The popular wedding blog The Wedding Chicks has become the focus of much of the photo community’s ire today after an article on the popular photography blog Fstoppers brought attention to one of their business practices. Namely: that they offer “social media packages” in which photographers can pay the blog to have their work featured on the Wedding Chicks Pinterest, Facebook or Twitter.
The issue was first brought to Fstoppers blogger Rebecca Britt’s attention through Facebook by LA wedding photographer Dina Douglass. Apparently, you can pay the blog $100 for 3 pins, $150 for 5 pins, or $200 for 2 pins, 1 Facebook post and 1 Tweet (among other options).
This is a problem for two reasons. For one, it’s strictly against both Facebook and Pinterest’s terms of service (Twitter is a bit more ambiguous). But more of an issue for photographers enraged by the policy is the fact that a wedding blog, whose business is based at least in part on photographers who allow the blog to use their work, is actually charging photographers.
It also brings up a troubling ethical point (journalistically speaking), because it doesn’t seem these Facebook, Twitter or Pinterest posts were labeled as “sponsored posts.”
You can read the whole story over on Fstoppers, where Britt has put together a very insightful article about the issue, complete with several quotes from Douglass.
And once you’re done, do let us know what you think in the comments down below. Are photographers right to be upset because, as Douglass puts it, “generous photographer contributions are the foundation for wedding blog businesses.” Or is this a reasonable advertising outlet for photographers who want to get their names out there?