|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
How independent magazines make money.
http://www.businessoffashion.com/articl … make-money There are some amazingly weighty magazines available in the UK, full of photography and art and hardly any advertising. I always wondered how they ever made money but reading this, I see it’s not always about that. Jul 26 15 01:25 am Link Did you notice............... Nowhere in that article are ANY of those publishers discussing how they are dealing with the creatives that supply the CONTENT of their rags [with the possible exception of advertisers placing their own] How much do you want to bet, when it comes to filling pages, that a lot of them depend on "FREE" or "IT WILL BE GREAT EXPOSURE" when dealing with the creators of the [non-advertising] content they depend on?  Reading between the lions! Studio36 Jul 26 15 05:29 am Link The whole premise of the article is flawed. It mentions 'Independent' several times in the article. What does that even mean? Are they implying that other magazines are colluding to prevent them from getting out or that established magazines are chained to some organization that is aiding or harnessing them? I don't know about the UK but I am not aware of a sanctioning body in the US that anoints a magazine as being in the fold or independent. What is more significant (here at least) is distribution and auditing. A magazine has their circulation audited (verifying the actual number of issues that are read) by an 'independent' accounting service that a magazine or publisher pays for in order to show the results to advertisers. Placement in many stores and newsstands is controlled by national distribution companies that are 'independent' from the actual magazine publisher. However and magazine itself can work both within and 'independent' from the distribution service. On the surface the article reads as if it is well researched, but anyone who actually works in magazines would dismiss any conclusions inferred in this article because of its obvious flaws. edit: also NOT news. Many niche titles (possibly a better adjective) has relied on newsstand sales more than advertising for years. That seems to be news to the author which is more a sign of poor research. Jul 26 15 07:00 am Link Pay to be published ... being photographers dig deep into their pockets. Someone has to pay for layout, print and distribution. Jul 26 15 11:02 am Link interesting Jul 26 15 11:04 am Link Dan Howell wrote: As it was explained to me by an editor of a newspaper: independent refers to Non corporate / non gov't controlled publications: a large variety of publications are owned by communication agencies and other corporate interests Jul 26 15 11:08 am Link Solas wrote: Nope. Virtually none of what you write is true. Your last sentence is interesting. It is as if to imply that a publishing company like Hearst or Hachette is not interested in creating magazines 'with the readership in mind'. Does the mere fact that a company publishes two separate titles immediately disqualify them as being corporate? That would be a surprise to someone like Nylon/Inked. Seriously though, both you and the author are making some sweeping generalizations that are so broad as to be useless. Jul 26 15 04:05 pm Link Dan Howell wrote: wow. Jul 26 15 04:33 pm Link Dan Howell wrote: That's fascinating Dan, absolutely fascinating. Especially considering you yourself admitted you don't actually know what it means, here's some (hopefully) not too difficult reading material for you: Jul 26 15 04:48 pm Link Solas wrote: Wikipedia? Really? You jump in on a thread and use Wiki to back you up? Strong move. Not like having a degree in journalism or working in magazines for 20 years or anything. Jul 26 15 07:50 pm Link Dan Howell wrote: that's so cool Dan, good for you buddy ! Jul 26 15 09:18 pm Link Solas wrote: I don't think ANYONE can understand what they mean by "independent" as it's such an ambiguous term when used the way they did. At best, their journalism was sloppy and the words they chose were chosen haphazardly. Jul 26 15 10:08 pm Link Shot By Adam wrote: fair enough ya you're right Jul 26 15 10:22 pm Link I don't think this reporting was sloppy at all. I've spoken to several independent publishers(some mags, but mostly books and zines without ads), and a number of people featured in them. Their experience has been very similar to what this piece said. Namely that there are two ways to sell a small mag: you can sell it as a beautiful item with great printing on nice paper at a premium price, or you can sell it as a brand. While the article barely mentioned the first option, they did discuss the second. So, not sloppy. I didn't see mistake or misinformation. But it wasn't very in-depth either. Almost all of the information could have come from those media kits the article mentioned. But hey, it's a short fluff piece. It ain't a TIME exposé or a Bloomberg industry piece. As to what 'independent' means ... I fail to see the confusion. If you are owned by a corporation, your magazine is a corporate magazine. That's kind of what those words mean. It has absolutely nothing to do with scale, readership, or content. The article mentioned a few mags that spun off into design businesses. If those two businesses are separate, it is an independent mag. If the design business is incorporated, and the mag is a subsidiary of that, it is a corporate mag. If the mag is a subsidiary and the parent business is an LLC, LTD, etc., then it's still an independent mag. If it's a corporate mag and 100% of the stock is owned by people on staff, then it has the ability to act independently - but it is still a corporate mag. Similarly if Rupert Murdoch decided to buy 100% of the stock of the Fox network and privatize it, Fox would be an independent network. It would be a massive one, but it would still be independent. The corporate/independent designation has to do with legal and financial status. It has nothing at all to do with anything else, beyond the fact that a publicly traded corporation, or one with major holdings, might have to appease a lot more voices. Jul 27 15 08:05 am Link |
