michaelwj
----------------
Just like the printing press changed everything very quickly a few generations ago - and allowed a magazine to exist as a business.
What one hand gives, the other takes away so to speak.
Popular Photography shutting down
- Thread starter farlymac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 50
- Views 4K
Just like the printing press changed everything very quickly a few generations ago - and allowed a magazine to exist as a business.
What one hand gives, the other takes away so to speak.
charjohncarter
Veteran
The only magazine I would buy in college and high school. Everyone else was buying Playboy, but I needed my fix on Spiratone ads, besides I had a good girlfriend.
ZivcoPhoto
Well-known
I have to admit, it was Modern Photography, and Herb Keppler's articles, along with the lens tests that held my interest in the '60s while in college and after. Bought several Vivitar lenses from 47th Street photo off of their ads in the back of the magazine.
Sid836
Well-known
This is how it goes. The internet has changed things by quite a bit. Not everything can follow these changes, and nothing can stop that from changing.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I haven't read it in forever, because new cameras haven't been interesting in forever.
Maybe they could have put more emphasis on photographers and technique, but while that might have kept reader's attention it probably wouldn't keep advertisers attention. Their website (which I also had never visited) seems sterile and lacking in character. The internet thrives on gimmicks and fads, and it seems like a lot of companies, they didn't keep their finger on the pulse.
You might have hated their goofy videos, but one of the big reasons Digital Rev TV's youtube channel has over a million subscribers is because they occasionally made goofy videos just to get people's attention. Now you don't have to be goofy to get attention, but you do have do something to stand out if you want attention in this age.
Maybe they could have put more emphasis on photographers and technique, but while that might have kept reader's attention it probably wouldn't keep advertisers attention. Their website (which I also had never visited) seems sterile and lacking in character. The internet thrives on gimmicks and fads, and it seems like a lot of companies, they didn't keep their finger on the pulse.
You might have hated their goofy videos, but one of the big reasons Digital Rev TV's youtube channel has over a million subscribers is because they occasionally made goofy videos just to get people's attention. Now you don't have to be goofy to get attention, but you do have do something to stand out if you want attention in this age.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The American magazine model has long been deeply flawed: ridiculously cheap subscriptions subsidized by advertising, often to the point that the advertising tail wagged the editorial dog.
A subscription to Amateur Photographer magazine gets you 51 issues a year (yes, it's a weekly, with a combined Christmas/New Year issue) but people who are used to annual subscriptions of $2.95 a year can't get their heads around the idea that a magazine might be worth anything. AP is $82.47 even in digital! Also, Zinio's site (where you go to subscribe) is bloody useless: you have to try quite hard to find AP. Use "Search for Magazines" at the head of their page.
Cheers,
R.
A subscription to Amateur Photographer magazine gets you 51 issues a year (yes, it's a weekly, with a combined Christmas/New Year issue) but people who are used to annual subscriptions of $2.95 a year can't get their heads around the idea that a magazine might be worth anything. AP is $82.47 even in digital! Also, Zinio's site (where you go to subscribe) is bloody useless: you have to try quite hard to find AP. Use "Search for Magazines" at the head of their page.
Cheers,
R.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I have, as well, noticed the cheap subscription cost for many magazines. Could it be an attempt to keep subscription numbers up or lengthening the curve of declining viewership even tho many have taken a pass on subscribing or renewal? I think one of the real flaws here is basing advertising rates on the number of subscriptions. The same idea is used with many television networks. They all crave eyeballs viewing and attempt many schemes to entice them to their media.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Interesting.
I doubt it really has to do with lack of demand for a print magazine.
Because here in Germany we have more than 20 (!!) photography print magazines.
Even one of them is a 100% film photography magazine (PhotoKlassik, they are really good). It is about current active film photography, it is not for collectors (we also have two special magazines for collectors only).
Among these more than 20 print magazines there are also specialised magazines for nature / wildlife photography, for professional photography, for amateurs, photoshop fans, gear tests, BW photography....whatever you like.
