NPAC Forums
NPAC Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: Robin Rowland on February 13, 2013, 02:12 PM
-
BBC's photo editor looks at the current and future business of photojournalism. Lots of Canadian content, including a look at Donald Weber's work and a study by the Canadian office of Deloitte that says crowd funding is about to take off.
The business of photojournalism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-21418442 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-21418442)
Here is the best public link to the Deloitte study (likely more detailed material for clients)
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_CA/ca/industries/tmt/tmt-predictions-2013/index.htm?src=caen_home_tp (http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_CA/ca/industries/tmt/tmt-predictions-2013/index.htm?src=caen_home_tp)
-
When someone tries to "crowdfund" on a street corner, they often get charged under a city bylaw. But online, crowdfunding is a legitimate and noble activity. Remember when it used to be called "cyber begging"?
Are income and sales taxes a form of crowdfunding?
::)
-
that seems a pretty cynical thing to say Warren. if many of us working outside of the dailies were to rely on the good will of the folks handing out assignments or the agencies, we would be making weekly trips to the food bank.
Canada, and in particular Southwestern Ontario, is an apropos example of the disconnect between the cronies at the old institutions and the wealth of talent that emanates from this region. many have left to work overseas and provide little to no content here in Canada. this is a sad and frustrating situation.
without the support of private and alternate funding sources some of the best work coming out of this country would not see the light of day. is this a long term solution? i sure hope not but in the interim i personally salute each and every donor that has made many of these projects come to light.
the world of top tier photojournalism and documentary work is almost entirely divorced from the media empires here in Canada. it's a damn shame the powers that be at said empires can't recognize this.
-
that seems a pretty cynical thing to say Warren.
No and yes. (You make it sound like being cynical is bad.)
NO:
My point was literal. "Crowdfunding" is today's darling because it sounds so warm and fuzzy and it has its own web site (e.g. Kickstarter).
But when others did it +10 years ago for the exact same purposes - to raise money for book projects or fund startup online photo businesses - it was called "cyber begging" and those folks were laughed at.
Crowdfunding has existed for centuries but under other names.
The Montreal Olympics were partially crowdfunded (remember those $10 lottery tickets); almost every amateur sports team sells 50/50 tickets; all charities rely on crowdfunding; the Girl Guides have been selling cookies door-to-door for a long time; Trivial Pursuit was crowdfunded.
Daily newspapers crowdfund each day's edition. Of course, they don't call it crowdfunding, they call it paid advertising.
Many business often rely on crowdfunding to get started when they get money from friends, relatives, etc.
YES:
(Sadly, this part is going to be a ridiculously long-winded, meandering stroll.)
I'm going to reference Kickstarter.com, specifically its photography section, only as an example. Other similar sites can probably be included.
I'm going to use the words "you" and "your" but that's not a reference to you, John. It's directed at a "generic" photographer. Really.
I bet if any photographer ever went on "Dragons Den", they'd get laughed off the show. Documentary photography (and some other types of photography, too) is simply not a viable business any more. Two reasons are:
(a) it's a totally inefficient use of time. Pictures and stories don't happen on a schedule;
(b) it's not scalable. If you work twice as long, you don't make twice the money.
Throughout the last few centuries, some artists (writers, painters, sculptors, musicians) had "patrons" - people who financially supported them. Some photographers had patrons back in the 1800s and it still happens today.
Spot quiz: when someone goes to the opera, the ballet or an art exhibit, they're called a "patron of the arts". But when someone goes to a hockey game, why aren't they called a "patron of the sports"?
Answer: It's automatically assumed that the arts can't / don't make money so they need people who will continually supply financial support. These patrons are viewed as wonderful, caring, charity givers.
But since pro sports seemingly makes zillions of dollars, it's a business and sports fans are just paying customers.
But "patronize" has two meanings.
Why do some artists (including photographers) view themselves as some sort of sacred being whose purpose in life is to enlighten the rest of society?
A home renovator can be an artist, (well, at least some can). Same for electricians, chefs, doctors, etc. Everyone is an artist, in some way, in their work. Everyone wants to, can, and does, create.
But only a tiny sector of creators asks for other people's money to finance their business.
Since the Internet provides for free access, (and, of course, we know it's not free), many people think that everything on the Internet should be free. This distorted view of things then leads to people thinking that money should also be free, but only other people's money.
One problem with sites like Kickstarter is that it's fast, free and lazy to post a money request online.
Looking only at the photography section on Kickstarter:
Everyone is a photographer. Everyone's pictures should be in a 10-page spread in Time and National Geographic magazines. Everyone deserves a book publishing deal. Everyone's idea for a photo essay is unique, incredible and will change the world ..... if only they could just get the money to shoot it.
• In one Kickstarter description, the photographer refers to himself as "famous" and "important" eight times in his bio. In fact, he's "world famous". He's an important artist doing important work for an important gallery.
• Another photographer says that if he can raise the required funds, it will "create the energy" for him to go out and shoot.
• Another seeks a few thousand dollars so he can renovate his studio and make wonderful new photographs.
• Another needs several thousand dollars so he can travel Europe for a couple months and take pictures. The people who donate money will get postcards from him!
I know photographers who raised tens of thousands of dollars and even more by doing it the real way - sending letters, making phone calls and doing in-person meetings where they laid out plans for their projects.
Sitting back and typing a post into a crowdfunding web site => big whoop.
There's a 1979 movie with Peter Sellers titled Being There. The title gives away the secret of success.
