“It's a news story and being first on the scene it what it's about.”

Yes, in an editorial context, I agree. But we're talking bigger picture where people are taking of control of brands not when there’s an accident, (like a crash), but when they have a bad customer experience.

Interesting point, maybe, if I agreed, but it’s theoretical. Of course it’s a stretch to connect insurance pics after the fact with the initial landing pics, but that’s all I have to go by because, well, that’s all there was.

Forgetting that, if it was someone famous the whole scenario changes because you KNOW the hype that would follow: “See Shaq’s amazing pictures from inside the plane!” Celebrity thing takes over and nobody ends up caring how well something was shot, least of all me.

It’s an accident site and as such, I’m realistic enough to not expect Capt Sully standing there and posing for 8x10s on the wing. Obviously that's the nature of news events because who can predict when and where.

“It's a news story and being first on the scene it what it's about.”

You’re missing the overall point: People with cell phones/vid cameras/blogs/twitter accounts are everywhere now, not just at crash sites, and they’re making their presence known by the images and stories THEY put out there of various brands. Do companies ignore that fact or work with it in some way? If they don’t, the story’s going to be told without them.

From my point of view, the consequences of an airplane crash are almost never good. The picture you point to paints a wonderful and lovely portrait of the humans spirit, heroism and can do-ness (sp?).

Plus it's a pretty darned compelling photograph.

I think your argument is fundamentally flawed. It's a news story and being first on the scene it what it's about. Getting the picture first always matters, always has and always will. And now it's online! So what?

If pros don't want to compete against ordinary people with cell phones they can always give it up and go and stack shelves in Walmart (or Tesco this side of the Atlantic).

Anyone trying to make a living out of photography must, as I do, feel for the problems encountered by Stephen Mallon, but I think to try and link this and the Sully cell phone pic together in this way is just plain daft.

Apart from technical skill and an understanding of what makes a good image, what can differentiate a pro from a cell phone observer is to always be alive to that great shot around you.

When I mean fill the void, I mean in the subsequent days and weeks that follow the initial incident/story. And that story can and often does take new turns as things progress. It’s that thing that the evening news leads with, right? “New details are beginning to emerge...”

Brands can be part of that. Many brands are now taking a SWAT team approach to social media. If not getting out in front of it, at least trying to run parallel to the news cycle.

(I bet if someone had video a week later from within the plane as it landed while they made it to the exits, it would have eclipsed that wing shot onthe blogs. And as such, you started to see clips of multiple security camera views of the plane landing.

@Stanley - Good points. I’m referring to the quality of the images we’ve become used to. Whether for insurance or whatever use, his are definitely professional images. (I’m assuming you had a chance to see them.) Regardless of how they ended up now in legal limbo, at the time, those images were as available online in the days that followed as that first cell phone image was.

I agree the public is the bottom line, but they also gravitate to what’s out there. If all they have is crappy cell images to pass around, well, they’ll do it.

“How does the corporation get their professionally crafted images out in a situation like this?”

Agreeing with Jason’s point here: I see it as filling the void before “citizen journalists” do. Go out and work with their own people to create those moments and shoot their side/tape interviews, etc. Does this fall into PR territory? Sure, I think it does as Scott points out.

But that’s not a bad thing. Doesn’t mean you have to mislead people? No. Just give them more options to think about, more sides to the story as it were.

@SM - Thanks.

@Dave - I hear you. “....this is not a new trend ... there are more opportunities now than ever before to share images.”

I agree that it’s not new. Zapruder notwithstanding, what is new is the unprecedented rate at which sharing of images takes place now. (I grew up watching rocket launches on a B&W TV. What we knew was what the TV told us. Maybe the paper the next day if we were lucky.)

To be clear: As a designer and amateur shooter myself, cell phone journalism will NEVER compete with pro shooters. I hate that the quality of what people accept now is at times no better than grainy National Enquirer shots. As my writer friend put it fairly succinctly: People don’t want quality—they just want it now.

As for the other stuff, I think embedded media sanctioned by the government trying to control a message gave us a glimpse of Iraq before cell phones ever did, much like a trapped CNN crew during Gulf War I. Soldiers with handicams gave us yet another side.

Re: 9/11, I recall more video camera footage than cell phone images being replayed over and over, but I get your point. Not sure cells had quite the image-taking capabilities they do now.

As for branding, it’s never just a logo or slick image or PR release. It’s as much your perception of the product or brand based on your experience with it. One image or accident won’t kill you if you’ve had good experiences to that point with it. But a brand’s history of lousy customer service and/or cheap products won’t be overcome by gorgeous catalogs and print ads.

Again, we’re at a point now when you never had this “countering of the message” by citizen/customer. If they hated something, all they could was call a toll-free number on the back of a box. Now? Blog it and draw the ire of the public.

I’m not saying that if a brand ignores that that the face of the brand will be just whatever happens to make it to YouTube that night, but as people do their own stuff more and more, there will be a big disconnect between what’s really being said about a brand and what the brand is putting out, unless they do something about it.

Brands have to participate, with visuals as well as words, rather than hide behind their pat advertising imagery. It's similar to how a corporate PR department is better off engaging bloggers and the public in a two-way dialogue rather than simply issuing press releases, one-way communications that are often oblivious to what the audience actually wants to know.

Right on! Think the concept of follow-up management/documenting happenings is an extremely relevant pitch. Thank you.

-Jason

Seems like from the scenario of Scully, we cannot control our branding, but the public does seems to be the bottom-line.

How does the corporation get their professionally crafted images out in a situation like this?