Cheers, Jan
I doubt it really has to do with lack of demand for a print magazine.
Because here in Germany we have more than 20 (!!) photography print magazines.
Even one of them is a 100% film photography magazine (PhotoKlassik, they are really good). It is about current active film photography, it is not for collectors (we also have two special magazines for collectors only).
Among these more than 20 print magazines there are also specialised magazines for nature / wildlife photography, for professional photography, for amateurs, photoshop fans, gear tests, BW photography....whatever you like.
Cheers, Jan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jan,
This is strongly cultural. As I already said, the US subscriber model was deeply flawed. Readers and advertisers alike prized quantity over quality, and the advertising department was/is all too often allowed to drive the editorial content. Of course there is/was feedback between editorial and advertising, and of course advertising subsidizes the magazine; but both advertising people and bean-counters failed to appreciate the importance of good content in attracting and keeping readers.
As a very general rule, non-Anglophone readers seem more willing to pay for good content.
Cheers,
R.
willie_901
Veteran
I agree. The only wonder is how they stayed afloat until now.
All they had to do was adapt their business model to a new reality. Others built a robust, economically viable internet presence without any reader base whatsoever.
Unfortunately there are scores of healthy businesses with a solid customer base who, in principle, had a head start in embracing the impact of new technologies but chose not to do so. How many corporations who profited from CDs and DVDs didn't leverage their businesses into streaming the same content?
I don't believe this is a case of "hind-sight is always 20-20". After all, how to profit from an entirely new distribution channel was obvious to many people. Those are the people who are still in business.
What I miss is pay-for-view content with editorial and peer review. For me these add value.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Willie,
Yeah. Right. "All". Have you any idea how difficult this is for an established magazine? Clearly not. Why do you think so many have gone bust? I've been writing for magazines for years and I've seen this from the other side of the page.
Cheers,
R.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
This thread would be a good place to mention your favorite
photo magazine still published and available by subscription...
Chris
photo magazine still published and available by subscription...
Chris
Roger Hicks
Veteran
jsrockit
Moderator
Aperture Magazine. M Magazine.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Black and White. Outdoor Photographer.
willie_901
Veteran
Roger,
Of course it is difficult.
How difficult was it for people who have no experience in journalism, no experienced contributors, no advertisers, no previous relationships with advertisers and very little capital?
Yet DPReview (launched in 1998, purchased by Amazon in 2007) made something from nothing. This was difficult too. And they now use editorial and peer review. (And yes, their forums are still essentially useless.) Luminous Landscape is another example of how to monetize journalism about photography. Nikonians is an example of commercial success for a relatively limited audience.
There are similar examples in non-photographic fields. And there are many others that don't involve information technology as the force behind radical change in the market place.
The issue isn't would it work, but whether or not someone had the vision to reinvent their business. They had to kill print as their primary distribution channel to survive as a media presence. Someone had to have the desire to make it work in a new reality. But no one did. Just because a business refuses to reinvent or doesn't accept reinvention is required, doesn't mean change is impossibly difficult.
So yes, I do realize it is difficult. The media/publishing landscape is littered with failed businesses who refused to change their business model to map onto reality. The rate of change is unprecedented. The magnitude of change required to thrive is unprecedented. But businesses who adapted are making money. There was no fundamental reason why photography journalism couldn't thrive. It is a tragic waste no one realized the death of print content was inevitable and took timely action to initiate a gradual transition to digital content.
Note to moderators, if it is forbidden to mention DPreview, Luminous Landscape, and, or Nikonians, please send me a PM after you delete this post. I will modify it and resubmit.
