Rookies are killing the business!

[kathyt]

and on the other side of that...(and another kind of specific situation) but...
how many of those people that flocked to the cheap photographer previously got ZERO photos done because they could not afford the "pros" prices?
which begs the question...at what level of quality are "some photos" better than "no photos"? or at that point, is quality even a factor?

It was like that too lol.

Now, in the city I live in, the professional is still kind of limited by the consumer because the cost of living here is sooooo low that even though there are 300,000 people, most who want photos have been "spoiled" by the $50 phoographers. Basically, a cheap photographer will get 10 clients a week while a $300 photographer will get one making the cheaper photog more lucrative.

The whole system in this area defies everything right in the world of photography.

As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money. I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250. If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else. Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.

My thought has always been quality over quantity, because there is no such thing as a 10 minute head shot. $50? After taxes, gas, time, communications, etc....=$-0 profit. I am the same way with my own shopping experiences. I would rather spend more money, and have amazing customer service than a rushed half a** job. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more short term cash flow, but the bottom line will not be very lucrative. Everyone will have a different bottom line, but honestly why would I spend 5 times the amount of time with 15 clients when I can create the same experience for 1 or 2, with the same bottom line? It is all about a strong business plan and realistic goals.

 

[jonnydonut]

It was really bad a few years ago. I think we're starting to reach and equilibrium as consumers are starting to see the difference between pros and amateurs. It is certainly a very saturated market now. We were all rookies once.

 

[imagemaker46]

It was like that too lol.

Now, in the city I live in, the professional is still kind of limited by the consumer because the cost of living here is sooooo low that even though there are 300,000 people, most who want photos have been "spoiled" by the $50 phoographers. Basically, a cheap photographer will get 10 clients a week while a $300 photographer will get one making the cheaper photog more lucrative.

The whole system in this area defies everything right in the world of photography.

As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money. I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250. If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else. Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.

My thought has always been quality over quantity, because there is no such thing as a 10 minute head shot. $50? After taxes, gas, time, communications, etc....=$-0 profit. I am the same way with my own shopping experiences. I would rather spend more money, and have amazing customer service than a rushed half a** job. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more short term cash flow, but the bottom line will not be very lucrative. Everyone will have a different bottom line, but honestly why would I spend 5 times the amount of time with 15 clients when I can create the same experience for 1 or 2, with the same bottom line? It is all about a strong business plan and realistic goals.

Assuming that there are 1-2 clients willing to pay what you want. I would rather take the money from 15 clients than sit at home waiting for the 1-2 clients to maybe call. Why not just take all the work?

 

[Steve5D]

I kind of disagree. If a group of expensive photographers have a kind of monopoly on the market in a certain area, maybe a small town or something, then consumers have little choice but to choose one of those photographers lest they want to go through the hassle of trying to find someone to travel, which would probably be more expensive.

So if a cheap, cheap photographer shows up and several consumers flock to them, I really can't blame the professional because the consumers were only going to them because of lack of cheap (fauxtographer) options.

You're shooting any validity of your argument in the foot with the last sentence above. You're essentially saying that someone who charges a lot less cannot, by virtue of that, be a proficient photographer. That's just silly. I know plenty of people who are amazing photographers who actually charge very little, simply because they care more about shooting pictures than they do about getting paid to shoot pictures.

If the pros can't market themselves and up their game to retain their customer base, it's not the inexpensive guy's problem, and it's not his fault. It's a shortcoming (and not an insignificant one) of the pro who charges a much higher rate.

Honestly, I see the whole idea of "protecting professional photography" as an immense load of crap. It's not one person's responsibility to ensure that someone else is able to earn a living. Adapt, or get out and do something else. But whining about how someone else is hurting your business, when your own view of that person is that he's a talentless hack, is nothing but an admission that you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place...

 

[rexbobcat]

You're shooting any validity of your argument in the foot with the last sentence above. You're essentially saying that someone who charges a lot less cannot, by virtue of that, be a proficient photographer. That's just silly. I know plenty of people who are amazing photographers who actually charge very little, simply because they care more about shooting pictures than they do about getting paid to shoot pictures.

