The Focus Magazine thread

[WilliamGray]

Your post was unresponsive to the questions I posed, so I will repeat them:

Is there any evidence that paying to have your photographs published in Focus or any other magazine will result in galleries contacting you for representation or collectors purchasing your work? It seems like it would be obvious that the only reason that your work appears in the magazine is that you paid for it to be there.

Perhaps some testimonials from photographers who have paid to have their photographs published in Focus magazine and derived some significant and tangible benefit for doing so would be helpful.

Seems like a great idea. I know nothing about this. The last time an issue of Focus was published was in 2009.

[WilliamGray]

FYI, David Spivak has threatened to sue me if I don’t cease and desist. As long as our statements about him are factual or personal opinion, then we are protected by the constitution. He has flat out refused to offer a refund for my ad in his nonexistent issue and is daring me to take him to court. Seems he’s either lawyered-up or is bluffing ( probably the latter). Spread the word.

Still waiting for you to post the letter Spivak sent you online. Maybe you can talk about how you threatened to hurt his child? You know his kid is disabled right? Go on, please tell everyone how you think $1500 is worth the cost of threatening to go to his house. Or how you used his son's name and said "see you soon." Please, tell everyone.

[Paul Ron]

My role involves managing the controlled circulation of Focus, a magazine with a distribution of approximately 10,000 copies that are distributed to galleries, art fairs, and museums worldwide. These copies are offered for free to collectors who purchase works at galleries, members of art museums, and any interested individuals at art fairs. Since I resumed this position last year, my primary responsibility has been to coordinate with these establishments to secure their participation in this distribution process. We typically send them 40-80 copies of each issue, as was done in the past and will continue to be the case for the forthcoming publications, Issue 19 and Issue 20. Although this distribution strategy results in financial losses for Focus, the publisher believes that offering free copies increases the likelihood of attracting the largest number of collectors to read the magazine.

Look at this stat:

According to the International Council of Museums (ICOM), there are approximately 55,000 museums in the world, but only approximately 26% of them, or around 14,300, are classified as art museums. My job is to get as many copies of Focus to those museums as possible for them to give as gifts to their highest tier members who are often art collectors.

The people on here comparing "advertorial" to what is really called Native Advertising need to up their education in the advertising industry. Native advertising, where content appears to be regular content without any notification that it's advertising, makes up a 2020 60% of all display advertising in the United States. Your favorite website where you get the news from, your twitter feed, your youtube channel, may all be native advertising. Native advertising is a $100 billion market. I got an education on this last year. Most of you guys are traditionalists, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's an estimate somewhere that 20% of all content is native advertising on the internet today.

As far as "pay to play" I'd venture a guess that a lot of the galleries you see at art fairs are having artists photographers pay the gallery to have their work exhibited. "Pay to play" is a lot more common than you think.

Seems like a great idea. I know nothing about this. The last time an issue of Focus was published was in 2009.

and there you have it! all the people that contributed to this vanity press snce 2009 hasnt recieved what they paid for! want to know why so many people are angry? justify that mr gray?

my participation isnt hurting your magazine! you are doing your own damage by trying to justify why its ok to scam people that are invested in your vanity publication.

take this guy to court already!... judge judy or better yet.. peoples court... they will file it for you and fly you in as well as put you up with n a nice hotel. it would be helarios to see this scam get the publicity it deserves.

oh... mr gray is an accomplice or is spivic!

has focus magazine filed any taxes over the years? irs might be interested too.

[Paul Ron]

here ya go... peoples court form to file your case...

https://peoplescourt.com/submit

[Pieter]

Paul Ron, what issue did you advertise in? How much money did you spend? You seem awfully motivated to hurt Focus Magazine.

How can one hurt a magazine that is not being published as promised? If Focus is indeed an online magazine (there are many nowadays), they should be straightforward about it.

[WilliamGray]

How can one hurt a magazine that is not being published as promised? If Focus is indeed an online magazine (there are many nowadays), they should be straightforward about it.

Advertisers know that Spivak is relaunching Focus. Not only has he explained it to him, but people can see that from his website. You guys really gotta stop making yourselves out to be a hero that you're really not. People aren't stupid.

[Paul Ron]

Advertisers know that Spivak is relaunching Focus. Not only has he explained it to him, but people can see that from his website. You guys really gotta stop making yourselves out to be a hero that you're really not. People aren't stupid.

and this is why it has to go to court!

[WilliamGray]

and this is why it has to go to court!

You're not even an advertiser or a subscriber. I truly wonder what vested interest you have other than being an asshole.

[drj52]

You're not even an advertiser or a subscriber. I truly wonder what vested interest you have other than being an asshole.

I'm also neither an advertiser nor a subscriber. Let me enumerate what I've gathered from this thread, which may include some misinterpretations:

1) An individual promised to do specific things if people gave him money
2) People gave him money to do those things
3) He didn't do those things
4) He didn't return the money
5) He ignored attempts to contact him
6) He is now attempting to get more people to give him money to do the things he failed to do before
7) He hasn't done those things since 2009
8) You think people should be OK with 1-8.

Feel free to comment on anything you believe is a misinterpretation on my part.

[WilliamGray]

Individuals or companies gave him money for publication in a print magazine in 2022. This is when he decided to return Focus back to print. Not before that. I do not know of any promised timeline of a return back to print, but it can be assumed that he promised people it would return back to print late last year or early this year. He's a few months behind. There are other issues going on his life that have delayed his ability to get the magazine out by late 2022 or early 2023. I do not know know of any emails that he has or has not ignored. There's also a stiff rule in the contract people signed that there are no cancelations.