Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
On Working for Free...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PapaST" data-source="post: 380522" data-attributes="member: 8330"><p>[USER=1061]@Browncoat[/USER]</p><p></p><p>Maybe I'm looking at this too cut and dry. The term "free" is being thrown around and I think that's part of the problem. The Oprah show is not offering monetary compensation for services rendered, that's plain to see. But IMO the Oprah show BELIEVES it is offering <em>some</em> form of compensation I'm guessing in the form of exposure. So the Oprah show may "value" that exposure to be worth PLENTY while Revolva values it as zilch. It doesn't pay her rent or electric bill so it's of no use to her. I understand where she's coming from, she wants money not exposure. So to her there's no real compensation. Right or wrong I think the Oprah show is banking on struggling performers to <em>value </em>the exposure and consider that payment enough. </p><p></p><p>That's sorta why I was curious to know if a lot of other performers felt the same way as Revolva or if they would just jump at the chance to be associated with the show. My guess is if most of them felt as Revolva then monetary compensation would start happening. If performers were just clamoring for the chance then I would think it wise for the Oprah show to leverage that "value".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PapaST, post: 380522, member: 8330"] [USER=1061]@Browncoat[/USER] Maybe I'm looking at this too cut and dry. The term "free" is being thrown around and I think that's part of the problem. The Oprah show is not offering monetary compensation for services rendered, that's plain to see. But IMO the Oprah show BELIEVES it is offering [I]some[/I] form of compensation I'm guessing in the form of exposure. So the Oprah show may "value" that exposure to be worth PLENTY while Revolva values it as zilch. It doesn't pay her rent or electric bill so it's of no use to her. I understand where she's coming from, she wants money not exposure. So to her there's no real compensation. Right or wrong I think the Oprah show is banking on struggling performers to [I]value [/I]the exposure and consider that payment enough. That's sorta why I was curious to know if a lot of other performers felt the same way as Revolva or if they would just jump at the chance to be associated with the show. My guess is if most of them felt as Revolva then monetary compensation would start happening. If performers were just clamoring for the chance then I would think it wise for the Oprah show to leverage that "value". [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Business
On Working for Free...
Top