pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty's new "Lean In" collection  (Read 6974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 10, 2014, 12:54 »
0
Perhaps this is just a recent example of trying to take advantage of a trendy thing to sell more stuff, but apparently Getty and Sheryl Sandberg's LeanIn.org foundation have teamed up on a 2,500 image LeanIn collection and and Getty will be sharing 10% of the revenue from sales in this new collection with the non profilt. No word on whether that's 10% of Getty's take or 10% of the gross, but based on Getty's track record, I'm betting that the contributor is sharing in this "donation". The New York Times article says ten percent; the other articles say an undisclosed percentage.

There's nothing on GettyImages front page or on their press release page or blog

The NY Times article had a slideshow of 6 images in the collection and I checked on the price of two of them

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/first-grade-school-children-learn-on-high-res-stock-photography/187480288

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/studio-portrait-of-business-woman-high-res-stock-photography/143699172

Both are RM so I priced them for a home page banner on an Education web site for the US only (not really sure how that makes any sense for web uses) for one year and that'll cost $955!! I guess this LeanIn collection will only be for very wealthy corporations :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/business/leaninorg-and-getty-aim-to-change-womens-portrayal-in-stock-photos.html?hp
http://mashable.com/2014/02/09/lean-in-getty-women/
http://adage.com/article/media/lean-teams-getty-make-stock-photos-sexist/291578/
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/lean-in-getty-stock-photos/
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 13:20 by Jo Ann Snover »


« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2014, 12:59 »
+2
I liked this comment from adage:
"Like every producer, I'm all for more and varied stock imagery, but it seems to me like this is a solution in search of a problem. My company does many projects incorporating lifestyle stock, and we've never yet had to settle for an image of a woman in high heels climbing a ladder while going 12 rounds with Ronda Rousey. Seriously, has anyone else encountered a dearth of "empowered" female images in the stock universe? (Beyond the usual "There's just not images of X available at a reasonable price.") "

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2014, 13:07 »
0
I think Ms. Sandberg is a self promoter par excellence, so overpriced images that aren't really all that different from many others that would fit the bill doesn't surprise me - but it's good to see someone point it out in the coverage.

Getty and some other organizations did tweet about this and then it got re-tweeted a bit so I guess it'll get them the attention they're after :)

https://twitter.com/GettyImages/status/432918500290486272

https://twitter.com/Slate/status/432926979588096001

Amy Poehler has room for a salad too

https://twitter.com/smrtgrls/status/432928016402886656

A lot of the content in the Irish Times article appears to be from the NY Times (or whatever press release they received) but there's a great paragraph at the end:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/please-no-more-women-laughing-alone-with-salad-1.1686397?page=1

"The partnership is a way for Lean In to broaden its reach after criticism that Sandbergs advice is relevant only to women in corporate America and that she places the burden of breaking through stereotypes on individual women, instead of on workplaces and society."

Except that the comment isn't broad enough, I agree with that - I'd say that Ms. Sandberg's advice applies to Ms. Sandberg and the small number of others at the very top of the corporate ladder and income bracket, not anything like all women in corporate America, let alone all women in America.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 13:14 by Jo Ann Snover »

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2014, 13:11 »
0
I found it depressing that she would consider the marketing question as "Do we partner into sexism or do we partner against sexism?

Shelma1

« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2014, 13:53 »
0
As a few people have commented on the Times' website, it's nice to see she's concentrating on the really big issues.  ::)

« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2014, 14:19 »
+5
As a few people have commented on the Times' website, it's nice to see she's concentrating on the really big issues.  ::)

over 120 comments so far, some of which pointing out what you just noticed.

And one comment from "ugh" in NJ which makes note of the situation stock photographers are in producing what sells for the people who do the buying

"Sorry, but they're picking on the wrong people. Freelance stock photographerswho only get 20% or less of the amount of the sale, with Getty or its other company, iStock, keeping the lion's shareare just shooting these images because they sell.
Go to the source insteadthe white male fashion designers and white male advertising execs who set the trends and determine how women are portrayed in their advertising, and who make these stock photos best-sellers.
The advertising industry is one of the most misogynistic in the country. Women and people of color are barely represented in top management anywhere.
It's all these white men who determine which photos will appear in their ads. Talk to them, Sandberg."

