| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Photographer? We Don’t Need no Stinking Photographer
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
 |
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 9:06 AM on 07.29.10 |
->> I went to cover an annual golf tournament here in my area yesterday as I have done for the last 5 or 6 years. As usual I put my photos together and sent out a link to any newspaper editors I thought might be interested.
No response from anyone which isn’t necessarily surprising but several of the articles I found about the event include photos and while they are unfortunately not mine they are not from AP or staff photographers either. The photos were taken by the events media director and provided as “Courtesy Photos” from the event. From the sounds of the written coverage the quotes that were used were probably provided by him as well.
I’m not knocking the event or the media director. They put on a great event and are just doing what they can to help promote it. It is for them after all a huge piece of promotion for their business and I hope that they profit from it since that’s what enables them to hold the tournament.
What is disturbing is that papers are willing to use these images in favor of those from one of their own staff or a reliable freelancer. Hell, if there are 33 articles published about the event, some in the states largest daily, you would think that someone would have at least asked AP to cover it so they could have images. I would guess that if this practice is becoming the norm it will not only put freelancers out of work but it could also be a big step towards making AP and other wire services obsolete.
I realize it’s a very cost effective way of getting coverage but aren’t these the same people who have a cow when a government agency or entertainer tells them they will not get photo ops they will have to use handout photos? Is it a moral outrage, a disservice to the reading public and unethical to use handouts or is it ok when it’s a matter of convenience?
If these smaller events are doing it how long will it be before the larger ones start doing the same? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:39 AM on 07.29.10 |
| ->> kevin, papers use handout photos all the time. every paper I've worked at has used handouts. weekly, small daily, medium, large they all do it. freelancers are right to worry it will probably get worse with budget cuts and smaller staffs. even the AP uses handouts from various sources. we have lots of writers shooting their own photos now. it often depends on what the editors feel is important enough to warrant photos from the staff photographers or if they want to let the writer take a point and shoot. and remember the golden rule of newspaper's for the last hundred years..."do as we say, not as we do". |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 12:58 PM on 07.29.10 |
->> I'll second Chuck's comment.
Back in 2006 (not long after I started out), I was covering the Scottish BAFTA awards. For those not familiar with them, that's the Britich Academy of Film and Television Arts... somewhat akin to a cross between the Oscars and Emmys.
One winner was an old friend from high school, winning a 'new talent' award. The awards were presented by a celebrity whose career had started with my local newspaper.
Knowing that this angle would be picked up by the paper, I called their picture desk the next day and told them I had an exclusive shot of my friend with his award, flanked by his sister and mother.
Keen to see the image, I emailed over a low-res, watermarked copy. The desk editor called back and said "we've looked at it and yeah, we'd like to run it."
"Okay", I said "what size are you running and what's the rate for the shot?"
"Rate?", she asked
"Yeah, what are your usage rates for the size you want to run"
"I don't get what you mean...", she continued
"Sorry - how much are you paying me to use the shot at the size you'd like to run it", I simplified.
"Pay? Erm - we don't pay for pictures... we thought you were giving it to us..."
Nonplussed, I paused - mouth a little agape. This weekly newspaper that went out with a cover price of £1.20 (about $1.90) and was chock-full of adverts on every other page.
"Sorry, I don't give my work away." I said, and hung up. |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 2:46 PM on 07.29.10 |
->> Speaking as someone who is also an editor, if it's a grip and grin or something equally boring, I would choose the courtesy photo over the freelance photo every time. No way am I paying for something like that if I don't have to.
However, in my area at least, it's unheard of for a sporting event to have a media director. I'm not sure what I would do. If it was a major sporting event (by local standards) it would most likely be staffed. If it was important but far away, and we were unable to get to it, it's likely we would use a freelancer.
