Losing business to amateurs

[Derrel]

Who remembers THIS gem from 2003? I sure do!!! it has popped up since then, more than once!
Ten most overpaid jobs in the U.S. - MarketWatch


10) Wedding photographers
Photographers earn a national average of $1,900 for a wedding, though many charge $2,500 to $5,000 for a one-day shoot, client meeting and processing time that runs up to 20 hours or more, and the cost of materials.

The overpaid ones are the many who admit they only do weddings for the income, while quietly complaining about the hassle of dealing with hysterical brides and drunken reception guests. They mope through the job with the attitude: "I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National Geographic calls."

Much of their work is mediocre as a result. How often have you really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you by recent newlyweds? Photographers who long for the day they can say "I don't do weddings" should leave the work to the dedicated ones who do.

"

 

[astroNikon]

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.

I totally understand the frustration ... to an Nth degree.
I was unemployed for a year an a half .. that's NO job whatsoever
and after bankruptcy, I was worth a total of $5k and 4 kids living with me (yes, no house, no car, no camera, not much).

I had to work for free just to keep my resume from having a gigantic gap in it as no one was hiring even contractors for a while there in 2009-2010, except for pennies on the dollar.

so don't look for too much sympathy from this corner. I'll offer business advice, and I've even help on a business plan for free to help people stay out of where I've been at. That's one thing I've been doing for a few years. I've turned around a couple companies in very dire straights who are all doing well right now ... for nothing. Why? Because otherwise they were just about to close the doors and put a whole bunch of other people out of work including themselves .. all with families to feed.

The biggest problem most people have from righting the ship, is their own egos.

 

[The_Traveler]

I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.

No insult intended but if you didn't invent photography and the camera then you are doing essentially what they are doing - using knowledge gathered up by someone else as the jumping off place for your own work.

 

[minicoop1985]

No insult intended but if you didn't invent photography and the camera then you are doing essentially what they are doing - using knowledge gathered up by someone else as the jumping off place for your own work.

But I'm the reincarnation of George Eastman! I invented... not photography, but other stuff!

That would be an ego trip if I actually meant that. I do get what you mean, though, Lew.

What Astro said-those who righted the ship often have inflated egos-is spot on. They forget where they've been and become jaded to the good life. I've met so many of these types.

 

[CameraClicker]

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.

I think that's only partly true. Scarcity plays a part. Marketing plays a part. Look at diamonds, it's nice that they are really hard, and pretty to look at, but are they really worth what the jeweller is asking? Industrial diamonds are worth something when you have to drill through hard materials. Diamonds as jewels are just trinkets with a good publicist. Gold makes electronics more reliable, but as jewellery, it's worth is entirely due to sales and marketing efforts over many years. Oil is a bit like that too, you have to find it, drill for it, pump it, refine it, ship it, etc. Every time there is a price hike, someone blames problems in the middle East. North America has more oil, but it costs more to get it out of the ground and into a useful form, so it has value based on cost of production. Of course, if electric cars really take off, oil may become a lot less valuable. So, if cost affects scarcity, it may affect perceived value.

 

[bribrius]

oh man, I feel like such a azz now. Every since I started getting back in photography I stopped buying the most expensive selections on my kids school photo sheets and started opting for the cheaper packages. This latest time I order near the cheapest package, thought about just ordering the class photo.
Photos came and looking through them tonight I question if they were worth the 22 dollars...

 

[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.

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.

Photography is by no means monopolistic competition, btw. Monopolistic competition is a small group of very large businesses that compete enough such that there is no actual monopoly, but their combined market power make it essentially impossible for new entrants into the market.

The auto industry is the prime example of MC.

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".

Fair enough. I can't disagree with anything you're saying, I just thought you were being a big meanie.

 

[vintagesnaps]

The idea someone mentioned about photographers obtaining some sort of certification is something I've read about (somewhere)... Not as a requirement to take photos for pay but as an option for photographers who want to have a way to show that they meet certain standards or requirements as professionals.

That could give prospective clients a way to choose a photographer that they know will be able to do the job well. I don't know if it will ever happen but I'd like to see it. I know PPA has their own system but something more universal that isn't just done by one organization might be more useful.

And yes Tecboy, shooting sports is hard work! At least in my experience - and time getting in some practice, being on your feet, learning all the ins & outs of it, etc. That's partly why I find it hard to understand why a university would use someone inexperienced at it, but maybe we're out of the loop on the whole story here.



I'm glad at least now to know the evolution of the term buttload - it must be regional and hasn't gotten this far across the country yet, I'm still on boatload!

 

[bribrius]

The idea someone mentioned about photographers obtaining some sort of certification is something I've read about (somewhere)... Not as a requirement to take photos for pay but as an option for photographers who want to have a way to show that they meet certain standards or requirements as professionals.

That could give prospective clients a way to choose a photographer that they know will be able to do the job well. I don't know if it will ever happen but I'd like to see it. I know PPA has their own system but something more universal that isn't just done by one organization might be more useful.

And yes Tecboy, shooting sports is hard work! At least in my experience - and time getting in some practice, being on your feet, learning all the ins & outs of it, etc. That's partly why I find it hard to understand why a university would use someone inexperienced at it, but maybe we're out of the loop on the whole story here.



I'm glad at least now to know the evolution of the term buttload - it must be regional and hasn't gotten this far across the country yet, I'm still on boatload!

certification far as my experience works as a barrier to entry in some aspects for certain markets as well as is used heavily as a sales gimmick.
I couldn't say those in industries with certifications are necessarily or actually more qualified to do the work. While I believe in SOME instances it may add a level of professionalism and encourage more knowledge in said trade or craft it seems in others not so much. The level of requirements for certifications in some fields is extremely low. What it does in those cases is primarily suffice as a sales gimmick giving a false sense of security to the buyer of services.

