Is it just me? or is this person smoking something?

<p><br /> What exactly constitues "being published"? I always was under the belief that being published means that the publication, being a magazine or a newspaper, published a piece/photo of yours on their publication for a story of theirs.<br /> <br /> <br /> This person is advertising that they are published in the Knot because they paid for an ad spot in the magazine. Really? it sounds a bit like false advertising to me. or is it just me...</p>

<p>

<p>It does seem a bit of a stretch to me to call that being published. On the other hand if all it takes is getting a photo published in a paper or magazine then it is really does not say much about a persons photography in any event. I have had a number of photos published in both magazines and newspapers, nothing real special about the shots they just happened to match stories that were being published.</p>

</p>

<p>Agreed--it's intentionally misleading.</p>

<p>Wow, that REALLY stinks. It is false advertizing in every sense of the word.</p>

<p>I agree: buying an ad that includes one of your photos and then claiming to be "published" is, at a minimum, rather misleading. Like you, I understand "published" to mean that there was an editor involved, somebody who is not you, and who wasn't being paid to make a decision to publish you. I've been paid, and I've submitted stuff that was accepted and published without remuneration. But there was always an editor involved who was free to say no, and who didn't get anything from saying yes. </p>

<p>This seems especially squirrelly since, if you are willing to be humble about your work, it's drop-dead easy to be truly published in neighborhood news supplements, etc. These outlets pay little or nothing, and they're desperate for content, so it ain't like making the cover of National Geographic or appearing in the New York Times. But it's legit. (It can even be fun and satisfying.)</p>

<p>What I am wondering is, why does anybody NEED to claim to have been published? I've never been asked by a potential photography client if my work has been published or where.</p>

<p>Being "published" typically means that an image of yours was purchased and published in a book or periodical. How do you know that this photographer hasn't been published outside of an image in the paid ad that you speak of? I've been published multiple times but I've never received a request for the list of images or publishers. BTW, people do a lot of questionable stuff without the benefit of smoking anything.</p>

<p>You'll also see things that are similar during political campaigns. Many times a TV ad will state something similar to "The Times says 'Prop 1 is what this state needs'", when in fact the only place that the paper in question states that is in a printed ad taken out by the very organization pointing to the claim of support.</p>

<p>This sounds like it's out of the book "4 Hour Work Week". The suggestion in part of the book was to rent out a room at a university, invite some people, and then you could advertise that you "spoke at x university". I think they just adapted it to publishing photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I am wondering is, why does anybody NEED to claim to have been published? I've never been asked by a potential photography client if my work has been published or where.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is all about marketing and hype, especially for wedding photography....when brides see "being published in X" they automatically assumes the photographer is good and willing to pay more.. same reasoning applies to the words "award winning". They see those and they'll pay more even thought that award was at a local strip mall.</p>

<p>That is why you see a lot of wedding photographers wanting to be "published" and "won awards"<br /> I see a lot of photographers that say they are published, but don't mention that it was in some wedding microblog with 10 followers....but i guess at least that is still more honest than buying an ad and then saying they are published.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do you know that this photographer hasn't been published outside of an image in the paid ad that you speak of?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's just say I know this for a fact :)</p>

<p>Publication is often thought of as having work shown by others in some sort of book, journal, website ect. There's broader definitions of the word. In this instance the word is being used in the broad technical sense for an audience that usually thinks of the word in the, book, journal, website sense. In legal language publish is often used in place of words like convey, tell, show and all sorts of other communication of something. I used it once here when explaining commercial use of someone's likeness and many people got caught up in the third party type definition. I wasn't trying to be deceitful though. I use words like display now because too many people don't know that the word publish has these other meanings.</p>

<p>From law.com... <img src="http://dictionary.law.com/img/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" /> "v. to make public to at least one other person by <strong>any</strong> means."</p>

<p>See also...<br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication</a></p>

<p>Haha, thats a bit of a stretch to my way of thinking. If one's conscience is ok with it, I can see a legal argument for having been published on a technical basis.</p>

I have quite a lot of work published from the 1980s and 90s. Who really cares? Last summer I took boxes of stuff and threw it in the municipal recycle plant just to get it out of here. Nobody ever asked me much about it and I never got a job directly from it. As far as I'm concerned this person is "self-publishing", to put their work in public, not publishing by/for a client. I had a small neat portfolio of some published works that I would show potential clients just for the sake of credibility, it definitely has some value, but a self-promoted add will not have much weight in the eyes of a client who knows the business. Whatever, everyone to their own thing, cheers.

About 12 years ago I advertised in the Knot. The Knot asked me to write an article and post a few photo's about every 6 months or so.

 

Anyway, is it possible that this person has published something besides his ad's. It not, this is pretty lame on his/her part and false advertising.

