For me, I will consider an assignment that pay less than my standard rate as a marketing decision/opportunity. When deciding any kind of marketing I’m going to do I look at the audience, the cost, the exposure, the creative control and the potential ROI. There are no guarantees in any marketing efforts. Does the cost (time and/or $) justify the gamble? It’s the risk/reward evaluation.

Are companies responsible for paying reasonable rates? If a company (regardless of its size) is only willing to pay a certain fee, then the free capitalistic market will either accept or reject the offer. It’s supply/demand. If the company isn’t satisfied with the quality they get for the price they offer then they will likely either live with it or increase their offer/budget. They have to evaluate their risk/reward as well.

Can I complete on price? I’m pretty much of the mindset that there is always someone out there willing to work for free. That’s why price is not a selling point for me in how I promote my services. I can’t compete with “free”. But, I can provide reliable service and quality product. The true test is whether there is demand in the market place for reliability and quality. So far in my career the answer is “yes”.

So, how much revenue am I willing to sacrifice (either directly or indirectly) for exposure? Honestly, it varies. There are days when a low budget editorial assignment is a fantastic marketing opportunity. And, there are days when the best advertising assignment is one that simply pays the bills.

There’s really no formula or standard for all to follow. There are too many variables. I am happy just doing what works for me … which is often a moving target in and of itself.

My work and “establishment” should have no bearing on the words I write. Hence my preferred anonymity. I am widely published and have shot numerous campaigns for corporations that make as much, and sometimes more, than Google does. And they’ve all paid me. Don’t get me wrong though, I have my charity cases. Multibillion dollar corporations are not them.

I strongly disagree. Google has a responsibility to treat others fairly. “Don’t Be Evil” right? A wealthy person who hordes their money is morally poor. I reiterate my above comparison of Nike paying 3rd world children a few cents an hour. In their country, that seems like a deal better than nothing, but it is still reprehensible.

My problem with this is, it sets a terrible, greedy and shortsighted precedent. If you want to make a living as an artist – who is going to pay you, if the most well off entities decided that since they are so public, they should not have to pay? Who is going to pay you?

What’s the point of being seen by millions a day when you can’t support your family? Does this fleeting pseudo-fame make you a successful person?

Again – who is going to pay you?

Who is going to feed your kids?

Have I said that enough yet?

I humbly admit to fault for not spell checking..

I can see how some people would view this as complete bull, especially by a company like Google who seemingly print money, however with the “exposure” that this can produce is, once again in my opinion, extreamly valuable.

Also to touch on your Coca Cola bit, if they offered me the oppertuinity to slap my photo (and you even suggested there be a byline, which by the way would never happen) on every 1/3 can that rolls off their assembly line, I would do it for FREE in a second. Don’t you understand that’s like shooting for a magazine that has a circulation of about a billion. Do you shoot editorial? If so you could see the value in this, as I’ve been called numerous times for assignments I’ve shot for magazines.

Never underestimate the value of free press, especially when you’re work is being seen by millions a DAY. The internet is a pretty powerful tool that we as photographers must embrase and use to our advantage.

So, once again I would say yes to Google as long as there was a byline or if my name were slapped on the header with my work. To be called DUMB for this view is pretty ignorant and short sighted, also in my humble opinion.

ps I’m curious to see your work, for no other reason but to see what you shoot and how “established” you are. This is in no way confrontational, but want to put a visual to the strong worded reply and strongly opinionated Craig.

Best of luck to you,
Chris

How? How is it worth more than Gold? Who is going to give you gold when a company with a shitload of gold (billions of dollars of it) doesn’t think you’re worth it?

“Exposure”, generally done for charity, is so you can attract the attention of companies with large coffers who will actually pay you. When they decide to stop doing that (because, apparently, some people are dumb enough to fall for this), what do you have left? Is your wife going to pay all your bills? Mom and Dad? What’s next – Cocacola having artists design sodacan labels that they can put 3 pt credit line on? Is it still worth more than gold?

Christ alamighty. Short sighted thinking once again. Dumb dumb dumb.

You are worth what you charge. These artists who hurt the rest of us just trying to make a decent living – worthless.

I doubt this would work for photographers either. Sure exposure is great but how low are you willing to go before you realize you are all battling each other in rapidly dwindling pool of actual paying work?

I say, put ten artists in a dark room with a pen knife and I don’t think even one would make it out alive.

