http://www.imagebrief.com/briefs/rf-fit-active-people-wearing-nike-S3YdbM/details

Just sharing.

more here - http://www.imagebrief.com/briefs/live

Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 03, 2015, 15:50

Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?

probably fewer than the many that are proudly falling over themselves to submit images in dreams of making 0.25 to 0.38 per sale.

Quote from: noodle on April 03, 2015, 16:58

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 03, 2015, 15:50

Custom photography they want to pitch to Nike for $250.  Sigh.

And how many will be falling over themselves to submit in hopes of getting $250?

Whats wrong with that? You are selling for $19.99

What's wrong is that it's speculative work that might not even win the money, and if you don't win there is very little else you can do with the custom photo you have created

a company logo is such an important thing for a company, it's a shame so many think it's worthless and that the graphic designer should be paid a few bucks !

go in any decent design studio, you'll be asked a few 1000s for custom company logo + company font + brochures etc

I don't participate in any type if SPEC work, another thing devaluing art and our industry. Here is a fun series that rips apart crowd sourcing sites like this:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0lNJEnwfVVNFN_lk9JRKSLT0wJ3-dnyk

The difference is that those shots are generic enough to be used by all sorts of different individuals and companies. That gives them high marketability and the potential for big earnings. By shooting specifically Nike, you're limiting yourself to editorial on a couple of sites. I doubt the returns would be worth it. Also, you're not shooting for $250 (which is a pathetic price for use by a huge corporation anyway), but only for a very slim chance at $250.

And ethically, it just turns my stomach that a corporation like Nike might wind up paying $250 for worldwide rights to an image. Normally they pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The difference is that those shots are generic enough to be used by all sorts of different individuals and companies. That gives them high marketability and the potential for big earnings. By shooting specifically Nike, you're limiting yourself to editorial on a couple of sites. I doubt the returns would be worth it. Also, you're not shooting for $250 (which is a pathetic price for use by a huge corporation anyway), but only for a very slim chance at $250.

And ethically, it just turns my stomach that a corporation like Nike might wind up paying $250 for worldwide rights to an image. Normally they pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I dont understand why Nike ends up paying 250$? The people doing to the work to pitch to Nike are buying the images. Nike might pay 10K for that job, we dont know. Its the people submitting the brief that are the  culprits here. IMO.

I dont understand why Nike ends up paying 250$? The people doing to the work to pitch to Nike are buying the images. Nike might pay 10K for that job, we dont know. Its the people submitting the brief that are the  culprits here. IMO.

i think the logo designers don't care about the money, they would probably do it for free, their goal is to design something for a major company like Nike and being allowed to list Nike in their portfolio.

basically they're giving away a freebie in exchange of gaining PR and reputation but it's a double edged sword, many photographers do the same joining any possible photo competition in order to gain an award and to call themselves "award winning photographer" no matter if they even had to pay to join these competitions and they won a few bucks and a free UV-filter ..

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 05, 2015, 16:45

I dont understand why Nike ends up paying 250$? The people doing to the work to pitch to Nike are buying the images. Nike might pay 10K for that job, we dont know. Its the people submitting the brief that are the  culprits here. IMO.

i think the logo designers don't care about the money, they would probably do it for free, their goal is to design something for a major company like Nike

Oh, they care very much. Nike's logo was created for very little when the company was in its infancy and run by a college professor who asked a design student for help. But large corporations pay millions for logo redesigns.