Getting published

Aw gee whiz, just when things started to get good. I guess the maybe your
horse has been flogged enough, and is out of steam (dead.) That seems to
happen when ones views (horse) has a hard time standing up to a vigorous
debate. My horse (views) are still running fresh and strong.

At least two more questions. Come on lets get one more trot out of that old
nag before you put her down. ;-)

Did you know their business address was only a UPS (Mailboxes Etc) Letter
box?

Does that make any difference to you with your evaluation of their business
model?

You did say that you did "some fairly serious research and found that this
is clearly a viable and very honest start-up effort."

--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


On 4/17/04 3:17 PM, in article
"Information" wrote:

Time to drop this thread as I have other things the I need to do.

My original thread served it's purpose anyway, established a bit of
discussion to allow some due diligence given the prior threads.

RWE



On 4/17/04 4:54 AM, in article ,
"PWW" wrote:

OOOOO. One thing I just checked this Address and found is a UPS Store (which
bought Mail Boxes Etc), and not a real business address where one could go
and meet them.
http://www.ups.com/dropoff/director/935739

THE UPS STORE
1414 GOLDEN SPRINGS RD
ANNISTON,*AL* 36207

So this is basically just a PO Box drop box. Wow. I guess they were up front
about that huh! Funny they did not mention that. And there is no business in
Anniston with the name "exposuremagazine." At least any I could find. Did
they tell you that when you called and talked to them?

Do you realize on Post Office boxes (USPS) you have to say PO Box, but with
UPS and Mailboxes Ect, you don't have to. Huh. Interesting.

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

In Line...


Aw gee whiz, just when things started to get good. I guess the maybe your
horse has been flogged enough, and is out of steam (dead.) That seems to
happen when ones views (horse) has a hard time standing up to a vigorous
debate. My horse (views) are still running fresh and strong.

Well, we will switch from the horse here and go after the donkey.

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. So...folks get real defensive if the existing model
that works for them, or has worked in the past, is working less effectively.

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. Most of these main players got in
20-30 years ago and have grown the market correspondingly. Now their
market is eroding and they know it...and...it is their own fault for not
pulling together all the pro advocacy groups to fight the folks who are
REALLY doing the damage. This is what REALLY needs to happen.

The folks really doing the damage are the folks with the agency's offering
royalty free and images on CD and the like. Can you say "billionaire" ?
There's your real enemy and there's the real focus of what the principled
pro should be fighting. The forces eroding the pro market are the really
huge players, it's tantamount to the use of power to control the market in
the same way that huge players are sending jobs overseas in the technology
sector. It really is the huge player that is the problem, not the mom and
pop operation you are so willing to debate.

You can expect many "wanna-be" pro's to go against your idea of what is
right so long as pro's themselves don't get it that they need to fight the
larger forces at hand and not "dump" on the smaller people. Is there
really a diffence in paying this small operation to get published as oppose
to paying an agency to "get in", providing you have the 10 national credits?
There's a good point to debate. Another point...ever whine and dine a
publisher or photo editor at your expense ? Make that wine...

My point is that the few whining pro's out there (there are not that many
whiners) have small minds when it comes to really figuring out how to shore
up their industry. When they treat "wanna-be's" with poor regard, then
they end up sowing the seeds of discontent and acceptance of alternatives as
viable. The whiners are usually wanna-be's who don't have the publishing
credits to get into the overwhelmed stock market anyway. Usually they start
their own agency and then go belly up after realizing their real shortcoming
was they needed to learn how to write and submit to the nationals.


More leather for the whacking...I'd say...


At least two more questions. Come on lets get one more trot out of that old
nag before you put her down. ;-)

Did you know their business address was only a UPS (Mailboxes Etc) Letter
box?

Yes...

Does that make any difference to you with your evaluation of their business
model?

No...many businesses use the method for maintaining records correctly.

