Marketing: Success Depends on the Details

How often are you reminding your clients that you are still alive? That you still want their business? As the playing field continues to evolve, reminding clients that you are still out there, working hard, and looking forward to working for them, is important.

Many people who find themselves a bit slow, are (hopefully) finding the time to do some much needed marketing. And for those who are still busy? You should be marketing when you're busy - in fact, you shouldn't stop marketing at all. The key, is to be thoughtul about your promotional campaign.

So, what details will help you be the most effective? How frequently? When? How?

(Continued after the Jump)

We've done a fair amount of research on the subject, and here are some significant statistics that have born themselves out to be true from multiple sources. You can find more stats at EmailStatCenter.

Monthly emails and content and frequency options positively impacted a company's reputation. - Habeas (2008)

Wednesday was the best day of the week in the third quarter of 2007 to send email in terms of click (3.9%) and open rates (25.4%). - eROI (2007)

Most marketers send email to their customers once a week. - Shop.org, State of Retailing Online 2007 report (Sept. 2007)

45% of small businesses execs want to receive the (email) newsletter weekly, 34% said monthly. - Bredin Business Information (2007)

63.8% of retailers conduct up to three email campaigns each month. - Internet Retailer (Aug 2006)

79% of the respondents said they hit the "report spam" button when they don't know who the sender is. - Email Sender and Provider Coalition (2007)

21% of the emails reviewed appeared completely blank when images were turned off, or stripped inside a variety of email clients. - Email Experience Council (2007)

44% of email users said email inspired at least one online purchase and 41% said it prompted at least one offline purchase. - JupiterResearch's The Social and Portable Inbox (2008)

66% of those surveyed said they had made a purchase because of a marketing message received through email. - ExactTarget, "2008 Channel Preference Survey" (2008)

For advertising-oriented lists, 57% of marketers surveyed said that "emailing unique content by segment" produced routinely justifiable results. - MarketingSherpa "Email Marketing Benchmark Guide 2008" (2008)

69% of at-work email users usually view emails in their preview panes. - MarketingSherpa (2007)

80% of at-work users in the US rely on Outlook, which offers preview panes. - MarketingSherpa (2007)

Most common screen resoltion is 1024 X 768. - OneStat.com (April 2007)

64% of key decision makers are viewing your carefully crafted email on their BlackBerrys and other mobile devices, according to new data. - MarketingSherpa, in partnership with SurveySampling (2007)

64% of online merchants keep key points of content high up in the body of the message. - Internet Retailer (2007)

Utilizing a professional company and/or their tools to test your image rendering across multiple email clients often helps to increase response up to as much as 87%. - Email Experience Council - Email Rendering Report (2007)

A typical landing page visitor spends only 5 seconds on the page. - Marketing Experiments

Seven in 10 US Internet users said they judged these "from" and "subject" lines when deciding whether to report an email as spam. - E-Mail Sender and Provider Coalition and Ipsos (December 2006)

64% of small businesses execs said they decide whether or not to open the (email) newsletter based on who it's from. - Bredin Business Information (2007)

40% of marketers restrict their personalization efforts to the salutation. - Responsys Survey: The State of Personalization (2006)

While there is a lot more insightful information at EmailStatCenter, these are several of the items that are applicable to what we do. Keep in mind while reading items, that there's a difference between B2B and B2C, and you need to know which of these markets you are reaching out to, and segmenting and designing your outreach specific to them. Also take note - some of the above details are about retail marketing, so consider how that might be different from your efforts, if it is.

While it may seem obvious to many, for example, that sending a B2B e-mail at 10pm on a Friday night is a bad idea, knowing how to fine-tune your delivery time and day is important. Knowing as many details as possible helps increase the efficacy (and thus ROI) on your marketing campaign.

