Don't Underestimate The Value Of Exposure
from the if-you-can't-monetize-that,-you-fail dept
The NY Times is running an article about a bunch of illustrators complaining that Google offered to promote their work for free as special skins for its Chrome browser. The concern? That Google wouldn't pay them to promote their work. Of course, that's fine. They can (and many did) choose not to accept this free promotion, but it's difficult to understand what sort of statement they think they're making. As Google noted, it found plenty of takers for the chance at such a great channel for promotion, so all those artists who stood by their "principles" will suddenly find out that for all their complaints about not being "paid" by Google, lots of artists will get a lot more exposure, and hopefully most of them are smart about turning exposure into money. Google wasn't asking the artists to do anything new, but to reuse an existing work -- but from that, it's likely that people will learn about these artists, and that could (or should) easily lead to new work. The cost to artists is next to nothing, but the potential payoff is quite high. So why deny it? It's the same silly entitlement mentality that has people think that for every use of work they've already done they must get paid. It's a failure to recognize that exposure is a form of payment, and widespread exposure from a brand like Google should be quite easily monetizable. People who think compensation only comes in money are going to have a lot of difficulty succeeding in the digital era.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, chrome, exposure, free, graphic designers
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, but all the accolades and "great jobs" posted on chat boards don't pay the rent and don't buy food. So "succeeding in the digital era" could be fatal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People who have planet-wide name recognition tend to make lots of money. While it is entirely possible this oft repeated phenomenon is coincidental, one must acknowledge the possibility of there being some connection between being very well known AND being very well paid.
(PS - Don't quit your day job; because at the rate you think you'd starve before hitting upon another solution for employment.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really?
No, I mean - did.you.read.the.article...
No dude, really, c'mon.
...Ok, what.ever.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Advertising
Free advertising to a demographic that's broad and deep.
They couldn't afford it if they had to buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
orly?
amazingly they are now getting exposure, negative exposure (if that's even a statement).
I was raised under the impression that if you do something great, or amazing, that you are driven to share that with others, why is it even important for an artist that creates something beautiful to be paid for contributing to millions of others happiness.
You make another amazing point, exposure can always be turned into profit by entrepreneurs, and if i see something that gives me a warm fuzzy when I look at it, I will spend money to have a piece of that warmth.
~J
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: orly?
A bunch of whiny crybabies. No one is forcing them to create artwork if they don't want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: orly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: orly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
It's interesting that they point to paid illustrated work on TV and in print, then also lament the fact that these areas are starting to suffer to the web. Personally I'm never going to see an illustrators credit flash me by in the millisecond it is diplayed on TV, however in my own leisure at home I've already seen artwork and home page profiles of others I may never have seen before. I doubt I'll ever see the work of any of these artists sticking by their 'principles'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots
Yeah, did you read the linked article? The prestigious names they dropped were: (Ta-da!)
Gift cards at TARGET and some NICKELODEON filler cartoons. (Ta-da?)
Google? Who the hell is Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots
I'd also say that I've heard of Target and I live on the other side of the world so they can't be that small...a national chain I believe?
So obviously it isn't ALL the illustrators, the point was that they both pointed to having a previous record of payment from established well known companies and then in the next breath said that they were competing with the internet and then turn down an opportunity to work with a giant in that industry because they're not getting 'paid'? I guess they figured it was more advantageous to whine about it in the NYT which required little effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots
Don't know, me google it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um. No.
Arguably they got more exposure by not participating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
I'm just guessing but I'd wager more people will visit by clicking a few buttons to check out some interesting free art than be bothered reading yesterday's news about upset artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
There are plenty of people that are willing to trade free work for mass exposure. They're the ones that took the offer.
And more exposure by not participating? Tell me the artists who refused then. Lucky for the few that got interviewed by NY Times, but the rest won't even get named.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
When they can convince people to pay.
And some of them can, so I can't blame the one's already making big money. I mean if I was making art at 200 bucks an hour, you'd be hard pressed to get me to do free promotional work - but even then I wouldn't act like a cheerleader who just got asked to prom by the class loser.
I mean eew, whatever! As if!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
But honestly, what's the point of agreeing or disagreeing? There were plenty of artists who saw value in the exposure, and so to them, they received a fair transaction. What is there to complain about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
There is a willful agreement between both parties, why should I assume that both parties don't have something to gain if the agreement is willful.
This is how free markets work. When you go to the store and buy something the reason you bought something is because you value what you bought more than the money you paid. The reason the person sold it to you was because he valued the money more than what he sold. It's mutually beneficial because BOTH parties agreed to the transaction.
