For the least subtle take on this possible, see: https://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE
So should people not be allowed to write on a personal blog or in an online publication for the public exposure/other knock-on effects relevant to their day job? Because all those people are, at some level, competing with freelancers and other writers.
(I've actually had conversations with professional writers about this. Their general take is that ship has sailed.)
Now, to be clear, organizations trying to get you to do something that you're typically paid to do is absolutely a pox. But there's a difference between a consultant being asked to give a free presentation at an event "for the exposure" and doing so voluntarily because they've made their own decision that it's a worthwhile investment in lead generation or whatever.
To give a personal example, last year I published a new edition of a book. It wasn't for free but it might as well have been in terms of earnings per hour, but I actually wanted to do that. But if you want me to write something for your corporate blog, you're absolutely paying me and paying me pretty well.
It's important that we not allow our moral judgments to interfere with the facts. This is obviously false.
And should a consultant not be able to maintain a blog that people don't pay for because doing so competes with freelancers?
I think it absolutely does increase that tendency.
When I write for online tech publications, at some level, my writing, for which I'm not paid, takes money out of some freelancer's pocket--all other things being equal (which of course they aren't).
And all the people who speak at events for free and even cover their own travel (or their companies do) definitely make it harder for qualified people who would prefer to be paid to do so.
But, to be blunt, I don't care. If it's in my personal interest to do those things for free, I'm not going to choose to abstain because of some microscopic impact on the labor market.
In this photographer case, I actually don't think there's much of an impact. Someone mentioned Super Bowl performers performing for free. I doubt anyone thinks Lady Gaga is going to start giving gratis concerts all over the place. There has been a major impact on photography as a profession but that's more about the proliferation of free, cheap, and easily obtained amateur photos.
The question is, will they get multiple people on the shoot for free, and will that get them better pictures than one paid pro?
Can you imagine doing the work for free only to find out you're competing with other photographers on the same shoot to get the best shots that they will want to publish so you can get your "exposure payment".
If someone thinks they'll get more than $their_cost in promotion value, they'll do it. If not, they won't.
If no one does, the production company is going to waste a lot of time and burn their reputation trying to avoid what's probably a relatively small expense compared to the budget of their show.
It would be even worse if someone wrote an article about it.. oops.
I see the biggest problem with the email conversation that the person asking was not up front with the 0$ payout in the very first paragraph of the email.
And if someone wants to say "yes", who are we to tell them what to do with their own time?
If everyone says 'no', you're just an unsuccessful predator.
Paying netflix would be a smart business opportunity.
Couples who want that photographer they saw on TV.
You're the one that brought up breakouts, but the part you're demanding proof of is something that's obvious. No, I don't have proof that a nobody performing in the super bowl would have a huge spike in popularity. But I think you're being ridiculous if you think that wouldn't happen. If you want to find a flaw in an argument, demand proof of something that isn't obvious.
As in many things, this is an example of an equilibrium that probably doesn't precisely identify the relative value of each party's contribution, but which is very easy to agree on.
So now you can put this on your resume:
I did this job for Netflix. And by the way, they didn't pay me a dime.
I know auto mechanics, actors, hair people, nail people, home inspectors, photographers, and cooks who have done free work for free promotions.
Some people hate on the concept but it's how people get their start in an industry.
Anyway, I don't disagree with your comment at all.
Certain trades are undervalued because it takes portfolio building or practice in a professional setting to get started. You seemed to be unaware that this happens but now it seems you do?
Edit: Any why this is the case, in this situation. Please explain?
(I'm not from the US - I may be missing something.)
I.e. economic shrewdness is not equivalent to morality.
To put this in a different light - people (here among all places) are especially sick of firms like Accenture/IBM/etc. of loading up projects with unexperienced junior people and putting absurd markup on their services. Which one do people want? Paying for soccer teams full of inexperienced people learning on the job or promising inexperienced person experience and exposure as compensation for their services?
For the record - I'm speaking about this from the perspective of market dynamics, not regulations/morality. I personally think a co like Netflix is in the wrong here.
If someone is less good, pay them less, but still a living wage. If they're not worth that much, and you don't want to train them to be worth that much, then don't hire them.
But that's all assuming the price of a contract is roughly proportional to the cost to implement it. Any "absurd markup" is a totally different issue.
Are people sick of the inexperienced teams, or are they sick of being scammed? IIRC, that business model usually starts with a bait-and-switch - they company will send their best people first, to make an impression and get the client to sign the contract, and then switch the project over to the cheapest team.
