[Winder]

Journals, newspapers and magazines that are truly unbiased and broad-thinking have become something of a rarity since the mid-twentieth century. Even then, ethical journalism and news reporting was often squeezed by editorial bias and commercial pressure, but nothing like as badly as prevails today in all but a few publications, most of which are not the biggest sellers.

Photo magazines, with the exception of a few of the art photography magazines that have already been mentioned here, have become extensions of the marketing departments of the camera and accessory makers, to the extent that several that specialise in particular brands have come to prominence on newsagent shelves.

It really is the fault of the majority of the buying public, who are mostly interested in having their own prejudices and preconceptions confirmed, if they are interested in anything at all. When I look at my collection of photographs magazines from the 1970s, two things stand out in the content – technique articles and photos of naked females. These days, it's mostly gear, gear and more gear, which makes me nostalgic for the old days, and not just because of the naked females.

The key to success is specialization and targeting a very defined and often very small audience. This forum is an example of the evolution of media. In the mid-twentieth century the cost of printing and distribution was so high that it was not possible to specialize on the level that we see today. The cost of printing and distribution was so high the media had to appeal to the largest audience possible. With technology breaking these barriers and giving a voice to more people engaging in specialized (biased) publications. Ultimately bias and specialization are the same thing. This forum has a pretty heavy bias towards Pentax branded products.

Its hard to make a publication around technique. The fundamentals of lighting and posing those naked females hasn't changed since those article were written. There is no reason to re-write them. Because the fundamentals don't change the only thing left to write about are the changes in the equipment and the only way to make money is to get the manufacturers of the gear to buy advertising.

[RobA_Oz]

The key to success is specialization and targeting a very defined and often very small audience. This forum is an example of the evolution of media. In the mid-twentieth century the cost of printing and distribution was so high that it was not possible to specialize on the level that we see today. The cost of printing and distribution was so high the media had to appeal to the largest audience possible. With technology breaking these barriers and giving a voice to more people engaging in specialized (biased) publications. Ultimately bias and specialization are the same thing. This forum has a pretty heavy bias towards Pentax branded products.

Its hard to make a publication around technique. The fundamentals of lighting and posing those naked females hasn't changed since those article were written. There is no reason to re-write them. Because the fundamentals don't change the only thing left to write about are the changes in the equipment and the only way to make money is to get the manufacturers of the gear to buy advertising.

I have no disagreement with what you say, except that people keep writing novels and we keep buying those, in spite of the fact that all are variations on a limited number of plots. The same goes for movie scripts, of course, and furthermore, product placement occurs in both. A good example of that same thing (variations on a few themes or plots) in photo magazines is the UK Amateur Photographer, where many technique articles follow the seasons on a routine basis, and they've been successfully doing that for over one hundred years. Why they've succeeded, and Popular Photography has failed, is probably as much due to the quality of the writing as anything else, but my observation is that they've not been as heavy on pushing gear, either. Perhaps the other element of ongoing success is to find how to appeal to successive generations – 80 or 100 years spans quite a number of those.

[Kerrowdown]

'Popular Photography' magazine and PopPhoto.com to close after nearly 80 years

A sad reflection of the times we find ourselves in.

[Winder]

A sad reflection of the times we find ourselves in.

But why is it sad? If Pop Photo was actually providing people with something of value, then people would have been willing to pay for it. Companies that are providing people with real value for their money don't go out of business.

[lesmore49]

But why is it sad? If Pop Photo was actually providing people with something of value, then people would have been willing to pay for it. Companies that are providing people with real value for their money don't go out of business.

To me, as a long time subscriber of Popular Photography magazine, it is sad to see it end.

It was a publication with near 80 years of history. A magazine that featured over the years some excellent staff, people like Bert Keppler, Jason Schneider....to name just two that come to mind. It was a magazine for me, from the late 1960's to the early 2000's that was my and others.... prime resource for information on camera equipment .

PP did some very good analytical testing and invested in state of the art testing equipment, to give the consumer some objective facts to consider, when making an informed decision, before purchase of equipment. In North America for many years, it was the dominant specialist camera/lens magazine. It did provide great value to many avid photographers...for a number of decades.

