It would be very easy for me to get angry about this little piece of news: Conde Nast (publisher of mags like Vogue) is offering advertisers design help…for free. This move obviously hurts creative professionals as it devalues their part in the extremely lucrative advertising financial system. The injury starts with the designers/art directors (obviously) and their agencies, but it is only a matter of time until this slides into photography.
Now, historically, publications have offered to make the ads they publish for years, usually for a small price, though sometimes for free. However, the publications in question have not been of the stature of CN’s holdings. This is some ugly creep.
But rather than get angry, let’s think about what can we do to stop it. Well, there is always the classic boycotting of these pubs–both in purchasing and in creating art for them. I rather think, however, that this will not have enough of a market impact on this company (though I love the idea–boycotts can be very effective when you get enough participation). The one thing we can and MUST do is agree that when that call comes to shoot one of these ads for nothing or for very little (“it’ll be great for your book!” you’ll be told) we have to make it clear that this is not an acceptable deal.
We have to agree to this now, before it happens, and we need to get the word out to as many photographers as we can–no free or cheap shots for Conde Nast publications in-house produced ads (actually, any ads, but let’s stay focused here).
So please, post to your various forums, share with your local communities, get the word out. I’ll be sending this post to my list, just to help get the ball rolling.
Thanks for leading the charge, I’m on board.
I’m on board, too…as a matter of fact, I’ve always been on board with this concept.
What makes this “new” situation even more ominous for photographers is the prevalence of rights-grabbing contracts…which is of course nothing new.
Conde Nast is not the only publisher that has been amassing wholly-owned image collections, at the expense of short-sighted photographers. Now their burgeoning stock libraries are coming in mighty handy, aren’t they!
While I totally agree with everyone’s sentiments on this topic it is not something new.
It may be the starting of a trend among larger magazines but this has been a common practice for small publications for as long as I can remember. (going back 30 years)
In South Texas a billboard company (Lamar) which is a huge, maybe even national, provider of outdoor advertising space has always offered free design of the bill board. And yes, it has been the bane of local advertising agencies forever.
While we can all be on the same page when it comes to not providing free photographs for such publications we don’t have much clout when it comes to being hired by a company who is going to buy space in one of those publications.
For example. I receive a lot of referrals from a magazine publishing group in Houston, as a result I get hired by a lot clients who advertise in their magazines and the publishing group designs all the ads for free.
It will be interesting to see if this really catches on with the big magazines. I also know several fairly large printers who also offer free design service if they are printing your project.
Greg
Oh, just so I don’t sound like part of the problem. The companies who hire me as a result of the referrals from the magazine pay my full rates. No one is getting a discount or any free work.
Greg
This has been going on in niche-market, automotive magazines for years. The bigger, more current, issue is that all magazines are having to fight harder with cable TV and the internet for their piece advertising pie. The glory days of niche publishing are over.
In addition to charging fair prices for our work, we must be diligent about properly defining our usage rights. Magazine generated ads are NOT editorial use. Nor is web use. Many magazines have been forced into the internet business to offer a value added, collateral marketing venue to their advertising clients. When selling editorial web usage along with editorial print rights (as is now commonly the case), we must be sure that image usage for web/electronic advertising remains additional and separate.
I stopped doing work because “you’ll get a great tear for you book!” a while ago. Its sad that such a large company would do this. One that we would expect to be of the most expensive. However I feel in the long run our clients will realize that cheap is expensive.
I have seen many horror stories involving art directors, graphic designers and the like offering lots of free things, either to retain a client or because they are told to act like that while being employees to some big name.
Recently I found the most dreaded combo: a graphic designer who also takes photographs on the side. He was calling from Atlanta to “help me” geting in the market by shooting a campaign for FEdEx in a typical buyout scheme. He insisted that I was going to loose big time if I did not take it, and if photographers kept complaining about rights grabbing, he would shoot the photos , even for free in necessary, knowing how much work he was gonna get in the long term. I decided to lose this “opportunity” not without telling the guy what a great harm he does to our industry.
Fear is the driving force to this situation. Photographers how feared loosing income accepted weird terms and now Conde Nast can re-sell their work to third parties with no extra income to the creators. Free lance Graphic designers fear of loosing accounts or their employers force them into these situations and don’t have the guts to stay put. It’s fear all over the place.
THis is not new, just more people are doing it visibly.
Jorge Parra
I am in Boston and the advertising market here is pretty dismal. However, if the talented photographers keep giving away their work to companies just for the asking you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you have a talent to sell then you should be paid for it and these hugh companies, like conde nast, shouldn’t be making money off your hard work, but more importantly, off your creative thought. If they could do the shooting as well as we can you bet they would be doing it. We create the content, we should control the rights to it!!!
When someone tells me that the printer, or the magazine will do the design for them, or they have someone ‘in house’ handling that, I ask them if the would let their general contractor design the interior of their home. Most say no.
Starving is bad, granted, but giving away your ideas will always be worse!!!
I am on board as well.
Actually I was on board with boycotting CN back in Feb when PDN did an article on the start up of the magazine. PDN asked where and how photographers should submit images. The editor said something to the effect that they didn’t have a big budget for images so most would be shot by in house photographers while the rest would be gotten as cheaply as possible.
Not an exact quote**
-Ed
http://photobusinesseducation.wordpress.com
One hundred percent here. Just what is this business coming to? Thanks for getting on this immediately. Sherrlyn Borkgren
With apologies in advance for the gender specific nature of these quotations…
From John Ruskin (19th century): “The is hardly anything in the world that one man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price alone is this mans lawful prey.”
From Marshall Field explaining why he was re-opening his downtown department store after the great Chicago fire and the subsequent rush of merchants to the suburbs: “When a man has a choice about where to spend his money he will invariably return to that place where he is intentionally and consistently made to feel special.”
There will always be a section of the marketplace avaiable to us if we approach it with an abundance mentality. When we believe there is not enough (a scarcity mentality), and that “no one” wants quality “any more” we cut quality, prices, each others throats, and then our own. Having spent my first career in another part of the creative enterprise, be assured we as photographers are not alone. The sky is not falling, and (not but) we may have to move away from that particular tree (or client, or client group) to keep from getting hit on the head by the next acorn.
United we stand…
Sorry to have to disagree, but what exactly are you thinking to stop? As someone else has stated printers, billboard and magazine companies have been providing this service for years. The primary users of this service has traditionally been smaller advertisers in local markets without the guidence of advertising agencies. This is then a very good service for them and the price is right.
I didn’t see any mention that photographers were being asked to shoot for free…not that I would be surprised, nor would I be surprised to hear some photographers line up for the chance…remember OnRequest?
If APA wants to impact this concept, forget the magazine design departments…try reaching our photo brothers and sisters to explain the situation on photographer sites. People need to have the tools to defend their rates as appropriate and correct, inline with use.
What the ad agencies, graphic designers, billboard companies or magazines make the business decision to give away is of no concern of ours…as long as they are not also giving away our photo licenses. If photographers have produced images for these enities and signed away rights…then they deserve to have their images used without compensation.
Sometimes it helps to actually read the original post before commenting on it.
I can only suppose CN provides their clients with total control over and ownership of these ads and allows them to be used elsewhere besides their own pages…
KC – I agree with you.
I’ve been hearing that we must band together since I started in the business in 1980. I agree, but ultimately it’s what the market will bear.
Big buyers have clout, they always have had it – always will. Our job: do what we can to educate our profession, and then prove that we are worth what we say we are worth.
Today I was asked to do an editorial job for $850. Not unusual until you read their contract which said they had the right to use the photos for ever, and for whatever. How many of you would have shot for this client?