Losing business to amateurs

[photoguy99]

There are at least two threads of thought going on here.

One is that amateurs are bad, and if only people would hire pros they'd get better photos. This is sometimes true. Sometimes the customers don't care.

The second is much more interesting. There are plenty of excellent amateurs out there working cheap or free.

The amount of money on the table to pay for excellent pictures is not unbounded. The number of superb photographers who'd like to get a piece of that money is unbounded, or nearly so.

That's just how it is. There's a wild oversupply of talent. If you believe in free markets or any semblance of them, you cannot escape the conclusion that the correct price for even an excellent photo is close to $0.

If you do not believe in free markets, then you need to solve the problem of who gets paid and who does not. Good luck on that.

 

[waday]

I don't have money. That is why I have had lawyers. To get me out of paying money or to collect from people owing me money. Too limit my own liability as well.
If twenty k is on the table and the lawyer wants four k it is kind of a no brainer which is cheaper.
They don't make much on wills, family docs. But if you round out the service they can supply to including for example insurance suits or a percentage on recovering losses it gives them more income (not at your expense as you are on the losing side to start with) which helps them. Really depends on your exposure to risk and liability and what you have to throw at them they can make money on. Seems if they are able to make money on one side and you throw them something that isn't really paying much they are more apt to do it as they can still show a profit. Lawyers have to eat too. If you just ask them to draw up your will, where they aren't making much money it makes it more difficult. The other thing is the way the world is now, everything is about money and a legal mess. People will apt to not pay you UNTIL you get a lawyer involved. OR try to make you pay something you really shouldn't have to UNTIL you get a lawyer involved. Everyone is out for themselves, so I guess I figure in many cases one kind of needs a lawyer involved so at least they have someone looking out for them. But I rob peter to pay paul I am not rich.

I had a property in foreclosure a few years back I had to pay a lawyer five k to get the damn thing back the bank wouldn't stop the process I went by the recovery date and didn't even know it was being scheduled for auction. Because I owed less than it was worth the bank really didn't seem want to stop it from going to auction. I got it back though (a lot cheaper than what It would have cost me losing it) paid the five k and it all stopped right there. Suddenly they are calling me in to sign paperwork and everything is canceled far as their proceedings. All in how you see it I suppose. Another one of those things though. "okay, how do I stop this and how much $ to make it go away". For the average person to navigate through the legalities that life can bring and be taken seriously at all just usually don't happen. I for instance have little knowledge of how to navigate the legal system. I sure wouldn't hire a amateur but if my lawyer can save me money (i really am like freakn poor) and all the while it helps him take care of his family I cant see how that is a bad thing. I try to throw things his way he can make money on.
way off topic but...
Maybe lawyers and photo professionals do have something in common. Know your customers needs and try to supply them...

I definitely understand where you're coming from, and with some of those issues, yeah, you really do need a lawyer (and an internet lawyer won't help you there). I'm glad your situation has gotten better. Depending on the situation, yes, the couple of thousand is absolutely worth it if they can get you out of owing much more.

 

[bribrius]

There are at least two threads of thought going on here.

One is that amateurs are bad, and if only people would hire pros they'd get better photos. This is sometimes true. Sometimes the customers don't care.

The second is much more interesting. There are plenty of excellent amateurs out there working cheap or free.

The amount of money on the table to pay for excellent pictures is not unbounded. The number of superb photographers who'd like to get a piece of that money is unbounded, or nearly so.

That's just how it is. There's a wild oversupply of talent. If you believe in free markets or any semblance of them, you cannot escape the conclusion that the correct price for even an excellent photo is close to $0.

If you do not believe in free markets, then you need to solve the problem of who gets paid and who does not. Good luck on that.

communism 101 for everyone.

 

[photoguy99]

Huh?

 

[Derrel]

Newspapers used to make a KILLING selling overpriced, only-game-in-town-so-ya-gotta-pay-our-rates! classified advertising. Newspapers used to charge exorbitant rates for one-week and two-week or 30-day classified advertising runs because there was literally NO other way to reliably contact the general public with items for sale or properties for rent and so on.

What killed newspapers? Craigslist, and FREE advertising. What has killed photography as an easy,dependable,consistent, reliable income generator? Digital imaging and easy, free reproduction via computer screen.

Time to step up to the 2010's. TIMES CHANGE FAST, but attitudes change slowly it seems.