Hopefully, the irony here is not lost: Kickstarter is crowdfunding its business of crowdfunding.
The only people cashing in are the site's owners. So far they've made $24 million (they keep 5% of all donated money - $486 million to date).
This is exactly how/why online stock photo sites like Getty, iStockphoto, etc .make money. This is how/why Apple makes money through iTunes and its App stores. This is how/why lotteries make money.
To make money -> be the middle man and sell to people's desire/greed for easy money.
Here's a post from my new web site: BusinessStarter.com:
I'm starting up a new pet food business but can't afford to hire photographers to shoot pictures for my advertising or my web site. I've always wanted to start a business and help puppies and kittens.
If you're a photographer who would like to help me get my business started, here's my plan:
• donate five hours of photography and I'll give you a credit line on my web site;
• donate ten hours and I'll give you a credit line in a newspaper ad plus I'll send you a personalized thank-you card;
• donate 25 hours and you'll get 15% off in my store.
I'm sure many photographers will happily donate their time and skills, right?
There's no difference between someone looking for money to start up a business to sell, say, pet food, and a photographer looking for money to shoot a project.
When your kid wants money for a new bike, do you:
(i) give them money,
(ii) tell them to stand near the side of the road with an "I need money" sign, or
(iii) tell them to get a paper route, cut some lawns or set up a lemonade stand?
The point is, while folks are standing on the side of Kickstarter Avenue holding up their "I need money" sign, the parade passes them by. The person should be in the parade (with their sign) rather than just on the sidelines.
Or, to use another analogy: instead of strolling the yellow brick Kickstarter Road to the promised land where a wonderful wizard will give you what you want, remember that you're wearing ruby slippers.
Money, and tons of it, is out there. You just need a decent plan.
"I want to go to Paris to take some pictures and I'll sell a bunch of inkjet prints" isn't a plan. It's a hobby destined for a garage sale.
Hey, Google invests $300 million per year on startups. Unfortunately, none on photographers because no photographer has come up with a good idea yet. It's too late to invent Flickr, Youtube, Tumblr, 500px, etc. I guess all the good ideas are gone.
if many of us working outside of the dailies were to rely on the good will of the folks handing out assignments or the agencies, we would be making weekly trips to the food bank.
A lot of stuff published in most dailies is superficial, predictable crap. Sadly, that's what it's become. Cheap and cheerful. Don't upset the readers.
But you can't blame or shame someone into doing business with you.
If the dailies aren't buying then either they're the wrong customer or your marketing needs to be changed.
Follow the money not your ego.
...the disconnect between the cronies at the old institutions and the wealth of talent that emanates from this region. many have left to work overseas and provide little to no content here in Canada. this is a sad and frustrating situation.
Agreed.
Many Canadian photographers are working in the U$ or overseas. How is this different than Canadian actors, musicians, filmmakers and models who move to the US or Europe?
The economy is what it is and it is what you make it.
the world of top tier photojournalism and documentary work is almost entirely divorced from the media empires here in Canada. it's a damn shame the powers that be at said empires can't recognize this.
Absolutely true.
But until a photographer becomes a publisher, nothing will change. Media companies are afraid of change (ironic since everything around them is changing), afraid of risk, afraid of being first, afraid of being last, afraid of being different, afraid the public might wake up.
But who needs an empire? I thought old media was dead - good riddance to those self-serving gatekeepers. Long live the Internet where we're all publishers and everything is free!
Since nobody is lining up to hire you on staff then, like magic, you're self-employed! Congratulations, Mr. or Ms. Small Businessperson.
First rule of business: if it doesn't make money then:
(a) stop doing it;
(b) change it;
(c) buy lots of lottery tickets;
(d) get rich parents or a wealthy spouse.
Pick one because there are no other options.
Confucius is claimed to have said:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
The translation may be off but he may also have said:
Give a photographer an assignment and he's happy for a day. Teach a photographer to market himself and he's happy for a lifetime.
or maybe it was:
Give a photographer an assignment and he's happy for a day. Teach a photographer to complain about being a photographer and he's happy for a lifetime.
- My 0¢ worth.
Everything is easier said than done. And that's a good thing. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it.
-
Warren
A paper route?????? :)
That is so 20th century. The papers dropped kids and started using adult deliverers in the 1980s. Today the kids have one person paper routes--that is they read papers--it's called a tablet.
As for getting kids to work, every business now practices serial internships where the kids all work for free largely because they have no choice if they are ever to hope to break in to a "real job" (and their patrons are parents or partners, if they can't get support for internships at companies that pay their execs millions, they serve coffee or hamburgers)
As for marketing oneself ....it's often a case of needing the money to market yourself (by going and meeting people as you say) before you can get money...vicious circle continues unless you have a patron or win the lottery.
We do need a practical solution to this problem but what? I also know a crowdfunding writing project in the late 90s that also failed, because it was ahead of its time. It may be the crowd funding is beginning to work, because of the advance of technology...but who knows?
-
A paper route?????? :)
That is so 20th century. The papers dropped kids and started using adult deliverers in the 1980s.
Yeah, that was put in for comic relief. ::)
But while we're on the topic, are there any paperboys/papergirls in Canada? If yes, is there a story to be had here? Who will be the last paperboy/girl in Canada?
As for getting kids to work, every business now practices serial internships where the kids all work for free largely because they have no choice if they are ever to hope to break in to a "real job" (and their patrons are parents or partners, if they can't get support for internships at companies that pay their execs millions, they serve coffee or hamburgers)
( Hey, I know someone who flipped burgers when she was a teen. She went on to own a McDonalds franchise. I know another person who served coffee. She now owns two Tim Hortons franchises. )
Easy solution. Change the grossly out-of-date school system.
