More On The Future
Written by diederik-meijerSome interesting thoughts by Claudia Hinterseer of NOOR Images in this BJP article:
“The present is (roughly) making stories on spec and selling pics for publication in print, online and so on, the future is in initiating projects, multimedia, grants and foundations. To survive you have to do both for a period of time.”
Hinterseer will be boosting the NOOR foundation, turning it into a platform that can initiate and realise projects such as books, exhibitions and talks.
“For the sake of simplicity, I think it is safe to say that the present is closely related to Noor, the agency; the future is Noor, the foundation.”
I emailed Hinterseer with some additional questions, which she kindly answered, here is the Q and A with some insightful information:
Q. Do you belief the print and online media market for editorial documentary work will continue to shrink?A. Yes, I believe and experience it so. Unless you mean with “online media market” also iapp’s and social media, in those fields I see plenty of opportunities we’re currently developing (with the help of a grant of a Dutch foundation called Stichting Democratie & Media, amongst other financial supporters).Q. Will that become the lesser important source of income for NOOR?A. As for the print market for editorial documentary work, yes. At this moment the editorial market is still a very important market for NOOR.Q. You are also quoting to say that the future is in initiating projects, multimedia, grants and foundations. Do you expect grants, lectures, books and exhibitions to be NOOR’s main revenue source in the near future?A. You’re mentioning many things… already now, grants, lectures, books and exhibitions are amongst NOOR’s main revenue sources. The printed media are far from dead and still offer opportunities that are worth pursuing. But in a changed (and still changing) media landscape the printed media have become less attractive, both as a platform for independent in depth visual reporting and as a source of income. Alternative sources and platforms should be developed to counteract this development. Projects, exhibitions, workshops, print sales, multimedia, apps and more.Q. Will that revenue stream be mostly government or NGO-based?A. A combination, plus corporate sponsoring, plus collaborations with media outlets, plus educational institutes etc.Q. As an example, I believe the Consequences project has had NGO support, how important was that support?A. Mistake. Consequences by NOOR was produced with financial support by a corporate sponsor: Nikon Europe. For us that was very important. After the work was produced, we made money with it thanks to wide editorial publication (print and online). In collaboration with NGO’s we developed exhibitions and a social media campaign. NGO’s were only involved in the level of outreach/presentation, not production. We are continuing our Climate Change group project this year, again with thanks to Nikon. Nikon is the only partner involved at this stage. We’re looking for and talking to potential additional partners, aimed at the outreach again (educational projects, street art, online campaigns etc.).
Discussion (7 Comments)
Sounds reasonable from Noor yet…
I wonder why the word “audience” does not appear once. Do what you like as an organisation but without your own audience, surely you will get very little sustainable sponsorship? They talk about “survival” but not a word on generating “value”.
The rise of the Foundations is interesting.
The risk I see is that as the super rich foundations give, the PJ’ism vested interest social cluster will move on from NGO’s/Agencies and form Foundations themselves to take advantage of this new giving and partner up. Only the established survive and without value generation, no value can be passed on to others.
The same PJ’ists to get the same access to the new cash pools available. Pj’ists will go off and be worthy on long term projects to shoot 40-50 images somewhere that is suffering in the same way as before thus no change in the product. Is it another take first and shoot later model – like the kickstarter model much mooted of late?
I hope I am wrong but this leaves very little left for people freshly graduating/new entrants. That risks skewing the competition even more towards the big players who have presided over the decline of the industry over the last 20 years as they do whatever they can to get paid to shoot. Fair enough some might say – “I am a just a photojournalist!” – but where is the audience participation element in this mix?
Where is the desire for risk? Innovation? Creativity? It is a model for conservation and survival and that means more of the same structural problems as before. Look at the job description – “experienced, respected and well known”. That is a survival instinct promoting conservatism and I understand it from the inside as a necessity but from the outside, it is hard to see progress from change without creativity, innovation and risk taking (on fresh talent/ideas).
They talk about being radical and future orientated in order to “realise projects such as books, exhibitions and talks.”? What about real social movements or advocacy for change?
The big difference I am guessing is that foundations (as givers) will have a stricter remit to be accountable for the grants in the longer term awarded to other foundations (as takers). I am guessing that if the current crop of foundation givers do not see audiences being created through their work, accountability will work its way through the system and more scrutiny will be applied. I at least hope that is the case. Worst case is that the usual people crowd out socially the new givers and nothing gets seen by the public as it is shown in the same gallery spaces to the same community on the opening night where pats on back/kisses on cheeks are given. (I feel like I am in that gallery in the end scene of the film “La Haine”!)