As to the "How?" There are several photo-centric services. Adbase, which we've mentioned and reviewed before, as well as AgencyAccess. Read their FAQ's, their white papers, their help pages, their how-to's. Getting it right in your outreach to new and old clients is critical. Put your best foot forward, and do things right, it's your future we're talking about.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Star-Ledger: It's a Team Effort

There have been a variety of comments on the subject of Assistant Deputy Photo Editor Mitchell Seidel (LinkedIn: Profile), as reported in Editor & Publisher (Buyout-Depleted 'Star-Ledger' Reassigns Two Journos -- To Mailroom, 11/19/08) now working in the mailroom.

Many reports and comments I've heard centered around the ha ha, isn't that funny, and the is this what they went to college for, kind.

As I sit back and contemplate the evolution and the changes that are taking place, I see Seidel doing exactly what he should - pitching in WHEREVER he is needed.

(Continued after the Jump)

Feel free to mock him if you'd like (and I'll watch your karmic savings account self-deplete), but in this downturn, what Mitchells' actions are saying is "I will do anything - whatever it takes - to keep my job and my paper alive." His actions most definitely are speaking louder than words. Mitchell is not above this "type" of work. None of us are above it. Heck, next they should slash the cleaning crew, and let everyone on their way out of the office at night empty their own trash. What a cost savings that would be.

Mitchell - hats' off to you and your 28 years of service to the Star-Ledger. You epitomize what it means to be a team player.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Speedlinks - 11/19/08

Today's Speedlinks.

• The Perfect Storm Has Arrived - From Vincent Laforet - THIS ONE'S A MUST-READ FRIENDS.


• Magazine Death Pool - A sad take on the death of the pulp printing industry, but it's worth a bookmark!


• Paul Melcher on Getty - Paul's got an interesting open letter to Marc Getty. Within the rant, it's a good read. UPDATE: It seems Paul's post is gone. Interesting...

Now go! Check 'em out, and come back soon!

---

(Comments, if any, after the Jump)

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Wizard of OZMO (Caution: Look Behind the Curtain)

As the story goes, the Wizard of Oz was thought to be the end-all-be-all solution to those in need in the land of Oz. Yet, the truth was that the Wizard was nothing more than a charlatan. Take a quick look at one of the Wizards behind the curtain pulling those levers, and pushing those knobs for OZMO - it's Creative Commons.

Ozmo is "a new web-based service focused on helping photographers, bloggers, and other content creators license their work for commercial use", according to a blog post on Creative Commons' website. ASMP wrote is their latest Member Update email. "There are no set-up fees with Ozmo and content creators can license as much content as they want. Payment is collected from the buyer when the rights are purchased. Ozmo even helps sellers track and manage sales and buying trends."

Fatal Error #1 – On its first day in business, OZMO has likely offended and alienated every professional photographer in the industry.

(Continued after the Jump)

You realize this once you learn that Ozmo is a licensing service offered by the Copyright Clearance Center, an organization that has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties on the reprographic usage (photocopying) of photographs and other creative works contained in publications, and has consistently rejected appeals by photographers and their organizations to distribute those funds to the rightful owners.

To add insult to injury, the CCC’s Ozmo service has adopted a stock photo licensing scheme developed by Creative Commons, an organization whose leadership has consistently promoted “free culture” which in plain english means the weakening of the copyright protections on which pro photographers depend for their livelihoods. Creative Commons has demonstrated a commitment to encouraging open sharing and free usage of photographs and other copyrighted works.

The particular flavor of Creative Commons adopted by OZMO is “CC+” a new and untested commercial extension of Creative Commons license packages. Creative Commons has received millions of dollars in support from free culture advocates and has used that support to develop CC and CC+ without participation of the professional photography industry, while every photography organization in the country has been actively engaged in collaborating with image buyers on the development of PLUS (Picture Licensing Universal System), a comprehensive system of standards designed to simplify and facilitate image licensing. While ASMP’s announcement refers to the adoption of PLUS by OZMO, the CCC’s marketing materials indicate that OZMO has adopted Creative Commons CC+ licensing.

