Re: Magazine comparisons

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CamArtsMag) writes:

> I am interested in hearing people's comments about American Photo,

I think American Photo is a closet business magazine in lad magazine's
clothing. Lot's of people complain about the naked women, but I'm sure it
makes the magazine leap off the store shelves. I subscribe and read it for
the articles on photographers and stock agencies; it's not quite as
business-oriented as PDN, but it's still got good articles on the business
end of the business.

I'm a business lawyer, so my perspective is very skewed from what may be an
average reader. Seeing American Photo as a business magazine, I don't have
suggestions as to how to improve it. The grip and grin shots are part of
the marketing; keep important people's pictures in the magazine, and it
becomes an important magazine to have around. I don't see American Photo as
a magazine aimed at the classic 50s and 60s kind of amateur photographer. I
think it's aimed at pros in the business.

> Petersen's,

Aimed a people who either don't have a camera and want one or who just
bought one and want to learn how to take pro-level photos for about 15
minutes before they move on to the next big thing.

Petersen's and Pop Photo are the classic 50s and 60s amateur photographer
magazine, with the ads in the back not only for gear but for make money now
with your camera come-ons, and ads for dandruff remover, nose-hair trimmers
and such for people who wanted self-improvement products to move up the
social scale. Those days are gone, and I don't think Petersen's has yet
found the replacement demographic for long-time subscribers. I glance
through Petersen's and Pop Photo (wasn't there a Modern Photography
magazine, too, back in the day?) on the rack, but I haven't bought one in I
don't know how many years. I'd rather buy British magazines with lots of
energy, tons of short how-to articles, and lots of amateur's sending in
their images for critiques.

> Shutterbug

The quality is very sad. If you are interested in used equipment, this is
an excellent resource for shows, dealers, and such.

> and CameraArts.

Way over my head. I look at an issue every few months, and I have no idea
why I'd ever buy an issue. I have no clue who it's aimed at.

My estimation of the readership of rec.photo.equipment.35mm is that
_generally_ they are male, middle age, and very knowledgable about
photography. I'd bet that all here have more than one camera, and that most
have more than one format. A magazine that would appeal to this readership
would have very limited popular appeal. It could be a very lucrative niche,
though, if you could figure out how to address these guys. I know from my
experience that there are many excellent amateur photographers who do
professional quailty work, and they'll never be heard of, never make sales,
never get their _excellent_ work shown.

My suggestion would be a magazine that addressed both sides of the equation
-- provide helpful, professional level advice on specific photographic and
business issues, and provide a forum to show off the work of some really
great photographers who have no idea how to market themselves. I would also
suggest not having a dichotomy between film and digital and making the
magazine one or the other -- just cover technical issues and photographers,
and let the imagery speak for itself.

-- 
Philip Stripling                | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web     | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.