Quote:
Originally Posted by motoreiter
(Post 234413)
Here we go again. It's our fault for "settling for sub-standard text and photo quality" so that the poor professional writers can't earn a living...read your first sentence above--"IT IS TOO COSTLY" for these magazines to pay professional writers.
The economics are not there. The magazines cannot pay what professional writers so richly deserve; whining about it doesn't change that fact, so get over it and let's move on.
|
He said it. I too find it difficult to understand why so many people do not seem able to grasp the most fundamental rule of business:
Price is where Supply meets Demand.
If the demand was there for a magazine costing £20 an issue that paid its full-time professional staff writers and photographers £500 a day for Pulitzer and National-Geographic quality work, it would be on Smith's shelves right now. It ain't, so it ain't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pharris13
(Post 234403)
Surely you want to read something that blows you away and see photos that really excite you? That is what professional journalists and photographers are paid to do.
|
Of course I do. Everyone does.
But. How much will this level of quality cost me in a magazine? (Also, you are assuming, incorrectly in my view, that we will never have our minds blown or our eyes excited by things we see on the net). Besides, and this may come as a shock to those who regard themselves as professional (and I'm not picking on you here pharris as I don't know whether I've seen your work or not) "professional" work is often not nearly as good as "professionals" might like to think it is. This is just my opinion of course, but these things are inevitably subjective so opinions are all we have. I often read staff writing in some of the magazines that I think is mediocre. Uninspired and uninspiring. And I see photos which, whilst technically good (no great plaudit these days when anyone with a few hundred quid can buy himself a camera that will almost guarantee good technical results) depict full-time staffers drinking sponsors' beer, or sitting on beaches grinning. No doubt their mothers like to see such images of their handsome sons. I don't. I have no time for their vanity.
I am not opposed to people putting pictures of themselves in their blogs of course. Blogs take a lot of time to put together, and it is only right that their authors personalise them to reinforce their happy memories of their trip. But the blog author isn't paid. If I'm paying for something, I will not tolerate family snaps of magazine staffers on glorified holiday. Show me the bikes and the places. Not the faces. (Ouch).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pharris13
(Post 234403)
Why would you buy a magazine when you can read the talented amateur online?
|
Valid and important point. (Though perhaps in a different way from what you as a professional intended). And why I, along with thousands of others, now spend more time reading internet blogs than we do reading magazines. There's still a place for magazines though. For one thing, reading from paper is still nicer than reading from a screen. For another, you often have to plough through a lot of relatively dull stuff on the net to find the good stuff. This is where the opportunity lies for magazines. If they are to survive against the net, they will only do so if their editors do what their job title suggests: Edit: (Seek out and) Select the good stuff. Pay as little as possible for it. Tidy it up. Polish it. Print it.
If on the other hand magazines continue to pay themselves to go on expensive jaunts that most of us have to save up for they will eventually bankrupt themselves. Motorcycle magazine staff writers and photographers have had a good life. But like it or not (and I suspect not), they need to face twenty-first century reality: It's coming to an end. You are being steadily and inexorably replaced by "amateurs".
I am amazed by how blind people will be when they don't want to see the writing on the wall.
PS: pharris: It may not sound like it from my comments above but...Welcome to the HUBB.