Posted by Jim Jirka on October 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Please answer the question “What Creatively Challenged Person decided that cutting the cover in half, so that an advertisement could be placed beneath, was a great idea”?
Not enough space inside for advertising?
BTW Congrats Tony Kuyper and Guy Tal.
Posted by Mitch Erwin on October 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Jim, haven't got mine yet, but the advertising in general always stumps me - as if there is not enough of it already. I know they need funding, but WOW! Sounds like they possibly ran out of room on the last 1/4 part of the magazine that is ALL advertising. And while I am on my rant, what is with them letting " fly by night ", dishonest businesses advertise in their magazine month after month - scratch that, I have the answer......................$$$.
I always look forward to seeing photos or articles of fellow NPNers in OP, so you've got me anxiously awaiting to see what Tony & Guy have showcased in the next issue
Posted by Steve Foss on October 22, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Mainstream print media makes its profits off advertising, which is always a much larger percentage of overall revenue than subscriptions. Always been that way, probably always will be.
Few editors of mags and newspapers care to see advertising strapped across the front page/cover, but in these tough economic times it's not surprising the ad departments are getting their way. That's because a cover ad brings in more revenue per square inch (or column-inch) by far than any other placement in the book, and advertising executives have been pushing for years to make that space available for ads (sometimes with success, sometimes not).
We can sneer at the $$$$$, and as an editorial staff member at newspapers for 15 years I did my share of sneering under my breath, but if a publication can't make a large enough profit to keep its investors happy, it'll fold or get sold, (like the Knight-Ridder chain of newspapers I worked for) and the more a publication changes hands the harder it is to keep up editorial standards.
Nor can a publication afford to spend the time to investigate every advertiser to see if every advertising claim is true.
Hey, look at the bright side. Cutting a mag cover in half means the cover isn't limited to vertical comps, and puts all those gorgeous horizontals in play. That's good for photographers if, and I emphasize the if, the mags don't cut payments to photographers for cover images in half as well. But a half-page cover ad brings in so much lolly that the amount saved by cutting photographers' payments would be mere nickels in comparison.
Posted by Jim Jirka on October 22, 2008 at 12:41 PM
They actually sliced the cover photo in half vertically, so the ad is revealed when you open the two sides of the sliced cover, like a book.
Posted by Jamie Botdorf on October 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM
well, it was never really about the photographs anyway, was it? Oh wait...mabye it was...
There is a hiccup in my OP subscription, so I don't know what they're being congratulated for, but anyhow
Pete D.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 22, 2008 at 5:57 PM
What Steve said - the printed media survives only on paid advertising. It's just part of the deal when buying/perusing the goods.
Here at NPN we are regularly solicited to sell ad space. Maybe it's bad biz, but I don't even respond to the inquiries any more. We have a handful of organizations that we work with (like B&H Photo and ICF) but beyond that I like the clean look of limited advertising. I'm betting most of you feel the same way.
I have absolutely nothing but respect and admiration for those here who have graced Outdoor Photographer - congratulations and kudos. However, I did cancel my subscription over a year ago simply because of the advertising issue. The ratio of advertisements to actual content is staggering. While I understand the need to have a commercially successful/profitable product, I felt that the current standards of the magazine really send the wrong message to photographers (especially those just starting out). I'd rather pay more for the magazine and have less ads/more significant content. As it is, it's getting out of hand.
It should be noted that the vast majority of "real" content can be had via their website. For example, Guy's article is available right now.
I have to agree with Joel here on this fact. Although I look forward to and really enjoy seeing the photos or articles from anyone here at NPN in the OP Mag., the amount of content seems to be losing more and more ground to the advertisments. To bad too, as it was to date IMO the best photog magazine out there.
Congratulations to both Tony and Guy on whatever items you have had published in this latest release, I have yet to receive my copy to date. Way to go both of you.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 23, 2008 at 5:12 AM
BTW, my hearty congratulations to Guy and Tony! My aplogies for not chiming-in on this (more important) aspect of this thread.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 23, 2008 at 10:09 AM
The cover struck me as a bit odd, but I don't mind. What I really care about is that they stay economically viable. I like the magazine and times are tough for most print magazines. In addition to Guy & Tony's great shots, note there is also a super one from Micheal Anderson on pg. 18. I remember picking that one here as M&N forum photo of the week. It was an EASY choice! I have a few of my photos recently accepted by a couple of magazines, but I doubt anyone here reads them, LOL! One is Trains Magazine and the other is Railroads Illustrated. Both are photos I made of trains at night using my monolights and triggers. Here's a sample of a medium scale shot: http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/GrantFalls.jpg
Kent in SD
Posted by Roger Rouch on October 23, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Hey Kent, that's an awesome train shot!
Congrats to everyone in the OP mag. Mike Andersons shot is incredible! OP has always been annoyingly laden with ads and I suppose the split cover is just one more. I may drop my subscription when it's due and take up National Geo for my photo mag fix.
Posted by Steve Foss on October 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Since joining NPN a couple years ago I dropped my O.P. subscription. I can (and do) get more here than I can in O.P., whether it's gear talk, amazing images or how-to. And if I have a question, I know I'll get an answer here at NPN. As a market for photographers O.P. is still a good one, and I'll continually offer congratulations for anyone who is published in the mag.
