Losing business to amateurs

[MSnowy]

When I first joined TPF four years ago I knew very little about photography or the photography world. One of the first things I noticed/learned on here was that most of the long time members stressed that you never give away any pictures for free. Their reasoning was that it only hurts photographers as a whole.

 

[4073707]

I have a passion for photography but it is my hobby. When I retire I have a plan to try and sell some of my work. I will not do weddings or commercial product work but create unique images and try and flog them for ridiculous prices and if no one buys them at least I will have fun making the images.

After reading this thread I am so happy that I never took up photography as a profession in my earlier life.

 

[joannaofwaverly]

I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.

As a hobbyist, what are my options, then? My husband, daughter, and I are a single income family, so while I have every textbook motivation to be a momtog and charge $100 for a session and hand over 30+ full resolution files on a disc, I don't. I have zero interest in running a business. I really just want to shoot and play around with photos in post. I can't get subjects to shoot unless I offer them something in exchange for their time (usually a handful of edited photos and a print release), so what other options to I have if I want to exhibit "compassion" and avoid incurring the wrath of professionals? Do I just forgo the fun of photography because literally any subject I shoot has potentially been "poached" from a professional? Does this logic extend to the realm of landscape photographers, too (i.e. someone wants to buy a photo I took of Mountain X with my little T3i and 50mm for $50 instead of the local landscape pro's version for $400 because they happen to actually like it and it suits their wallet better)...? What about other pros? Should a pro interview each potential client to ensure they weren't considering hiring a different professional and turn them away if they were because that would also be poaching?

It seems that the logical conclusive extreme of this whole thread is that only those who charge for any time spent behind the camera ought to have a total monopoly on all genres of photography because any photograph not taken by a professional is one that might otherwise have been taken by a professional and is therefore undercutting.

 

[West -]

Photography or any other "independent contractor" type of job is very competitive. There will always be haves and have nots, I believe that statistically 10% of the people make 90% of the money.
So, if your not in the 10% it may be time for a career change.

 

[rexbobcat]

I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.

As a hobbyist, what are my options, then? My husband, daughter, and I are a single income family, so while I have every textbook motivation to be a momtog and charge $100 for a session and hand over 30+ full resolution files on a disc, I don't. I have zero interest in running a business. I really just want to shoot and play around with photos in post. I can't get subjects to shoot unless I offer them something in exchange for their time (usually a handful of edited photos and a print release), so what other options to I have if I want to exhibit "compassion" and avoid incurring the wrath of professionals? Do I just forgo the fun of photography because literally any subject I shoot has potentially been "poached" from a professional? Does this logic extend to the realm of landscape photographers, too (i.e. someone wants to buy a photo I took of Mountain X with my little T3i and 50mm for $50 instead of the local landscape pro's version for $400 because they happen to actually like it and it suits their wallet better)...? What about other pros? Should a pro interview each potential client to ensure they weren't considering hiring a different professional and turn them away if they were because that would also be poaching?

It seems that the logical conclusive extreme of this whole thread is that only those who charge for any time spent behind the camera ought to have a total monopoly on all genres of photography because any photograph not taken by a professional is one that might otherwise have been taken by a professional and is therefore undercutting.

Or just use discretion? IE: Don't shoot that wedding for free?

There's a difference between just playing around with photos and taking free "gigs."

But I don't really care. In the end, I've realized it's who you know more than what you know, hence all this personality-driven photography that has consumed the market in the past 10 years

I mean, when someone like Jasmine Starr is a photography leader, it makes me question so much about what good photography even is. I just don't understand why anyone would want to deal with a a mediocre photographer who's obviously just a good marketer. Her business is literally 70% brand, 20% photography, and 10% her cheesy dumb smile. That's as disingenuous as you can get.

Fro Knows Photo is another one. He has bobbleheads for Christ's sake, but people just eat that chit up.

 

[joannaofwaverly]

I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.

