Losing business to amateurs

[pgriz]

I've read Scott's original post and had several thoughts.

His friend, who is a working, full-time photographer, had done sports photography for a university and earned about $15,000, until he discovered that his services were no longer needed. From a client-management perspective, the fact that he had to go to them to discover that he was replaced by someone else, tells me that he is not particularly careful about maintaining his client relationships, and gauging the continuing interest of his client in his services.

The person replacing him at doing this sport photography is a recently-retired person who has no need for income (from photography) and can do it for free, and is willing to do so to get access the the opportunity. She was probably aware that she would be displacing a paid professional, and it didn't really appear to affect her own calculation of whether it was worth doing (for her). Of course, she has no obligation towards the full-time photographer she displaced. If she is doing it as a "hobby", then one has to ask what arrangements she has made with the university regarding copyright issues, licensing of images, etc. Is this person also taking care of the model releases which will be necessary IF the images are used for publicity purposes?

The person or group within the university who chose to use the "free" photography instead of paying for it, should have at the least had the courtesy of informing Scott's friend that his services were no longer required. However, they were under no obligation to do so, since it seems that the arrangement was continued almost by inertia. As well, perhaps they did not place enough value in having a photographer available when they needed one. If a scheduling conflict arises between the "new" photographer's personal activities and the need to photograph a university sport, it can well happen that the "new" photographer will decide that she's no longer interested in being available full-time to the university. Would the university people care that their sports are not being recorded photographically? I don't know enough about the university and the prominence of the sports program to make a guess. If they use the sports to maintain both student and alumni interest, then lack of consistent coverage "may" hurt them in the medium term.

If the university is or may be planning to use "her" photos" in a publicity campaign, then the issue of copyright becomes important, as will the issue of model releases.

My feeling is that this switch may have been convenient for the university, but hasn't been thought through.

 

[Braineack]

If there were not laws against it you would be raped every day as you step out of your door.

Begining your argument with: laws prevent crime, was a failure from the start.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Begining your argument with: laws prevent crime, was a failure from the start.

Laws don't prevent crime... they simply help the masses differentiate the criminals from the law abiding in a specific societal norm.

As far as this thread, it's kind of an exercise in futility. This thread won't get the OPs friend their job back, nor will it likely deter any of the aspiring pros on this site from persuing every lead they can get.

Fact is, if someone came to my boss and showed a reasonably similar skill set asking for only half my current rate, I would likely be pushed out pretty quickly. It sucks, but advances in technology coupled with a free market society sometimes phase out jobs, or at least change the status quo.

Bidness iz bidness, yo.

 

[lambertpix]

Interesting *this* never came up, BTW:

See the Difference Campaign| PPA

It would appear they've got a little more evangelizing to do.

 

[bribrius]

sigh.
A lot of it is because a lot of people want to be "liked", they want to feel important "hey I volunteer my services" and they gauge their worth (or at least their worth far as being a photographer) by the general accolades they receive from those around them and who they engage with.
so they work for free, give away images for free, get a pat on the back and a self esteem boost and get to tell everyone they are doing these good deeds.

so, they flip the bill for ten k or more in equipment, they spend the hours post processing, they drive to sites and put time and energy in.
And in return they get a "hey, that is great! you are good at this!" so they get their cookie and more cookies giving away whatever else images they give away. And yeah, they make people "happy". Course who isn't happy getting free chit and not having to spend money on a photographer or flip the bill for the gear.

someone was asking for family photos the other day, I was right there and wasn't referred. Because I am a dick and they know I wont do it for free or cheap I don't care if I get a cookie and don't really need the self esteem boost..

Not to say helping people out is a bad thing, it isn't. But that line is long crossed on photography. I wouldn't buy a boat for instance, spend half my time keeping it nice and waxed, pay the bill for it and the slip and invest hours in the thing, just to let everyone else use it even if they will tell me how great they think I am.

I wouldn't buy a car and park it out in front of my house and maintain it just to put a sign on it saying "help yourself free to use at my expense".

But for some reason people just love to do this with their photography.

 

[pgriz]

<snip>

Fact is, if someone came to my boss and showed a reasonably similar skill set asking for only half my current rate, I would likely be pushed out pretty quickly. It sucks, but advances in technology coupled with a free market society sometimes phase out jobs, or at least change the status quo.

Bidness iz bidness, yo.

