Cosmopolitan Magazine has released its July issues and they all have one thing in common; Katy Perry. She will be gracing the covers of all 62 international editions of the magazine making her the magazine's first ever global cover star. No doubt that this is a landmark achievement for Katy Perry but is it also a clever strategy to further cut costs by the magazine industry?
Fellow Fstoppers writer Keith Daigle recently wrote about the anniversary of the Chicago Sun Times axing it's entire staff of photojournalists. It is no secret that print media has been in decline as a whole and that online media is in boom. As such budget cuts and downsizing are to be expected. Though a few years ago it was reported that Cosmo circulation was increasing a midst a declining market perhaps this recent "global cover" move is a sign of budget cuts being taken by one of the Goliaths in the magazine industry. By referring to it as the "first ever global cover" I think it is safe to assume that Cosmo plans to release more of these.
I am left wondering whether the photographer was paid the equivalent of 62 commissions or if he was promised really great exposure.
Singapore Cover:
Australia Cover:
Britain Cover:
Spain Cover:
New Zealand Cover:
Greece Cover:
Vietnam Cover:
Germany Cover:
Ukraine Cover:
Lithuania Cover:
Serbia Cover:
[Via US Weekly]
Interesting to see the Greece and Vietnam used the same image, but they have different tonal properties...
That aside, I tend to agree with you and think that this might be a way for them to effectively cut costs on having multiple budgets for cover shoots. While it could be easily screwing over a photographer, it could be genius on that side of things too. Prior to now, if you had a Cosmo cover shoot, it'd only be seen in a single demographic. Now you're suddenly worldwide. Lets just hope the checks at least compensated for that.
I agree with Zach. Frankly, I'm surprised to learn that this is the first global cover. It makes sense as an overall cost-cutting measure, but hopefully the photographer pay scales for the additional exposure.
Think about it from a business perspective. I'm paying you for a certain amount of work. Whether I put your stuff from your photo shoot on one edition or every international edition, you still have done the same amount of work. It makes no business sense for me to pay you more simply because I've clicked on your image for the cover rather than clicking on someone else's image.
Thank your for that post because it shows something most people are not aware of: Clients pay a photographer not only for his work but also for the rights to use these images. Just as graphic work and it's exposure, the imagerights depend on the time the image will be used (for example campagin shoit that will run for 3 month, 6 month, etc) , area( local, countrywide, worldwide) and the medium it will be used (print/web, etc.)
Steve you are correct....so I dont get why they talk about "cutting costs" in this article. It's not like they pay you for 5 hrs of work and then Cosmo does whatever it wants with your images. They have to be licensed and such....so in the end they still pay for a worldwide, web+print, usage....maybe you can save some on creative fee but i still don't see this as saving big money
They'd be saving money on production costs. I'm not sure what they typically do, but for the sake of argument let's say half of the 62 covers had their own images shot. That's 31 productions, so having 1 shoot to cover all the covers saves them 30 shoots. That's savings on studios, gear, assistants, catering, travel/time for the client, retouching, travel/time for the celeb and their assistants, insurance, hair/makeup, etc etc. Even if they paid the exact same amount in licensing they've saved a significant amount in the shoot production costs.
Because they are paying for ONE production for all the versions of the magazine instead + 30 or god knows how many. : D
Steve and Ramon are correct. Especially when it comes to editorial photography, the pay structure is often based on circulation numbers.
Visual artist don't get paid for the amount of work, the get paid for what the work is used for.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be all that fuss about copying dvd since the movies already paid themselves in the theater....
I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if it was done on purpose?
A photographer shooting the cover of Cosmo knows better then to shoot for "really great exposure." I'm sure they saved money on the deal but I can not speculate to that because I don't know what Cosmos contract and pay structure look like, and I don't think you can either. Who shot this work anyway? This is a photography blog, I would expect to see a photographers name up next to 12 separate images.
"It is no secret that print media has been in decline as a whole and that online media is in boom."
Yes, but online website covers are different for different countries as well. Just look at Vogue international pages for example.
"As such budget cuts and downsizing are to be expected.
Re: More money pocketed at the top.
"I am left wondering whether the photographer was paid the equivalent of
62 commissions or if he was promised really great exposure."
If he or she has the kind of clout of their former photographer Francesco Scavullo, probably. But since this is really a move to pocket money at the top, probably not
Even if the photog "only" got an upscale worth 31 covers... At which point do we keep counting indivisual exposures...
I get that between 10000 copies VS 100000 it's a big deal. But for an international coverage, 4M VS 5M copies.... makes less of a difference. (ficticious numbers obviously!)
The real issue is that celebrities are taking over fashion magazines.
Fashion models no longer command a large enough audience to be able to push high volume mainstream fashion magazines. The era of the "supermodel" has come to an end.
I've never heard anyone refer to Cosmopolitan as a fashion magazine....
Don't miss the point...
Do a google image search for last year's Cosmopolitan covers and compare them to covers from 20 years ago. The model-to-celebrity ratio is significantly in favor of celebrity in recent times. Of course, the line between model and celebrity is often blurred but that's not the point either. Mainstream pop-stars and actresses (etc) command wide global audiences and are less risky than running lesser known fashion models or smaller regional talents. In today's market there isn't much room for diversity. "62 covers by 62 photographers" can't match the power of one cover shot by one photographer, of one celebrity.
You never heard of Victoria's Secret, or "read" the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?
Jolie is on Elle covers all over the world... june issue