Photographs no longer hold the same value they used to! There are more photos made now than ever before, and they are seen for LESS time, and quickly there's a need for NEW images, to be put on the web, not prepped for three days then "printed". Good photos used to be kept around for weeks, months, years, in printed form. Now? A photo has a half life of about one,single day.

 

[imagemaker46]

Derrel, you're quite right that photographs aren't worth what they used to be, that is something that I came to realize years ago. So people tell me that I should be charging more for the digital files I sell, it wasn't just a quick decision to come up with the "magic" number, it took some time figuring out what the best number was to sell the most images, it came down to a simple 50 cent difference. I could do like lots of other photographers I know that are still trying to get a $100 for similar images I sell for $35, I am out selling them 20-1, but they still believe that they have an image worth $100. I agree with them, but the rest of the buying public doesn't.

It's the same with trading cards, I used to get paid $100 per hockey card I shot for one of the big card companies, they offer $10 now, it's not worth the time and effort, unless they are buying 200 images from me, which they aren't. The only place I can still get the money I ask for is TV news, sports or documentaries, and that's because my archive has images that no one else has.

I'm lucky to have clients that are still willing to spend the money to hire me, they know I will come back with what they want. I go out of way to produce different material on each shoot, even though it may all be swimming, there still has to be something new from each meet. Anyone that is willing to pay me to go to Miami, Los Angeles, Australia and Hawaii in the same year to shoot swimming is going to get more than what they could ever ask for. That's how I work to keep my clients, there is professional respect, and I earned that, a lot of the time, that's worth more than the cheque at the end, but I'm happy with the cheque.

 

[Gary A.]

When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.

If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.

What the news photogs think has absolutely nothing to do with what the accounting department thinks or what the CEO/CFO thinks as a viable profit margin (say 30%) or what the shareholders demand in a ROI.

Your statement hasn't any currency in the viability of photojournalism as a profession. I believe that even today photojournalists do not feel threatened by amateurs with big cameras. The downfall of photojournalism and news periodicals in general is the internet. Due to the fragmentation of the advertising dollar, the news industry is having to change it's business model to cope with the internet for content, with the internet for advertising (see Craig's List, websites, et al). And todays corporate structure/ownership demanding higher profits over a quality product.

Gary

 

[Gary A.]

Newspapers used to make a KILLING selling overpriced, only-game-in-town-so-ya-gotta-pay-our-rates! classified advertising. Newspapers used to charge exorbitant rates for one-week and two-week or 30-day classified advertising runs because there was literally NO other way to reliably contact the general public with items for sale or properties for rent and so on.

What killed newspapers? Craigslist, and FREE advertising. What has killed photography as an easy,dependable,consistent, reliable income generator? Digital imaging and easy, free reproduction via computer screen.

Time to step up to the 2010's. TIMES CHANGE FAST, but attitudes change slowly it seems.

Photographs no longer hold the same value they used to! There are more photos made now than ever before, and they are seen for LESS time, and quickly there's a need for NEW images, to be put on the web, not prepped for three days then "printed". Good photos used to be kept around for weeks, months, years, in printed form. Now? A photo has a half life of about one,single day.

I didn't see your post prior to writong mine ... we're on the same page. lol

 

[Gary A.]

Derrel, you're quite right that photographs aren't worth what they used to be, that is something that I came to realize years ago. So people tell me that I should be charging more for the digital files I sell, it wasn't just a quick decision to come up with the "magic" number, it took some time figuring out what the best number was to sell the most images, it came down to a simple 50 cent difference. I could do like lots of other photographers I know that are still trying to get a $100 for similar images I sell for $35, I am out selling them 20-1, but they still believe that they have an image worth $100. I agree with them, but the rest of the buying public doesn't.

It's the same with trading cards, I used to get paid $100 per hockey card I shot for one of the big card companies, they offer $10 now, it's not worth the time and effort, unless they are buying 200 images from me, which they aren't. The only place I can still get the money I ask for is TV news, sports or documentaries, and that's because my archive has images that no one else has.

I'm lucky to have clients that are still willing to spend the money to hire me, they know I will come back with what they want. I go out of way to produce different material on each shoot, even though it may all be swimming, there still has to be something new from each meet. Anyone that is willing to pay me to go to Miami, Los Angeles, Australia and Hawaii in the same year to shoot swimming is going to get more than what they could ever ask for. That's how I work to keep my clients, there is professional respect, and I earned that, a lot of the time, that's worth more than the cheque at the end, but I'm happy with the cheque.

