Are You Offended When You Are Advertised Products and Services in Free Photography or Video Educational Material?

Are You Offended When You Are Advertised Products and Services in Free Photography or Video Educational Material?

You find priceless photography or filmmaking knowledge in online material. You start digesting it, but together with the precious free information, the author mentions a product or a service, which they obviously try to sell you. Do you feel you have been tricked?

The Average Client's Point of View Today

When you need to know something about a certain area of the photography or filmmaking industry, you go to a search engine and try to find the information you need. Most of it is already there, because someone published it. People get used to that to the point that today, there are complaints from people who are offended that together with the invaluable free knowledge, they got pitched to buy a related product or a service.

Why Has Selling Become More Difficult?

The advancement of transportation and communication meant businesses went beyond the local area trying to sell their goods to a broader market. If you lived 200 years ago, the businesses you'd probably be familiar with would be the local bakery, the dairy farm, the sawyer, the huckleberry picker, and a few others. Nowadays, you are reached not only by local businesses but also by companies that are thousands of miles away. You become so overloaded with information that you tend to pay less attention to the multitude of ads you see. In order to sell their products and services. businesses decided to do something more creative that involves a certain investment: creating goods that are free of charge.

How Is Free Content Produced?

Free content, as the name suggests, does not require a payment for viewing and reading. However, it doesn't come free to the publishers. They have to invest their time and resources to write an informative article or to film a video, cut it, mix it with music, add graphics, and market it through different outlets. Sometimes, these free-of-charge materials are created by enthusiasts who don't seek any financial reward for that. Businesses don't make profit from just free content. They use it in an indirect way to attract potential buyers. That's not anything new. When you go to the farmers market, sometimes, farmers let you taste their production for free in order to buy from them a bigger quantity.

Are You Tricked as a Client?

Depends on the point of view. When the information is informative and marketed properly, it's a win-win situation. People get their free content and in return are advertised products and services. Imagine you are a photographer who does that full-time. Will you write blog posts about all your knowledge for free? Will you create online photography courses for free, including person-to-person education for free? Would you rather teach your clients how to take photographs (free of charge, of course) than asking them to pay you for the service? Imagine you are assisting a photographer who does everything free of charge. Do you think you will receive a salary? If you are an enthusiast who has a day job that's not photography or filmmaking, but enjoys publishing free content without advertising products or services, keep in mind your employer can't do that, because otherwise you won't get paid.

Conclusion

Whether or not free content has ads for products and services, it should be both free and informative without any trickery. If we, as clients, enjoy the published materials free of charge, we should not get turned away from a sales pitch along the way. Remember, free content is created for a mutual benefit, not just for the consumers.

Tihomir Lazarov's picture

Tihomir Lazarov is a commercial portrait photographer and filmmaker based in Sofia, Bulgaria. He is the best photographer and filmmaker in his house, and thinks the best tool of a visual artist is not in their gear bag but between their ears.

Log in or register to post comments
72 Comments
Previous comments

We'll all have to remember TANSTAAFL*

The law says that any financial affiliations have to be stated clearly in reviews, for one.

Secondly, it is hard for me to see how a few seconds of mentioning a sponsor at the beginning (sometimes the middle too) and the end of an otherwise good presentation can be a big irritant. I for one find the the right-arrow key usually solves the problem.

Thirdly, it doesn't bother me if a photography presentation is sponsored by Mum's and Dad's Pizzeria in Upper Central Nowhere, it may be a waste of their money but I am not particularly bothered whether the ad is relevant to the presentation or not.

The lowdown: I appreciate the time and effort going into making many of these presentations and find it only reasonable that they seek to get some financial compensation for it.

* TANSTAAFL for those not familiar with the term (both of you): There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Saved you some time and a visit to Google there.

Well said.

Slanted lens is fishy
They review Tamron lenses and Tamron is sponsor.
Tamron is known to ignore you next time if you give them bad review.

Lots of people are using Tamrons and as Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. they all have good and bad lenses. In the latest Photographing the World 4 BTS video Patrick shows he really likes his Tamron lens without being paid by them to say good things about it.

As for the Slanted lens: I find them a really nice informative source and being sponsored by Tamron doesn't change the fact the information they present is applicable to any other lens manufacturer.

Last I knew, I wasn't being forced to buy anything. There are definitely more reputable content producers and I tend to favor those.

That's the level of tolerance I've been talking in one of the first comments. I'm glad there are people who are not easily offended.

Nothing is ever free. If you are not willing to pay cash for training materials that are for sale at sites like CreativeLive or through a creator's website, then it will have to be paid for another way... just like the TV shows we all enjoy (you either get commercials, or you pay someone like Netflix to produce it) that is usually going to be through advertising.

Free means depends on what you pay.

Not offended, but it calls into question everything they've ever told me now that I know they have a conflict of interest. I won't come back for more.

Unless it's a result from a complex neuro-science experiment, I think you can verify the information based on your own experience or cross-check other sources or if it's a gear or a software, rent it to test it for yourself. Unfortunately we need to verify everything.

Don't ask questions and then argue with people if you don't like the answer.

From the comments above I found many other opinions that completed the information in the article. That's what questions are for. If someone does not agree with the opinion of the other party they show their arguments. If the arguments are sound one party agrees with the other and it's all fine. This is how conversations work.

