Advertising at its finest... :-(

[sheeplady]

I say it again, its NOT a fashion spread, it is an editorial spread.
Editorials normally are made out of the photographers/ creative directors pocket
so no one gets paid.
And it wasn't used to sell ANYTHING.
Vice is not a fashion magazine and doesn't sell clothes.

Bull.

Why were fashion credits given if the intent is not to sell clothing?

Does it make it any better now that the only information they chose to include about these talented women were their clothes because it was an editorial?

I subscribe to a number of magazines that have spreads that have fashion credits. Those magazines aren't selling the clothing; they aren't clothing magazines. It's still advertising. If the intent wasn't to sell anything, it wouldn't be listed. And when one of those magazines had the cheapest pieces of clothing at $500 in one issue (yes, I look at the credits), I wrote them and told them given the economy, it was rather distasteful of them to only promote such expensive pieces. In the end, the magazine chooses what to put in it.

Also, in editorial pieces the photographer is paid. They get paid very little, but they are paid. It's mainly for the credit line, which can generate more business. But they are paid.

 

[DamianM]

They are paid after they market it around and the magazine wants to use it. In the end its just for the credit. They have to credit everyone involved in the images or there are legal issues to be made after. It wasn't marketed as ads but The Jezebels people decided to point it out.They credited all the make up artist and wardrobe designers in Schindler list. Had to make the prisoners look good right. That's what the credits are for.just to know.

I guess you haven't seen any film by Lars Von Trier or anything photographs by Andres Serrano?

 

[Feraud]

I work for a nationally published magazine and can clarify this. It's called an ADVERTORIAL, advertising thinly disguised as editorial. All content included in magazines are there to sell something.
Vice sells advertising.

 

[sheeplady]

They are paid after they market it around and the magazine wants to use it. In the end its just for the credit.

Hence why I said: "Also, in editorial pieces the photographer is paid. They get paid very little, but they are paid. It's mainly for the credit line, which can generate more business. But they are paid."

They have to credit everyone involved in the images or there are legal issues to be made after. It wasn't marketed as ads but The Jezebels people decided to point it out.They credited all the make up artist and wardrobe designers in Schindler list. Had to make the prisoners look good right. That's what the credits are for.just to know.

This simply isn't true. In commercial advertising or many pieces of photography you do not have to credit products you aren't selling or the artists that are working on a piece. You don't see the photographer listed on most commercial advertising, the model's name, the makeup being used, or the clothes being worn *unless* those items are being sold. One of the reasons why editorials exist is that *do* put the models and photographer's names out there. It's a money versus fame thing. Getting a 10-page layout in vogue with your name on every picture for an editorial is gold for your career.

Find me a commercial advertisement for a drug company's product that lists the makeup worn on the model, his/her clothes, and the model's name.

Movies are a whole another deal. You'll notice they don't list the makeup brands used in the movies. Or where the clothes come from (brands and stores). If they did the credits would be five times the length. They do product placement in movies, but that is selective.

I guess you haven't seen any film by Lars Von Trier or anything photographs by Andres Serrano?

No, I haven't seen the films. But this isn't art. It's an editorial piece. While editorial pieces are shot differently from "commercial work" (there is a specific editorial style), they are still seen as advertising by photographers if they are showcasing items/products to be bought; such as in a fashion shoot like this one. Photographers use editorials to generate commercial work. The goal of editorial photography is to showcase the lifestyle of products; i.e. how people live with the products. Therefore, there tends to be a wider focus by the photographer, less focus on the product, more background noise and objects, etc. But the focus is how the person *lives with the product.* Notice the focus on the product. (There is editorial work done for other purposes, such as images for articles or news articles; but the focus on these is not the products in the images, therefore the products aren't listed or showcased.)

With all the focus on products, it's obvious some editorial work is advertising.

You are confusing art with editorial pieces.

 

[herringbonekid]

I work for a nationally published magazine and can clarify this. It's called an ADVERTORIAL, advertising thinly disguised as editorial. All content included in magazines are there to sell something.

in this spread (or any other fashion spread that appears in GQ, Vogue, whoever) is the magazine actually paid by the companies who lend them the clothes for the shoot ?

 

[Feraud]

The magazine is either directly paid by the company or they have a reciprocal arrangement. Reciprocal arrangements work when magazine X runs an ad for television program Y and in return television personalities will mention the magazine over a duration of time.

Clothing (or other products) are loaned for photo shoots with companies in express agreement with the content of the shoot.
The language used and stipulations in contracts and insertion orders I've encountered would be laughable if the companies were not deadly serious. Don't think for one second so-and-so's clothing was used in a suicide themed photo shoot and the company wasn't aware of it.
One example- I know of certain companies that don't want their ads located within 5-6 pages of any mention of Oprah Winfrey.

In additon to disgust with Vice for creating and promoting the content, I feel equal disgust for companies that loaned their clothing for such a shoot.

