magazines, etc. for collectors

[paulr]

we talk a lot here about magazines and websites aimed at photographers, but i'm interesting in checking out wherever collectors go. seems like if you're trying to find your audience, and figure out how to reach them, these could be good places to look.

so there's focus mag. what else is out there?

[Chuck Pere]

Black and White Magazine? At least no talk about cameras and fstops.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You have American Art Collector, but then it is for collectors of traidtional art...that rules out photography..lol....

[Struan Gray]

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

[claudiocambon]

I'm not sure who reads Black and White, but I sense it may be collectors of a more conservative nature. I posted an ad in there about a year ago for my print sale, and got zero response, not even an email inquiry; that's never happened to me before, as I've aways gotten some sort of nibble, at least a question from someone.

The relative appeal of my work and marketing aside, I was left with the impression that its readers may only be buying stuff of a more traditional, even decorative nature. I don't sense that its readers are scrounging the pages of ads we photographers take out in order to pick up prints from new and emerging artists before they become expensive, or rather, they are looking at people's work that already looks like others, be it Adams, Kenna, and such. Just to be explicit, this is my hunch, given my experience, and what I see published.

Photoeye, as a booklist, which is a sort of "magazine", but also the site is a huge draw, I think, which leads me off-topic to this issue: to some extent, I wonder whether or not, outside the gallery system, collectors are to be found to be congregating in any herd size at all where one can market to them as a group. I've had better luck with, for example, non profit photography centers, which attract their own group of collectors at a smaller level.

My sense is that it is better to compile a list of individuals through other means. The unpredictable nature of collectors aside, I also think that markets are fragmenting in a way that makes advertising to groups less effective, as more people are going to more, separate places to look at stuff, creating less concentration in any one spot.

[paulr]

I... I also think that markets are fragmenting in a way that makes advertising to groups less effective, as more people are going to more, separate places to look at stuff, creating less concentration in any one spot.

i've wondered about that too, but thought that it might also be a good thing. if collectors are becoming more specialized, it might make it easier to find ones who could be interested in your work, at least in some cases. you'd at least be able to avoid wasting your time with groups of vintage work collectors, or conceptual work collectors, or whatever.

[Sylvester Graham]

I get the sense that black and white magazine is less for serious collectors and more for serious hobbyists, desperate amateurs looking for exposure (as proven by its multiple contests), and people who just like looking at, not buying, black and white photography.

Sure, there's that little section in there about what's happening at the auction houses in New York, etc... but that mostly just seems to be a flashy report on what the newest record is for highest selling photograph in a certain category. I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone who can afford Steichen's "The Pond- Moonlight" is getting their tips on upcoming artists and auction info from B&W magazine. They probably hire someone to do that.

I find the ads in the back taken out by "emerging" photographers to be pathetic, pointless attempts at exposure. Honestly, the only people they're advertising to are people just like themselves or people who could care less. I'm not trying to rip on anyone, I probably would look just as foolish if I had one of those ads too.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I get the sense that black and white magazine is less for serious collectors and more for serious hobbyists, desperate amateurs looking for exposure (as proven by its multiple contests), and people who just like looking at, not buying, black and white photography.

Sure, there's that little section in there about what's happening at the auction houses in New York, etc... but that mostly just seems to be a flashy report on what the newest record is for highest selling photograph in a certain category. I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone who can afford Steichen's "The Pond- Moonlight" is getting their tips on upcoming artists and auction info from B&W magazine. They probably hire someone to do that.

I find the ads in the back taken out by "emerging" photographers to be pathetic, pointless attempts at exposure. Honestly, the only people they're advertising to are people just like themselves or people who could care less. I'm not trying to rip on anyone, I probably would look just as foolish if I had one of those ads too.

As someone who bought ad space in B&W, I am embarrased to say you got it in one. I am not sure focus magazine is any different, they will feature an stablished photographer, but they charge "emerging" photgraphers to be featured, more of the same as B&W I guess.

[paulr]

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

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

[Tim Hyde]

Three other magazines that most serious collectors would pay attention to are Aperture, Blind Spot, and Contact Sheet--especially and always and most important, Aperture.

In the past decade, auction catalogs and gallery websites have become an important way to stay current, but increasingly the photo blogs are critical. There are a dozen or so photo blogs that seem especially influencial.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

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

There's also photoconnoisseur.net, it should be launching next week. Although, it's not free like ll is... however, one will have to judge in the coming months whether the available content on photoconnoisseur.net is worth the $29.95 for a lifetime membership.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I'm not sure who reads Black and White, but I sense it may be collectors of a more conservative nature. I posted an ad in there about a year ago for my print sale, and got zero response, not even an email inquiry; that's never happened to me before, as I've aways gotten some sort of nibble, at least a question from someone.

