Editorial: Wall Street Journal and Today Show get the story wrong
The Wall Street Journal published an article on November 28, 2006 by Emily Steel titled "When Marketers See Double" about the growing number of cases where two different companies, sometimes direct competitors, have used the same stock image in their marketing materials. By a strange coincidence, the exact same article appeared in video form on NBC’s The Today Show. (See links below.) What we find interesting and perhaps disturbing about the both news items is their failure to accurately portray the forces at work that cause these duplicate uses and how marketers who use images can avoid the problem.
The Wall Street Journal article explains such potentially embarrassing repeat image uses are a risk marketers take when licensing less expensive non-exclusive images rather than going for more costly "original" imagery. The article fails to examine the distinction between RF and RM, a topic perhaps too esoteric for the Journal, but one which offers a more complete explanation of the options available to marketers. Instead, the journalist implies that the only option available to help art-buyers avoid seeing the image they use in other companies’ marketing materials is creating original images. Interestingly, the examples of double uses shown in the article were all supplied to the Wall Street Journal by OnRequest Images, a "custom stock" business that helps provide "original" imagery to its clients. Further, OnRequest CEO David Norris is quoted in the WSJ article and his company's business activity is described along with a list of its more high-profile clients. This writer, at least, can't help but wonder whether the entire article wasn't orchestrated by OnRequest's PR firm.
The Today Show piece, by reporter Lisa Daniels, is essentially a TV version of Ms Steel’s article. (I have no idea how one news organization can so blatantly steel another’s story.) The on-line report misses the same points as the printed report as demonstrated by Ms Daniels’ blanket statement, “The risk: Stock photos come with non-exclusive rights.” Well, not really, but maybe they just decided the difference between RF and RM and the option to purchase exclusive rights for a higher fee is just too complicated for the average viewer.
The frightening thing about all this is that it raises the question of how much other “news” do these major news outlets get wrong concerning topics we might not know as well? As you can probably tell, I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore! (For those too young to get it, that was an incredibly witty reference to a Fay Dunaway movie from the 1960’s called “Network” - which I highly recommend - about abuses in the, then, nascent TV news media.) Perhaps this is why many people are turning to specialty news sources to get the complete story rather than trust the mass media to get it right. For the straight story about the stock photo industry, please continue to read abouttheimage.com.
Comments
As Chris observes, the news media have an obligation to get the story right.
Instead, it looks like they got the story they were being pitched. Now we’re “seeing double” as the WSJ and the Today Show spin the same story with the same images.
Marketers have options. Those in the business of image licensing can help them understand the choices and the risks. The SAA web site has featured examples of the sometimes embarrassing conflicts that can occur, particularly with popular Royalty Free images. Conflicts can certainly occur with Rights Managed images as well, though are limited by the ability to ask about licensing history, and the option to license exclusive rights.
Betsy Reid
SAA Executive Director
Posted by: Betsy Reid | November 30, 2006
Chris Ferrone: you are “mad as hell and not going to take it any more?” From your article it appears that you did not talk to anyone at The Wall Street Journal, The Today show, or OnRequest Images. I"d say you are taking it rather well.
How much other news do these people get wrong? Please. It’s the 21st century. Ask anybody who is very good at what they do if the mainstream news media reports accurately on their specialty. In most cases the answer will be an emphatic no. Yet we still watch, we still read, and to a certain extent we still believe.
Posted by: Bruce McL | December 01, 2006
Chris Ferrone wishes to note that he did try to contact the writer of the Wall Street Journal article, Emily Steel. Ms. Steel has not responded to his email, at least as of this hour. He figured there was even less of a chance of hearing back from The Today Show.
He did not check in with OnRequest about it, either. If OnRequest’s PR agency did, in fact, initiate this minor media blitz, he would have to say they earned their paycheck.
As for the “mad as hell” comment; he made it as a joke. In parentheses, he mentioned the movie that comment comes from which happens to be about the TV news industry in the 1960s. Of course, Ferrone recognizes that if one has to explain a joke, it probably isn’t funny.
Posted by: Editors Note | December 01, 2006
Chris
I followed the link to the Journal article, and I think you reacted too quickly. There are at least four references to the option of different forms of stock buying that include protection. While there is a careless bit that could be read as you did, it’s outweighed by the more frequent mentions of the choices in stock.
Posted by: Dave Burstein | December 01, 2006
The distinction between RM and RF isn’t that relevant as by default RM does not guarantee exclusivity.
“The journalist implies that the only option available to help art-buyers avoid seeing the image they use in other companies’ marketing materials is creating original images.”
Not quite. Here is an excerpt from the article:
“[..] marketers understand that if they don’t pay the price for exclusive rights, they can’t guarantee a competitor won’t use the image. [...]
Buying exclusive rights to a stock photo isn’t necessarily cheaper than setting up a photo shoot. “To absolutely guarantee beyond any kind of a doubt” that no duplication would occur, marketers can pay in excess of six figures, says Mr. Gubas. Corbis, another major photo agency, says its price on a picture with some sort of exclusive rights costs from $250 to several thousand dollars, whereas pictures without rights range from $50 to $600.”
Posted by: Tuan Luong | December 01, 2006
I’m as mad as hell, too, Chris, but for a different reason. Yes, it’s inexcusable that a major newspaper and media outlet could ignore such an important aspect of their stories, but I should also point out that you need to do a little research yourself!
“Network”, directed by Sidney Lumet, stars FAYE Dunaway and was released in 1976. It’s about television news in the 70s, not in the 60s. Sorry, but you asked for it.
Posted by: MLC | December 06, 2006