 

[herringbonekid]

Feraud, i'm not defending this particular photo shoot, but i still think there's a distinction to be made between an 'advert' in a magazine which is paid for by the brand and carries it's logo (a lot of fashion magazines are about 50% single or double page ads) and a fashion shoot / fashion editorial which is dreamt up by the stylist and photographer.

in many cases i'm sure the clothes are leant by the brand because such and such a stylist is 'cool' and such and such a photographer is 'big' - they will already have some sort of relationship (people involved in the shoot might get to keep the odd garment) but the brand has zero control over the outcome. i'm sure there are many cases where the brand doesn't like the outcome because the clothes are barely visible or don't look right, but it's still free publicity. it's not in the strict sense though 'advertising'; it's only 'advertising' if the brand commissions it's own photograph / ad campaign and pays for the print space.

 

[sheeplady]

Feraud, i'm not defending this particular photo shoot, but i still think there's a distinction to be made between an 'advert' in a magazine which is paid for by the brand and carries it's logo (a lot of fashion magazines are about 50% single or double page ads) and a fashion shoot / fashion editorial which is dreamt up by the stylist and photographer.

in many cases i'm sure the clothes are leant by the brand because such and such a stylist is 'cool' and such and such a photographer is 'big' - they will already have some sort of relationship (people involved in the shoot might get to keep the odd garment) but the brand has zero control over the outcome. i'm sure there are many cases where the brand doesn't like the outcome because the clothes are barely visible or don't look right, but it's still free publicity. it's not in the strict sense though 'advertising'; it's only 'advertising' if the brand commissions it's own photograph / ad campaign and pays for the print space.

Have you ever hired a photographer or worked with a photographer?

If you have, you'll notice reams and reams of paper contracts. My contract is 6 pages long- and I do children's and family photography (probably the lowest stakes photography out there). Most people think photography is an art (which it is) but unless you are purely a art photographer, it's a business.

There is very little left to chance in these documents. I highly doubt any company that is popular enough and been in business long enough would loan a photographer their clothes and have their company's name in the editorial credits as a fashion shoot without an explicit contract and final review of the images. Now, they might not like the images produced with their clothes, in that case there should be a clause in the contract that they have final review, and their choice would be to pull the images and prevent them from being published. This is standard. You wouldn't loan your name to be used any way a photographer pleased, so why would a company?

Given the context of this shoot, I highly highly doubt that a professional photographer wouldn't have an *air tight* contract that spelled all of this out, including final approval to the companies just to protect their own company. Can you imagine the lawsuit if a photographer used your clothing, named the clothing brand, in a suicide shoot, without your permission? That photographer's career would be *destroyed.* No company is going to work with that photographer again, ever. It is in the best interest of both the clothing company and the photographer to give the product supplier final review.

 

[herringbonekid]

sheeplady, whether the brand have only a vague idea as to the concept of the shoot, or have final approval of the images (which i doubt), my point is that a fashion editorial is not 'advertising' - unless it's paid for by the brand(s).

 

[LizzieMaine]

Such word parsing is nothing more than straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel. It doesn't matter to me one way or another what they call it, or how they write it off in their account books. The magazine is a commercial venture, distributed largely thru high-end clothing stores for overtly commercial purposes, and however they attempt to justify a piece like this, it's still irredeemably vile.

 

[sheeplady]

sheeplady, whether the brand have only a vague idea as to the concept of the shoot, or have final approval of the images (which i doubt), my point is that a fashion editorial is not 'advertising' - unless it's paid for by the brand(s).

I think you fail to understand how much photography is a business rather than an art. And I also think you fail to understand marketing strategy.

I'm sorry, but no company or photographer is going into a shoot like this the least bit in the dark without all their t's crossed and their i's dotted in a full contract. Notice none of the companies have come forward and said their clothing was used without their permission, or their brand was named without permission. Having worked closely with marketing, having a degree in communication management, and having worked as a photographer, I can tell you from personal and professional experience that everybody knew *exactly what w.s happening.* These types of editorials are to sell clothes. If they weren't, then the companies' names and brands wouldn't have been listed. It's cheap advertising, but it's advertising/

 

[herringbonekid]

it's the context of the images that is bad taste rather than the images themselves. there's a recreation of Woolf's suicide in the 2002 film 'The Hours' which is far more disturbing than the photo in this shoot, but within the context of a narrative which (hopefully) provokes some sort of deeper meditation on the matter.

but a list of clothing brands attached to suicide scenes is way beyond high-fashion self parody.


(this comment was in response to Lizzie's last comment, not sheeplady's above it)

 

[DamianM]

sheeplady, whether the brand have only a vague idea as to the concept of the shoot, or have final approval of the images (which i doubt), my point is that a fashion editorial is not 'advertising' - unless it's paid for by the brand(s).

True.

