Verve photo blog charging for submissions

What a wonderful world we live in…

seriously? wow.

i would love to say that i’m shocked, but that would be too naive.

considering that verve’s website wouldn’t exist without content, i’m surprised to see them impose a limit, of sorts, to their supply chain.

very disappointing…

ps – i’m so sick of this “administrative cost” excuse…what the hell is that anyway?

How about this . . . saw a magazine looking for a photographer to shoot — for free — with the proviso that if someone saw the photog’s work and hired him/her for another job, they had to pay the magazine a referral fee.

Amazing – you should forward that email or this post to all the photographers who have given Verve their content for free and tell them to ask the editor to remove their picture.

pfft

It strikes me, looking at the Verve site that they need to determine what they are. Superficially it seems to me to be a directory, and to some extent their message to you Adam suggests that that is increasingly how they regard themselves. But the design of the site, and the way they attract photographers suggests that they want to be seen as a quasi-publishing vehicle.

I think they need to make clear to themselves what it is they are offering. If it is a directory, then there is nothing wrong with a business model that asks for you to pay to be included in it. But equally, if that is what it is to be, it needs to be redesigned to give all contributors an equal opportunity to be picked up by commissioning editors, or give differing levels of exposure according to the subscription that a photographer pays. If, on the other hand, it wants to be seen as a publisher it should consider looking at either paying for submissions that it publishes, or providing a very useful level of exposure (like Foto 8 did when it set up) and paying nothing to contributors, and making its money from advertising.

The real problem is it doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up.

@michael: good point(s)…i think you hit it right on the nose.

You can always query Geoffrey Hiller — he’s a lightstalker:

http://www.lightstalkers.org/geoffrey_hiller

I reckon that the real question is whether you get 50 bucks worth of real promotion out of the deal. (“Real” meaning you get a significant return over your 50 USD investment). If you do, where’s the problem? If you don’t, what’s the point?

I can shed a bit of light on Verve Photo since I’m the sole person who edits and maintains the site. For close to two years I have worked countless hours in featuring the work of over 300 outstanding photographers on the blog. I’m an extremely critical editor and end up publishing only a small fraction of the work I consider. For over 15 years I worked as a photo editor with Sipa Press, Paris and Black Star, New York and Sierra Club Books, San Francisco besides being a professional photographer for 30 years.

For each posting, with few exceptions, I first contact the photographer, specify the image I would like to use and request a bio and also a statement about the photograph. This entire process for each posting including the research can take anywhere from 45 minutes to a couple of hours. You see, many of the documentary photographers that I’m interested in showcasing are off to far-flung locations and need to be reminded several times to send me the required text. Then there is the scheduling and sequencing of the work. Since I usually plan two to three months ahead, this process takes additional time. I sequence the entries like an editor would in a print magazine.

It’s not a matter of just right-clicking a photo I like and linking to a site, which is so common these days. Yes, it is about publishing with an editorial purpose, but also Verve Photo has become a resource for photo editors, designers and curators. I had no idea when I began the site that it would take off in the way that it has.

I created this blog because I love looking at great photographs. I am discerning and want to include only the most exceptional work, and maybe that is one of the reasons why the site has been such a huge success. When I started this endeavor I didn’t know that editors from National Geographic, Time Magazine, folks at World Press Photo, as well as curators all over the world would follow the site on a regular basis and use it as a resource to discover new talent. I don’t claim to have discovered the photographers featured on Verve Photo, but I know for a fact that many have gone on to gain recognition and even receive assignments.

On Jan 1, I initiated a processing fee as a way to subsidize some of the many hours spent maintaining the site. I can fully understand the frustration some of you feel if you think you need to pay to get your work onto Verve. But if you look at it as a way of getting your work seen by photography industry professionals, it’s not a bad investment. In the first two days after a photo appears, a few thousand of these people view it, which comes out to a fraction of a cent for each page view. Beyond that each photographer remains in the permanent archive.

In the end, this is not about the money- and I think that is evident by just looking at the site.

