BBC One - "Right on the Money" opportunity

[Alamy 138]

Are you a UK photographer who considers yourself a ‘hobbyist’? Does Stock Photography ‘top up’ your household income?

 

We’ve been approached by a BBC One programme called ‘Right on the Money’. It’s a consumer finance show and is presented by Dominic Littlewood and Denise Lewis.

 

They’re looking for people to appear on the show to discuss the ways in which they manage and supplement their finances, and they’re really keen to discuss how some people can make money from their holiday photographs for example.

 

If you’re interested in having an initial conversation with them about this opportunity with the view to appear on camera and speaking with the presenters about it then please email contributors@alamy.com and we’ll pass your details on.

 

Thanks

Alamy

[Alamy 138]

Giving this a boost to see if anyone is interested and missed our original post. 

 

Thanks

Alamy

[Keith Douglas 469]

Is that the same BBC that are increasingly attempting to get people to submit their images to them so that they can use them for free?

 

You, too can become a BBC Weather Watcher!!  https://www.bbc.co.uk/weatherwatchers/

[David Pimborough 89]

The same BBC that have climbed in to bed with that other agency from Seattle and gave them free advertising on their news website? And allowed said agency to write up yearly round ups on the best photos written by the European Head of Ops from that agency using the same agency's supplied images clearly credited as such?

 

The same outfit that see clear to pay 1.5 cent royalties

 

And when I wrote a complaint about that free advertising on a public service broadcaster they dismissed it with a "it had nothing to do with them it was the BBC commercial arm that was responsible"

Edited April 12, 2017 by Edward P Bumlington

[famousbelgian 102]

Why would anybody want to? For what reason? I hate to say it, but there are more than enough contributors already, we don't want any more !

[Sultanpepa 844]

I'm sure there will be a number of people will jump at the chance. I only hope that the program gives a balanced view. That being that although a few make good money selling images, it takes many years of work and for most it's far from a get rich quick scheme and in fact very few actually cover their costs.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Sultanpepa

[Barking 33]

make sure you've paid all your taxes too!!! 

[Joseph Clemson 897]

I'm not volunteering, but it would be good  if someone were to take up the invitation and make the BBC team aware of the issues raised here. perhaps they might change the emphasis of their intended story...

[DJ Myford 100]

The outline given in the first post makes it clear that they are looking to put a positive spin on the subject, and not give a true reflection of reality.

[Allan Bell 1,618]

 

 

If you’re interested in having an initial conversation with them about this opportunity with the view to appear on camera and speaking with the presenters about it then please email contributors@alamy.com and we’ll pass your details on.

 

Thanks

Alamy

 

 

NOPE.

 

Allan

[Bill Brooks 1,054]

Would this tag apply?

 

shill |ʃɪl| North American informal

noun

an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others: I used to be a shill in a Reno gambling club | figurative :  the agency is a shill for the nuclear power industry.

[John Mitchell 3,042]

I'm sure there will be a number of people will jump at the chance. I only hope that the program gives a balanced view. That being that although a few make good money selling images, it takes many years of work and for most it's far from a get rich quick scheme and in fact very few actually cover their costs.

 

Right on. That would make an informative and useful program.

 

I've got nothing against holiday snaps, but perhaps they are best kept in family photo albums.

 

Just sayin'...

[Foreign Export 277]

I agree with the pro comments above, but aren't we getting a little cynical- its just a TV show and they will find someone to talk on it and yes it will be positive and yes lots of amateurs will run off and start submitting images

[Martin P Wilson 1,131]

I agree with the pro comments above, but aren't we getting a little cynical- its just a TV show and they will find someone to talk on it and yes it will be positive and yes lots of amateurs will run off and start submitting images

 

I agree. Its all pretty irrelevant as I feel general stock is in its death throes and will go the way of clip art, as a way of making money, in the next few years. Specialist stock may not be far behind from the feedback I am getting elsewhere. Photography will survive, for some at least, as a commissioned servce, just as illustrators and graphic designers are still needed.

 

We will all need to think differently, but the easy passive stock income will soon be a thing of the past.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Martin P Wilson

[John Mitchell 3,042]

OK, I admit, I was being a bit cynical. I've never watched the BBC program mentioned. Hopefully, as Dougie said, the producers will be honest with their viewers rather than lead them down the proverbial garden path. 

[John Mitchell 3,042]

 

I agree with the pro comments above, but aren't we getting a little cynical- its just a TV show and they will find someone to talk on it and yes it will be positive and yes lots of amateurs will run off and start submitting images

 

I agree. Its all pretty irrelevant as I feel general stock is in its death throes and will go the way of clip art, as a way of making money, in the next few years. Specialist stock may not be far behind from the feedback I am getting elsewhere. Photography will survive for same at least as a commissioned servce, just as illustrators and graphic designers are still needed.

 

We will all need to think differently, but the easy passive income will soon be a thing of the past.

 

 

You need to get your own TV show, Martin.

Edited April 14, 2017 by John Mitchell

[Martin P Wilson 1,131]

[paulm 18]

How much are the BBC willing to pay for my contribution?................Thought not.

[Martin P Wilson 1,131]

Its difficult not to be cynical.

 

However we should also to a certain extent be looking in the mirror when looking at scapegoats (and solutions.)

 

Coming onto forums and telling the people you are supplying that "Phew, I am thankful I dont need to do it for the money" is not a good communication. Sitting here in a velodrome in Hong Kong, I want all my agencies to know I do need the money, the shoebox I am staying in in Chungking Mansions is not free and neither was Cathay P. And not just that but I need to pay my rent, food, get the AF repaired on one lens, my flash fixed etc etc.

