Photojournalism: Crowdfunding A Corpse?

If crowdsourcing is the problem is crowdfunding the solution? With the imminent launch of crowdfunding photojournalism project Emphas.is, and crowdfunded projects from Magnum’s Larry Towell and National Geographic’s Gerd Ludwig, many observers have jumped to a double-barreled conclusion: the old funding models are dead [largely correct], and crowdfunding is easy money that will replace those models [almost entirely wrong].

There are lots of reasons – and not just the money – photojournalists might find crowdfunding attractive; but the crowdfunding model raises at least as many questions as it provides answers. Such as: isn’t this just some guy begging with a Leica instead of a tin cup and an eye patch? What happens when some, but not enough, funds are raised for a project? Or if the project is not completed? Or doesn’t match the expectations of the investors? Isn’t crowdfunding just another form of pay-wall? Given that many projects would be aimed at eventual publication, aren’t investors simply being asked to subsidise Big Media’s failing businesses? And how do you measure the success of a crowdfunded project anyway?

All of these – and many more – have been recently thrashed out across the web, sometimes with a considerable degree of acrimony. In particular David Campbell’s Learning From Larry and Tomas van Houtryve’s The Good The Bad And The Awkward provide excellent analysis of what might work, what definitely doesn’t, and how to avoid making some very public blunders.

Through the smoke three things are rapidly becoming clear. Whether one regards these as problems largely depends on whether one views crowdfunding as potentially a viable business model for the future of photojournalism, or simply a novel way of maintaining some photojournalists in the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.

Firstly, as currently promoted crowdfunding will favour what is arguably the most archaic and redundant form of photojournalism: that of parachuting photographers in to faraway and exotic or dangerous places. That is after all the essence of the opening pitch at Emphas.is:

“What if you were on Robert Capa’s email list in 1944?

What if Don McCullin was blogging from Vietnam?

Now imagine if you’d sent them there yourself.”

Secondly, crowdfunding will favour established over aspiring photographers. Again, that is at the heart of the Emphas.is pitch, and it is a point made plain by Campbell, a minor contributor to the Towell project:

“Had the pitch for the ‘Crisis in Afghanistan’ come from an unknown photographer I very much doubt if it would have succeeded. I know I certainly wouldn’t have contributed. If you aren’t a famous photographer seeking support you need to prepare a much more professional pitch.”

And thirdly, crowdfunding will favour photographers with well-developed social media skills over those lacking such skills. That seems obvious, but it was the apparent absence of those skills that led to the unseemly brawl over Towell’s “Crisis In Afghanistan”, in which – irony alert! – sometimes anonymous correspondents accused the photographer of a lack of transparency in his proposals. What’s important over the Towell spat isn’t the rights or wrongs of that particular case, but that it happened at all. Since crowdfunding is Internet based and a very public exercise, it wouldn’t take very much for a very public storm to derail a project. Towell had both his reputation and the aid of Magnum colleagues to help him avoid that: such assistance is unlikely to be available to other photographers who find themselves in a similar situation.

Underlying all of this is the big question that crowdfunding fails to address: is photojournalism dead because there is simply no market for it? The Emphas.is response is to point to photojournalism’s “huge and dedicated following”, quoting visitor numbers to the World Press Photo exhibition and the New York Times Lensblog. But none of those visitors are paying a dime for that access, and as Rupert Murdoch is learning an apparently dedicated following can rapidly disappear once they’re asked to open their wallets.

It’s been a very long time since a financially viable number of people were prepared to pay enough money to keep photojournalism afloat. Even the heyday of the likes of the Sunday Times Magazine barely counts, since that publication was being bought as part of a larger package. One has to go back many decades, to the days of Picture Post and Life, to find a sound financial basis for photojournalism.

It’s far too early to conclude whether crowdfunding is simply this week’s web fad or can provide at least part of such a sound financial basis, but the omens aren’t especially good. Crowdfunding by its very nature relies on popularity, and crowdfunding serious photojournalism will rely on the public’s appetite for serious news. And in a weekend with Middle East turmoil providing a story that is a natural for photojournalism what was the most popular item on the BBC website? A story about a man having sex with a horse.