Geoffrey Hiller
Editor, Verve Photo

I was featured on the blog, it’s a good site and Geoffrey showcases some interesting work that wouldn’t necessarily get exposure elsewhere. Also, I do not agree with the never-for-free attitude, i myself have had published in publications that I thought would do the my work justice or the story or there was a correlative benefit, usually literary press, quarterlies, etc., certainly not larger publications that have a strong subscriber base and ad rates, but on this occasion, I would have to respectfully decline, like Adam. If it is a promotional vehicle then so be it, but the presentation of an editorial outlet of worthy work that now charges for admission to me is misleading. Reminds me of living here in Eastern Europe when I remarked to a friend how amazing it was that a politician was on the cover of four magazines in one week (a low down presidential candidate, yet a billioanaire). Amazing I thought, what’s he done? Scandal? Presidential frontrunner? No, my friend replied, he paid $20,000 for to get himself on the cover of each magazine… it may be a drastic example, but suddenly I am questioning Geoffrey’s usual impeccable editorial tastes – is it now about who can (or wants) to pay to appear? Granted, I give verve a little more credit then just accepting anyone that will pay the $50 fee, but Adam is refusing, I would probably refuse and I think some others would too. It just draws too much doubt into my mind as to the reasons of their selection onto Verve Photo.

I think Verve will have to readjust it’s editorial outlook and consider itself something similar to Le Book or Archive or the Black Book, basically resource books for photo editors, which is all well and good, but under the presentation of a curated or edited showcase of interesting documentary work, I don’t think is quite right.

I must say that I agree with Donald and Adam. Geoffrey, we spoke this past summer about your site and you project in Bangladesh. I still think you have great taste and feature some amazing work. I would still love to be on the site myself :-) However, it does taint the site if you charge photographers to be on it. At that point, it is no longer purely the best emerging photographers that you have found, but now it is the best photographers that are willing to pay… It completely changes the site.

I understand your need to get paid for your work, and that is completely valid. But have you looked into other methods? You have an ad for Neon Sky, but maybe you could include more advertising? If your site is getting viewed by 1000 of people regularly of a very targeted demographic, you could also reach out to companies for sponsorship opportunities.

I still think that your site is great and that you have impeccable taste, it’s just my opinion that you need to keep it pure to the values of displaying the truly best emerging artists as opposed to just the ones that are willing and can afford to pay.

Out of curiosity, have most people you’ve approached been willing to pay the fee?

Jon

Geoffrey – have you considered having 2 sections on Verve? One which is as before, curated “by distinction alone” and the other as a smart, selective and informative resource that allows photographers to showcase themselves for a fee?

It seems to me that by having both you could continue your good work, in which I was most grateful to be included.

The confusion and possibly disappointment comes in mixing the new with the old. Why not create distinct but cooperative aspects of Verve that would allow you to grow your vision?

Geoffrey says: “…but also Verve Photo has become a resource for photo editors, designers and curators.”
Then THEY should pay for the access, no? It is a resource for them not for the photographers…

I understand that you need funding but isn’t it the wrong people you ask the money from?
I admit, my market place vision is somewhat blurred, after all I grew up in a socialist country, but seems to me that there is something wrong with the roles in this scheme…

I got invited to Verve, did not knew the site before, thanks for that, Geoffrey your doing a great job there.

I would not pay, for any site….

photo editors, designers and curators should pay? but they dont want to pay for pictures.. so what? ;)

sick photo market…

Why doesn’t Verve charge to view its blog? Well, maybe the answer is obvious.

why can’t Verve make up the money from advertising (provided it’s tastefully displayed) instead of charging photographers to get their projects shown.

seems like a win/win solution.

Geoffrey:

having published, like many here, both in print and on the web, I find it astonishing that you would both request/recruit photographic work and then ask the photographer to pay for publication. I’ve followed Verve for a while and you have done a terrific job of showcasing a lot of fantastic work and photographers (a bunch of my friends have been showcased, that’s how i first learned about your magazine/blog). The problem is that under the notion that this work benefits the photographers by granting them opportunities to have their work seen by editors is that you have created a very different tactical idea then what Verve proports to be: this in itself is a bit deceptive.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with providing a resource for photographers, another marketing tool, to bridge the gap between themselves and editorial contacts. Shit, I’ve spent enough time buying editors drinks or lunch as well. The problem is that, if you wish to continue in that endeavor, I think it necessary that you, as proposed for example by Erica and Veba, offer an alternative site/program.