After escalations, they finally noticed client got angry and suddenly there was someone skilled at the other end. But I suspect it was exception and only for a short time.
I am a SWE engineer with photography as a hobby.
If a tv show contacted me to do a wedding shoot, I'd be excited for the coverage and I wouldn't feel exploited since doing shoots is fun for me.
I could see how there are parallels to the "background actor" industry where, by law, you have to pay all of the talent on screen, even if its a nominal amount and the actor would of worked for free.
But that doesn't the case here?
If a TV show contacted you do create a web app, would you do that work for free? Would you give up other opportunities to get paid to do so?
So, say no? (I've done that a couple of times in similar situations.)
No, because it is not fulfilling.
I do use my career skills to teach under privileged students how to program for free.
I too have a photography hobby (or did, pre-kids). I release everything I do that's any good via Creative Commons attribution-only licenses. My pics have shown up on articles in USA Today, Forbes, Yahoo Finance, and many many other places. Plus they are in a number of free and paid wallpaper apps. People sell prints of them on Amazon. I can go buy a cup with one of my photos on it right now. I was even interviewed for a small Discovery Channel video.
I think it's awesome. As long as they stick my name on there and follow the terms of the license, more power to them.
I've had people (especially in the local photographer's club) tell me that I'm being horrible and helping to kill the professional photography industry etc. But in my view there is just nothing wrong with giving away your creative output in exchange for credit.
Do you think people get paid when they give a radio interview? They are using the radio as a platform for selling.
This is uninteresting from my POV and against the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
Please help keep HN interesting. Thanks.
But this would be too simplistic. Many 'voluntary' relationships are abusive.
Think about the system implications and dynamics over time here. There are power imbalances and changing expectations. People rarely have the unfettered freedom implicit in your claim.
And, if you think beyond the individual level -- at the society level, one's analysis must go much deeper.
But high-end weddings can be very lucrative. If a wedding photographer is (a) ready to perform this level of work, and (b) can afford to do 5 unpaid gigs, and (c) aspires to break into high-end work, I can see this making business sense.
Almost no couple will care - unless what they produce for Love is Blind is extremely out of the ordinary - but then they won't be able to afford it. There's a very good chance the photographers will get no new business because of this.
The question is how much would you pay for this opportunity? This buys you an instant reputation.
Of course, there are always rich folks for whom money is not an issue, and they won't spend any time thinking about it and will happily pay whatever for the guy who was on that show.
But if the portfolio wasn't as high quality as others the tv connection wouldn't matter.
I would pay a little more to reduce risk.
And the biggest draw is brand. I might not have heard of you if not for your connection to the show. This gives you free worldwide branding. You could setup an online store and sell products or sell advice as a side business.
This is where the injustice comes from when ‘unpaid internships’ equals we only want rich kids to work for us. It’s how the situation propagates through time.
In fashion photography (and probably other genres), the editorial spreads in your fashion magazines, (Vogue, Harper's, etc) aren't paid much. They are for promotion. They do pay though. They are also selective on who they choose to photograph a specific story. Even though that gig is way below most professional fashion photographer's day rate, most pros will do anything to get that chance. You also get to work with world class peers like hair, makeup artists, models, stylists, etc. So it's a great deal for everyone.
In Netflix's case, it feels more like exploitation. They aren't paying. And even though they're "Netflix" they don't have that clout like Vogue or Harpers to have top wedding photographers to get at that chance. Also, they have to shoot 5 weddings! 1 wedding is a lot of work and stress, but to do 5 for free is a lot to ask a professional photographer. It's like asking a software engineer to build 5 different applications for free for a chance to pad their resume.
But this type of stuff is pretty common in the industry, although frowned upon by Photographers. A lot of celebrities, brands, agencies, etc. will try to get free shots from photographers all the time. And they will usually find some desperate person who will take the chance to do it. I've done it, and I had friends who did it. I'm sure Netflix will find someone to do it as well.
This is kind of grotesque coming from a company with very deep pockets.
Also it's a lot more common in industries with high supply combined with relatively "well off" young professionals that do it for "fun" and "exposure" ie creative industries
I was a software freelancer at one point. I would've traded 5 days of work for getting my business (and face) in front of 30 million people.
Also it's not comparable to missing 5 days of work. There's more work involved and it'll take longer than 5 days. It's not like they do 5 shoots every week.
That might be due to the demand-supply situation in photography. They probably will find photographers doing this for the promotion effect described in the email.