Getting published

PWW wrote:
You said it better than me.

But one little point. Actually 99.5% of magazines are really published for
the advertisers, to get their ads in front of possible customers. Very few
magazines can survive on subscriptions alone.

And you do need much more than interesting content. In fact, a magazine
jammed packed with advertisements and have very little good content has a
much better chance of surviving than one with lots of great content and
little or no advertising. Trust me, I found out the hard way, $$$.

I think there needs to be a balance, a magazine that is nothing but
advertising and a lame article or two, will run into another problem,
reader apathy. Advertising rates are based on circulation, a well read
magazine with lots of readers, can demand more from advertisers for
exposure to their reader base. A magazine with few readers, can not
demand the high rates, so they need more advertising pages, to get the
same cash. . It also depends on the market, if there are lots of
magazines in a category and then advertisers run into market trouble,
and need to cut costs, the magazines drop like flies.....

There are a lot more problems with publishing a new magazine too. Up to 90%
fail. Ops... Me too.


Any new venture always needs the ability to operate for the first year
with no income, the second year with income covering 25% of expenses,
the third year with 50%, the fourth year with 75%, and finally 100% in
the fifth year, profitability should be 6 years into the venture. If
you don't have enough cash from investors to operate in the red for 5
years, don't even bother starting the venture, it will fail. This means
if you plan on spending $1,000,000 a year on your venture you need
$2,500,000 available, before you even start.

This is why 90% of all new businesses (not just magazines) fail in the
first 5 years, they run out of money, then the business starves to
death, and the owners end up trying to prop up the corpse, until they
often go under with it.

Paul

On 4/20/04 11:53 AM, in article
"Paul Schmidt" wrote:

I think there needs to be a balance, a magazine that is nothing but
advertising and a lame article or two, will run into another problem,
reader apathy. Advertising rates are based on circulation, a well read
magazine with lots of readers, can demand more from advertisers for
exposure to their reader base. A magazine with few readers, can not
demand the high rates, so they need more advertising pages, to get the
same cash. . It also depends on the market, if there are lots of
magazines in a category and then advertisers run into market trouble,
and need to cut costs, the magazines drop like flies.....

When I started my Magazine there was a relative new magazine that was almost
all advertising. With some Advertorial articles and one or two pretty lame
articles per issue. That magazine is still going strong and has even
prospered very well. It really is nothing but a catalog of advertisers. But
it keeps going. I printed my magazine at the same printers that they did and
I know how many magazines they actually printed and they constantly inflated
their readership by huge multiples, and I do mean HUGE. Even when they were
almost a give away magazine, with tons never looked at. And many people
would never pickup a copy at the bulk drop offs, let alone read it. That is
why I never really tried to sell advertising in my magazine. I just could
not bring myself to lie so much. Almost all magazines inflate their
readership.

There are many trade magazines that are opposite of your model. They have
small readership but charge high rates for subscription and advertising
because they are very focused on a core trade. (Like Magazine Publishing)

Resubscription is always a problem with magazines too. So you always have to
get new subscribers and keep the ones you have. Not an easy job.

Any new venture always needs the ability to operate for the first year
with no income, the second year with income covering 25% of expenses,
the third year with 50%, the fourth year with 75%, and finally 100% in
the fifth year, profitability should be 6 years into the venture. If
you don't have enough cash from investors to operate in the red for 5
years, don't even bother starting the venture, it will fail. This means
if you plan on spending $1,000,000 a year on your venture you need
$2,500,000 available, before you even start.

This is why 90% of all new businesses (not just magazines) fail in the
first 5 years, they run out of money, then the business starves to
death, and the owners end up trying to prop up the corpse, until they
often go under with it.

Well, magazine publications are one of the more risky ventures. Glub...
Glub.... Glub....

PWW

More useless babble and no facts.

On 4/20/04 11:49 AM, in article ,
"nwnp" wrote:

Yup...understood more than I believe you realize, regardless of the way this
thread developed. It was actually a healthy thread more than I think folks
realize and may have actually produced a more positive result than some may
realize.


RWE

"nwnp" wrote in message
...

The real viewpoint being rendered is that the industry is locked up and
controlled by those who got in many years ago and for practical purpose
are
losing controlling interest and their market share due to basic laws of
supply and demand.

You're entire premise is based on a false assumption. The industry is NOT
locked up - not even close. Sure, there are some big names who get a lot of
images published, but it's because they have talent, work hard and have
built large stock files of images people will pay them to use. There are
tons of magazine and calendar publishers (REAL magazines with subscribers
and everything) that are open and eager to see the work of new talent.

