I’m glad to provide here an interesting
type of making money. Do you know a person
can make up to 3% a per day through investments without limitations in sums ?
I mean that even if one has US$1.000,00 one may earn the same amount in a monthly!

If anyone gets interested welcome to my blog http://www.theinvestblog.com.

Recentemente JPG Magazine è stato rilevato e salvato dalla bancarotta.
Una rivista con un certo seguito, ma che non è riuscita a tenere un bilancio positivo. Alcuni accusano il CEO ed il suo stipendio annuale di 500000$, ma se si guardano tutte le …

anyhow, i hope they can make it work under new ownership because it was sort of a breath of fresh air among the normal photo rags, but i agree that their web presence needs some beefing up. not sure how they do it, but they have to figure out a way to create flickr-like community enthusiasm. but i also hate flickr….

1.The decision makers who either can’t make a decision or will not allow anyone but themselves to make all the decisions.

2. The front of book garbage and packages.

Remove those two items and you could have a very lean staff to put out a high quality product.

That’s a MONTHLY number, right? Lavish.

Forget about Mitchell Fox’s salary. Mitchell is worth whatever he can get someone to pay him. God bless him.

What’s interesting to me is how Mitchell spent other people’s money. Start with $30k a month to the edit and design staff, plus another $20k a month to edit and design consultants. I’ll go out on a limb and say it could have been done with one editor, one managing editor, one print designer, and one web designer, and everyone would have had lots of time to be really creative. I just saved them over $300k a year before you include all of the office space they no longer need.

I’ll go out on another limb and say they could have gotten away with one web developer and maybe $50k in Joomla or Drupal freelance help. Make it $100k. We just saved them another $350k or so plus who knows how many offices.

$400k on ad sales staff to generate $400k in billlings? Plus another $280k on marketing? It must have been a lively office!

Sure, I think there is room for a new venture focused on identifying up-and-coming photographers.

There are various sites that tackle parts of the problem; but none (that I have seen) really pull the pieces together to be the industry influence leader. Getting the content mix right is a critical factor. You need to be able to attract quality photographers AND people who hire quality photographers (editors, ADs, etc.).

More importantly, I don’t think people subscribed because the content was pretty poor, and unless your image/article was in the magazine, why on earth would you purchase it? I mean, it was very clearly amateur, basically substandard.

http://www.focusmag.info/

Word on the street is that photographers/galleries pay top dollar for a spread in Focus. I know a photographer that shelled out over a thousand dollars for the “opportunity” that Focus provides…sucker.

I know Digital SLR photography magazine, provides critical assessment. I think it’s important when developing skill, to have that. it’s something you experience when you go to school for photography or art school.

are you serious about that? That would turn any magazine into a stupid advertorial where only the ones with money can be published and these who want to. I dont think that any photographer on the planet should have to pay to show their work. The whole thought of JPEG would be destroyed then. Really not an option here and rather not thought through.

What they could do, is just showing them, without any money involved, from no side. That would at least reduce the cost.

I totally agree.

I agree the print magazine offered decent photographers the opportunity to get published and that opportunity set JPEG Mag apart from other Web sites.

Perhaps if they had started smaller — for instance publish an annual “Best of 20XX” printed edition which could have been used as a marketing giveaway with new subscriptions as well as a vehicle for publishing the work of photographers. Then, as subscriptions grew, they could publish something quarterly, then go monthly.

As it stands the printing and distribution costs simply ate them alive. And they couldn’t get enough paid subscriptions (again because the price was too high) to offset the costs. Without the paid subscriptions, potential advertisers were probably cool to spending money on the publication. So it was probably an inevitable downward spiral.

I also wonder whether if, instead of sinking so much money in printing, had JPEG Mag spent money on getting some recognized names in photography to contribute some commentary, it might have had similar benefit to photographers looking for some recognition.

There’s this whole budding industry of “portfolio reviews” by people who at least claim to be successful photographers. I know Rob published something a few weeks back questioning the value of such things, and I’m a little skeptical myself. But there is a voracious demand for legitimate critical assessment of photographers’ work. I think there might have been some unique value JPEG could have added to a Web product that would have cost much, much less than monthly printing costs and still created a opportunity to give good photographers some recognition. Then, a more modest subscription fee might have been an easier sell.

Print should be reserved for boutique publications that have the subscribers willing to pay for premium content…such as monocle/purple etc.

I know I’d sign up for that and I’m sure there would be thousands of Flickr users clamoring to get in on that action.