Undervalued Art

As creatives, we often ride the line between the want for pure exposure and the need for a paycheck. As in advertising, how can we monetize buzz? A recent New York Times article addresses this issue which has risen out of recent actions by search engine top dog Google. The company reached out to numerous artists, asking them to contribute their works to a new set of browser skins for Chrome. They were met with a resounding "No!" from the arts community because Google has refused to pay for the work.

Many of these individuals, who have a solid track record in their artistic arena, feel as though exposure alone will not uncover their value. But with print publications fading and stock art rising up out of the paper-filled depths, can they really afford to hold out for a paycheck? And even more importantly, can Google afford to hold out on artists who provide a product like any other asset they would look to acquire? (My guess: Undoubtedly. In the first quarter of this year alone, Google reported profits of $1.42 billion, an increase of 8 percent over the same period last year.)

It's a risky business. Discussion continues whether contributing to social media is an effective way to develop leads and downstream revenue through buzz and open exposure.