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.

And I see Chelsea Clinton is jumping on the bandwagon...

https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/status/432958471474933760
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 14:27 by Jo Ann Snover »

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2014, 15:27 »
+2
Those are pretty large unwatermarked images they're giving away in that slideshow. Wonder if the photographers who took them know?

« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2014, 20:21 »
0
.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 20:18 by onepointfour »

« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2014, 21:06 »
+1
I have 2 photos added to this collection. Let's see how this goes.

I do hope this brings you lots of new sales - as the old saying goes, "It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good" :)

« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2014, 07:26 »
0

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.


These look pretty "authentic" for the most part newbielink:http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/ [nonactive]

Ron

« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2014, 08:08 »
+2

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.


These look pretty "authentic" for the most part http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2014, 09:34 »
-2
Add 1 more to the media entities looking for few more pennies by riding the lowbrow bullscheisse women-this&that  movement.

« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2014, 09:41 »
+6
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

Well, there's an obvious reason.  "Real" and "authentic" images are the images we take of the life around us.  More and more people are using their convenient phones to capture these "real" moments, and those phones make images with less exposure range and more noise, and the apps commonly used to share them have all the nifty filters.  So, "real", now, isn't just content, but also a product of the thing used to capture the image.  Of course, we can't walk around family and friends events all the times handing out releases, so sure, things are going to be set up.  But the feeling of "real" - the visual style - can be overlaid on that to enforce the sense even when maybe the content doesn't scream "I was taken without the subject's knowledge" or whatever.

« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2014, 09:49 »
+2

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.


These look pretty "authentic" for the most part http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.


Yep. Any ideal becomes a contradictory, dumb dogma by the time it's filtered thru the plebs, it's inevitable.... f.e. the  the style stocksy&co are pushing for is about as authentic as a north korean poster about pyongyang city life.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2014, 10:04 »
+5
"Style" is a moving target defined by what people are buying and what they like to look at. The challenge is tapping into the market as styles change. Saying that you disagree with what is popular at the time results in fewer sales for you and more for the other guys.

« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2014, 10:04 »
-3
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

Well, there's an obvious reason.  "Real" and "authentic" images are the images we take of the life around us.  More and more people are using their convenient phones to capture these "real" moments, and those phones make images with less exposure range and more noise, and the apps commonly used to share them have all the nifty filters.  So, "real", now, isn't just content, but also a product of the thing used to capture the image.  Of course, we can't walk around family and friends events all the times handing out releases, so sure, things are going to be set up.  But the feeling of "real" - the visual style - can be overlaid on that to enforce the sense even when maybe the content doesn't scream "I was taken without the subject's knowledge" or whatever.

According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Btw I'm starting to see filters that are rudimentary implementations of extreme retouching, they usually seem to be derived from noise filtering on super high settings smoothing everything over to a plastic look. How the people of this 'get real' movement gonna digest this demand coming back from exactly the people that are said to be targeted by it? :) ohh I know... these people have already been victimized, so they need to be re-educated by an onslaught of ugly showed down their throat. Lenin is smiling in his grave. Am I exaggerating? Just look at the how moron-hubs like huffpo proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...

« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2014, 10:17 »
0
According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2014, 10:30 »
+3
... proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...
What's wrong with that?
We've had fake beauty shoved down our throats for so long, we've been indoctrinated to regard anything else as 'unacceptable'.

« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2014, 10:51 »
-5
... proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...
What's wrong with that?
We've had fake beauty shoved down our throats for so long, we've been indoctrinated to regard anything else as 'unacceptable'.