In Grade 9, every student must start a business and run it until the end of Grade 12. Ideally a scalable business. If their business fails during this time, they must start another. In other words, the students must be self-employed.
During this time, the students are taught about business, accounting, taxes, contracts, intellectual property, etc. Think of it as a mini-MBA program.
At the end of high school, if a student fails, then the kid is probably going to be stuck working for someone else. Not necessarily a bad thing.
But if the kid succeeds, then hopefully they will have a great head start towards being self-employed and creating jobs.
By contrast, in today's school system, kids are taught how to be good employees. If that fails (and it is failing in today's economy), the students (and the economy) have no fall-back.
... if they can't get support for internships at companies that pay their execs millions...
That's a major problem at most businesses throughout North America and beyond. Not sure if a fix can be legislated. For example: a CEO cannot be paid more than 20x the lowest employee salary.
The further an employee gets from the "factory floor", the less they know about the day-to-day business of the company. The most important and influential employee is not the CEO but rather the person who deals with the customer.
As for marketing oneself ....it's often a case of needing the money to market yourself (by going and meeting people as you say) before you can get money...vicious circle continues unless you have a patron or win the lottery.
Exactly. And this is why most photographers looking for free money on sites like Kickstarter are wasting everyone's time.
If the photographer was smart (i.e. serious about being a professional photographer and not just a hobbyist trying to self-publish a vanity book), then they would ask for money to fund their education.
For example:
I need $10,000 to pay for meetings with a lawyer, accountant and business manager. Money will also be spent on planning and executing a two-year marketing plan.
Donate $ 250 and get a free family portrait session.
Donate $ 500 and get a family portrait plus individual portraits.
Donate $1200 and I'll shoot your wedding.
Too many folks on Kickstarter are just looking for a free ride to the next corner when they really should be buying a map.
(...) it's often a case of needing the money to market yourself (...) before you can get money (...)
We do need a practical solution to this problem but what? (...) It may be the crowd funding is beginning to work, because of the advance of technology...but who knows?
It takes money to make money.
They say the first million is always the hardest to make. So I'm working on my second million first.
People are being trained to believe that, to be successful, all they need is a catchy Youtube video, appear on a reality TV show or do something stupid online. Human nature is that we always want to take the short cut, the path of least resistance. Lotteries are a booming business.
People will invest in (or pay for) anything that promises them some sort of positive return. It doesn't have to be a cash dividend. It's anything that can solve a problem for them.
Why doesn't a group of families "crowdfund" a local photographer? They each pay a monthly "retainer" to the photographer so he/she can run their business. In return, each family gets a family portrait every few months and monthly pictures of their kids/pets.
Or to reverse it, why doesn't a photographer sell annual photo contracts/subscriptions? This would allow customers to spread the cost of photography over a year and the photographer gets some guarantee of monthly income. Example:
• $200 per month for one year gets: four family portraits (one per season plus an Xmas picture).
• $300 per month, also get X number of individual portraits plus ...
• $500 per month, also get X number of framed photos plus all pix on an iPad....
Instead of crowdfunding, maybe a startup business should do it the old fashion way - get business partners. This way, photographers can pool their resources or, at least, pool their misery. :)
While it is possible to run a successful full-time wedding/portrait studio or a commercial studio, I don't think it's possible to run a successful full-time news/documentary photography business. Those days are long gone.
News/documentary photography is going to be a sideline business or a hobby for the wealthy photographer.
-
That is a fairly long reply Warren and I thank you for taking the time to write it. I can't help but again feel a thread of cynicism though.
The funny thing about the examples you mentioned above is that they are all quite narcissistic in tone. I would hazard a guess that none of them are working photojournalists? There have been many examples of successful campaigns on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I am loathe to be thought of as someone who would believe shame to be a effective motivator. With that said, I stand by my comments about the current situation in Canada. I could say much more but I reckon the point is not lost on this community.
There are some of us who have an unstoppable drive to continue their work in photojournalism. As a like minded individual, I would not hesitate to crowd fund to bring a story to light. Hell, I would prostitute myself outside of a 7/11 if need be. A character fault? Perhaps. I assure you a large group of us are out pounding the pavement or going about it the 'real way' on top of holding our hands out as the crowd shuffles past.
The way forward is a million miles away from convincing an editor at a photo desk to get on board. Most of them are overworked nor do they have any real editorial clout anymore. I know I will get a load of flack for the last statement but hey, lets be honest.
-
That is a fairly long reply Warren....
I'll try to keep this reply a bit shorter. :)
... I can't help but again feel a thread of cynicism though.
But I'm a hopeful cynic: things can be changed for the better but first, some folks need a whack of the reality paddle (http://www.whattheduck.net/strip/30).
The funny thing about the examples you mentioned above is that they are all quite narcissistic in tone. I would hazard a guess that none of them are working photojournalists? There have been many examples of successful campaigns on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I did only a quick look through Kickstarter's photo section. I know that some other non-photography propositions have been successful for everyone involved. But these were cases where the crowdfundee approached things as a business person and not as a person looking for a free ride.
When asking for donations, or for that matter when asking for a job, don't make it about you. Always make it about them. What are you going to give them? What are you going to do for them?
This is where most photographers fail. Photographers always say: I won awards.... I have shot these subjects... I have been here..... I am available..... I charge these rates....