I believe it's current circulation was around 320,000 +/- ...down from almost a million at it's circulation prime. Still that's 320,000 individuals who felt that PP was ...to use your term...providing something of value....as they were paying for the magazine.

In fact with about 1/3rd of a million subscribers, I do have some question as to why PP lately went down from a monthly within the past year, to a bi-monthly magazine and then eventually was closed down. To me, that seems like a significant number of subscribers in this modern day, in fact I think it still sold the most mags per month of any competitive photo magazine. Well, then again I'm a lay person when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of the modern publishing business....well...what do I know....

Lately, like many magazines and other media such as radio/TV/ print, times have been uncertain. PP is not unusual in that it folded and there will be more. The information industry is undergoing much ...and significant change...that affects not just media staffers, but media consumers. We seem to have an enormous amount of media flooding around the consumer in our present era.

Some of it good, some of it poor, some of it hard to judge.

It's getting very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff as prairie farmers would say....because there seems to be so much chaff with much of the information we need to sift through.

With Popular Photography I found that over the years, it was to a degree, a resource that I had confidence in their equipment assessments. Not a lot of chaff.

When it came to buying equipment over the years, invariably I would initially check out PP's evaluation, then other media. It may have been just one tool in my 'assessment for purchase' tool box, but it was a favourite , long lasting tool.

I don't speak for everyone of course, but to me that is why I found the closure of this magazine a sad situation.

Les

[normhead]

I only subscribed to Pop Photo for a year, but it's sad to see it go anyway. I'm getting close to 70 years old and every time I have been left in a store while someone else is shopping, I've gone to the magazine rack to look for Pop Photo. The articles were short and seemed condensed even, but the upside to that was you could read a whole article standing in the aisle, and still have time to look at the adverts. I definitely bought my Tamron 35-300 adapatal after reading about it in pop photo, so at least once in 70 years, their advertising sold me a product.

[ChrisPlatt]

Are there any good magazines left for the film photographer?

Chris

[RobA_Oz]

Interesting subscription data – however, advertising revenue is usually the key, rather than sales revenue for print publications. When I read it in the 1970s, I recall being astounded at the proportion of advertising in Popular Photography. It would be interesting to know how much that may have declined in recent times. Many advertisers are said to be switching to online media.

[normhead]

Interesting subscription data – however, advertising revenue is usually the key, rather than sales revenue for print publications. When I read it in the 1970s, I recall being astounded at the proportion of advertising in Popular Photography. It would be interesting to know how much that may have declined in recent times. Many advertisers are said to be switching to online media.

I actually bought it a few times for the ads. Just to see what the current buzz was, or to read the pre-release hype. That's something done better on the internet, where we can discuss it with our knowledgeable forum mates.

[Winder]

To me, as a long time subscriber of Popular Photography magazine, it is sad to see it end.

It was a publication with near 80 years of history. A magazine that featured over the years some excellent staff, people like Bert Keppler, Jason Schneider....to name just two that come to mind. It was a magazine for me, from the late 1960's to the early 2000's that was my and others.... prime resource for information on camera equipment .

PP did some very good analytical testing and invested in state of the art testing equipment, to give the consumer some objective facts to consider, when making an informed decision, before purchase of equipment. In North America for many years, it was the dominant specialist camera/lens magazine. It did provide great value to many avid photographers...for a number of decades.

I believe it's current circulation was around 320,000 +/- ...down from almost a million at it's circulation prime. Still that's 320,000 individuals who felt that PP was ...to use your term...providing something of value....as they were paying for the magazine.

In fact with about 1/3rd of a million subscribers, I do have some question as to why PP lately went down from a monthly within the past year, to a bi-monthly magazine and then eventually was closed down. To me, that seems like a significant number of subscribers in this modern day, in fact I think it still sold the most mags per month of any competitive photo magazine. Well, then again I'm a lay person when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of the modern publishing business....well...what do I know....

