Bad Experience with Focus Magazine

[michael gordon httpwww]

I'm making this post to hopefully prevent other unsuspecting

photographers from enduring the same trouble. You'll find a concurrent

thread here http://tinyurl.com/z5py8. Please forgive the inclusion of

trivial facts. I have included them because I expect David Spivak to

refute my statements.

 

Shortly after making a submission to Focus in late April 2006, David

Spivak left me an urgent voice mail asking me to call. We spoke on May

1, 2006, and he not only praised my work but stated how well I would

fit into the next (at that time) issue, deadline soon approaching. He

then proceeded to pitch his $1500 marketing package to me, and when I

didn't bite on that, he tried to sell me on his online Focus Gallery.

I didn't bite on that either, and suddenly Mr. Spivak no longer seemed

interested in my photography or publishing it in his magazine. This

concluded my call. He made no comment as to when my portfolio would be

returned (for which I included $4.20 in Priority Mail postage).

 

I sent follow-up emails on May 9, May 26, June 7, and July 11 asking

when he would return my portfolio. None of these emails bounced, and

in fact, the June 7 and June 11 email recipients included EVERY email

address listed on the Focus magazine website (info@, sales@,

submissions@, feedback@, as well as dspivak@). Mr. Spivak nor ANY

Focus agent has ever contacted me regarding these emails. On July 12,

2006 in the p.m. (PST), I left Mr. Spivak a voice mail on his personal

cell phone (clearly indicated by his own voice and message). My call

went unreturned, so I called again today, July 13, and got him on the

phone at 1030am PST. He claims to have never received any of my

emails, nor did he comment on my voice mail. He appeared cleverly

ignorant to who I even was. I requested that my portfolio be sent back

immediately, to which he said he would only happen at Focus Magazine's

convenience (I guess there's never been a convenient time to return my

work over the last eight+ weeks). Like others who have had similar

dealings with him, I was treated rudely, disrespectfully, and hung up on.

 

I have given Mr. Spivak more than ample opportunity and patience to

deal properly, responsibly, and respectfully with this matter. He

neglected to do so, and that's why I am making this story public. My

time has been disrespectfully wasted in attempting to communicate with

Mr. Spivak and retrieve my portfolio. I fully expect that it and my

$4.20 in return postage is a loss.

 

Unfortunately very similar stories are held by David Aschkenas

http://tinyurl.com/gyhda and Arlene Love http://tinyurl.com/gg3rr, and

who knows how many others that have not made this public. I urge

fellow photographers to NOT SEND any prints or money to Focus Magazine.

 

Michael Gordon

www.mgordonphotography.com

[architecture]

Pretty Sad. Just one more sleezy entrepreneur in the media industry trying to take advantage of artists. What I don't understand is why the guy wouldn't return the prints. They can't use them in the magazine or even sell the prints unless they wanted to violate copyright laws. So what's the point of keeping the portfolios? Unless they are so disorganized they lost them? Who knows....

[john_stafford2]

It's been some time since I looked but his site once stated that one shouldn't expect submission returns for something like 12 weeks. That is not an unreasonable period when your work is being considered for publication.

 

In the future, you might consider using the same delivery service the publisher uses, possibl FedEX or UPS. It's a hassle for you, but probably fits his work flow.

[michael gordon httpwww]

In the April issue of Focus, the call for submissions (which is the one I saw and responded to) stated that photographers should include "shipping materials for us to promptly return your prints after we've reviewed them". That was the extent of it. Nine or twelve weeks does not constitute "promptly" in my dictionary. And I'm okay with the delay. What I am not okay with is his absolute lack of courtesy and respect. Four emails and a voice mail went unanswered - there is excuse for that kind of "service".

 

Please read this thread http://tinyurl.com/z5py8 for more insight.

[michael gordon httpwww]

Sorry, meant to say that there is NO excuse for that kind of "service".