The relative appeal of my work and marketing aside, I was left with the impression that its readers may only be buying stuff of a more traditional, even decorative nature. I don't sense that its readers are scrounging the pages of ads we photographers take out in order to pick up prints from new and emerging artists before they become expensive, or rather, they are looking at people's work that already looks like others, be it Adams, Kenna, and such. Just to be explicit, this is my hunch, given my experience, and what I see published.

Photoeye, as a booklist, which is a sort of "magazine", but also the site is a huge draw, I think, which leads me off-topic to this issue: to some extent, I wonder whether or not, outside the gallery system, collectors are to be found to be congregating in any herd size at all where one can market to them as a group. I've had better luck with, for example, non profit photography centers, which attract their own group of collectors at a smaller level.

My sense is that it is better to compile a list of individuals through other means. The unpredictable nature of collectors aside, I also think that markets are fragmenting in a way that makes advertising to groups less effective, as more people are going to more, separate places to look at stuff, creating less concentration in any one spot.

You have an excellent point. The hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people collecting photography out there have tastes so diverging, it's impossible to cater to every single one of them. Each seperate sub-market of a market which is already considered a sub-market (photography collectors are a sub-market of art collectors, which are a sub-market of the affluent market), you can't narrow yourself down any smaller than to reach as many collectors of fine art photography as possible. Of course, you could try to reach collectors of grayscale photography which I doubt there are more than a couple thousand if that.... but I digress. The magazine business is tough, especially since you have to try to do everything possible to reach as many people as possible who each have such different tastes. While there are so many people who have so many tastes unlike the other person does, you have to imagine that besides liking art photography, they have to have something else in common, some other common denomenator.

Being able to attend shows like Photo SF, Photo NY and AIPAD, has helped me get up close and personal with collectors and find out what they want. Also, talking to gallery owners and curators, and finding out what questions collectors ask them the most, has helped me understand those one or two things they all have in common.

The answer is: Very few, if any collectors have any idea as to what they're doing. They don't know if the photograph they're buying today for $10,000 will be worth $1 million tomorrow, or just the opposite. Very few, if any, understand why the photographs that have sold for millions (except for Steichen) have actually sold for millions and why the greats, such as Bernhard, Weston, Adams, etc. aren't having their works sold for millions. This is why photograph magazine was so well-received when it launched; because it offered monthly exhibition listings, and general information that you'd have to scour dozens, if not hundreds of websites to find the same kind of information. Collectors want to learn and need a guide to help them navigate the waters of this volatile market. It is a goal that I am constantly trying to achieve. I'm not sure B&W set out with the same goal in mind and I feel that photographers are what's keeping B&W in business -- not collectors.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

As someone who bought ad space in B&W, I am embarrased to say you got it in one. I am not sure focus magazine is any different, they will feature an stablished photographer, but they charge "emerging" photgraphers to be featured, more of the same as B&W I guess.

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

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

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

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

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

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

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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

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

Correction:

http://focusmag.info/submissions/

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

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

[Tim Hyde]

Focus Mag:

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

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

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

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Focus Mag:

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

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

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

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

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Correction:

http://focusmag.info/submissions/



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


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

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

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

[Doug Howk]

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

[Sylvester Graham]

What a quote-fest!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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



My negativity stems from the idea that there is a conflict of interest between being "selective" and accepting the money. Other magazines like VC, Silvershotz and Lenswork are also as selective yet they do not charge or in the case of Lenswork pay a nominal fee to the photographer to publish their work.

You pride yourself and have based your magazine on the idea that you have the knowledge and the inside track on collecting photography, yet I feel you do a disservice to those very same collectors when all you do is feature stablished photographers whose collecting their work is a no brainer and in fact their prices have risen to such levels that for those who collect as an investment besides liking the work it is not such a good deal.

As someone who supposedly has the knowledge and inside track, I would think you would want to recommend to your readers those photographers/artists whom you consider are the future and/or have the artistic skill to see their work appreciate in value and whose prices for their work are very accesible at the moment. If you have the connections with galleries and shows you imply you do, I am sure you hear of photographers whose work is unknown but has exited the gallery owners/curators. If you hear the same name, 2, 3 times, then why not give the person a break and feature him/her without charging them?

