Much continues to be said about the state of photojournalism, by which I am referring to still photography. There is the doomsday crowd, forever proclaiming the death of photojournalism. There are the many (many) schools and colleges continuing to offer expensive photojournalism courses as a viable (yet often misleading) career path. And there are those photojournalists who adapt and adjust in an effort to achieve their ultimate aim of making a difference to the lives of others.
I was privileged to have dinner with an elite crowd of the latter category of photojournalists in San Francisco a few weekends ago. Some had come to town to judge a photography philanthropy competition hosted at a downtown art gallery. Others came from the local professional photography community in support of the event. There were Pulitzer Prize winners, at least one Emmy winner, World Press Photo judges (past and present), as well as photographers whose amazing work you will probably have seen in leading news publications. Indeed an elite crowd.
As the wine flowed, the discussion turned to what can be done to revive the status of photojournalism. This morphed in to a discussion about working with NGOs (one of the diners was responsible for photography submissions and usage at a top US-based NGO). The general feeling was that there IS money out there for photojournalists with a purpose to do their jobs and achieve their goals. According to our NGO diner, the majority of contributions come in the form of smaller, individual donations rather than larger sums from bigger organizations. But for me, the conversation needed to continue quite a bit further.
With several years of corporate marketing and business strategy experience, I felt that there were a number of important questions that we did not get to (a great excuse for another dinner!). What we did not explore included:
Why are people compelled to give a donation? What is in it for them? There are probably three main reasons; (i) they truly care about the cause being represented; (ii) they want to feel good about giving to a cause, whatever the cause might be; (iii) they stand to gain in some way by giving to a cause. We need to understand that not everyone who gives to a non-profit does so based on sincere empathy for the cause. But we still need their money for photojournalists to be able to play a crucial role in documenting the reasons to donate, as well as the result of donating.
Why are organizations motivated to donate? Again, probably three reasons; (i) they genuinely care about the cause; (ii) their contribution is a public relations activity; (iii) they stand to gain in some direct or indirect way with their NGO association (which could also be a public relations activity). If we want to be successful in securing grant money from such organizations, we need to have a sense for which of these three motivators are relevant to them. This is not always an easy thing to achieve.
There are many individuals working for companies of a size that makes a corporate social responsibility program an appropriate use of resources. Those who you contact might be fully committed to the support of the work that you want to do, but they are not necessarily the final decision-makers. Before you receive your funding, it is very likely that your grant (or other) proposal will be circulated to others in an organization who are more concerned about what your work, and what their involvement with your work, will mean to them and the company. Will the association make them look good? Will it portray them as leaders in this area of philanthropic giving? Will it help drive new customers to them? Will it help retain existing customers? Will it improve shareholder perception? These are some of the questions that are likely to be asked. If your grant proposal can proactively answer those questions in a way that is compelling to the company, then you are far more likely to secure the funding you are looking for.
Photojournalists generally have good intentions, although there is a not-so-healthy percentage of those who blatantly exploit pain and suffering to further their own careers. Larger organizations are aware of the differences and will seek reassurances and, ideally, a track record, before making potentially costly and embarrassing commitments.
There is significant re-education being delivered to sales and marketing teams in companies of all sizes. The re-education focuses less on what the company is trying to sell and more on why their target market should buy. This is an approach that those of us seeking grants and other forms of funding for work, would benefit from understanding more completely.