There is soo many good online outlets know for photographers, very very few which pay, that it then becomes a tactical strategy for a photographer to attempt to make the most of each opportunity. In other words, as a photographer, I see no value to contribute work to Verve and have to pay if I can also publish work (strictly speaking about the on-line experience) in a plethora of other places that do receive viewing time from a readership of editors, investors, picture buyers, galleries, agencies, etc. It makes no sense at all.

What makes Verve interesting are, above all, the work that is published, which is a combination of your editorial insight and acumen and the work of the photographers: you HAVE a symbiotic relationship: a good curator/editor is absolutely connected to a good artist/work and vice versa. Applying a business model, and one that is soooooo old school/version 1.0, will doom you and the strength of what you have worked very hard and so diligently to create: an online outlet that publishes strong work/photographic profiles.

As a photographer who also exhibits work in galleries who is married to a photographer who exhibits work in galleries as well, your model of charging photographers fails to live up to the needs vis-a-vis promotion.

In this day and age, just as i think we all must re-consider how we earn sustenance from the exposure and distribution our images/stories/exhibitions (i’ve changed alot in the 2 1/2 years when I first bitched about Private not paying, and now actually publishing in a non-paying magazine or on-line site isn’t a big deal to me as see it similarly to exhibiting my work, as a means of getting the work shown which leads to other granting opportunities) and the platforms and vehicles through which we can earn sustenance, surely we must not return to antiquated modes of conduct and business.

Having, with my wife, created 5 years ago our on on=line photo magazine (now defunct) and having worked on others (without pay), it’s not really that astute to charge for content based on your workload, but rather the effort should be re-directed elsewhere.

All that said, i really wish you and Verve the best and a long shelf-life. one idea: get someone to create an app for itouch/ipad, offer the blog to be sold as an application, offer it for say 50 or 25 cents at the iapp store….see what happens….

we’re all scrambling to figure it out….but no-one is really, but the businesses, going to ‘profit’ from bilking each other…that is our generation, not my sons…and they’re the generation now in charge….

all the best
bob

Given the ripoffs going on in all aspects of enterprise these days, even if this was a rip-off (and I am not saying is or isn’t) $50. seems a bit small to lynch Geoff over.

I would give him a lot of credit for going this far charging nothing, and perhaps ask people to keep an open mind— as far as I see, Geoff says nothing about charging $50. if he solicits your work, does he?

Andy:

well, that is totally off the collar and frankly unfortunate…..‘shut the fuck up and you might get someplace’, you HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME…..

any wonder the profession needs a reworking?…..

as someone whose been at it for a while, i’m frankly shocked that your advice to the critics would warrant such an immature, and frankly below your stature, reaction. Don’t we have an obligation, as colleagues and photographers who are not 22 years just jumping into the business, to constructively discuss and to, yes, criticize, what may in fact been an unfortunate perspective. You want to start charging for submissions for 100Eyes….you want to start charging the kids at Cine for submission…..you see where i am going: it’s not only absurd, but given our mandate as professionals and our, i hope, understanding that what is required is both generosity and commitment to real help and dialogue, in both the profession and the greater world, I cannot believe your reaction.

i cannot speak for others, but criticizing or rather questioning the notion (based soley on Geoff’s response, not on the initial posting) is a reasonable dialog builder. In no way do i read most of the responses, and surely not my own, as critical of Geoff or Verve, let alone lynch him. A bit overly dramatic, don’t you think.

but most importantly, as a photographer who HAS gotten someplace, i find it offensive that you, above all, would advice ‘shut the fuck up’, you who have been and remain VERY VERY VOCAL in your positions vis-a-vis other photographers and other professional acts that you find either misguided or unfortunate.