That's backwards. It totally leaves out the customer - the most important person in your business.
As a photojournalist, you have to sell the story AND why that particular publication needs that story. What's in it for the publication other than a bunch a nice photos?
Talk to Louie Palu about this. He's good at pitching, editing and composing different stories to suit different publications.
I am loathe to be thought of as someone who would believe shame to be a effective motivator. With that said, I stand by my comments about the current situation in Canada.
Canadian TV networks know they have to provide a wide range of programming. They have no problem buying freelance programming or foreign-made TV series (usually from the US). A few years ago, a friend of mine self-produced a TV show and sold it to two Canadian TV channels.
If TV broadcasts its programming and papers can't compete with TV, (and why not?), then why doesn't a Canadian newspaper "narrowcast" some programming? It's mind-boggling that Canadian newspapers don't do this.
Why doesn't a newspaper buy (i.e. license) third-party programming? This is not to be confused with buying "content" (content = space-filler).
Example: Buy the narrowcast rights to the great stuff on MediaStorm (http://mediastorm.com). Buy the narrowcast rights to the documentaries from Rogue (http://www.blog.ro6ue.ca), Boreal (http://blog.borealcollective.com), ......
There are some of us who have an unstoppable drive to continue their work in photojournalism. (...) I assure you a large group of us are out pounding the pavement or going about it the 'real way' on top of holding our hands out as the crowd shuffles past.
Good for you! I applaud you for this.
The way forward is a million miles away from convincing an editor at a photo desk to get on board. Most of them are overworked nor do they have any real editorial clout anymore. I know I will get a load of flack for the last statement but hey, lets be honest
Photo editors at newspapers, especially in Canada, will be extinct within a few years. Total loss of respect and understanding for what a photo editor can do.
Sometimes you may find yourself marching in the wrong parade.
Look at an organization like TechnoServe. Now follow the money uphill. Look at who funds TechnoServe.
Large companies like Google, Visa, American Express, Coca Cola, etc. all have money put aside for goodwill and charities. They all need photos to show the public how they're donating their money. Sure, they want happy, feel-good pictures but maybe you can piggyback assignments.
I know a photog who was paid to go to Turkey (~10 years ago) to shoot some fashion stories. She spent one week doing the fashion shoots and the next two weeks on personal projects. The fee for the fashion jobs covered everything.
Point is, "new" money will come from private corporations (i.e. non-media) who, of course, are looking for some good PR. But that shouldn't limit what the photographer shoots; only what they submit to the corporation. The big catch is that the photographer has to sell themselves to the corporation.
Can you produce projects for TV such as for the CBC's Passionate Eye program? Does TV have to always be video? Of course, you'd need first rate audio.
Okay, I lied about making this a short post.
-
well the hopeful cynic part makes me breathe a little easier my friend. i also appreciate the amount you are contributing to the conversation. i must collect my thoughts overnight to keep the value of this thread top notch.
Louie is an example everyone should be following. I agree
i must mention something though... i have been hard on the Canadian crowd where my experience with some folks south of the border has been equally unpleasant. i was lucky enough to have a great conversation with a photo editor at a very large outlet in the US, who has been nothing but supportive of my work, that led me to the understanding that the photo editor in most publications has very little say in matters these days. i do not present this as synonymous with all outlets but this fellow is very dialled in (forgive my attempt at colloquialisms)
all around an unsavoury situation domestically though. i was speaking with another 'local' fellow/friend recently and when he relayed what he received for work out of Afghanistan i was honestly shocked and not in a good way. he also has very good things to say about Louie if that matters.
-
Trivial Pursuit was crowdfunded.
and, partially, by Chuck Stoody :)
Cheers and that's my trivia for the day
Jack
-
well, nothing like a good sleep and bouncing this conversation of a few others to screw the head on straight.
i am a very blessed guy. i have the friendship and respect of some very talented photographers around the globe and as a result i am able to hear a broad spectrum of ideas and thoughts from working photographers. i don't pretend to have the answers and with the utmost humility and respect i echo your sentiment regarding Louie P. it would be wise to glean as much info from him as one could.
so, back to the conversation at hand. i fear the only contribution i can make here is to tell the truth. this is the truth from John's mouth. i do not speak on any others behalf.
whatever 'complaints' i have with the old school thinking in Canada contain more regret than sour grapes. i have had the great opportunity to work quite a bit in the past few years and i don't spend much the crying over my beer. i have also made enough money over these years to open a gallery and soon to be small foundation to support photojournalism and documentary work.
there is a frustrating disconnect in Canada between the established media, the institutions training and educating photographers and the core group of seriously talented and driven Canadian talent. forgive me for saying so Warren but terms like 'the real way' (not verbatim of course) and the ever present 'old days' attitude that permeates NPAC serves to increase the divide.
in the years i have been stopping by NPAC the real questions that stand directly in the way of photojournalism and documentary work moving forward with the times remain un-spoken. like a white elephant floating about in the room. there are few photojournalists i respect and call a peer or friend who would argue mediocrity permeating the dailies and magazines. even you yourself have eluded to this. why has this been allowed to happen? why do we joke about it openly yet fail to address it professionally? wouldn't this be an apropos role for NPAC to play? why are the academic institutions full of faculty with little or no credibility or connection with modern ways of moving forward? I taught the past year in one of these academic institutions and the gap (an encompassing and far less character intense solution) was astonishing. the same academic institution is expecting me to lecture this month for free? why are none of Canada's new generation of talented people interfacing with these institutions?
