POW "Sponsorship" is pretty tacky......

[bdpics]

I don't know about everyone else but the HP inkjet printer "sponsorship" of the

POW is pretty tacky.

 

HP didn't take the photo, didn't provide any award/prize to the photographer--in

short they did nothing but write a check to Pnet who also didn't take the photo,

didn't provide any award/prize for the photographer's work, etc.

 

Pnet is quickly becoming little more than an ad delivery system that uses other

people's work (for which they pay nothing) to sell ad space and that is sad to see.

[phoneguy]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo-of-the-week/about">It appears that HP does award prizes</a>

[mike dixon]

The facts should never stand in the way of a good rant.

[bennyboy]

I think it's a nice incentive for people to subscribe.

 

Outside of Photo.Net, nobody enters photography competitions to win prizes do they. Ahem.

[pjmeade]

If HP is providing PN with some revenue, then it's all to the good. If they are also providing some photographers with some prizes, then it's even better.

 

I don't think there are many sites you can go on the web without seeing huge numbers of ads, they are apart of life.

[johncrosley]

I was a kid in a different time, when Mike Wallace, whose integrity is never questioned, smoked cigarettes on screen by the carton full, then publicly endorsed their sponsor

 

Every radio, then television show had its own corporate sponsor. It wasn't the X, show it was the X Corp. Jack Benney Show with Jack Benney, Mary Livingston, etc., and the sponsorship might have changed over time.

 

I watched as trolleys in Hong Kong were painted on every surface with advertisements; corporate and other advertising is here to stay.

 

I even read in tonight's paper here (from nearby Silicon Valley where HP is located) that the U.S. Postal Service has OKd the use of corporate logos on postage stamps for the first time in history and that HP is going to be the first or one of the first to make use of that opportunity; others include Nike with its swoosh. (Will that be an oxymoron to get snailmail from someone with a stamp that features a 'Swoosh'?)

 

Somehow in intervening years, a separation in America has developed between the 'programs' we see on television and the sponsors -- it's mostly so the sponsors can roll in and roll out of their sponsorships quickly and not be tied into long-term deals, as well as take advantage of short-term, low-priced 'spot' opportunities (and so the networks also can sell premium time at a premium price).

 

HP said today it has a 100 new products to be introduced or coming on-line in the photography market, and that it's aiming to become the new Kodak of the 21st Century; a lofty goal, and this sponsorship at Photo.net fits seamlessly into that strategy.

 

And why not.

 

I've watched as Brian M. has taken heaps of abuse from a relatively small bunch of members ending (for the most part) about a year ago, and I've watched as the site has had previously to limp along on what obviously was a shoestring, sometimes breaking down because 'this firewire connection' or 'that server' couldn't function under the load.

 

Twenty-five dollars a month then was 'optional' and still is an extremely low price for members; I estimate that one probaly gets several times the value of a year's subscription for the price, no matter how much the 'value' of the content one provides.

 

Your content, however good, is valued the same as mine, (which is to say, it really has no value on an individual basis -- only in the aggregate as an attribute of the site).

 

The site is a vital part of my life.

 

When I'm photographing, and people ask for a card, I just say 'go Google me, I'm first', and frequently they do, and so I'm legitimized because of Photo.net.

 

Recently when I took a photo of a couple of little girls walking far in front of their mothers and their mothers called the sheriffs -- the dispatcher looked up my portfolio on Photo.net and 'end of subject'.

 

I contribute my photos to Photo.net knowing that they're my way of communicating with many people worlwide 'my vision' of 'my world' and 'my idea' of what photography is. For that I thank Photo.net and do not begrudge them the chance someday to maybe award me a printer as a prize (in the extremely unlikely chance they ever were to choose a photo of mine as Photo of the Week.)

 

Is it tacky? What is tacky?

 

I think tacky is marketing the presidency like it's laundry soap and using the issues of guns, God and gay marriage to confuse voters into voting against their general self-interest by the methods of Madison Avenue; that's tacky; even abhorrent.

 

Photo.net servers, personnel (only two or maybe three that I can identify) do not appear to be awash in dough, yet they keep this wonderful site running pretty well; it's a minor (maybe major) miracle, for which I am very thankful.

 

If they want to hawk some hardware under Photo of the Week (which I'll never win), that's OK by me.

 

I hope they all get rich; it appears they've been breaking their backs since I've been here to make this one heck of a site, and, although some complain that their individual gripes don't get listened to, mostly they do, I think, but their gripes are subservient to the greater mission of making the site grow and prosper.

 

(I'll tell you, I cannot understand how on earth Brian M. took all the abuse he took from the membership/subscribership over 'ratings' and other gripes until he was literally forced to make ratings anonymous or semi-anonymous -- even if that literally was not the best system for rating (it was the best for his mental health, I am sure).

 

(It might be different if I were granting a permanent license to Photo.net to display my photos, but if I leave -- as Jock Sturges showed -- I can just take my photos with me, and that makes it fair for me.)