As in any industry, (except maybe US government procurement - lol), it isn't all about what you think it's worth, it is about what someone else will pay.

Gary

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

I've been making a living at this for several years.

If you're being pushed out of business by amateurs, you're doing it wrong.

 

[tirediron]

Lew, does your daughter need a paralegal?

How about a husband?

 

[slackercruster]

When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.

If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.

What the news photogs think has absolutely nothing to do with what the accounting department thinks or what the CEO/CFO thinks as a viable profit margin (say 30%) or what the shareholders demand in a ROI.

Your statement hasn't any currency in the viability of photojournalism as a profession. I believe that even today photojournalists do not feel threatened by amateurs with big cameras. The downfall of photojournalism and news periodicals in general is the internet. Due to the fragmentation of the advertising dollar, the news industry is having to change it's business model to cope with the internet for content, with the internet for advertising (see Craig's List, websites, et al). And todays corporate structure/ownership demanding higher profits over a quality product.

Gary

A lot of what I see on the news is cell phone pix and vids. But they still have some hi grade stuff for certain events.

 

[slackercruster]

Derrel, you're quite right that photographs aren't worth what they used to be, that is something that I came to realize years ago. So people tell me that I should be charging more for the digital files I sell, it wasn't just a quick decision to come up with the "magic" number, it took some time figuring out what the best number was to sell the most images, it came down to a simple 50 cent difference. I could do like lots of other photographers I know that are still trying to get a $100 for similar images I sell for $35, I am out selling them 20-1, but they still believe that they have an image worth $100. I agree with them, but the rest of the buying public doesn't.

It's the same with trading cards, I used to get paid $100 per hockey card I shot for one of the big card companies, they offer $10 now, it's not worth the time and effort, unless they are buying 200 images from me, which they aren't. The only place I can still get the money I ask for is TV news, sports or documentaries, and that's because my archive has images that no one else has.

I'm lucky to have clients that are still willing to spend the money to hire me, they know I will come back with what they want. I go out of way to produce different material on each shoot, even though it may all be swimming, there still has to be something new from each meet. Anyone that is willing to pay me to go to Miami, Los Angeles, Australia and Hawaii in the same year to shoot swimming is going to get more than what they could ever ask for. That's how I work to keep my clients, there is professional respect, and I earned that, a lot of the time, that's worth more than the cheque at the end, but I'm happy with the cheque.

You still making it pay? Good for you!!

 

[Gary A.]

When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.

If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.

What the news photogs think has absolutely nothing to do with what the accounting department thinks or what the CEO/CFO thinks as a viable profit margin (say 30%) or what the shareholders demand in a ROI.

Your statement hasn't any currency in the viability of photojournalism as a profession. I believe that even today photojournalists do not feel threatened by amateurs with big cameras. The downfall of photojournalism and news periodicals in general is the internet. Due to the fragmentation of the advertising dollar, the news industry is having to change it's business model to cope with the internet for content, with the internet for advertising (see Craig's List, websites, et al). And todays corporate structure/ownership demanding higher profits over a quality product.

Gary

A lot of what I see on the news is cell phone pix and vids. But they still have some hi grade stuff for certain events.

The industry is redefining itself. With all the bloggers and talk radio the line between op-ed and news is blurry at best. Now news decisions is being made by accounting. Sorta like health care where the accounting department is calling the shots on the treatment instead of the physician. Now the accounting department is dictating how news will be covered and presented. Having five full-time photogs and a zillion "free lancers with cell phones" is cheaper than 20 staffers and five stringers. There was a time when working for a major paper or wire service required a degree in journalism (or equal). The photojournalist needed to understand the tenants of journalism first and be a photographer second. Now it is all about scooping the competition ... keeping costs low and profits high. It is very difficult to both report and shoot, one or the other will suffer. So you have to keep a few photogs around for important stuff and stuff where you need a media pass to cross police lines or get into a sporting event. (Hard to shoot a ball game with a iPhone. But I did shoot a football game with a wide angle ... it was a bet. lol)

Gary

 

[West -]

"Losing business to amateurs"
I guess when that happens the pro becomes the amateur and vise versa.