1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What is the difference between a lottery and a photo competition with an entrance fee?

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Chester AP, Apr 19, 2017.

  1. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Too great a generalisation. There are some e-publications, such as The Times, that I would equate but I wouldn't call Google or any e-commerce site a publication. A website itself is a delivery platform.
     
  2. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Pete,

    And what is a publication. if not a delivery platform? Different medium, that's all.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    Learning likes this.
  3. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I love the term 'hard of thinking'... and note that AP now appears to pander to social media users. APOY is one example, and now the website weekly poll appears to have suffered too. And when did AP's page 3 reader picture last come from AP's own website galleries, rather than a social media feed?
    Re. advertising: my father spent over thirty years working in newspaper advertising (selling space in a Sunday newspaper), and always told me that the best way to work out a publication's target readership is to look at what organisations regularly advertise in it. So as long as a few reputable dealers who sell used stuff use AP there is still hope - at least AP's not got advertisements for ridiculous fashion-accessory 4x4 cars, but the website has (and very annoying they are).
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  4. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    If there were any truth in that then the world economy would be the same size as it was before the advent of mass marketing. It isn't. The wealth of the planet is not a zero sum.
     
  5. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    AP uses Google for it's advertising services. The adverts are tailored towards the viewer, everyone sees different adverts based on their browsing history (and their privacy settings in various places), demographics, and a number of other factors.
     
    jacobs_mark likes this.
  6. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I find it hard to imagine why AP would want to pander to,
    • almost 700 million active Instagram users
    • nearly 2 billion active Facebook users
    • between 50 and 122 million Flickr users (depending on who you believe)
    It's almost as if they wanted readers! If they accidentally converted 0.01% of those Instagram users to readers, they'd gain another 7 million subscriptions. Shocking.

    So if they converted 0.0001% they'd get another 70,000 readers.

    Almost not even worth bothering over.

    Down with social media!

    Down with improving reader numbers.
     
    RovingMike, Andrew Flannigan and MJB like this.
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    For once we agree.
     
  8. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mike,

    Nonsense.

    Are you familiar with the phrases "correlation is not causation" and "omitted middle"?

    And do you deny that perpetual growth is impossible on a finite planet?

    Your attempted defences of advertising are increasingly risible.

    Did, dig, dig!

    Cheers,

    Roger
     
  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Tony,

    Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "if"?

    And with the worthlessness of parasites who will cheerfully take anything if it's free?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  10. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Once again Roger has scored a direct hit. How many Instagram/Facebook/Flicker users have started buying AP as a direct result of their social media membership? Or to ask a related question, how many advertisements in AP appear to be aimed specifically at such people?

    I value my privacy too much to use social media, and would always prefer to communicate with AP, or enter its competitions, by sending an email direct to them or using their own website.
     
  11. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Yes. And are you familiar with the concept of audience, footfall, marketing, loss leaders, and advertising? Of course it's an if. If they convert a tiny percentage of the people they're apparently pandering too, then you continue to get paid for writing your column. Magazines have to go out and fight for readers, there's no right to readership, and so the folk at AP are doing anything they can to stay relevant in an age where print is decreasingly relevant. You're not the target audience - not if they're playing the medium to long game. 18 year old folk using their phones to share their lives on instagram - like it or not - and it's clear you do not - that's the future generation of readers. AP should be (and apparently, pandering is a good sign) doing everything they can to appeal to a generation of people who'll grow up loving the magazine as much as you did.

    Digital photography wasn't the revolution, it was only the start. Have you seen the iPhone 7 portrait mode? Software generated depth of field. With a tiny sensor and a tiny lens, not typically your good shallow depth of field combination. Software will change photography for ever (as it has already done so). It won't change 'seeing', it won't change the artistic element, but it'll change what you need to get rich, dramatic images. Those are the people the magazine has to appeal to if it's going to survive the next 5 years.

    Everyone can shout get off my lawn as much as they like, but if the magazine doesn't attract new readers, it'll die.

    Your definition of worthless parasite needs work.

    I'll shut up now - it's a shame that you feel so aggrieved that some people use the website without buying the magazine, but ultimately it's up to AP to decide if the website generates enough magazine interest and if it's worth the cost of running. I'm sure eventually they'll decide it doesn't - and they'll move all the social elements to Facebook, the screaming and gnashing will be legendary.
     