 

I displayed my photos here in liew of hiring the building of a web site for my photography and in return have been rewarded by nearly 15 million served views in just over 2 years; how could I do that with a measly private web site?

 

And if I ever do create that web site, Photo.net will allow me to direct traffic to it. That's some kind of deal. For $25 a year.

 

I even find that when I go abroad, to places like Ukraine and Argentina, or Germany even, many good semi-pro and pro photographers in those places know who I am through my work -- how else could I get that kind of notoriety?

 

Thank you Photo.net.

 

(I won't be quiet if I have a gripe, either)

 

John (Crosley)

[mottershead]

B, I have no idea what you are talking about. Over the next year, Hewlett-Packard is going to award 16 ink-jet printers to people whose photos are selected for POW. Four of these printers will be Photosmart 8750's, which are exceptionally nice printers, and the other 12 are Personal Printers that are such a new model they haven't even be released yet and I can't tell you the model number for a while. Overall, these printers are worth several thousand dollars.

 

Did you actually click the link and read any of the information before you started shooting off your mouth?

 

But even if the facts were precisely as you imagine them to be, and HP's "sponsorship" of the POW comsisted of funding for the site in return for being allowed to associate their name and logo with one particular feature, why is that "tacky"?

[RobertChura]

I just wish I could win a new printer! Sounds like a great idea.

[darrell_m]

I already have a fantastic printer but I really want a Nikon D200. Could Nikon be approached to sponsor the Flower category?.....seriously, the POW sponsorship thing seems ok but won't people be a bit reluctant to hand over the hi-res?

[albany_katz]

Maybe Brian will be honest and inform us that the recent 'crackdown' on critical thinking in

the POW has a lot to do with HP's sponsorship. Or is it just a coincidence? As corporate

sponsers, are they dictating what is or is not acceptable for discussion on POW? Or is

management 'cleaning up' the forum, to give it better curb appeal when attracting

sponsorship? Why can't we raise more revenue through the membership, without going to

corporate Ameriica and the agendas therein? Does this site want to lose it's soul to pay the

bills? Why not try innovative ideas to generate revenue through the work of Artists on the

site? I reccommend a change in direction now, before the site becomes more involved with

corporate interests running against the Artistic grain.

[bennyboy]

So what're your ideas Albany?

[mottershead]

I can say with 100% certainty that there is no connection between HP sponsorship of the POW and any change in POW moderation policy, real or imagined. It has been months since the last time I moderated that forum. I haven't given any direction in years to the people who do moderate it. And those moderators found out about the HP sponsorship at the same time and in the same way as the rest of the world; that is, by noticing the logo on the Home Page. (If they haven't noticed the change on the Home Page or this thread, they still don't know about it.)

 

As for the alleged moderation changes, if the POW moderators are trying to rein in a few people who seem to have turned the weekly discussions into long, boring competitions as to who can type the most, then I would say that is a good thing, although it doesn't come as the result of any initiative from me.

[mottershead]

If you notice the way the HP Awards work, the Elves will pick the POW's the same as before. After the POW is chosen, if the photographer is a subscriber, he or she will be contacted and asked to provide a high res version of the image, and to indicate agreement to the Contest Rules. If the person isn't a subscriber, or can't provide a high res version, or doesn't like the rules (including letting HP use the image for advertising of its ink jet printers), then that photo won't be considered. If the Elves only pick one subscriber in the whole quarter, of if there is only one person left at the end of the quarter who wants to be considered for the prize, that person wins by default, I guess.

 

At present, the Elves only get three instructions: (1) you can't nominate or vote on your own photos; (2) you can't pick a nude, since the POW is on the photo.net Home Page; and (3) you can't tell anyone you're an Elf.

 

The only additional instruction I'm planning to send to the Elves is (4) please discriminate a bit more in favor of subscribers so that the HP judges end up with several subscriber POWs to choose from at the end of the quarter.

[phoneguy]

Nicely put John.

 

Mike

[root]

I wonder if HP really understood the selection criteria for POW, ie that it's supposed to generate a good discussion, rather than be the best of the week. Granted, you only have to give them one marketable image per quarter, but I hope the images that are nominated and selected don't become even more conservative than they are now.

 

You're still working for the site, not HP.

[c.r._hips]

Patrick, I think that what makes some people uneasy is that this sponsership must have been in the making for some time now. For many weeks contributors in that forum complained for more substance. There seemed to be something else driving the conservative decisions for POW's. Then e-mails were sent to some of the more regular contributors. They were told to tone it down, stop talking so much about tangent concepts . We were told to be neater and less involved with each other in discussions. A more plain wrap approach was wanted. What was on topic got thiner and thiner. More posts were deleted for supposedly being off topic. Then all of a sudden it is announced that HP was now sponsering the forum and had various requirements that went with it. I really thought that there was something beautiful before in the POW. That has changed now. It is too bad that now I have no desire to take part in something I used to look forward to. I guess it's time to delete this thread, right? Sincerely, Hips