a separate category all together is the lack of regard for this generation of very talented and dare i say super motivated photographers here in Canada. again, due to my friendships with others i hear over and over again the same refrain. we all have zero issue working for top flight outlets abroad and to some extent in the US yet here in Canada getting someone to acknowledge an email is a huge triumph. i assure you i am not the only one saying this and i also assure you the mouths this sort of stuff is coming from belong to widely respected folks.
crowd funding has been a lifeline for some of us. with that said it isn't the answer by any means. what most of us are focused on is moving forward and any help in that direction will be utilized. frankly i think it is disingenuous to identify with the possible failings of crowd funding and then paint others with the same brush.
the good thing about the Canadian crew, that is working and finding ways to keep at it, is that we are a tight knit group. we all support each other in our ways and continue to find new outlets and avenues to distribute work. from the Weber and Towell end of the spectrum through to folks like myself. out here at medium i have seen and received support from a lot of these people yet on the thread weeks back (on NPAC) about upcoming shows etc. nary a whisper?
i realize this is a long and complicated discussion. frankly i am uncertain i wish to continue it here as i don't sincerely see the point. a while back i was discussing my membership here with another photojournalist and arrived at the conclusion that it does not serve me in any way. it hasn't served any of us over the past few years and thus the bleed away of the talent. i had this very discussion with the organizers of the PPOC recently. this will be the last year i will maintain my membership here and what most will mistake for sour grapes i assure you is actually regret.
-
John - I am not quite sure why you are blaming the education institutions, old cronies running the media, and NPAC for your distaste in the state of Canadian photojournalism? Its seems to be a conversation you wanted, "to start a dialogue" as they say, and when someone disagrees with you and you say NPAC does nothing for you? Id hate to quote JFK.. but.. ;)
I know your giving back to the community with Medium, I have visited your site and its a cool idea. You are putting your money where you mouth is as you see a gap in the way of what your concerned about.
I also think that NPAC seems to be lacking in photographers posting on this board, or having a some sort of giant impact or influence on Canadian photojournalism, but I am not sure its supposed to. Its typically Canadian in that way.. but I dont think NPAC is the problem.
But when you look around, there are counter-arguments to what your saying
I just look at people like Lucas Oleniuk from the Star, a paper of which sends him all over the place and he is doing a killer job. The Globe sends their photographers out on international assignments and to big stories. Boreal has been doing all sorts of documentary type stuff all over the place, I am pretty sure they fund themselves doing daily photo work to fund their passion. There are Canadians all over the globe doing awesome stuff. Louie P was just telling me how he funded his mexico work.. and look where it ended up.. in the globe and mail!
I guess what bothers me most about your arguments is that you are placing blame on pretty much everything in this country. The quality of the education or the dalies and magazines have nothing to do with the quality of work being produced by Canadians. These photographers dont need papers or some school to tell them how to do their job or have to work at a paper. There are a tonne of passionate people working in this country from wires, to doc photogs, and paper shooters.
A good passionate photographer needs their own will to do and fund the work they are interested in, and should not blame the quality of education or publications (and their small budgets) in this country. That is how I see it. There will always be space for interesting work somewhere.
-
I think there is a misunderstanding. I am not complaining and I have little need from Canadian media. I have no shortage of work.
But yes I do lay blame in some corners here in Canada and I stand fast behind that statement. You have mentioned some names of people and collectives that I know personally and without speaking on their behalf, I would suggest their opinion will sound very similar. In fact I know it.
My thoughts are shared by many. It remains their choice to express them. The industry and NPAC have a problem and the original post clearly underlines this.
-
The bit about no need in Canada is not supposed to sound as obnoxious as it did. I count humility as one of my most important character traits.
-
There are many conversations going on here, so I could be misunderstood to what were actually talking about. I know a few dudes at the Boreal collective.. and I am sure they share your sentiments.. along with many others but thats not the point. What I am saying is wether NPAC supports you or even exists, or the old media empires in southwestern ontario are divorced from doc work, shouldnt matter.
Doc work is timely and expensive so why would anyone base a business on that. Does it mean its not important? No! But those old cronies you speak of still come up with doc work every once in a while. You dont want to lose money either which is why you are crowdfunding. Thats why Boreal is a great example of a bunch of photogs who got together with a vision and they fund it in many different ways.
Its always going to be about the photographers will to find an avenue and find some way to fund the way the work they want to do.
-
I agree 100% that documentary work and what I believe to be a similar creature, photojournalism, have no place in the current media models. I am not sure that trying to fit into said established model is a wise choice.
The conversation has jumped but I also believe the different lines intersect and it is important to address some of them. Although I don't appear to be doing a very good job of it.
Warren's post, if it isn't already apparent, ruffled some peoples feathers (judging by my inbox). I haven't relied much on crowdfunding myself (yet) however I support the efforts of those trying to find sustainable models forward. I take issue with the process being addressed in such a perjorative manner.
Therein lies the rub. As others fight tooth and nail to move on, support and create, the institutions that I feel should be standing alongside are largely ignoring them. In some cases openly ridiculing.
Whether I agree personaly with what goes on at NPAC really amounts to a hill of beans. It would be a damn shame if the invested membership didn't at least consider what has been raised. I suspect you and I are hearing very similar dialogues Mark. Forgive my muddled attempt at communicating it.