 

Further we need to look at our own consumption of news... many suppliers to the media industry here admit they dont get a newspaper. A good weekend paper is probably one of the best buys around. Good for market research. Good to keep yourself informed. The free ones are free for a reason. You can carry that on to other consumption, if you pay rubbish for a product, dont be surprised when you get rubbish.

 

Finally look at we ourselves are producing and make a guesstimate of if it will really, really get a return. I was recently at a famous tourist attraction in Indonesia... do I get up early, pay supplements to get sunrise entry, just to add more photos to the 8500 which are already here... and then get peeved because they dont sell? Or sell for amounts which wont cover the entry. I went, during the day... and I was a tourist. I'll post the images for sale in a couple of places, but placing them wont have my priority.

 

All with the caveat, that I dont beleive I have all the answers... but I am coming around to the opinion that doing nothing is often the more profitable

 

Spot on Richard, something to reflect on. Newspapers are closing and/or sacking journalists. Many local newspaper groups, and The Guardian are losing money hand over fist.

[John Mitchell 3,042]

 

Its difficult not to be cynical.

 

However we should also to a certain extent be looking in the mirror when looking at scapegoats (and solutions.)

 

Coming onto forums and telling the people you are supplying that "Phew, I am thankful I dont need to do it for the money" is not a good communication. Sitting here in a velodrome in Hong Kong, I want all my agencies to know I do need the money, the shoebox I am staying in in Chungking Mansions is not free and neither was Cathay P. And not just that but I need to pay my rent, food, get the AF repaired on one lens, my flash fixed etc etc.

 

Further we need to look at our own consumption of news... many suppliers to the media industry here admit they dont get a newspaper. A good weekend paper is probably one of the best buys around. Good for market research. Good to keep yourself informed. The free ones are free for a reason. You can carry that on to other consumption, if you pay rubbish for a product, dont be surprised when you get rubbish.

 

Finally look at we ourselves are producing and make a guesstimate of if it will really, really get a return. I was recently at a famous tourist attraction in Indonesia... do I get up early, pay supplements to get sunrise entry, just to add more photos to the 8500 which are already here... and then get peeved because they dont sell? Or sell for amounts which wont cover the entry. I went, during the day... and I was a tourist. I'll post the images for sale in a couple of places, but placing them wont have my priority.

 

All with the caveat, that I dont beleive I have all the answers... but I am coming around to the opinion that doing nothing is often the more profitable

 

Spot on Richard, something to reflect on. Newspapers are closing and/or sacking journalists. Many local newspaper groups, and The Guardian are losing money hand over fist.

 

 

True, but newspapers are no angels. I used to contribute (travel features mainly) to quite a few large-circulation newspapers in Canada and and the US, and I got totally fed up with the way they treated freelancers -- e.g. indifferent editors, terrible pay, and rights-grabbing contracts. They are responsible for some of their own demise IMO.

Edited April 15, 2017 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell 3,042]

 

 

 

Its difficult not to be cynical.

 

However we should also to a certain extent be looking in the mirror when looking at scapegoats (and solutions.)

 

Coming onto forums and telling the people you are supplying that "Phew, I am thankful I dont need to do it for the money" is not a good communication. Sitting here in a velodrome in Hong Kong, I want all my agencies to know I do need the money, the shoebox I am staying in in Chungking Mansions is not free and neither was Cathay P. And not just that but I need to pay my rent, food, get the AF repaired on one lens, my flash fixed etc etc.

 

Further we need to look at our own consumption of news... many suppliers to the media industry here admit they dont get a newspaper. A good weekend paper is probably one of the best buys around. Good for market research. Good to keep yourself informed. The free ones are free for a reason. You can carry that on to other consumption, if you pay rubbish for a product, dont be surprised when you get rubbish.

 

Finally look at we ourselves are producing and make a guesstimate of if it will really, really get a return. I was recently at a famous tourist attraction in Indonesia... do I get up early, pay supplements to get sunrise entry, just to add more photos to the 8500 which are already here... and then get peeved because they dont sell? Or sell for amounts which wont cover the entry. I went, during the day... and I was a tourist. I'll post the images for sale in a couple of places, but placing them wont have my priority.

 

All with the caveat, that I dont beleive I have all the answers... but I am coming around to the opinion that doing nothing is often the more profitable

 

Spot on Richard, something to reflect on. Newspapers are closing and/or sacking journalists. Many local newspaper groups, and The Guardian are losing money hand over fist.

 

 

True, but newspapers are no angels. I used to contribute (travel features mainly) to quite a few large-circulation newspapers in Canada and and the US, and I got totally fed up with the way they treated freelancers -- e.g. indifferent editors, terrible pay, and rights-grabbing contracts. They are responsible for some of their own demise IMO.

 

 

 

This is true... but it is a broad church... without naming names different media groups have different approaches... because there is crap doesn;t mean that one shouldn't support the quality...

...and we can and should call them out when they are being less than kosher or fobbing us off... Mickfly is doing so on another thread... a friend of mine recently made a point of pointing out to everybody that their local paper had used exactly the same article twice in two weeks... when a UK national bemoaned the gig economy they were quickly made aware of their own photo policy and the hypocrisy of their editorial stance.

 

 

In Canada, newspapers changed drastically when big chains, one in particular, started gobbling up all the major dailies about 15 years ago. Many papers lost their individual "personalities" and became more corporate and homogeneous. News became more like a commodity to be bought and sold. That said, where would we be without the free press. Just look at recent developments in the US and Britain. Someone has to at least try to hold politicians (one in particular comes to mind) to account.

 

Perhaps I'll break down and go out and buy a weekend paper...