Getting published, and getting paid for it, isn't hard at all. Getting
published often enough to make a living as a full time pro is VERY
difficult. No full time pro has to pay for vanity publisinhg to get their
images published. If they did, they wouldn't be a full time pro very long.

This whole notion that you have to pay someone to publish your images is
ridiculous. A few years back, there was a similar notion going around that
if you were a beginner you had to give your images away for free if you
wanted to get published and break into the business. Total nonsense. If
your work is good enough, you WILL get published, and you WILL get paid.
The keys to getting published are really simple:

1) Take some great photos.

2) Send a tightly edited, targeted submission of your best work to a
legitimate publisher.

3) Repeat 1 and 2 as necessary

Do a little homework to identify clients who use the type of work you
produce, get their submission guidelines and start submitting. Believe me,
if your work is good enough, they won't care if your name is Joe Blow or
David Muench, they will use your work amd they will pay you for it.

Even the top pros get rejected on a regular basis. It's just the nature of
the business. Not every publication can use every image that's submitted.
In fact, the ones they use are a very small fraction of what gets submitted.
It's nothing personal, just a numbers game. It's a very competitive
business, but certainly not "closed".

There are always going to be efforts like the one under discussion due to
the closed nature of the market and the fact that the main players
dominate
it and control it as best they can.

Again, false assumptions. There is no collusion between the photographers
and publishers. It is a free market, open to all who are good enough and
willing to work hard enough to compete. Paying someone to "publish" your
images is NOT the stepping stone to breaking into professional photography.
In fact, it smacks of rank amateurism.

A better tactic would be to target regional publishers (magazine or
calendar) in the areas where you photograph, get their guidelines and
submit. Include only your best work, and only work that is appropriate to
their publication. Don't send shots of Maine to a regional publisher in
Oregon. They won't use them, and you've just wasted their time and yours.
Keep your first submission small (20 images is more than enough). Make them
want to see more. These markets don't pay as much as the national
publications, but they do pay, they use lots of images and are amost always
open to submissions from new, previously unpublished photographers. My
first published photo was on the cover of a regional magazine that earned me
$350 - a lot better than paying someone $100 to publish one of my photos.
Similar opportunities exist for anyone talented enough and willing to work
hard enough. There are no short cuts to success.

Kerry

"PWW" wrote

a magazine
jammed packed with advertisements and have very little good content has a
much better chance of surviving than one with lots of great content and
little or no advertising.

Yup:
Double Take, Photovision ...

But some do well:
Granta, Aperture, New Scientist ....

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"nwnp" wrote

Now that's the third time you have popped up after promising to
stay away. Is this going back on your word pathological?

Yup...understood more than I believe you realize,

Probably, you seem to have understood so little to start with.

may have actually produced a more positive result [for my mag]

Unfortunately ... there seems to be no such thing as bad publicity.

OTOH: fools are soon separated from their money and you do seem
to be providing a separation service.

Now keep to your word, go away.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

"PWW"

More useless babble and no facts.

Facts? Facts!

This is Usenet, we don' need no steenkin' facts...

Besides, I think it's against the charter.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

"Paul Schmidt" wrote:

I think there needs to be a balance, a magazine that is nothing but
advertising and a lame article or two, will run into another problem,
reader apathy.

Magazines that are all ads are like the yellow pages: a directory
of business, and some, Computer Shopper, Shutterbug do well (did
well before Fe*** came on the scene).

In Cleveland we have two 'free' newspapers, each claiming to 'Speak
for the People'. The papers are nothing but advertisements
separated by a few articles of foam-at-the-mouth yellow journalism.

I think you can tell a magazine by its advertisers. The end sections
of our free papers are wall-to-wall ads for 'escort services'
- naked women on bearskin rugs who will accompany you to dinner.
Do they take the their bearskin with them at the restaurant?
Inquiring minds want to know.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"nwnp" wrote

...industry is locked up and controlled by those who got in many
years ago...

Naw. The reason you can't get in is you are not good enough:
your work is no good, you don't try hard.

The belief in evil controlling interests blocking your way is
self delusion. Just a need to prop up a damaged ego.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Hi Carl

I'd be happy if ANY meteorite would land anywhere near my backyard.



--
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN

"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
__________________________________________________ __________________
"CHIP5FALL" wrote in message
...
Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in
portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit
photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry"

Oh goodie, a chance to break into the giveaway photo industry. Lose
everything
you have invested in the giveaway images with every "sale." But once you
break
in, you might make up for it in volume? And there's always that other
chance
that a 1,000-pound solid platinum meteorite might land in your back yard.
Good
luck.

Carl May