You are not going to become a pioneer and a force in the photography collecting world by featuring and doing the same old articles about stablished photographers that every magazine has done for the last 20 years. Jerry Uelsmann, Jock Sturges, Paul Caponigro, Michael Kenna..... pffft...who cares!?! What else can be written about them and many others like them that has not been written before? You want to break the mold, well then take a chance!

I am still not sure if you really like photography or if this is only a money making venture for you. Yet it seems you are following the same formula many other art/photography magazines are using, namely milk the desperate photographer/artist for exposure and get all the money you can from them.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

*snip*

We will have to agree to disagree, but all I will say is that Focus is still too new to be a money making venture. Right now it is just a labor of love. Hopefully one day, when we are done building the magazine to the point where we want it to be, it will be. And there's no "milking" going on. We put a photographer's work in front of collectors and hope that the collectors will buy the work. If they don't, then it could be the portfolio, the images the photographer and I chose of that portfolio, or the photographer him/herself. Not every single photographer is going to sell or pick up representation. But we give the best opportunities and the highest likeleyhood out of any other magazine out there that a photographer will pick up representation.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Not every single photographer is going to sell or pick up representation. But we give the best opportunities and the highest likeleyhood out of any other magazine out there that a photographer will pick up representation.

This used to be true before the internet and e mail. Now a days the simplest way to obtain representation is to actually contact the gallery, ask them if they would look at your web site and/or if they would accept a cd from you to see if your work fits their gallery.

For personal reasons I have lost some opportunities, but you will be surprised how simple this is. Some say yes, some say no, some say they want to see the work in person before making an assesment, etc. For $2500 you charge for your ad, I can approach at least 300 galleries, if only 2% accept my work that is 6 galleries. If none accept your work then you know you are not ready or your work lacks something, I beleive this is a much more profitable approach and the money better spent than taking out an ad and hoping people will contact me, judging form the results I saw when I took and ad out on B&W magazine I think I am in the right track.

If you beleive I am wrong, then the simplest way to prove it to me and everybody else in this forum is to take a poll from your photographer advertisers and let us know how their sales and representation have improved. The best way to do this so that you are not accused of tampering with the poll would be to get an independent web site to conduct the poll. Aren't you curious to see if what you state is true?

[Tim Hyde]

If you beleive I am wrong, then the simplest way to prove it to me and everybody else in this forum is to take a poll from your photographer advertisers and let us know how their sales and representation have improved. The best way to do this so that you are not accused of tampering with the poll would be to get an independent web site to conduct the poll. Aren't you curious to see if what you state is true?

Gosh. I know we live in the age of transparency, but this is asking a lot. As a good businessman, I'm guessing Focus does these surveys all the time, but he's under no obligation to share the results with the public. We are under no obligation to believe his claims either, but I think they are reasonable. You make a good point, Jorge, about approaching multiple galleries, but these tactics are not mutually exclusive.

[paulr]

If you're in New York City, I would recommend making a trip to the Gitterman Gallery. He has such a vast wealth of knowledge about the market and he's very low pressure on the sales end.

Tom Gitterman is a great guy ... one of the NYC gallerists who's happy to talk to you even if he has no commercial use for your work. I can imagine he'd be great to deal with for collectors as well.

[paulr]

Now a days the simplest way to obtain representation is to actually contact the gallery, ask them if they would look at your web site and/or if they would accept a cd from you to see if your work fits their gallery.

this is what i've done most of the time. it still requires me to somehow choose the best galleries to approach, out of the thousands or tens of thousands out there. i've made my choices based on some combination of recommendation, experience, educated guess, and convenience. but there are lots of ways to miss the best choices.

i have virtually no experience with advertising (besides my personal site, and a handful of gallery sites that are of dubious worth). but i see how it could potentially get my work in front of someone that i wouldn't have considered contacting, or maybe wouldn't even have known about.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

This used to be true before the internet and e mail. Now a days the simplest way to obtain representation is to actually contact the gallery, ask them if they would look at your web site and/or if they would accept a cd from you to see if your work fits their gallery.

