In early 1996, while I was in design school in Boston, I took a Graphic Design internship at a magazine called Stuff. This wasn’t the macho/meathead Stuff that arose later, this was a Boston-based culture/fashion/music/literary monthly that got distributed (for free) at hip Northeast locations, including boutiques, galleries, record stores, book stores, etc. It was an over-sized, predominantly black and white magazine, printed on paper that was a couple steps above newsprint.

A few months later my internship was up, and they hired me as a freelance designer. A few months after that the art director left. As the only one involved who knew the production process, and nuts and bolts of the magazine, I ended up filling the position temporarily… which came to mean about two years. I had some sense of what I was doing. Some.

My time at Stuff was the tail end of when magazines were still made the “old way.” These days, everything is done on a computer, and layouts barely see paper until it hits a press plate. Printers don’t even have a real pre-press (film to plate) phase anymore. Everything is direct to plate. For this reason, it’s gotten a LOT cheaper to make a magazine.

So there I was, waxing layouts to boards, shooting things with a Stat camera to halftone them, and repeatedly stabbing myself with X-acto knives (not on purpose). But, somehow, I was making a magazine. The old fashioned way. As time went on I started pushing things farther and farther with typography, bringing things as far as the publisher and the parent company would let me. I had a lot of leeway. This was a time when Neville Brody, David Carson, Art Chantry, Martin Venezky, P. Scott Makela and others were making some really progressive typographic magazines. The Face, Beach Culture, Blue, Speak, Raygun, Bikini, Sweater, etc. These were magazines that where pushing visual interpretation as far as they could, offending a lot of design purist, and making a lot of others happy.

Stuff went all over the board as I had pretty much open reign to fuck things up. Some of it, looking back is really terrible, but most of the stuff I hate is the stuff that wasn’t experimental. Some of it is still some of my favorite work that I’ve done. I was blowing things up on the copier, running things through the fax machine, even taking other people’s trash from the Stat camera room and reusing it. I started learning photography at Stuff as well, so really, that magazine was my education. There is no better way to learn than doing something. While I was going to school during that time, the real stuff I was learning was at the magazine. In school you learn the rules. At Stuff I could break the rules. Sometimes people got in arguments over it.

In the middle of 1998 they hired a full-time art director. I continued to design the poetry page (Re:Verse) for a few months, but I otherwise focused more on school, and the magazine I was starting with Brian Tunney, Nine-Ninety. Later that year the publisher who gave me all the opportunities along the way was fired, and ultimately the magazine was rolled into a nightlife publication called Stuff@Night. This is a collection of work from “The Stuff Years.” Still some of my favorite work, over ten years later. Thanks to Robert Birnbaum and the rest of the crew for some good times.

Yesterday I wrote a post about advertising and editorial relationships specifically as the issue pertains to a recent snowboard magazine cover. The bulk of that thought involved the compensation for Photographers, writers, and even the athletes when the editorial becomes an ad campaign. This post was to draw attention to Mike Berard’s great post and discussion on the subject.

Later in the day I added a note to the post:
The biggest, and most important question I see (and one that no one seems to be asking) is this — If brand X can pay to insert its logo on any photo in a magazine, in the case of TWS a cover shot, what incentive do they have to sponsor athletes?

This morning I thinking further about the significance of this. I’ve posted two recent covers above. One is the TWS in question, with a company’s logo allegedly added in post production (and allegedly without the rider in the photo, who doesn’t get paid ensorsement from BPF, having knowledge of it), and the other is a recent cover of the BMX Magazine Dig (which I was reminded of by @harrisonboyce on Twitter). In all reality, the branding on the Dig cover is far more “in your face” yet there can be little debate over it. Levis and Monster energy both pay Jamie Bestwick to endorse their product. The benefit being that Jamie, one of the best in the world on a BMX bike, is associated with their products in the eyes of his fans and readers of BMX media. Jamie is paid to represent those brands when he gets coverage for his skills, like on the cover above. Those brands support Jamie in his efforts to do what he does, and he supports them. They’ve essentially worked with Jamie to get that cover exposure.