Everything. Culture is about ideals. Ideals are above average reality not under it. Setting example by repeatedly showing&glamourizing the "under part" is amputating ideals off the culture / people. It's lobotomy. The result is a degenerate jerry springer crowd, which is the real purpose, not the supposed 'acceptance & equality'. The fact that I'm right about the phoney nature of it, shows perfectly in the results. They show around an anorexics as a huge social problem... while obesity is epidemic. The result: even more & more extreme obesity, because people take the fake message and run away with it to the extremes, or just use it as excuse to perform a defiant act of eating themselves to death. So while people are gasping about some anorexic girl or hooraying some plus-size model, doctors have to invent new phrases for people who are so morbidly, unnatrurally obese they just can't x-ray them. Facepalm society.

« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2014, 10:53 »
-1
According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.

You take an aggregate, so can see that this is the most prevalent form of it. By far.

« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2014, 11:11 »
0
Marketing hype is always a pathetic read and exploitative no matter what anyone says.

Besides, the whole idea has been nicked from documentary/art photographers....Rineke Dijkstra, Nan Goldin and Alec Soth amongst many others.

lisafx

« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2014, 13:47 »
+3
According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.

You take an aggregate, so can see that this is the most prevalent form of it. By far.

Well, at least I got to learn a new term from this exchange.  Am I the only one who didn't know what "duck face" is? (Thank you Google...)

« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2014, 14:03 »
+1

Well, at least I got to learn a new term from this exchange.  Am I the only one who didn't know what "duck face" is? (Thank you Google...)

+1 I just learned a new term too  8)

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2014, 14:10 »
+4
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

lisafx

« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2014, 16:07 »
0
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

So true!!

« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2014, 16:25 »
+1

Well, at least I got to learn a new term from this exchange.  Am I the only one who didn't know what "duck face" is? (Thank you Google...)

+1 I just learned a new term too  8)

Me too! Not sure it is one I am likely to use often though.

« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2014, 17:54 »
-3
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

Wow, that's uneducated confusion. First of all advertising is a part of culture, even if it's often perverted. Ideals aren't trying to make people feel bad, that's envy when they are too lazy, numb-dumd to strive to achieve them so instead they start frowning upon them.


« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2014, 18:02 »
-2
Marketing hype is always a pathetic read and exploitative no matter what anyone says.

Besides, the whole idea has been nicked from documentary/art photographers....Rineke Dijkstra, Nan Goldin and Alec Soth amongst many others.

Yep. Look at the plus-size models hype. Thousands of hoo-ray comments on places like huffpo, and noone stops to ask where are the male plus size models. Just pure facepalm.

Ron

« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2014, 18:59 »
-4
I had a run in with topol once but I find myself mostly agreeing with him on many subjects.

By the way. . . Duck face is quite a common expression for selfies of girls with pouting lips :)

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2014, 19:00 »
+3
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

Wow, that's uneducated confusion. First of all advertising is a part of culture, even if it's often perverted. Ideals aren't trying to make people feel bad, that's envy when they are too lazy, numb-dumd to strive to achieve them so instead they start frowning upon them.

You think that someone who doesn't 'strive' to achieve someone else's idea of 'ideal' is lazy or numb-dumb?
Sheeesh. I have no words.
Unless you're the bimbo with the inch-thick makeup who grabbed me in a department store and said I should wear makeup every day "so that I'd feel better about myself, and have more self-confidence", when clearly I seem to have the gall and brass neck to go out and about without any.

lisafx

« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2014, 19:17 »
+8
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

Wow, that's uneducated confusion. First of all advertising is a part of culture, even if it's often perverted. Ideals aren't trying to make people feel bad, that's envy when they are too lazy, numb-dumd to strive to achieve them so instead they start frowning upon them.

Clearly you disagree, but there's no need to be insulting.  Unless you are employing Harry Truman's old tactic of "argument weak, yell like hell". 

Advertising is all about making people feel bad, or at least envious (is feeling envious "good" now?).  The best way to persuade people to spend money is to convince them they are dissatisfied with what they have. 

If I am interpreting Liz's comments correctly, her point is that you can't spend your way to happiness.  There will always be something newer and better, and at some point you can opt out and choose to be satisfied with what you have and/or what you are.  If not, you'll be chasing your tail forever. 

