sad shift to advertising

[dreed]

It is rather sad to see this web site shift from being funded through product to being funded through advertising

But alas, nothing lasts forever and the only constant in life is change.

[Schewe]

It is rather sad to see this web site shift from being funded through product to being funded through advertising

Why?

Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising...so exactly why do you think advertising will ruin things here?

You wanna Piss&Moan™, ya better be able to back it up with a bit more than opinion...

[John Camp]

Why?

Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising...so exactly why do you think advertising will ruin things here?

You wanna Piss&Moan™, ya better be able to back it up with a bit more than opinion...

Why does he have to back it up with more than an opinion? Have we repealed free speech? And it seems to me that "Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising" is an opinion, and not a very good one, at that. I don't mind in the least that you hold that opinion, or express it, but I'd be a lot more happy with it if you said, "Some of the third-best photography in the history of photography..." Avedon might have done advertising work, but people collect Bee Boy, not some now-obscure shoot for Vogue. Also, I note that you set up and knocked down a straw man -- show me where he says that advertising will ruin things. He just expressed some unhappiness with the change.

I was also slightly unhappy with the move to advertising, because I worked in the media for a long time, and my feeling is that ultimately, advertising corrupts. Product sales, on the other hand, not so much.

JC

[Schewe]

And it seems to me that "Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising" is an opinion, and not a very good one, at that.

Hum, you ever go to any photo shows at art museums? Did you see the Henri Cartier-Bresson retrospective? The vast majority of his work was done while on assignment for magazines which as subsidized by, wait for it, advertising...You even mentioned the ultimate, Avedon, what about Penn?

Really, you wanna go down that road?

So, the OP is sad, boothefrigginwho...move on and get a life.

[alainbriot]

Dismissing advertising as "evil" may be tempting but things are not so simple. "Support through advertising" isn't just about creating photographs for advertising campaigns.  It's also about being sponsored by a company for your fine art work. For Example John Sexton has been sponsored by Kodak for many years. His fine art work has been used in many Kodak T Max commercials even though these images were not expressly created for Kodak but rather for fine art purposes.

[Rob C]

Were it not for advertising I'd have spent a withered life working in a factory somewhere and seen nothing of this world other than what was thrust my way, outwith my control, in my early life.

Having said which, advertising does corrupt and it corrupts everything it touches. Of course it does, and that's partly why we snappers embrace it. When we get to get the payback from it.

Whether it occurs here or not is somewhat academic to me: I instantly go to the sections of the site that interest me and hardly ever see the rest of it. I have found sections that are very dear to me and that's where I play. I'd be the last to tell any host how to run his household, which is not what I think the OP has done, regardless of the inevitable Rottweiler knee-jerk.

Rob C

[PierreVandevenne]

It's a slippery road. But skilled drivers can negotiate slippery roads. I guess wait and see is the motto now.

[dturina]

As long as the articles are good, I couldn't care less about the way a site is financed. OK, I'd hate flash bang pop-ups and similar "hurry up and buy" crap, but basically, LL is just not the kind of website that would be seriously inhibited by ads. Photosig is another matter; it was totally ruined by politically correct ad providers who required that all nudity be blocked, even on thumbnails, and now the site is ridiculous. But yes, I would have one request for Michael.

The first time an ad provider tries to blackmail you into changing content, block them and make it very widely known what they are. Just that. Thank you.

[JohnBrew]

Why does he have to back it up with more than an opinion? Have we repealed free speech? And it seems to me that "Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising" is an opinion, and not a very good one, at that. I don't mind in the least that you hold that opinion, or express it, but I'd be a lot more happy with it if you said, "Some of the third-best photography in the history of photography..." Avedon might have done advertising work, but people collect Bee Boy, not some now-obscure shoot for Vogue. Also, I note that you set up and knocked down a straw man -- show me where he says that advertising will ruin things. He just expressed some unhappiness with the change.

I was also slightly unhappy with the move to advertising, because I worked in the media for a long time, and my feeling is that ultimately, advertising corrupts. Product sales, on the other hand, not so much.

JC

+1

[Noel Greene]

I support your right to express your opinion

[barryfitzgerald]

Personally I don't have a problem with the advertising I've seen a lot worse on some sites more intrusive.
On the other hand a forum does invite opinion and I'm not one to shoot it down just for the sake of it.

Regarding Mr Schewe's remarks whilst I appreciate the no nonsense approach and speak your mind theme, but I really think the comments were below a level expected on any forum. Do we really have to drag things into the mud to get the point across?