If the pros can't market themselves and up their game to retain their customer base, it's not the inexpensive guy's problem, and it's not his fault. It's a shortcoming (and not an insignificant one) of the pro who charges a much higher rate.

Honestly, I see the whole idea of "protecting professional photography" as an immense load of crap. It's not one person's responsibility to ensure that someone else is able to earn a living. Adapt, or get out and do something else. But whining about how someone else is hurting your business, when your own view of that person is that he's a talentless hack, is nothing but an admission that you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place...

I was referring to my specific experience. I'm not speaking of a correlation between being cheap and being a bad photographer. I'm saying that in the area where I used to live the cheap photographers are not very good. I never said all cheap photographers aren't good. I guess I wasn't clear about that.

Sometimes the customer base can't be marketed to if the intrinsic nature of the competition fits the needs of the customer base better.

The best marketing in the world will not get someone who is looking for a deal to pay $300 for a services that is so seemingly accessible and cheap nowadays.

The market economics is just as much a factor as the marketing of the actual photographer. The market is fluid so photographers must be too, but sometimes it's not within the photographer's power to just "up their game" if the market cannot support their prices/niche/whatever.

It's like telling a runner to just "run faster." Words are cheap.

 

[bratkinson]

As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money. I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250. If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else. Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.

My thought has always been quality over quantity, because there is no such thing as a 10 minute head shot. $50? After taxes, gas, time, communications, etc....=$-0 profit. I am the same way with my own shopping experiences. I would rather spend more money, and have amazing customer service than a rushed half a** job. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more short term cash flow, but the bottom line will not be very lucrative. Everyone will have a different bottom line, but honestly why would I spend 5 times the amount of time with 15 clients when I can create the same experience for 1 or 2, with the same bottom line? It is all about a strong business plan and realistic goals.

Assuming that there are 1-2 clients willing to pay what you want. I would rather take the money from 15 clients than sit at home waiting for the 1-2 clients to maybe call. Why not just take all the work?

Isn't changing your 'plan' from one quick $300 shoot to ten $50 shoots which yields more word of mouth advertising, more leads, more business akin to shooting oneself in the foot? Flexibility is great. Maybe that $300 customer decides to wait until next week, having even 5 or 6 of the $50 jobs in a week will at least keep food on the table, hopefully. But then, what if one of the $50 clients tells the $300 client (hopefully, repeat client) that you did such and such for $50? Next time Mr $300 calls, he figures you should be down to $50-75 too!

From my naive amateur perspective, isn't waiting for the 'big client' to call rather than going after the little fish in the pond like a commercial fisherman that throws back everything less than 5 pounds? (I live in MA, but can't stand seafood). There's a whole lot of perch, bass, and trout being eaten every day compared to 5 pound large mouth bass. I see a conundrum. Yeah, catching the 'big one' is everyones' dream. But the reality is the little ones are what puts food on the table every day. Unfortunately, the problem may turn into the old marketing story: 'we lose a little on every sale, but we make it up in volume'.

To me, spending the majority of my 35 years as an independent contract computer consultant/programmer/analyst was a lot easier than what a photographer must do. Find out what the customer wanted, put together a proposal (sometimes a couple of weeks to complete for US Government bids!), come up with a price and bid it. A lot of my business was word of mouth referrals. I just had to watch out for the 'oh, by the way, could you...' once I got the contract. But getting PAID was the sometimes the biggest problem of all!

 

[imagemaker46]

Why would the $300 client know that I changed anyone else less. I have clients that I charge different fees for similar work, they can range from $250-$2000 depending on the client. None of them have ever asked what I charge other people. It's the same with selling photos, some people I may charge $15 and other people buying the same photo pays $300. As I said before, I would rather just take all the work I can get, better in my pocket than someone else.

 

[KmH]

As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money. I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250. If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else. Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.

There is an unproductive time factor involved when you have to deal with a big increase in the number of customers you have to process - more time spent pre and post shoot, less efficient image handling/editing, and in the form of an increase in administrative tasks.
Non-reimbursed costs can go up too, since you now have to generate and store the additional customer files.

