Losing business to amateurs

[Derrel]

Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Business is generally not a monopoly, you have to compete against everyone out there.

Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.

 

[Lucryster]

It just seems like union mentality to me. If your not part of the club, you have no business doing it. I mean if you aint a "professional" you can't possibly be as good as "me" and have no business intruding on my "clubs" business. Just utter hogwash to me. Just like with anything else, if your good you have nothing to worry about. Its the people that aren't that have to worry.

 

[photoguy99]

... if your good you have nothing to worry about. Its the people that aren't that have to worry.

This is simply false.

 

[DevC]

The point is that cost hasn't anything to do with value. If you want to make some labored argument that a gigantic wooden wristwatch had value, more power to ya.

The underlying point remains, though.

The fact that something is hard or expensive to do does not impart value to the final product.

Sure it does. Ever got a car repaired? Your final bill is based on the parts (expensive) and the count of hours of labor (difficulty of repair) required.

Price is a function of cost.

 

[Gary A.]

I've never heard of a car repair person opening a free repair shop after they have retired.

 

[photoguy99]

Price, cost, value. These are all different words with, and this is important, different meanings.

 

[DevC]

I've never heard of a car repair person opening a free repair shop after they have retired.

Sorry, my point may of been offtopic to the original post. Just making a point that cost (including labor, parts) are a function of final price.

 

[Gary A.]

I've never heard of a car repair person opening a free repair shop after they have retired.

Sorry, my point may of been offtopic to the original post. Just making a point that cost (including labor, parts) are a function of final price.

While I agree with your basic premise, but unfortunately, in photography you lose a lot of that basic/simple/B&W auto repair objectivity.

 

[grep4master]

I'm with Alan, as artists we can never get complacent with our work. It really sucks for your friend, but I would recommend he thinks outside the box now to attract better clients. This might actually be an opportunity for him for self-growth.
I've never shot weddings for free, but I started pretty low (my first was at $700). I don't think I took away anybody's client because I don't see how you can make a living by shooting weddings for less. I feel real professional photographers were just playing in a completely different league. How do I reach more highly paying customers now? Educating them. As photographers (specially now in the digital era) we have to educate prospective clients and have them understand why they pay you the money they pay you and what you're offering that other photographers don't.
After a few weeks/months I wouldn't be surprised if your friend got a call from the company asking him to come back after realizing the quality is not the same.
Hope it goes well, nevertheless.

 

[manaheim]

Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Business is generally not a monopoly, you have to compete against everyone out there.

Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.

Very unsympathetic stance.

In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?

You have to at least understand the frustration.

 

[DevC]

Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Business is generally not a monopoly, you have to compete against everyone out there.

Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.

I agree here.The photo market is monopolistic competition. There are many players out their, and one must have something quite truly unique to make it.

 

[Derrel]

Very unsympathetic stance.

In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?

You have to at least understand the frustration.

The science of economics has utterly ZERO allowance for "sympathy". My stance is not unsympathetic. I used to make a fine living in photography. I know exactly how the OP feels. Nobody said the world is fair. It's a dog-eat-dog world. The only thing constant is change.

I used to earn more than a month's rent in take-home pay as a portrait shooter, every four days, in the early 1990's. But things changed when flatbed scanners and home computers and a new thing called "digitial imaging technology" arrived on the scene. I left the retail photography field because I saw obvious evidence that the easy money and the high pay were beginning to erode, rapidly. I left a field I loved because I could literally SEE the transition to "instant, on-site digital proofing, viewing, and sales" was having. Believe me, I KNOW how badly the loss of easy money doing photography feels.

What the OP is lamenting is a lot like what buggy whip manufacturers and workers and leather suppliers must have felt when the automobile made their products basically obsolete, over a very short time frame. But again, to re-state it, this is an issue of economics. The science of economics tells us why the guy lost the client: simple, rudimentary marginal utility analysis can be applied here.

"Losing business to NEW competition in the real, ever-changing world," would have been a more accurate, fair, and objective way to title this thread. Instead, we were treated to a one-sided title that has an underlying premise : the outdated assumption that a deliberately chosen career field is a lifetime guarantee to "print money".

 

[JoeW]

I completely get the argument that some hobbyists are better than some who are in business full-time. And I completely understand the position that in a market, if people won't pay for what you offer, than you go out of business.

But let us be clear--we're moving to a market(s) when it comes to photography, where it's going to become incredibly difficult to make a living doing this business. We've already seen this with photojournalism--where most papers have axed their photographers and they're relying on free lancers, citizens sending in photos (I'm all for public involvement but if you get 30-50% of your news photos from "the public--that scares me, especially with regard to journalism standards and integrity) and stock or photo agencies. And I don't think that's a good thing. The argument that if people won't pay for your product than you deserve to go out of business does ignore the reality that purchase decisions aren't based on well-informed objective data in the vast majority of cases. Instead, people may think that good pictures come from having a good camera or that anyone can do this or that b/c someone once gave them some photos free, than there is no case for paying for any photos.

You can make the same argument about manufacturing moving overseas (or being consolidated), that this is what is being driven by the market (b/c Mexico or India or Vietnam can make it cheaper). And there are consequences to having most of your manufacturing out of the country (fewer jobs available that a HS graduate can get and earn enough to buy a house, raise a family, and put 1-2 kids through college).

Lew makes very good points about guilds and access. And I'm not one to argue that "photographer" should be some kind of black magic that only a selected few should be allowed entry in to. Easy access has some advantages. But ultimately where we're going with this, is probably a hobby that isn't sustainable as a profession/day job (except for a few rare exceptions). I'm nowhere near smart enough to project what that would mean in terms of equipment and gear...maybe a lot more focus on Point-and-shoots, mirrorless cameras, and camera-phones, probably less regard for property rights (so "your" photo can be edited or adapted by someone else and that's fair game), a lot more diversity in terms of participants but the overall quality of the work will go down. Not the end of the world. But it is a world that has consequences for all of us (even if you don't pay your mortgage by shooting).

 

[Gary A.]

A point to remember is that the situation in the OP was what I would call fair competition. Is it fair for workers in [insert name of first world country here] to lose their jobs because of outsourcing to [insert name of third world country here] where the product they were making is now being made by prisoners thereby reducing the cost of labor to zero. Losing market share in head-to-head, above-board, 'fair' competition is one thing ... yeah go sharpen your pencil ... But losing market share because of unfair competition is quite another. How much sharpening must you do to beat free and still pay your bills.

Gary

 

[slackercruster]

Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Business is generally not a monopoly, you have to compete against everyone out there.

Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.

Very unsympathetic stance.

In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?

You have to at least understand the frustration.

My wife, who does not like photography nor has any special photo talent, wants to be a wedding photog. Her friend was quoted $3000 for a wedding shoot. My wife told me when she retires in a couple years she is going to shoot weddings for a couple hours on Saturday and take in $9,000 to $12,000 a month for part time work. That is how people think nowadays.