-
Money has never, ever been a motivating factor for people who successfully pursue documentary photography, or documentary film for that matter. You do it because you believe in it, because you want to speak truth to power or reveal a story you think needs to be told. You do it because you're interested in people, because you care about your subjects and because you think other people should care too.
There are as many stories as there are grains of sand on this planet, and not all of them will see the light of day. It takes hard work and dedication to work on a long-term story. It takes an innovative approach and a lot of careful reflection to create something that will stand out from the rest. You need a healthy dose of business acumen to convince editors or producers to buy your story, and sometimes you need to find creative ways to align your content with their needs. Talent doesn't hurt either. And if it's a story with a news tagline, you've got to be obsessively aware of the news cycle and the importance of creating work that is relevant.
My biggest problem with crowdfunding documentary work is that I rarely see people coming up with creative and effective ways to distribute the work once it's completed. Who cares if you shoot a year-long photo essay about the impact of drone strikes on Yemeni tribesmen… if nobody ever sees the work? I don't think art galleries or limited edition books and prints really do the subjects much justice, if that's the only place the stories will ever be seen. It's important to me that these stories reach as large an audience as possible.
Newspapers and news magazines used to be the best way to reach that elusive mass audience… and in some respects they still are - but they have dwindling budgets and are governed by market pressures that have conspired to diminish the amount of quality reporting they are capable of supporting.
Fortunately, we live in exciting times. It would behoove all aspiring and perspiring documentary photographers to examine other types of partnerships. Here's one example that inspired me:
http://www.tooyoungtowed.org/
Stephanie Sinclair, the photographer behind this compelling an important project, has been photographing this issue since before 2006, when she first told me about it. That's seven years ago. That's dedication.
And it's not all bad news out there. Maclean's promises to begin running four-page photo essays every week. Their DOP is looking at new work all the time. As mentioned earlier, Louie Palu had his strong story about the drug war in Mexico published by the Globe - with help from the Pulitzer Foundation. There are loads of grants available to photojournalists with well though-out story ideas. Donald Weber has recently been offering a workshop for photographers to explain how he has managed to do it for the past five years. And whenever I run into a fellow photographer, the conversation is always "What are you working on? When can I see it?". I don't hear anyone making excuses or patting themselves on the back. There's never been much room for that in this industry. If you don't like what you see, help to change it. John, I know you're doing that with Medium and I commend you. There are also a lot of folks volunteering to make NPAC a great organization. Let's all work together to make the scene here as robust and inspiring as we can.
-
an excellent link Liam. i have always been a big fan of Stephanie. i am also very pleased to hear that some of our local outlets are willing to work with homegrown talent. i sincerely thank them.
i have already wandered about in my comments so I will try and keep this concise. my comments are all coming from a place of regret. you know i would do anything in my power to support what we do here in Canada. perhaps my commitment, and the OP, has gotten the best of me or effected my ability to self censor. not important.
what is important is that most of us know this sentiment is not mine and mine alone. all i ask is to be aware of it. everyone continue their good work, as like i mentioned before, ultimately my opinion amounts to a hill of legumes.
-
...forgive me for saying so Warren but terms like 'the real way' (not verbatim of course) and the ever present 'old days' attitude that permeates NPAC serves to increase the divide.
By "real way", I meant "most effective way" .... to get things done.
crowd funding has been a lifeline for some of us. with that said it isn't the answer by any means. what most of us are focused on is moving forward and any help in that direction will be utilized. frankly i think it is disingenuous to identify with the possible failings of crowd funding and then paint others with the same brush.
Just to clarify (or mudify as the case may be) (and I don't mean to paint every photographer with the same brush):
Some of the issues I have with crowd funding are:
1) *Some* photographers use crowd funding as their first choice rather than last resort. I don't include grants as a form of crowd funding.
2) As a matter of principle, I don't agree with asking other people to finance my business especially when I have other options.
3) Look at some the world's most famous documentary photographers - go to their web sites and see how they finance their doc work. Some shoot advertising (car ads, restaurant ads, etc), some do corporate work, some do executive portraits, etc. What do they know?
4) Instead of crowd funding, why not try the more effective "reverse crowd funding".
Here's how it works: instead of passersby giving money to a photographer, the photographer gives money to the passersby. How do you like it so far?
Made up example:
I'm a photographer who needs to raise $10,000 by this fall to help fund a new project that I'm working on. But I need your help. If you help me find photo clients between now and then, I will pay you!
• Find me a $2000 wedding to shoot and I will pay you $200.
• A $500 family portrait session will earn you $50.
• $1,000 of business photography will get you $100.
A 10% commission is yours for each successful referral. Tell your friends, your neighbours, your co-workers, your Facebook friends.
Help me give you money.
Silly? Strangely enough, it works and everyone wins.
Of course, a bright photographer could spin this off into a new business: Foto Finder Fee dot com.
6) I'm not saying it's easy but many photographers don't know how to do things "the right way". If your strategy didn't work last week, it won't work next week. I understand that some photographers are so motivated and involved in their work that they neglect/forget any and all business activities. But that always leads to some sort of failure (e.g. Annie Leibovitz 2009, 2012).
Like it or not, you're running a business. Take some sort of business course. Otherwise, you're just burying your head in the sand. Better business => more money => more photography => better business => more money => more photography => ...
Fundraise anyway you want and good luck.
But I don't understand why *some* photographers, more than almost any other type of creator, are so behind the times.
*Some* photographers don't know how to ask for more money for a job. *Some* don't know how to say "no". *Some* are just happy to see their pictures published.
John, I'm simply arguing for better (smarter) marketing efforts by *some* photographers. The easy way and the old way don't work.