While amateur and hobbiest photographers might find Creative Commons to be a convenient way to share their works, few professionals would consider the use of Creative Commons in any form. The reason: Creative Commons is a dysfunctional system. Images offered under Creative Commons licenses are routinely used beyond the defined scope of use, resulting in widespread infringement.. Attribution is not provided where required. Derivatives are made despite prohibitions on derivatives. The Creative Commons definition of “commercial use” is nothing more than an unfunny joke.

Fatal Error #2: Ozmo customers are required to pay for image licenses using Amazon Payments. From the Ozmo website (here)

Why Amazon Payment Services?
Amazon Payments is built on top of Amazon's reliable and scalable payment infrastructure.

With almost 70 million active customer accounts worldwide, Amazon.com is a trusted resource for third-party payments online, allowing for instantaneous payments and anti-fraud protection.

Yet, checking the Amazon Payments website (here) reveals:

"At this time, payments can be made only in U.S. Dollars...You can also use a bank account to make payments using Amazon Payments. Only U.S. bank accounts can be used, and a verification process must be completed before the bank account can be used as a payment method."

So, unless you're using a credit card (and the nationality requirement of those cards is unclear at this time), you've got to be a US bankholder, payable in US dollars. So, while Ozmo touts "70 million active customer accounts worldwide", it's just US bankholders that apparently can make payments.

According to that same ASMP update that arrived via e-mail yesterday, "ASMP members are encouraged to investigate and evaluate this service (OZMO) as one piece of a photographers marketing arsenal."

My advice to photography trade organizations: think twice before aligning yourself with an organization (CCC) that is in the business of withholding royalties from photographers, and a service (OZMO) that has partnered with an organization (Creative Commons) dedicated to destroying the livelihood of your photographer members.

I think that OZMO might just be DOA. Not sure? Consider Pixish. We wrote critically of them - Pixish, Stupid is, as Stupid Does (2/12/08), and less than a year later, we reported on their demise - Pixish - Finally Down the Tubes (11/7/08). Sometimes, it takes several quarters to burn through all that "great idea money", before people arrive at the reality of a bad idea materialized and now worth jettisoning. So, perhaps DOA could save everyone some cash and some trouble.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

It's GAME OVER for NYT's Play Magazine

Yes, friends, publishing is sadly not about what's good or great, when it comes to ink and pulp, it's about what sells ads,what keeps the hallway lights on, the cleaning crew emptying the trash bins, and the IT department updating your Microsoft Office Suite with the latest patch to keep the viruses away.

The New York Times reports (Times Shuts Down Sports Magazine, 11/17/08) "Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, confirmed the closing. Mr. Bryant said that the magazine “was more or less breaking even,” but only because of an Olympics issue in which all the ad space was bought by Nielsen."

Here's where we begin to see tricky staffing though.

(Continued after the Jump)

The article at the end, states that almost all the staffers - including the editor - were contractors. Thus, they likely did not participate in retirement plans, healthcare, or other benefits usually reserved for employees. If they did get those things, that's a rare occurrence indeed. The notion of publishing an entire publication almost entirely with contractors - especially by an employee-laiden company like the New York Times, belies a new paradigm - or atleast the front-and-center of it for all to see.

Let's set aside the "gosh, that's too bad" thoughts, because we all have them. Instead, let's look at how and why.

The Times, looking to capitalize on those well-off readers put forth a luxury-styled magazine centered on sports, for the jet-set and well-heeled. It was a quarterly magazine, so even though it started on February of 2006, that means they probably published fewer than a dozen issues. Yet, even with the likely tie-ins to pre-existing advertising in the papers' Sports section for select high-dollar products, they couldn't make a go of it. The mighty NYT Co, with an ad department that has the weight of that same name behind it, couldn't make it happen in the media capitol of the world. It's a business venture gone south. Nothing new to see here, move along.

As papers downsize, and produce new ventures, both with ink and pulp as well as the online flavors, continue to look at the staffing as an indicator of their commitment. Employees with benefits and so forth are one good indicator that someone is trying to do something right. Yet, more and more publications are moving even their existing positions from staff to freelance. Why? Because it's cheaper. Period.