However, if it was a real small-time event -- I'm struggling to think of an example, but let's say little kid rec league soccer -- and the quality of the photos was similar I'd probably go with the freebie over the freelancer. Again, this is assuming it's a visually uninteresting, relatively unimportant event and the picture qualities are similar. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 07.29.10 |
->> This is a pretty good sized tourament. $50,000 total purse, some of the best golfers in the state. It was also special because a 15 year old kid was beating Canadian and LPGA touring pros. He shot a tournament record 62 and got included in the news cycle by USA Today and as I understand it ESPN.
If it was a local cub scout event or regular little league game I can see it but this was well above that. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 6:43 PM on 07.29.10 |
->> Chuck,
Papers would have bigger budgets and larger staffs if they stopped listening to all the goof balls who tell them that they can't charge for on-line content. I think the next time my truck breaks down I'll tell the mechanic that I can get the info on how to fix it for free on-line and see if that scares him into not charging me to work on it. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 5:51 PM on 07.30.10 |
->> "Good Enough"
That tends to be what decides this for many publications. "Good enough" for the price is often a factor as well.
That this means is your photography has got to really merit the pay difference. Will people buy more photos because they used better quality? This is the whole premise for Sports Illustrated.
Our photos need to stand out and then the client must have the ability to pay for the difference. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 6:02 PM on 07.30.10 |
->> Kevin,
I think it's a mistake to equate newspaper content to fixing a car. People don't attach the same importance to newspaper content. I cancelled my newspaper subscription about 6 years ago because the content wasn't worth it. Look at it like this - 75% of what was in the paper was worthless to me. I can get 20% of the remaining for free. So I'm willing to give up that 5% that I can't get elsewhere because it's free. The cat is out of the bag - you would have to do away with free media content on the web to make subscriptions viable. If I'm not willing to pay for it in print (I actually enjoy reading print vs. on-line) why would I pay to view it on-line? |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 5:12 PM on 08.02.10 |
->> Whether you personally are willing to pay for it or not is irrelevent. You obviously don't think the product has value so you aren't one that they should be marketing to. That doesn't mean they have to give it to you for free. They don't have the obligation to give it to you at all.
What it takes to create the content isn't free why shouldn't they charge for it on-line like they do in print. Even if only one out of every hundred on-line viewers subscribed they would still be way further ahead than if they give it away for free especially now that they are able to target advertising so specifically.
If you don't feel its worth it then don't buy it but don't try to convince everyone that "the cat is out of the bag". Thats a load of crap made up by people who want to keep it getting their information for free. When the cat gets out of the bag you grab it by the scruff of the neck and you put it back in. It may leave a few scratches going back in but its still in there and it doesn't take long for it to stop fussing. (yeah, yeah I know, Inappropriate)
Believe me. If they told you you couldn't have it for free anymore, sooner or later you are going to be interested in something that is published and you will be willing to pay for it. You'll either buy a print copy or pay for the privilage of viewing it on-line and they know it and they'll be farther ahead. We all will be further ahead because it will put value back in the business of photojournalism.
They just need to step up and defend the value of their product by making people pay a fair price for it. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 9:30 AM on 08.03.10 |
->> Kevin,
The problem is: you would need everyone currently providing free content to stop doing it. That's what I mean by the cat being out of the bag. It isn't a matter of one paper deciding they're going to charge - that business model will fail because the market won't support it. You can want that to not be the case. But you wanting it to be different really isn't relevant. As to my opinion and it's relevance - I believe I am VERY indicative of former newspaper customers. They're simply not delivering a product worth paying for when all the free content is "good enough". In the business sense, the competition isn't only said newspaper's online free stuff - it's every other source out there that provides free content. Content about sports, entertainment and national/world news. All of that is out there for the consumer and the local newspaper can't shut that down. The only information where they have more control is local content. For that, they have to worry about other newspapers, and tv news websites. So unless they can collude with those other entities, switching to a paid subscription is going to be a tough business model. I get you don't like it. But you not liking it doesn't make it a viable model. Remember, 'fair value' is defined by the market not by the provider. When the market is flooded with free content by sources outside the control of a single newspaper it is going to be difficult for them to charge when the market doesn't perceive there is enough value to the product. Now, to 'stuff the cat back in the bag' - how do you propose a newspaper convince all these other agencies to start charging for content? Unless and until you do that, I don't see it working. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 3:01 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> They won't ever convince everyone else to stop providing content for free and they don't need to.