Oh you could absolutely try that, Jorge. Of course you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning, bitten by a shark and winning the lottery on the same day than actually having that work out for you. You think you're the only photographer calling galleries all of the time trying to get them to look at your work? No knocks against your work at all, Jorge, as I said it's quite good. But how many other photographers out there have quite good work? The market of art photographers seeking representation is literally made up over 200,000 photographers and that is a VERY conservative number. I believe an estimate used by BG in an old issue of LW is more accurate when he put the number close to 1 million. You're a gallery that's busy with a million and one shows, trying to make ends meet, trying to do this, trying to do that, etc. and you really think you're going to talk to the decision maker of the gallery in one phone call AND get them to look at your website AND get them to call you back AND get them to invite you into their gallery to talk and get to know each other better AND obtain representation from them? Galleries just don't have that kind of time on their hands and they're busy with a billion other things to do. This is sort of the reason that Focus, B&W, Art of Excellence and Masters of Today are doing as well as we are... because galleries can take the time that they have and browse through the pages of any of our respective magazines and if they see something they like, they can contact the photographer and go from there. I know of at least 3 or 4 photographers who've been exhibited in my pagee in which that's worked for and that's a pretty good number considering we've only really been seriously looked at for a little over a year.


For personal reasons I have lost some opportunities, but you will be surprised how simple this is. Some say yes, some say no, some say they want to see the work in person before making an assesment, etc. For $2500 you charge for your ad, I can approach at least 300 galleries, if only 2% accept my work that is 6 galleries. If none accept your work then you know you are not ready or your work lacks something, I beleive this is a much more profitable approach and the money better spent than taking out an ad and hoping people will contact me, judging form the results I saw when I took and ad out on B&W magazine I think I am in the right track.

Jorge, I'm definitely not one to ever suck up to you, but your "marketing campaign" sucked. First of all, you shared your campaign with another photographer. Second of all, the reproduction of your images was also terrible. Your work isn't grayscale or nuetral toned, yet it was reproduced that way. You only bought half pages that were thrown in the middle of nowhere with terrible placement. My theory is, if you're going to do an ad campaign, do it right.

For the same price you paid for a half page in B&W, you could've bought a full page in Focus and actually had your work reproduced in the way it's meant to be seen and you would've been placed in an area of the magazine that is designated for photographers only.


If you beleive I am wrong, then the simplest way to prove it to me and everybody else in this forum is to take a poll from your photographer advertisers and let us know how their sales and representation have improved. The best way to do this so that you are not accused of tampering with the poll would be to get an independent web site to conduct the poll. Aren't you curious to see if what you state is true?

A: I don't have to do that. I think the mark of a magazine that has advertisers that are successful are the ones that repeat their ads. Over 25% of the photographers that have advertised with me have taken out either second Focus Gallery's or full page ads. That rate obliterates the national average of recurring advertisers for niche magazines which is around 8-10%. B: I have nothing to prove to you. We could have a contest on this website whose work is the best work of everyone here and I could give them a year's woth of a marketing campaign inside of the magazine for free and they wouldn't sell a thing. I can also put the guy who won last place in the contest in the magazine for one issue and he'll sell 10 prints. Unfortunately, I have no idea what my readers like and what they don't like. I know what I think is good. Beyond that, there is no way to measure how many photographers will be successful or unsuccessful. As I said, I put your photography in front of the people who are in the market to buy new photography. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Gosh. I know we live in the age of transparency, but this is asking a lot. As a good businessman, I'm guessing Focus does these surveys all the time, but he's under no obligation to share the results with the public. We are under no obligation to believe his claims either, but I think they are reasonable. You make a good point, Jorge, about approaching multiple galleries, but these tactics are not mutually exclusive.

There is absolutely no science to this whatsoever. Let's take a photographer who does AMAZING still life photography. I mean, you look at it and you're absolutley blown away. The shadows and the usage of light in her photography puts her among the best. She worked with many of the greats and personally knew Adams and Bernhard. I know for a fact that her work has not sold yet. It's left me absolutely shocked. I have another photographer whose younger than me and his work is very out there and just completely not what we would publish normally and he actually wound selling a few prints from the same issue. I mean, it's really a risk...all advertising is a risk. The more you advertise the greater the chance you have of selling. Not only that, but I don't judge a campaign a success if someone's sold. I judge it a success if their website has received a huge amount of traffic and they've received inquiries. Unfortunately, some people's websites are terrible and tough to navigate around, other people don't have a method of buying directly from the website and still others have no way of even tracking their traffic...even though there are several useful tools that are absolutely free.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

btw, Jorge. You mentioned a year ago that you contacted "only the best" galleries out there to look at your work for representation. So far, I don't see any galleries representing your work. I guess your method isn't exactly fool proof, huh?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

btw, Jorge. You mentioned a year ago that you contacted "only the best" galleries out there to look at your work for representation. So far, I don't see any galleries representing your work. I guess your method isn't exactly fool proof, huh?