[john_stafford2]

From the web site:<br>

<b> Please allow 12-16 weeks for return shipping. </b></i>

<p>

I guess he should have written that in the issue you read.<p>

So the deal is that they ask submitters for $1,550 to have the pictures published. The photographs occupy about $1000 worth of advertising space, and often the prints are sold, one would hope with the money going to the photographer. However, some photos are printed regardless. Is that your understanding, too?

[david_spivak2]

Michael first of all sent e-mails to the wrong e-mail address (non-working ones) and then left me a voice-mail in which I returned one day later. The guy and his cohorts are on another board insulting me and acting like 6 year olds...it's truly annoying.

 

Michael also is leaving out the part where I told him that I would keep his portfolio in case I had some extra space in one of my next couple of issues.

 

Anyway, Michael was treated rudely after he yelled and cursed at me. People who do that do not deserve my attention.

 

I have no more time to put out his fires. He wants to sit and cry and complain that he can't get his portfolio back, when my rules specifically state how long it takes. (and for those thinking why I'm sitting here posting about it instead of returning his portfolio, all submissions are stored in a different office which is about an hour travel time from here)

 

Anyway, this isn't any kind of sleezy marketing gimmick or anything like that. Photographers submit their work, I consider it for publication and offer them space in the Photographer Marketing Package. If they choose to decline it, I see if I have any open space in my next issue...the problem is I usually don't because so many other photographers have chosen to take part in the Photographer Marketing Package and I run out of space.

 

Anyway, here is the link where it clearly states 12-18 weeks.

 

http://focusmag.info/submissions

[michael gordon httpwww]

Nice try, David, but you've already dug a deep hole for yourself in the LF Forum thread. Since you insist on repeatedly lying, I will dissect your statements:

<p>

<i>Michael first of all sent e-mails to the wrong e-mail address (non-working ones),</i>

<p>

If they are wrong, then why do you publish them on your website? And if they are wrong, how is it that you receive ANY email? I sent to EVERY email address listed on your website. You didnt get the first four emails over a span of 8+ weeks, but you somehow immediately received my email pointing you to the LF forum?

<p>

<i> and then left me a voice-mail in which I returned one day later.</i>

<p>

No, you did not. *I* called again and got you on the phone, with my fiance as my witness. Let's keep the facts straight.

<p>

<i>The guy and his cohorts are on another board insulting me and acting like 6 year olds...it's truly annoying. </i>

<p>

Quote one incident of "insult" in that thread. They are merely facts which you are not able to handle. Those that have spoken out are NOT my cohorts - I know none of them. They are photographers who deserve to know about your ethics and magazine. I only needed to tell the truth. They've figured out your scam on their own.

<p>

<i>Michael also is leaving out the part where I told him that I would keep his portfolio in case I had some extra space in one of my next couple of issues.</i>

<p>

NO, you did not. You have a clever way of distorting facts when your cave is crumbling around you.

<p>

<i>Anyway, Michael was treated rudely after he yelled and cursed at me.</i>

<p>

So, you admit to treating me rudely? I am indeed very angry (who wouldnt be after eight weeks, four emails, and two telephone calls ), but unlike yourself, I have not behaved unprofessionally. I did not yell, and I did not curse. My fiance was at my side through the whole conversation. Do you have someone to corroborate your lies?

<p>

<i>He wants to sit and cry and complain that he can't get his portfolio back, when my rules specifically state how long it takes. (and for those thinking why I'm sitting here posting about it instead of returning his portfolio, all submissions are stored in a different office which is about an hour travel time from here)</i>

<p>

Excuses, excuses. ONCE AGAIN, I responded to your April issue's call for submissions which stated NOTHING about delays of this extent. And I quote: photographers should include "shipping materials for us to promptly return your prints after we've reviewed them". Is nine weeks of waiting considered by Focus to be a prompt return? The facts exist in your April issue. For you to state anything contrary is blatant lying.

