MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: $250 for Nike wearing logo pix  (Read 30170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 14:52 by KnowYourOnions »


« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2015, 15:50 »
+8
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2015, 16:44 »
+12
Imagebreif is a massive time suck, lots of submissions, lots of short lists no commissions. Flawed business model for photographers, better off buying a lottery ticket.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2015, 16:48 »
0
......................
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 16:51 by ruxpriencdiam »

« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2015, 16:58 »
+1
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2015, 17:16 »
-3
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?
Whats wrong with that? You are selling for $19.99

shudderstok

« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2015, 17:25 »
+3
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?

probably fewer than the many that are proudly falling over themselves to submit images in dreams of making 0.25 to 0.38 per sale.

« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2015, 21:12 »
0
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?
Whats wrong with that? You are selling for $19.99

ummm, no, not really

I dont have any model released fit athletes in action with Nike product in the shot that I'm selling as an unlimited royalty- free license in my porfolio  :)

« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2015, 19:23 »
+3
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?
Whats wrong with that? You are selling for $19.99

What's wrong is that it's speculative work that might not even win the money, and if you don't win there is very little else you can do with the custom photo you have created

Semmick Photo

« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2015, 04:17 »
-1
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?
Whats wrong with that? You are selling for $19.99



What's wrong is that it's speculative work that might not even win the money, and if you don't win there is very little else you can do with the custom photo you have created

Thats not the point. And no one is forcing you to create anything. I did some custom shoots, simple ones none the less, but they werent chosen and now make me money on micros. Anything with a logo can be sold as editorial or RM on Alamy for example. So its not really a loss of time or work.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2015, 08:37 »
0
a company logo is such an important thing for a company, it's a shame so many think it's worthless and that the graphic designer should be paid a few bucks !

go in any decent design studio, you'll be asked a few 1000s for custom company logo + company font + brochures etc


Shelma1

« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2015, 10:04 »
+3
Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

Nike spends $2.4 billion a year on marketing. Hire a photographer and pay a decent amount for licensing. I really find crowd sourcing for custom work disturbing.

« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2015, 10:15 »
0
I don't participate in any type if SPEC work, another thing devaluing art and our industry. Here is a fun series that rips apart crowd sourcing sites like this:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0lNJEnwfVVNFN_lk9JRKSLT0wJ3-dnyk

Semmick Photo

« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2015, 10:49 »
+5
Its not Nike asking for photos. The people who are submitting this brief might have gotten a $10K budget and are just making a bundle of the back of photographers. The shots people take for 38 cents are seriously high quality. And now someone offers 250$ and you are ALL slating the photographers and the designers. Make up your minds.

This was shot for 38 cents. I really dont get the upset over 250$




Shelma1

« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2015, 12:17 »
0
The difference is that those shots are generic enough to be used by all sorts of different individuals and companies. That gives them high marketability and the potential for big earnings. By shooting specifically Nike, you're limiting yourself to editorial on a couple of sites. I doubt the returns would be worth it. Also, you're not shooting for $250 (which is a pathetic price for use by a huge corporation anyway), but only for a very slim chance at $250.

And ethically, it just turns my stomach that a corporation like Nike might wind up paying $250 for worldwide rights to an image. Normally they pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2015, 12:21 »
0
Well, if you have a pix already on file just submit it.
If not, skip it.
Happy Easter!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2015, 16:45 »
0
The difference is that those shots are generic enough to be used by all sorts of different individuals and companies. That gives them high marketability and the potential for big earnings. By shooting specifically Nike, you're limiting yourself to editorial on a couple of sites. I doubt the returns would be worth it. Also, you're not shooting for $250 (which is a pathetic price for use by a huge corporation anyway), but only for a very slim chance at $250.

And ethically, it just turns my stomach that a corporation like Nike might wind up paying $250 for worldwide rights to an image. Normally they pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I dont understand why Nike ends up paying 250$? The people doing to the work to pitch to Nike are buying the images. Nike might pay 10K for that job, we dont know. Its the people submitting the brief that are the  culprits here. IMO.


Shelma1

« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2015, 17:38 »
0
OK, fair enough. We don't know who they are, although you do give them worldwide rights to the image in perpetuity.

But think about it...by the time you buy a new, pristine pair of Nike shoes (or shorts or shirts or whatever you're shooting) and pay your model, you've already blown more than $250, would be my guess.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2015, 00:26 »
0
I dont understand why Nike ends up paying 250$? The people doing to the work to pitch to Nike are buying the images. Nike might pay 10K for that job, we dont know. Its the people submitting the brief that are the  culprits here. IMO.

i think the logo designers don't care about the money, they would probably do it for free, their goal is to design something for a major company like Nike and being allowed to list Nike in their portfolio.

basically they're giving away a freebie in exchange of gaining PR and reputation but it's a double edged sword, many photographers do the same joining any possible photo competition in order to gain an award and to call themselves "award winning photographer" no matter if they even had to pay to join these competitions and they won a few bucks and a free UV-filter ..


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2015, 00:30 »
+1
Its not Nike asking for photos. The people who are submitting this brief might have gotten a $10K budget and are just making a bundle of the back of photographers. The shots people take for 38 cents are seriously high quality. And now someone offers 250$ and you are ALL slating the photographers and the designers. Make up your minds.

This was shot for 38 cents. I really dont get the upset over 250$

but i can't believe this set of images has been shot specifically for microstock, you can bet they're leftovers from a commercial assignment.

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2015, 05:34 »
0
I dont understand why Nike ends up paying 250$? The people doing to the work to pitch to Nike are buying the images. Nike might pay 10K for that job, we dont know. Its the people submitting the brief that are the  culprits here. IMO.

i think the logo designers don't care about the money, they would probably do it for free, their goal is to design something for a major company like Nike

Oh, they care very much. Nike's logo was created for very little when the company was in its infancy and run by a college professor who asked a design student for help. But large corporations pay millions for logo redesigns.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
5889 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 01:10
by Magnum
New Logo Poll

Started by Allen « 1 2 3  All » Site Related

63 Replies
13178 Views
Last post January 26, 2009, 11:48
by lisafx
29 Replies
7557 Views
Last post November 29, 2010, 02:23
by Orchidpoet
12 Replies
4987 Views
Last post November 22, 2011, 10:34
by Morphart
New MSG Logo !

Started by Ron « 1 2  All » Site Related

42 Replies
9956 Views
Last post November 30, 2013, 03:34
by Kerioak~Christine

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results