So to those who get their work in O.P. and other publications, cheers!
And to Jim for doing an even better job than O.P. (with the help of all the staff and members here), cheers!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 24, 2008 at 6:23 AM
That's one heck of a compliment, Steve - thanks! But let's face it - without the contributions of our members and staff, we'd be just another photo web site. Thanks to all for making this a place worth spending time on!
Posted by Steve Foss on October 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM
That's one heck of a compliment, Steve - thanks! But let's face it - without the contributions of our members and staff, we'd be just another photo web site. Thanks to all for making this a place worth spending time on!
I think magazines of all types are feeling a bit of a pinch from Web forums that deal with the same topic as the magazine. While there's a certain feel of familiarity and solidity we get from holding a hard copy of a magazine in one's hands (and try taking an online forum into the bathroom for an extended sit-down), the interaction and immediacy of a Web forum makes it a more satisfying medium for many. The better Web forums are at least as good as, and in many cases better than, magazines at providing solid information for everyone from rookies to stone cold pros within the field. And of course all the members get to feel like they are a part of things because there's the added social interaction between members that you can't get from a hard copy.
Given those factors, it's no surprise that mags/newspapers are struggling and working to pull in more advertising. Most ad rates are pinned to circulation/subscription numbers, too, so as subscribers dwindle, ad rates generally drop, adding to a publication's revenue challenges.
Looks like I got out of newspapers at just the right time. I don't even pick one up anymore because I find all the news I need online. The only magazine I get these days is the Professional Photographers of America monthly, and that only because it comes with membership. Often enough, I just page through it quickly to see if there's something of interest. If not, it goes right into the recycling bin.
Discussion
16 repliesNot enough space inside for advertising?
BTW Congrats Tony Kuyper and Guy Tal.
I always look forward to seeing photos or articles of fellow NPNers in OP, so you've got me anxiously awaiting to see what Tony & Guy have showcased in the next issue
Few editors of mags and newspapers care to see advertising strapped across the front page/cover, but in these tough economic times it's not surprising the ad departments are getting their way. That's because a cover ad brings in more revenue per square inch (or column-inch) by far than any other placement in the book, and advertising executives have been pushing for years to make that space available for ads (sometimes with success, sometimes not).
We can sneer at the $$$$$, and as an editorial staff member at newspapers for 15 years I did my share of sneering under my breath, but if a publication can't make a large enough profit to keep its investors happy, it'll fold or get sold, (like the Knight-Ridder chain of newspapers I worked for) and the more a publication changes hands the harder it is to keep up editorial standards.
Nor can a publication afford to spend the time to investigate every advertiser to see if every advertising claim is true.
Hey, look at the bright side. Cutting a mag cover in half means the cover isn't limited to vertical comps, and puts all those gorgeous horizontals in play. That's good for photographers if, and I emphasize the if, the mags don't cut payments to photographers for cover images in half as well. But a half-page cover ad brings in so much lolly that the amount saved by cutting photographers' payments would be mere nickels in comparison.
Pete D.
Here at NPN we are regularly solicited to sell ad space. Maybe it's bad biz, but I don't even respond to the inquiries any more. We have a handful of organizations that we work with (like B&H Photo and ICF) but beyond that I like the clean look of limited advertising. I'm betting most of you feel the same way.
Congratulations Tony & Guy!
And thank you always, Jim.
It should be noted that the vast majority of "real" content can be had via their website. For example, Guy's article is available right now.
Congratulations to both Tony and Guy on whatever items you have had published in this latest release, I have yet to receive my copy to date. Way to go both of you.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/GrantFalls.jpg
Kent in SD
Congrats to everyone in the OP mag. Mike Andersons shot is incredible! OP has always been annoyingly laden with ads and I suppose the split cover is just one more. I may drop my subscription when it's due and take up National Geo for my photo mag fix.
So to those who get their work in O.P. and other publications, cheers!
And to Jim for doing an even better job than O.P. (with the help of all the staff and members here), cheers!
I think magazines of all types are feeling a bit of a pinch from Web forums that deal with the same topic as the magazine. While there's a certain feel of familiarity and solidity we get from holding a hard copy of a magazine in one's hands (and try taking an online forum into the bathroom for an extended sit-down), the interaction and immediacy of a Web forum makes it a more satisfying medium for many. The better Web forums are at least as good as, and in many cases better than, magazines at providing solid information for everyone from rookies to stone cold pros within the field. And of course all the members get to feel like they are a part of things because there's the added social interaction between members that you can't get from a hard copy.
Given those factors, it's no surprise that mags/newspapers are struggling and working to pull in more advertising. Most ad rates are pinned to circulation/subscription numbers, too, so as subscribers dwindle, ad rates generally drop, adding to a publication's revenue challenges.
Looks like I got out of newspapers at just the right time. I don't even pick one up anymore because I find all the news I need online. The only magazine I get these days is the Professional Photographers of America monthly, and that only because it comes with membership. Often enough, I just page through it quickly to see if there's something of interest. If not, it goes right into the recycling bin.
Brave new world.