The same exact thing is true here. This is basic economics. Both parties agreed to it because it is beneficial to both of them. The artists that agreed to it did so because he saw the benefits as being more beneficial to him than the cost of his time to produce the art. Google agreed to it because they saw the art as being more beneficial to them than the publicity they provide. Both parties benefit so they agree.
Now when both parties may not benefit is when you have the government distort the free market. For example, when the government forces an artist or a restaurant to pay a third party royalties for playing a song when both parties would agree otherwise if it were up to them is not a mutually beneficial transaction. The artist (and restaurant) loses more from the third party than they gain (and if this loss is substantial enough to overcome the gains that both parties gain from each other then this might stop the transaction which may restrict the advancement of good music). Government involvement of free markets in this regard is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um. No.
They are just being slightly more blatant this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
If illustrators didn't charge anything each time their work got exposure they would never get paid. Where would they draw the line? Should the artist in the article not have charged for the cards she did for Target because of the exposure it got her? The nature of the work she did for Target is exactly the same as the one Google was asking her to do. So I reckon the same pricing applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um. No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um. No.
I -think- the cost to artists is next to nothing because the cost to artists is next to nothing. They are being asked for permission to advertise already created works of art, no extra work required. You do realize that a huge segment of the economy is devoted to paying in order to get more exposure (advertising) for products? And yet Google offers to do this for free since there is a benefit for them as well.
This is called win-win. I can't even comprehend the mindset that cannot see this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's plenty of work involved, and time dedicated to any given illustration, but a large part of what makes an artist's career is Brand recognition. Places like Coca-cola have it in spades. Sometimes you can look at a movie and know exactly who made it. Artist's are employed based on this kind of brand-recognition, not that they just have a brand. Even a particularly good brand. Anybody with some talent can make a nice picture. It takes an artist to sell that to the public.
This would be akin to taking a giant billboard out in Times Square for the amount of publicity involved.
And for the people who complained, they'll get their one or two articles and be gone from the public consciousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oversimplification
The tradeoff is complicated. For one thing, like many tradeoffs in business, it's about current versus future expense or income. These are always hard, because future expenses/incomes are inherently uncertain, while current expenses/income are certain - and sometimes you just have to pay the rent.
If you look at the actual Times article, the clear impression is that all the artists approached have a significant audience and business already, and certainly the ones who are refusing to let their work be used for free appear to be doing quite well. To stand on the outside and tell them how they should run their businesses - with no knowledge of where they actually stand - is incredibly presumptuous. Some of the artists who are refusing to participate are likely making a mistake. Others who are *agreeing* to participate may well be making a mistake, if the publicity they get ends up garnering only requests for more free work, rather than paying contracts.
Frankly, it seems to me that the biggest mistake here was Google's. I'm reading between the lines here - I don't know what Google actually said - but they appear to have been insensitive to how these artists see their businesses. It was only after the fact that they appear to have made it clear that they would be happy with existing work - most artists at the level they were approaching probably assumed they, like most customers, wanted something unique done just for them. Rather than casting this as an honor - a kind of on-the-web art show - they let it look like commerce. Well, if it's commerce - why shouldn't the artists expect payment? Perception and setting are essential in determining how people view a request.
By the way, this kind of thing doesn't just happen with artists. A small company I knew spent a great deal of up-front effort putting together a proposal and participating in a bake-off against competitors, for a sale in the low millions of dollars - a big part of the year's income for them - to customize and sell software to a mega-company. The mega-company's response was "We love your technology; it beat everyone. We want to use your stuff. In fact, we love it so much that we'll be happy to tell the world that we're using it. Our endorsement is so valuable that we propose you give us your software for free." Fine idea; but if the small company had gone along with it, they might well not have survived the year. (The deal was eventually negotiated to some level close to the small company's original proposal.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oversimplification
So if an artist pays for a flyer to promote their work at a gallery, it's OK not to get paid for the artwork on the flyer...but Google promoting them on the world's most viewed web page gets them up in arms.
I don't see any "mistake" on Google's part - either you want to sell your art or you don't. If you do, you consider this opportunity for promotion. If you don't, say "no" and stay away.
But don't then cry "foul" because big, bad Google made an offer to expose your work...for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oversimplification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Melinda Beck Got "Streisand Effect"
It is up to each individual illustrator to run the calculus on whether that exposure is more helpful to them then an usage fee. Obviously some did decide that it would be helpful.
Obviously Melinda Beck who got her picture and name prominently in the NY Times (and being an illustrator who lives in Brooklyn) got more exposure to her target market of clients in the NYC area (via your "Streisand Effect") by turning down the Chrome opportunity.
