Because I monitor a number of blogs that are directed towards the communications industry in general and photographers in particular, I see a fair number of posts and articles discussing mistakes and PR blow-ups over the use or mis-use of photographs. Many of them seem to occur through the use of royalty-free or other cheaply sourced stock photos. Often, it seems, that in the interest of trying to do too much with too little, the ultimate cost for a company is much higher than if they simply hired original photography which fit their needs exclusively.
Obviously, I have a self-serving interest in getting hired for assignments, but I earn a good portion of my living from stock images, too. My primary desire is to work with my clients to find a solution that fits their need for the best value that they can get. That is the foundation of a lasting relationship in my book.
In this ad, Microsoft used a poorly altered head-swap for racial considerations, an Apple computer on the table and a cord to the monitor in the foreground was left unplugged. So, what were the savings versus the costs for Microsoft?
Just food for thought…
Charles