The myth of exposure
How creatives are (still) cutting themselves short in exchange for a platform
This morning I had an insightful conversation with the head of Studio Ahead design studio, Homan Rajai. I had reached out about a recent photoshoot they did that included one of my paintings, that ultimately did not make it into the Architectural Digest article for which the shoot was intended. I did however get an incorrect mention in the piece about how my work was acquired by the owner of the apartment, so I called to get some clarity.
If magazines are going through the process of paying art handlers and photographers for a photoshoot, why are the artists and furniture designers not also considered as part of the fee-earning vendors?
I was frustrated because my work had been included in a photoshoot for an article that would be used to sell ads and create page views which would drive further revenue for Conde Nast, but in no way was I being compensated - not through a sale of the work or a rental fee for use in the piece. And now it appeared it was not even being given exposure for the effort. So why was I offering up my work to be used as a prop for free and no guarantee it would get any exposure?
If magazines are going through the process of paying art handlers and photographers for a photoshoot, why are the artists not also considered as part of the fee-earning vendors?
The answer is the same reason that, as Rajai patiently told me, design firms spend a lot of their own money on a photoshoot like the one they did with AD without a guarantee that they will get any return on investment. This means that all involved are contributing a lot of free labor to create content for a magazine with a $32m annual revenue.
But, to complicate matters further, the employee-to-revenue ratio at AD is only about $10k per employee, meaning that other parts of Conde Nast presumably fund much of the magazine’s staff, and other expenses. For the sake of my argument, I really would have preferred them to be part of an elite class of well-paid creatives in the publishing industry that nobody knows about.
But the sad fact is creative labor, regardless of industry, is just not valued the same way other forms of labor are. All creatives are asked to work for exposure, but it offers no guarantee of income to pay real overhead expenses like an apartment and studio rent, materials, and all the other things we need to keep us going (like gallons of lattes).
My recent appearance on Good Morning America, for example, was a pure delight to do but made zero impact in the sales of my work (so far). I told this to comedic icon Maria Bamford as I was giving her a tarot reading that following weekend (humble brag/this was a highlight of my life) and she confirmed that many of her early TV appearances made no difference in the number bookings she was getting at the time. Eventually something sticks, but how much free work do you have to do before that happens?
This play-no-pay model (trademarking this!) is super common on platforms like Spotify where musicians make pennies per stream if they are lucky. I remember seeing an Instagram post by Weird Al Yankovic who shared his Spotify Wrapped last year with the shocking news that his music was streamed 80 million times and he made like $12.
This devaluation is being furthered by AI training, something I have written about before and will not go into now. The newest iteration of this IP borrowing/theft, is also connected to Spotify. Spotify’s audiobook platform, Findaway Voices, recently updated their terms of service to allow them to claim creative ownership over all content and IP that is uploaded to their site. This meant that they could create new books, or other content based on the characters in books that were being hosted by their site. The original author would be entitled to zero compensation. Yes, what in the flying f*ck.
These terms were quickly rewritten because, whoops, people noticed. The new terms were relaxed and pseudo-apologetic, but with the caveat that the content would be used to train their new AI software without compensation to any of the authors, of course.
Where does it start and where does it end? How do we start taking back control of our writing, music, artwork, and other creative output in exchange for a fair wage? And how do we stop the almost invisible theft of our intellectual property?
Or is there some magic formula in the universe about giving and receiving that I don’t understand that could somehow benefit us creatives bringing our light to humanity? Please tell me if I’m missing something.
The daffodil painting is lovely. It would have been cool to have it in AD. The photos from the shoot are very nice. I’ve been looking at that magazine for years and my former employer advertises in it. But it is frustrating that artists and musicians have been “used” for years without proper compensation.
Thanks for bringing this to peoples attention. Conde Nast is not a super awesome company for sure. I signed up to be "featured" in their World of Interiors spread but withdrew my offer when I realized it was just terrible advertising. They are still trying to charge me for something I never gave my permission for.