Lenswork mag no longer on newstands

[Todd.Hanz]

read about it here: http://www.lenswork.com/newsstand.html

great magazine.

Todd

[GeneW]

Todd, thanks for the link. I respect their decision.

Your timely link reminded me that I've wanted to subscribe but had never got around to it. I've just subscribed!

Gene

[sepiareverb]

Got me to subscribe.

[BSchall]

I applaud their decision to try and eliminate waste. I've always enjoyed their magazine. Just finished the subscription form, hopefully the succeed.

[Todd.Hanz]

I recently let my subscription lapse, need to renew.

I respect their decision as well, I never realized the 70% issue of waste, I wonder how not being on the newstands will affect their circulation?

Just one look at an issue, to be able to see the masertful printing in hand still excites me, even after subscribing for years.

Todd

[35mmdelux]

no time to hang at the newstand. Subscriber here.

Consider a decision to support/subscribe to your favorite mag or they will go out of business.

[sienarot]

I've always enjoyed the work in there. Perhaps it's time to subscribe.

[shadowfox]

Good for them, I've lost count how many times I had to dig in the back of the magazine stand just to get my hands on the latest edition. It's always buried by the countless Digi-me-too Photography Magazines.

I have a feeling that their quality contents are lost to the typical "modern" photographers anyways.

I've always wanted to try out their Extended version, now I have no other options :) but to do it.

[Stephanie Brim]

I plan to subscribe as soon as Adam informs me that it's in the budget. I love looking at it when we go to Barnes & Noble. It's sad it won't be there anymore.

Or will it?

[Nando]

I just got Lenswork 75 in the mail on Monday. I don't think that there is a more beautiful done magazine than Lenswork except for perhaps Automobile Quarterly. However Automobile Quarterly is more like a book than a magazine.

[Rick Waldroup]

I cut back on my subscriptions this past year, and Lenswork was one that I let go. Dumb move. Looks like it is time to subscribe again.

At one point I was up to almost a dozen photo mag subscriptions and then last year I cut it back to Aperture, Shots, and Black and White (the American version).

[dpetrzelka]

I highly reecommend a subscription - my wife made up a user name here on RFF before the Holidays, and asked many of you what magazine to get me, she made the right choice.

Beautiful printing, thoughtful interviews ,and topical/relevent letter from the editor. The Lens Work Extended is great if you can swing it - many more photos, interviews, videos etc.

[35mmdelux]

The other "must haves" are PDN and Aperture. These three are pro. Its downhill from there.

Chapeau!

[Roberto]

Just got 75 in the mail box.. :) I'm glad I subscribed..

[bmattock]

I like Lenswork, and used to subscribe. However, I found that the pitch to subscribe for CD's, DVDs, various side-projects, and what-have-you was a bit over the top. The last time I got a renewal (I mean a real one, not the one they send you when you're a month into your subscription, like you maybe forgot when it was actually due), the options were a staggering list that looked like a Chinese menu. All I wanted was the magazine - that wasn't an option. You have to take one from column A, one from column B or something like that. I gave it up. Don't miss it.

[Ken Shipman]

I've let all other subscriptions expire. LensWork is the only one left, and it'll stay that way.

[Russ]

It's the only photo mag, that I consider a "must" read-have. I've got every issue, from #1.

Russ

[dannynono]

I have to admit that I let my subscription lapse since it was simply faster or me to get the newest issue on the rack rather than through the mail. I'd see it on the stands for a week or more before it arrive at home. very frustrating for my impatient eyes. great mag though, I'll be headed back to the subscription route.

[BJ Bignell]

I also appreciate the fact that they want to eliminate their environmental impact but I think we can all also easily read the subtext: Printing only the exact number of copies required is cheaper and allows them – or their printer at the very least – to better plan their orders of raw materials. Financial planning with a fixed income stream is also much easier. In the end, all of this will help to delay the arrival of subscription cost increases which almost always results in a loss of subscribers and therefore a loss of income.