Warrens post, if it isn't already apparent, ruffled some peoples feathers (judging by my inbox).
Good, glad to hear it. :)
I haven't relied much on crowdfunding myself (yet) however I support the efforts of those trying to find sustainable models forward. I take issue with the process being addressed in such a perjorative manner.
Agreed - sustainable.
But crowdfunding is not sustainable unless, like a cable company, you can do automatic withdrawals from people's bank accounts. :)
Stupid idea #476: Get people to crowdfund their Airmiles to you.
Stupid idea# 29: Reality TV show: "Bartering with a Photographer". Follow a photographer as they barter from an 8x10 family portrait to a three-month photo trip to China.
In the first post in this thread, the BBC link quotes Don Weber:
It's about being clever and making a market for yourself regardless of the ups and downs," he explains. "Opportunity exists, but you have to make it.
-
A couple of notes on business models. Let me give you an example, a prominent portrait photographer I know in the United States produced a best selling book of portraits of prominent American women. Her publisher told her (yes told her) against her better judgment to do a book on prominent American men. That book failed and (as usual) the publisher blamed the photographer rather than themselves. It wasn't until a couple of years later that the photographer was able to get demographic data on book sales. For the first three months the portraits of women sold to women, for the next two years it sold to men. Conclusion, the women who initially bought the book were interested in inspiring women, the men who bought it subsequently were buying the book for wives, mothers, girlfriends, sisters etc. No one except a few photographers were interested in inspiring portraits of men. The "smart" business people at the publisher were wrong, my friend's gut was right, even though she didn't know why.
In better days when publications were rich, the editors could take a risk, instead of giving the customer what they wanted, they could take a risk and try something that the customer didn't know they were interested in until they saw it. The goes back to the first photogravure mags and supplements in the 19th century up and through the golden age of news magazines.
Every business adviser/coach keeps saying give the customer (whether an editor or the public) what they want. The problem is that the documentary photographer is often trying to sell something that the public isn't interested in until they see it and for the modern cash strapped editor/publisher, that is now too much of a risk.
I agree with Warren that if one is going to crowd fund they should have a valid business plan. Grants are also possible, or funding through other work. But as my friend in the States, you have to trust your gut on your project and go from there, even if there isn't an immediate market in site. Only when you have something to show will you know if it's something the market didn't know it would be interested in until they see it. And that's the risk.
-
those are all very good points and suggestions Warren. truthfully, and i mean no disrespect, they further underline the concept of 'out of touch'.
i know some very, very good and highly regarded documentary photographers personally. i have worked with them, near them and gotten far too drunk and smoked way too many cigarettes with them (i don't even smoke). the bulk of them crowd fund projects.
i was sitting with a fellow/friend from Magnum recently (strangely we were smoking) and a large part of his last major project was crowd funded.
crowd funding seems to me a very pure way of interaction between the photojournalist/documentary photographer and the audience. either the individual supports your work, to the point of pulling out the wallet, or they don't. a very succinct and powerful way to the heart of where our value as content providers may lay. there are so many lessons to be learned from the process. important lessons about the audience that chooses to support you and your project. crowd funding is the difference between what people are willing to see and pay to support and what some lunkhead at QMI thinks they need to have flashed in front of their faces. the very fact that the traditional outlets struggle to deal with patrons unwilling to pay for what they peddle and important projects like Peter DiCampo's 'life without lights' receives all the funds it needs to come to completion should be lesson 101 amongst the thinly veiled contempt my friend. for the record, i saw the 'life without lights exhibition' in West Africa, paid for by The African Artists Foundation and it was worth every penny that was donated in support.
i would take this time to dive into the recent issue of a certain conflict photographer funding work via their commercial persona, however having General Dynamics as a client muddied the waters.
instead i will leave you with this little bit of information.
Magnum's Emergency Fund for photographers has been crowd funded.
The Aftermath book project has been crowd funded.
Laura El-Tantawy's epic on her homeland (Egypt) was crowd funded.
Michael Christopher Brown's work in Libya was crowd funded.
Tomas Van Houtryve's work on modern communism is crowd funded.
Pan Am by that Noor guy is crowd funded. (that Noor guy... funny)
hell, the documentary on John G. Morris is crowd funded!
so, while it is easy to point out what you see as "ineffective" or "not getting things done" the truth of the matter is that it seems to be... well, getting things done. beautiful things i might add.
"but I don't understand why *some* photographers, more than almost any other type of creator, are so behind the times.
*Some* photographers don't know how to ask for more money for a job. *Some* don't know how to say "no". *Some* are just happy to see their pictures published"
the irony in the above is very hard to ignore.
forgive me now as it appears fairly obvious that we are on two very different trajectories in what we do and how we choose to do it. i fear continuing this debate would be both pointless and it would erode the good will of our audience of NPAC members.
-
A couple of notes on business models. Let me give you an example, a prominent portrait photographer I know in the United States produced a best selling book of portraits of prominent American women. Her publisher told her (yes told her) against her better judgment to do a book on prominent American men. That book failed and (as usual) the publisher blamed the photographer rather than themselves. It wasn't until a couple of years later that the photographer was able to get demographic data on book sales. For the first three months the portraits of women sold to women, for the next two years it sold to men. Conclusion, the women who initially bought the book were interested in inspiring women, the men who bought it subsequently were buying the book for wives, mothers, girlfriends, sisters etc. No one except a few photographers were interested in inspiring portraits of men. The "smart" business people at the publisher were wrong, my friend's gut was right, even though she didn't know why.