And yet, we all have a choice. Every financial transaction is between humans, and in deciding to spend our money, we also, whether we acknowledge it or not, are making value decisions. If I buy cheap shoes from Walmart, I'm deciding that I really don't care enough about the local shoe store to give them my business. When I'm buying stuff in elaborate packaging, I'm making a choice that the environment is less important than my convenience. If I choose to feed my family fast food meals, then I'm making the choice that my convenience is more important than their nutrition. Of course, we can plead blissful ignorance and say that we don't really know about all that, and all we're trying to do is stretch our money. The so-called "free market" is distorted by hidden subsidies, corporate corruption, poor costing of the environmental costs, and all kinds of inequalities that render the "cost" we pay for something to be a poor indicator of its true cost to society. Add to that the fact that we humans are quite irrational about our choices, and the idea that the "free market" represents any kind of consensus of value starts to show itself for what it is.

 

[Stradawhovious]

And yet, we all have a choice...

Of course we have a choice. You can agree with the choice, or disagree with the choice. Doesn't make either of us wrong.

 

[joannaofwaverly]

Interesting *this* never came up, BTW:

See the Difference Campaign| PPA

It would appear they've got a little more evangelizing to do.

What's sort of tragically ironic about that video is that I would not be interested in hiring most of the photographers responsible for the example shots they showed because the style of the photos looks so dated to my eye.

Anyway, regarding the "we all make a choice" point: seems a little obvious and tautological, but yes, if X and Y are mutually exclusive and I have to choose between them, then I'm going to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each and decide. Meddling government subsidies and subsequent corporate "corruption" (as made possible only by the government, I might add) aside, where I decide to spend my dollars is the final reflection of what I value. Government currently tells me/the market that fuel efficient vehicles ought to be valued via regulations and subsidies...inefficient trucks and SUVs are still made and sold because the market's value on them circumvents what Uncle Sam has dictated.

 

[tecboy]

1. Is this photographer really an amateur?
2. Why would an university taking a chance on hire an amateur for free?
3. She has pro-gear. Why would she work for free?
4. Does she need the money to pay for her gear if her gear fails?
5. Did she get her gear from her birthday gift?
6. Christmas is coming soon! Will she get an upgrade of her gear from Christmas gift?

 

[MSnowy]

1. Is this photographer really an amateur?
2. Why would an university taking a chance on hire an amateur for free?
3. She has pro-gear. Why would she work for free?
4. Does she need the money to pay for her gear if her gear fails?
5. Did she get her gear from her birthday gift?
6. Christmas is coming soon! Will she get an upgrade of her gear from Christmas gift?

Think these were mostly answered in the ordinal post. I believe that would be Page 1 Post #1

 

[tecboy]

1. Is this photographer really an amateur?
2. Why would an university taking a chance on hire an amateur for free?
3. She has pro-gear. Why would she work for free?
4. Does she need the money to pay for her gear if her gear fails?
5. Did she get her gear from her birthday gift?
6. Christmas is coming soon! Will she get an upgrade of her gear from Christmas gift?

Think these were mostly answered in the ordinal post. I believe that would be Page 1 Post #1

That sounds like this photographer is really, really good and far better than other pros. That maybe the reason the university picked her.

 

[photoguy99]

Nobody's offering to make shoes for free. Nobody's offering to paint houses for free. Nobody's offering to do plumbing for free.

There's some reasons. Which are mostly pretty obvious.

Talking about shoes is spurious and irrelevant. Talk about sailing lessons, golf lessons. There's plenty of people who'll give you some pointers for nothing. What about all those poor camping instructors who used to pull down six figures?

What else is fun?

Don't give away your extra zucchini! You're putting California farmers put off business!

 

[tecboy]

Usually all universities are well funded, unless this university is in the edge of bankruptcy.

 

[Gary A.]

I think the title is misleading. Generally any business to lose significant income/clients/market share to an amateur is doing something wrong. Either marketing, business practices, end product, pricing or a combo of these factors. But this isn't the case. A business ... any business cannot compete against free. That is where it is unfair. Some business models will 'buy' the job/client, quote a price near or below cost, just to get a toehold on the market or to weed out competition, or some other long term strategy. Maybe that is what the competition is doing ... after a season she'll go back and say ... "You like my stuff ... but this year you gotta pay $10,000 just to cover my equipment and expenses." ... or "... you can use the images but I get to sell them ..." Now this is true competition and the original photog has an arena to compete and negotiate. Or, just maybe the photog is a die-hard alumni and thinks the sports dept/school is better off with the $15,000 back in their pocket as opposed to spending it on something which she can deliver for free and will have a great time doing so and at the end of the day everybody feels good about it except the original photog.

 

[sscarmack]

I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...

If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.

Simple as that.....



Maybe?