In this case I agree with your statement and I also say that it's not a matter of finding if someone has been sponsored, but if the information they've given out for free is the actual truth. Sometimes subjective non-sponsored opinions may result into a total disinformation. That is why I said everything had to be cross-checked and examined before accepting it as a truth. Judging only by the fact a free material is sponsored or not is not enough.

It’s a buyers market when it comes to photography content. It’s enough for me.

I’m also hardly alone in the belief that the value journalism is undermined by conflicts of interest. Look at pretty much any journalism code of ethics.

Credibility is as much of a commodity as information and once you lose it, it never comes back.

Do not forget that Fstoppers is not a news outlet although it may occasionally write articles about news. It's a source for free knowledge related to photography and video. This includes reviewing and advertising products that are related to that matter.

On the contrary, journalism is the act of reporting recent events which means it has a historical and a documentary value. It doesn't teach you how to make a portrait, to build a bookcase, or to cook pizza which media websites similar to Fstoppers but each in its own area do.

Out of the last 5 non-sponsored posts to Fstopper's, only one is educational:

Instagram: The Reality Is No One Cares About the Photographer (commentary)
Police Are Using a Canon 100-400mm Lens as a Speed Camera (reportage)
Indiana Photographer Known For Copyright Lawsuits Sues Again (reportage)
Photographing a Lookbook: A Few Steps to Consider (educational)
Magnum’s First Online Photography Course Is Launching Soon (reportage)

But listen, let's not get distracted by reality and the actual definition of journalism. Go ahead and go the infomercial route. You do you.

The definition of journalism is what I stated above. In order to be more precise I found the exact definition from the Oxford dictionary: "The activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast."

It is the act of news reporting. I also said that Fstoppers occasionally reports news that are related to photography and video.

Out of your report the article titled "Magnum's First Online..." is clearly news for educational material a different website is going to launch. The article about "Instagram" is not just a commentary, but an insight that is helpful for those of us who market our work on Instagram. And because social media is evolving so fast and sometimes an unpreditable manner, it's good to have someone else share their opinion on marketing there. Similar posts about Facebook here made me stop advertising there years ago. This is an educational piece.

The fact you see ads here and sometimes you read about products of companies who paid in order to get a published review is just business where this platform is used to promote something to a broader audience. If the writer is honest, the review will be objective and the company will get the attention the website attracts. Do not forget that the actual purpose of paid reviews or sponsored content is not to write good things, but the payment is for publicity. Those who use the payment to hide negatives have a problem. This is not a general problem with that type of reviews. In fact, maybe only 1 of the the last 20 articles looks like sponsored, because it clearly promotes gear deals. Who doesn't like gear deals?

I've seen bad reviews for cameras and lenses I've been using, but I'm still fine with any of the equipment I've been using through the years. There were also positive reviews but at the end it's the subjective point of view. We are talking here subjective preferences, because we're working with products that are quite organic and different. Some like Canons, some like Sony, others like Nikons. Does it mean if a writer here writes a positive article for Sony is sponsored by Sony? Most of the time it's just a personal opinion. You can see many articles here that have conflicting views over the same piece of hardware. This means we, as writers, are given the freedom to express our own unbiased opinion including examples and arguments, so that the readers can see the product from different points of view. If you aren't a frequent reader of the website you probably haven't noticed that. A good example is the latest mirrorless wave by Canon and Nikon that triggered a series of articles saying both good and bad things about the new mirrorless systems.

If that was a blog written by a single person you wouldn't find opposite opinions in adjacent articles. Infomercial you say?...

I basically only read Fstoppers because I like the layout better than Petapixel. I use it as an aggregator for other photography content. The personalities and portfolios of your staff writers leaves a lot to be desired. There's no original content being offered here that can't be found on 20 other sites right now without this kind of thin-skinned BS. My public library also offers access to Lynda which is 1000 times better quality than anything I've seen here.

You asked the question. If you didn't have your own doubts you never would've asked. Now you know. Deal with it.

Thank you.

BTW, I started part of my business with (paid) tutorials I purchased from Fstoppers (many years ago) just as you probably use Lynda for. Today as a result I have clients in that area that basically pay my bills. I didn't learn those things from any free sources. Today free sources help me with ideas, because I used to pay to get a grip on the core of the technical stuff.

Lynda doesn't have "The Basic Bro's Guide to Making Every Picture Look Like a Cartoon"

That's fine. It's all about photographers' styles and clients' demands. If clients need cartoon-style images they will search for photographers who can make those. If those photographers don't know how to achieve that (for example just with lighting) from Lynda, they will seek for another source of information. Then they will do the project and will get paid. The next client will need a picture that is real, but they would need to have the photoshoot on a rainy day, because that's the only time the model would be there. The photographer may have gotten the knowledge how to simulate sunlight without photoshop and get the job done. The next client would need a simple portrait but with a perfect expression for a short time, because the client is a celebrity. The photographer finds the knowledge how to pull of the right facial expression without asking the model to "do something," and finally gets paid for doing the job well. Whether these sources of information and knowledge can be found on Lynda or Fstoppers' paid tutorials, or anywhere else, it's all fine. Different photographers, different clients, different demans. You like Lynda for not having certain tutorials. That's an interesting marketing strategy and this you can be used as an example of a shady marketing pitch hidden behind a fog of comments going in circles. (pun intended)

Speaking of pitching, the tutorial that helped me a lot was the Peter Hurley's headshots.

I like free stuff, and I like people making money, so ads don't bug me.

disclose it not at all ! have to make income some how