The importance of photos in printed media

I shoot occasionally for a magazine and two. I've often been told that

everyone of the readers (subscribers, buyers and those who take the

mag in their hands) glance thru the mag. The photos are like adds in

that glancing moment to trap the reader. If a photo is interesting

enough, the reader will stop to it and read the caption and if the

interest stays there the title of the article is read next. If the

beginning of the article is catching enough the reader will read all

of it. In conclusion only 5% of readers read an article but almost all

the photos get noticed.<P>

The basic reasoning for the above is that people are buzy and

fundamentally lazy. We seek information via the way which is the most

effortless. The conclusion is that photos are of primary importance

when selling mags. The photos are actually magazine marketing.<p>

Some magazines are said to place their most expensive adds and opening

shots for key articles on the leftt hand page of an opening in the

first half of the mag and on the right hand side on the latter half of

the mag because this way when quick-leafing thru the mag the odds to

catch the reader are higher for these articles and adds. Makes sense.

It's almost a learnt reaction to quick-leaf the mag in two phases: The

first half is slipped by the thumb of the right hand and the eye is

observing the left side of the opening. Once the part in the right

hand gets too thin you change hands, start quick-leafing from back to

front, slipping the pages with left hand thumband and the eye follows

the right hand side page. Try it!<p>

All and all it is usually considered that it is the writing journalist

who is the "star", tha maker, the key person behind the article. With

the logic above it's not necesarily so. I'd like to raise discussion

of the importance of photos in printed media and asking for opinions,

and even better, facts and links to possible studies of this matter.

Funny you bring this up. The other day I watched a movie called "In Good Company" which parodied the credulous attitude toward "synergy" in marketing - cross packaging of ads and seemingly unrelated goods and services. In fact, the original working title for the movie was "Synergy."

A lot of marketing directed packaging occurs in magazines that are directed toward consumer goods. You'll even see this in food magazines and the food section of variety magazines.

I'm not sure which is worse: The use of full page advertisements that mimic the appearance of actual editorial content; or editorial content that really amounts to little more than advertising. There's hardly any difference between 'em in most U.S. market photo magazines.

The philosophy of critical thinking in consumer oriented magazines could be summed up as "It's all good!" Rather than say anything negative about any product, they skirt the issue by proclaiming that some products are gooder than others. And if a product or service is absolute crap, they just ignore it rather than risk losing advertising revenue.

Marketing people seem out of touch with reality. They seem to believe that consumers are so gullible they won't notice these hamfisted attempts at "synergy" and outright advertisements plopped down in the middle of a TV show or movie.

One of my favorite movies, "Manhunter," grinds to a screeching halt during one scene when Will Graham and his stepson are shopping for groceries. One moment, Graham is trying to explain how he wound up in the hospital, courtesy of Hannibal Lecktor (the spelling they used for that particular movie). Suddenly it turns into an ad for Folger's coffee! Then, the Folgers safely tucked away into the shopping basket, Graham resumes his tale about being gutted by Lecktor, winding up in the funny farm and, well, heck, son, let's have a cuppa joe!

Anyway, I don't know that I have any data or facts, but, in the spirit of the beheaded android Ash from "Alien" just before the remaining crew members trudge off to their gruesome deaths, "You have my sympathies."

Try selling a newspaper without a photo on the front to attract attention. Few papers can do so and those that do are specialty rags. The sad part is that even lousy photos will do for many papers and cheap editors and owners attitude is that anyone with a camera can do the job. The good editors & publishers know in the fight for subscribers, viewers and readers that quality counts and they hire and publish accordingly.

For most publications no photos means they will go out of business.

All valid comments. Of course I prefer to read the index to see if anything looks interesting reading, thats if I can find it, among the several first pages of adds on opening the magazine!

