Ed Endicott Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I am going to go out and buy a copy of Harper's simply to support MacArthurs comments. I wonder though if publishers and editors are finally starting to get the message? http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2013/10/if-we-spend-25k-on-a-photo-essay-readers-should-pay-to-see-it-says-harpers-publisher.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 He is talking a lot of sense. I also agree with the suggestion of a sliding scale subscription, whereby we pay for what we read/how many pages we access. Good journalism & photography should not be lost to the world. If quality media wants to survive, then methods must/have to change over time to accommodate/incorporate new media that don't just rely on providing search engines and online thieves with content in order to provide the media sites with hits to their Websites from the search engines - I think the changes are only just beginning. The slow start of a Google/Facebook backlash - or am I just dreaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidLyons Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I am going to go out and buy a copy of Harper's simply to support MacArthurs comments. I wonder though if publishers and editors are finally starting to get the message? http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2013/10/if-we-spend-25k-on-a-photo-essay-readers-should-pay-to-see-it-says-harpers-publisher.html Thanks for bringing our attention to that Ed. So rare (and so refreshing) to see someone speaking up for the real content providers these days rather than just making money from our work. Perhaps, going forward, we will find some agencies will be on our side. And some will not. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I have always held Harper's in high regard.They were a client of mine for many years when they'd do special events in my city. They had a high regard for me as a photographer(paid well and promptly!) and they regarded all of the editors,contributors and advertisers I had met at these events. Probably one of the few publishers where you'd never hear anything bad about them. Glad they are speaking out!L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Many UK Newspapers are already heading this way - with the Online versions already 'paid for' - unfortunately the contracts signed with many picture libraries/agencies still 'include' ALL versions in a single title and All titles in a group with no regard to the fact that the old free online edition is now a commercial fact. James' hoped-for re-negotiation of the newspaper schemes is urgently needed....and he should insert a 'no-syndication without an additional license' clause as well...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Many UK Newspapers are already heading this way - with the Online versions already 'paid for' - unfortunately the contracts signed with many picture libraries/agencies still 'include' ALL versions in a single title and All titles in a group with no regard to the fact that the old free online edition is now a commercial fact. James' hoped-for re-negotiation of the newspaper schemes is urgently needed....and he should insert a 'no-syndication without an additional license' clause as well...... +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Many UK Newspapers are already heading this way - with the Online versions already 'paid for' Which ones besides the Murdoch publications? I read in the blog linked to Ed's post that the Telegraph requires a subscription after 20 articles/month (however that would be monitored) but I've never seen anything like that. The Independent and Guardian are free. What am I missing? I currently do not buy any publication except an occasional Outdoor Photography. I'd happily subscribe £1 or 2 per week to the Guardian to keep it alive as I think it provides an essential service to society (British and global) but I'm probably in a small minority of the 20 million or so Guardian readers globally who would do so. As long as there is free news, how many people are going to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 The Telegraph does indeed set a cookie which counts your visits and blacks out after 20 However it can't count hits from a privat window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 OK. That makes sense. The comment I saw said 20 articles not 20 visits but nothing died after I tried out the travel and football sections this morning to well over 20 articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Check the Telegraph and FT websites - Trinity Mirror is poised to follow Times, Sun, and their Sunday papers - as are Express and Associated Newspapers - as usual waiting to see how Murdoch gets on....if you can really have the time and effort required you can fiddle your way round part of the limited access sites - but life is too short - and shouldn't you be doing something with your camera instead. Also if you have the time check out the rest of the US sites that are trying to make their Online versions pay....... The trouble is you can see this from their point of view as well - who will pay the journalists salaries if everyone tries to get it for free with 'free' sites simply recycling material..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Many UK Newspapers are already heading this way - with the Online versions already 'paid for' - unfortunately the contracts signed with many picture libraries/agencies still 'include' ALL versions in a single title and All titles in a group with no regard to the fact that the old free online edition is now a commercial fact. James' hoped-for re-negotiation of the newspaper schemes is urgently needed....and he should insert a 'no-syndication without an additional license' clause as well...... Quote from Ask James Take 2 video (with enhanced sound [thank God!]): "We are going to take the opportunity to revise some of these contracts if the business conditions improve" (my emphasis) 'some' 'if' - we can only hope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Many UK Newspapers are already heading this way - with the Online versions already 'paid for' - unfortunately the contracts signed with many picture libraries/agencies still 'include' ALL versions in a single title and All titles in a group with no regard to the fact that the old free online edition is now a commercial fact. James' hoped-for re-negotiation of the newspaper schemes is urgently needed....and he should insert a 'no-syndication without an additional license' clause as well...... +1 + 2 Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 The trouble is you can see this from their point of view as well - who will pay the journalists salaries if everyone tries to get it for free with 'free' sites simply recycling material..... I don't mind if they all go behind a paywall as long as they start paying decent fees again for content (some