BBC on the current and future business of photojournalism

[John Densky]

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.

[Liam Maloney]

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.

[John Densky]

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.

[Warren Toda]

...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.

[Robin Rowland]

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.

[John Densky]

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.

[John Densky]

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.

[John Densky]

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.

[Rod Frketich]

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

Each photographer runs their business differently. Hearing different ideas is what these boards are for.

[Robin Rowland]

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??  (

[John Densky]

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?

[John Densky]

does anyone know how to change my 'student' designation to 'drop-out'?

[Jack Simpson]

does anyone know how to change my 'student' designation to 'drop-out'?

Hi John,

I believe a global moderator has such powers

Cheers,

Jack