<p>

<i>Anyway, this isn't any kind of sleezy marketing gimmick or anything like that.</i>

<p>

So you say! Many photographers seem to disagree:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=18633

<p>

Grow up, David. You still have not apologized, nor have you addressed my reply as to how to rectify the situation. You can try your best to save face, but your schtick is as transparent as it gets.

[david_spivak2]

>>Michael first of all sent e-mails to the wrong e-mail address (non-working ones),<<

>If they are wrong, then why do you publish them on your website?<

 

You're right, I'm sorry. I was not aware those e-mail addresses were still available to the public. The website is undergoing some maintenance currently, this will be on my list. My question is why didn't you ever try the first e-mail address listed on the contact us list? david@focusmag.info?

 

>And if they are wrong, how is it that you receive ANY email?<

 

The only working one is submissions@focusmag.info which I already explained that I missed your first e-mail.

 

>I sent to EVERY email address listed on your website. You didnt get the first four emails over a span of 8+ weeks, but you somehow immediately received my email pointing you to the LF forum?<

 

Read above.

 

>>and then left me a voice-mail in which I returned one day later.<<

>No, you did not. *I* called again and got you on the phone, with my fiance as my witness. Let's keep the facts straight.<

 

Actually, I tried calling you earlier in the day. If you'd like, I can forward you my phone records from Vonage as proof. I did not leave a message as I figured I would try you back later in the day.

 

>They are merely facts which you are not able to handle.<

 

Michael, I have presented to you facts. NO portfolios are returned before 12 weeks.

 

Let me ask you something. You probably submitted your photography to me from the March/April issue, with Arnold Newman's Picasso on the cover. What did you think of the issue? What did you think of the reproduction? Did you read the interviews? Do you see the amount of articles and information we present to the collector?

 

Let's assume for a moment you liked the magazine and because you liked it you wanted to see your photography published in there.

 

If I had some extra room in this September issue (144 pages, biggest issue yet) and I wanted to publish your photography at no cost to you (no advertising follow-up though as the other photographers get) would you tell me you didn't want me to publish your photography because of this stupid mis-understanding we've had?

 

We're a new magazine, we're much more organized than we were last year, but we still have a ways to go before we're running like a fine tuned machine. Instead of spending money on a staff and a huge office, I've invested money into the magazine to hire new writers, pay a full-time editor (Steve Anchell), expand the amount of content I have, offer in-depth content that no other fine art photography magazine can offer. Okay, I admit it, it would be great if I could return your photography tomorrow, but I can't...much too much to do (as I'm taking the time to type this I am also finishing the layout to my next cover and an interview with Keith Carter and it's not even 6:30 am). I can't help it if you didn't read the website, and I can't help it if I didn't receive your e-mails...we both should have done better. You should have read the website for information on the Photographer Marketing Package and how soon your prints would be returned, and I should have seen your e-mails two months ago...we both screwed up. So what are we going to do, just sit here like cavemen and keep bashing each other over the head until someone blinks or resolve this situation like adults?

 

>Those that have spoken out are NOT my cohorts - I know none of them. They are photographers who deserve to know about your ethics and magazine. I only needed to tell the truth. They've figured out your scam on their own.<

 

Please be careful with words, Michael. There is no scam here. Photographers have an opportunity to advertise their product inside of my magazine. There is no scam. People do not pay me money and then receive nothing in the magazine.

 

>>Michael also is leaving out the part where I told him that I would keep his portfolio in case I had some extra space in one of my next couple of issues.<<

>NO, you did not. You have a clever way of distorting facts when your cave is crumbling around you.<

 

There is no cave, Michael. Do you remember our conversation? At the end of it, I said "Well, ok, if I have some at the end of the next couple of issues I'll see if I can fit you in." How convenient of you to forget that...