You did say that you did "some fairly serious research and found that this
is clearly a viable and very honest start-up effort."

On 4/19/04 8:31 PM, in article
"nwnp" wrote:

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. So...folks get real defensive if the existing model
that works for them, or has worked in the past, is working less effectively.

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. Most of these main players got in
20-30 years ago and have grown the market correspondingly. Now their
market is eroding and they know it...and...it is their own fault for not
pulling together all the pro advocacy groups to fight the folks who are
REALLY doing the damage. This is what REALLY needs to happen.

PWW
A bunch of words not really saying anything. I thought the debate was this
business model "exposuremagazine.org" and not how best to protect the
professional photography career fields.

Real life is full of ebbs and flows, live with it. Make you own way. Who
cares who gets defensive and for what reason. I am so glad you understand
how best to change the professional photography world, more than, ASMP, PPA,
EP and other professional photographer associations. Many of the above
statements are not accurate. Pure and simple.

The folks really doing the damage are the folks with the agency's offering
royalty free and images on CD and the like. Can you say "billionaire" ?
There's your real enemy and there's the real focus of what the principled
pro should be fighting. The forces eroding the pro market are the really
huge players, it's tantamount to the use of power to control the market in
the same way that huge players are sending jobs overseas in the technology
sector. It really is the huge player that is the problem, not the mom and
pop operation you are so willing to debate.

PWW
As I stated before professional photographers can take care of themselves
and the Pro field will be changing, things always change.

Mom and Pop operations can take advantage of wannbees just as much or even
more often than established companies. Mom and Pops can jump up, take a
bunch of money from wannabees and then evaporate, never to be heard from
again. To a wannabee, it doesn't really who fleeces them, small or large.

You have never responded to any of my concerns about this type of business.
I have made the point several times, like "exposuremagazine.org" is not a
REAL magazine or publication, there is no mention of #'s of printed issues
or #'s of paid subscribers or even when they expect to actually publish a
magazine. How many pages? Where are they going to distribute the magazines?

If one wants to go that route there are MANY REAL smaller publications that
will publish newcomers pictures more often then not. And without $100 up
front.

Has "exposuremagazine.org" ever published a magazine before? I personally
have quite a bit of knowledge about magazine publication. I published one
myself. From scratch. It is not easy and it is a huge job. I used my own
money. I did not try a scheme like this, and sure seems like it is. But of
course mine was a REAL magazine and I gave REAL VALUE for my subscribers
money.

You can expect many "wanna-be" pro's to go against your idea of what is
right so long as pro's themselves don't get it that they need to fight the
larger forces at hand and not "dump" on the smaller people. Is there
really a diffence in paying this small operation to get published as oppose
to paying an agency to "get in", providing you have the 10 national credits?
There's a good point to debate. Another point...ever whine and dine a
publisher or photo editor at your expense ? Make that wine...

PWW
You always seem to judge apples and oranges. My point is that this
"exposuremagazine.org" does not have enough value in it for reasonable
photographers to gain for their $100 upfront payment. Stock lists, (10
national credits) provide a real and KNOWN value for that outlay of hard
earned cash. They have been around for a very long time. They have hundreds
of photographers particpating for years and years. They are a KNOWN value.
"exposuremagazine.org" is a unknown, and does not offer anything of value
for that hard earned cash. The difference between the two examples is
staggering. I just don't understand how you could relate the two.

If you wine and dine again you are participating in another known value (at
least hopefully) and respected publication or contact. If you wine and dine
ANYONE who says they can do something for your photography career, you will
be parted from your money faster that you can make it. Like I said, send me
$100 and I will publish some of your photos for you. I will even give you
back $15 for any that I happen to publish.

My point is that the few whining pro's out there (there are not that many
whiners) have small minds when it comes to really figuring out how to shore
up their industry. When they treat "wanna-be's" with poor regard, then
they end up sowing the seeds of discontent and acceptance of alternatives as
viable. The whiners are usually wanna-be's who don't have the publishing
credits to get into the overwhelmed stock market anyway. Usually they start
their own agency and then go belly up after realizing their real shortcoming
was they needed to learn how to write and submit to the nationals.

