Again I'm not commenting specifically on the Sara Lee article which I haven't read, but maybe a similarly important question that NB23 raised, which simply refers to why articles like this might raise the eyebrows of some, while others are simply enthused, excited or possible amused when such pieces are written. My questions and comments are simply food for thought....nothing more. On that note, it's morning and I'm hungry
Dave (D&A)
But NB23 is not raising legitimate concerns. In fact, he did not raise a concern, but made a pronouncement. He is just bashing people without any real thought. And his "reasoning" was questionable. NB23 states she is not a "real" photojournalist while admitting he is not one either (but she is a staff photographer for a newspaper). Here is a young woman at the beginning of her career in a job that pays about as well as a Walmart greeter. A job that is mostly going out and shooting a politician's speech, a demonstration, an opening of a new shopping center, or whatever the editor needs, mostly mundane stuff. It is a competitive job however. This profession where publishing your own material is important. Yet she is not a "real" professional? She is not "allowed" to write such material focused on her craft? Exactly where is the conflict of interest?
But it gets betters. NB23 then accuses her of not even writing the article at all! She just put her name on some marketing written by someone else from a company. This is a rational argument and not simply sour grapes? You are really going to go far in journalism if that ever comes out.
Marketing is used to sell products. But one thing marketers are not is manipulative where they try to fool people. Because once the audience finds out they have been manipulated, they have a very negative reaction. I worked for a Japanese camera company. Part of my position was to write international press releases. I also worked directly with the product teams which included the marketing folks. This is not a piece of marketing. You do not insult people in you marketing--you want dentists to buy your cameras. You do not complain about the prices and have to resort to secondhand gear--not a very positive image and marketing is always positive, at least for products. You do not try to fool your customers because the chances are the secret will come out.
Had this been a glowing book, theater, travel, or movie review, no one would have questioned the article as a piece of marketing written by a ghost writer.
I have had an eclectic career. I have been fortunate to work both in the newspaper and camera businesses. I also now a lot of photographers that work really hard to build careers. The civilians that have photography as a hobby simply don't understand these fields. But they are willing to throw out condescending opinions that are based more in ignorance than insight. Most are cheap shots that sound like paranoia. The trouble is you are actually insulting many people at places like GetDPI.
(Naturally, he is also implying the OP fell for this "marketing" ploy. Jono does not strike me as someone to be taken in by cheap marketing. He is not someone to post carp.)
