Thx for posting the link, gostwyck. It's a good read. As for what I think of it?
There seems to be a contradiction with the closing statements. Good stock photos as good as fine arts. Then the next breath emphasizes the importance of volume.
No fine arts painter or photographer would stress on volume. In fact, they discard more than they end up showing. You cannot make fine arts with mass production factories , man or machine, and to say this is almost laughable.
Well, if this is against my better judgement and  I prove wrong, then perhaps my grandchildren will see some stock photographer's work at the Smithsonian.

Ha!  ... and I will roll in my grave 

Does anyone know any 'profesional photographers' who actual buy that magazine? I've seen it at the airport but never in a studio.

I've no idea __ I don't actually go into other photographers' studios. Do you? The couple of top pro's that I do know tend to write for it and other hobbyist-oriented magazines. (NB: Those guys can actually spell 'professional photographer' too).

I've been buying it for about 3 years and generally speaking, even as a self-confessed sceptic of most magazines and newspapers, I have found it useful and well worth the price. I've learned quite a bit how pro's who specialise in different fields operate (as well as my own) and the going rate for the work. The reviews and adverts for new equipment are useful too and I've bought quite a bit of stuff as a result __ the latest being Hoya's new 'HD' pro circular polariser which apparently lets in 25% more light than standard and is also 4x more robust. I'm just heading out to Norway/Sweden/Finland so I'll have plenty of opportunity to test it out and compare it to my others!

I was particularly grateful to be warned of an impending massive price rise for Canon gear about six months ago __ a combination of the exchange rate between the Yen/Euro (where many expensive components are sourced) and also the plummetting �. Bringing forward an equipment purchase by about 3 weeks saved me many years of the subscription price.

They've just changed editor though and I'm not sure I like the direction the new bloke is taking it. Fancier layout but less useful and relevant articles to me.

I don't actually go into other photographers' studios. Do you?

Yes. There are normally fashion and design mags lying around in the foyer area.

Those guys can actually spell 'professional photographer' too).

Super.

You seem a bit bristly. I thought it was a fair question.

gostwyck, she is probably a very good photographer,no doubt. also an even better business person, or else she would not have succeeded in getting a featured interview.  all very excellent marketing with lots of marketing hooks, therefore the DEFINITIVE STATE , blah blah blah. like the great ubiquitous McD, "we serve XXXmillions a day" , rather than the small print hidden in the corner restaurant that serves the best dishes from the Cordon Bleu school .
the point again, is just that. McD serves and sell more than that little quaint restaurant where one pay money for a chef who cooks up the best meal you can taste to go along with their best wine.  McD a great success serves nothing like that.
They give you generics with speed and quantity. Much like stock photography.

So, to compare stock photography with fine arts is like telling me that you go to McD for their "fine dining".  If you do that, it is you trying to convince me that
your taste of the great McD is as good as fine dining.

Only someone who has not tasted fine dining (no quotes this time) will think that is wishful thinking. No rembrandt, da vinci, michelangelo,etc.. not even Avedon, in micro stock. Sorry!

There is a BIG difference. I shoot for stock, I shoot for fine arts. I don't try to tell everyone that my stock work is as good as fine art.

Interesting read. 

There is quite a burden to be met when you claim to be discussing "the definitive state of stock" and I don't think they have met the burden. 

Funny, someone was referred to me through an acquaintance recently because she "takes pictures of wildlife" and wanted to "generate quick cash flow" by submitting to stock.

I didn't want to be too discouraging in my reply because she was a friend of a friend and had been told I was "nice" (obviously she was grossly mislead, lol). OTOH I did not want to build up false hopes or unrealistic expectations either.  I mean after all, this woman wants to get rich selling snapshots she took at the zoo.

In my response I tried to be as general and vague as possible.  Funnily enough it read almost exactly like this article, so I have to suspect the woman interviewed was doing the same - trying to appear helpful while not actually sharing any information of substance. 

If I had seen this I could have just sent her the link instead

In my experience most professionals in most fields keep themselves up to date with trade and industry journals. It is unprofessional not to

No it isn't.

What would you recommend a general commercial/stock photographer to read then?

The blogs and your Google news alerts + Twitter lately. When I read something I know about in a magazine its often wrong or out of date.

I only tend to look through magazines when I'm at airports. Then I'm most interested in which are carrying the most and most expensive looking advertising. And which have the most stylish looking photographs. I only look at the pictures mostly.

So I probably more lean towards seeing how pictures are being used. Or look out of the window. I don't buy photo magazines.

Guess I am old fashioned.  I still subscribe to a couple of good photography magazines.  I like Shutterbug.  

They don't have much to say about the stock industry (which is fine by me), but I have found a lot of their how-to articles on lighting set ups to be extremely useful.  They also have a number of stories on successful business strategies for photographers.  

It's photography. Not doctoring.

The internet is way ahead of the old duffers who write for the photo magazines. It makes far more sense to be finding out about trends etc.

I read many blogs and articles on the industry online, and I do buy Professional Photographer each month, as I like to sit back and read it sometimes.

If I am browsing the photography or software section in the newsagents and I see a headline that grabs my attention I will also buy that magazine, often only once.

Interviews with different photographers will get different results, but it does seem that Professional Photographer has a problem with associating it readers with microstock websites they sit more with Alamy, which is the same as some forums and blogs.

But  the title "The definitive state of stock" is miss-leading as it is not an in-depth study of the industry, just one persons perspective.

The biggest problem even now is article writers and bloggers, many complaining about the business in one post and heading the next "Earn money from your snaps" in another attempt to get new photographers to click on the affiliate links!

I have seen the easy money from photography stories, on television, in printed articles in the press and magazines, and online on websites and blogs, these are defining "the true state of stock"!

David