Stock Photo Horror Stories
Good Reasons to think twice about using "Cheap" Good looking Stock Photos
http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2010/03/microstock-why-would-reputable-company.htm
Father and Son
http://montreal.metblogs.com/archives/2006/05/stock_photograp.phtml
A thousand Faces....... 6/99
<http://www.thestreet.com/tech/internet/756936.html>
_________________________________________
A really popular gal, everywhere
<http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/spam/alicia/alicia.html>
___________________________________________
Saving Money for
the big TeleCom Companies
A legendary case in Caracas, where two Agencies, thrilled by the excitement
of offering their BIG telecommunications companies (clients) the amazing savings resulting
from the use of RF imagery from the Image Bank, selected, just by unfortunate
coincidence, the very same image of a funny kid with a skateboard to create
the advertising campaigns to be displayed on a national level in external
billboards, magazines etc., etc., releasing the client from the burden of
paying licensing rights, model fees, and all production costs.
Both agencies were very strict in their secrecy policy , since they were launching
the offer to many new services from both companies. The possibility of leaking
info was very small. The result? The billboards went to the streets the very
same week, with the same picture promoting competing telephone companies
and their services. The mess was huge, the billboards removed, the "creatives"
were fired, the accounts moved to other agencies.
As a sheer coincidence, I am enjoying shooting the images for one of the companies
under the new Agency. They have forgotten to even think about Stock, just
to make sure this never happens again. I can't be happier. I use the case
in many of the conversations arising whenever somebody thinks of buying RF
CD's for advertising of big clients. However, the market always creates new
monsters, and I know of some agencies which are buying RF images on
a one by one basis, paying by CC and downloading the specific image requested.
I would not call this a full RF images but a low budget- open license Stock.The
difference is that the company offering the image still knows how many times
such image has been downloaded and who got it, so it's more like cheap stock
than a RF CD, which can be in the hands of hundreds of people and thousands
of potential users.
____________________
Royalty Free Image Nightmare - Insurance
An art director at a major insurance company- someone we have all heard of-
decided he liked an RF image a lot and used it extensively for the company.
Thinking that he had saved the company money, he used the shot in all sorts
of collateral materials.
Then one day his boss received a phone call directly from the President of
the company. He was livid. He wanted to know why when he was driving on a
major metropolitan interstate that he saw the identical image used for a competing
insuror on several billboards. He wanted to know how they got the image that
he thought was part of their branding strategy. No telling how many printed
pieces got pulled, were retracted and trashed. That art director no longer
works at that insurance company. RF fights the whole notion of truly branding
an organization, in my view.
On saving money and cutting corners- I have found something useful that Seth
Resnick once said. I'll paraphrase- it was long ago. He had a client who was
trying to use an out-take of his, instead of an image that he could earn licensing
from. He asked this art director if they really thought that they were doing
a service to their company by saving money to use an image which may be somewhat
inferior to the one that is preferred? He asked them if they really thought
that they'd receive some sort of recognition for saving a few bucks in the
process? Because in his experience, he said, what usually happened was that
art directors who did this often found the opposite to be true and would often
find that they actually received less recognition, because they hadn't strived
to use the best images possible and they no longer were seen as being the
kind of decision maker in their company who would fight for the best for their
company. And that often it was that very art director that had lost the zest
for fighting for the best possible content- the best they can get, the best
they can do. And he went on that they would inevitably find that their budgets
are cut, because they've done such a great job cutting costs the year before-
so there they are at a company who doesn't value what they have done with
their company's funds, with skimpier budgets. In his view, he said he wouldn't
want to be seen by his superiors as the person who could spend less, by taking
shortcuts on their images.
He spoke to the art director with sincerity and was not hostile, but was candid.
He was candid about the notion, that saving money is often the short-sighted
way to do business. The art director thanked him and was pleased that he was
candid. The art director saw his point, and took it to heart. The art director
also licensed the more expensive image directly from Seth.
Seth, please forgive me if I have mistated any of this. But this is the perfect
example of short-term thinking on the part of many who seek to save right
now and fail to consider the long-term ramifications of those very decisions.
Thanks to Seth for that story he gave me a few years ago. I sometimes have
asked my clients "Aside from the obvious, why do we strive so hard to
save your client's money before anything else?" And "Do you think
they appreciate this?" "Do you think that if we save them money
they'll think we were really trying to do so?"
We have to find the right time to ask these questions, and we need to ask
them in the right way, but really, it's wonderful to see what light bulbs
turn on. Why do we seeking to scrimp first, and to create uniquely in the
second place? Let's not. Let's undo this paradyme immediately and whenever
possible. Let's help our clients to understand why it's wonderful for them
to spend money! I would never advocate squandering the client's money. But
lets question our clients notion of buying to save, when we should be buying
to excel.
_____________________________________
Remember Gateway
Computers?
<http://www.thestreet.com/_intuit/markets/dumbestgm/10069173.html>
Scroll down to item #2: "As the Five Dumbest Things Research
Lab belatedly learned this week, a Gateway (Computers) ad published in December
a few years ago, featured a prominent picture of a fun-lovin', presumably
music-downloadin' member of the youth culture groovin' with his PowerBook.
Manufactured and marketed, of course, by Apple."
and another
<http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17477>
<http://www.engadget.com/entry/2623165752917264/>
<http://www.asmp.org/commerce/royaltyfree.php>
______________________________
"How can
ad agencies be so stupid?" (I didn't say that)
A few years ago a new insurance
product was coming to market, due to changes in the state regulations. Naturally
every insurer in the state was rolling out similar products. Company
"A" decided to use a RF image as its lead image for a brochure
and print ad campaign... they found it on some discs they had in house.
Well, wouldn't you know that the designer who had been in the employ
of Company "A" left a few months earlier and went to work for the
agency representing Company "B". She says, " I used to have
this great selection of RF images, let's buy them!" So, when they are
rolling out the new product for Company "B", wouldn't ya just
know it, they find this PERFECT image on the RF disc that illustrates
the new product so perfectly...
So , Company "A" has brochures printed, waiting to be distributed, a print campaign at the newpapers, ready to roll out in the Sunday paper, when on the Thursday before, the Creative Director gets a direct mail piece at her home... from Company "B" using the EXACT same image.
Needless to say, no one slept for the next 4 days as they scambled to recreate all the material. Not to mention the rush assignment the photographer received to shoot a new image.
__________________________________
Hospitals
A couple of years ago the newspaper
here came out with a special advertising section on health care and all the
hospitals were advertising in it. Two of the largest hospitals in the city,
both owned by large chains, were featuring their birthing center. Both used
the same identical photo of a baby the full size of the ads, which were both
large.
What it did was give the impression that the 2 hospitals were owned by the same chain.
I'll bet their were a couple of unhappy CEO's and embarassed marketing directors the next morning.
_________________________________________
Is he selling computer software - or a sexual aid?
<http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/12/biz_adflap12.html>
Royalty Free Images may be a terrific resource for schoolkids and small companies
with small budgets, but it's a shame when it is used in higher profile ads
by billion dollar companies. ...and risky to boot. What is also a shame is
that a story like this doesn't get as much exposure as it deserves. In addition
to the Cincinnati Enquirer it should also be in media read by business executives.