A new industry standard: Fully controlled reviewers

[Andrew Reid]

Tim, there is nothing wrong with tasteful and honest advertising.

The problem comes when you mix the editorial with the advertising.

[noone]

46 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

As an erstwhile tech-oriented ad salesman I have to tell you that any such person - on finding out that editorial were devoting 3 or 4 pages to a favourable review of a particular camera would, within milliseconds, be on the phone to a decision maker at the manufacturer's HQ. There's nothing corrupt about that process, it's just how it works.

I agree, it is not necessarily (though how can you tell what is and isn't) corrupt and that IS how it works and probably always has.    In addition to the Fuji ad and article there are ads from Sony, Nikon, DJI and Camera house (one of very few remaining camera store chains in Australia though many of their stores have closed)...Also a Sony "special promotion" (Sony sponsored content?) and a SanDisk special promotion. 

Without those ads, the magazine would not exist so I take them as they are.

 

[Andrew Reid]

I know this isn't how it works with classical media (magazines and TV) but isn't it enough that you PAY for the magazine in the first place...

On the internet if you pay a subscription you don't expect to be fed a constant stream of ad banners on top as well.

This is one of the reasons print media is dying.

You are paying for basically a giant advert.

These fucking magazines...

They have all the character of a corporate sales brochure.

And about as much wit, insight or controversial subject matter as an inflight magazine.

Can you imagine one of my negative Canon articles being printed in Amateur Photography?!

I see Imaging Resource is one of the worst online magazines at this point in terms of bland positive, everything is great. I think they even like the G100!

[noone]

I used to buy every magazine religiously (I probably could have got myself a lovely bit of kit with all the money i spent on them).     I have got about five in the last four years including two in the last month.     I stsrted looking at them at the library but they do not stock them anymore either.

Looking on line for articles on the ancient  Tokina 60-120 2.8 I got myself recently, I came across some magazines from all those years ago in PDF form and they were no different to magazines now except they had zillions more ads from many companies (often had pages of listings for cameras and lenses etc from mail order stores).    I used to buy those sort of magazines and I kinda wish that sort of thing still existed though I would never go back to film and it is a uch better time to be alive and interested in photo/video gear.

[Robert Collins]

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Tim, there is nothing wrong with tasteful and honest advertising.

'Honest advertising' is an oxymoron. The entire point of modern corporate marketing is scientifically crafted deception.

Camera companies starting up a fund to pay a bunch of different people and create a different bunch of shills.

 If you can trick people into thinking your trickery is honesty, you can trick them even better.

Thinking of Olympus - at least keep it humorous.

 

[Andrew Reid]

It's important to realise none of the marketing is forced on people or dictated.

The control is done by soft ways and by building personal relationships.

In the same way I wouldn't throw a friend under the bus if he messes up, reviewers feel the same obligations to camera staff and PR contacts.

That doesn't mean to say it isn't right or that it isn't wreaking the integrity of online communities and YouTube.

[rawshooter]

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's important to realise none of the marketing is forced on people or dictated.

The control is done by soft ways and by building personal relationships.

Plus, there's a Stockholm/lock-in syndrome. Reviewers are part of the camera industry whether they like it or not. When companies go under, when camera sales tank, when less cameras get released (and those that get released, like the G100, are shoddy repackaging of old tech due to axed R&D budgets), their jobs are endangered, too. Reviewers therefore have a conscious or subconscious self-interest in people buying new cameras to keep the industry alive.

[Andrew Reid]

True but there's nothing wrong with being interested in what you love surviving. If my passion was wiped out I'd be pretty depressed.

[hmcindie]

On 6/28/2020 at 2:33 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Tim, there is nothing wrong with tasteful and honest advertising.

The problem comes when you mix the editorial with the advertising.

Cameras are tools for making images / stories. Reviews of tools are different from reviews of consumable items. These are not luxury phones of a 1000 dollar price. A hammer is a hammer and the review of said hammer needs to address the point of that specific tool.

Everyone here seems to act as if cameras exist solely to be reviewed and analysed and then put on the shelf until another product appears. "Look at this amount of megapixels, my goodness the dr is so huge! You can't use this, the rolling shutter is huge!" The reviews of youtube people tend to come at cameras from a very consumer oriented standpoint. Philip Blooms review - in the case of FX9 for example - is made for people that are professionals in the field and who actually would use an FX9 to create something. They are not really meant for the EOSHD / Youtube crowd. They are meant more for one man documentary use cases (as that is Blooms background and he reviews cameras based on that). Professionals already know would an FX9 be good for them before they even look at Blooms review but if they are thinking about the FX9 the review may address some issues. A 15-year old thinking about the next 900 dollar dslr it is not. Sales people are bad? Everytime you go out and try to figure out if a certain camera is yours or not, you will have to use your brain. Good sales people give you options, bad sales people sell you a specific tool not caring if it's for you or not. But guess what, random people on the internet review forums (who have no money involved) do the exact same thing because they might have no actual use for the camera they parrot.

What is more "honest advertising" for you, a 60 second ad before a youtube video of a new Full Frame FX9 (with a bunch of buzzwords) or a "review" done in the style of Bloom (one hour, loads of different info) which is disclosed as being from Sony. I would always prefer the latter but they are also way more rare.

When people here call marketing "trickery" or even evil, it kinda makes me wonder what do you guys do with your camera? If the marketing tricked you into buying something that doesn't do it's job, what are you doing with that tool?

 

23 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The control is done by soft ways and by building personal relationships.

If I would be buying a 10 grand camera I would most likely ask about it from people that I know first, people who have actually used it for a specific purpose (for example, documentaries). I guess that could be construed as a personal relationship except without the internet. Internet reviews would only be used to gauge technical specs about the camera and it's suitability for certain jobs. Philip Blooms review would be helpful in taking a look at certain things coming from an fs7 user. But it wouldn't be the only review I watch but usability wise it would give out a lot of info.

After a certain pricepoint, professionals don't really care what the internet says and that's one of the reasons the Alexa is more popular then Red for filmmaking.