CosmoGirl - Good Riddance!
Daryl Lang over at PDNPulse - Breaking News: CosmoGirl To Fold - reports of the demise of CosmoGirl. Good Riddance I say.
Several years ago, I was speaking with a photographer who shared with me the response they got from a photo editor there, when they inquired to him about an image they wanted to use of his:
"Dear XXXX,
We really like the photo you sent, and think it's a great fit for the story. As to your question about payment, we don't pay to run photos, but we do provide a photo credit...."
Needless to say, his photo didn't run, because they were not paying. This publisher clearly wanted to improve their bottom line on the backs of creatives, and so, to that end, I say as they finally fail - GOOD RIDDANCE.
Word to the wise for photo editors making those demands of photographers: Don't do it. Stand up for the creatives you want to - or are - working for. You know that as your pool of free photos dies up, the quality of your content will diminish, and so to, the quality of samples of your work for future jobs.
I have little compassion for photo editors who, while they had their staff jobs, took advantage of photographers to get free and cheap work, and now are out of a job.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
6 comments:
That's the best goodbye you can come up with for these scumbags?
How about wishing them well while they try to find jobs in this shitty economy..........or better yet maybe a good old fashioned fuck you will suffice.
Wow how professional. Scum bags, fuck you? How about looking at this and saying I wonder how a magazine that doesn't have to incurr the cost of paying freelnce photographers can go out of business?
Also why would one feel that they are entitled as a vendor to have the company adapt to their requests? If people want to provide images for free that's between them and their god. I'm waaaayyy over worrying about vendors in my profession giving their work away for free. They, like the magazine's that are also poorly run, will be out of business and I'm buffering myself through actions, not complaining about the way it ought to be. Isn't that a strategy of a famous Conservative? The one who always complains but offers nothing in reality, literally nothing.. Back to reality folks, shoot- edit- print- present, shoot- edit- print- present, shoot- edit- print-present.... present.........
True, it's pointless to lash out, you dont want potential clients remembering you liek that but there's something to be said about the first comment and about the industry. You have to stand up to buyers willing to squeeze something for nothing. That editor at CosmoGirl was probably an intern or a low paying assistant working on a small budget and he/she looked at some phone numbers on a desk somewhere with no clue on how to conduct a strategy and propose a deal. It happens even with the best of brands. That mag couldn't compete with other girly mags and their ad revenues went south. But look, all this is nothing in comparison with what's going on in the bigger scheme of things. Agency giants like Getty Images are offering next to nothing for their photos by setting up subscriptions. Clients pay a flat fee and use as many pictures as they want. CosmoGirl, I am almost certain, had become a client. They all do.
Getting asked to license for free? Or at low, low prices? It happens all the time. And, after saying I won't do that, it's always fun hearing them ask for referrals to someone who will.
We photographers are to blame. We created this monster. We're the ones who've insisted, we're the ones who have proved, more often than not, that anything is better than nothing when we don't have enough work or enough revenues. We led the charge in devaluing our own work.
Now that our chickens have come home to roost, what's really interesting is how we do business in the teeth of this devaluation of our own work.
I will have to agree with the comment about subscriptions. Speaking of editorial usage, photographer livelihoods are at stake and are being compromised by this microstock devaluation tactic to lure sales. Gone are the days of high paying royalties. Who's going to pay 200 bucks for a shot when they can get 200 photos for the same amount of money? It's happening. And it's not all of our fault.
Yes good riddance, screw 'em. Tired of these cheap bastards and their low paid staff. That's why it's all screwed up, their hired help make peanuts trying to run a magazine!
The magazine industry, with the exception of People Magazine, make no money. I don't know how anyone would want to work for one, let alone take on the dismal task of begging for free pictures from starving artists. Sick.
Post a Comment