stupidity

What’s in a name?

No Comments

The Associated Press (AP) is launching its new entertainment picture agency. 

Just what the world needs, another picture agency cranking out more of the same, commodity, entertainment photos and producing even more celebrity worship. (Yes, I sometimes shoot the same entertainment pictures and I plead guilty as charged.)

The advantage of taking pictures of the famous is that they get published.

– US Photographer Elliott Erwitt

But that’s not the fun part.

AP is using the name “Invision Agency”.

Dictionaries define invision as: want of vision, without the power of seeing, lack of vision. It’s also a synonym for blindness. The word invision is related to the word invisible but it’s obsolete in the English language.

Did AP really mean to use the word envision?

 

Public Relations Laugh

No Comments

A political party in Alberta launched its provincial election campaign by unveiling its new bus. As is popular with most political campaigns, the bus was wrapped to look like a gigantic billboard. But no one bothered to properly proof the final layout.

A photo of the party’s female leader was placed in a rather unfortunate position over the rear wheels of the bus.

After a day of negative attention and being laughed at, the party says it will replace the $10,000 wrap. That’s an expensive do-over.

(Edit: a week later, the party is still being laughed at.)
Continue reading →

Fauxtographer

No Comments

If a professional photographer was featured on national TV, you might think the publicity would boost that photographer’s business. Well, not in this case.

In 2009, the BBC ran a news story about a commercial photographer and his business practices, or should we say, his lack of business practices.

This publicity caused the “fauxtographer” to take down his web site and disappear. Good riddance. Such scammers make all professional photographers look bad.
Continue reading →

Work only half a day per year

No Comments

A year ago, I wrote a post about a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) survey which showed that Canada’s top CEOs earned the equivalent of the average annual Canadian income by 2:30 PM on January 3rd, (based on 2009 numbers).

The CCPA released this year’s survey results (based on 2010 numbers). Canada’s top CEOs now earn the equivalent of the average annual Canadian income even sooner.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ annual look at CEO compensation reveals that by 12:00 noon on January 3rd, the first official working day of the year, Canada’s Elite 100 CEOs (the 100 highest paid CEOs of companies listed in the TSX Index) will have already pocketed $44,366. It takes the Average Joe an entire year, working full-time, to earn that same amount.

This represents a 27% pay increase from the previous year. The average Canadian received a 1.1% increase.

The CCPA has a depressing pay clock here.

 

Picture This

No Comments

On this blog, I’ve repeatedly mentioned that a company should never use stock pictures for its business image or marketing. This applies to running a photography business as well.

There’s a commercial photographer here in Toronto whose web site uses cheap, stock pictures taken from other web sites. In a slideshow to showcase his “talent”, none of the pictures were shot by this photographer. None whatsoever. Through the magic of the Web, stock pictures are easily traceable back to their sources.

If a photographer has to use someone else’s pictures, what does that say about their own work?

Not only does this make the photographer look bad, but one might wonder if this is legal. Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act (14(2) s.3, 8, 14) seems to suggest it isn’t.

Using stock pictures in place of real corporate photography or other custom business photography always costs too much. It can harm a company’s reputation and even land the business on the wrong side of consumer laws.

“We used stock pictures to save a few dollars,” is not a legal defense.

 

Dim Bulb

No Comments

A photography article describes some tools that can be used to help get colour-correct photos. One such tool is the use of proper illumination for viewing prints.

I went to the website of a Florida-based company that was mentioned in that article and was deciding whether to purchase several of its $90 lamps. But before sending off a few hundred dollars, I looked at its About Us page. It was very obvious that something wasn’t right.

The About Us page yells, “Nice to meet you!” and then brags, “The truth is we’re a small company made up of real people – no drones here!” And right next to this statement, there’s a cheap, stock picture of anonymous people. (Available here, here and here).

If a company misrepresents its identity, can you trust what it says about its products?

Needless to say, I didn’t buy anything.

I don’t mean to pick on this one company because there are many other businesses, from small to international, that use cheap, anonymous, stock pictures for their business image. But it’s been proven that stock pictures push customers away; it makes them hide their wallets.

When a company uses stock pictures, it’s counterproductive. It fools no one but themselves.

 

The importance of memories

No Comments

“Of all the many things that make up a wedding, few are more important than the photographs.”

That’s the opening sentence in a NY Times story about an ongoing lawsuit where a groom is suing his wedding photographer for $4,100 (cost of the photography) plus $48,000 to recreate the wedding so it can be re-photographed.

The groom claimed the photographer missed the last dance and the bouquet toss. He also stated he wasn’t happy with the finished pictures and that the two-hour wedding video was too short. His claim for emotional distress has already been denied.

And now some details: the wedding was in 2003; the couple separated in 2008; he filed the lawsuit in 2009 just before the six-year statute of limitations expired; the divorced was finalized in 2010; he has no idea where his ex-wife lives.

Read the New York TImes article for lots more information.

Last month, author Seth Godin wrote a blog post titled “Memories of Bitterness”. Although his post has nothing to do with the groom’s lawsuit, the underlying point to Godin’s post might be somewhat applicable. Customer service is about providing the customer with a positive buying experience.

––––––––––––––––––––

In an unrelated story, the LA Times reported that a wedding photographer was sentenced to 510 days in jail for failing to deliver photos to dozens of his clients. The photographer must also pay full restitution to all victims plus $19,542 for investigative costs.

 

css.php