The snow cover has less prominent branding, allegedly added after the fact, to a photo from a Team Shootout presented by an advertiser. A huge factor that no one has been talking about (or maybe even considered until I wrote about it yesterday) regards the athlete endorsements. Despite the fact that Jamie wins nearly every competition he attends, he still depends on endorsements not only for income but for support. A winning rider like Jamie is an exception even. The majority of athletes in action sports who compete on a professional level go into competitions with the “I have to get at least 8th place to eat next week.” That’s a lot of pressure. Winning is a lot easier when that pressure is off. The brands benefit, and the riders benefit. Endemic companies like BMX brands and snowboard manufacturers often have low margins and are able to pay their athletes very little salary. Those non-endemic brands become that much more important. A rider like LNP is paid by brands like Rome Snowboards to produce video parts and get coverage like this particular TWS cover. The brand and the athlete are in a relationship and they work hard to promote each other’s interests.

So back to the question this all raises. Now I know that Levis is down for BMX, and has been remarkably supportive in their program over the last few years. But if the high ups at brands like Levis are presented with the opportunity to have their brand positioned prominently every time, why wouldn’t they go for it? Even the best in the world doesn’t get a magazine cover every month. But print and online coverage is one of the things a brand hopes to get out of a top rider. If they can buy their way onto a prominent position, what’s their incentive to support the athletes day in and day out? As much as some of these brands have done great things and been incredibly supportive, they are in it for the money.

There is no question that new relationships need to develop between print and advertising in order for these publications to survive. But to what extent should those lines be blurred, and what is in the best interests of the professionals who make these sports what they are? While the Team Shootout was a sponsored feature, presented by an advertiser, it’s not presented that way on the cover, at least in my opinion as a reader. I’m all for sponsored content, but what’s next? Adding a delicious looking product to a rider’s hand? We are on a scary and slippery slope. A slope who’s only interest in mind might be keeping a magazine around a few extra months. At what point do you pull in the reigns?

In reality I’m presenting these issues more as questions and points of thoughts than as criticisms of Transworld. I think there are some big picture issues here in regards to publishing, media, and action sports that need to be discussed. It’s not the advertisers fault, they are just looking for the best marketing opportunities to reach out to their consumers. They should be doing anything they can to send their message. It’s the Publisher who makes the ultimate decision.

The first magazine job I got in 1996 was a real shocker. I quickly learned that content was diluted and often dictated by the advertisers. The appeasing of advertisers wasn’t a shock. The extent to which it happened was.

For years editorial and advertising relationships have been hidden, shunned and disputed. But they are there. The issue is in how those relationships are presented. Branded content is prevalent on the internet, but for some reason many still hold print in a higher regard when it comes to professional journalism. But now that branded content has been happening on the print front it’s causing quite a stir. ESPN magazine got their throats jumped down earlier this year just as Vogue did many years ago. But it’s all changing.

This month’s Transworld Snowboarding cover has caused one heck of a stir. Mike Berard’s site has a post on it (and you can see the cover in question there), where a discussion has begun (to which I left a comment). I will say this: I am not opposed to branded content. I’m opposed to advertiser directed journalism. I think at this point we’re at a societal point where these things aren’t going to exist unless they are branded. How much of that gets brand driven? Colors Magazine, funded by Benetton, was one of the most culturally aware publications ever produced. But few brands would agree to such subtle involvement. We are a “make the logo bigger” society.

My question in the whole mess regards photographers and writers. When they produce advertising content they are compensated very differently then with editorial because they are selling a product. While a Transworld cover may only pay several hundred dollars, an advertisement for a non-endemic brand can pay in excess of $10,000. Photographers make very little money off of editorial and writers are in the same boat. They depend on licensing for advertising. Without that licensing the photographer’s career is going to be a thing of the past. The question is, if your photo appears on the cover of a magazine with a logo super-imposed, is it editorial, or is it advertising? To me, in my opinion, it is advertising. The licensing fee should reflect that. Is the athlete compensated for their involvement in this advertisement? They’d better be. You can read more on Mike’s blog and chime in.

Edit Note: The biggest, and most important question I see (and one that no one seems to be asking) is this — If brand X can pay to insert its logo on any photo in a magazine, in the case of TWS a cover shot, what incentive do they have to sponsor athletes?

Maybe I’ll start adding the above “Consume” watermark to all my images that get used in print? Would that be a problem?