 

>>Anyway, Michael was treated rudely after he yelled and cursed at me.<<

>So, you admit to treating me rudely?<

 

I'd like for you to take a poll and ask everyone here how many of them would be rude to someone on the phone when they're being cursed at. I mean, Michael, you barely gave me time to say "Hello" when you started acting like a child.

 

>I am indeed very angry (who wouldnt be after eight weeks, four emails, and two telephone calls ), but unlike yourself, I have not behaved unprofessionally. I did not yell, and I did not curse. My fiance was at my side through the whole conversation. Do you have someone to corroborate your lies?<

 

Michael, my fiance would lie for me too if I asked her. Can we not turn this into a he said, she said?

 

>>He wants to sit and cry and complain that he can't get his portfolio back, when my rules specifically state how long it takes. (and for those thinking why I'm sitting here posting about it instead of returning his portfolio, all submissions are stored in a different office which is about an hour travel time from here)<<

>Excuses, excuses. ONCE AGAIN, I responded to your April issue's call for submissions which stated NOTHING about delays of this extent. And I quote: photographers should include "shipping materials for us to promptly return your prints after we've reviewed them". Is nine weeks of waiting considered by Focus to be a prompt return? The facts exist in your April issue. For you to state anything contrary is blatant lying.<

 

Michael, this is my last post to you. Your portfolio will be returned between 12 and 16 weeks. Be glad you didn't submit to B&W, they take 6 months.

 

>>Anyway, this isn't any kind of sleezy marketing gimmick or anything like that.<<

>So you say! Many photographers seem to disagree:<

 

Most of them are pent up APUG'ers with nothing better to do than put down my magazine because it accepts digital.

 

>Grow up, David. You still have not apologized, nor have you addressed my reply as to how to rectify the situation. You can try your best to save face, but your schtick is as transparent as it gets.<

 

Apologize? Okay, Michael. I apologize for not communicating in my March/April issue the rules. I apologize to you and any other photographer who might be experiencing this problem right now. I apologize for missing your e-mails. Certainly not my intent to ignore you or any other photographer.

[michael gordon httpwww]

<i>My question is why didn't you ever try the first e-mail address listed on the contact us list? david@focusmag.info?</i>

<p>

We've already gone over this. I emailed every address. And you conveniently neglected to get my emails *until* I emailed the URL of the LF Forum thread. You don't have the time or interest to respond to photographer/customers, but you made time to try and defend yourself in public.

<p>

<i>The only working one is submissions@focusmag.info which I already explained that I missed your first e-mail.</i>

<p>

Then get your website updated. I also sent to sales@..... Are you suggesting that you provide potential advertisers with an incorrect email address? I do not believe you for a second.

<p>

<i>I did not leave a message as I figured I would try you back later in the day.</i>

<p>

More unprofessional conduct. My voice mail to you asked you to call me immediately. Most people leave messages when they return calls. Nice try.

<p>

<i>Michael, I have presented to you facts. NO portfolios are returned before 12 weeks.</i>

<p>

Then ONCE AGAIN, this should have been made absolutely clear in your April call for submissions. That is what I responded to, and it says nothing of the sort. Why is it that you ignore the reponses for which you have no good answer? Once again, "<i>along with shipping materials for us to promptly return your prints after we've reviewed them".</i> Now quit evading the question; How is nine weeks a "prompt" return?

<p>

<i>Let me ask you something. You probably submitted your photography to me from the March/April issue, with Arnold Newman's Picasso on the cover. What did you think of the issue?</I>

<p>

Irrelevant, and nice try on trying to sidetrack people who are following this thread

<p>

<i>If I had some extra room in this September issue (144 pages, biggest issue yet) and I wanted to publish your photography at no cost to you (no advertising follow-up though as the other photographers get) would you tell me you didn't want me to publish your photography because of this stupid mis-understanding we've had?</i>

<p>

Yes, you are not permitted to publish my work. You are not worthy, and this thread and the LF thread have shown that.

