The results are in – Part 2

This is the second post in this series exploring the results in the latter part of the survey. This will focus on the results and then I will go a bit more in-depth with my analysis and recommendations in another post.

If you want to see the survey or fill it in click here:

One of the results posted in the last blog was that 100% of respondents believed that good images can have a positive impact on the sport. In this post I plan to break down how teams use and feel about photographers. While everyone thought good images could have a positive impact, not everyone thought photography was important for the sport. In the questions where I used a Likert scale, on a range of 1-10 I will take 8-10 to be important, 6-7 slightly important, 5 neutral and 4 or less as not important. Approximately 81% thought that photography was important, 3% slightly important, 10% neutral and the rest, 6% as unimportant.

The next two questions could have done with a bit of context and ideally relating to league members but the numbers give an idea of what I was aiming at.

68% of respondents said that their leagues used images in both web and print form, 26% just on the web and the remaining 6% didn’t know. This 6% could have individuals not affiliated with a league. I should have put that as an option. So while people mainly consumed images on social media it is important to have high quality files as well. Compressing and sharpening blurry images which look okay on screen won’t cut it in print.

The next question asked if respondents felt that images were important to their league. Only 65% felt they were important, 16% slightly important, 12% neutral and 7% not important. People generally agreed that images were important, but it seems that they found it harder to see the relevance to their own team/league than the sport as a whole. This could be due to the lack of media outlets locally that use images or the number of documents leagues put out has declined. I have certainly seen a shift in the type and production values of documents put out by some teams, partly due to financial pressure in this current economic climate.

83% felt that images should cover the whole day/event while 17% preferred just the sporting element, the action on track.

The next question regarded quality of images. 77% thought images should be of high quality, 6% felt it was slightly important, 9% neutral with 8% not bothered. Again ‘quality’ is a very subjective term. When looking at the final question, should leagues pay to uses images where, 26% yes, 26% no, 18% don’t know and 30% other (comments will be summarised in another blog post) it would be interesting to investigate why just over a quarter said no. I used the word ‘should’ instead of ‘could’ as I know most leagues are strapped for cash and many would like to but cannot afford to. If people see it as a service that ‘should’ be supplied for ‘free’ it will have a detrimental impact on photography moving forward. One of my questions for Derby is where does the money go. Something I am keen to explore as certain areas seem to be accepted as a money making entities and others frowned upon (direct, indirect sponsorship etc…). Anyway that’s for another post.

65% of people affiliated with a league said that they had a regular photographer, 26% didn’t, and the rest didn’t know. This led on to how important it was for leagues to have a good working relationship with photographers. 79% felt it was important, 4% slightly important, 12% neutral with 5% feeling it wasn’t important.

The final three questions for this post are interesting. Does your league have a waiver, should photographers sign a waiver and should they have their own insurance. For the first two questions the results were similar, as would be expected. Those that know my view on waivers will know why I find this interesting.

Does your league have a waiver, 46% yes, 18% no and 36% don’t know. Similarly, should photographers be made to sign a waiver came in at 50% yes, 18% no with 32% on don’t know. Should photographers have their own insurance, 16% yes, 2% no, 64% it’s up to them and 18% on don’t know. It does make me think if people know what’s in their waivers, what it protects them against (which the law doesn’t already) and why insurance isn’t important. I’ve read many waivers which seem to try and protect leagues against photographers pursuing damages through loss of gear but don’t seem overly concerned at all about what happens if a skater comes of track and hits a photographer. Yes, a few bruises on both parties, and while it’s unlikely to break, a lens is after all made of glass and is pointing towards the track.  I’ll not get on to un-sand-bagged lighting stands with hot strobes attached and other gear left trackside/in the ref’s lane, which I frequently see. I just feel waivers put out by leagues approach issues from the wrong direction whilst the sport is still amateur. And while I say it’s unlikely, I do mean that. In all the years I’ve been shooting I’ve only been hit once, and that was only a slight tap and I probably could have moved, but I’m lazy.

Well, that’s it for part two I will be analysing the survey and coming up with recommendations in the next.


Popular Posts