"Good enough" photography is receipe for disaster

It is critical that your budget follows your priorities; I've already talked about this. Let's apply this to media photography. Now, I am speaking to an industry as a whole and not trying to single out certain publications. Don't take this an attack, take it as a chance to think!

Rule – Ignore claims and look at the budgets and results. Does publication XYZ value photographic art, or just do the bare minimum to “have some pictures.” You can quickly answer this question by looking at a couple of issues of the publication.

So why should you care? Hint – the bottom line is critical to all publications. Your image is your bottom line.

The purpose of photographs is capture attention and tell a story. Mass media is communications; doesn't work without a storyteller and a receiver. Good photographs make you want to receive the story and aid in the reception, understanding and retention; poor ones fail to capture attention and/or distract from reception/understanding of the story.

Successful publications are successful story tellers. Attract attention, tell the story effectively, and build a relationship.

Heresy – Great headlines and great writing are important, but cannot guarantee success. Don't believe me? Imagine a test! Put the same writing on the newsstand in two publications; one with great photographs; the other mediocre. In six months, one will be growing, the other dead. Reader satisfaction and story retention will drive growth. Little notice will be paid to the latter; the only question is not “why did it die?” but “was it ever alive?”

Fact – Multi-channel multimedia means you have to be GREAT to be heard. “Good enough” is so far lost in the noise (#72,347 out of 1,124,678 on the latest Google search) that it is a dinosaur headed for extinction. When this dinosaur dies in the forest and no one is there to see it, did it really ever live? The answer is yes, but not for the reasons you think: real dinosaurs can leave behind oil, media dinosaurs just leave a greasy stain where someone's money used to be. . .

Heresy – current circulation rates do not prove your “good enough photos” tactic is wise. Your lost in the noise; not completely dead. You will still connect with a few; even a blind squirrel will find a few nuts and maybe your publication. The sad part is, you don't even know how many opportunities you are wasting. There are billions of people out there looking for a good source of information; you're simply not on their radar.

Heresy – budget constraints cannot dictate lowering photography standards. Everyone has budget challenges. There are wise cuts and self-inflicted wounds. Saving money via “good enough” is guarantees failure; it wastes the writing and distribution money spent because the message never connects. Its lost in the white noise. Get “great” photography at the best cost you can and find other places to cut costs. Also realize that growth makes it easier to pay for great photography; how much do you need to invest in your image?

Heresy – too many publications are relying on a monopoly for life support. “We're the only newspaper in a 30 mile radius – we have a stranglehold on obituaries, court postings, wedding announcements, and want ads.” Sales based on being the only option simply props the dead body up. Doesn't mean the publication is alive, only prevented from being buried.

Fact – The minute an alternative is available, the speed of flight will approach the speed of light. Craigslist anyone? Your brand won't survive in the Internet age if it is known as: “we suck, but you don't have an option.” The Internet changes the barrier to entry for competitors from a chasm to a speed-bump.

Conclusion: Your bottom line is your image. Which most closely matches your image:

o positive with great photographs that build your product.
o mediocre with mediocre photographs that show minimum effort necessary to not fail completely.
o poor with poor or no photographs that indicate a dinosaur on life support

I realize subscriptions are slipping for many publications. Budget cutting is necessary. The real question is will cuts accelerate the decline or will money be spent on key things to avoid further decline? People don't subscribe/resubscribe to mediocre or poor brand images.


Technorati: newspaper media photography branding image