<p>

<i>We're a new magazine,</I>

<p>

That is no excuse for your conduct.

<p>

<i>Okay, I admit it, it would be great if I could return your photography tomorrow, but I can't...much too much to do </I>

<p>

You know, you just have to win here, don't you? Others have made suggestions about how you can rectify this, and you just cannot do it. You've wasted who knows how long trying to defend yourself from facts, but you can't drive up to a USPS drop box and drop my Priority mailer?

<p>

<i>I can't help it if you didn't read the website, and I can't help it if I didn't receive your e-mails...</i>

<p>

Why would I read your website? My point of contact was your April issue. The call for submissions did not refer me to your website. As stated in the LF forum, I followed your submission instructions to the T, and you have not honored your written and published word regarding a "prompt" return of my work. And the delay is not what started this: it's your lack of integrity, ethics, and unwillingness to accept responsibility for this mess you created.

<p>

<i>we both should have done better. You should have read the website for information on the Photographer Marketing Package and how soon your prints would be returned</i>

<p>

No, YOU should have done better. Please read the above. Your April call for submissions was all-inclusive. Why would I have needed to visit your website?

<p>

<i>and I should have seen your e-mails two months ago...we both screwed up. </I>.

<p>

You did see my emails, it was just easier to blow me off (like you'd done to others before me). YOU screwed up, and you still are. You really should have quit long ago while you were minimally behind.

<p>

<i>So what are we going to do, just sit here like cavemen and keep bashing each other over the head until someone blinks or resolve this situation like adults?</i>

<p>

You had the opportunity to fix this early on. I told you how, and others made suggestions as well, and you just won't do it. I accept no excuses.

<p>

<i>Please be careful with words, Michael. There is no scam here. Photographers have an opportunity to advertise their product inside of my magazine. There is no scam. People do not pay me money and then receive nothing in the magazine.</I>

<p>

Sorry, you're right, David. It's not a scam. Photographers do get what they pay for (as far as I know). Let me rephrase it: it's sleazy. I've never been called by any other magazine or gallery, and then had a sales pitch thrown at me followed by an early disconnect when I showed no interest. Scam, no. Sleazy, oh yeah.

<p>

<i>Michael, this is my last post to you. Your portfolio will be returned between 12 and 16 weeks.</i>

<p>

You're a real man, Spivak. I can assure you that I am not the one who has been harmed by this experience. And I'm disapppointed to see that this is how you intend to resolve the situation.

<p>

<i>Most of them are pent up APUG'ers with nothing better to do than put down my magazine because it accepts digital.</i>

<p>

I suppose that you know they are APUG'ers because you were banned from that forum for your conduct?

<p>

<i>Apologize? Okay, Michael. I apologize for not communicating in my March/April issue the rules. I apologize to you and any other photographer who might be experiencing this problem right now. I apologize for missing your e-mails.</I>

<p>

Too late for the apology now, David. You should have done this on the 13th when I brought this to the public. You chose a more shameful direction to take it.

<p>

Better luck with your next venture.

[barthurk]

One question: How OLD are you guys? Photography has to be the whiniest profession ever!

[qtluong]

Actually, by the most precise definitions, photography is not a profession :-)

[tom_nevesely3]

So I was just wondering...

 

Mr Spivak has said:

 

"You're right, I'm sorry. I was not aware those e-mail addresses were still available to the public. The website is undergoing some maintenance currently, this will be on my list. My question is why didn't you ever try the first e-mail address listed on the contact us list? david@focusmag.info?"

 

and later on he said this:

 

"I can't help it if you didn't read the website.... You should have read the website for information on the Photographer Marketing Package and how soon your prints would be returned,"

 

Why would Mr Spivak say that Mr Gordon should have read the website when obviously it is not current and the information there is wrong. What other incorrect information is there that he is "not aware" of. It doesn't sound like a place I'd go to get information.

