Amateur Grade?
Maybe it’s just the effects of “airport fatigue,” but after staring at some photo magazines during a mind-numbing wait at the terminal, something occurred to me. At least half the content in these publications seems to come from non-pros. This ratio is significantly greater on the Internet where an incredible volume of spectacular work from amateurs is posted every single day. Purely professional venues, on the other hand, don’t always emphasize image quality or artistic intent. A quick scan of some forums and article shows that many users of high-end gear don’t use it professionally. Why is it, then, that marketing departments (and even common vernacular) refers to it as “pro”-grade?
I am certainly not privy to sales data from any of the major manufacturers, but I do wonder. So-called “serious amateurs” appear to make a significant part of the market for top-of-the-line equipment, yet it seems practically all marketing effort is aimed at professionals. New products are announced at trade shows, not generally attended by non-pros. Marketing literature seems to emphasize professional use. Discounts and other incentives are generally offered to pros-only
Given my purely empirical survey of photography magazines and Internet forums, I do wonder; are the marketing execs for major manufacturers missing something obvious? Should high-end equipment be targeted at non-pros?
Who is more likely to purchase an expensive piece of gear? a well-to-do amateur photographer with a passionate hobby, or a professional photographer looking to minimize their business expenses?
Just wondering…
Category: Thoughts and Musings
Hi Guy,
Good question. This past summer, I have been constantly surprised at the quality of gear visitors to Alaska consistently utilize. These don’t even appear to be serious amateurs, I’m talking total tourists.
I have been enjoying some great bear activity in Seward this summer – and almost daily I see tourists pull out nice Canon digital cameras with L glass, and use them like a point and shoot. You know like; “look honey there are some bears grab the camera”. She pulls out a camera as nice as mine, snaps a couple of shots, and then its “what time is our dinner reservation?”.
We shared a small plane ride to Lake Clark N.P. with a nicely dressed couple from New York City and half way through the flight the lady busted out a Hasy with a Leaf digital back!
Someone told me long ago that it is easy to spot the pro – they have the old beat up camera gear.
Speaking as an amateur that spends too much on gear, advertising to pros does double duty. An amateur seeing something marketed to the pros will assume it’s the best and set their sights on it instead of the other models. We’re less cost conscious, because we’re evaluating things more for how much fun it will be rather than how much it will earn us. The return on my 5D investment is all bound up in that amazing viewfinder and the large prints on my office wall. I don’t even try to sell prints, so there’s no point trying to calculate ROI.
If I thought I’d feel comfortable carrying one with me I’d put together a medium format system with digital back. That’s as good a way to spend my entertainment budget as any other, and I can kid myself that I’ll sell it later and get some of that money back in the future.
I think Erik nails it. Market to the pros, and the people with extra cash will see that and think those products are the best. It really is effective. Pretty good doesn’t cut it. Even the “review” forums are guilty of pushing the higher end gear. More expensive must mean better and therefore the users pictures will be better. The charts and graphs all prove it.
It’s only the amateurs (with real paying jobs) who can actually afford the “pro” quality equipment.
I’m late to the game on this one, but I’ve discussed this at length with a marketing team when working on a project for Adobe back in the day. Marketing to Pros or noting a product as Pro level drives the amateur and semi-pro market. People want the next best thing and constantly reach to attain the apple that is just out of reach. By marketin to Pros camera and software companies drive sales to their top of the line products as well as those products just beneath them. The grass is always greener on the other side is definitely true when it comes to marketing camera equipment, products and services. With this in mind its not just the product you’re selling when marketing to professionals and by default semi-pros, but the atmosphere, attitude and vibe of being a pro. Holding on to a top of the line camera (even if you’re not a pro) gives many a psychological boost. Perhaps a placebo effect, a status thing or whatever… it all factors in.
I think the element of more semi-pro or amateur content is a reflection not just of skill, but economics. It is much easier to get content at a lower cost from amateurs/semi-pros to fill pages containing paid advertising. The net result is greater profits. Pros although they appreciate the placement do charge and know what the going market rate is. Amateurs and semi-pros seldom do. Not to take away from the skill of the amateur and semi-pro photographer, but ultimately the explosion of digital photography has enabled publishers to exploit the growing number of amateurs/semi-pros to get content and maximize profits.
Having landed on your blog by chance and going through this post, I could not hold myself back from commenting on this..
Relating back to the question, I guess when the passion for photography turns into an obsession for amatuers like me, we just go all out to constantly improve quality of images we produce. Hence apart from reading extensively, spending time in the field shooting we also invest in expensive gear.
I ventured into photography, especially wildlife photography, in 2006 with a Casio P-700 and in less than 3 years my equipment costs has crossed the $7000 mark and I m sure it will keep growing.
All we get out of this is the sheer joy of producing good quality images…”I haven’t tried selling a single photo online”…
Guy,
I have to agree with most of the comments already expressed. People with money will view some thing labeled “Pro” as the best quality and buy it either because they think it will improve the quality of their shots, or because they want to appear to be “Pro” like. We have probably all encountered this in the field we people ask us about what equipment we are using. When you run a business, you have to invest wisely in your equipment purchases, or you won’t make any money. Some times that may mean buying what the camera companies label “Pro”, some times not. As you point out, the camera companies must know that they sell more Pro level equipment to non-Pros.
Best Regards,
Michael
I agree, and cynically add: Marketing, Marketing, Marketing.
I am an amateur, I used to be well-to-do, and I paid attention to labels when they suggested the item was “professional grade”. Advertisements, whether on a billboard or in a magazine dedicated to professionals of one kind or another, reach many of us “interested amateurs”.
Marketing works wonders. It’s only after I read, and came to agree with, a number of articles and opinion pieces that said “It’s the photographer, dummy, not the equipment”, that I determined not to let marketing get to me so much.
It still does, of course … none of us is psychologically aware enough to avoid being influenced all of the time.
Guy,
I completely agree with you that the proliferation of pro-grade equipment has devalued the product created by true professionals. Everyone who can afford to spend a few grand on camera gear now thinks of themselves as photographers. An additional problem I see with the proliferation of the digital world is the expectation that truly spectacular images are created in Photoshop, not in the camera. I am frequently asked whether I “did something” to an image – manipulated it — in order to get a spectacular result.
This all reflects an increasing lack of understanding about the art of photography, the patience and dedication required to create photography – way beyond what Ron described as the quick shot along the roadside. Unfortunately, the editorial staff who are allowing these images into their magazines are only perpetuating the problem.
I will add to Ron’s suggestion on how you can tell if the photographer is a pro … they will also use a sturdy tripod and spend more than five minutes taking a photo.