Your right, the only leverage most papers have is local stuff. In this area TV websites do those items but not nearly as well so the local paper sites are still the best source for local news on-line. Since most of them now are doing more and more video they are even less suseptable to competition from TV sites.
Two of the small papers here in my area don't give away their content free on-line and guess what. They are doing just fine.
One has made on-line viewers pay a subscription price from day one and the other doesn't even have a website anymore. If you want to see their product you have to either buy print copy or an an annual e-subscription and you then recieve an e-mail containing a PDF of the paper. It seems to be a plan that works extrememly well for everyone. The paper is profitable, local advertisers don't get shut out by targeted ads, and the consumers get the info they want from one source.
These two publications are proof that you DON'T have to give it away for free to be viable and you can survive when other people do. One of them was smart enough not to let the cat get out of the bag in the first place and the other figured out how to put it back in.
Who has really screwed themselves in this deal is AP. They should require that their member papers not give their content away for free. They should be resricted to offering AP content only to paying subscribers. That would go a long way towards putting your cat back where it belongs. Paper websites would begin to to be profitable to the point where they justified larger staffs and better budgets and an AP membership would be worth having again.
Of course when your wondering why the paper you freelance for goes out of business or stops hiring you because giving it away for free isn't cutting go ask any local accountant why that happened. Its funny how (assuming they pay you) you require them to value your product while at the same time you place no value on theirs. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> Now now Kevin, no need to attack me as a freelancer. Here's the thing - I don't let my emotions get in the way. The fact is there is less freelance work. Sure I wish it was better but I understand their point perfectly. And it's two-fold:
1) they have less money to spend
2) free is often times good enough - as several people have mentioned in this thread.
The fact I want them to pay for my services doesn't change those two facts. Understanding that I adapt accordingly. I could choose to complain and wail that they have less money or feel free is 'good enough' to justify less expenditure on photographic services or I can change my approach. I chose the latter. I shoot less paper work than I used to. Doesn't mean I give it away for free. If you can't have a conversation with someone without resorting to childish remarks like "assuming they pay you you require them to value your product". If you want to have a mature discussion we can. The point is - the MARKET decides how much my product is worth - not me. Which is why, for instance the local papers are using more AP sports photos rather than paying for photographers to travel like they used to do. Just because a photographer may still WANT to be paid to make such a trip doesn't mean economics dictate the paper should do so when they can use a wire service photo or as provided in above posts 'freebie' photos that are deemed 'good enough'.
Now - you do make an interesting point about the one newspaper - and it applies to sports photographers as well - it is about PERCEIVED value. When a customer is used to getting a product from a supplier for free the perceived value is free. Suddenly changing to having to pay has a much higher negative perception value on the customer than if they paid from the get-go. Which is why it's always poor to give away work 'for free' to a customer with the expectation next year you can charge them for it. On that point I completely agree with you. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:57 PM on 08.03.10 |
->> Kevin, You're right that local news must be the central product for hometown newspapers. The challenge is that nearly all of the sources available to reporters are also available to everybody else. There are literally hundreds of free competitors to the daily paper in even the smallest town.
But it has been proven to death that pay walls do not work. That toothpaste is irrevocably out of the tube.
Newspapers can save themselves with the following:
In no particular order:
- Curation
- Fostering community discussion
- Attacking the journalistic "why" above all else
- Dropping the fiction of "objectivity" in favor of reliance upon facts. It's OK to identify the good guys and the bad guys.
- Local editors need to stop wishing they were working at the New York Times.
- Eliminate the print product. The core demographic for it is rapidly dying of old age. Its expenses are strangling editorial budgets. (See Circling the Drain http://bit.ly/cszl01)
--Mark |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 2:04 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> Mark,
Can you steer me at any newspapers the tried to required readers to pay that were unsuccessful? I'm asking because I would really like to see what they did and why it didn't work.
