Choice pieces of cheap/non-residual/fee free stock makes me laugh and laugh. I've seen one particular chick in print ads - over and over that constantly remind me of a job I had out here on Strong Island. LOL I wish people weren't so afraid to take their own photos, digitals are super cheap to use- you know?

I hate the money campaign. Basically trying to define money as a magazine for any stage in your life. I see the point, but the average consumer would be bored with one glance. We used stock for comps and sometimes it was inspiring but mostly it was limiting the visual to what already existed and not what could be imagined. And it wasted a lot of time looking for that perfect picture.

I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I interviewed at a shop and the CD walked through the middle of the open-air creative department and in a loud voice he said "Take their stock books away and these cocksuckers wouldn't know what to do." Good old Murph, that guy called them like he saw them.

I think the best stock uses have been when the AD has an idea, then finds images to fit... not finding an image first, then wrapping the concept around it. Too many have reversed that order, and the work has suffered.

I haven't seen them either, but I'm sure I would have noticed. Since I used to work in stock, I can totally out bad stock. I was working at Tony Stone when they went digital back in '99. The thing is, stock can be good if used appropriately. I have had ADs send me penciled out concepts, and we'd give them straight to the researchers. Taking advantage of free research is so key, because these guys really know the collections inside and out, plus 9 out of 10 times they are photographers themselves. There were many clients I've had that would give the photo research to the interns and they really had no idea what to look for (or the buyers would do it themselves). The thing is, with so many royalty free and subscription based sites popping up all over the place, people are buying based on price as opposed to finding the best image possible. Look at the numbers: for a traditional stock image, you are looking at about $1350 for a really limited use as opposed to $300 for a royalty free image you can use forever. You get what you pay for.

It's on the 4, 5, 6 for sure, maybe the 1, 2, 3.

Ah, here's where posting in groups is a better idea, but Jeremy, really I think I need to subdivide into different subway lines--I haven't seen this one yet. Where is it?

Stock going online dealt a big creative hit---instead of penciling in a visual that you think of that's appropriate for a concept, people are finding images and trying to save the concept with a snappy headline.