How about some sage® advice:

to get someplace requires hard work, luck and an openness to relationships, not the shutting down of discussion.

what the hell is going on ??

respectfully,
bob

ps. about Geoff’s ‘solicitation’…if you read his response, it surely seems like he is…as he describes:

“For each posting, with few exceptions, I first contact the photographer, specify the image I would like to use and request a bio and also a statement about the photograph. This entire process for each posting including the research can take anywhere from 45 minutes to a couple of hours. You see, many of the documentary photographers that I’m interested in showcasing are off to far-flung locations and need to be reminded several times to send me the required text. Then there is the scheduling and sequencing of the work. Since I usually plan two to three months ahead, this process takes additional time. I sequence the entries like an editor would in a print magazine.

It’s not a matter of just right-clicking a photo I like and linking to a site, which is so common these days. Yes, it is about publishing with an editorial purpose, but also Verve Photo has become a resource for photo editors, designers and curators. I had no idea when I began the site that it would take off in the way that it has…"

now, if he means that he is asking for a submission fee from those photographers who submit unsolicited material, then well ok, though i think it is still not a terrific idea, from a business model standpoint….

if i have re-read his post, then i apologize for that. As i said, i’m not sure it’s the wisest business model, in this age, to work from but i wish him the best. Verve has been (and i hope it continues) to be a thoughtful and informative blog.

i guess i should shut up now and back to what i was doing, as i do need to get something finished, as it’s has already has “someplace” to ‘get’ since it’s publication is due before march 25th….

now will that mean i’ve finally gotten someplace….i wonder ;)

b

"""i would leave still-dancing tomorrow if we asked people to pay to have an exhibition here! i think it is wonderful that some excellent photographers think our site is good enough to showcase their work, to ask them to pay is just wrong.

i know times are hard for us, but feeding OFF our own is not the way forward."""

says Michael here:

http://www.still-dancing.com/forum/read.php?4,27396

Bob, the point is that Geoffrey is not charging for work that he solicits. I don’t want to flog the idea….use your imagination. Some people can afford the $50 believe it or not….the point is that those who can pay should pay, to subsidize those who are talented and can’t.

I am not going to charge for 100Eyes and never will….as the attribution says “this site is made possible by the generous donations of photographers from around the world.” As far as charging Haitian kids, you have a twisted imagination perhaps…

End of story. As far as the pitchforks, I have asked November 11th for some basic moderation on the board for the benefit of everyone…..every other site on the web has it, and I don’t see what the problem is. I would welcome it for some of my own statements as well….

Andy:

moderation requires respect, period as do collegial relationships, period. Telling people to ‘shut the fuck up’ is neither collegial nor respectful, period, end of story.

I have great respect for you Andy as a colleague and a person and I AM surprised that someone as vocal as you and as supportive of the community (lightstalkers and journalism) would ever write that. The point i made with 100Eyes and Cine (and yes, i have friends who have gone to Cine to help out too, and i have a student who was a Cine student) is that as soon as we apply the ‘idea’ of others to our own way of working we see the inherent contradiction in our defense of either ourselves or criticisms of others.

My point is a simple one: if, as a community, we are told to ‘shut the fuck up’ by an another person (regardless of achievement, age, credentials) then we are ALL lost. Maybe i am misreading what’s going on here but, generally, I do not see pitchforks here and certain I have nothing but respect for Verve and Geoff and what Verve has done.

All i am suggesting to him is that, maybe just maybe, the business model of charging submission rates is not the wisest idea to maintain both the integrity of the blog or the submission standard or the longevity of the blog. Some blogs/online magazines are actually working hard, damn hard, to return to the authors who are featured income or at least resources to continue: the mandate is both to showcase, promote and get work out there without the idea of profiting from the content providers.