It’s one thing if a struggling organization with zero money comes to an artist, hoping to find a common ground that benefits them both. I do my fair share of charity in a year and have gotten plenty of good work from it that has in turn led to more business.

But when a money-making entity – google, or even your small local publications – comes to an artist, established or not – and asks for free work, it is bullshit.

It’s up there with Nike sweatshops making $200 shoes while paying kids 50 cents an hour. To those kids, that 50 cents an hour is something, but it is still inhumane.

“We don’t feel comfortable releasing the names of artists who are participating in the project before it launches,” stated the company, which also declined to give a date when artwork from the program would appear on Google Chrome. “However, we are currently working with dozens of artists who are excited about the opportunity to be involved in this project.”

I bet. Content creators should e-mail each one of those illustrators once this comes out and ask them “Why? Why do you feel that a multi-billion dollar corporation shouldn’t give you a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work?”

I hope there is some follow-up to this.

At any rate, if you find a way to get paid for your photographic talent without a portfolio as you’re just starting out, I’ll be willing to pay you for the blueprints to that secret so I can write and sell a million books to all these new photo students that graduate every year looking to be the next millionaire photographer.

I would understand it if I went to company X and asked to do work for them with no portfolio, or put my abilities out to group Y for no charge this makes sense. However if company X finds my image or talents and wants to use them enough to track me down, I would expect some compensation. If they are willing to pay the person sending the e-mail I expect they should be willing to pay the artist.

If these artists were “building their portfolios” then maybe this Google thing makes sense. However, it sounds like they approached well established artists. If so, shame on Google, they’re old enough to know better.

The thing preventing me from taking advantage of what would have probably been very good for me and my project was that I was (and am) sensitive to the number of times someone is suggesting to me that “this will be great exposure” or some similar promise of future benefit. The artist/photographer/writer is always, it seems, the first person to be asked to donate. Printers and ad space usually have to be paid for. Same for other trades/services involved in PR. Yes agencies and design firms do pro bono work. But unless they are pretty small shops, all of the employees working on the pro bono work are paid their salaries.

For a revenue machine like Google to attempt to avoid paying for creative services which would add value to their product – as if they were a charity or a cash strapped public service – shows how lowly they value a content provider’s role. This attitude bodes poorly for artists, writers, and performers as Google accumulates control of information.

So basically, you submit photos to them, sign all of your rights away, and they use it in a national mailer.

I know Chase Jarvis is getting paid to shoot for REI – why do they feel they can take advantage of everyone else? Fuck digital, give me film back.

(Side note: A great read on Google – how it came about; how search evolved etc.. – is a book called ‘Search’. Well worth a read).

OK they give away their searches and products, Gmail, Blogger etc and now their NEW Chrome browser.

But they are a business and they want their new browser to rule the same way their search does (so they bring in even more advertising revenue).

Its marketing and its marketing from what is becoming one of the worlds marketing heavyweights.

They are not GIVING away adwords. I would humbly suggest that googles marketing department realise they are not part of the FREE side of Google and Pay-Up for the use of illustrations and art work that gives them a unique selling point. Come on guys, how hard can it be to pay for work you need and can afford to pay for?

Thanks, Debra – I appreciate the clarification on this. And sorry for the derail, folks…

Yes – this is correct. One cannot donate usage. Only hard costs can be deducted and they would have already been deducted as business expenses. You cannot double deduct.
Think about it – if photographers could write their services and usage off, they would only be working for non-profits.

There is no tax deduction for the photographer for donating his services – this is a myth.

If your point is that every situation is different, OK fine, then how do YOU think Google should have behaved? Or how do you think the illustrators who were approached by Google asking for free artwork should have responded? (Every situation may be different, but I thought we were all trying to discuss this one — i.e., the Google/illustrator/free artwork in exchange for exposure situation.)

If you want to discuss whether or not I would accept a lifetime’s worth –or even a year’s worth!– of free landline, cell phone and DSL service from AT&T in exchange for the mere fact that some of my photographs feature telephone poles and power lines via which AT&T’s service(s) are delivered, my answer is: you bet! I might even let AT&T use an image or two of mine on their website for that kind of a trade. But free phone and DSL service for a year/life is a very tangible benefit…as opposed to Google’s offer of “exposure.”

I guess for non profits we now include GM, Ford, Chrysler, AIG, Eddie Bauer, American Airlines, Saks, The New York Times . . .