Marketing

Stealing Photos, Fair Use, and Business Models

I have a hard time getting high-and-mighty about the paparazzi crap that I see in grocery store lines, given that I can’t seem to tear my eyes away from the train-wreck controversies of online celebrities. I just…. can’t…. look…. away!

Over the past two weeks, one of the big memes in the echo chamber is related to stealing photos… It seems a small a capella band created a fun/goofy song about the Web 2.0 Bubble, set to the tune of Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”. The video is a montage of photos of assorted Web 2.0 personalities, logos, etc. It’s cute. I’ll embed it below (note: this is the first time I’ve EVER embedded a YouTube video!).

IANAL, so I can’t really speak to whether this use falls under “fair use” and parody laws. I think the band in question truly believed that it does and did their best to make it right once they realized that they might be in a bit of a “gray area” (read their blog post here).

Regardless, what struck me was the strident and downright venomous response from some photographers and other “artists”. It sounds exactly like the venom spewed by real estate agents towards RedFin. It sounds a lot like some movie studios and musicians when they talk about what’s happening in their industry. These people aren’t angry at just this little a capella band. They are angry at the entire world for evolving past their business model. They’re angry about becoming obsolete. How obsolete they become depends on how well they adapt to the world– not how loudly they demand that the world adapt to THEM. Off the top of my head, here are a few things that are changing the business of professional photography:

  • Cheap startup costs. Used to be that a professional photographer had to invest thousands in cameras, lenses, and development equipment. It still isn’t cheap to have good equipment, but it’s cheaper.
  • Time and expenses of developing photos is greatly reduced (thanks to digital photography and Photoshop).
  • There is a growing pile of semi-pro photographers who are happy to give away their photos or sell them royalty-free for a few bucks.ne?
  • There are great marketplaces out there for cheap/good stock photography. iStockPhoto, anyone?
  • Print media is dying. Slowly, but it’s dying.
  • The global marketplace. For many photos, you just don’t need an onshore photographer. If I want a cool close-up shot of a keyboard and mouse, there are plenty of great photographers in Eastern Europe that have probably already have taken just such a photo and are delighted to sell it for a few bucks, royalty free.

    • Is the photography/stock photo business dead? Not by a long shot, and not for a long time… But clearly there’s a shakeup in the works.

    Here’s that embedded video. If you haven’t already seen it, enjoy:

Evaluating New Product Ideas (focus on Tractability)

Evan Williams (founder of Twitter, fellow corn-fed midwesterner-turned-dotcommer, and someone I get to meet via YCombinator!) has a fabulous post on how to evaluate new product ideas. To sum up his excellent post, here is the matrix he came up with:

Tractability
Question: How difficult will it be to launch a worthwhile version 1.0?

Obviousness
Question: Is it clear why people should use it?

Deepness
Question: How much value can you ultimately deliver?

Wideness
Question: How many people may ultimately use it?

Discoverability
Question: How will people learn about your product?

Monetizability
Question: How hard will it be to extract the money?

Personally Compelling
Question: Do you really want it to exist in the world?

He follows the list by running through a few of his startups through the matrix to see how they fare.

I don’t know if Evan put it first on purpose, but I tend to think that tractability is the most important factor by an order of magnitude. Why? Because there is a pretty good chance that what you think you’re going to build and what you go to market with are radically different. Take a few minutes and ponder this outstanding quote from Fred Wilson’s “Why Early Stage Investments Fail” post:

“…Of the 26 companies that I consider realized or effectively realized in my personal track record, 17 of them made complete transformations or partial transformations of their businesses between the time we invested and the time we sold. That means there a 2/3 chance you’ll have to significantly reinvent your business between the time you take a venture capital investment and when you exit your business.”

Another great quote:

“My friend Dick Costolo, co-founder of FeedBurner, describes a startup as the process of going down lots of dark alleys only to find that they are dead ends. Dick describes the art of a successful deal as figuring out they are dead ends quickly and trying another and another until you find the one paved with gold.”

