Wedding magazine publishing dilemma: wedding photographers help!

newbridgemom

Hi! I'm hoping some wedding photographers can give me advice. I sent some images from a recent wedding into a major irish wedding magazine at the end of December. They got back to me saying they'd like to feature the wedding in their "Real Weddings" section, of which they do 7 per issue. Hooray! I thought. I'm getting published in print! They were in contact with the bride and groom. And then last week I get a call from them, and they say they'd like to feature it but I need to take out an ad. The least expensive ad is just short of €600! I kind of feel a little swindled, but understand this is how they make revenue. It's just I don't know if it's money well spent. I could advertise with a well-know Irish wedding site for a year for a little more than what the magazine wants for an 1/2 page ad and a 3 page Real Wedding feature.

Any advice? Anyone take out magazine ads with real Wedding features and get any bookings from it? Or am I better to advertise with the Irish wedding site for a year? Or is a wedding fair better? These all cost around the same money, and to be honest, I'm not a big studio with a big budget. I've got free publicity with online wedding blogs, maybe I should stick with this?

Thanks!

stcstc

i would tell them to get lost

its a complete scam they way these mags do this

i have done a couple of articles in the past for tech mags, when they asked would i like to do the advert i say no, but they still in the end do the articles

not saying thats how this mag will do it, but the wedding site your on about, if its the one i am thinking of, some of my clients get huge amounts from it

tommyl2010

dont do it youd be crazy to, that sounds like a complete farce imo

pete4130

You can invoice them for €600 or €1000 for the use of YOUR images if they publish them. Seems like a con/stunt to get people to believe they've taken amazing images (not that yuo haven't!) and pressure en into an ad for lots of money.......wehn your images are actually doing THEM a favour. Send them an invoice for €600 and call it evens if you want your stuff published. if they dont agree then dont get published.....they lose out. If they still publish your work take the legal route.

DaireQuinlan

honestly, from the point of view of a non wedding-photographer here, it has all the hallmarks of a big con-job. They ring you up and tell you they want to feature your stuff, then let you get accustomed to that idea, then once the hook is well and truly set, they try and reel you in.
Ask yourself, why do they have to engage in this sort of seedy behaviour to get ad-revenue in if they're as popular or as influential as they say they are ? If photographers think they're getting conversions out of their ads, or that they're worthwhile, they wouldn't have to do this.

Ballyman

Go with the website advertising. You'll get a lot more business from that than any magazine.

newbridgemom

I'm of the same opinion too. I can't believe photographers would have the money to spend to get a "Real Wedding" in these magazines? Unless they are charging major big bucks.
From now, my clients have come through Google searches, referrals from blogs that have featured my work, and word of mouth. I haven't done any advertising. In the future I'd like to do some more weddings, so I expect I'll have to buy ads somewhere. It seems like the big wedding site is the way to go.
Would be interested to know if anyone has been paid for a Real Wedding feature in a mag, or has one published for free without buying an ad.

eas

I've been in a few wedding mags and never came across this before. I've been asked if I wanted an ad with the feature, but never told I had to take an ad for the feature.

Dealing with these magazines is slightly bitter sweet, everyone looks at it like you're getting free publicity, I look at it like the magazine are getting free content / imagery.

For what it's worth, from experience, IMO the best place to invest that €600 at the moment is on facebook.

mikeanywhere

Any work that I have had published has never been on the understanding that I take an ad out with them - go back and tell them to sod off!!!

Paulw

Sounds very dodgy indeed.

If you're currently getting good business, then stick with what works for you.

stcstc

stcstc wrote: »

if its the one i am thinking of, some of my clients get huge amounts from it

C'mon then, out with it.... I doubt the mods will care.

One big happy boards family.

(not that i'd ever advertise wedding photography myself, but seems like the sorta thing a lot of boardsies would appreciate).

Borderfox

I wouldnt bother tbh scam

DaireQuinlan

Actually, it strikes me that this is borderline illegal.

