Comments on: Time‘s $30 Cover Photo: The Scary Realities of Supply and Demand http://www.mediaite.com/print/times-30-cover-photo-cheap-now-expensive-later/ Mediaite Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:19:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=2012.06 By: Rahav Segev http://www.mediaite.com/print/times-30-cover-photo-cheap-now-expensive-later/#comment-2657 Rahav Segev Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:09:17 +0000 http://www.mediaite.com/?p=7017#comment-2657 No one seems to have commented here or anywhere else on the irony of the cost of the cover shot perfectly fitting the subject of the story. It makes complete sense for Time to have been frugal on a cover about frugality. In today's editorial environment no one, including Time magazine, wants to burn money they don't have to. Their cover rate is a guideline and a budget they are allowed to negotiate from. That number can go up or down depending on the image they want to use. iStockphotos reason d'etre is to supply cheap stock, if you are unhappy with those terms then don't give them your images. As Nick pointed out the cost of making that photo and the skill involved was not commensurate with Time's usual cover rate nor with the uniqueness of this image. Perhaps that means that it was appropriate for them to save some money on it. Maybe the photographer IS right to be pleased with the cover tear sheet because the Illustrator could EASILY and quickly have shot a similar image and used that instead. If that had been the case Robert Lam wouldn't have gotten that cover shot or the ensuing press that's come his way. No one seems to have commented here or anywhere else on the irony of the cost of the cover shot perfectly fitting the subject of the story. It makes complete sense for Time to have been frugal on a cover about frugality. In today’s editorial environment no one, including Time magazine, wants to burn money they don’t have to. Their cover rate is a guideline and a budget they are allowed to negotiate from. That number can go up or down depending on the image they want to use.
iStockphotos reason d’etre is to supply cheap stock, if you are unhappy with those terms then don’t give them your images. As Nick pointed out the cost of making that photo and the skill involved was not commensurate with Time’s usual cover rate nor with the uniqueness of this image. Perhaps that means that it was appropriate for them to save some money on it. Maybe the photographer IS right to be pleased with the cover tear sheet because the Illustrator could EASILY and quickly have shot a similar image and used that instead. If that had been the case Robert Lam wouldn’t have gotten that cover shot or the ensuing press that’s come his way.

]]> By: Bruce Oren http://www.mediaite.com/print/times-30-cover-photo-cheap-now-expensive-later/#comment-2479 Bruce Oren Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:25:57 +0000 http://www.mediaite.com/?p=7017#comment-2479 NYT had a piece Friday about the megabucks paid for Annie Leibovitz's work (and megabucks spent by her). Is the quality of her work really worth thousands of times more than the work of other, nameless talented shooters? Is her genius her artistic perfection or is it 90 percent marketing hype? Can readers really tell the difference between her work and another professional's work if they're both shooting the same superstar's mug? I think her fame and the fees she receives are due to clever marketing and the fame of her subjects. I'm not saying that Annie isn't talented, just that her reputation and remuneration are out of proportion to the rest of the marketplace. Her celebrity portraits aren't shot in a war zone. $30 is an appalling amount for this photo, but so is $1 million. NYT had a piece Friday about the megabucks paid for Annie Leibovitz’s work (and megabucks spent by her). Is the quality of her work really worth thousands of times more than the work of other, nameless talented shooters? Is her genius her artistic perfection or is it 90 percent marketing hype? Can readers really tell the difference between her work and another professional’s work if they’re both shooting the same superstar’s mug?

I think her fame and the fees she receives are due to clever marketing and the fame of her subjects. I’m not saying that Annie isn’t talented, just that her reputation and remuneration are out of proportion to the rest of the marketplace. Her celebrity portraits aren’t shot in a war zone.

$30 is an appalling amount for this photo, but so is $1 million.

]]> By: Nick Douglas http://www.mediaite.com/print/times-30-cover-photo-cheap-now-expensive-later/#comment-2396 Nick Douglas Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:55:11 +0000 http://www.mediaite.com/?p=7017#comment-2396 What Hobbs says, plus: These are the terms the photographer signed up for! If he'd charged more, TIME could have found some other stock photo. This is nothing like paying thirty bucks for a fancy, unique shot -- the cover artist saved his employer a lot of money by not shooting a jar of coins himself. Just because TIME usually pays more for a cover shot doesn't mean that the value of a mundane shot of a change jar suddenly skyrocketed. What Hobbs says, plus: These are the terms the photographer signed up for! If he’d charged more, TIME could have found some other stock photo. This is nothing like paying thirty bucks for a fancy, unique shot — the cover artist saved his employer a lot of money by not shooting a jar of coins himself. Just because TIME usually pays more for a cover shot doesn’t mean that the value of a mundane shot of a change jar suddenly skyrocketed.

]]> By: R. Richard Hobbs http://www.mediaite.com/print/times-30-cover-photo-cheap-now-expensive-later/#comment-2378 R. Richard Hobbs Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:15:48 +0000 http://www.mediaite.com/?p=7017#comment-2378 if it was non-exclusive RF then Time got what it paid for - this photo is just as likely to turn up a bazillion other places in the media / online - hardly an exclusive cover photo. If he sold exclusive rights to Time f this photo for $30 - well, maybe somebody needs their head examined. if it was non-exclusive RF then Time got what it paid for – this photo is just as likely to turn up a bazillion other places in the media / online – hardly an exclusive cover photo. If he sold exclusive rights to Time f this photo for $30 – well, maybe somebody needs their head examined.

]]>