PWW
This is backwards. A lot of Pros want to and do help wannabes, in all sorts
of ways. They do it every day. I have done it. Others have helped me and
with the internet it is even easier. I don't know why you have such a
dislike of pros. Sure there are some who aren't helpful but for every one
who isn't there are many others who are.

It is business models like "exposuremagazine.org" that seems to want to take
advantage of wannabees. Not Pros. That is why some Pros speak out to warn
wannabees about strange business models, copyright concerns and the like.

Do you realize one major thing that makes the difference between wannabees
and Pros? Pros actually do something, today! And then do it again. And
again. They get in there and fight, scratch, and do whatever is necessary to
become a PRO. And they do it TODAY and TOMMORROW.

An example; when I did Outdoor Arts Shows. I jumped in and did it. And I
changed and improved and learned. I met many wannabees that would come up to
me and say "Yeah I was going to do this show." Or "Next year I am going to
do this or that show." Quit telling people what you are going to do and JUST
DO IT.

As always in any business, one of the best ways to become a PRO, is to find
somebody who is successful, in a way you would like to be and then emulate
their approach and business model. There is no magic business model that
will do everything for you. I know of no Pro who would participate in such a
thing as "exposuremagazine.org", and I see no value from it.

More leather for the whacking...I'd say...


At least two more questions. Come on lets get one more trot out of that old
nag before you put her down. ;-)

Did you know their business address was only a UPS (Mailboxes Etc) Letter
box?

Yes...

PWW
Are you involved in this operation? Otherwise how did you know this?

Does that make any difference to you with your evaluation of their business
model?

No...many businesses use the method for maintaining records correctly.

PWW
"for maintaining records correctly"... huh? Give me a break.

It is not that they used a Letter Drop box but that it looks as they are
hiding that fact. For a NEW publishing company (with no previous value or
record for photographers to judge) and that wants to collect $100 BEFORE
they ever publish single issue, it does concern me.

I wish you could actually respond directly to my concerns about
"exposuremagazine.org" business model instead of just all this anti-pro
statements.

nwnp wrote in
:

In Line...


Aw gee whiz, just when things started to get good. I guess the maybe
your horse has been flogged enough, and is out of steam (dead.) That
seems to happen when ones views (horse) has a hard time standing up
to a vigorous debate. My horse (views) are still running fresh and
strong.

Well, we will switch from the horse here and go after the donkey.

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. So...folks get real defensive if
the existing model that works for them, or has worked in the past, is
working less effectively.

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. Most of these main
players got in 20-30 years ago and have grown the market
correspondingly. Now their market is eroding and they know
it...and...it is their own fault for not pulling together all the pro
advocacy groups to fight the folks who are REALLY doing the damage.
This is what REALLY needs to happen.

The folks really doing the damage are the folks with the agency's
offering royalty free and images on CD and the like. Can you say
"billionaire" ? There's your real enemy and there's the real focus of
what the principled pro should be fighting. The forces eroding the
pro market are the really huge players, it's tantamount to the use of
power to control the market in the same way that huge players are
sending jobs overseas in the technology sector. It really is the
huge player that is the problem, not the mom and pop operation you are
so willing to debate.

You can expect many "wanna-be" pro's to go against your idea of what
is right so long as pro's themselves don't get it that they need to
fight the larger forces at hand and not "dump" on the smaller people.
Is there really a diffence in paying this small operation to get
published as oppose to paying an agency to "get in", providing you
have the 10 national credits? There's a good point to debate.
Another point...ever whine and dine a publisher or photo editor at
your expense ? Make that wine...

