O/T ? selling Adult Content to Magzines

[davewells]

I would read my comments on uk adult producers first if you are able.

[Joe A]

Photo Taker...

It's a buyers market and that is decreasing every day... Unless you have material that is eXtra hot... Don't hold your breath....

[planeterotica]

Try submitting to the Readers Wives section for a start if the mags like your work they will get back to you, unless your digital is very good i would submit slides or prints and try and find a fresh face rather than an established model, and dont forget you will need a signed model release and copies of the models I.D.s.

[John Mason]

Two days ago I got back over ?25,000 worth of sets that had originally been accepted, and because of a 'change of policy' have now been deemed unacceptable. Some of the sets are several years old now and are thus virtually unsaleable. Some of the sets were even requested by the magazines and for some reason or other not used at the time.

No 'kill fee' is going to be paid. No good reason was given. In fact I've found out that I'm not the only photographer that this has happened to. I had dealt with this company ( they have the same name as a well known brand of chocolate!) for the past 19 years and feel that their attitude towards the photographers is nothing short of disgraceful.

Needless to say I won't be sending them anything in the future!
To be fair, the poor editor I dealt with was not the one who made this decision, but had the task of having to tell me the 'bad' news. (along with several other photographers!)

With this kind of attitude, I doubt they will be around much longer, because from what I've been told sales are dropping almost as fast as the photographers that used to deal with them.

The moral of this story is like an x-files plot, "Trust no one!"

My advice, if you can get a sale to a magazine, good luck , but don't shoot anything that your not selling somewhere else first!

[Alex L]

If the sales of said group are falling fast then their demise is certainly well deserved, not only for the way you have been treated, but also, I picked up what used to be the Cadbury flagship magazine the other day and could not believe the abysmal repro quality of the pics.


alex

[Alex L]

sorry clicked to take of signature but forgot after preview

[davewells]

I'll tell you a story about this.

I was THE major supplier of these type of pics to one Mag group here in this country (the same one John mentions). Not my pics but a few Ams that were enthusiastically snapping away hoping for bigger and better things.

Well about 6 years ago I noticed that they were rejecting more and more so after about a year of them buying nothing I called them up. I spoke to some junior guy who informed me proudly "Yeah new company policy, we ONLY buy proper wifes pics now from Joe Public and NOT from esablished photographers like you". I asked him why and he just said "Company Policy" like a robot. So I asked if there had been complaints and he said "No, not that he was aware of". So I asked do you think your readers care where the pics come from. He was now getting more frustrated and said "Look, that is now company policy". So I called him a twat and put the phone down.

FUCKING IDIOTS !

Magazines in the form we know them will not exist in 5 years.

[davewells]

That's exactly what one of the other big (ha!) groups is doing now. Reprinting all the old sets from old mags. They have been told that they have NO budget to buy in new material. And we as photogs will not get any repro money so they can buy a set for not a lot of money and use it as many times as they like. Wonderful business, isn't it.
Not sure how true it is but I have been told that all their 15-20 mags put together sell less than Gardners Monthly. In fact I would think half of those sales would have been photogs buying them to see their stuff in print and then try and get paid !