AdWeek:
When Showtime invited Dan Cassaro to join a design “contest” he felt amounted to milking professionals for free work, he let the network—and the world—know how he felt about it.
After sending an email response slathered in sarcasm (“I know that boxing matches in Las Vegas are extremely low-budget affairs”), Cassaro then posted the exchange to Twitter.
Good for him! Far too many places want people to work for “exposure”. As soon as I can use exposure to pay my rent and buy food, I’ll work for it.
Exactly.
And just yesterday, Stephen Fry (whose work I enjoy immensely), had this post https://www.talenthouse.com/i/design-a-poster-for-stephen-fry on his website.
There is a cash prize of £1500 offered to the winner, but that is listed far below “Global Exposure!” as an incentive to enter.
I should add that the job in question is to design a poster advertising the third instalment in his autobiography and live show in support of its publication
Four words: Fuck you; pay me.
Let’s all just work for free.
Working for exposure when it’s a not for profit is one thing. But a major company. Especially when you know the rules to submit give ownership of submissions to the company so they can use them later for free.
Hell, this is 99designs.com whole business model. I was really sad to see that Leo La Porte took them on as an advertiser, and he even did a “contest” for the design of a hoodie. To his credit he paid for several designs he liked for potential further use.
Bottom line, what other professions would it be considered ethical to request someone do the all the work required for a engagement yet only pay them if you like the work more than all the other professionals you asked to do all the work for the same job?
Unbelievable. You’d think Fry would know better.
For the moment, I’m choosing to believe this was the publisher’s decision, not his.