If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
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." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
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, $$$. There are a lot more problems with publishing a new magazine too. Up to 90% fail. Ops... Me too. PWW On 4/20/04 1:24 AM, in article "Al Denelsbeck" wrote: if you're publishing a magazine, your income comes from the subscriber, period. Subscriptions get high enough, or even appear likely to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an interesting content. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Getting published
Yup...understood more than I believe you realize, regardless of the way this
thread developed. It was actually a healthy thread more than I think folks realize and may have actually produced a more positive result than some may realize. RWE On 4/20/04 7:45 AM, in article , "PWW" wrote: You said it better than me. But one little point. Actually 99.5% of magazines are really published for the advertisers, to get their ads in front of possible customers. Very few magazines can survive on subscriptions alone. And you do need much more than interesting content. In fact, a magazine jammed packed with advertisements and have very little good content has a much better chance of surviving than one with lots of great content and little or no advertising. Trust me, I found out the hard way, $$$. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Getting published | Thistlegroup | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | April 2nd 04 10:33 PM |
Getting Published | Thistlegroup | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | April 2nd 04 10:33 PM |
Getting published | Thistlegroup | In The Darkroom | 0 | April 2nd 04 10:29 PM |