 

[manaheim]

And who would push that sort of legislation through? The majority population of professional photographers?

 

[slackercruster]

The idea someone mentioned about photographers obtaining some sort of certification is something I've read about (somewhere)... Not as a requirement to take photos for pay but as an option for photographers who want to have a way to show that they meet certain standards or requirements as professionals.

That could give prospective clients a way to choose a photographer that they know will be able to do the job well. I don't know if it will ever happen but I'd like to see it. I know PPA has their own system but something more universal that isn't just done by one organization might be more useful.

And yes Tecboy, shooting sports is hard work! At least in my experience - and time getting in some practice, being on your feet, learning all the ins & outs of it, etc. That's partly why I find it hard to understand why a university would use someone inexperienced at it, but maybe we're out of the loop on the whole story here.



I'm glad at least now to know the evolution of the term buttload - it must be regional and hasn't gotten this far across the country yet, I'm still on boatload!

certification far as my experience works as a barrier to entry in some aspects for certain markets as well as is used heavily as a sales gimmick.
I couldn't say those in industries with certifications are necessarily or actually more qualified to do the work. While I believe in SOME instances it may add a level of professionalism and encourage more knowledge in said trade or craft it seems in others not so much. The level of requirements for certifications in some fields is extremely low. What it does in those cases is primarily suffice as a sales gimmick giving a false sense of security to the buyer of services.

Common guys, certs are just wishful thinking. There are no photo police to enforce this dream.

I'd suggest you do photos for love and not for $. There is an old saying that they wont accept here..."Don't s*** where you eat." That is what you poor photogs are doing here. Your s***ing where you eat. Your ruining your love of photography just to make a few lousy bucks shooting junk so you can say 'Hey...look at me I'm a pro!" .

Would you really spend your time shooting this garbage if there wasn't a small payment made to you? Shoot what you love and make your living someplace else and all will be right. Don't s*** where you eat.

 

[DevC]

Photography is by no means monopolistic competition, btw. Monopolistic competition is a small group of very large businesses that compete enough such that there is no actual monopoly, but their combined market power make it essentially impossible for new entrants into the market.

The auto industry is the prime example of MC.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe you are confusing what an oligopoly is with what is monopolistic competion.
Definition of Monopolistic Competition:A monopolistic competition pertains to an industry infrastructure that has characteristics of competition and monopoly. The industry comprises many firms, which offer substitute products, and many buyers. Although the products are substitutes, they are differentiated on the basis of physical attributes, image, advertisements and accompanying services. For example, Dominos and Pizza Hut offer pizza but they are differentiated on the basis of ingredients, recipes and taste. Companies within the industry can gain monopoly over their competitors by offering superior products or better service.

The photography market falls prime to this since photographers create unique yet the same product.


Definition of Oligopoly: Oligopoly is an industry infrastructure that is dominated by a limited number of firms that function independently of each other. The two varieties of oligopoly are undifferentiated and differentiated. Undifferentiated oligopoly refers to companies that sell the same product or commodity, such as a barrel of oil or an ounce of gold. Differentiated oligopoly is when different companies sell the same products but with differentiated features. For example, automobile manufacturers sell the same product (cars) but offer different makes and models.


Source:The Four Types of Industry Infrastructures | Chron.com

 

[astroNikon]

Geez .. don't make me pull out my Econ & Law books

The entry into photography is you go to BestBuy and spend a couple hundred.
Paint a sign and plunk it down in the ground (or electronic) and you have a business.

How do other photographers prevent new entries??

There's not much limiting entry into this in comparison to a new car company which needs boatloads, or buttloads, of cash to start, such as Tesla. Of course there are exceptions to alot of money such as this company ==> Elio Motors: Ultra High Mileage Vehicle
There was another local car company started last year ... with a small 3 wheeled car. I think they bit the dust already. Of course you can start a car company based on someone else's car too (alot of muscle cars are like this).

Quality is always in peoples mind. but the term "quality" can vary greatly from person to person especially in photography. If you have a car that breaks down alot but is low cost (think Yugo) then you get quick entry into the market until people stop buying it because it's not reliable. In photography you can have the same thing, quick entry, steal away business but if quality is low people will stop using that photographer after word gets around.

you hope people base their photography charges based on their quality.
Sometimes people do it for free, which messes up that equation.
There are no federal, state or local guidelines on what a photographer should charge from what little I know about it.

 

[Stradawhovious]

There are no federal, state or local guidelines on what a photographer should charge from what little I know about it.

The government dictating what people of all vocations charge for their services? If that were the case, losing business to amateurs would be the least of our collective worries.

Dude lost out to an amateur. Sucks. Life goes on. Seems to me the REAL issue here isn't that amateurs are taking work from the pros, it's that the consumer's expectation of quality has changed. It has happened to almost every other consumer good in existance. Cars, electronics, textiles, hell... even food. There is an inexpensive option for EVERYTHING I can think of that will to the eyes of the majority seem very acceptable in quality at a fraction of the cost... in this case "free" (as far as we know). Target's brand "Up", Costco's brand "Kirkland", Walmart, Walgreens, etc etc etc etc etc.

Instead of complaining about the amateur, educate the consumer. A consumer will generally take quality over savings every time when properly educated. I worked in sales for 10 years, and was very effective at taking more money than people wanted to spend by educating them about my product.

 

[snerd]

....... Instead of complaining about the amateur, educate the consumer. A consumer will generally take quality over savings every time when properly educated. I worked in sales for 10 years, and was very effective at taking more money than people wanted to spend by educating them about my product.

Nothing happens in this world until somebody sells something.