Camera leads to new opportunities for him in his endevour to make a career out of fine art photography.

By the way, Russ Lewis, who was recently published inside of Focus magazine, is currently being considered for representation at a gallery in New York City. The directors saw his images inside of the issue and think there is some potential there to work with. Russ, I will be in touch with you personally over the next few weeks to discuss this opportunity with you further.

[David Luttmann]

Sorry, but the reputation damage was all done by yourself and your behavior in this forum. So far as I know, Michael did not state anything that was not true, you lost the portfolio, you refused to acknowledged it, once you could not come up with any more excuses you admitted you lost it and then it took the threat of legal action for you to decide to do the right thing, even so you then backed out if your word with this silly excuse. Ad to this your bait and switch scam and it is clear to anybody who has read these threads that you are nothing but bad news to photography...... and photographers who want to promote their work.

You keep this up and I just might start contacting the galleries that advertise in your "magazine" and start directing them to these threads, and yes you are welcome to come to Mexico and sue me....lol...

Opinions aside,

Based upon the readership, gallery and photographer support that Focus receives, I highly doubt anyone could care less what a few people on the Large Format Forum think.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Opinions aside,

Based upon the readership, gallery and photographer support that Focus receives, I highly doubt anyone could care less what a few people on the Large Format Forum think.

Bigger companies have been brought down by public opinion.

[David Luttmann]

Bigger companies have been brought down by public opinion.

True enough....

[Kevin Crisp]

You don't have Russ' email address?

[Capocheny]

Michael,

Sorry to hear about the disappointing outcome... I'm sad to say, though, that this was exactly what I had expected!

I'm looking forward to seeing your images printed in View Camera.

Good luck! :)

Cheers



View every single back issue of Focus magazine for FREE here!

Now, this is worthy of a good, long, hearty chuckle... and outright gaffaw!

I can tell you that (at least) 6 of us here in Vancouver, BC won't be buying your magazine at any time in the near future!

Should have done the right thing!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Focus Magazine? Never heard of it...

[Capocheny]

Focus Magazine? Never heard of it...


LOL... Andrew, psst... that's the magazine that the 6 of us won't be buying in the future! :)


Oh, oh... yes, quite right!

Focus Magazine?

Never heard of it before! :)

Cheers

[Eric James]

Where have you Canucks been:D

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=18633&highlight=Focus+Magazine

...I don't know who to side with in this saga...I'm pretty sure that neither party has been completely honest in this forum...it sure makes for good entertainment though...bottom line: I've never been interested in Focus Magazine...and those View Camera shots better be good:)