Rat Patrol wrote: ↑12 Jan 2017, 5:31pmhttps://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html
McDonald's is bringing back its lobster roll!
God exists.
Rat Patrol wrote: ↑12 Jan 2017, 5:31pmhttps://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html
McDonald's is bringing back its lobster roll!
Their Clarence is dead too, so they got this in the bag.
Which makes me wonder if any tribute band has been so committed that they'd boot someone out when the real guy dies or leaves the band. C'mon, I've been the Bill Wyman in Mother's Little Helpers: A Rolling Stones Experience for fifteen years!
Well, conservatives, the market is your god and god has judged your orange boy.BostonBeaneater wrote: ↑16 Jan 2017, 9:18pmSo much to unpack here...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2947620
Is being met with a question about whether I've personally been approached by a celebrity to do work for exposure.The threat aside, it's not about whether she needs the business. It's a principle in the creative world that we don't work for free because it's well understood among our community to devalue our individual fields. It's not the same as giving someone a free tan because we have to use creative brainpower in addition to our time. Your world is different from ours. Your argument throughout the thread perfectly illustrates WHY we have to hold fast to this principle because people will try to get around it any way they can.
More practically, is there any evidence that "exposure" like that functions as advertising? Does it actually generate new paying customers? Maybe, but I'm skeptical. Instead, it encourages people to think that they are in a competition to sell their labour for as little as possible. If anything, as you suggest, all that should be regarded as a cautionary tale about how skilled individuals purposefully devalue themselves.Kory wrote: ↑18 Jan 2017, 6:35pmI'm having an FB argument with a guy about working for exposure. It's on an article about that hairdresser that was asked by Marla Maples to do her inauguration hair for exposure. The guy I'm arguing that thinks it's equivalent to investing in advertising. My main point:
Is being met with a question about whether I've personally been approached by a celebrity to do work for exposure.The threat aside, it's not about whether she needs the business. It's a principle in the creative world that we don't work for free because it's well understood among our community to devalue our individual fields. It's not the same as giving someone a free tan because we have to use creative brainpower in addition to our time. Your world is different from ours. Your argument throughout the thread perfectly illustrates WHY we have to hold fast to this principle because people will try to get around it any way they can.
He runs an apartment complex, so he's got a lot of experience to draw from.
That's exactly the point I've been making to this guy, but he's either trolling me at this point, or he's really damn dense. He wants to see evidence that it DOESN'T generate new customers.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑18 Jan 2017, 8:09pmMore practically, is there any evidence that "exposure" like that functions as advertising? Does it actually generate new paying customers? Maybe, but I'm skeptical. Instead, it encourages people to think that they are in a competition to sell their labour for as little as possible. If anything, as you suggest, all that should be regarded as a cautionary tale about how skilled individuals purposefully devalue themselves.Kory wrote: ↑18 Jan 2017, 6:35pmI'm having an FB argument with a guy about working for exposure. It's on an article about that hairdresser that was asked by Marla Maples to do her inauguration hair for exposure. The guy I'm arguing that thinks it's equivalent to investing in advertising. My main point:
Is being met with a question about whether I've personally been approached by a celebrity to do work for exposure.The threat aside, it's not about whether she needs the business. It's a principle in the creative world that we don't work for free because it's well understood among our community to devalue our individual fields. It's not the same as giving someone a free tan because we have to use creative brainpower in addition to our time. Your world is different from ours. Your argument throughout the thread perfectly illustrates WHY we have to hold fast to this principle because people will try to get around it any way they can.
He runs an apartment complex, so he's got a lot of experience to draw from.
So you're saying it'll be fine by tomorrow?
What? You've never seen All About Eve? That's a fine Bette Davis quote right there.