First off, you better back off the sarcasm or I am going to start dishing it out to you, by now you should know I am pretty capable in that deparment. As I said , I lost some opportunities for personal reasons, but how about the late John Stevenson Gallery agreeing to look at my work. This was the best Gallery in NY for alternative work bar none.

One gallery which I approached too soon but although it denied my representation did agree to see my work was the Photography Room. It is clear you have never called a gallery asking them to review your work. You would be surprised how easy it is with a friendly call to get them to look at your work, of course you have to ask to talk to the curator/owner of the gallery, don't talk to the first person who answers the phone. I don't know where you got this idea that it is very hard to talk to the person who makes the desicion, it has never been a problem for me. This does not guarantee representation, but then, neither does advertising in your magazine. The advantage is not only that you can get immediate feedback, you can actually discuss your work with those who have at least some knowledge of the market.

Sharing my advertisement with another photographer was the best I could do, we figured a half page was better than a quater page individually. You might be right about the reproduction style, I don't know how much more effective would be to have the four color ad, methinks it is not that great of an advantage. The ad was placed in the section for photographers, same as it would be with yours.

I think there are a lot of people out there who have great work, I am surprised you make this statement. Hell, have you looked at the work of some of the guys in this forum. Domenico Foschi, Vaughn, Kerik, Clay (well Clay does not count too much since he already has very good gallery representation), Frank Petronio (he does have more to show than just naked chicks), Kirk Gittings (once again, a bit iffy since he does have very good representation but is not a "household" name as it were). Robert Teague does great color work. And this is only from this forum whom I am sure any gallery would agree to see their work if only they contacted them and asked. One guy who is great, has been around for many years, does very interesting work for those who like the "message in a photograph" kind of thing is spanish photographer Chema Madoz, yet we rarely hear about him in the US. If you are not seeing the plethora of talent that it is out there, then maybe there is something worng with your submission scheme.

As Tim pointed out, you are under no obligation of disclosing the success your advertisers have had, but I think it would be a refreshing change and may in fact bring more business for you. OTOH by your response I get the feeling you are guessing rather than having done the survey.

[paulr]

as an aside to all this, i want to mention that getting picked up by a gallery isn't always a great thing, and in some cases can be a disaster. artists have ended up in an exclusivity agreement with a dealer who doesn't make any effort to sell their work, but basically holds a portfolio of theirs hostage. dealing with galleries in other countries from you especially requires a great leap of trust.

a friend of mine was represented by a well known gallery in denver, and had the unpleasant experience of the owner misplacing his work! he went to pick up prints to put them in a group show at a university, and it took the owner a week to find them.

any meeting with a gallery should be a two-way interview, and you should be very careful about the obligations of both parties before signing anything.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Sharing my advertisement with another photographer was the best I could do, we figured a half page was better than a quater page individually. You might be right about the reproduction style, I don't know how much more effective would be to have the four color ad, methinks it is not that great of an advantage. The ad was placed in the section for photographers, same as it would be with yours.

Are you serious? Your photography looked flat, boring and quite un-interesting in grayscale. You couldn't have been happy with what they gave you. I used to use their same printer and I had the exact same problem in Focus until I switched printers.


As Tim pointed out, you are under no obligation of disclosing the success your advertisers have had, but I think it would be a refreshing change and may in fact bring more business for you. OTOH by your response I get the feeling you are guessing rather than having done the survey.

I don't guess. I asked a number of my previous advertisers back about a year or so ago. The number was somewhere in the 30% range, I believe. I don't recall. I haven't contacted my previous advertisers and ask them if they sold in a while. Photographers generally don't have a huge budget and what they do have they spend with me and are unable to do so again for a while unless they make quite a bit of money. I might consider doing that sometime this week, but I would do it on my own and you'll just have to take me at my word.

Honestly, I think this thread has gone on long enough. If I have a chance later this week to post my results, I will. The fact of the matter is that you don't like the idea of photographers paying money to advertise their work in a magazine. Other photographers disagree with you. There is no wrong or right. It's my business model and it's worked for me and I know it works for other magazines as well. What I'm really aiming to do is give photographers an opportunity that they don't have anywhere else. Sure, there are a lot of great magazines, but only one other who reaches collectors and well... and they can only reproduce grayscale photography. I have the right to make money off of photographers who have the potential to make money by showing their work in my magazine. You have your opinion, you're entitled to it. I have mine, I'm entitled to it.

