I don't know where you worked, but in cost-accounting parlance a "profit centre" is a centre the performance of which is measured in terms of the profit they produce. A "cost centre" is a centre which is analysed in terms of costs because there is no direct way to assign a profit to it. The Editorial Department doesn't have a direct attribution of "profit" so accountants only "measure" costs.
Originally Posted by desertratt
Seing it in another way, a "profit centre" is a unit which could be analysed somehow as a "business", while a "cost centre" is a unit which cannot be analysed as a "business". There is no derogative meaning whatsoever.
almost every time I search for something related to film, I get first-page hits from google for APUG
Originally Posted by snaggs
Just found this thread -- YES the Freelance Photographer is being squeezed out by FREE submissions especially here in Essex, England. I have been in Freelance work since 1970 and so many local newspapers have gone broke and have stopped paying any fees -- the last 'Ordered' job I got was first week of JANUARY - I submitted two picture jobs in APRIL and they were used but NOTHING in February and March and so far nothing in May . I have my Government Pension luckily but need some 'Top-up' as I have to keep digging into my savings now to top-up bank to pay the Gas and Electric bills £ 110-00 a month, gone UP from £75-00 a month!
An 'Old Dog still learning New Tricks !
I sincerely hope that the newspaper doesn't completely disappear, as I absolutely *hate* reading them online! I used to buy Newsweek to kill time on my flights, catch up on something interesting or the like (1-2 issues/month), but since they went completely internet based, I haven't even bothered - now I buy Time magazine more regularly than before.
Yes, reading stuff online is all well and good - but I like to be able to read it whenever and wherever without needing to login, turn on or find a decent Wi-Fi connection, and newspapers weigh a hell of a lot less too!! (Not to mention, I won't go nuts, if I leave Starbucks and realise I forgot to pick it up. . . . . )
Just like the movies did not kill the novel industry, the TV did not kill the movies, the radio did not kill the record industry, photography did not kill painting etc I think that all that exists is going to survive albeit in a redesigned or resized form.
Just like radio is still a very present part of our lives, even if it certainly doesn't have the importance it had in the 1930s, so I think newspapers and magazines will survive, adapting to their niche, some of them betting on content quality, some other on printing quality (you cannot beat a well printed photography magazine with an e-book) some other on specialist nature of content.
Newspapers of the past were a very inefficient way to distribute information. You pay the entire newspaper, but it is a well-known fact that many people only bought them for the classifieds, or the sport, or the weather, or the gossip page etc. Newspapers would sell because they gave a different product to different audiences. They would throw in the crosswords, the comics or the horoscope because anything can help selling.
Here in Italy most newspapers, even the most serious ones (imagine the horoscope in the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal), had the horoscope because it was obvious that if you had no horoscope you would loose clients because some wives would insist with their husbands (in any social class) that they buy a newspaper with the horoscope.
Internet gave people a cheap and practical way to know about cinemas, weather, local sport events, local news, horoscope, classifieds and all those "ancillary" information that were actually a big part in the sales of the newspapers. That said, I don't think printed matter will ever disappear. Not even books albeit menaced by e-books.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I quit reading newspapers about 15 years ago, because I was tired of the constant political slants. In Canada, many newspapers, particularly the Toronto Star, have an obvious political stance, and it's tiresome.
Everything they report on is done so in a way to make one political party look good, and the others bad. Unfortunately, a number of years ago, they crossed the boundary of accuracy, and it became necessary to bend facts to the point of breaking.
I find most newspapers, Canadian, American, and the ones in France to be much the same. It's a risky business, because different people like different politics, and you're going to annoy a portion of the population, but they can't seem to resist it.
If there were a newspaper that just gave me the facts, unbiased, and left me to interpret it in my own way, instead of colouring everything THEIR way, I'd buy it. But they don't seem to exist.
I don't need or want to be, (by their standards), educated, I just want to be informed, and they don't do that anymore.
I didn't stop reading papers because of the internet, I stopped because most of them aren't any good.
Originally Posted by hdeyong
This reminds me of something I heard recently. The speaker suggested they really appreciated CNN "for their desire to cover all aspects of a story in hopes that one of them would be true."
[QUOTE=hdeyong;1495929]I quit reading newspapers about 15 years ago, because I was tired of the constant political slants. If there were a newspaper that just gave me the facts, unbiased, and left me to interpret it in my own way, instead of colouring everything THEIR way, I'd buy it. But they don't seem to exist. QUOTE]
I don't think there's ever been a newspaper that does not have a particular political bias. In countries that have a free press it is the right of a proprietor, who after all owns the bloody paper, to dictate the editorial stance of the publication on any topic whatsoever. Those who don't like it should buy a paper with a different stance or do as you have done and buy none.
On the original topic, photography bears about as much responsibility for declining newspaper standards as it does for similarly declining standards on television and radio. All media is about sales and ratings in a society where instant gratification is paramount and reading is losing its place as a treasured skill. Newspaper sales are most easily achieved by running sensational, poorly researched and written yarns involving celebrities, people behaving badly, human tragedy, shocking crime etc etc. The press photographers largely only go where they are told to go and you can only do so much when you are given next to nothing to work with. OzJohn
As a millennial, I think newspapers are going to become like analog photography or vinyl records: a niche but strong market for the true enthusiasts. We're in the digital transition period for news, where people who read the newspaper because it was the only option are abandoning the medium, leaving the core who truly enjoy the medium for its own sake. Newspapers will have to become smaller as their markets shrink, but if they are clever, they will scale to their audience (and tailor their content to their audience). Here in Houston, there is a local newspaper/current events mag called Free Press which is wildly successful and has almost 100% readership among the hip young things. It's free to pick up, which is a difference, but it, like the old grey ladies, is supported mainly by ads.
I think there's an opportunity for the quality of journalism to INCREASE, but only if the newspapers are spun off from the giant lobby-funding conglomerates they're currently owned by, and taken up by people who care about actual journalism and who appreciate the hedonic value of reading an honest-to-god newspaper. There will obviously still have to be a web presence, but the two can be done as a value-added proposition, the way modern indie record companies give you a code for a free digital download when you buy the vinyl album.
Subscribe to the physical paper, get free online access with the iPhone app.
The camera is the most incidental element of photography.