2 ... 2 ...
Allowing Spec photographers to clutter the sidelines is not the same as allowing the AP, Reuters, AFP, Gannett, Knight-Ridder/McClatchy to be there. Each shooting position is, and should be considered, an asset by the leagues and maximized. If you have speculative photographers taking positions that could be better monetized by the team to greater coverage by the local papers/outlets, then allowing organizations who's only investment in the coverage is making a phone call to get a credential, is diminishing the value of these very limited locations. (Continued after the Jump)
All too often, SID's and PR departments turn away legitimate requests for credentials by media outlets because of space considerations. If Sports Illustrated were to complain about not having enough positions to effectively cover a game because of speculative photographers taking up positions...oh, wait - one of their photographers is listed here as the Managing Member of one of those speculative agencies taking those spaces, so that's not likely to happen. Here's their latest annual filing, as of 4/10/2007, and which we also reported on - US Presswire - Introduction.
It stands to reason that these limited locations should be reserved for people who are going to actually publish a photograph, not look at the seats courtside/on-the-sidelines as the camera being a ticket to the best seats in the house, with ancillary revenues as a fringe benefit, rather than the reason to be there. Those are the expensive "super fan" and big donor seats, so pony up if you want to be there.
Read More:
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
0 comments:
Post a Comment