It would be nice if in a week's time 10 shoots a week were to turn into 20 shoots a week. It usually takes a bit longer than that.

If not done right, increasing your volume by lowering your price can often mean a lot more work for the same or less money.
Many who have tried the 'Groupon' approach have found out the hard way that it often backfires.

 

[Austin Greene]

Do many people just go out and buy dive equipment and within a few days open up "professional" dive operations, without knowing how to use the equipment?

You'd be surprised. Many people purchase gear right out of certification and begin to offer "Salvage" operations, trying to find people's lost sunglasses etc, at a cost. Typically however, those divers end up getting themselves killed. That said, there are also "cheap" routes to becoming an instructor, and there are expensive ones. Some programs are happy to hand you a license if you just fork out enough money, while others actually care about the product they produce. In the end, the well-trained instructors who know how to market themselves and charge more almost invariably have more paying students lined up.

A good example is an instructor friend of mine, we'll call him Glenn. The guy has decades of experience, and charges a premium, somewhere around $4,000 for a basic certification course. Thats roughly 10x what I charge, and I'm usually on the expensive end. Still, he does good work, and is scheduled for months and months ahead of time. His course is no different, no more difficult, and no easier, and he uses the same equipment from the same rental shops. They even dive side by side with classes paying far less. He just knows how to market himself to a very specific type of client, in his case, celebrities.

I'm not at all against a professional certificate for protogs, if anything, I think it would be a worthwhile way of regulating the market. I just don't agree with some of the whining I've seen, in both the photography and diving markets.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Cheap clients will only bring more cheap clients. You are looking at this wrong imagemaker. I rather have only a few clients that pays well vs a lot of low paying clients. Maybe it is easy for me to do it because it is not my main income.

Most of referrals I got from my weddings 2 years ago, I didn't book them. Why? Because they were expecting $1500-$2000. While it is tempting, I have to draw the line. It is not fair for my current clients if I give these people better price for the same service.

I do book referrals from my $3000+ weddings. Nothing more rewarding than booking a wedding at $4000+ and they feel they are getting a deal.

As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money. I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250. If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else. Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.

There is an unproductive time factor involved when you have to deal with a big increase in the number of customers you have to process - more time spent pre and post shoot, less efficient image handling/editing, and in the form of an increase in administrative tasks.
Non-reimbursed costs can go up too, since you now have to generate and store the additional customer files.

It would be nice if in a week's time 10 shoots a week were to turn into 20 shoots a week. It usually takes a bit longer than that.

If not done right, increasing your volume by lowering your price can often mean a lot more work for the same or less money.
Many who have tried the 'Groupon' approach have found out the hard way that it often backfires.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

P.S. I have only booked 4 weddings so far this year and I dont mind it. I know it will work out better at the end VS. doing more weddings for cheaper.

 

[brian_f2.8]

I see this all the time from both sides of the fence. I do sports which means you need to be credentialed. I have shot with top pros to local joe smoes.The guys who have been making money for years are fighting technology not amateurs. Anyone can buy a dslr and follow some tutorials on youtube and create decent photos. The cameras are that good. Its easy to buy something and use a computer to get what you want. Years ago the average consumer bought a simple camera. The pro cameras were much better and pros developed their own film. People will always recognize good work and professionalism.
Put it this way, Eric Clapton didnt get upset when a local guy bought a guitar and tried to be original. Art is art and if you are scared of some amateur then maybe they arent an amateur, they have a skill. No one is going to use a crap photo for publication. They wont last long. Sure some jobs will get taken but after a while an agency is going to realize pro work and weekend warrior work.
As for the local guy trying to get into the business, well thats the only way so they have to. Come on guys what agency is going to hire someone without a portfolio for a paid assignment when they have someone who is reliable and knows more than photo such as captioning, ftping images and meeting deadlines. Eventually the Im a photographer phase will dye out of people.

 

[imagemaker46]

"I rather have only a few clients that pays well vs a lot of low paying clients. Maybe it is easy for me to do it because it is not my main income."