My point is that the few whining pro's out there (there are not that
many
whiners) have small minds when it comes to really figuring out how to
shore up their industry. When they treat "wanna-be's" with poor
regard, then they end up sowing the seeds of discontent and acceptance
of alternatives as viable. The whiners are usually wanna-be's who
don't have the publishing credits to get into the overwhelmed stock
market anyway. Usually they start their own agency and then go belly
up after realizing their real shortcoming was they needed to learn how
to write and submit to the nationals.


More leather for the whacking...I'd say...

More whacking is exactly how I'd put it. That is, if I didn't simply
call it a huge pile of bull****.

What this has to do, in any way, shape, or form, with the question of
having submitters actually pay to have their images put up is anybody's
guess. If I were to take a stab at it, I would say this is a blatant
attempt at misdirection in order to chase attention away from the fact
that, if you're publishing a magazine, your income comes from the
subscriber, period. Subscriptions get high enough, or even appear likely
to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an
interesting content.

Publishing any photo that someone pays for is not considered
interesting content. What is most likely to follow, with no editorial
control, is a collection of snapshots and half-ass efforts. This isn't just
speculation, because it's been done before. Little organization called the
International Freelance Photographers Organization. Worst photos I've seen
published in any magazine, and for that matter in quite a few local club
newsletters. Advertisers? Sure! All of them IFPO, somehow. Imagine that.

Should I mention that, with membership in the IFPO, you can get their
"press pass" to provide media access to events? Should I mention how many
security people I've talked to that find those passes hilarious?

I'm not saying this for your benefit - it's pretty obvious that you
ARE the magazine, despite the changing screen names (headers are a giveaway
- you have to be a lot less clumsy than that). I'm saying this for the
benefit of anyone who might be tempted.

Paying somebody else for the privilege of working for them isn't any
kind of deal. Get *paid* for your work, time, effort, materials, marketing,
and so on. That's the deal. If no one is interested, you need to be better
at photography, so work on improving.

But a paid submission mag? What the hell is that going to provide?
Supposedly it "opens the door" when other editors see that you've been
published? Guess again - editors will be quick to recognize it for what
it's worth, and it becomes a total waste of money.

Go work on your "articles", nameless troll, and quit clogging up the
newsgroup with spam and horse****. And I hope your articles have a lot more
cohesiveness and clarity than this nonsense. Or can you pay to have that
lack of talent published too?


- Al.

Exactly...

On 4/19/04 1:06 PM, in article ,
"CHIP5FALL" wrote:

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

Given the type of response I see here, this one isn't worth a response back
other than this short note. I think this kinda went beyond the horse and
donkey to the mule and beyond.

And...it really did present the crass, condescending viewpoint that so
encourages folks to consider this alternative model that is so detested by a
few folks who are responding about up here.

One final note though...I am NOT the magazine.

Dropping this thread once and for all.

RWE




On 4/19/04 10:24 PM, in article
, "Al Denelsbeck"
wrote:

nwnp wrote in
:

In Line...


Aw gee whiz, just when things started to get good. I guess the maybe
your horse has been flogged enough, and is out of steam (dead.) That
seems to happen when ones views (horse) has a hard time standing up
to a vigorous debate. My horse (views) are still running fresh and
strong.

Well, we will switch from the horse here and go after the donkey.

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. So...folks get real defensive if
the existing model that works for them, or has worked in the past, is
working less effectively.

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. Most of these main
players got in 20-30 years ago and have grown the market
correspondingly. Now their market is eroding and they know
it...and...it is their own fault for not pulling together all the pro
advocacy groups to fight the folks who are REALLY doing the damage.
This is what REALLY needs to happen.

The folks really doing the damage are the folks with the agency's
offering royalty free and images on CD and the like. Can you say
"billionaire" ? There's your real enemy and there's the real focus of
what the principled pro should be fighting. The forces eroding the
pro market are the really huge players, it's tantamount to the use of
power to control the market in the same way that huge players are
sending jobs overseas in the technology sector. It really is the
huge player that is the problem, not the mom and pop operation you are
so willing to debate.

