PDN/Nielsen launched a new magazine called PIX and Jezebel immediately picked up on the excessively girly and fluffy content in a post titled “Finally, Lady Photojournalists Get Their Own Photo Ladymag Full of Lady Stereotypes”:

  • “Smudge-proof makeup tips for long days behind the camera”
  • “Seasonal Flats: these flats will keep your feet covered, comfortable and cute while you’re on photo shoots”
  • “Step-by-Step: create these beautiful lanterns for your studio”
  • “Beauty Dish: New Jersey-based wedding photographer dishes about her camera-ready style”
  • “Photographing Newborns: A unique kind of labor”
  • “Couples at work, couples at home”
  • “In mint-condition: stay on trend with these green accessories”
  • “Lens Flare: Photography inspired accessories”
  • “Luminous Lenses: Shoot in style with these designer lens protection wraps”
  • “Hanging Tough: These camera straps are stylish yet tough just like you”

Nielsen issued a statement basically saying that they mistakenly used Photo District News in the sender line when the email went out and that this new magazine has nothing to do with professional photography and is geared specifically for photo enthusiasts (here).

On July 10th The Nielsen Photo Group, parent company of Photo District News, Rangefinder and other publications and photography events, introduced a new, free digital magazine edition of PIX for photo enthusiasts. The content of this edition is specifically geared toward women who enjoy photography as a hobby, featuring articles and product suggestions intended to inspire women to shoot more and create better photographs.

An e-mail announcing PIX was sent to The Nielsen Photo Group’s entire audience including hobbyists, students, emerging and professional photographers. The e-mail introducing PIX mistakenly had the name Photo District News in the sender line.

It seems a little incongruous for a company that wants to be all about professional photography to get in the business of supporting photo enthusiasts and specifically going after the “Mom’s With A Camera” group. But, I guess that’s what happens when you have a corporate mother ship hovering over you.

Personally, I think it’s fine if Nielsen sees an opportunity to make money off the emerging category of MWAC’s I would just expect other titles in the family that think it’s BS to stand up and say so. A little mocking from the Pros is a good thing.

Recommended Posts


  1. I smell a new photo competition in the works!

    • LMFAO.

      Probably 349 new photo competitions.

      • at least 12 months x 2 contests per

    • I was kind of aghast when I got that email from PDN – thought it was a joke at first. But you’re probably right, Jeff: at least two (if not four) more photo competitions for PDN to profit from!

    • yeah, you cracked the code Jeff. I had a whole theory that I scrapped when writing the post, but now that you mention it, a free magazine delivered electronically is the perfect vehicle for photo contests.

      • I don’t think you need to scrap any ideas if it’s related to PDN and more (paid) contests. That’s a given.

  2. When i first saw this- I thought it was a PR gag.
    With the email saying it was a mistake it went out under PDN’s name- there was a link to email Michael Zorich asking for thought on how they might improve PIX . I decided to give them mine-
    Email head line: Leave out all the sexist ideas- that would be a start
    Email: Have you ever shot a photo in a sundress? bad idea..

    • I also thought it might be a parody. Somehow it was doubly insulting coming linked to a PDN email.
      Can’t wait for the next issue” Annie Leibovitz on Hair Conditioners” .

  3. What about smear proof lipstick for when your boy-toy photo assistant is soooooo hot? Just kidding. That’s a funny article. I doubt the well known female photography legends would need any of this frou-frou. PDN should stick to what it does best — Photo Contests (deadlines extended 3 more times so we can rake it in) — come on and enter so you can get that $100 store coupon from… Just kidding again. There’s really a wealth of info there, and the contests are just for fun. So are those cute lens wraps — now available in with photos of your favorite celebrity heartthrobs.

    • A friend of mine sent them a letter letting the editors know just how degrading she felt this new magazine is, and she asked me and other female photographers for a comment to add . I wrote instead of the make -up thing – a more important article would be- what is the best bug spray to wear when out in the field.

  4. I think their content as well as their “response” is insulting. This type of publication enforces the stereotype that women behind cameras- in particular the type that photograph weddings and families- are not serious photographers or entrepreneurs. That we do this for pleasure and to kill time between scrap-booking sessions and nursing.

  5. I used to be a die hard PDN subscriber for over 15 years but when their focus became contests and “One’s to watch” (young, up-in-coming photographers who never live up to the hype). I decided to pocket the $50 a year subscription and put that money to better use. Sometimes I see an issue on the news stand and I open it, only to realize it’s just a re-hashed version of every other issue. I find more relevant information and better photography in a few blogs than I do in an entire year’s subscription of PDN. And they wonder why print is dying :(

    • Same with me Victor. 15 years and done.

  6. For a magazine aimed at “enthusiasts,” nearly every advertisement is geared towards professionals. The whole attempt seems disingenuous & lame. I gave up on PDN years ago.

  7. PDN should be called out just for running such a bad photo extension on the left of the image. I could see it in the thumbnail.

  8. Should’ve named it Momtographer Monthly.

  9. PDN has come down to a bunch of photo competition scams and articles that hold no information value. The A Photo Editor Blog has indefinitely more and better information for free than this down on its heels magazine.

    When you open it, what do you find? Ads, then a letter from the editor, then a letter from the publisher, and maybe another letter from some Nielsen official – which nobody in his right mind would ever read.

    Meanwhile you have reached page 10, and still no content. If you have bad luck, half of the magazine is taken up by page after page from one of their fake photo contests, which look like a search result page from a stock photo site.

    The ridiculous PIX magazine may just the missing nail that PDN needed to complete its coffin.

    • +1, Letting my PDN subscription lapse was one of the best moves I have ever made. Years ago it was great then I realized I was essentially paying to get junk emails for contests and junk in printed form.

  10. Unfortunately, there is a huge reader base that falls into this stereotype and I have to say Pix nailed it. I just wish they (Pix) had added some real content that would have been of more value to their readers rather than just playing into the stereotype that makes women look silly and foolish. Learning about proper lighting technique and the correct choice of lens would be more helpful than what nail polish to wear with your fancy new lens cover.

    • I agree Jessica. They nailed it alright. Though I would start with teaching them how to take pics with the camera off “auto” shoot mode and weening them off Instagram, first.

  11. a shame that aphotoeditor.com even gives PDN any mention here…you’re supposed to let dead dogs lie, and PDN has been dead for some time

  12. Like Cynthia, I thought this was a joke. Then as I continued looking, I KNEW it was a joke.

Comments are closed for this article!