[john_stafford2]

Michael, let it go. The two URLs you referenced concerning others who have complained were inconclusive, with no substance. Let them speak for themselves.

 

You were pissed off. Get over it. Don't let your personality be commingled with your work. Keep the personality out of the business.

 

Spivak: Your business is perfectly clear to me now that I've carefully read your website. It strikes me as rational and pretty much how a couple other popular magazines work, and more up-front than some others. Sometimes it doesn't work to answer people like Gordon except to admit certain hard facts, such as you did when you wrote you weren't aware of the email address errors. The rest of the dialog just gets messy.

 

Your publication is definitely not of the kind of work I do. I've nothing invested in wishing you the best of luck - good luck! Business is business. Yours looks good.

[luke_southern]

Gets another bowl of popcorn and sits back down again, this is awesome :)

 

Could you guys start throwing 1DS V2 camera bodies at eachother next, thats something I

would REALLY like to shoot :)

 

grabs fist full of popcorn and pictures expensive camera bodies getting thrown across a

room like grenades

[christian_harkness]

My question is this. If some of the photographers who are published in FOCUS magazine paid for the publication of their work, doesn�t this then become advertising instead of editorial content?

Now, I � the reader, feel mislead when that fact is not made clear, and I think it damages the credibility of all those whose work appears in the magazine.

[russell_lewis]

Consider this: David has created a potent fine art photography magazine from nothing in a very short period of time and he?s racing like mad to make it grow. It?s already what I?d consider serious competition to Black and White, and if he keeps it up, it?s going to be the top magazine in its field. I agree that it?s sometimes hard to get hold of him, and it sometimes sounds as if he?s disoriented, but I also know that if I were trying to do the things he?s trying to do and had the kind of work schedule he must have, I?d be hard to get hold of and occasionally disoriented too.

 

Think about it: For roughly the price of a single full-page ad, he?s giving you a five-page spread. Yes, it?s unusual to charge for what appears to be editorial material in a magazine like this, but considering what you get for what you pay, the price is pretty low. I had to think about it for a while before I was ready to shell out the price, but I finally saw that it?s probably the best bargain out there for promoting my work. There are three alternatives:

 

1. Ads. I suspect that the kind of quarter page ad that runs in the back of Black and White is almost worthless unless all you want is an ego boost when you look at your ad. There?s not enough space to show what you really can do. Of course you always can buy a full-page ad, or even a several page ad, but the price is far in excess of what Focus is charging for five pages.

 

2. Contests. Well, let?s not kid around. Most contest judges have a specific bias toward a certain kind of photograph. That?s not necessarily bad, but it means that a contest isn?t going to show the range of stuff Focus shows. No matter how good you are, if your photographs don?t happen to be within the judges? bias parameters, your stuff won?t show. It?s always worth a shot, though.

 

3. Galleries. You can walk in with a stack of prints and say, ?Are you interested in taking any of this stuff on consignment?? But unless you?re on the road all the time, your gallery range is pretty limited, and most of the time the answer is either a hard or a soft ?no.? With a magazine like Focus you can reach a lot more galleries than you can in your car, and with a five or more page spread you actually can show enough of your work to let the galleries see whether or not it?s worthwhile contacting you. Furthermore, if you decide to walk into a gallery with your prints, you can take Focus with you to bolster your case.

 

When you try to promote your work you?re dealing with a messy business. There are going to be lots of disappointments. On balance I don?t think Focus is one of them.

[george_hickey]

I believe that 2006 was the year that I sent in a portfolio of prints to Focus including return materials (they were accepting submissions without a fee) and never heard a word from them. A few months later when I called to follow up they couldn't find the portfolio and apparently had no record of receiving it.

[george_hickey]

More interaction with Mr Spivak and complaints about subscription service.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NYxQ

[scott_coutts]

<p>I know this is old, but for others that came upon this from a google search, go here to file a complain, and maybe get a trend noticed...</p>

<p>http://www.econsumer.gov/</p>