Consumer protection act of 2007, in its list of 'prohibited commercial practices', S. 55(1)(q), has "Using editorial content in the media to promote a product paid for by promoters of the product"
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/act/pub/0019/sec0055.html#sec55

This is why you see those 'Advertising Feature' labels prominently displayed over articles that have been paid for by some company and are just thinly disguised ads. This magazine is effectively doing this, they're trying to get you to pay 600 for the privilege of putting a feature in the magazine, but they're trying to employ a loop-hole in that you're ACTUALLY paying for an ad, and that the feature is separate.

I'd get onto the national consumer agency http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/ and the consumers association http://www.consumerassociation.ie/ and the advertising standards authority http://www.asai.ie/ and make a complaint about the magazine. Might not do you any good but they'll be wary about doing it in the future I'd say.

Obviously, IANAL ...

magicbastarder

this gave me a chuckle. magazines charging the source for the content?
do freelance journalists have to pay to get their articles published in this magazine?

newbridgemom

I emailed the magazine today to let them know that I wouldn't be able to take out an ad. This is part of the reply: "As I mentioned unfortunately we have to be seen to support advertisers otherwise we would lose out on regular advertisers"

So this means that if i don't do an ad, and they feature the Real Wedding I photographed, then the other photographers who paid for an ad would not pay either?
This does seem illegal to me as a previous poster has suggested. Unfortunately, I don't want to burn any bridges and have my name blacklisted.

newbridgemom

Just thinking, in fashion magazines you have editorials featuring differnt products recommended by the staff. The manufacturers of these products have probably paid to advertise and get the feature as a perk. I'm becoming very cynical about magazines now...

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Obviously, IANAL ...

i beg your pardon?
you know that's not a verb?

Waking-Dreams

newbridgemom wrote: »

Just thinking, in fashion magazines you have editorials featuring differnt products recommended by the staff. The manufacturers of these products have probably paid to advertise and get the feature as a perk. I'm becoming very cynical about magazines now...

Magazines have always been about selling adverts to readers, and while in principle it’s important that a magazine keep its objectivity, this doesn’t always work economically in every situation (not when it comes to consumer magazines, as opposed to information/science, etc). When you consider that a magazine is dependent on advertising revenue to stay afloat, it makes the notion of bad reviews “bad for business”.

An analogy, if you will. Music magazines are notorious for not slating albums which come from big record labels who take out a fair share of adverts each month. While they may be critical, it’s all too common for said albums to get 7/10 or higher each time whereas, the slating kind of review is often reserved for acts who don’t have as much “clout”. While the slating reviews helps dispel the observation, “that magazine gives everyone a good review” what many people miss is the really bad reviews never seem to apply to any big label albums.

Of course, one could be forgiven for thinking this happens to be down to the merits of each particular album and bands on big labels obviously have better productions/songs but consider that magazine editors have been phoned up by record labels and given an earful of abuse when their album didn’t get a good review. That’s a fact.

Here's my fictional account based on reality.

Magazine Editor: “Hello?”

Record Label Guy: “What’s going on with your 'useless' staff writers? They gave three sub-par reviews to each of the albums on our roster and one real nasty 2/10 for band X’s album.”

Magazine Editor: “Look, you understood that when you submit your albums for review, we can’t promise a favourable write-up each time. It all comes down to the tastes of the individual writer.”

Record Label Guy: “Let me tell you something. We’re taking out €10,000 worth of ads in your publication every month. Now, remind me again, what’s the use in spending all that money when your readers are going to see the album get a crap review? Do you see where I’m going with this?”

Magazine Editor: “Er, look, we can’t just give out good reviews willy-nilly. We can’t compromise our integrity.”

Record Label Guy: “I'm not asking you to do compromise anything. But maybe you should consider pairing off individual staff writers with whatever albums you think would suit their particular tastes better. Do you get my drift?”