Given that you have a 2/3 chance of having to reinvent your business (or, as Costolo would put it– you have a 2/3 chance of your first dark alley being a dead end), what could possibly be more important that tractability?

Best Marketing Quote of the Day

“”Marketing is a Tax You Pay for being Unremarkable”

Robert Stephens
Founder and Chief Inspector, The Geek Squad

While I think that’s a touch on the simple side, it rings pretty true. What would happen if all the people who were concentrating on advertising and PR instead started focusing on making the offering and/or the customer service BETTER?

The Fuss About Macs, Priming, and Racism

Alan Steele (ex-Jobster colleague) tweets:

“using a mac for the first time in many years. so far i don’t see what all the fuss is about. it’s just another desktop…”

I tend to agree. A computer is a means to an end, and an XP Windows box usually gets me to my “end” just fine.

There are certainly some differences among the platforms, but I think it mostly comes down to how the Mac makes the user FEEL (which is partially a UI thing and partially a marketing coup by Apple). [Note: During the writing of this meandering post, my PC made me feel pretty annoyed by popping up a modal window prompting me to restart my fooking computer *3* times.]

Which leads me to one of my favorite blog posts by Seth Godin.

Aren’t convinced that Apple can manipulate your feelings? Think you’re above all that? You should check out the priming studies done by John Bargh. Here’s a good description of one (some lazy Googling only yielded one good overview– from some Christian blog. Please note: I am a Pastafarian and do not read Christian blogs if I can help it):

Bargh and several colleagues chose a group of undergraduates as subjects and gave them two scrambled-sentence tests. The first test was sprinkled with rude words like “disturb,” “bother,” and “intrude.” The second test was sprinkled with polite words like “respect,” “considerate,” and “yield.”

In both cases, the tests were indiscreet. None of the subjects picked up on the word trend consciously. But it primed them subconsciously.

After taking the five-minute test, students were asked to walk down the hall and talk to the person running the experiment about their next assignment. An actor was strategically engaged in conversation with the experimenter when the students would arrive. And the goal was to see how long it would take students to interrupt.

Bargh wanted to know if the subjects who were primed with polite words would take longer to interrupt the conversation than those primed with rude words. They thought the subconscious priming would have a slight affect. But the affect was pretty profound in quantitative terms.

The people primed with rude words interrupted, on average, after only five minutes. But 82% of the people primed with polite words never interrupted at all. Who knows how long they would have patiently and politely waited if the researchers hadn’t give the test a ten-minute time limit. [Note by Tony: Those damn ethics committees... Milgram would never be able to get away with his experiment today!]

From a product/marketing point of view, I’m forced to conclude that we’re getting “primed” every day in thousands of subtle ways… And that I’m probably as susceptible as the next guy.

We’re definitely getting off-topic here, but there’s another pretty frightening study about priming ((source)):

In a separate study, when African-American students were asked to identify their race on a pre-test questioner, the simple act of checking the box next to African American was enough to prime them with negative cultural stereotypes associated with African Americans and academic achievement. The number of items they got right was cut in HALF. Malcolm Gladwell makes a strong point that priming is a powerful thing. Personally I think this has incredible implications in our society. If ‘smart’ is really just a frame of mind, these social cues (such as African American=less intelligent) are shaping not only the results of standardized tests, but the way we interact with each other in business and other professional fields.

The idea that priming can actually effect performance on intelligence-based tests is pretty damn horrifying. Makes me think twice about the multicultural efforts we endured in school… Maybe we should be emphasizing our sameness rather than our differences (if those differences come with baggage that actually inhibit performance/success through priming)? Of course, it’d be better yet to get rid of the baggage.

So, er…. Returning to my original point, which was… Oh yeah! Something about Macs, right? Apple has invested considerable time and effort trying to understand how people want to feel and making damn sure their products (and their marketing) makes them feel that way. That (plus a marginally better OS with less legacy issues and less drivers to deal with) is what the fuss is about (IMO).

1 2 3 4 Scroll to top