Until then, more students being charged for workshops in educational establishments and portfolio reviews with no audience participation opportunities on the other side… lets read their thoughts on bringing back audiences please! Less about how and where you take and more about how you give.
I wish Noor success in finding the right candidate and as a business going ahead. This is a structural discussion and is not meant to slight them. As someone who is not experienced in the PJ’ism industry, is probably not respected and definitely unknown, I think I have to let this one go!
“I wonder why the word “audience” does not appear once.” That’s a good point!
“I hope I am wrong but this leaves very little left for people freshly graduating/new entrants.” This most likely true, but you can ask yourself if it is up to NOOR to better the position of new entrants. From what I hear, some of THE NOOR peeps struggled long and hard too.
No, it is not up to NOOR and I tried to make that clear that “I wish Noor success in finding the right candidate and as a business going ahead. This is a structural discussion and is not meant to slight them.” and apologies to NOOR if this was not made clear.
I do ask them what they mean by “future orientated” and “radical” books, gallery exhibitions and talks – that is the same crowd, the usual photographic lovers, mining the same demographic as before but what is the good of being radical to the same people? What difference in incomes can they expect by showing the same people some radical work? Are they going to charge more for their radicalism?
NOOR might not have a responsibility to better the position of new entrants but where are they going to find something new? From people who used to work for that hotbed of radicalism the World Press? I love what they do and respect their history but I am not sure they are the best judges of being radical. If you are well known in this industry, by definition you are not bringing anything new into the organisation but just the usual things done very well plus that all important social network.
I would argue that NOOR need to employ 2 junior people at €20,000 each and expect one to fail and be really happy if they work together and succeed. Give them 1 year fixed contracts and the freedom to experiment. Tell one to focus on new audiences and the other on new technologies so there are no conflict of interests. See it as research investment and watch fresh graduates work their buts off to be part of the great name of NOOR for a wage and manage them well. I would apply for one of those!! Take the research and give it to the photographers to help them shape their work so they do not ever risk being out of touch.
You radicalise NOOR from the inside and shake things up, get the name out there for being different with more than just a radical talks, exhibition or book yet instead, they are searching for a comfort blanket from spending €40,000 on the establishment. I hope they do this already and apologies if they are doing so as I am just throwing ideas off the top of my head.
In all the business models I have seen, and through my previous career I have seen dozens and dozens, the one of photojournalism is the most interesting because it is the most self excluding, conservative, bankrupt (in some places morally) with the highest levels of protectionism with some of the lowest common standards of behaviour I have ever known. I am not surprised that it has failed to get an audience. It actually does the opposite of every known business practice I know thus it survives on grants and good will whilst treating public audiences like they are a secondary factor.
Yet good people still love the medium and are so passionate about Photojournalism itself. Take away the business side and what have you got left? Magic.
That is a contradiction that is about to implode for the benefit of all those sitting on the edges of the industry (most of you) trying to just do an honest job for an honest living with all your hearts.
That is why I find this industry is so so so very interesting!
Hi Iam, I don’t see “radical” in the originaliteit post, am I missing the point?
“it’s making radical moves to ensure “the light of Noor will shine bright for many years to come” – in the BJP article.
So I was just questioning how “radical” works with “experienced, respected and well known”.
I would love to hear some words from the radical experienced respected and well known new employee of NOOR. I hope they get that individual and I hope they really do radical things as that would be very exciting indeed!
Photography is an arts based business and many arts based organisations survive on grants.
The idea that you have to go outside of an industry for new ideas is simply not true.
“Photography is an arts based business and many arts based organisations survive on grants.”
TV has a private sector doing very well. I am not too sure about Radio. Photography in the advertising sector is also still showing how a social function for photography can be monetized and editorial work twenty years ago was a business. Film is hard to make but it has a massive global audience.
The idea that Photography is only an Arts based business is contrary to those who see Photography as a journalistic medium. Journalism as Art?
“The idea that you have to go outside of an industry for new ideas is simply not true.” – as an absolute statement? Yes, I would agree but relatively speaking, the chances of coming up with a new idea by looking at success elsewhere to see what you learn is massively increased because relatively speaking, the experience/knowledge brought together is much broader.
Look at what sound experts have done for ‘photofilms’. That came from the outside.