We shouldn’t have to discuss large, global multimillion-dollar companies, profiting off the creative and personal branding efforts of professional photographers. Yet paying photographers compensation for their professional work tends to be falling on deaf ears inside the offices of both GQ Magazine and Glen Grant Whiskey. This is a year, where COVID-19 has run rampant, depleting the finances of many photographers and exposing them to potential workplace risk and ongoing health problems. The photography competition itself.
Titled “You Could Be The Next GQ Photographer, Thanks To The Glen Grant Single Malt Scotch Whisky”
This competition has pitched itself towards providing an emerging photographer looking for a big break. This all sounds great so far! Thanks to The Glen Grant, GQ is on the lookout for Australia’s next great photographer, with a competition that could see you on set at the next GQ photoshoot. And we’re not just talking about getting a sneak peek of how it all comes together, but actually shooting it yourself. One lucky candidate will be chosen to work alongside the GQ team to create a digital cover shoot that celebrates the Australian landscape” This already displays a tenuous link to Australia, but that’s not the contention of this article. My problem starts here. This “photography contest” is a glorified ad campaign mixed in with a photography contest. The ad copy itself is powerful (and no doubt created by a copywriter who was paid for their creative work). This hypocrisy is ripe in the corporate world, where the veneer of cut-throat market forces is a justification for contests like this. It does, however, get worse as we continue. Apart from the boilerplate legalese, upon entering this contest, you’re nothing more than another contact in their marketing database to hock their wares. You also agree that the information you have provided will be shared with our event partner, The Glen Grant, who will use that information in accordance with their own Privacy Policy and who may contact you with marketing materials.” Individual prize value is up to $4,999 (including GST). The winner will receive: a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work closely with the GQ team on a creative concept, which they will then execute and shoot, the winner’s work will be featured on GQ.com.au and across GQ Australia’s social channels. Here lies the core problem. It seems there is vagueness as to whether you are getting paid for your time or not. They value the shoot at $4,999AUD including GST, yet what is being valued here? The financial remuneration? The logistics of the shoot? The inherent value of having your photo published on this front cover? Unless otherwise expressly stated, prize values are based on the recommended retail prices at the time of first publication of these terms and conditions (inclusive of GST). The Promoter accepts no responsibility for change in prize value between now and the ultimate prize redemption date. We are no further towards getting an answer. It appears the value is what the front cover ad inventory would cost within Australia. And within these two clauses, buried deep within their TandCs, it puts the final nail in the coffin regarding any financial reward to the photographer. In consideration of the Promoter awarding the prize to the winner, the winner permits the winner’s submission, image and/or voice, as recorded, photographed, or filmed during the winner’s participation in the prize to appear in connection with the Promoter or any of its related bodies corporate or the goods and services of any of them or the advertising or marketing of any of them, in any media whatsoever throughout the world and the winner will not be entitled to any fee. You are given the financial value of having your work published. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot reserve the right to charge the publication, a fee for licensing your photo. The chances are slim to none, that you would have large commercial success in reselling the photo as exclusive usage rights would not exist once GQ and Glen Grant Whiskey continue to publish and republish your photography through the world. You are entitled, however (thank you GQ!) to the intellectual property rights of the material – however this, again hurts the commercial viability of reselling as you must grant GQ an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, sub-licensable license to use the Works without limitation. What a mouthful that was! You would presumably need to organise your travel, accommodation, food, drink, insuring your gear according to these terms and conditions. Now if this is all a misunderstanding (I sure hope it is), then it’s remiss of GQ to hide this within their legalese, and not be forthcoming about the nature of the reward, as well as the expenses that could be incurred. You are further barred from taking any advantages that exercising your experience towards publicity and news, to further your (yes the age old favourite) exposure to your brand or company. Arguably, as a content writer, I am enjoying more exposure from writing guest content from an hour’s worth of my time, than the article contestant would. In fact, the whole angle of value to Glen Grant seems to be based around social media engagement and exposure, for if you do not have a public Instagram account – you are barred from having your work judged and eligible to win. Why is a harmless competition such a problem? Sometimes what we feel is harmless at face value, actually has harmful and hidden consequences. As GQ is owned by Conde Nast which is a subsidiary of Advance Publications – as of 2019, it is the 221st largest privately held company in America (via Forbes). We have a privately owned company that brings in $2b in revenue, that has questionably sold this social media contest as advertising inventory, for another publicly owned company (Glen Grant is owned by the Campari Group – 1.77B in revenue for 2020) to enjoy impressions, exposure and engagement in exchange for cash. This is a problem. Both companies are enriching their brands and revenues through financially vulnerable creatives. Due to this power and financial imbalance, it’s a recurring problem that when allowed to run unfettered, continues to reinforce the notion that artistic creatives such as photographers are able to have their work exploited for the benefit of multi-billion dollar companies. This is not at all fair remuneration. Period. In an ideal world, all competitions should at a minimum, allow all entrants to have their social media handles tagged for the photographer’s social media engagement, brand exposure, and search engine optimization benefit. Furthermore, should contest finalists make it forward to final judging rounds, their work should be renumerated. Period. If your photographs are good enough to be used for the enjoyment of a business in it’s quest for profit, then their business model should be sound enough to put aside a licensing fee for your work. Finally, the contest winner should be rewarded to the fullest extent afforded to a professional commercial photographer; not thrown into a competition that offers fewer financial incentives than The Voice.
Final thoughts
My hope is that conversations through the media, put pressure on these companies to level the playing field for creatives. I trust that GQ and Glen Grant both understand the rhetoric I have used in arguing for them both to look back at this competition and see the potential damage that they causing our industry, as well as the good they can do to reverse decades of exploitation. Here’s hoping, as the ball is well and truly in their court.
About the Author
Adam Marsh is an Australian Photographer and Cinematographer. He runs and operates Moment 2 Moment, a photography and video production company that offers corporate video production, event photography, and videography in Melbourne, Australia. His work can be found on his website, YouTube, StarNow, and 500px.