Of course in the stock business we rely on people continuing to spend money to advertise things, so that's fine with me if they want to keep using my pictures to do it.   8)

« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2014, 05:30 »
-3
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

Wow, that's uneducated confusion. First of all advertising is a part of culture, even if it's often perverted. Ideals aren't trying to make people feel bad, that's envy when they are too lazy, numb-dumd to strive to achieve them so instead they start frowning upon them.

Clearly you disagree, but there's no need to be insulting.  Unless you are employing Harry Truman's old tactic of "argument weak, yell like hell". 

Advertising is all about making people feel bad, or at least envious (is feeling envious "good" now?).  The best way to persuade people to spend money is to convince them they are dissatisfied with what they have. 

If I am interpreting Liz's comments correctly, her point is that you can't spend your way to happiness.  There will always be something newer and better, and at some point you can opt out and choose to be satisfied with what you have and/or what you are.  If not, you'll be chasing your tail forever. 

Of course in the stock business we rely on people continuing to spend money to advertise things, so that's fine with me if they want to keep using my pictures to do it.   8)

I was factual. This "nah, thats advertising" kind of reply when someone is talking about ideals and culture... that is an insult. she might just as well have farted out loud, laughed, and said take that with your 'culture, he-he-he' like just some banjo playing redneck.... didn't even make a logical connection, I had to do that part too

'making people feel bad', 'Spending your way to happines'??? What??? Can we at least have an attempt at some logical train of thought? By the way, were the greeks and people like Michelangelo in the advertising business and trying to make people feel bad? :)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 05:48 by topol »

« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2014, 05:54 »
-3
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

Wow, that's uneducated confusion. First of all advertising is a part of culture, even if it's often perverted. Ideals aren't trying to make people feel bad, that's envy when they are too lazy, numb-dumd to strive to achieve them so instead they start frowning upon them.

You think that someone who doesn't 'strive' to achieve someone else's idea of 'ideal' is lazy or numb-dumb?
Sheeesh. I have no words.
Unless you're the bimbo with the inch-thick makeup who grabbed me in a department store and said I should wear makeup every day "so that I'd feel better about myself, and have more self-confidence", when clearly I seem to have the gall and brass neck to go out and about without any.

Wow, how did makeup come in?? Whats next, unflattering swimsuits... Do you realize you act exactly like I described in my post? You have some very personal frustration with some selected narrow issue and just can't keep from rating about it, not bothered by me talking about something totally different. It's ok, everyone is free to rant all they want, but why post them as an answer to my post about culture and ideals.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2014, 12:26 »
+4
Depends on which definition of culture someone is using. I mean they culture mold too...  :) But Sue is correct that some people are sheep and follow the advertising and trends, so they can be like whatever is most popular. While I'd say Cultural would be: shared beliefs and values. However as language gets watered down, there we very well are.

Others are individuals and non-conformists, which sometimes can bring some disdain, but it makes for a better self and balance overall.

Sticking hardware in your face and needling ones body with Tats, is not non-conformist. It's wearing a uniform and being one of the many, trying to be different. But in the end, just being the same? (odd isn't it?)

Duck face? Every time I see someone now, doing that, all I can think of is, Daffy did it first and they all look just like him when they do it! That's sexy or what? Lets hope that trend dies off soon.


Lean In? Should I apply?




Culture is about ideals.

Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2014, 12:31 »
+2
Depends on which definition of culture someone is using. I mean they culture mold too...  :) But Sue is correct that some people are sheep and follow the advertising and trends, so they can be like whatever is most popular. While I'd say Cultural would be: shared beliefs and values. However as language gets watered down, there we very well are.

Others are individuals and non-conformists, which sometimes can bring some disdain, but it makes for a better self and balance overall.

Sticking hardware in your face and needling ones body with Tats, is not non-conformist. It's wearing a uniform and being one of the many, trying to be different. But in the end, just being the same? (odd isn't it?)

Duck face? Every time I see someone now, doing that, all I can think of is, Daffy did it first and they all look just like him when they do it! That's sexy or what? Lets hope that trend dies off soon.