BTW I'm an "art photographer" and somethings do happen in collaboration with others. that is when you credit them.
I agree with HBK

 

[Feraud]

There's also this great interview with one of the models: http://jezebel.com/model-from-vice-suicide-shoot-speaks-i-was-uncomforta-514323121

And to make this all so much better, the models were unpaid because it was an editorial piece (not surprising, modeling is one of the least female-friendly occupations in the world). Nice to use women all around to sell your crap.

Depending on how much validity one gives the opinion of the model, she makes two comments stating the shoot was primarily a fashion shoot. I'd guess if anyone can recognize a fashion shoot, it's a model.

 

[herringbonekid]

I think you fail to understand how much photography is a business rather than an art.

no. there are loads of fashion photographers who call themselves artists, and whose work is displayed in galleries and straddles the commercial / fine art divide. to name just a few; Steven Meisel, Nick Knight, Juergen Teller, Sarah Moon...

I'm sorry, but no company or photographer is going into a shoot like this the least bit in the dark without all their t's crossed and their i's dotted in a full contract....

again, you're talking about what would happen in an ad campaign where the brand is in control of what they put out, because they're paying for the whole thing.

in an editorial for a high fashion magazine like Vogue or i-D the concept is dreamt up by the stylist, the photographer and maybe the fashion editor of the magazine. the shoot is essentially a showpiece for the talents of the stylist, the photographer, the hair and make-up artists, the models, and the agencies who rep the models. many of the new models work for free in editorials because they are hoping to get noticed and land a lucrative ad campaign (as are the stylist and photographer which is how they'll make some money).

 

[Seraph1227]

It is the " Lets make money from someone's personal pain and tragedy." mindset. Utterly tasteless.

 

[VintageBee]

Nothing surprises me anymore.
Saddens me but not surprising. It's like aliens have overtaken these humans and forced them to think this is 'art', 'culture' or a 'fashion spread'....whatever you want to call this, it's not good.

 

[Fading Fast]

Wasn't really sure where to post this, but this thread seems reasonable.

I recently saw "The Petrified Forest" again (loved it and wrote my comments on it over in the "What Was The Last Movie You Watched" thread) and noticed that "Apache Beer" was getting a lot of product placement / promotion. In addition to a prominent Apache Beer sign in the diner where 95% of the movie takes place, there is a scene where beer is served and the Apache label on the bottle is fully visible and front and center - clearly, not a coincidence.

I was surprised as it seemed aggressive product placement for a 1936 movie. I also assumed it was probably a pretty prominent beer but then discovered this on the web:

APACHE BEER HISTORICAL SUMMARY


APACHEBEER.com is a site dedicated to the history and advertising memorabilia of Apache Beer. Apache was first introduced in mid-1934 by the Arizona Brewing Company and quickly became a popular brand in the taverns that it was offered in. Only offered on draught originally, the new Apache quickly became the brewery’s main brand. Later that year, the brewery announced the beer was available in bottles. By the end of 1935, Apache Beer was available in cans and distributed throughout Arizona and in parts of New Mexico and Texas.

The Apache Beer Can itself was short lived, with new ownership in 1937, the canning line ceased operation and the Arizona Brewing Company would not produce another can until 1948. It is estimated that there might have been fewer than 11,000 cases of cans ever released into distribution. By 1943, Arizona Apache Beer was discontinued when the brewery’s new beer A-1 was introduced.​

Hence, Apache's life was all of '34 - '43. Considering it takes time to negotiate a product placement contract and a film released in '36 was probably made in '35, the fact that the beer made it to the film at all was, most likely, a tight fit. Funny how a product placement has, in a small way, kept what I assume was a regional brand with a short life "alive" for much longer than it product run.

And it had a cool looking logo.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Makes me wonder who at Warner Brothers had an interest in that company. WB had a history of such things -- consider all the loving shots of Brunswick radios and record labels that show up in various Warner pictures in 1930-31. Warner had bought the company to get control of its record pressing plants for soundtrack discs -- they had no interest in making or selling radios or regular records, but they had to buy all that end of the operation to get the presses. So they pushed Brunswick products heavily in their movies during that period, figuring they could get some free advertising that way. Note, for example, the gratuitous shot of the record on the turntable in "The Public Enemy."

 

[Fading Fast]

Makes me wonder who at Warner Brothers had an interest in that company. WB had a history of such things -- consider all the loving shots of Brunswick radios and record labels that show up in various Warner pictures in 1930-31. Warner had bought the company to get control of its record pressing plants for soundtrack discs -- they had no interest in making or selling radios or regular records, but they had to buy all that end of the operation to get the presses. So they pushed Brunswick products heavily in their movies during that period, figuring they could get some free advertising that way. Note, for example, the gratuitous shot of the record on the turntable in "The Public Enemy."

Something was definitely afoot with Apache Beer as it was pretty aggressive product placement.

Did not know about WB and Brunswick, but it fits as, without having a specific movie in mind, I believe I've seen their products in that era's movies.

It highlights two things - neither of which is necessarily wrong or bad, but just is: movie making is a business and nothing is really new.