Also Google has as of yet given zero publicity to the illustrators who accepted the offer to exchange for exposure.
Also you do know that Google Chrome browser was at 1.58% market share in Q2 of 2009. So if I was an illustrator looking at a limited budget of giving stuff away for free than I would shop for an entity with a little better market share.
I am making an assumption that may or may not be correct about the work of illustrators and the market they sell to. I assume that the magazines, etc. who buy their work want something visually fresh that others don't have so that there is some dilution of an illustration if it is seen too often in a browser or elsewhere.
A band can budget to do, say 5 free exposure gigs a year. They have a choice of the corner coffee shop or a medium large music club. Which should they choose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tons of exposure to non-buyers and non-relevant people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a browser - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy work
PS - Melinda appears to have gotten her face on the Times because she: A) lives close (traveling photographers are $$ after all) and B) is cute as a button, unlike other artists I've known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(from the NYT article)
Then don't, no one is forcing you. But stop your crying like a baby. What are you going to do next, cry to the government so they can hold your hand and force Google to pay you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Important Things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay for it again Sam
Copyright shouldn't be more than a few years. Maybe 10 at the most, anything else is really just robbing the people of a steady new stream of art by making the pressure to create new works almost nonexistant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pay for it again Sam
Your example of an engineer does not compare to an illustrator. Most engineers have a regular job and the company they work for owns whatever they produce or design. Free lance artists earn their living by each job. They create something new constantly. This is their work. They create it and own it. if you want to use , you must pay. Would you do a free ad for Mcdonalds or Coke?
I think not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pay for it again Sam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pay for it again Sam
How does one arbitrarily determine how long copyrights are set?
An "Engineer" working for a corporation will probably get 2 weeks paid vacation, health care, benefits, possibly profit sharing, salary increases, possibly day care for children, unemployment insurance, etc....
The freelance artist has to cover all of these and more from the sale of their art. Giving up rights = not going to work. Giving away your property/invested energies at a loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pay for it again Sam
If it is an entitlement issue, why are engineers entitled to pay but artists are supposed to work for free?
For the most part artists (illustrators, photographers, authors, etc) are freelancers. They don't get payed unless someone commissions work.
Unlike engineers, and other employees, artists are entrepreneurs running a business to make a profit(isn't that the American Dream?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pay for it again Sam
"...anything else is really just robbing the people of a steady new stream of art..."
So, the people are entitled to a steady stream of art? Why? Just because? So what you're saying is that the public in general should have free stuff to look at... for no reason other than they just should. Pleas explain the difference in that to me.
You talk about copyrights as if the artist should just give their stuff away for free so that people can use it. Guess what, someone is making money off that art. Be it Google trying to spice up their interface appearance to get more people to use their product, some company using a photo to advertise their product so THEY can make money, or some business selling copies of the photo to make money. Basically, the artists should just give their stuff up so other people can make money off of it, all for "exposure". While, yes, exposure is worth it in some situations, not all.
In this instance, as someone said above, they're going to be showing their work to people who probably aren't going to commission them anyways, so is the "exposure" really worth it? Maybe, maybe not. They say no. So drop it. Stop feeling entitled to seeing artists work for nothing and expecting everything to be a-ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYT Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free doesn't make sense if it doesn't lead to sales
What new doors or marketing opportunities would being seen on a mass market Google project bring to successful illustrators? How would getting something on Google enable them to charge more or sell more? Generally illustrators aren't compensated based on mass popularity but rather on the appropriateness of their work to their clients' needs.
Rockstardom in the Google world doesn't really translate into an economic benefit for established artists who already have lots of paying clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scarcity of art
Part of the art market is to make one-of-a-kind or limited edition items, so giving your art away for free undercuts the cachet that comes with owning something that isn't widely available.
Have you read the articles about the man who owns the sole rights to a Sufjan Stevens song? The only way to hear the song is to go to the man's house for special concerts. That makes it a rare and very special event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't do it
If you are an artist and allow someone like Google to use your work without paying you for it, under the bogus premise that it's "good exposure," then you are basically saying to the world that your work is worth nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a designer, my industry is rife with such horror stories.
http://www.no-spec.com/archives/creativepro-spec-work-and-crowdsourcing/
Even related industries are being asked to work for nothing.
http://www.matthewbennett.es/1084/linkedin-infuriates-professional-translators-10-big-qu estions/
If I want to market myself, I'll market myself. And not through a company who's name is so big, it ends up casting an impenetrable shadow on mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How professional illustrators get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donating art in exchange for exposure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]