Work for Exposure, The Aftermath
The power of newsletters and social media (and BBC's apology)
In the Flash is a reader-supported publication about intent and creativity in photography. Many of the posts are open to the public, but paid subscribers receive all of the articles, have full access to the archives, and keep this newsletter going.
I got a reply back from the BBC two days after Why Work for Exposure is Photography's Biggest Ponzi Scheme was published. The editor apologized for not offering a budget for the promo campaign. “We totally understand and appreciate your feedback, which has been noted. We’re sorry we weren’t able to include your wonderful work on this occasion due to financial restraints, but hope to one day in future on terms which are more agreeable.”
It will remain a mystery whether the response was prompted by the newsletter, but it did come right at its heels after almost a week of radio silence. Either way, I appreciated it. In a world where a request for a fee makes most editors vanish with the dexterity of a magician, this email was a nice gesture. And it made me think that maybe the newsletter could serve as a catalyst for holding publications accountable.
I was certainly looking to stir things up, otherwise the article would be a useless lament into the abyss. The ploy worked. My post on Instagram got hundreds of comments and was shared more than 900 times. Every one of such shares creates awareness and becomes the tiniest step toward a utopian future where demands for free work are met with universal resistance. The only way to catalyze any tangible change in this industry is to collectively treat such requests as an exploitative practice. Work for exposure can only exist if some of us continue saying “Yes.” Every “No” is a push for a change, forcing companies to re-prioritize and re-budget their business strategies.
Besides re-posts, hundreds of people have shared their personal experiences with work for exposure requests. It wasn’t just photographers. It seems that anyone whose job falls under the loose term “creative” has been expected to work for free at some point in their career. Photographers, of course, appeared the most incensed. There were stories of photo contests stealing photographs under the guise of a competition and reusing them later in advertisement campaigns without fee or credit. Stories of “non-profits” working for high-end gala dinners while refusing to pay for photography; stories of magazines never paying the meager fee they initially agreed on after the job was completed; stories of music festivals asking the photographer to travel and have the “honor” of taking photos of the performing artists, sans any expenses or compensation. And countless stories of editors ghosting a photographer after being asked if there is a budget.
Not all requests for photos without licensing are created equal. Katherine October-Matthews, the former chief editor of GUP Magazine, pointed out that there is an important non-profit market for art magazines promoting emerging artists. Otherwise, publications would be limited to featuring established artists with a fanbase. That’s a valid point. I was happy to have my projects published in GUP and like-minded magazines. But we have to be able to discern between such art-based projects and facetious businesses (looking at you, Shotkit) that exist through the blatant profiting off photographers. One way to tell them apart is the amount of work a photographer is asked to put in. A couple of years ago, I got a request from PetaPixel for a written interview and photos without a budget. Answering interview questions is a great demand on photographers’s time, and when I asked for the feature to be done in an article form by a writer, he agreed, then ghosted. That kind of unprofessionalism never ceases to blow my mind.
In a different incident, ABC 7 reached out to do a video interview and use a whooping 17 images on all their channels. I quoted them a reasonable $500, and they came back with $200. And just as I (grudgingly) agreed, the editor wrote me that after thinking it over, they decided that exposure should be enough for the feature and rescinded the offer. That actually happened. I was flabbergasted at the ABC 7 incident, but at the time, I didn’t have the newsletter to vent. So I sucked it in, forgetting the unfortunate exchange. Until now.
I noticed that when sharing their work for exposure stories, people didn’t feel comfortable sharing the names of the companies. There is a palpable fear among photographers to name the culprits, as if doing so would burn some nonexistent bridges. I understand where that comes from, as well as a desire to keep editors and spokespersons anonymous. I loathe the public shaming of individuals for any reason, but the names of brands and publications are a different matter. Businesses that continuously prey on creatives don’t deserve the honor of anonymity.
I am sharing the article here yet again, hoping for more eyes and reposts, because being aware and saying “No” is the only agency we have in the industry. Please continue sharing your stories, feel free to name or not name the publications involved, and let’s all strive to make a slight dent in what is, without a doubt, photography’s most exploitative work practice.
Why Work for Exposure is Photography's Biggest Ponzi Scheme
Find me on Instagram
I have shared this with a bunch of my photographer friends. I can tell you from experience that this miserable practice exists in the website development world as well. Keep the light on, Dina .
Thanks for shining a light on this, we appreciate it.
-Tom