The marketing surrounding photography is nauseating

[Gumby]

The fact is that your magazine is exploiting ...

Oh, um, errr, okay... whatever... but it is not "my" magazine, sir. I simply get value from some of the ads. They make me aware of products and services that I might want to use.

 

[BillP]

Ah... So you think that GQ is only for gentlemen, Playboy is only for playboys, Motorsport is only for racing drivers... And Rangefinder, presumably, is only for artillery officers.

Magazine editors choose titles that are eye-catching and more or less related to the topic. Sporting Life is mainly for gamblers, not sportsmen, but as the readers gamble on sport, it's close enough. Rangefinder is about photography (I seem to recall reading it 20 years ago, before the rangefinder renaissance).

And it's FREE! Do you really expect that someone who is giving you something for nothing is going to worry because it doesn't precisely fit your expectations? Or indeed, that they care anything like as much about a few picky readers' reactions as they do about their advertisers, who are, after all, keeping them in business?

Cheers,

R.

I think the OP has a point - and why stop at magazines?

British Gas Maintenance owns www.house.co.uk - I am going to complain immediately and bitterly since they do not sell houses.

The truth should be told.

The scoundrels.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Gumby]

And Rangefinder, presumably, is only for artillery officers.

Pardon my correction of your fact, but the "real" artillerymen are enlisted! Every officer knows that! 😀

 

[Nh3]

Oh, um, errr, okay... whatever... but it is not "my" magazine, sir. I simply get value from some of the ads. They make me aware of products and services that I might want to use.

Oh please, I know a shill when I see one. Anyway, your magazine sucks big time.


And this thread by me was a rant against mindless consumerism which is turning photography into just another fad.

 

[BillP]

For the last week or so I've been posting in an image based thread that went for over 400 posts without an angry word. It was really nice.🙂

...and it will start again next week, and run on a weekly basis thereafter. And I agree - it was nice to have a thread to which photographers contributed in good faith without rancour.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Gumby]

Peace, out. I can't deal with morons... just not enough patience today.

p.s. The thesis of the OP is, actually, kind of interesting and, perhaps, worth discussing... it's just that some of the assumptions are totally incorrect.

fondly, "the shill"

 

[Kin Lau]

The fact is that your magazine is exploiting an endearing terminology in photography - rangefinder to sell products. You have the right to sell and advertise but not by hijacking existing terminology with a large follower base.

Did you notice that the magazine is on volume 57? They've probably been using the name longer than you've been alive.

 

[Nh3]

Did you notice that the magazine is on volume 57? They've probably been using the name longer than you've been alive.

I guess my penis-envy comment pissed you off.

 

[Nh3]

ID card photo, Polaroid.😎

is that a straight razor in your hand?


Edit: nvm, its the staples. lol

 

[Nh3]

Yes, staples this time, sometimes it's rivets!

Your picture reminds me of this guy from the movie Snatch.

 

[TheHub]

British Gas Maintenance owns www.house.co.uk - I am going to complain immediately and bitterly since they do not sell houses.

I immediately thought house music. England is famous for it.

 

[noimmunity]

If you don't like the magazine, and it's free, doesn't cost you anything, put in in the trash can.:bang:

That would be the recycling can, sir. Although if it has a lot of ads, they are probably all in color inks that are more or less toxic, aren't they...

way off topic here...

 

[marke]

This is rediculous to argue about. The mag is free, so what else can be expected? Or more accurately, "What else is owed?" If you don't like it, throw it out, unsubscribe, or line the bird cage with it.

 

[Nh3]

And that would be my point, thank you!

Rangefinder is a magazine put out by the WPPI (Wedding and Professional Photographers International) association, aimed at, guess what, wedding and professional photographers. Name aside, the magazine never claimed to be about rangefinder cameras - and if you read the 'ingredients', it is very clear what it *is* about.

Like Spotted Dick - which contains neither one nor the other - anyone who can read the website can figure out what it's about.

Likewise, in order to obtain this 'free subscription', one must answer a questionaire and answer (supposedly truthfully) that one is a professional photographer and various things of that nature.

At some point - one would think the lightbulb would have come on. Spotted Dick is not what one might assume, and Rangefinder magazine is not about rangefinder cameras.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone is that dim.

As to the advertising content of the magazine, I would like to know how one pays writers to write, editors to edit, publishers to publish, printers to print, and the post office to send the bloody thing out to one's mailbox - all for free without any advertising?

A very long time ago, I worked for the Omaha World Herald. SInce I worked in circulation, I was well aware that the nominal fee people pay to subscribe to the newspaper does not in any way pay for the newspaper. In fact, the newspaper would just as soon give the thing away - but they can't. They get to charge fees for advertising (which is actually how they make money) based on PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS. More subscribers means they can charge more. So they charge as little as they can and still have the actual distribution pay for itself (meaning carriers get paid out of what they collect instead of being paid by the newspaper directly).