The reality of this is that what happened is business. Period. When people tell you they want you to work for them for free or cheap, "because of the love of the subject matter", or "because of the love of {insert altruistic concept here}", look closely at the organization. If everyone else is doing it as a volunteer, and they're doing it out of a scrappy office in a strip mall on the outskirts of town, and there's no corporate conglomerate listed as the projects' owner, then maybe it's worth considering pro bono. Otherwise, they're trying to pull at your heartstrings while you're feeling, and your pursestrings when you're not looking.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

10 Questions for: PhotoShelter

In light of the demise of Digital Railroad, a few readers have written expressing concern about the future of PhotoShelter, and what their
closing of the PhotoShelter Collection means. So, we thought we'd ask them how things are going, and we turned to Grover Sanschagrin for answers.

1) Some readers were concerned about the closing of the PhotoShelter Collection and seem to be confusing that with the entire PhotoShelter service. Can you shed some light on this?

We closed down the PhotoShelter Collection because it wasn't cost-effective to keep it running considering the current economic climate. The last thing we wanted to do was put the PhotoShelter Personal Archive in jeopardy. This is the product we started with over 3 years ago, with over 35,000 photographers subscribing to it. It was a difficult decision at the time, but it was the right decision. Doing so allowed us to cut the burn rate - and "cutting the burn" is the key to survival right now.

(Continued after the Jump)

2) So, the PhotoShelter Collection was an effort for PhotoShelter to get into the photo agency business, marketing and licensing images collectively for those PhotoShelter users that wanted to participate?

Exactly. A global search across all archives has always been possible with PhotoShelter. But the Collection added photo editors, a sales staff, research people, and a beefed-up marketing department. It was free for photographers to participate, and when sales were made, PhotoShelter's take was 30%.

3) When Digital Railroad was in its' final death throws, PhotoShelter was very active behind the scenes trying to figure out a way to help stranded photographers rescue their images. Do you feel that most photographers were able to get their images off the DRR servers in time?

Unfortunately, most people didn't get their images off in time. The longer someone waited to get their images, the less likely they were to experience successful transfers. The people who jumped on it the moment you started writing about it on your blog were able to get their entire archives safely ported over to PhotoShelter.

4) Of the reportedly 1,400 or so active DRR photographers, about how many are now PhotoShelter customers?

This may sound like a non-answer, but we really don't know for sure which of our newest customers are from DRR. I can tell you, however, that signups have *definitely* increased. If I were to make a rough estimate, I'd say that somewhere around 35% of the total DRR population have signed up with PhotoShelter since the news first broke.

5) Prior to the demise of DRR, it was said that PhotoShelter (as separate from the PhotoShelter Collection) was a cash-flow positive business, so it would stand to reason that the addition of that 35% who migrated from DRR would make PhotoShelter even more stable moving forward. Can you expand on this?

I can't really expand on that at all, at least not with the kind of specific details that I know you want. But I will say that I am proud of our management team, and that the decisions made were difficult but right, and the company, and product, has never looked better as a result. As a company that takes its archiving responsibilities very seriously, we're not interested in taking chances. We're interested in long-term survival, and putting the company in a position it can happen -- even during an economic downturn.

6) What growth areas do you see for PhotoShelter in the future?

Now that the Collection isn't such a large focus anymore, we've turned our full attention to the Personal Archive. We plan to continue with our aggressive development calendar, and respond to the ideas and suggestions of our customers. Making the product stronger is our main focus.

7) We've previously highlighted the new embed-able galleries features, as well as the incredible shoot-to-live-online capabilities. Are there any exciting new features you can tip us off to in the near future?

Are there exciting new features coming? Yes. Will I tell you what they are? Not exactly. I'm not sure if people realize just how amazing our engineers are, and how fast they can turn an idea into a reality. With their full attention on the Personal Archive, my job has never been more exciting.

8) What can the average photographer be expecting to spend each month on your service?