As a hobbyist, what are my options, then? My husband, daughter, and I are a single income family, so while I have every textbook motivation to be a momtog and charge $100 for a session and hand over 30+ full resolution files on a disc, I don't. I have zero interest in running a business. I really just want to shoot and play around with photos in post. I can't get subjects to shoot unless I offer them something in exchange for their time (usually a handful of edited photos and a print release), so what other options to I have if I want to exhibit "compassion" and avoid incurring the wrath of professionals? Do I just forgo the fun of photography because literally any subject I shoot has potentially been "poached" from a professional? Does this logic extend to the realm of landscape photographers, too (i.e. someone wants to buy a photo I took of Mountain X with my little T3i and 50mm for $50 instead of the local landscape pro's version for $400 because they happen to actually like it and it suits their wallet better)...? What about other pros? Should a pro interview each potential client to ensure they weren't considering hiring a different professional and turn them away if they were because that would also be poaching?

It seems that the logical conclusive extreme of this whole thread is that only those who charge for any time spent behind the camera ought to have a total monopoly on all genres of photography because any photograph not taken by a professional is one that might otherwise have been taken by a professional and is therefore undercutting.

Or just use discretion? IE: Don't shoot that wedding for free?

There's a difference between just playing around with photos and taking free "gigs."

But I don't really care. In the end, I've realized it's who you know more than what you know, hence all this personality-driven photography that has consumed the market in the past 10 years

I mean, when someone like Jasmine Starr is a photography leader, it makes me question so much about what good photography even is. I just don't understand why anyone would want to deal with a a mediocre photographer who's obviously just a good marketer. Her business is literally 70% brand, 20% photography, and 10% her cheesy dumb smile. That's as disingenuous as you can get

Ohhhhh, J*. You'll find no quarrel with me there. She's clearly a marketing genius, but I would not hire her to photograph my own wedding if I had all the money in the world.

I suppose that's the beauty and the beast of a free market: it cannot be simultaneously kind and efficient. Ultimately, the consumer steers the supply and demand ship.

 

[lambertpix]

I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.

As a hobbyist, what are my options, then?....

Any conversation about pros & amateurs these days has to account for the fact that there are new people entering the photography world all the time, and the falling costs of equipment is making this easier every single day. There's no way to hold these newcomers back, and it's pretty shaky ground to just expect them to bide their time until they reach some arbitrary apprenticeship threshold before they can start charging for their work. If they've got skills to sell, and they can find customers, that sort of puts a neat little bow on things, IMO.

It's always interesting to me whenever these conversations come up that we touch on the idea that customers don't want to pay for quality, but yet we try to blame the photographers who are serving that market by providing "good enough" photos at a reasonable price. If customers aren't paying a premium for a pro, it seems like it must either be because they can't tell the difference, or because they don't care. I don't see how that's any different from us looking at a third-party lens, flash, trigger, etc. as an alternative to Canon or Nikon and trying to decide whether it's worth more money to get the "name brand" equivalent, or whether we might be *almost* as happy with the third-party stuff at half the price. I've got three speedlights and triggers that cost me less than a brand-new Canon flash, for instance, and they do a pretty good job for me. For some of these customers, maybe choosing the cheaper, "good enough" photographer is the difference between them having photos or not.

I certainly hope that through word of mouth, review sites, etc., the really awful faux-tographers will fall by the wayside and the talented newcomers will bubble up to a more premium tier in the market, but I think an awful lot of that burden falls on consumers, too. Given the number of customers that are obviously enticed by free-or-cheap options, are there ways to convince some of those customers to pay more for a better product, and maybe more importantly, how do you make sure you're killing the market that *does* value great work?

Remember, some of these customers still think selective color is a pretty cool idea.....

 

[AlanKlein80 19]

"You get what you pay for" used to be the rule...now it's more of an exception in my mind.

Never mind that somebody can spend $500 or less on a kit and think they are ready to do weddings. Some of the members of this forum appear to have done just that! Zero to wedding photographer seemingly overnight!

What's happened is that most people are now satisfied with "OK" or "good enough". Whether it's pictures from a cell phone or a iPhone that has problems. It's good enough to get the job done. With extremely rare exception, the high end, high quality manufacturers are all long gone. Everyone shops on price and price alone. I once bid a Federal Government contract that was presumably based 75% quality and 25% price based on RFP information. I came in 2nd. I later got a private letter from one of the government employees in the decision committee and they said my experience, expertise, and quality far exceeded the #1 bidder. But his price was $2,000 less than my $155,000 price. So much for quality.