Lately, like many magazines and other media such as radio/TV/ print, times have been uncertain. PP is not unusual in that it folded and there will be more. The information industry is undergoing much ...and significant change...that affects not just media staffers, but media consumers. We seem to have an enormous amount of media flooding around the consumer in our present era.

Some of it good, some of it poor, some of it hard to judge.

It's getting very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff as prairie farmers would say....because there seems to be so much chaff with much of the information we need to sift through.

With Popular Photography I found that over the years, it was to a degree, a resource that I had confidence in their equipment assessments. Not a lot of chaff.

When it came to buying equipment over the years, invariably I would initially check out PP's evaluation, then other media. It may have been just one tool in my 'assessment for purchase' tool box, but it was a favourite , long lasting tool.

I don't speak for everyone of course, but to me that is why I found the closure of this magazine a sad situation.

Les

The last copy I can remember buying had a review of the Pentax K-7 in it and I was at the air port looking for something to read on a flight. I had a subscription in the early 1990's. I saw some numbers on an enthusiast magazine some time back that libraries and business subscriptions made up 1/3 of its subscribers and I wonder what percentage of Pop Photo's subscribers were actually people. There are people who still get the newspaper because it is a generational thing. Magazines are the same way. Pop Photo was a dinosaur who failed to adapt. If Pop Photo had decent leadership they would have made the transition to digital and gone from having one of the key print resources for photography enthusiasts to having one of the key digital resources. There are dozens of digital sources offering better content for those willing to look.

[lesmore49]

Interesting subscription data – however, advertising revenue is usually the key, rather than sales revenue for print publications. When I read it in the 1970s, I recall being astounded at the proportion of advertising in Popular Photography. It would be interesting to know how much that may have declined in recent times. Many advertisers are said to be switching to online media.

You are right, in my humble opinion.

Some observations/opinion of mine follow, and in this instance I want to be clear that I'm not talking about the subject at hand.... special interest magazines ...at all.

Advertising revenue is where the money is made in media. Subscription revenue is the 'gravy'...anything made in subs is/was good, but never enough to rely on. Back in the late '60's to about 1970 I worked in the publishing business and this was the case then and I would assume nothing has changed.

However I could be wrong...being an old guy, probably a bit befuddled and only dealing with long ago experience that has no relevance anymore.

But in general back then, the demographic data that subs can provide, is of paramount importance to the business end of media....media in general actually. Sales personnel go armed with the demo number breakdowns (readership age, gender, education level, buying interest/income level, etc.) when trying to convince advertisers why it is in their best interest to buy advertising space in the particular media.

Also as you have said, many advertisers are switching to online media to flog their products, which has led to financial crisis in more traditional forms of media.
Then of course financial difficulty also leads to another discussion...which should take precedence in any particular media ? The sales/ advertising wing...or the editorial arm of a media ?

Is a particular media about advertising...because that's where the money is...or is it about editorial and finding the 'truth'....whatever that may be. Should never the twain ..... meet or compromise ?


I'm focusing on media, such as television and newspapers. It has been interesting to me, to watch how many of these media are trying to balance... their editorial vs advertising issues...some more successfully than others.

[reeftool]

It's sad to see Popular Photography go although in all honesty, I stopped reading it years ago. Way back when, I read Popular Photography and Modern Photography regularly. I always preferred Modern as the articles and reviews were much closer to my interest. Modern Photography has been gone for years and I would only buy Popular Photography on occasions when I would see it in a store and an article would catch my attention. I have subscribed to Shutterbug for many years now and I have noticed that it is getting thinner these day too.

I'm a bit old school and I like to read magazines but I'm realistic enough to recognize that they are a dying form of media. I picked up a news magazine in the doctors office recently ( Time ? I don't remember) and was shocked on how thin and ad free it was. While some may say that's good, ads are what pays the bills and without them, the price of the magazine increases and is less likely to be purchased.

A new generation of reader rules and they don't look to print media for news and information. They go online for everything and that's bad news for those of us who like to kickback with our favorite magazine when it arrives in the mail.