Range-rover
Veteran
Last week I went looking for the new copy and didn't see any so I knew something
was up. Years back when we had Popular Photography and Modern Photography
running side by side on the news stands it was great, but I have to say Pop Photo
had a great camera review section they actually took the camera apart which I bet
thrilled the camera company's to see the insides of the camera's. when the one mag
acquired the other it wasn't the same.
was up. Years back when we had Popular Photography and Modern Photography
running side by side on the news stands it was great, but I have to say Pop Photo
had a great camera review section they actually took the camera apart which I bet
thrilled the camera company's to see the insides of the camera's. when the one mag
acquired the other it wasn't the same.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Willie,
No, it's not "changing the business model". It's starting a completely new business, usually without competent and decently paid journalists, usually with a very narrow focus. It means destroying an existing team and creating a new one.
A LOT of magazines attempted what you describe, "a gradual transition to digital content". No-one has yet made it work. It would mean paying for content, and THAT'S what has proved so lethal for print. Everyone wants everything for free on the internet. It may be free rubbish, but hey, it's free.
Cheers,
R.
Pioneer
Veteran
The problem, whether or not the content is free, whether some of it is rubbish, whether the writing is good or terrible, it is immediate.
We no longer have to wait until next month to read that review on the newest gear, we can read it today.
Not only that, we can read several reviews on the same piece of gear, without subscribing to a number of different magazines.
Then we get together on a forum like this one and compare our own experiences and our own photographs.
Sure, some of it is rubbish. But most of us are intelligent enough to sort out the rubbish and toss it out.
And if we aren't that savvy, there are several respected members on forums like these that help us come to the right conclusions.
And my memory recalls that there was a fair bit of rubbish being tossed off as fact in the magazines as well, with no world wide gathering of peers to identify it as such.
And face it. Subscriptions never paid for magazines anyway. It was the advertisers. It was all those advertisements we used to curse as we sorted through those magazines like Popular Photography and others.
The print media just cannot compete with that. It is very hard on everyone who depends on those magazines for a living but the continued death of most of those magazines is inexorable. Some will survive, by being the best at what they do with high quality content that makes it worth subscribing. Some just because they are the last of their kind still standing.
We no longer have to wait until next month to read that review on the newest gear, we can read it today.
Not only that, we can read several reviews on the same piece of gear, without subscribing to a number of different magazines.
Then we get together on a forum like this one and compare our own experiences and our own photographs.
Sure, some of it is rubbish. But most of us are intelligent enough to sort out the rubbish and toss it out.
And if we aren't that savvy, there are several respected members on forums like these that help us come to the right conclusions.
And my memory recalls that there was a fair bit of rubbish being tossed off as fact in the magazines as well, with no world wide gathering of peers to identify it as such.
And face it. Subscriptions never paid for magazines anyway. It was the advertisers. It was all those advertisements we used to curse as we sorted through those magazines like Popular Photography and others.
The print media just cannot compete with that. It is very hard on everyone who depends on those magazines for a living but the continued death of most of those magazines is inexorable. Some will survive, by being the best at what they do with high quality content that makes it worth subscribing. Some just because they are the last of their kind still standing.
JHutchins
Well-known
Ads we used to curse? I remember buying shutterbug just for the ads. A way to stoke gear acquisition syndrome until I could afford that new body or lens.
As for popular photography -- I don't want to be too glib about the changing marketplace because there have certainly been important changes. But I think those changes maybe made it too easy for the people at pop photo to tell themselves it wasn't them. It got to the point where I didn't really have enough interest in it to test my eyes briefly on the cover as I was glancing through the magazine rack.
Probably what the internet has done more than anything else is made the editor all-important. There's so much out there that the one thing that has any continuing value is someone with the ability to consistently find interesting content to present. You have to beat Google of course, which is tough. It means you have to show people what they didn't know they wanted to see.
As for popular photography -- I don't want to be too glib about the changing marketplace because there have certainly been important changes. But I think those changes maybe made it too easy for the people at pop photo to tell themselves it wasn't them. It got to the point where I didn't really have enough interest in it to test my eyes briefly on the cover as I was glancing through the magazine rack.
Probably what the internet has done more than anything else is made the editor all-important. There's so much out there that the one thing that has any continuing value is someone with the ability to consistently find interesting content to present. You have to beat Google of course, which is tough. It means you have to show people what they didn't know they wanted to see.
