Sports Illustrated?

[Mike Farley]

News from America that Sports Illustrated has just laid off all of its staff photographers is being widely reported and is part of a trend by print publications to save on costs by sourcing photographs from the market rather than its own resources. Maybe a paper, which relies as much on the written word as photography can justify such a move, although that does not take into account the power of an image to make an instant impact. The Chicago Sun Times tried dispensing with its photographers a while back, but had to rehire two of those it laid off. But if a magazine such as Sports Illustrated is not all about photography, what is it for? In the link, Thom Hogan goes through the issues for SI which will now have to compete against other publications for the best images and not necessarily having the resources to create some of the more spectacular sports imagery. No doubt it will continue to acquire shots from its former employees who have many years of experience, but some of that expertise is based on being part of a team on a specialist publication. It does make me wonder how the next generation will acquire the skills to produce standout shots, but perhaps that is being too pessimistic. Sport is popular and there will always be a demand for good photography, so there is room for specialist agencies to provide such images worldwide rather than just to a single publication. The long term prospects for Sports Illustrated itself remain to be seen in a world where free online content has become the norm and good photography has a declining financial value.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/spo ... -lets.html

[Rose]

I suspect it's more a change of hiring model and they will continue to use most of the same photographers, just not retain them on staff.

[Mike Farley]

I suspect it's more a change of hiring model and they will continue to use most of the same photographers, just not retain them on staff.

That's undoubtedly the case, lowering costs by transferring overheads to the photographers. By the same token, those same photographers are now free to ply their trade elsewhere, including to SI's competitors. Whereas previously SI had a measure of exclusivity, there is the risk that their coverage will become "me too" with nothing to distinguish the magazine from what is available elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how this pans out and what the future holds for a speacialist print based publication.

[davidc]

I hadn't known you were so interested in such a bastion of journalistic integrity

[Mike Farley]

I hadn't known you were so interested in such a bastion of journalistic integrity

It's more a general fascination about how traditional outlets for commercial photography are changing in the face of challenges from online publications. It seems that SI has not yet worked out how to make money in this new world, but is not alone in that and no doubt there will be similar stories about other publications in the future.

In many ways it is similar to what happened when televisions became affordable. Up to that point people relied on cinema newsreels and magazines such as Picture Post to see images of recent events, but these did not survive the transition and were replaced by newer technology.