[bmattock]

I also appreciate the fact that they want to eliminate their environmental impact but I think we can all also easily read the subtext: Printing only the exact number of copies required is cheaper and allows them – or their printer at the very least – to better plan their orders of raw materials. Financial planning with a fixed income stream is also much easier. In the end, all of this will help to delay the arrival of subscription cost increases which almost always results in a loss of subscribers and therefore a loss of income.

I did not want to say it, because I'm Mister Negative, but since no one else is...

In my experience, when a magazine goes 'subscriber only', it means it is in it's death spiral already. Not being on the news stand does save paper, I suppose, but it also means a lack of fresh eyeballs seeing it on the rack and making an impulse buy. This stops new subscribers from coming in.

Most of the time, such magazines plan (or believe or hope) that they can replace subscribers that drop off with new subscribers through referrals by current subscribers, like the kind of recommendations given out here on RFF. And that is true to an extent, but it is generally not enough.

Examples I can think of are "Boing-Boing," which is now web-only after going to subscriptions only, "The World & I," which is the same, and "No Depression," which is going straight from news stands to web-only without the intervening 'subscribers only' printing.

I wish Brooks Jensen and Lenswork well. But I doubt that 'subscriber only' will work, and I am guessing that Lenswork won't be around for another year. Of course I could be wrong, but my guess is based on observations of similar magazines in the past.

[BJ Bignell]

... In my experience, when a magazine goes 'subscriber only', it means it is in it's death spiral already. Not being on the news stand does save paper, I suppose, but it also means a lack of fresh eyeballs seeing it on the rack and making an impulse buy. This stops new subscribers from coming in.

Most of the time, such magazines plan (or believe or hope) that they can replace subscribers that drop off with new subscribers through referrals by current subscribers, like the kind of recommendations given out here on RFF. And that is true to an extent, but it is generally not enough. ...I agree that it doesn't sound positive, but I must admit that I do enjoy the magazine and that this "event" has piqued my interest in getting a subscription. Clever marketers strike again!

If their house is in order they may yet be able to operate in their niche market with success for years to come; only time (and subscriptions, of course!) will tell.

[Pherdinand]

they are not really loaded with commercials, in the magazine, so the theory only half-way applies.
Anyway, risking to swim against the stream here i would say: Yes, the technical quality is very good, and the subjects of the presented portfolios are also nice usually BUT... the fact that only 3 people write in it, shows quite badly. Practically, it is full with musings about life and photography of three people that start repeating themselves after a few numbers already. Added to this is, those three people are probably better photographers than writers (sorry if i'm too harsh).
Yes i was a subscriber and yes i boutght the "first fifty"(i think) edition CD together with the one-year subscription. I went through the "first fifty" backwards, but after 10 or so issues, i started to only look at the images because i could not bear with the "end notes" etc over and over again.
Of course, this is only my humble oppinion.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Some magazines are betting on the web, I work with one.

But cutting off direct sales of magazines seems pretty dangerous. Most magazines like lenswork only put five issues or so per store (Borders for instance about 500 stores), so the waste is pretty small.

But all danger aside, if the web site is good enough they might do fine with nothing but subscriptions on the web. It is so hard to make money selling small circulation magazines, it is amazing they do it at all.

[shadowfox]

they are not really loaded with commercials, in the magazine, so the theory only half-way applies.
Anyway, risking to swim against the stream here i would say: Yes, the technical quality is very good, and the subjects of the presented portfolios are also nice usually BUT... the fact that only 3 people write in it, shows quite badly. Practically, it is full with musings about life and photography of three people that start repeating themselves after a few numbers already. Added to this is, those three people are probably better photographers than writers (sorry if i'm too harsh).
Yes i was a subscriber and yes i boutght the "first fifty"(i think) edition CD together with the one-year subscription. I went through the "first fifty" backwards, but after 10 or so issues, i started to only look at the images because i could not bear with the "end notes" etc over and over again.
Of course, this is only my humble oppinion.

Heh, I think I noticed this also :)

They need to recruit young blood. Lot's of talent out there, just need to make an effort to secure one or two.

Incremental but steady regeneration is always key to sustaining a long term endeavor.