<p><em>thats a bit of a stretch to my way of thinking. </em></p>

<p>Same here. If self made ads are all that was done, they're playing misleading word games.</p>

<p>As seen on TV</p>

<p>Kinda like how many mpg the vehicle gets, kinda like that;-) I am so glad so many of you are so ethical it would make taking business away so easy if some one tried, I could not resist. How many advertisements that you see do you believe to be 100% accurate portrayal? Or "if you don't bang your own drum, no one else will", or, "if you don't pat your self on the back no one else will", and so on and so on</p>

<p>I'm published, many time. I'm a photographer. Guess you could say I am a published photographer. Sadly, it is NOT my pictures that are published, but other stuff totally unrelated to photography. Sigh. Way too much energy on this one. The world is full of imprecision and inaccuracies. </p>

<p>People padding their resumes and exaggerating their true experience level is pretty common, yes it's lame but what else is new? How often does some newcomer report years of experience based on owning a camera and taking snapshots of family and friends? How often does some newcomer create a website advertising their services as "high quality at reasonable prices"? How often is the term "professional" misused? Lots of people play word games and do lame stuff..........is that the point of this thread?</p>

<p>"As seen on the Knot" ... would be a better choice based on common understanding of the work "Publish", even if that understanding is not correct.</p>

<p>For the record, here's the dictionary definition of "Publish" ...</p>

<p> </p>

<h2>Publish </h2>

<p><strong>Definition:</strong> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/To/4489">To</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Make/668">make</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Public/13931">public;</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/To/4489">to</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Make/668">make</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Known/1066">known</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/To/4489">to</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Mankind/1298">mankind,</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Or/1924">or</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/To/4489">to</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/People/3641">people</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/In/1915">in</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/General/1233">general;</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/To/4489">to</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Divulge/8014">divulge,</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/As/9128">as</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/A/1">a</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Private/11942">private</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Transaction/5966">transaction;</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/To/4489">to</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Promulgate/12710">promulgate</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Or/1924">or</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Proclaim/12154">proclaim,</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/As/9128">as</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/A/1">a</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Law/1463">law</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Or/1924">or</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/An/5460">an</a> <a href="http://ardictionary.com/Edict/614">edict.</a> </p>

<p>So, in the strictest sense of English language usage, the "published person" is right, and his vociferous critics are not : -) Just because a lot of people do not grasp a word's proper meaning doesn't necessarily mean those that <strong>DO</strong> use it properly are deceitful or false. You'd have to prove intent, which in this case would be impossible. In fact, take care in publicly slandering this person, as he'd probably have a case against you.</p>

<p>IMO, the notion behind this specific example is to link up with the broader consumer appeal of The Knot which the prospect may identify with. This is known as "Merchandising The Advertising" to get more bang for your advertising buck.</p>

<p>Oh, political campaigns aside (an animal of a different, seemingly unregulated character), generally, most advertising claims are quite accurate. Not only do they have to be cleared by a company's legal department to avoid litigation or class action suits, and are based on common understandings of words and phrases (correct or not), they must pass legal department scrutiny by every single network the ad will appear on. And, trust me, if the competition even slightly suspects something's up, they will aggressively challenge it through Gov. regulators. Every TV spot done in the US, must have a legal affidavit signed by the producer that it is all depicted accurately.</p>

<p>No more ball bearings in the noodle soup to get the noodles to the top ... no more extra reinforcement of the passenger box like Volvo did years ago for a roll-over demo. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ummmm... isn't The Knot really just one big advertising section? I mean it's like Rangefinder and numerous other mags/websites. You pay to join the "club" and then you get a "feature". The Knot sales team probably encourages photogs who buy ads to say they've been published in The Knot.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's the equivalent of saying your are "published" in a newspaper by placing an ad in the classifieds. This is clearly a case of false advertising. What a chump</p>

<p>The answer to any persons claims is, before you hire them, ask to see a substantial number of their published photos in the original publication. If someone were to ask me for them I could provide hundreds of newspaper and magazine photos from a variety of publications for them to consider. Whether these photos would prove much is another question altogether. </p>

<p>As Bill Porter said, it is relatively easy to be published in "little" publications. Nevertheless having been published a substantial number of times does tend to validate one's claim to be a professional photographer. If you are concerned ask where and when. It is as simple as that. There is an old arab saying..."trust in Allah but tie up your camel."</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway, is it possible that this person has published something besides his ad's. It not, this is pretty lame on his/her part and false advertising.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is an interesting comment, considering you said <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00Vpl3">in another thread</a> :</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Then let them know someone else just called you for that same date, but they haven't signed the contract, so if you sign the contract first you will gladly be their wedding photographer. I can't tell you how successful this marketing tactic works.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One is intentionally misleading. The other is outright lying. So why do you uphold lying as being perfectly fine (recommended, even), while calling the other "lame" and "false advertising?" Just trying to understand your position here.</p>

<p>A lot of advertising is misleading, such as;</p>

<p>'Now give you more!'...........Compared to what?</p>

<p>'Plus an extra ingredient not found in the other pain relievers'.......... Notice that there is no claim that this 'extra ingredient' offers any advantages at all, it's just an 'extra ingredient'.</p>

<p>'New and improved'......... Again, compared to what?</p>

<p>'No lower price this season'..........No higher price either, the item is always on sale for the same price.</p>

<p>'Push, pull, or drag your old car in and we'll give you $2000 off a new (name of car) guaranteed' .............Sure, off of the list price. That's meaningless.</p>

<p>'And, as a free gift you will receive this fine 35mm "Cannon" camera with optical lens'........... You know the type!</p>

<p>Generalizations with no real examples John. </p>

<p>"Now gives you more" ... I have never seen that anywhere. Dangling comparatives are never approved by any legal department of any ad agency or client company I know of.</p>

<p>Pain reliever example is also extremely unlikely. Medical and drug advertising is one of the most heavily regulated forms of advertising on the planet. This is why every ad has full disclosure of all side effects no matter how insignificant or catastrophic. </p>

<p>If possible, can we just stick to wedding photography?</p>

<p> </p>