Author: Leslie Burns

With numbers like these in the advertising industry, things are going to continue to be bumpy for a while. Clients and the clients of clients are all shedding jobs. 

However, as in all things, this is not a permanent state. Sooner or later things will turn for the better and, even if they stay as they are for a while, there is still work being made. If you want to get some of that work, you are going to have to push your vision to the very best targets–those who really need it.

You also may have to work with your clients to hit the numbers they need. That doesn’t mean dropping your fees willy-nilly, but saving money on production is certainly a good idea whenever possible. And offering lower fees for more limited licenses while providing a guaranteed set of numbers for additional usage (so your client can know you won’t hold the images hostage) might help too.

Also now is a good time to think about sharing the risk with your clients–how about a lower guaranteed fee, then if the project “hits” (some metrics will be required), a “performance bonus”–why not?

I know some of you will have a cow at the thought of such a suggestion, and I’m not even saying it is the best option, but I’m not hearing a whole lot of new thinking on this topic and it’s just something I’ve thought a teeny bit about (in between studying…which doesn’t leave a load of time). Now is the time to be thinking about solutions and not rejecting anything just on its face.

So…ideas?

When you want it badly enough, you will find a way to do what you love AND make money. This woman did.

SNL is making ads for Pepsi.

This goes way beyond the old Texaco Star brings you Milton Berle*  kind of interaction between marketers and entertainment. And this direction, this mixing and blending, will affect all sorts of creatives.

What are you doing to keep up with the changing world?

 

 

*(btw, I may have gotten that wrong…maybe it wasn’t Texaco…that was way before my time!)

Another site to be careful about. What this emphasizes, yet again, is how important it is to actually READ the terms and conditions/user agreements on each and every site you use. You could be putting a lot of your work at risk.

Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites are notorious for snagging image rights. I would never post anything on Facebook that I wanted to protect in any way. Generally, it is simply safer to limit your legal exposure by displaying your images on your own site only (or reputable sourcebook sites like AltPick), and then linking to those sites from your social networking pages. 

It’s easy to say “yeah, but everyone does it,” but that won’t help you when you try to sue for infringement later.

Well, I am not happy, but hopefully we’ll get this worked out. There are still some odd technical issues and, until they get worked out, my books are not available. Hopefully, fingers crossed, they will be worked out within (sigh) two weeks. 

Until then, I’m dead in the water, publication-wise.

I am sorry for the inconvenience. Deeply.

Darn! Lulu is all of a sudden having a problem with my books. After months (and years for the first book) of printing, they have just decided that my files are unprintable for technical reasons as they are and have pulled my books until the alleged problems are fixed. Yarg.

Obviously, I think they are wrong and am trying to get things taken care of. In the meantime, please be patient. The books will be available again.

I am so sorry for the inconvenience!!!

I’m a huge fan of Adland and of Futurama and of the Apple 1984 ad, so imagine my glee at the convergence! Hilarious!

But in it there is an important truth: it’s NOT all about the brand in a vacuum. There has to be something connected, to back it up, and something to connect with your targets. Cool just for cool, even in our biz, just won’t cut it.

The other day on a photographers’ forum, I read a post where one guy wrote that all email marketing is spam. He was pretty adamant about it too. It’s not, and you all should know the difference. Seth Godin has a great post explaining the important difference.

In today’s more difficult market, which are you doing? 

 

By the way, the guy who wrote the post (I’m assuming male) is anonymous and openly admits that he uses free/microstock for his other (non-photo) business. He may call himself a pro, but that is cannibalism. I take all his posts with a grain of salt the size of my fist.

We as a creative industry must re-think how we generate revenue. I by no means am calling for dropping the “usage license” as the basis for fees, but rather would like us to brainstorm alternative ideas for how we work with our clients to generate that revenue. 

William Morris gets it. They are working with Google to have their artists share an ownership interest in productions created for the web. This is a fascinating idea. By tying in ownership, all the parties involved had good reason to make the best product possible. If it is a hit, everyone gets more.

They also all take a risk–if the show flops, they might not make as much as in the past for similar work. This seems very fair to me. We so often talk about wanting to “partner” with our clients, but when that involves taking a risk, too many of us bail on the concept. 

How can we use this info to develop better, more equitable financial relationships with our clients?

Okay… I certainly know that there is a load of photoshopping in fashion, duh, but this is just ridiculous. Vogue puts Sienna Miller’s head onto another shot of her body.