We've got several different price points, starting with a Free account (with only 150mb of storage) to allow people to get in there and check it out for as long as they'd like. We've got accounts at $9.99/mo (10GB), $29.99/mo (35GB) and $49.99/mo (100GB). Adding more storage can be done on-the-fly and at extremely affordable rates.

9) Shouldn't that nominal amount either be an easily absorbable figure into a small businesses' overhead, or billable out as "online image delivery" to a client when an assignment is delivered that way? (in other words, are other photographers doing it that way?)

Considering what you're getting for your monthly subscription, it's an absolute bargain. A serious photographer using PhotoShelter to drive their business has no problem covering these costs. Wedding photographers can charge a bride/groom for an online digital archive; Retouchers can avoid the costs of DVDs by selling archiving space to their customers; Photographers of all kinds can open up brand new revenue streams with print sales or by making personal-use downloads available, etc.

10) What seems to be the one stumbling block that a potential user is not surpassing that is precluding them from signing up, and what would you tell them if you were talking to them one-on-one?

Many photographers think that in order to make use of PhotoShelter, they'd first have to spend hours and hours uploading their entire archive, and this is time they do not have. I regularly tell photographers to just get started today, and worry about the past later. Tomorrow will eventually be yesterday, so the longer you wait to get started, the more of a chore it will be when you finally get around to it.

I also think that many photographers look at PhotoShelter and ask themselves if it can do everything they need it to do in terms of how they are running their business, instead of how PhotoShelter can, through innovation, actually improve HOW the are running their business.

My favorite PhotoShelter user is anyone who is curious, willing to experiment and try new things, sees the Internet as an opportunity, and is innovative in their business strategy. This kind of attitude and outlook is critical to success and long-term stability - something we should all be thinking about.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Licensing Illiteracy = Obsolescence

If your best client came to you and said "learn Spanish, or you're no longer going to get hired by us." Would you?

If your best client came to you and said "The slang and odd language you use isn't condusive to a constructive dialog when we're working together. If you can't speak proper English we won't be able to work together anymore." Would you drop the street talk and keep the client?

If you answered no to either of those questions, you need to think again. This is business, and if you want to do business, and keep doing business, you need to set aside any attitudes like "Who he think he is tellin' me I can't talk street, yo?" and realize that businesses do whatever they can to keep their clients. It's not personal, or an affront to you, it's just business.

When a client thus, comes to the determination that the language you've been using to describe your licensing is the equivilent of ambiguous street language, and decides that they're tired of intepreting what "collateral" really means, and in turn, they specify the use of the Picture Licensing Universal System (PLUS) system be incorporated into the licensing agreements you convey to them, you'd better step to it.

That is exactly what's happened with the top three image licensees in the US. These three major publishers have called for the adoption of the PLUS standards by picture archives, photographers, illustrators and all other image suppliers. Representatives of McGraw Hill, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Pearson each announced that they will adopt the PLUS Picture Licensing Glossary definitions in their contracts, and that they encourage image suppliers to begin embedding PLUS license metadata in all images within one year.

(Continued after the Jump)

"We are very pleased that these major publishers - the largest image licensees in the industry - are aligned in their support of the PLUS standards," said Maria Kessler (LinkedIn: Profile), President of the Picture Archive Association of America.

Bonnie Beacher (LinkedIn: Profile), Senior Director of Contracts, Copyrights and Permissions at McGraw-Hill Education, said "The PLUS standards
benefit publishers and their suppliers by simplifying and clarifying the process of licensing and managing images. We are in the process of implementing PLUS standards, and we would find it very useful for our image suppliers to adopt PLUS standards as well."

Jeff Sedlik (LinkedIn: Profile), President & CEO of the PLUS Coalition, said "The PLUS standards will allow publishers to leverage embedded license metadata to increase automation and more efficiently manage images in their digital asset management systems."

What this means is that the Getty, Corbis, Alamy, et al licensors of the world will now be implementing PLUS language into every type of licensing that they do. The license will have to be PLUS compliant, because they won't know if the person browsing their site is a McGraw-Hill person, or a magazine photo editor, as they are filling up their cart full of images, and selecting the licenses they need. So, when the client is considering your work, you'll have to use the same words as the Gettys of the world so that a client can properly manage all images in their digital asset management system.