In better days when publications were rich, the editors could take a risk, instead of giving the customer what they wanted, they could take a risk and try something that the customer didn't know they were interested in until they saw it. The goes back to the first photogravure mags and supplements in the 19th century up and through the golden age of news magazines.
Every business adviser/coach keeps saying give the customer (whether an editor or the public) what they want. The problem is that the documentary photographer is often trying to sell something that the public isn't interested in until they see it and for the modern cash strapped editor/publisher, that is now too much of a risk.
I agree with Warren that if one is going to crowd fund they should have a valid business plan. Grants are also possible, or funding through other work. But as my friend in the States, you have to trust your gut on your project and go from there, even if there isn't an immediate market in site. Only when you have something to show will you know if it's something the market didn't know it would be interested in until they see it. And that's the risk.
considering the above statement, that the documentary photographer/photojournalist is often trying to sell something that the public isn't interested in, i become confused as the public seems pretty interested. i would continue to add to the above list of successful projects however i believe the point has been made. for giggles i will add that i just received word form another very credible photojournalist that his crowd funded campaign is a go. not more than an hour ago. i believe he used to be an NPAC member as well.
i must say that a lot of what has been tossed about here sounds eerily similar to the PPOC rhetoric. i believe the Ontario chapter is stuck somewhere between irrelevant and about to fold.
-
might i ask for forgiveness as i seem to have bastardized the english language in the above posts. autocorrect and a what seems a permanent case of the shakes these days is conspiring to have me appear as a 12 year old illiterate.
-
forgive me now as it appears fairly obvious that we are on two very different trajectories in what we do and how we choose to do it. i fear continuing this debate would be both pointless and it would erode the good will of our audience of NPAC members.
Actually John (and Warren) and a others first conversation I have found interesting in a while.
Those two trajectories can and do exist within this organization. There is the whole staff vs freelance thing too.
Would dare to say from our speakers in past conferences we are one of the better supports of documentary photographers in Canada. Speaking of which did you see the first announcement? if not, take a look. http://npac.ca/forums/index.php?topic=5268.0 (http://npac.ca/forums/index.php?topic=5268.0)
Each photographer runs their business differently. Hearing different ideas is what these boards are for.
-
considering the above statement, that the documentary photographer/photojournalist is often trying to sell something that the public isn't interested in, i become confused as the public seems pretty interested.]considering the above statement, that the documentary photographer/photojournalist is often trying to sell something that the public isn't interested in, i become confused as the public seems pretty interested.
John
To clarify, the public is interested in general but not in necessarily specific projects. There have been lots of cases throughout history, including photography but at the moment I can't think of any from the photo world, so I'll give you two from the book world.
A Civil Action, a non fiction narrative (documentary) book about a not-too-good lawyer fighting a big corporation. The original book did not do well in hardcover, (publisher saw limited audience, small print run) and then unexpectedly the book became a best seller in trade paperback to the publisher's surprise. (Later figures showed it did well in the college market by word of mouth and then took off for the general public) It then becomes a movie starring John Travolta as the lawyer. The public obviously saw something in the paperback that the hard cover buyer did not.
The science fiction series Dune is a classic. Turned down by every major publisher in the US it was first published by a small company that normally put out auto repair manuals. The parent company fired the publisher who put out Dune but it went on to be a big hit, was sold to Putnam for big bucks, recouping the original publisher's investment and it is a franchise almost 60 years later.
So let's take a made up, unlikely and extreme example. Photographer decides to do a project on a man who collects coat hangers. Everyone, magazines, newspapers, agencies, say no one would be interested in a man who collects coat hangers and it's a waste of time and money. Now it is probably a waste of time and money and an example of the photog's extreme artistic ego. But perhaps, the photographer saw something special in the man who collects coat hangers and then because someone finds the project on a website or an editor takes a risk, the public also sees what the photographer saw in the story and it takes off, leaving people scratching their heads saying who would have thought that a photo essay on coat hangers would be a big hit?? (
-
again i argue otherwise Robin. my experience tells me that the supporters of successful campaigns are very focused on specific issues. the mechanisms that historically forced content into the audience awareness no longer matter. we have reached an epoch where the future involves direct connections between the content provider and the audience. the traditional middle ground no longer has a role. i believe this is a crucial and welcome shift.
your examples are interesting however i am unsure how the first two relate to the discussion beyond being self-serving analogies? i freely admit that my academic credentials are modest and much of what you are attempting to communicate might be beyond said humble abilities.
verbosity and points obscured by overstated analogies are funny things. perhaps a book penned by Hemingway would have been more appropriate? this is all a separate can of worms though.
the third analogy reeks of the belief that the audience is stupid. i don't believe that. the audience is simply sending us a very strong message. 'the fast, superfluous and superficial content in many of the dailies is mildly interesting and most of us will indeed read it. we will not pay for it though and this is not due to inherent character faults'.
the power of the consumer in action!
the message i am receiving is, 'if the subject matter is relevant, you provide engaging and well crafted content, we will support with our wallets'.
removing the middle and creating an environment where content providers and the audience engage and decide together how to recreate media's role in this new world, without the bloated mediocrity that has been riding the coattails of others, seems a win win, non?
-
does anyone know how to change my 'student' designation to 'drop-out'?
-
does anyone know how to change my 'student' designation to 'drop-out'?
Hi John,
I believe a global moderator has such powers ::)
Cheers,
Jack