Jupiter Research: Another clueless analyst

From the Wake Up and Get an I.Q. department comes this quote in PC World:  "Avi Greengart, a senior analyst at Jupiter Research, thinks camera phones are a fad for avid young shutterbugs."

Greengart's so-called research indicates that consumers in the United States will accept a free camera phone but it's a low priority.  He says less than ten percent of mobile phone owners have taken a photo.  (Is that based on all cellular subscribers [ha!] or just camera phone users.  If it's the latter, I can't imagine that figure is correct.)

Greengart says, "First of all, they're lousy photos. Secondly, they're not taken in the same way a regular photo is taken, and that's partly due to the resolution."

Avoid this analyst

Unless Greengart was misquoted or his quotes taken out of context, I'd recommend you avoid this guy like the plague for anything dealing with camera phones.

"Lousy photos"?  Good enough for tens of millions of people around the world.  And, how about considering that the quality is getting dramatically better as resolutions increase and software improves?

"Not taken in the same way a regular photo is taken"?  I'm not exactly sure what he means, and the reporter, Eric Butterfield, doesn't explain it.  It doesn't matter; anyone who calls camera phones a "fad" has the analytical sophistication of a Kodak Instamatic.

Butterfield's skepticism

The reporter, however, doesn't seem to agree with Greengart.  Butterfield writes:  "But from what I've seen on moblogging sites, plenty of adults are taking the plunge as well.

"Low resolution doesn't seem to deter many, but it may be why camera phones tend to be used to capture spontaneous and unrehearsed events -- the big attraction is that you can share it immediately, and it's handy."

Butterfield interviewed the seemgingly omnipresent Chris Hoar, founder of moblog hosting company textamerica, who says a "significant number" of the 100,000 registered users post 100 photos a month.  Elan Dekel, the CEO of moblog hosting company Fotopages, says teenagers will often post "hundreds" of photos a week on his company's free moblogs.

Video as a disruption

Howard Rheingold, author of Smart Mobs, says video phones will change the news business "when a major event happens and three or four or one hundred people have video of it and can send it directly to the Web." 

The BBC has given Nokia camera phones to its reporters to help them scoop the competition, as I previously wrote.

Howard says videos can be faked, but he hopes false images will be "self correcting" when many people have recordings of the real event.  Howard's on the right track.  When hundreds of millions of people have camera/camcorder phones, it's going to be a lot tougher to fake images without getting caught.

Comments

[Avi Greengart]

Alan, my response is posted on my blog.

[Seth Dimbert]

I'm no legal expert – just a High School Journalism teacher - but the textbook I use (Hall, Homer L. _High School_Journalism_, Rosen Publishing Group, New York, 1994.) defines libel as, "any false statement that causes a person to be avoided, due to defamation, indentification and publication."

Again, I'm not an expert, but calling someone who makes his living as an analyst a "clueless analyst" seems like defamation to me. That's one.

"Avi Greengart, a senior analyst at Jupiter Research." Identification? Check. That's two.

Publication? You bet'cha. That's three.

Does saying something like, "I'd recommend you avoid this guy like the plague," qualify as a statement that might cause Greengart to be avoided? What do you think?

Now comes the heart of the issue: Is what you posted about him false? I don't know; both of you know more about camera phones than I do.

Alan, I don't know who you are and I've never read your writing before. However, I *do* know who Avi Greengart is, and his response to your post rings true to my ears.

[Avi Greengart]

Alan drove a lot of traffic my way back when I had a blog at Jupiter; since that's been down for a while I figured I'd post something quick here.

Back at JupiterResearch we had plenty of data showing most U.S. consumers were not interested in paying more to get cameraphones. That survey data was backed by actual sales data showing that - surprise! - most cameraphone sales came at price points where the camera functionality was essentially free. Yes, there were demographics where cameraphone interest was higher - the younger you were, the more likely you wanted all kinds of convergence functionality, and willingness to pay for it rose as well. The usage data was not only acurate, but has since been corroborated by data from other firms (talk to Julie Ask or Michael Gartenberg at Jupiter if you want the full data).

Of course, sharing this data was deliberate. When cameraphones are THE big thing, pointing out that not everyone has drunk the Cool-Aid (or is even thirsty) is a great way to get exposure for your research.

There was a misquote, though. The "fads" quote was not a market analysis but an observation that "many people we surveyed said that they considered cameraphones a fad." The journalist didn't make that distinction, and Alan didn't stop to ask before disparaging my intelligence. Fortunately, I find being called an idiot by Alan rather amusing.

-avi

Avi Greengart is Principal Analyst for Mobile Devices at Current Analysis.