hope!!). It would also stop aggregating websites leeching off them and therefore some theft of our images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 The trouble is you can see this from their point of view as well - who will pay the journalists salaries if everyone tries to get it for free with 'free' sites simply recycling material..... I don't mind if they all go behind a paywall as long as they start paying decent fees again for content (some hope!!). It would also stop aggregating websites leeching off them and therefore some theft of our images. Good point. But I wonder how many will survive if they do require subscriptions, particularly the tabloids (perhaps much of the tabloid revenue still comes from hardcopy?). People are too used to getting stuff for free. And there is presumably a negative hit with advertising revenue when the number of users inevitably drops. And then there is the BBC to factor in, still great for facts if not so much for opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 The trouble is you can see this from their point of view as well - who will pay the journalists salaries if everyone tries to get it for free with 'free' sites simply recycling material..... I don't mind if they all go behind a paywall as long as they start paying decent fees again for content (some hope!!). It would also stop aggregating websites leeching off them and therefore some theft of our images. Good point. But I wonder how many will survive if they do require subscriptions, particularly the tabloids (perhaps much of the tabloid revenue still comes from hardcopy?). People are too used to getting stuff for free. And there is presumably a negative hit with advertising revenue when the number of users inevitably drops. And then there is the BBC to factor in, still great for facts if not so much for opinions. Thing is with printed media, it's out of date by the time you get to read it. As the article at the start of the thread says, the biggest cost for hard copy is in materials and delivery so going just online would show huge savings. Readership can be worldwide instead of UK only (for example) and being able to show unique views to advertisers would be a selling point. The fact adverts can be targeted is also tempting to advertisers. I agree that it will be hard to sell digital newspapers when there are plenty of free alternatives but if most go behind firewalls then people would be tempted to pay for their favourites again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Anyone who believes that they are getting anything for ‘free’ needs to have their heads examined – The BBC ain’t a FREE alternative for news coverage – it costs an absolute bomb, have a look at the size of the teams of journalists, production techies, experts, etc., shipped in for even a relatively unimportant event like a football match – who the hell do you think pays for this ? When Online editions for UK national newspapers were first muted the selling features included the fact that the Interwebthingy was so powerful and unstoppable that all newspapers would soon be delivered electronically to the reader – advertisers would remain key to the paper’s finances – and would be happy to pay to have their words in millions of homes. Massive printing plants would become redundant (as would the masses of print workers, lorry drivers, lorries, ink mixers, log cutters, shipping contractors, paper makers.) So much money would be saved that they could afford (!) to have a loss leader by providing the Online edition without charge. Charging would be introduced when a critical mass was reached and the paper versions switched off. News would take a lesser role because 24hr telenews would become the medium of choice for most readers – so features and celebrity pap would form the bulk of the content. Photographer/story writers would be housed in a small office block in the suburbs plying their trade electronically to the website assemblers in a cheap office literally anywhere – taking most of their images from the stock libraries/agencies who by this time had been beaten into a price war with each other happily believing the managing editor’s cries of: “But our Online editions are running at a loss…..” How? Dear Reader, I hear you ask, do you know all this ? ‘Cos I was there, and heard it, and ‘cos I am here and can see it all coming to pass… it is a penalty of getting on a bit – very depressing it is too – is it a bit early for the dregs of that old single malt I had tucked away ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 David - if nothing else. at least you have the consolation that you were there when times were good (and you have an amazing and unique portfiolio to prove it). It's evolution and, like it or not, it's going to happen just like life will go on after you and I take leave of this mortal coil. Photographers' and journalists' financial concerns aside, the internet is a truly amazing development for human society and is mostly beneficial in my opinion. I can still be in awe at the technological developments that have occurred in the last 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidC Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 MDM - me too - but I'm in awe of the technological developments in the last 100 minutes ! Regarding the portfolio I still weep for the nearly forty years worth of images which are the © of companies who employed me, and which sit in vast unmanned paper, glass and film archives - if you can't pull it up on the browser then who has the time to look through those dusty old files ? Ah ! found that malt, nearly two inches left ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 MDM - me too - but I'm in awe of the technological developments in the last 100 minutes ! Regarding the portfolio I still weep for the nearly forty years worth of images which are the © of companies who employed me, and which sit in vast unmanned paper, glass and film archives - if you can't pull it up on the browser then who has the time to look through those dusty old files ? Ah ! found that malt, nearly two inches left ! Sad but what can you do? There must be billions of images that will never be seen for the same reason. As I said above, you do have some great portraits to be proud of. How many people got to photograph Mick Jagger close up? Enjoy the malt if there's any left. I'm off to enjoy (hopefully) one of the great benefits of modern life in Britain - a delicious Indian curry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semmick Photo Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Related to the subject http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world?CMP=twt_gu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Related to the subject http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world?CMP=twt_gu Strongly related. Thanks for the link, Semmick: an excellent read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.