I also remember those who made posts about Adobe's iffy NR processing getting the shot 'em down treatment all I can say on that was thank goodness some bothered to highlight the issue so that the company stood up and took notice and improved their product. I welcome all views on all subjects you won't see me complain about it.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I felt a slight pang of disappointment when I first saw Michael's announcement. It lasted about a second.
Once I read the ground rules he explicitly stated for the ads, and given the unobtrusiveness of the recent B&H ads, I'm satisfied that the New World Order isn't going to ruin the fine LuLa experience which I get for free.

Eric

[francois]

… I'm satisfied that the New World Order isn't going to ruin the fine LuLa experience which I get for free.
…

My thoughts exactly!

[PeterAit]

It has nothing to do with great photography sometimes being subsidized by advertising - that is totally irrelevant. It has to do with a site that publishes equipment reviews being subsidized by the manufacturers and sellers of that equipment. And, it has nothing to do with the chance of intentional misrepresentation to please advertisers. It has been shown over and over again that the most honest and upright people can be influenced when what they write has the potential to please or displease those who are paying them. This is not a judgment of any of the people involved, it is human nature.

[walter.sk]

It has nothing to do with great photography sometimes being subsidized by advertising - that is totally irrelevant. It has to do with a site that publishes equipment reviews being subsidized by the manufacturers and sellers of that equipment. And, it has nothing to do with the chance of intentional misrepresentation to please advertisers. It has been shown over and over again that the most honest and upright people can be influenced when what they write has the potential to please or displease those who are paying them. This is not a judgment of any of the people involved, it is human nature.

While I would prefer a viable LuLa with advertising over a defunct LuLa with none, the statement by Peter Ait captures my concern (a concern that is not large at this time).  I just have too many memories of good sources of equipment reviews and critiques, in magazines and on websites, that gradually devolve into comparisons of features with praise for the better ones, but no real look at shortcomings of the equipment.
The "Conclusions" sections of the reviews often states the differences between 2 pieces of equipment in terms of personal preference, without mentioning, for example, some potentially game-changing faults in design or functioning.

Again, my concern is not strong.  However, it has been possible for me to read the articles and reviews as well as forum threads on LuLa and come to what I considered to be fairly well educated decisions on what equipment to buy or not, and I hope that that does not fade.

[ndevlin]

In all honesty, do you really even notice the ads on Lula except if/when you ever click-through?

- N.

[Robert Roaldi]

It has nothing to do with great photography sometimes being subsidized by advertising - that is totally irrelevant. It has to do with a site that publishes equipment reviews being subsidized by the manufacturers and sellers of that equipment. And, it has nothing to do with the chance of intentional misrepresentation to please advertisers. It has been shown over and over again that the most honest and upright people can be influenced when what they write has the potential to please or displease those who are paying them. This is not a judgment of any of the people involved, it is human nature.

I have never seen this as an equipment review site so this legitimate concern is not a big deal in my eyes. MR tries, buys, uses equipment that he's curious about, and I've never interpreted that as shilling in any sense. So long as that editorial purpose continues, I don't foresee a problem. The announcement mentions more contributions from others, so it will mean that the site maintainers may need to be more editorially vigilant in the future with more varied contributions to look over, but sooner or later someone will accuse the site of favoritism, either here or elsewhere. It's happened before and it was easy to ignore then, as I thought it was always groundless. If the fears of some materialize and the value of the content is seen to diminish in importance because of supposed advertizer influence, it will be there for all to see, it won't sneak up and harm any of us while we're not looking.

I understand the notion of "stakeholder", but just because I read and like the information here, since I get it for free, it's never occurred to try to tell the folks here what to do or how to do it. It would be interesting to see the reaction if they had decided to switch to a subscriber-only model instead of an advertizer model.

[Schewe]

Regarding Mr Schewe's remarks whilst I appreciate the no nonsense approach and speak your mind theme, but I really think the comments were below a level expected on any forum. Do we really have to drag things into the mud to get the point across?

Where was the mud? I didn't see any mud...did I miss it? Do I have to put smilies on everything I write?

:~)

[tom b]

Simple fact of life, if you are offensive, people will take offense to what you write.

cheers

[Dave Millier]

Schewe is like some kind of reverse-advertising. Everytime he hits his keyboard something comes out that is so aggressive, rude and dismissive that you think for one moment it was written by Phil Askey! You trying to drive people off this site, Jeff?