The Death of Photojournalism?

Posted on 6/22/1998 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (0)

151

THE DEATH OF PHOTOJOURNALISM?


June 22, 1998

As we consider the implications of the recent management changes at Sygma (Story

147 on Selling Stock online) and the battle that freelance photographers are

having with Associated Press (Story 132), a letter from Otto Pohl written in

March 1998 and entitled "The Death of Photojournalism?" is worth reading.

Otto is manager of the only professional photo lab in Russia, and consequently

comes in contact with most of the world-class photographers who go to Moscow on

assignment.


Photojournalism - A view from Moscow

Time magazine sent Chris Morris to Albania last summer to get pictures of the

election there. Everything worked out fine, they had the page all set and laid

out. At the last moment, the editors pulled the article, opting instead for an

article about a restaurant opening in New Orleans.

To hear Christopher Morris and Tony Suau tell it, that's the story of the U.S.

photojournalism market. Everywhere, budgets are being cut and publications are

turning U.S.-centric and isolationist. At the same time, their profits and

circulations have never been higher.

As a manager of the only professional photo lab in Russia, I get to talk to a lot

of the world-class photographers when they have a job in Moscow. They come by

and we chat about how difficult it used to be to get film processed in Russia,

how we all stood at Sheremetyevo airport begging departing passengers to take a

bag of unprocessed film back to London or New York so we could meet some

publishing deadline, how we processed film in hotel bathrooms before reserving

time at Associated Press to wire images back on primitive fax machine-like

devices. It's nice now; we can have a coffee and I can show them output from the

latest digital devices and talk about our Q-Lab standard slide processing and

have a laugh about old times.

During the big events of the early 90's in Moscow, there were always the same crew

of photographers--Chris was pretty much the last person I spoke with before being

shot during the 1993 coup, and Tony would regularly crop up at May Day events or

for Mafia stories.

These people were my photojournalism heroes. They had the big shots from the hot

spots, and when one part of the world calmed down they flew to the next place

that was heating up. They had great stories and great pictures, and for me

represented the ideal job in the career I had embarked upon.

But the stories Chris and Tony told me in separate visits over the last few days

have really made me realize how the market for photojournalism has changed since

I quit in August 1996. Although both have contracts with Time Magazine for

something like 50 days of photography a year, they consider the U.S. market for

photojournalism dead. Tony has not had a picture in domestic Time since 1996,

and Chris, after relating the Albanian election story, ignores the U.S. market

and has only marginally good things to say about European Time, a publication he

only had a few pages in for all of 1997.

Life magazine has fired most of its staff and all of its photographers and is

becoming a wimpy human interest vehicle. Big names like Joe McNally, who was

among those fired from Life and in town this week on other assignment, are doing

just fine even with a few contracts less. But these are the absolute cream of the

business and even they are feeling the pinch.

Budgets are being cut, photo editors are being fired, and publications are making

do with wire or stock imagery. It's cheaper, news wire images are often more

timely, and no one really notices the difference anyways. The main lesson a

magazine like Time has learned in the past few years is that when Princess Diana

dies and they put her on the cover, they sell more issues than they ever have

before. And they figure that there are a hell of a lot more readers who might

get hungry in New Orleans than wonder about the Albanian elections.

One of the negative aspects of the unprecedented boom in the U.S. economy seems

to have been the growing confidence of the American public that they have all the

answers. The Soviet Union collapsed because they had the wrong ideology, Eastern

Europe got stuck on the wrong side of a losing battle, and Europe and Japan are

looking lethargic and hidebound with their high taxes and large social programs.

The reasoning appears to be, hey--if you live in the best country in the world,

with the best economy and the most opportunities, what do you need to know about

the rest of the world, other than maybe the snow conditions at a few ski resorts

in Switzerland?

Europe is little better; the publishers there wonder about the economics of

paying a potentially fallible photographer top dollar to scramble out to a story

when they can sit back and have the pick of the crop when all the photographers

start pouring their images onto the news wires and syndicating them out to the

big agencies. The editor only has to pay for the actual images they want to use.

Where a story could be sold in ten different countries five years ago it's lucky

to have any resale at all.

Other photographers have chosen various paths out of this dilemma. Some have

gone corporate, shooting advertisements and annual reports. James Nachtwey and

David Turnley sold the rights to their pictures to Bill Gates' Corbis photo bank

for a stack of cash a year or two ago, and now spend their time fairly

unconcerned about any change in day rates. Others have turned to making movies,

or have moved out of the image market completely. But this isn't just a story

about U.S. isolationism, or stupid editors working for greedy accountants. What

I think we're seeing here is a world dealing with images as a newly devalued

currency. Until recently, the world was a huge unknown and our only glimpses

came through the eyes of those intrepid enough to venture out and return with the

goods. It was a symbiotic relationship--the magazines had the readership and the

clout, but needed to pay for the appropriate material. Now the readership and

the clout remain scarce while the images are so plentiful that I wouldn't be

surprised if a lot of photographers would give their work for free in exchange

for the exposure.

Even when I moved here in 1992, a fresh picture out of Moscow had an innate value

just because it was a fresh picture out of Moscow. In just the past few years,

the economics of the situation has completely changed. Images are free and

bombard us from all sides; it is now your attention that has become the

commodity. It's becoming cliche to refer to this as the emerging attention

economy, but in this case it really appears to be the case. In the market of

imagery, at least, your attention is just about the only scarce thing out there.

And in a world where you're not expected to dwell on any one picture too long

anyways, not with all those images out there that need viewing and only 24 hours

in a day, there isn't much reason from a publisher's perspective to put too much

money into creating yet another new image.

So we've got publishers convinced that readers don't really want to know about

the gritty truth about faraway lands, and whatever grit that does make it into a

magazine can be purchased from the lowest seller.

The stock photo industry (stock photos are any photos that are not shot on

specific assignment--they exist in huge photo banks waiting for someone to

develop a need for just that picture) has gone through an interesting change

recently as well, with CDs and networks facilitating the rapid duplication and

distribution of millions of images. You can purchase an essentially infinite

number of pictures of, say, the Eiffel tower, and therefore there is no reason to

either pay a lot of money for one, nor is there a reason to hire a photographer

to take yet another. In fact, CDs full of them are on sale, royalty-free, for

only a few dollars a disk. After much hand-wringing the economics of the business

began to emerge.

The prime value of an image now lies in its exclusivity. There are still

occasions of companies paying $10,000 or more for a picture, but now they're

primarily paying that to purchase the right to the exclusive use of the image.

It's estimated that 80% of all image uses do not require any exclusivity, and

therefore 80% of the market is more or less economically uninteresting. At least

that last 20% should be immune to any further changes in technology, because

exclusivity will always be valuable. Photojournalism is somewhat analogous. The

whole news segment of the market is like that 80% of the stock business--the

pictures are becoming, to use the bygone rallying cry of the nuclear power

industry--too cheap to meter. Feature work is somewhat the same, largely due to

the ocean of good feature work out there, except for when exclusivity comes into

play and the subject is desirable. Celebrity paparazzi shots are good examples

of extremely valuable commodities, but again only as long as the competing

tabloid can't get its hands on them.

Probably the most enduring and profitable market for images will be photographers

marketed through vehicles like Vanity Fair. They need marquee names for their

covers like Hollywood needs stars, and they've got the budgets to make almost any

shoot a huge marketable event. Annie Leibowitz can marshal hundreds of thousands

of dollars to get famous people into huge sets and create images that impress by

their sheer bombast. The astronomically expensive movies of Hollywood not only

guarantee audiences that they will see big stars and big special effects, but the

price also keeps would-be competitors out of the game. Anyone can make a movie.

Not a lot of people can make a $250 million movie about a boat that sinks, and

that's the one that makes the headlines.

So there I sit in my white shirt and listen to my heroes from my photojournalism

days talk about the hard times. When I quit the New York Times I always had the

feeling that I wouldn't be able to stomach competing for free-lance assignments

after the cushy life with guaranteed assignments. Now it seems like its become a

hobby only for the well-to-do, who can self-finance their trip to the next

Rwandan massacre. And how many well-to-do are there out there that want to do

that?

Feel free to forward this message on, but please include me in your cc list

(otto@matrix.ru) so I can see where the message has gone. please don't remove

this note. Thanks.


Copyright © 1998 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-251-0720, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.  

Comments

Be the first to comment below.

Post Comment

You must log in to post comments.

Stay Connected

Sign up to receive our FREE weekly email listing new stories posted.

Follow Us

Free Stuff

Recent Stories – Summer 2016
If you’ve been shooting all summer and haven’t had time to keep up with your reading here are links to a few stories you might want to check out as we move into the fall. To begin, be sure to complet...
Read More
Corbis Acquisition by VCG/Getty Images
This story provides links to several stories that relate to the Visual China Group (VCG) acquisition of Corbis and the role Getty Images has been assigned in the transfer of Corbis assets to the Gett...
Read More
Finding The Right Image
Many think search will be solved with better Metadata. While metadata is important, there are limits to how far it can take the customer toward finding the right piece of content. This story provides...
Read More
Where Is The Stock Photo Industry Headed?
For new readers, or those who may have missed some of what I have written over the last few months, the following are a list of stories worth looking at to get a sense of where the industry is headed.
Read More
Photography As A Career
It’s that time of year when high school seniors are waiting for college acceptance letters and thinking about future careers. If you know someone who is thinking about photography as a career you mig...
Read More
2014 Stories You May Have Missed
For many the end of the year is a time to review past experiences and consider whether it makes sense to chart a new course in the year ahead. Stock photography has changed dramatically for professio...
Read More
More Stories In 2014 You May Have Missed
Every so often I put together a list of the most important stories we’ve published in the recent past. If you are engaged in the business of stock photography the links below are to stories that we’v...
Read More
Getty: A Three Month Review
In all the excitement about 35 million FREE images it is worth looking back at some of things that have been happening at Getty Images in the last three months. After watching revenue decline for the...
Read More
State Of Stock Photo Industry: 2013
If you’re looking for an overview of the state of the stock photo industry as of October 2013 the stories listed below are a good place to start. Regular readers of Selling-Stock will have seen all t...
Read More
Education Market Shifts To Digital
If supplying pictures for educational use is a significant part of your business plan you need to be aware of how the market is trending toward digital delivery and how that is likely to affect the p...
Read More

More from Free Stuff