Encouraging....but it's a shame this didn't come from a source without a vested interest bias.
Even if the methodology was truly pure, wrapping it in the NPPA banner demotes the finding to the credibility of just one more self-serving bleat from an interest group. It's as if they carefully adjusted aperture, shutter speed, and focus -- then shot themselves in the foot.
Disclaimer from the article: "NPPA President Mark Dolan emphasized that in commissioning the study, NPPA had no assurance that the results would be favorable to the photojournalism profession.
"NPPA honestly did not know what to expect," said Dolan. "We obviously were hopeful that research participants would have positive impressions, and were gratified to learn that those who were interviewed appreciated the value that high-quality images contribute to news publications and the publications' readers."
And please remember that most of the breathless boosterism of crowdsourcing comes from the publishers, agents and others who directly benefit from free and low cost content.
1. People spend more time looking at professional (ie. high quality) photographs than amateur (low quality) photographs. 2. People spend more time reading high quality captions than low quality captions. 3. Telling a story is important.
But publishers will decide if the cost of professionally produced material will pay off in more revenue from advertisers. Clearly the old media (newspapers, magazines) that paid for content are failing while new media using free and/or stolen material is growing.
And then there's video which is the real rising star.
I guess my original comment was not well phrased. The findings of the study are most interesting. The question is one of presentation: if a trade association is seen as the source the study's persuasive value is immediately lowered. It's an unavoidable reaction -- no matter how many disclaimers are included.
Finding a way to attribute the findings to the researchers, rather than the source of funding, would go a long way toward enhancing their value.
6 comments:
Encouraging....but it's a shame this didn't come from a source without a vested interest bias.
Even if the methodology was truly pure, wrapping it in the NPPA banner demotes the finding to the credibility of just one more self-serving bleat from an interest group. It's as if they carefully adjusted aperture, shutter speed, and focus -- then shot themselves in the foot.
Disclaimer from the article: "NPPA President Mark Dolan emphasized that in commissioning the study, NPPA had no assurance that the results would be favorable to the photojournalism profession.
"NPPA honestly did not know what to expect," said Dolan. "We obviously were hopeful that research participants would have positive impressions, and were gratified to learn that those who were interviewed appreciated the value that high-quality images contribute to news publications and the publications' readers."
And please remember that most of the breathless boosterism of crowdsourcing comes from the publishers, agents and others who directly benefit from free and low cost content.
The short version ...
1. People spend more time looking at professional (ie. high quality) photographs than amateur (low quality) photographs.
2. People spend more time reading high quality captions than low quality captions.
3. Telling a story is important.
But publishers will decide if the cost of professionally produced material will pay off in more revenue from advertisers. Clearly the old media (newspapers, magazines) that paid for content are failing while new media using free and/or stolen material is growing.
And then there's video which is the real rising star.
Agree on magazine and newspapers but the article has much value for photographers who can infer this value to ad clients.
Also agree wholeheartedly about video.
I guess my original comment was not well phrased. The findings of the study are most interesting. The question is one of presentation: if a trade association is seen as the source the study's persuasive value is immediately lowered. It's an unavoidable reaction -- no matter how many disclaimers are included.
Finding a way to attribute the findings to the researchers, rather than the source of funding, would go a long way toward enhancing their value.
Post a Comment