Given that, i think the idea of paying for promotion/exposure is a necessary thing that all of us have done: as i said, i’ve paid my fair number of lunches/dinners/drinks and while i’ve been fortunate enough to have never had pay to have my work exhibited in galleries (and i know lots of photographers who have had to do this, so i count myself blessed), I do understand that often it is necessary to have to ‘pay’ for an opportunity….the case is a simple one: cost effective balance…but, and in this specific condition, I just see it wrongly….

given that, is there a viable opportunity for Geoff to help photographers (with his experience, expertise and knowledge as a photographer/editor), of course…and he should BE COMPENSATED for that….but why not offer it as a service, as expressed by some above…just dont confuse and conflate the 2 issues…that is ALL i am saying regarding Verve/Geoff….

and I am neither a complainer nor a novice, right?…

imagine had i charged all those photographers who i had showcased here in Toronto in my projection project….lots of eyes saw the work, in a gallery space, by editors, buyers, arts board foundations, etc…it just doesnt make sense….that said, earning a living from helping others is fair and reasonable (doctors get paid) and i have no problem with that….i was merely suggesting that it’s both counterproductive to Verve and counterintuitive in the long run, period…

my object to your comment was both it’s egregious reaction (and surprising from someone who tends to be supportive of dissent) and it’s inherently disrespectful tone…..ironic, from you…

as i said Andy, i hold you in high esteem, not only as a photographer but also has someone who does not sit on their ass nor rests on their past and we’ve both ‘known’ each other enough to warrant frank discourse….

if there is something else at play here (i havent followed LS too much recently as i’ve been working on a project deadline for April and Marina has been away), please feel free to write me privately….maybe i have missed something that has made this topic incendiary to either you or Geoff…

in the meantime, i stand by what i have said:

it is neither like you nor productive to tell people to ‘shut up’….but we should tell them the opposite:

speak up, with respect, and speak out, with respect…

as journalists, we know that is all we have: respect and articulation, not silence and misery

respectfully
bob

Of course “shut the fuck up” was an overstatement.

But you Bob, respectfully, respond to my main point—

No where does Hiller say that one must pay if he solicits your work….which is the way that he gets a majority of his photographers anyway.

With that in mind, I think that those opposed should really think twice about being so openly critical…..I would give Mr. Hiller the benefit of the doubt as far as his concern for photographers, rather than be so quick to publicly condemn him. He already has done a lot more than most to promote photographers and its really sad that people are so quick to judge without seeing the other side.

What is the big deal? If people don’t to submit, don’t. Do we need to micro-analyze the ethics of this? Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt.
And if Lightstalkers wants to remain credible, I really do believe that some form of moderation is necessary….and would welcome it myself.

Permission to speak, Andy? Your statement, “Some sage advice, shut the fuck up and you might get someplace…” was not merely an overstatement but something so patently offensive that it overshadowed what you say was your main point. You owe Bob an apology not a restatement of your idea.

Andy:

ok, well clearly something is amiss…….since when did you, of all people, become some critical of open and free discussion: is it because it’s here?….you and i have spent enough time where colleagues say the most preposterous and most obnoxious and belittling things about ‘friends’ and colleagues over a beer and now on a public form, calm and reasonable discussion gets drowned out in obnoxious, invective-driven debate.

ok, so, to the point exactly: forget the ‘solicitation’ bit. I’ve already said that I may have mis-read Geoff’s statement and it is not clear whether this ‘submission’ cost is related to submissions or those he solicits. And I sure am not performing a micro-analysis of either Verve or Geoff, let alone the ethics of it. I am dealing with your question of all of us above:

my point was a simple one: a member of this community ask our own perspectives with regard to Verve and paying for a submission. I’ve chimed in, without vitriol, without condemnation, without foul language, without pomposity.

Point is when each of us endeavor to do something, to create something and ask for ideas, we share. I was responding to Adam and others. Notice, I wrote only after Geoff had offer his perspective. But who cares, right. it is only opinion.

Fortunately, I’m neither bloated and self-important enough nor that judgmental toward others to squash their quacking…..

Again Andy, i would respectfully ask that you remember next time you criticize another photographic practice, which you do openly and vocally, that you recall your own response to me.

I did not condemn Geoff. Most people do not promote photography more than themselves, i agree with you on that. I am not like that and have spent the greater part of my years here and in the photographic world promoting other people, rather than my own work, accomplishments….

but what’s the point of arguing….

i think i’ll shut up now…

all the best, good luck

b

I apologize….I actually have a bit of the flu. I redacted the profanity…..sorry Bob, nothing personal.