You can expect many "wanna-be" pro's to go against your idea of what
is right so long as pro's themselves don't get it that they need to
fight the larger forces at hand and not "dump" on the smaller people.
Is there really a diffence in paying this small operation to get
published as oppose to paying an agency to "get in", providing you
have the 10 national credits? There's a good point to debate.
Another point...ever whine and dine a publisher or photo editor at
your expense ? Make that wine...

My point is that the few whining pro's out there (there are not that
many
whiners) have small minds when it comes to really figuring out how to
shore up their industry. When they treat "wanna-be's" with poor
regard, then they end up sowing the seeds of discontent and acceptance
of alternatives as viable. The whiners are usually wanna-be's who
don't have the publishing credits to get into the overwhelmed stock
market anyway. Usually they start their own agency and then go belly
up after realizing their real shortcoming was they needed to learn how
to write and submit to the nationals.


More leather for the whacking...I'd say...

More whacking is exactly how I'd put it. That is, if I didn't simply
call it a huge pile of bull****.

What this has to do, in any way, shape, or form, with the question of
having submitters actually pay to have their images put up is anybody's
guess. If I were to take a stab at it, I would say this is a blatant
attempt at misdirection in order to chase attention away from the fact
that, if you're publishing a magazine, your income comes from the
subscriber, period. Subscriptions get high enough, or even appear likely
to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an
interesting content.

Publishing any photo that someone pays for is not considered
interesting content. What is most likely to follow, with no editorial
control, is a collection of snapshots and half-ass efforts. This isn't just
speculation, because it's been done before. Little organization called the
International Freelance Photographers Organization. Worst photos I've seen
published in any magazine, and for that matter in quite a few local club
newsletters. Advertisers? Sure! All of them IFPO, somehow. Imagine that.

Should I mention that, with membership in the IFPO, you can get their
"press pass" to provide media access to events? Should I mention how many
security people I've talked to that find those passes hilarious?

I'm not saying this for your benefit - it's pretty obvious that you
ARE the magazine, despite the changing screen names (headers are a giveaway
- you have to be a lot less clumsy than that). I'm saying this for the
benefit of anyone who might be tempted.

Paying somebody else for the privilege of working for them isn't any
kind of deal. Get *paid* for your work, time, effort, materials, marketing,
and so on. That's the deal. If no one is interested, you need to be better
at photography, so work on improving.

But a paid submission mag? What the hell is that going to provide?
Supposedly it "opens the door" when other editors see that you've been
published? Guess again - editors will be quick to recognize it for what
it's worth, and it becomes a total waste of money.

Go work on your "articles", nameless troll, and quit clogging up the
newsgroup with spam and horse****. And I hope your articles have a lot more
cohesiveness and clarity than this nonsense. Or can you pay to have that
lack of talent published too?


- Al.

"nwnp" wrote

Dropping this thread once and for all.

Oh we do so wish. You said it once before, though, and
went back on your word.

Paying to have your picture published in a magazine
is like paying someone for sex. Some think it is a
legitimate business, others disagree.

But then, it isn't a magazine, it's the newsletter
of a dues paying mutual admiration society. Now that
I have no problem with - I'd wish you luck.

Even sell the newsletter on newsstands; I would call
it "Narcissism Today", though.

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

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, $$$.

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

PWW

On 4/20/04 1:24 AM, in article
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote:

if you're publishing a magazine, your income comes from the
subscriber, period. Subscriptions get high enough, or even appear likely
to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an
interesting content.

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


On 4/20/04 7:45 AM, in article ,
"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, $$$.

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

PWW

On 4/20/04 1:24 AM, in article
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote:

if you're publishing a magazine, your income comes from the
subscriber, period. Subscriptions get high enough, or even appear likely
to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an
interesting content.