The photos are often just regarded as fillers by many publishers, to fill the gaps between articles and advertisements, unless of course it is a mag that knows how to present good pics, (Nat Geo etc)

Erin, the placement of index page is deliberately put later in many mags inorder to get those who browse to find the index page at mag stands see the adds. In the mag I write to, the index is on the 2nd-4th opening. I once had a conversation about its place with the editor and he said that the first opening is simply too valuable for the index page because you can make good money from it buy placing a full opening commercial there. It's a pity and it's reality.<p>

It's quite interesting that the quantity of mag brands is increasing. At lest here in Finland the total market is seen to grow slightly. It's also said that the biggest mags have reached their limit and thus more specialized mags surface. Many of these new mags are produced with a minimum personnel and some with an international translated publication behind. Once upon the time you had the writer, the photographer, the spelling and grammar checker, the lay out man, but today many mags require allrounders who can do all of these, and even more, maintain net pages. The old school says the quality of pictures thus reduce. Perhaps defensive attitude towards change because I would say that in as many cases the quality has lowered it has increased.<p>

Many of the old school photogs simply concentrate on the photography situation. Some do the digiveloping RAW->JPG/TIFF but only very few of the old school photogs mess with Photoshop whereas the new faces put may be the biggest emphasis to that part of the workflow. The purist photgraphers - a vanishing breed.

Most of the higher order thinking that goes on today i.e. making out plans and preparing for certain situations, thinking about moral and ethical values etc. puts a lot of emphasis on the verbal (e.g. writing articles). Some people have realized the visual as a tool in order to become more creative, less dependent upon a strictly linier approach to thinking. They will contemplate, if just for a short while, something visual and gain some further knowledge by doing so. But for the most part it seems that our culture emphasize verbal clarity above all (above the visual, the auditory, the tactile, the olfactory, the gustative) because the verbal is what is needed in a society like ours.

Advertising uses stimulation of other senses to bypass the higher mental functions and the (perhaps) critical mind and work more directly on our emotions. I�ve worked in advertising so I know how deliberately this is done.

It is hard to address anything to the mind unless it is verbal. Seeing and appreciating art or a photograph may be what turned us on � it may even be what we remember � but it is not what most people speak of, because it is not verbal and therefore hard to verbalize.

Another point is that it that for some it is hard to understand the visual. Even though they may like the photo, they do not necessarily understand it in any depth. I find this to be mostly the case even in a place like photo.net. What is subtle is easily overlooked by the mind I have mentioned here but not by what one could call the greater mind i.e. including to a much stronger degree the senses.

People in general seem to understand money and talk. What is beyond words is just that and therefore it does not so often pay well. So in order to make money one needs to get the talk going i.e. letting the critics speak. Then the rest will pay up (I say this of course with no experience myself - it is purely speculation on my behalf).

A still photographs is certainly still a powerful medium for non-verbal communication. It's unfortunate that some of the most effective use of this medium is in advertising rather than in photojournalism.

Specifically, I see very effective use of the medium in catalogs for luxury items. For a few years now I've admired the photography in the Gevalia coffee catalogs. It is subtle with a clear message: This is a special treat that you can afford. They use selective focus to accent a particular object, with out of focus backgrounds that convey a sense of elegant simplicity through images of comfortable surroundings.

It is powerfully effective. I know of people who order this coffee but struggle to make ends meet. It's not just that they want good coffee (and Gevalia is a helluva lot better than Starbucks or any of the "gourmet" coffees at grocery stores). They see in these images who they want to be, how they want to live.

This kind of manipulation occurs everywhere and it's often done without words. Granted, this psychology is nothing new, it's been known for decades. But, as Juha noted regarding the strategic placement of ads and images, the technique is becoming more refined, more subtle and more potent.

Makes you wonder what could be accomplished if newspapers and news magazines put this kind of concerted effort into manipulation through images. When they have tried it the effect is usually so hamfisted it provokes outrage or derision, sometimes both.

don't think that photog aren't noticed or second class citizens. photos work in conjunction with printed matter. Or why would they give the Pulitzer?

Check out the Pulitzer's website foto awards and learn...Fast breaking action, wow!

http://www.pulitzer.org/