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.Originally Posted by FocusMag
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.Originally Posted by FocusMag
This is a fantastic! I've never heard of this before...I'll start doing this when I get back! Thank you, Kelly!Originally Posted by Kerry L. Thalmann
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.Originally Posted by QT Luong
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.Originally Posted by FocusMag
If you genuinely care to rectify this situation, you can get my portfolio in the mail promptly (not on the 25th). Thank you.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.
Michael E. Gordon
http://www.michael-gordon.com
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
Mr. Focus Mag,
You have certainly fornicated yourself as far as readers of this forum go.
Regards,
Let's get this straight, the photographer is expected to pay the publisher? Interesting concept.
So what we see in this magazine is thinly disguised advertisiing instead of editorial? Interesting......
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
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."
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
Bookmarks