Lean In? Should I apply?




Culture is about ideals.

Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.



Good reply, Uncle Pete.

« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2014, 06:24 »
-1
Depends on which definition of culture someone is using. I mean they culture mold too...  :) But Sue is correct that some people are sheep and follow the advertising and trends, so they can be like whatever is most popular. While I'd say Cultural would be: shared beliefs and values. However as language gets watered down, there we very well are.

Others are individuals and non-conformists, which sometimes can bring some disdain, but it makes for a better self and balance overall.

Sticking hardware in your face and needling ones body with Tats, is not non-conformist. It's wearing a uniform and being one of the many, trying to be different. But in the end, just being the same? (odd isn't it?)

Duck face? Every time I see someone now, doing that, all I can think of is, Daffy did it first and they all look just like him when they do it! That's sexy or what? Lets hope that trend dies off soon.


Lean In? Should I apply?




Culture is about ideals.

Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.




You are right. When I talk to people like that I'll have to make sure to pinpoint that my use of culture is not about mold or bacteria... thanks! :)

« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2014, 07:43 »
0
Sticking hardware in your face and needling ones body with Tats, is not non-conformist. It's wearing a uniform and being one of the many, trying to be different. But in the end, just being the same? (odd isn't it?)


But nobody would ever sensibly argue that ink and piercings are about trying to be different. Being clearly tribal and therefore absolutely about conforming to a group identity. Like hairstyles or wearing a tie.

Trend spotting is not about following trends - it is about identifying trends which are already emerging - often amongst self identifying groups. It's about trying to see how those trends are likely to evolve and propagate.  Stock photography and advertising is all about trends surely. Culture is a neutral term - neither pejorative nor positive.

William Gibson's wonderful novel Pattern Recognition is partly about trend spotting.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2014, 09:23 »
+1
Sticking hardware in your face and needling ones body with Tats, is not non-conformist. It's wearing a uniform and being one of the many, trying to be different. But in the end, just being the same? (odd isn't it?)


But nobody would ever sensibly argue that ink and piercings are about trying to be different. Being clearly tribal and therefore absolutely about conforming to a group identity. Like hairstyles or wearing a tie.

Trend spotting is not about following trends - it is about identifying trends which are already emerging - often amongst self identifying groups. It's about trying to see how those trends are likely to evolve and propagate.  Stock photography and advertising is all about trends surely. Culture is a neutral term - neither pejorative nor positive.

William Gibson's wonderful novel Pattern Recognition is partly about trend spotting.


In marketing, you are absolutely correct.

Not picking on one modern group. Spools are newer than hardware. (even if more ancient) Tats are early cultural markings also. Not about that.

Go back to the Hippy days, people were rebelling by dressing alike and wearing similar long hair. Yeah, Real non-conformists, all dressing in beads, leather and Granny glasses, and looking the same.

That's the point. Preppies, greasers, Goths, pants on the ground, hoodys, whatever, it's not about the people or their quest for individual identity. (displayed by a lack of it actually)

I'm just pointing out the flawed personal belief that they are somehow being different, when they are just following like lemmings, and being the same.

Which goes full circle back to Sues comment about advertising, attempting to drive people to be something they have no wish or desire to be, except by social pressure or the hinting that one needs to be IN and with the trends to be popular or happy.

Yes Topol you got it. LOL It wasn't aimed at you.

Culture is used interchangeably by people where it should be Cultural. Not your mistake either, look in the dictionary, it's acceptable usage. So much for language and confusion.

In fact, when people start into how a keyword search finds "bad" results, I try to point out that we are humans and understand difference. Computers are stupid and see a code, there's no way to know what the alternate meaning is, or how there are multiple items that use the same word, and are quite different.