Thanks |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:35 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> The Times of London has lost 90% of its online readership since recently instituting a pay wall.
You can't expect people to pay for what they can easily get elsewhere.
Among people who are immersed in this subject daily, there is really no disagreement on this point: Pay walls for general news sites don't work.
Even if newspapers had instituted pay walls when they first started their websites more than a decade ago, they would eventually have failed under the weight of free local info providers.
I am anxiously awaiting to see the results of the New York Times' pay wall plans later this year.
--Mark |
|
Gerry Melendez, Photographer
|
Columbia | SC | USA | Posted: 6:08 PM on 08.04.10 |
| ->> Pay walls can work if the content is important enough to the viewer. One example is sports-themed websites. Here in Columbia, the University of South Carolina is king. There are three or four Gamecock sports sites with pay walls. Some have more success than others. But they do have subscribers. Enough to have small staffs. I'm not comparing them to newspaper sites or saying they're making a ton of money. I'm just saying niche sites continue operating and fans have no problem paying for their content. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 9:06 AM on 08.05.10 |
->> Mark,
Granted the Times lost a very large number of on-line readers but there really hasn't been enough time to call their attempt at pay to view a failure. The real question is which generates more income? The ten percent of readers that place value on their product or the ad income they generate based on page views. Obviously the ad income wasn't cutting it or they wouldn't have gone to the pay model. Their on-line reader numbers a year from now will determine if they made the right decision.
Depending on what you define as "general news" I might have to agree that pay sites might not work. Sites that primarily covers national and world news probably won't make it as long as AP and other services allow free posting of their content.
If you mean established newspaper sites I disagree. Even large papers should be able to sucessfully charge for on-line use. They have the experience and ability to produce valuable, reliable and relevent local news that people are willing to pay for. I'd be willing to wager lunch (if you're ever in my area) that the Times of London will be successful if they are willing to weather the initial storm of gripes from those that feel that its owed to them for free.
Do you know of anyone who has tried the pay model here in the states that has not been successful? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 08.05.10 |
->> Nope. So far, they all seem to realize that it would be death to their online readership.
--Mark |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 6:34 PM on 08.05.10 |
->> Except the two examples I gave in my original post. They have tried it and seem to like it.
I guess that brings me to the next question. What good is on-line readership if it doesn't generate enough income to keep the things afloat?
p.s. I started this thread to see if it would develop into a discussion on the ethics of using handout photos but it seems to have gone askew. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:10 PM on 08.05.10 |
->> Kevin, The search for a viable online business model for the news industry is currently akin to the search for the Holy grail.
BTW, http://www.thebatavian.com is profitable. But it started out online. Also, http://www.baycitizen.org is only a few months old. There are scores of similar efforts -- all weighing against any the success of pay walls at legacy newspaper websites.
--Mark |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 7:16 PM on 08.05.10 |
| ->> Also, from a case study standpoint you have to be careful about your data. The one paper I freelanced for was a free weekly paper (but they paid me and other writers/photographers for our work). Started out servicing 3 communities now it's up to about 7 or 8 - they're doing extremely well. By your reasoning Kevin this proves that all newspapers should give away print newspapers at no cost to the customer. After all - they're expanding and profitable so it must be a model that works for the entire industry - right? |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 7:45 PM on 08.05.10 |
->> John, it certainly might show that free print stands a better chance of being profiatable than free on-line does.
Mark, the Bay Citizen looks like they plan on surviving through private donations. Somebody is going to pay for it just not on a subscription basis. Of course if the common wisdom is "they won't pay for it if it's free elsewhere" how long do you think they will last?
The Batavain site looks like a workable plan as long as it stays small. It doesn't appear as though they have hired a full staff or have staff photographers but it is refreshing to see that the small family type news company isn't completly dead. If you know the publisher it would be cool to find out what his thoughts are on his sites growth potential. How big he thinks he can get based just on website advertising income. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|