Verve Fee Policy Sparks Debate About Blog Business Models

A couple of weeks ago photographer Adam Patterson touched off a discussion on Lightstalkers about Geoffrey Hiller’s Verve documentary photography blog charging a new $50 administrative fee to photographers to include work on the site.

Hiller expressed an interest in featuring Patterson on Verve, and asked that the photographer pay the fee. Verve, which will be two years old in March, has featured the work of hundreds of documentary photographers, and, according to Hiller’s email to Patterson, “has attracted international attention by photo editors, art directors and curators.”

Patterson elected not to publish his work on the blog. He explained his decision to Hiller in an email, which he published on Lightstalkers, saying, “As a principle I don’t let publications use my work for free and I do not pay anyone to show my work—I just can’t afford it and I do need to make a living. Aside from this I feel it undermines my own survival in the diminishing trade of documentary which I feel is being increasingly exploited and undervalued.”

In the ensuing discussion, several Lightstalkers members questioned what Verve had been and would become as a result of the policy: Is it an editorial product, or a directory? If clients use it as a resource, and photographers get work, who should pay? Should photographers compensate Hiller for the “service”? And if some photographers pay, while others refuse and aren’t featured because of that, what does that do to the integrity of Hiller’s blog as an “editorial” product? Is it now more like a contest, directory or sourcebook than a blog?

In an email to PDN, Hiller said he was forced to charge photographers. He has considered the possibility of photography clients who use the blog as a resource paying a subscription fee, “but I’m not sure how that would work,” he says.

Hiller has pursued advertising, and has one corporate sponsor in Neon Sky, a Web design company, but says others have been tough to come by in the down economy. “I hope to find more,” he says. “Then I could suspend the fee.”

Despite the new fee, Hiller insists nothing about the way he edits the blog will change. “Verve Photo will remain independent, non-commercial and selective,” he says.

“It is unfortunate that this might change how Verve Photo is perceived,” Hiller continued, “but from my point of view this will in no way change who I include…. Appearing on Verve Photo has absolutely nothing to do with whether you pay or not.”

There is no arguing that many photography blogs have become useful resources and excellent promotional vehicles for photographers by virtue of the taste of their editors and their ease of use. Some bloggers have sold banner advertising as a way to support their work, while others sell prints, ask for donations or advertise other services such as portfolio critiques in order to earn money from their blogs.

Hiller has taken this new approach “on a trail basis,” he says. Reactions have been “lukewarm,” with some paying and others saying they simply can’t afford it. It remains to be seen whether other bloggers follow suit, and if so, what effect, if any, that has on their credibility as tastemakers in the industry.

Comments

[Sarah Toulouse]

While Hiller has a right to operate his blog as he sees fit, I do have a problem with there being no obvious transparency statement about what is essentially "pay to play." Unfortunately, generally bloggers (and some traditional media sites too!) are not educated about journalism ethics so there are scores of "advertorials" out there that are published without monetary disclosures and appear to be the same as unpaid editorials. The distinction between paid and unpaid content has practically vanished these days and I worry that too few people recognize the difference anymore.

[pam]

It seems that paying a fee for what is essentially advertising is not the same as payola or pay to play and considering it payola is splitting hairs, as the currency of payola and pay to play are usually your ass and not your dollars.

Or, does the documentary/journalism world of photography hold themselves above the concept of advertising that the rest of the photography world has to use? As if pimping disaster and the hard lives of other is a noble part of photography.

From what this blog looks like you get one image to display, your data and the project details. The fact that some publishers use his site as a source of possible contacts for published work does make it somewhat of an advertising site. All in all I would think that it is better than uploading tons of full sized images to a stock site for possible eventual sale.

[david bram]

Asking the featured photographers to pay a fee to be shown, will change the perception of the blog as well as it's creditability. It will also change its purpose.

There are other ways to cover "administration costs".

[Ryan]

How much does PDN make on contest entry fee's each year with the promise of exposure to all the right people, and prestige.

Unfortunately, what's happening at Verve is not new. PDN, POYI, Magenta Foundation, and so many others... in the end, the people who are being "exposed" to these new works aren't stupid. They know it's a pay for play industry for the most part. Which explains why no matter how much PDN, POYI, etc. try to talk themselves up, WPP is still the benchmark.

[Geoffrey Hiller]

I believe I provide value to photographers, whose work gets seen on Verve Photo by thousands of viewers a day, instead of maybe a dozen or so on their own sites. As a photographer myself, knowing how dire the market is, it was not an easy decision to charge other photographers. There's no easy answer.