Culture is good, and I like cheese, Yogurt is OK too. Penicillin and antibiotics come from cultures. Tribal is cultural and identity, much of it traditions and historic. Dressing up and painting ones face and then looking like a duck is just silly! (and none of the above)


« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2014, 12:11 »
+3
Perhaps not every photographer, but the stock community in general, has produced imagery of every conceivable subject in huge varieties of style for a long time now, BUT, the powers who sell these images would too often reject many of them as non commercial. Now, many of those same images are considered modern, stylistic and real, a euphemism for * but the market is soft and we have to try something. The dog does not like to be wagged.

« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2014, 12:38 »
0
Sticking hardware in your face and needling ones body with Tats, is not non-conformist. It's wearing a uniform and being one of the many, trying to be different. But in the end, just being the same? (odd isn't it?)


But nobody would ever sensibly argue that ink and piercings are about trying to be different. Being clearly tribal and therefore absolutely about conforming to a group identity. Like hairstyles or wearing a tie.

Trend spotting is not about following trends - it is about identifying trends which are already emerging - often amongst self identifying groups. It's about trying to see how those trends are likely to evolve and propagate.  Stock photography and advertising is all about trends surely. Culture is a neutral term - neither pejorative nor positive.

William Gibson's wonderful novel Pattern Recognition is partly about trend spotting.


But I do see that people buy ultra-mass-produced clothes&accessories and use them as described by mass media, 110% convinced this expresses their 'individual personality' :) the key to unlocking the massive contradiction: they have none.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 12:40 by topol »

Shelma1

« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2014, 13:08 »
+3
I'd just like to point out that several people on the boards here work in marketing and advertising.  ;)

Now I'm off to make people feel guilty about not conforming while convincing them to buy mass-market clothes in order to express their individuality....mwa ha ha ha haaaaaa.  8)

lisafx

« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2014, 13:20 »
0
I'd just like to point out that several people on the boards here work in marketing and advertising.  ;)

Now I'm off to make people feel guilty about not conforming while convincing them to buy mass-market clothes in order to express their individuality....mwa ha ha ha haaaaaa.  8)

Nice work if you can get it.  I'm sure most of us in a microstock forum are glad the advertising industry exists, however resistant to it we imagine ourselves to be personally.  ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2014, 17:11 »
+2
I'd just like to point out that several people on the boards here work in marketing and advertising.  ;)

Now I'm off to make people feel guilty about not conforming while convincing them to buy mass-market clothes in order to express their individuality....mwa ha ha ha haaaaaa.  8)

Nice work if you can get it.  I'm sure most of us in a microstock forum are glad the advertising industry exists, however resistant to it we imagine ourselves to be personally.  ;)

Mebbes aye, mebbes naw; but my online life became so much more bearable since installing AdBlock, especially Facebook.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2014, 20:54 »
0
I'm not against marketing, it makes money and funds things, sponsors some good ones. I'm against people buying things and not knowing or understanding they are being manipulated. There's a difference.  :)

Reminds me of some complaints that we get 38 cents a download and the license is so open ended that we lose control of our creations and work.

Hey, no one is holding my family hostage and making me do this. No one is holding my hand in a fire to get me to create and upload. If I think the pay is so substandard and slavery, I can quit and do something else.

That's going along with the difference between being stupid, not knowing better and just making a personal decision about what I want to do. I'm the only person who uploads my files, I can't blame someone else when I get paid pocket change for a Large File, RF license subscription.

I walked into it, knowing the situation.

And yes, people make fun of the way I dress, I guess that's a compliment in some ways, and pointing out I am clueless and have no taste, in other ways. LOL But it's honest and the truth.


I'd just like to point out that several people on the boards here work in marketing and advertising.  ;)

Now I'm off to make people feel guilty about not conforming while convincing them to buy mass-market clothes in order to express their individuality....mwa ha ha ha haaaaaa.  8)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
60 Replies
15704 Views
Last post November 28, 2009, 06:11
by iclick
2 Replies
2301 Views
Last post July 22, 2011, 14:07
by Jo Ann Snover
0 Replies
1691 Views
Last post August 08, 2012, 16:47
by joshsprague
5 Replies
2084 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
2 Replies
1950 Views
Last post June 25, 2015, 10:16
by MarcvsTvllivs

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results