Clients have already specified to you they need an invoice before they can pay you, and it needs to say "Invoice" on it, be dated, and have your contact information, and so too, the need your tax id # (SSN, EIN, etc). There's little difference here in the standardization of the language for licensing.

When it comes to licensing language clarity, and agreement cross-industry, PLUS is a monumental collaboration, and one we have hearlded from this soapbox for some time. As an individual photographer, it's free for you to use, and you would do well during your down time - like excising the street from your talk, to get to know PLUS better. Your clients are demanding it.

---

RELATED:

• Digital Railroad, PLUS, and A Stock Sale - 6/17/08
• In The Photo Business - It's All About The Usage - 12/17/07
• Safety In Numbers - 12/4/07
• Adobe and DMCA Liability In An Era of Orphan Works - 10/1/08
• ASMP and their $1.3 - 10/19/08
• VIDEO: PhotoPlusExpo 2007 - Photo Business News, PLUS Coalition segment - 10/21/07

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Neither Truth, Nor Ethics, Need an Ally

I love books. If I were to have only one regret this life, it would be that there wasn't enough time to read all the books that I want to. My reading list is a long one, and so often, new books have to fight hard to cut the line. I also collect books, and nestled amongst my signed editions of Ansel Adams' The Negative, The Print, Natural Light Photography, and Artificial Light Photography (note: I am still seeking Book 1), several Sam Abel books, signed limited editions of all the great surf photography books, and books like Csikszentmihalyi's Flow, is a book by the legendary Howard Chapnick - Truth Needs No Ally: Inside Photojournalism. I was honored to have him sign mine, and yes, be represented by his agency, Black Star. Yet, there's no bias here - his independent status as a legend probably preceded my birth.

So, it is with reverance that another Chapnick - John Chapnick - comes forth with a new book - Photojournalism, technology and ethics - What's Right and Wrong Today? Oh, and get this - it's a free eBook! Hit this link for the PDF.

(Continued after the Jump)

In the book, Chapnick states the obvious. Obvious, that is, to those of us who have been doing this awhile. Things like "altering photographs is unethical." Then there's "Staging photographs is unethical." Now, I know these things, yet I see these things happen all the time, and we read time and again about altering photographs and then their appearing in newspapers. Yet Chapnick delves into these issues, citing the policies of wire services and newspapers around the country, and then proffering the thought process:

The rhetorical justifications for these axioms center on public service. Rather than simply selling newspapers or attracting TV ratings, journalists have a higher calling—to provide their audiences with the knowledge required to be informed contributors to a democracy. And this can only happen when the public believes in the newspaper’s authority.

Ahh. Now some lightbulbs are going off in readers' heads. So, where does the money trail meander? Chapnick goes on:

Beyond this consideration, credibility is essential to mainstream news organizations from a business standpoint. If audiences don’t believe they can trust what they’re reading—and seeing—it’s the equivalent of a broken product. And consumers don’t buy broken products for very long.

Indeed!

Chapnick then goes on to address the excuses we're hearing from our motion picture brethren, that staging is justified "for purposes of editing", or "for purposes of time", or "for purposes of storytelling", even when the audience is not told of these "re-creations". One field notorious for staging photography is in the field of nature/wild animal photography, with all manner of baiting, pens, and so forth creating a reality that never existed, but which yielded a cover photograph on the front page of the most prestigious magazines of our time.

In the end Chapnick also offers solutions for the digital era, and it's a solid read, primer (or reminder), for anyone who professes to produce editorial images. So, hats off to John Chapnick for a well written and thoughtful perspective on the issue of technology and ethics in photojournalism today. While ethics need no ally, its' furtherance surely needs this roadmap to ensure that tomorrows' photojournalists earn and keep the reputation of truth-telling - no more, and no less.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Fashion Police - White House Edition

When, several years ago, I was assisting a friend in getting his first Capitol Hill press pass, as we arrived to proceed into the building, I handed him one my disposable razors I keep in my car, and in said "you need to run this over your face." "Why?" he asked? "It's a simple matter of respect", I noted. To this day, he gives me a hard time with that phrase, and we're such good friends that he didn't take offense at my counsel. (and he did get his credential.)

