johnvanr
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: New Leica SL3-P Rumors | |
philip_pj wrote:
Lens reviews - images always count most with YT 'reviews'. I've found very few produce work that lies far from the mainstream. And that makes sense because they know their audiences and their tastes, environments and scope. It's a two way street.
I have a rule for them: if you do not lead off with 15-20 thoughtful and well-presented images, you are out. So many of them also offer the same boilerplate upfront; (makers name) sent me this lens but the review is all my opinions, they did not get to see it before publishing.' But the producer didn't have to do so to know what the gist will be.
'this portfolio puts most people on here's to shame'
Why would you think people here post their best work?
Unless they’re independently wealthy, they have no choice. To get the audience, you have to get the product before release. To be totally unbiased, you have to buy the thing yourself. These two things are already contrary to each other.
To get the product early, you can’t screw over a manufacturer or their PR company. You won’t get the next product.
So, even though you have to send most stuff back, you are dependent on the manufacturer if you want to build your audience.
With some exceptions, it’s always been like that in much of product-oriented journalism. Car journalists for major publications have had a new car in their garage every week, courtesy of the car makers. Travel writers get hosted for free, etc. In some countries, journalists get freebies just because they belong to a professional trade group. In small communities, the local supermarkets and car dealers never got bad press because they were the largest advertisers. In trade press, the writers don’t ask critical questions and the ‘experts’ cited in an article, are not incidentally working for the advertisers that bought a page.
In Europe traditionally journalists have taken the freebies with the attitude that they’re still going to screw the company if they feel like it. At least that’s what they will tell you. In the US, they struggled more with the whole notion, but knew you can’t cover stuff you can’t afford to buy for review. The only exceptions can be the largest publications who do have the money to refuse freebies (but even their journalists get the weekly car…). So, the reporters for Reuters, the WSJ, the NYT etc. will not be allowed to take the freebies and the free travel, etc. etc. When I worked for a global news service, we signed an annual ethics statement that prevented all kinds of stuff.
So, good for those YouTubers that they now state their relationship with manufacturers.
Quite honestly, while on a personal I hated ‘the game’ when I wrote my blog, I’m much more concerned about the political game of ‘access’ in journalism than about product reviews. That shit actually matters.
Finally, why would one have to be a great photographer to review products? People state that here all the time, but reviews are technical exercises, not artistic ones.
|