Btw, I just hired the assistant director of the original Witkin Gallery as a colmnist and writer. She joins Stephen Perloff, who is world renowned for his expertise in the field of collecting photography and has two of his own publications the Photograph Collector and the Photo Review, plus the director of the George Eastman House Anthony Bannon, a curator and independent photography consultant known for his expertise in photography John Bennette, a former director of the former Vision Gallery in San Francisco and former director of the Scott Nichols Gallery, a curator of a museum in New Paltz and a teacher at the ICP, plus renowned art critics. I am quite excited about the new opportunities these writers will give us.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The fact of the matter is that you don't like the idea of photographers paying money to advertise their work in a magazine.

Not really, I just wanted to be called what it is.

[IanG]

Jorge

You always speak your mind and hold your own in discussions. You have amassed a world of experience over the last 2 or 3 years as you've endeavoured to promote your image making.

It would be interesting and informative if you could share your personal experiences, maybe not in a direct reply but either an article here or something on your own website.

BTW the platinum print has now moved to Asia (Minor) :-)

Ian

[claudiocambon]

Something that some colleagues mentioned to me yesterday is that magazine advertising, to the extent that it will ever work, works best on repeat ads, which I can see making sense. It takes a while for people to see you at all, and then take you seriously enough to go check you out. I think that is hard for us to imagine, as our own work, and the craft of photography in general, is so immediate to us; we are prone to thinking, how can one not notice right away? If one thinks of the things in general that slowly come to one's attention in a magazine, it is probably true that repeat viewings are probably what finally get our attention to something. The problem is, of course, who can afford that?!

At any rate, good luck, Paul, and let us know how Focus turns out for you.

[paulr]

Something that some colleagues mentioned to me yesterday is that magazine advertising, to the extent that it will ever work, works best on repeat ads, which I can see making sense

my friends who are best at promotion capitalize on this in many areas. they realize that the first time someone sees ANY promotional material of yours, they'll be unlikely to form an impression. but the second or third time, they might think, "oh yeah, i've seen that work before." and by the fifth or sixth time they practically consider you a household name.

the trouble is that taking advantage of this requires a kind of relentlessness. it's not easy. my friend anne has a mailing list of over 4,000 people. it includes all her friends, everyone who's ever bought work from her or signed the guestbook at a show or on her website, and who's who of galleries, collectors, and curators around the world. she sends a minimum of one mailing to the whole list every year. it could be a show announcement, or just a card with an image and her name and web address. sometimes she'll send things out more often than that.

i don't know where she gets the energy. she spends as much time maintaining her mailing list as i do working on photography. but the dedication pays off.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge

You always speak your mind and hold your own in discussions. You have amassed a world of experience over the last 2 or 3 years as you've endeavoured to promote your image making.

It would be interesting and informative if you could share your personal experiences, maybe not in a direct reply but either an article here or something on your own website.

BTW the platinum print has now moved to Asia (Minor) :-)

Ian

Thanks Ian, is the platinum printer moving to Asia too? If you are good luck with the move. I am working on it, my experiences, what worked for me, what not and some other thoughts.


Something that some colleagues mentioned to me yesterday is that magazine advertising, to the extent that it will ever work, works best on repeat ads, which I can see making sense. It takes a while for people to see you at all, and then take you seriously enough to go check you out. I think that is hard for us to imagine, as our own work, and the craft of photography in general, is so immediate to us; we are prone to thinking, how can one not notice right away? If one thinks of the things in general that slowly come to one's attention in a magazine, it is probably true that repeat viewings are probably what finally get our attention to something. The problem is, of course, who can afford that?!(bolds mine)

You are correct. I have been told that for ads to work, you have to place them for at least a year. As you said, who can afford that?!?

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

my friends who are best at promotion capitalize on this in many areas. they realize that the first time someone sees ANY promotional material of yours, they'll be unlikely to form an impression. but the second or third time, they might think, "oh yeah, i've seen that work before." and by the fifth or sixth time they practically consider you a household name.

Everyone knows who McDonalds is because they repeat their ads every day. There isn't one TV show that doesn't have a McDonalds commercial. It's truly incredible. In that movie, Supersize Me, they showed how little children could recognize Ronald McDonald more easily than George W. Bush and Jesus.

This is the reason why I crafted our marketing packages for photographers like the way I did. A 4-page gallery in the first issue, and a full page ad in the next two issues, plus an online gallery on photoconnoisseur.net for the legnth of the campaign. The 6 pages turn out to be $416 per page... tell me where any photographer today can reach over 20,000 people for $416 per page and anyone can extend the campaign for the same page pricing, which means for a year of advertising, you'd spend $3750.