It is advertising that pays the way. And a free subscription - how does one suspect that ANY money comes in if not via advertising?

And finally - most professional photographers who subscribe to trade magazines like Rangefinder do so in part for the articles and in part for the advertisements. Unlike the average consumer, they do need to keep up on what the latest technical advances are, and to see the products that the companies that supply them sell, such as wedding albums, online services, film processing, and so on.

So, uh, if you don't like Rangefinder - why not just unsubscribe? I'm sorry, I'm really missing something here.

My dad used to refer to such a person as one who would 'bitch if he was hanged with a new rope'.

You're a professional idler and internet flamer. I'm not even going to waste my time dealing with your verbose bull****.

My thread was a rant and like all rants it does not have to be freaking coherent, so pull your big head out of your bottom and get along with your life instead of being an internet troll.

The magazine is NOT free, its $5 dollars on the stand, its free by subscription, in another words some guy might just buy it from the stand thinking its related to rangefinder cameras.

Btw, your post about the spotted dick thing was a reference to dick being a slang in north America for male member, but you immidately spun it the other way to fit in with the rest of people who somehow don't have a sense of humor and take a silly rant seriously just to make themselves feel intelligent.

Anyway, today I'm in a bad mood, crappy weather and can't take pictures, so I'm not going to ruffle anymore feathers.

cheers,

 

[Ken Ford]

... FOAM, the Dutch magazine with very little advertising and very high production values, is close to $20 a copy.

A magazine for drought beer aficionados?

 

[Ken Ford]

You're a professional idler and internet flamer. I'm not even going to waste my time dealing with your verbose bull****.

My thread was a rant and like all rants it does not have to be freaking coherent, so pull your big head out of your bottom and get along with your life instead of being an internet troll.

The magazine is NOT free, its $5 dollars on the stand, its free by subscription, in another words some guy might just buy it from the stand thinking its related to rangefinder cameras.

Btw, your post about the spotted dick thing was a reference to dick being a slang in north America for male member, but you immidately spun it the other way to fit in with the rest of people who somehow don't have a sense of humor and take a silly rant seriously just to make themselves feel intelligent.

Anyway, today I'm in a bad mood, crappy weather and can't take pictures, so I'm not going to ruffle anymore feathers.

cheers,

Did the laundry put starch in your skivvies or something?

Lighten up, Francis.

 

[amateriat]

A magazine for drought beer aficionados?

Actually, I was just at the corner Barnes & Noble, freshly-processed C41 film in hand, checking out a few mags to pick up, and noticed FOAM. actually about $21 a pop. Pricey, but that's the reality for a quality-oriented photo mag sans ads. (The two mags I did pick up tonight, B&W and Camera Arts, are $9.95 and $8.95 respectively, and they do run ads, just not a silly-large amount of 'em.) All these mags cater to a relatively small audience, whereas all those blingy dSLR mags ("21 Wild New Photoshop Tricks to Impress Your Buds!"), sell for just a few bucks more than I used to pay for Pop or Modern "back in the day." The latter, like it or not, is where the big bucks, such as they are in publishing (where every other magazine, however big, and regardless of subject matter or market, is just one quarter away from extinction) are.

Like I said, I put my money where my sensibilities are. Bitching alone doesn't "get it done" (but I understand the need for it, from time to time). There are a lot of rags I used to read (and subscribe to), which I can't stand anymore. So, I stopped subscribing to them, and don't even give them a second glance on the newsstand. IMO, they're lucky to still be around.


- Barrett

 

[iamzip]

Okay, so I didn't read all of the replies, so forgive me if this has been said already. This is a free "magazine," paid for by the advertisers. This means that the people who run this publication are going around to the advertisers saying, "we have this number of subscribers, please buy ad space." Of course they have a large number of subscribers because it's free. How do you stop this? Cancel your subscription. Of course, they won't believe it at first, how could you cancel a subscription to a free magazine? It's free! Do it anyway. It's the only way to make a statement. And of course, just you cancelling your subscription won't put them oust of business, but it does make a difference.

 

[Kin Lau]

I guess my penis-envy comment pissed you off.

I have no idea what your problem is... I hope you don't go postal in real life.

 

[rover]

I guess my penis-envy comment pissed you off.

OK, I am going to send you to the board to write "I will take my medication every morning without fail" 100 times.

So, you were in a bad mood yesterday. I hope you got a good night sleep. First test, when you walked by the dog this morning did you offer a smile and a gentle pat, or boot to its back side?

Find your happy place then join us.

Thank you.