Why Not Save That Photo for Print?

Editors Note: This is a discussion about editorial, mostly in the Action Sports genre. Obviously commissioned advertising is a different beast. Those images are created to promote or sell a product, and out of respect to the clients needs posting them isn’t an option, at least until after the campaign has run.

I’ve been posting a lot of original content/photos on here and on other sites that I could have saved for exclusive print use. Print magazines, at least in action sports, are concerned that contributions aren’t going to be seen prior to the magazine’s release. This use to be justifiable. But I think that’s changed, as all media has changed. So why not just hold stuff for print? There are a lot of answers to that question, but audience has been a big influence on my decisions to “let content out of the bag” online immediately. I’m not arguing that images shouldn’t go to print, I’m arguing that in many cases they are no less valuable to a print audience if they’ve been viewed on line. In many cases the two uses can benefit each other. One is a quality, tactile experience, the other is immediate.

Another upside to posting online is I can be my own editor. Magazines are — and should be — extensions of the people who produce them. Every photo editor has his or her own vision, and a style of image/subject they prefer. That doesn’t always mesh with what I think makes a good image, so here I can make my own decisions. I don’t have to worry about what’s “cool” in other peoples mind. This is not to say I intend to immediately publish everything I shoot on the web, it’s an explanation of why, in my opinion it’s a valid outlet, and wouldn’t make those photos any less relevant to a print use down the road (again, in my opinion). Of course, with contributions to other online sites there are photo editors who will make choices on usage.

The third, and one of the most important aspects to delivering content to an online audience is the ability to create online dialogue with viewers immediately. Comments back and forth ad a new dynamic between viewers and the content. Reader mail in print just didn’t have the same energy. Viewers can not online interact with the content, they can share opinions with each other. For better or worse, it’s a new frontier.

Print publications are limited in terms of audience. This is a fact.
Printing runs and distribution confine the audience of a print publication. Even in a media-rich city like Portland, Oregon, I often have to seek out print titles when I’m looking for them. Newsstand options are shrinking, so the audience narrows more each day. While that fact is disappointing, it is a reality. And it’s not a print is dying argument, it’s a “Media as we know it is dying” argument. Online media is changing as fast as print. Music, film… all this stuff is changing. New methods of delivery are altering the way information is consumed. And that information needs to hit now. Beyond that, user interaction with that information online brings content to the next level.

I’ve had a few experiences lately where budget-restricted print publications have held onto photographs with the intention of using them in upcoming issues. For whatever reason, if they decide not use them at some point (be it for contributor budget reasons, content reasons, etc.) it’s often months down the line before I find that out. In today’s world, by then the shots are dated. From a photography standpoint they can still be great, but from a timeliness standpoint they’re not as relevant to a viewer. People expect information right away. And with the new methods of delivery, they deserve it.

The internet provides an exponentially larger audience.
About 24% of the World’s population are internet users. That is roughly 1.6 Billion people. From 2000-2008 the World’s internet usage numbers grew 342%. In the scheme of the World population it’s a small chunk (1/4) that are internet users, but in the scheme of audience, 1.6 million people with potential access to content posted online is significant. Even if you believe the print mantra that 4-6 people read every distributed copy of a magazine, that still limits an Action Sports publication to a very small audience.

Now, by no means are 1.6 billion people looking at the content on this site. But the fact is, they do at least have access to the content. I’m increasingly suprised at the searches that lead people here, and the sites that send their audience to specific stories. A site in Russia can easily link its audience to a post on my site, and viewers can see the information immediately. It’s impressive how information is exchanged and how easily it all happens.

A few months back I started experimenting more with what sort of real audience would be seeing things if I posted them here. I can immediately feed that content to an audience via Twitter, Facebook, etc. In BMX alone, with endemic sites like The Come Up, Vital, Defgrip, BMXOnline, and more, I often get links into the content/photos I’ve posted, resulting in a large viewing audience. An immediate audience. Those sites get viewers because they post links to great content (and content of their own) and I’ve gotten a lot of viewers from them in return. But it’s not just happening with sites like that. Last months NotCot picked up on a my Bicycle Portraits, and within 24 hours I had over 3000 new unique visitors who not only looked at those photos, but others as well. So in reality a new audience could be seeing BMX photos for the first time.

But I don’t make any money from posting the photos here, do I? Magazines pay for photos.
That depends how you look at it. Photographers, artists, and general people (especially self employed people) today have to look at themselves as a brand. Professional BMX riders or skateboarders are also a brand. Artists market that brand to consumers (clients) and build a name through the work they do. BMX riders are representing their personal “brand” as well as their sponsors. So audience is vital. I get work based on the work people see and the larger that audience is, the more people who can potential demand your work. Advertising clients use search engines to find photographers, designers and more. They look at current sites like NotCot. So posting stuff here is essentially brand building.

In reality, shooting an Action Sports photo can cost a photographer like myself several hundred dollars, even if there are no “direct production costs.” What? Despite the fact that I love BMX bikes and have been around them all my life, in reality, I have to consider the billable hours that accumulate if I go out to shoot a photo. Add that to the depreciation cost of the vast amounts of gear you need (even minimal gear will cost you several thousand dollars these days from a DSLR to a computer to process), those photos don’t happen for free. So if a photo costs me a few hundred dollars to produce, even if it runs in a BMX magazine I lose money… even if it’s a cover (Note: this concept doesn’t apply to larger non-endemic magazines I shoot for like Sports Illustrated and ESPN who’s page rates are much higher, but again, they cater to a larger audience). Over the years of doing this, that’s always just been a cost of doing business. The editorial has never been a money maker, it’s essentially been advertising for the photographer’s brand. That said, online content sites need to be paying usage fees to use images just like magazines do. Afterall, depending on visit counts, that larger potential audience can lead to large ad revenues. I’m definitely not suggesting online media deserves handouts. After all, I don’t want to pay for someone else to make money off my work.

This isn’t to say I’m not giving stuff to magazines anymore, but I do think they need to get over the exclusivity thing. Does seeing a photo online devalue holding a printed version in your hands??? I don’t think so at all. It’s two different beasts. In reality, most of the stuff you see in those magazines has already been online in some capacity. People have blogged about it. There have been web edits from the same shoot or trip… while you’re not seeing the exact photo, you’re not in for a suprise when you see the magazine. In fact, magazines could be using online content to their advantage.

Recently I posted all my shots from the Old School BMX Reunion on this site. I also contributed many of the same photos to Dig Magazine. While people had seen those photos here, I don’t think they were any less important to them when they saw them in print. In fact, they also got promotion out of it. I posted notes on my Twitter and Facebook pages noting that you could check out those photos in the latest issue of Dig. And people responded to those posts with positive comments.

Print HAS to mesh the old (print) with the new (web) and use the audience to its advantage if it’s going to survive. The same goes for photographers, sponsored riders, and anyone doing any sort of business. Personally, I think a photo posted here has as much if not more benefit to a rider and myself than print alone. I also don’t think if it’s seen here, it’s any less relevant to a print publication. But that’s up to them to decide.

I should note, that have a loose plan to self publish a print piece at the end of the year/early next with my favorite images from the previous year or so, published or not. Sort of magazine style. That way the images of my choice are in print as well. Yes, that costs money, but print costs are lower than they’ve ever been, and it can be absorbed as advertising cost. A loose plan, which may change as media evolves.

Browse Timeline

• « Cincinnati ASA Action Sports World Tour
• » Donald Skatepark Pool Jam Photo Gallery

Comments ( 13 )

Add a Comment