All got for Christmas was this boring stock image

There was recently a discussion on another professional social networking site that I haunt about stock photography — an invitation to those in the stock industry to form a group, “to help each other in this difficult business. With such a lot of images available it is hard to find the right image and even harder to sell that right image you’ve made.”

Even though it was somewhat impertinent of me, as an illustrator I couldn't resist pointing out the obvious: “I have the perfect solution. Hire a photographer or illustrator directly to produce exactly what you want, and maybe even contribute further to the creative process. What a novel idea.”

Then I got a private message rejoinder: “Always they need an image of a situation in another time of year. We need images of summertime there and there, can you make it now? Oh..it's winter... can you find images of that place in summer and, and, and... Perfect solution? Come into the real world please.”

I wanted to write back some obvious answers to the question of how to create an image for a situation in the summertime, rather than just find it. But that would have been rude. It was his discussion thread after all, and he was merely trying to hook up with other people in his industry. So instead, I'm blogging separately to answer the question:
1. Yes, I can illustrate summertime. Better yet, I can specifically illustrate that “situation” in the summertime to pull out all of the underlying meaning and enhance the reader’s experience without merely offering a visual pun.
2. Yes, we could do a studio shot, using lighting and set to evoke summer — a perfect approach for products, food, etc.
3. Is the article written with humor? How about some whimsical illustrations … my forte.
4. Is it an article about someone specific or current events? How about a caricature or editorial illustration?

I definitely made the right choice to respond here, and avoid the flame war. The guy's vested interests are obviously in the stock business. Either that or he simply doesn’t get it. In his own hypothetical example he mentioned both a “situation” and a season. His only solution was to “find” a generic image to illustrate the season (yawn). Job finished — at low cost to the publisher. Success! End of story. “Come into the real world please.”

Does anybody get it anymore? I wonder. Increasingly editing has become collecting, writing has become parroting, design has become collage. I look at the magazine rack today and I see row upon row of pretty scrapbooks. The number of publications that have anything new to say, any fresh perspective continues to diminish.

The irony is that, for the editor and art director, content problems are more easily solved using creativity, thought and skill. Yes, you actually can build a stable of writers, photographers and illustrators that not only directly serve your editorial premise, but contribute to and enhance your internal creative processes. Sure, it costs more. But look at the benefits. You’re not wasting hours in the dreary process of scrolling through search results to find a current, pertinent article or an image that meets the concept of your article at least half way. And you’re creating a better product — better because it’s unique, better because it builds your brand by delighting your readers and exceeding their expectations. This is also better for the publisher. Better because it should ultimately increase readership, build a niche presence and attract more advertisers in a difficult time. Better because building brand value and increasing proprietary intellectual assets makes for a more valuable company.

Besides, you'd be flexing your creative muscles — getting some exercise.

Instead, the publishing industry seems to be hell bent on taking the bean-counting route to solve its problems. Gotta keep costs low. You know, reeeeeal low, like $15 an image low. Well, if it’s a main feature, maybe a $100.

Do you want to talk about the "real world?" What does a culture of cribbing and copying remind you of? Corporate culture, right? Publishing culture is being lead down the path of corporate culture, and nowhere is this more evident than with the new digital front of publishing.

Now that advertising dollars are fleeing print pages to the Internet and distribution costs are skyrocketing, the new mantra of publishing is to cease publishing print altogether and become a digital publication. But that’s only half of it. Let’s integrate social networking! That’s obviously what the new generation wants! THEY can provide the content! Let’s make it a free for all! FREE! FREE! They can FREE-associate and, best of all, it's FREE for us to produce!

My question is: At what point does the masthead become meaningless?