How Cheap Is Too Cheap?
It never ceases to amaze me how some clients believe 'if it's cheaper it's better'. Whether or not budget savings make the Commissioner's or Picture Editor's bonus larger I have no idea but I have just seen a classic example of why cheaper is not always better. iVillage is a huge online publication that on the whole I love. According to Quantcast traffic to iVillage is 5.5m visitors per month. Yes 5.5 MILLION! Yet it seems to me, despite whatever ad revenue they are generating, that their photography just gets cheaper and cheaper. Is that good or bad management by the publishers? I guess on the one hand it's good because investors see a greater profit and therefore higher return. If circulation (hits) continue to rise their financial cheaper choices regarding 'quality of publication for the target audience' are validated. I'm not sure I am the target audience of iVillage but I'm about to pull the plug on my subscription because to me it's production quality is just getting worse and worse. Not just in pictures but content to. I'm presuming that budget cuts in photography are being carried across to editorial?.
What's brought me to this point? Well there is always a tipping point for everyone. For me it was today's iVillage 'newsletter' into my inbox. Nothing that is particularly life or death just an image to illustrate a story….
iVillage Newsletter :
Even Another Polar Vortex Is No Match For These Skin Soothing Tips
Copyright PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
This is the image they use to illustrate the story - '……skin soothing tips…..'
What does this image do for skin soothing tips. I suggest nothing. And I'm sure the iVillage Art Dept think likewise but I'm sure the iVillage Art Dept are asked to suck on a contract with Getty (drawn up by the bean counters) to 'buy everything' as cheap as possible?
I shoot, I would like to think beautiful images. As image makers whether stills or motion we all believe we shoot beautiful images. It's our self belief that enables us to persuade others to employ us to shoot pictures that promote their products in a way that the publics enjoyment and belief in our images increases sales.
And here is my problem. iVillage no longer does anything that visually stimulates me or makes me want to buy into reading an article because their imaging (that and headlines is what draws you in) is just awful. I shot a picture similar to the one above a long time ago.
Copyright : urbanlip.com
Image No: AB_101182
It's actually available for purchase with a specialist health and beauty agency called urbanlip.com which I should declare now my wife and I are directors of.
Bare in mind this was one of their lead stories today. Instead of the nasty cheap image they did use that says nothing about 'Skin Soothing Tips' or feminine sensuality, indulgence or pampering they could have used my significantly better image (well I would say that wouldn't I?), or one of many others out there if only they gave their Picture Editors time to look, to illustrate the story to their 5.5million viewers. How much would my pic have been? £49.00. That's cheap. "Yes but what is cheap?" I hear you say. Cheap is the best price you can get without compromising the story. In my opinion they took a good story and compromised it. It lost all of it's 'shopfront appeal' and got buried somewhere between a review of Jeremy Kyle and the rising cost of pastry cutters. I'm not suggesting they were wrong (well I am!) but at what point does cheap become too cheap and quality should start to count.
I guess when people start to unsubscribe and the 'bean counters' ask why?. Well before you fire the editor look at your content. Whether print or e-commerce 'content is king' - trust me.
For me iVillage has gone 'artistically cheap'. It gets no lower. It gets no cheaper.