  12. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    onQUOTE="Roger Hicks, post: 1438688, member: 20496"]Dear Mike,

    Nonsense.

    Are you familiar with the phrases "correlation is not causation" and "omitted middle"?

    And do you deny that perpetual growth is impossible on a finite planet?

    Your attempted defences of advertising are increasingly risible.

    Did, dig, dig!

    Cheers,

    Roger[/QUOTE]
    Roger your persistent dig dig digs in support of a facile and long ago discredited argument betray only your entire lack of knowledge. You should try rational argument in place of childish petulance.
     
  13. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    To my way of thinking, if automated functions can save time and produce the result I want (sometimes they do; sometimes they don't), then I have more time to think about other aspects of the process of taking a photograph. I'd hate to guess the relative proportions of time taken, on average, in considering camera settings as opposed to other parameters, as it varies massively from shot to shot.
     
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Roger your persistent dig dig digs in support of a facile and long ago discredited argument betray only your entire lack of knowledge. You should try rational argument in place of childish petulance.[/QUOTE]
    Really? Who discredited it? Because it certainly wasn't you. You just go 0on digging yourself in deeper.

    Or do you believe that perpetual grown IS possible on a finite planet?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  15. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Really? Who discredited it? Because it certainly wasn't you. You just go 0on digging yourself in deeper.

    Or do you believe that perpetual grown IS possible on a finite planet?

    Cheers,

    R.[/QUOTE]
    It might not be, but it has been so far and we've been at it a while. No seams are splitting. But that's a more distant issue than the state of economies now, which are certainly not overreaching themselves. I'd like to see your appraisal of how things would work without advertising please. Delete all media (except Government controlled) and people who work in them of course. Then restrict sales of goods to small areas around the factory, ie back to cottage industry and forget exporting and then keep going with all that would stagnate and die. But do make it factual and well documented, not facile, airy-fairy and just mindless repetition of long-dead Marxist dogma.
     
  16. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    It might not be, but it has been so far and we've been at it a while. No seams are splitting. But that's a more distant issue than the state of economies now, which are certainly not overreaching themselves. I'd like to see your appraisal of how things would work without advertising please. Delete all media (except Government controlled) and people who work in them of course. Then restrict sales of goods to small areas around the factory, ie back to cottage industry and forget exporting and then keep going with all that would stagnate and die. But do make it factual and well documented, not facile, airy-fairy and just mindless repetition of long-dead Marxist dogma.[/QUOTE]
    Dear Mike,

    Have you ever read much Marx? Or indeed, have you ever actually thought much about the subjects you write about?

    In a hundred years, historians will (with any luck) refer incredulously to the "age of advertising", 1925-1935, when the advertising tail wagged the productive dog.

    Try to make any response factual and well documented, not facile, airy-fairy and just mindless repetition of moribund and discredited neoliberal dogma.

    While you're at it, answer the question you've been avoiding. Is infinite growth possible on a finite planet?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  17. exspmr

    exspmr In the Stop Bath

    1. You don't need infinite growth for capitalism -- as Google grows, IBM wains -- just inovation.
    2. In 30 years time (in-joke) when we have fusion energy; most of the limiting factors on growth (which macro-economically equates to energy) will be removed. The reason much of the resources we use go unrecycled is because it costs more in energy to recycle them than to make new. Remove the cost of energy from the equation and most consumables become recyclable.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
  18. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Define "growth".

    Also, SERIOUSLY consider the nature of GDP.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  19. exspmr

    exspmr In the Stop Bath

    You started talking about it:
    so I assumed you knew what it meant. I do.

    Here you go "UK GDP, since 1955 - GDP QUARTERLY .pdf ": https://expirebox.com/download/c9c84db62d95338d8154796bb4aa5575.html I've seriously considered it.

    So, what's your point?
     
  20. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Can you devise a definition of "growth" that does not involve any use of natural resources? If not, then it is obvious that infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet.

    Second, GDP is increasingly discredited, which is why I invited you to consider it. See for example http://www.demos.org/publication/beyond-gdp-new-measures-new-economy

    These are my points. Have you any?

    Cheers,

    R.
     

Share This Page