I think Frank described the problem. There's "no production value" in today's journals. (1) All magazines are now geared to using non-professional and unpaid writers who are enthusiasts and want to have a chance at a "carrot" of their name in print that the editor or publisher holds out to them.
Like Ken Smith noted regarding fly fishing, many writers and photographers are busy writing about 'must have' new equipment. (2) This is what the magazines want to show advertisers. These amateur writers do this for free. The entire business model is one geared to 'shareholders/owners', advertisers and people buying goods and services, with no cash paid or outlay for writing and photography. (3) There's no interest in writers who want to discuss current photographic styles or photographic issues of 'police vs photographers' in public areas.They have little interest in professional writers and photographers who want to be paid. Some regulars here at RFF can testify to this first hand.
So the magazines are hollow and have no production value because they are prepared by unpaid or underpaid staff. I know because (4) I've friends who've been declined for failing to discuss equipment, locations, and technique. These writers wanted to describe some photographic styles. That brought an editors request to please rewrite and include brands, places and more "how to" plus places to stay and eat. He declined. He knew he wouldn't be published.
Because there are no paid writers or very few, these publishers are now harvesting "no revenue" because readers aren't interested in paying (5) $12 for a magazine with amateur writing and a 75 percent commercial advertising content. What's right with this model? Nothing is right with it.
How do you fix it? Pay for good writers and photographers. Will it happen? I doubt it. Why? Because everyone has decided that quality is unimportant and cheap is what is best. This managerial credo is suffocating North America.
Dear Jan,
This is not entirely true, though there is a good deal of truth in it.
First highlight: All the magazines I write for, obviously, pay their writers, though not well and not always quickly.
Second highlight: No. Getting kit for review ain't always easy, and the manufacturers sure as hell don't hand it out to unknown amateurs.
Third highlight: On the contrary, this is exactly what I am paid to do every week at
Amateur Photographer (though on the third week of each month it's on the web site, not in the magazine). The on-site staff (I'm off-site freelance) also cover photographers' rights at some length.
For that matter, the Party Line at Shutterbug is that they are going to concentrate more on technique and less on equipment. My last two articles -- January and Febrary -- suggest that they are putting their money where their mouth is. January was about how to achieve a vintage look in your pictures (not really a basic beginners' article) and February was about creating a body of work.
Fourth highlight: Well, you have to give the magazines what they want, but I have to say, the closest I've come to what you describe is being asked to point out that you don't have to use the kit I use, i.e. they don't want one advertiser complaining that another is being favoured, and this doesn't happen very often.
The simple truth is that most articles which are rejected are those submitted by people who can take pictures but can't read and write OR by people who can read and write but can't take pictures. Then there are those doing 'me-too' articles or articles that are completely inappropriate to the magazine in question.
Fifth highlight: I can't see a price on the cover of Shutterbug but I'm pretty sure it's not $12. I do however know that it's $22.95 a year inside the US, or rather under $2 a copy. Amateur Photographer's cover price is £2.40, about $3.75, or £49.50 for six months. This is for a WEEKLY, remember: 26 copies at around £1.90 (call it $2.99) a copy.
Obviously you can't please all of the people, all of the time. In any magazine, there are bound to be articles that don't interest you personally, or me personally, or someone else personally. All you can hope for is enough stuff, of enough interest, to make it worth buying the magazine across the year -- which at $22.95 for a whole year doesn't seem a wild extravagance.
Don't get me wrong. There is a hell of a lot wrong with the magazine business, and I am normally one of the first to complain. But the picture is not quite as you paint it.
Cheers,
Roger
