Steve,
One of the ways that you make money is charging people to run classified ads that appear in your magazine and on your website.
If the owners of this site think that it is ok for you to advertise here, that's fine. In that case, perhaps they should also think about allowing ads from manufacturers, publishers, galleries and photographers and from people who want to sell equipment. Personally I'd find such ads at least as informative as ads for your magazine and your conferences.
Rory, I think you are ignoring the aspect of contribution. I don't know if you have some kind of beef with Steve, but I for one appreciate his contributions to this site. It shouldn't be a black and white issue. If -- for example -- the lens manufacturers came here and answered questions about lenses frequently and offered help I -- for one -- wouldn't mind them pitching their lenses once in a while. In some ways HP Marketing does that; Bob gets a lot of subtle plugs in while helping out. There is a vast difference between what Steve (and Bob) does and a bunch of companies which offer no contribution spamming us with "Tripods for 30% off!". If you can't see that difference, then you have no concept of fair return and no flexibility.
Of course Steve is trying to pitch his conference to help it survive and maybe even make a buck. But he "pays" for this by helping answer questions almost daily here.
Paul,
Let's not start with ad hominem arguments. It is easy to do, but it is a pointless exercise. First, I have no issue with Steve Simmons. I even buy his magazine occasionally. Secondly, I do know what the difference is between Bob Salomon's contributions, which in my experience are about facts rather than selling, and repetitive advertisements of the kind that have gone on about this conference. Mr. Luong will run this site as he pleases. He has already told Mr. Simmons (see the third post above) that he is over the line. Mr. Simmons refuses to accept this, and claims that it is "censorship" to tell him to stop advertising his magazine's website. I'd just like to know what the rules are, and whether Mr. Simmons has some special dispensation.
OK let's lighten up now. I've nailed my colours to the mast and said that I think Steve's post was OK this time round. Steve is smart enough to take the earlier hint that repetitive announcements might be frowned upon. Moderation here is done with a light touch and that is only possible as a consequence of the good judgement, good humour and tolerance that characterises the vast majority of contributors here. Let's keep it that way!
Rob,
I believe that the credibility of a publication, whether hard copy, electronic or interactive, depends on there being a clear line between editorial content and advertising. Mr. Luong has decided to allow people to run advertisements in the middle of editorial content. I would have thought that it would be a simple matter to vet these advertisements, or put them in a separate part of the site, but of course that is Mr. Luong's decision. Given the decision to blur the line between editorial content and advertising, the question now is the degree to which this is going to be permitted. The answer to that question has a direct bearing on the credibility and integrity of this site.
There are many professionals who participate on this site who do not use it as a vehicle to sell their wares. Lots of people provide useful information, and most of them do it without taking the attitude that the site and other participants must take their contribution and their advertising as a package.
While I have no doubt that Mr. Simmons is smart, he has rather clearly rejected the idea that he has gone over the line. At this point, the rules, if there are any, are rather unclear. It is not a question of lightening up. There is a very real question about whether the standards of the site, which was supposed to be a non-commercial operation, are at this point actually lower than those of photo.net, it being quite clear that photo.net would not permit Mr. Simmons's activities. These are very practical questions for people who want to decide which site to participate in.
"believe that the credibility of a publication, whether hard copy, electronic or interactive, depends on there being a clear line between editorial content and advertising. Mr. Luong has decided to allow people to run advertisements in the middle of editorial content."
getting way off topic here - but a) this isn't a publication so non of that makes sense to apply it here and it's credibility and integrity doesn't depend on anything like that and b) many "credible" publications do just that - it's a called advertorial...
You are applying entirely the wrong criteria - and as is usual in sucha case - you end up with the wrong conclusion (or in this case, an assumption)
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Wow this just wont go away will it? This site belongs to "Mr. Luong" and he has said his peace. Move on! If it upsets people so much they really can stop coming to the site. This is a dead horse and at this point it is a mighty smacked around one.
Hell, if I were Steve I would offer a hardy "thank you" to Rory for keeping this thread alive and well, bringing a lot of notice to the conference. This thread has been very high on the new responses link since it started. The more posts there are the more people are going to read it to see what is going on.
Tim,
Thanks, because now we're getting to the real issue.
I do think that this is a publication, or analogous to one, and, in any event, that distinguishing between editorial content and advertising is absolutely critical to the integrity of this site. The failure to draw that distinction is the reason that many special interest magazines, including on photography, are not taken seriously. I am not aware of any "advertorial" publication that has any credibility, although that is certainly the right word to describe how this site is evolving.
I participate in a site on wine that is run by the critic for the International Herald Tribune and the major English language newspaper in the Middle East. The participants in the site include some important people in the wine industry. They absolutely ensure that they say nothing that involves their companies' products. Similarly, there are many professionals on this site who offer their views, but do not use it as an opportunity to sell their products. That is called class.
Rory - you are sadly mistaken - and in the process trying to make this site into something it isn't. There's not much point in saying a site like this is analogous to this or that - because it isn't really analogous to anything before the internet - except perhaps a bunch of enthusiasts meeting in the pub. And a few of them
Pertsonally the last thing I'd like to be equated with is a bunch of wine snobs (my feeling is that most on this list are a bit more dwon to earth than that?)
If you look at the site the way you do I have no doubt you will be constantly disappointed.
The only thing the reputation and credibility of this site depends upon is fair and even handed moderation and a good design that works. After that, if people want to particiapte they will - if not - well, that's their issue.
It isn't "editorial" - it is nowhere close to it - there is no editor, editorial board, no editorial guidlines. It's a friendly free for all with a few quidelines and a very gentle guiding hand - that's all. As someone who works in the news and magazien industry I can tel you that this site is about as far as you can get from some kind of editorial publication.
"I am not aware of any "advertorial" publication that has any credibility" Time, the New Yorker etc etc do it all the time.
Donal,
Time and the New Yorker most definitely do no do avertorials except as advertising sections labelled as such. The idea of an advertorial that is not labelled as such, and is passed off as editorial content, is completely contradictory to anything approaching integrity.
I am sorry that you think anyone who is interested in wine is a snob although I am gratified that you think that the participants in this site, except for me, do not suffer from that affliction. If you look at a current thread on this site about refrigeration of wine, you will find that at least two of the participants talk about storing their film in a wine fridge. In any event, I don't quite understand how my point - which is that wine professionals who participate in the site that I referred to refrain from floggin their products - is evidence of snobisness.
It is entirely possible that I will come to the conclusion that this is not the right site for me. I'll make that decision when and if I receive a simple answer to a simple question that I have now asked more than once: given that this site, unlike photo.net, accepts posts that are advertisements without idetification as such or segregation, what are the rules? It really shouldn't be hard to get an answer to that question, but apparently it is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks