Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jf22 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jf22

The promotional aspects could be worth much more than whatever money they'd earn.

View on HN

If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Whats the value of 'promotion' at that point?

Normal people getting married would pay a premium for someone who appeared on tv.

Paying netflix would be a smart business opportunity.

Your photos might appear on this Netflix show, which doesn't mean that you/your brand will do so. Or it might appear in the closing credits that are usually skipped.

Then you add it to your own website/socials that you were in a Netflix show.

> If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will?

Couples who want that photographer they saw on TV.

Is photographer visible in the show? Do they know who she is and how to find her?

Aren't those the people already offering to pay in 'exposure' or 'experience'? I have strong doubt that taking no money from Netflix will help you extract payment from other people.

^ Hello, answer here folks.

How are they worth anything when this sets the standard that the work is worth $0? If anything this moves the needle down on what you can earn later.

The Super Bowl doesn't pay the halftime performer. How are they worth anything?

So who are the nobodies who had their breakout because of the Super Bowl?

When dozens of celebrities offer to work for free, they won't pick a nobody. So what are you trying to prove? Do you honestly think it wouldn't skyrocket a new performer's career?

I think it sounds like an example that doesn't prove what you aim to convince me of.

The goal was to disprove "this sets the standard that work is worth $0". And celebrities using it in the middle of successful performance careers seems to disprove that idea just fine.

You're the one that brought up breakouts, but the part you're demanding proof of is something that's obvious. No, I don't have proof that a nobody performing in the super bowl would have a huge spike in popularity. But I think you're being ridiculous if you think that wouldn't happen. If you want to find a flaw in an argument, demand proof of something that isn't obvious.

At best we can say it doesn't hurt some of the best-known and most popular performers in the world. If you're the Beyoncé of your field you can do whatever and it's unlikely to hurt you that badly. That has little bearing on the current discussion.

Willful ignorance is not a good argument. These performers have detailed public sales figures. We know with certainty that performing in the Super Bowl is a large boost to their sales.

But their business model is totally different from a photographer. They're not in the business of works for hire and are featured far more prominently in the show than a photographer is going to be in wedding photos. I just don't see how this example is relevant.

The PERFORMER pays for the half-time show! Obviously Lady Gaga is a terrible talent and a worse business woman.

Do they? My understanding was that the performer receives no money and lays out no money, with the Super Bowl funding the show and getting the star for free.

As in many things, this is an example of an equilibrium that probably doesn't precisely identify the relative value of each party's contribution, but which is very easy to agree on.

Yes and Netflix (or the organization making the film) can afford to pay more.

> The promotional aspects could be worth much more than whatever money they'd earn.

So now you can put this on your resume:

I did this job for Netflix. And by the way, they didn't pay me a dime.

The better question is why a company with as much cash as Netflix can't afford to pay their photographers.

And not even some new project done on shoe-string budget. But already known and popular one. Kinda makes you wonder of other aspects of their material. They must have some people to do some photo-shoots and some post-production. So why not use those? Or how are they treated?

As stated in the article, it’s a production company. Netflix buys the product, has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of actually making the show.

Why not both then?

This is one of those things often asserted but rarely proven.

Brands often pay hundreds of thousands on product placement. I'm not sure that's going to help a photographer though. Coke product placement may motivate me to buy a coke, but it's not like I'm going to hire a wedding photographer 1000 miles away.

Yes, a big company have whole divisions devoted to advertising. But for a business operated by one person it's not really equivalent to talk about doing a full week of work for free, especially one that doesn't prominently display you or your name. Beyond the issue you already mentioned that this is a mostly local business.

You don't know of any person in a service trade that did promo work to build their portfolio?

I know auto mechanics, actors, hair people, nail people, home inspectors, photographers, and cooks who have done free work for free promotions.

Some people hate on the concept but it's how people get their start in an industry.

If you think the idea that people will stop valuing things they can get for free and refuse to pay for them is far fetched, I encourage you to see how your hometown newspaper is doing.

Your reply is odd. You wanted "proof" work-for-promotions happen and I just wanted to point out this happens in several trades.

Anyway, I don't disagree with your comment at all.

Certain trades are undervalued because it takes portfolio building or practice in a professional setting to get started. You seemed to be unaware that this happens but now it seems you do?

I didn’t want proof they happened. I wanted proof they have the touted benefits. That is what I am not convinced of. I believe “exposure” through free work is of very little value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com