In short, "good enough" is OK these days. And if someone is willing to accept less than good quality work or workmanship, so be it. And it's hard to be FREE as a competitors price.

Presumably? Usually, it's based on low bid, by law. As long as the bidders meet the technical requirements, then the law requires lowest price. That's to avoid collusion and kickbacks. The fact you're better than the requirements won't help you. The only way around that is to write the specifications and include something in there that would limit the number of bidders and force the bid prices up accordingly.

Low bid bids in business can be superseded for various reasons. There's no law against that.

 

[AlanKlein80 19]

I have a friend that has given up digital and gone back to film shooting weddings and his annual income has doubled he also produces prints in his darkroom which bring in even more money, this last year I have been approached by about 6 couples that wanted their wedding shot on film

It's always good to develop a niche to keep the number of competitors down and prices up. Regardless of the industry.

 

[astroNikon]

Every Business no matter how old or young has to compete against other companies/individuals that are newer and provide better or worse quality for similar or lower prices .. and the competition business/profit/charging models are scattered all over the place.

Competition is competition whether from an amateur or a pro for nearly every "profession" that does not require passing boards, etc. Even then, some new "pros" that do have those requirements may not charge top price.

Besting your competition usually requires not only your capabilities but also marketing those differentials of capabilities. Even then so, sometimes the job is just based on price, or politics or even a variety of other reasons.

 

[MichaelHenson]

Wow. This is a polarizing topic and (IMHO) will only become more and more of a "pressure point." Were I in this situation due to an amateur coming in and undercutting me on price (cheaper or free, whatever), willingness to offer more/"bend over backwards" to please clients, etc., it would SUCK. But, at the same time, photography is no different than any other competitive market...as technology increases and barriers to entry decrease, existing business (read: photographers) have to adapt.

I read a quote by Zack Arias talking about this discussion with a professor at the arts school he attended and the professor's stance was that, if the client wanted the highest quality product, they would pick the professor over the student every time. Not due to his tenure in the field, not due to a long-term relationship with him, etc. but due to the quality and consistency of the photographs he offered.

I understand the pain, the frustration, and the animosity that can stem from this happening...however, I don't believe the answer is to berate and shout a message to "cease and desist" to every potential photographer that shoots for free (for fun, portfolio, or because they don't care about money). The answer is the same as it is in every other market (technology is an easy example), adapt, change, offer more, offer unique, offer the best and let the clients that can't tell the difference go...

Just my humble opinion...I appreciate the work that the previous generations of photographers have done in order to bring this industry to this point...and the pros here on TPF. Thanks all!

 

[JacaRanda]

[QUOTE}photography is no different than any other competitive market...as technology increases and barriers to entry decrease, existing business (read: photographers) have to adapt.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It's not like we don't care, but hey......welcome to the real world. At least it's the world I know and live in.

It's hard for me to get past the history of things not being fair in this country. Sometimes laws are enacted to make things fairer, and even that becomes unfair depending on where you stand.

Maybe a tad off topic, but it's where the thread topic leads me.

 

[KenC]

I have to agree with the group that said this is inevitable. Every profession works this way - if people don't believe that what you produce is worth what you're paid, then you're out. Their belief may be unjustified, but that never matters. Having any profession that is also a hobby for many people carries this risk with it.

 

[MSnowy]

I wish I could get people to come work for me for free. Needs- lawyer, accountant, architect, plumber, electrician, house painter, interior designer, site manager and website developer.

 

[lambertpix]

I wish I could get people to come work for me for free. Needs- lawyer, accountant, architect, plumber, electrician, house painter, interior designer, site manager and website developer.

Interestingly, quite a few of those positions are frequently associated with certifications or licenses that establish a minimum skill set for practitioners, but a couple of them might actually be decent analogs -- I bet you could find a house painter or website developer on Craigslist that would work for a fraction of what you'd pay a "real" company -- especially if you pay in cash. I bet you could even find a handyman do do plumbing & electrical work as long as you're not too concerned about whether you're up to code.

Oh, and an awful lot of this "internet" thing runs on free web development. The amount of technical skill needed to put together a website with Wordpress today is a tiny fraction of what was needed just a few years ago -- not completely unlike the way cheaper equipment has allowed more people to work in photography.