Yesterday, when I turned up at the White House for my planned coverage of Barack Obama's visit, I was dressed in a suit. That's just me, I guess. Others were not similarly attired, but there were a half-dozen other still photographers wearing ties. I recall with great respect then Agence France Presse photographer David Ake, 15+ years ago, always came into the White House well dressed, and he recieved the respect due a properly attired photographer. Today, Ake is the head of the Associated Press' photo operation here in DC, and he remains well dressed.

(Continued after the Jump)

Re-enter my good friend and colleague, David Burnett. David is a classy guy - top of his class in so many ways, and his class can surmount jeans, except when it's a random challenge by a press operation that has lost much of it's knowledge-base because of the few days left in it's existence. David recounts on his blog - Common Sense, Not Very Common, (11/11/08), writes:

So last Thursday, at what will no doubt be President Bush’s last cabinet meeting, Paul Richards of AFP and I were singled out of the crowd of a dozen still photographers, and refused entry to the photo opportunity in the Cabinet Room. Like Paul, I have been on the road for months doing the campaign. We were both surprised, unhappily, when we were informed that with just months to go in an 8 year tenure, the White House has decided to ban jeans from the Oval Office, and (apparently) the Cabinet Room if worn by photographers.

While I concur that David shouldn't have worn jeans, he would have learned that 7+ years ago had the current administration instituted that rule - and enforced it - way back then. To enforce a rule they've previously not enforced, or been lax in enforcing, is just petty, and belies the mindset of the outgoing administrations attitude towards the press.

While you ponder this, check out previous blog posts on this subject:

Proper Attire Whilst Making Pictures, 6/1/08

Leave The Flip Flops For The Politicians, 5/23/07

So, as the saying goes, dress for who you want to be, not who you are. Wait, I want to be David Burnett...but can I do it without wearing jeans?

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

DRR's Formal Notice of Shutdown - One Big Concern

Below you will find formal notice about DRR's suitor - Newscom - recinding it's interest. Of particular interest is the following:

"The creditor will have all information erased from the storage devices and then sell the equipment at auction."

The concern is that someone will simply do a simple erase, and anyone with recovery tools can recover ALL of our images. ALL OF THEM. Stories abound about people's private information getting found on a company's old servers (Government probe launched after details of one million bank customers found on computer sold on eBay, 8/28/08, among others). Here, we have images which will be recovered and then someone will decide they have this huge library of images to do with as they please.

Someone needs to get information on just how they plan to do the erasing.

Formal notice after the jump:

(Continued after the Jump)

November 10, 2008
To Digital Railroad Members and Customers;

As reported on October 31st, Digital Railroad (DRR) had received a letter of intent (LOI) to purchase specific assets of DRR, namely its hardware and application software used to store and retrieve images. This LOI was rescinded on November 5th.

On November 6th, a second company became interested in purchasing some of the assets of DRR, but late on Friday, November 7th this company also ended its negotiations.

Without a commitment for the purchase of its assets, DRR’s senior secured creditor will move to take physical possession of the hardware on which the intellectual property of DRR and the copyrighted images of its customers and partners reside. The creditor will have all information erased from the storage devices and then sell the equipment at auction.

Digital Railroad had hoped that it could preserve the images on the storage devices so that the owners of these images could recover them. Unfortunately, this was not achievable. We apologize for the difficulties that this has created but without additional resources we have no other recourse.

With regard to images in Marketplace that have been downloaded and/or used, and for which the publisher has not already made payment, we will work, with the assistance of photographer associations to have the publishers pay the photographers directly.

Please check the Diablo Management website www.diablomanagement.com for regularly updates regarding Digital Railroad. The DRR link is at the bottom of the DMG Home page.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]