I would love to be able work this way, 2-3 clients a month paying me $5k each, instead of having to work 20 days for a lot less, simply because I had a well paying job that allows me to do this. But this is not the case in my real world of having to take some jobs I would have passed on 10 years ago simply because now there isn't always the option. So I could just sit at home and not make any money at all, or I could shoot, I will take the shoot every time. For the people that have full time jobs that allow them the option of just sitting at home on the weekend because they are guarenteed a pay cheque at the end of the month, that is your simple reality, not mine.

 

[kathyt]

My thought has always been quality over quantity, because there is no such thing as a 10 minute head shot. $50? After taxes, gas, time, communications, etc....=$-0 profit. I am the same way with my own shopping experiences. I would rather spend more money, and have amazing customer service than a rushed half a** job. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more short term cash flow, but the bottom line will not be very lucrative. Everyone will have a different bottom line, but honestly why would I spend 5 times the amount of time with 15 clients when I can create the same experience for 1 or 2, with the same bottom line? It is all about a strong business plan and realistic goals.

Assuming that there are 1-2 clients willing to pay what you want. I would rather take the money from 15 clients than sit at home waiting for the 1-2 clients to maybe call. Why not just take all the work?

Isn't changing your 'plan' from one quick $300 shoot to ten $50 shoots which yields more word of mouth advertising, more leads, more business akin to shooting oneself in the foot? Flexibility is great. Maybe that $300 customer decides to wait until next week, having even 5 or 6 of the $50 jobs in a week will at least keep food on the table, hopefully. But then, what if one of the $50 clients tells the $300 client (hopefully, repeat client) that you did such and such for $50? Next time Mr $300 calls, he figures you should be down to $50-75 too!

From my naive amateur perspective, isn't waiting for the 'big client' to call rather than going after the little fish in the pond like a commercial fisherman that throws back everything less than 5 pounds? (I live in MA, but can't stand seafood). There's a whole lot of perch, bass, and trout being eaten every day compared to 5 pound large mouth bass. I see a conundrum. Yeah, catching the 'big one' is everyones' dream. But the reality is the little ones are what puts food on the table every day. Unfortunately, the problem may turn into the old marketing story: 'we lose a little on every sale, but we make it up in volume'.

To me, spending the majority of my 35 years as an independent contract computer consultant/programmer/analyst was a lot easier than what a photographer must do. Find out what the customer wanted, put together a proposal (sometimes a couple of weeks to complete for US Government bids!), come up with a price and bid it. A lot of my business was word of mouth referrals. I just had to watch out for the 'oh, by the way, could you...' once I got the contract. But getting PAID was the sometimes the biggest problem of all!

You say in your post here, "We lose on every sale, but we make it up in volume." This is not possible. You can't be profitable and continue to grow your business effectively if you are losing money with every client interaction. So many of the shoot and burners that are charging so very little, THINK they are making money when they are truly never making a dime.

 

[Rafterman]

The back-and-forth conversation in here is very interesting to read, especially for me, since I have recently thought very seriously about taking on photography as a part-time job (after following all the proper legal and business procedures, of course.) What I've gathered though is that everyone commenting is seemingly happy doing things they way they currently are. Each person doing this for a living is following a method that works for them personally, whether they're doing 20 shoots a month for $200 each or 1 shoot a month for $4,000. I understand the arguments for both, but if your own technique works for YOU, why discount or question the way someone else does things? That part I don't get.

On a personal note, I've been a Web Developer professionally for almost a decade now and can definitely understand the complaints from full-time photogs about John Doe dropping $1,000 on equipment and starting up a business. I have countless certifications in numerous languages/technologies, and it used to irritate me a great deal when someone who did nothing more than read "Web Design for Dummies" would call themselves a "professional" and start trying to drum up business. But as with the low-cost photographers, these bargain bin designers filled a need. It doesn't have any effect on me though, because I still get paid good money for my quality work and knowledge. In addition, when I started, I made genuinely AWFUL web pages at dirt-cheap prices. We all have to start somewhere people. I just think we should all recognize and respect that.