One of my daily reads is Seth Godin's blog. He has a lot of good things to say, and I know that others, including Leslie Burns Dell'Acqua reads him daily as well, and she too highlighted his message for the day about mediocrity. I'll take a similar tact.
When you are not paying attention to the details, you could well cost your business a lot of money, and certainly a diminished reputation. Today, Seth wrote - The sad lie of mediocrity - "The sad lie of mediocrity is the mistaken belief that partial effort yields partial results. In fact, the results are usually totally out of proportion to the incremental effort."
(Continued after the Jump)
Here are a few examples:
1) Recently, a colleague of mine wrote to someone, and addressed them as "Mrs." The problem is, she is a he.
2) An estimate went to a client with a DC and a NYC office. The address error to someone paying attention was something like below:
John Smith Big Corporate Client 1234 Madison Ave, 5th Floor Washington DC 10017
John Smith Big Corporate Client 1234 Madison Ave, 5th Floor New York NY 10017
Because a large majority of our clients are DC based, the software we use auto-fills in Washington DC for that client, but someone wasn't paying attention when that estimate went out.
Paying attention to details, smiling when you're talking to clients, being upbeat and positive during those interactions, saying things like "let me figure out a way to make that happen..." instead of "I don't know if that's possible", and so many other variations on that theme are what differentiates you from your competition. Don't say "the problem we might run into with doing it that way...". Instead, try "we'll have a bit of a challenge in trying to make things work that way...", which suggests you are up for the challenge, and are thinking of ways to solve the problem.
Excellent customer service is key. Customer dis-service, distain, or mediocrity when cast in their direction is a disaster. You just might not realize it until it's too late. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
So you're probably asking yourself - What's that photo of? Sadly, that's my laptop bag, containing one 17" Apple laptop, and one Macbook Air - my backup laptop. Why, pray tell, is it sitting in the middle of the sidewalk on 34th Street, next to a construction site and FedEx? Because that's where it fell of my equipment cart being pulled to the Javits center in New York for the photo show.
HOW THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN, you ask?
(Continued after the Jump)
It happened because of the assistant pulling the cart - #1 - was pulling it, not pushing it; #2 - didn't want to be pulling it, because she thought that manual labor was beneath her; and, among the other reasons, #3 - she wasn't paying attention to her responsibility - the safe transport of the photo equipment.
It wasn't until we had walked all the way into Javits, and were in an elevator, that *I* eyed my bag, and instantly recognized that it was missing. "Where the F*ck is my laptop bag?" I demanded? Looking up at my crews' faces, I jammed my arm into the closing elevator door, and began a full sprint out Javits, south on 11th, looking at every persons' shoulder to see if someone had picked it up. As I ran into oncoming traffic, at top speed, I was re-tracing my steps to where we were, at the Skylight Diner across from B&H on 9th, having breakfast. I was praying that it had just fallen off the cart amongst the tables and chairs there, and was (semi) safe. As I was running across the corner of 34th and 11th, I spied the bag. Sitting right there. For once I was thankful that this post-9/11 era meant that people were less likely to pick up a black bag with unknown contents. I breathed a sigh of relief that it was safely back in my hands. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
One of the common refrains I hear from those that intern for me is that they felt that their college was a waste, and they should have come through my program, or a similar one, and that the real world experiences far better prepares them for the freelance world.
I can see their point, and understand that, to a degree, it may be true, but that degree is worth a great deal. But what degree?
(Continued after the Jump)
First things first - graduating from college is critical. Don't be an idiot and think that it's not worth it. So many people I know say that getting your degree is the ultimate test in being able to demonstrate you can finish something you started. I agree with that sentiment.
Recently, there was a discussion on a photo association listserv about the qualifications for a teaching position.
Faculty members must have teaching experience at the college level and are required to maintain active participation in their field of photography.
Active participation? I can't say I know a lot of professors that would fit that bill. A few, but not a lot.
The perfect candidate for this job is someone who has an MFA in photography, plus commercial and teaching experience.
And here's where I, along with others on the listserv had a problem. This school requires a Masters? Surely this applies in fields like English, the Sciences, and so forth, but the arts? Maybe Art History degrees, but for the field of photography, I just don't see it.
In the schools of today, in large part, the inbreeding, tenure debates, and self-congratulation that goes along with being an academic is part of the problem with todays' photographers that enter the real world with a diploma, $100k or so in debt, and no way to pay that debt off. Few schools are preparing their students with the tools they need to succeed in business, since freelancers are the new staffers.
I have a few colleagues, and professors at places like RIT, and Brooks, and so forth, that have said that my book is on their required reading list. If you know of others, please post them in the comments. I am not saying that my book, per se, is the end-all be-all answer, but it's at-least an indicator if the professors at the school even care about the issue of their photographers as soon-to-be self-employed. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Over seventeen years ago, I was a young upstart photographer, and I was approached by Washington Life Magazine, a brand new magazine, to shoot for them. And I did. Black and White, color if it was to be a cover story. After a year or two of steady work, the publisher, who ran the business out of her home in DC sat me down. She did so seperately with every photographer. Divide and conquer. She explained her position quite simply.
Washington Dossier, a magazine that was started in Washington DC in 1975, and which folded in the late 80's, did not own any of the assignment photography it commissioned. She did not want to make that same "mistake", and wanted to own, outright, all the images she commissioned me, and others to produce.
I sat on her couch, in her living room, and contemplated my situation, as the grandfather clock ticked off the seconds, and the minutes passed. What should I do, I thought. Tick-tock, tick-tock. Tick...
(Continued after the Jump)
I said to her that I understood her position as a business, wanting what she had been paying for for one use, and re-paying for re-uses, and further, to have an asset to value. But, I relied on my re-licensing to her, and I did not want to be in a position where she would become a photo agency, selling, re-selling my images - especially if I wasn't going to get a portion of those re-uses.
"We're not going to do that", she responded.
"But you could." I noted.
"We just don't want to have to deal with photographers in the future to re-use photos we hired them to take in the first place", she said.
And, on that point, I said "well, we'll have to agree to disagree, and while I respect your position as a businessperson to require this, as the person who would be responsible for providing that content, I just can't do that." That, is exactly what I said. And that was the end of the conversation. They've surely had a collection of photographers over the years who have signed those agreements, and that's fine for them. Not for me.
Over the years, I've seen many photo credits outside of Washington Life. An example By photographer Tony Powell, seen in this brochure for the Shakespeare Theatre.
They frequently appear on blogs, like TV Newser, here, and also of Sen. Harold Ford, in an an image here.
And when the Smithsonian had a fiasco on it's hands with a senior staffer who had allegedly abused her expense account, the cover photo and other images of their cover girl Pilar O'Leary got re-used with the photo credit of "Washington Life.", in many places, including the Washington Post, as seen here, and other places.
I have seen and heard colleagues try to justify their work for the likes of Vanity Fair, and other Conde Nast publications. Now, starting slowly, VF is selling prints from their past assignment work in their Vanity Fair Store, as shown here: Those are very respectable prices - yet the photographers, atleast under the terms of the agreements they sign for assignments now, are not entitled to a dime from the sales of those prints. Next up will be more recent prints, you can bet on it.
So too, are images available for sale from the Encyclopedia Britannica image archives, as About The Image reported here. 55,000 images, over two-thirds digitized, and ready to e-mail to you!
When clients tell you they need all rights, copyright transfers, work-made-for-hire, and so forth, and tell you they'll never do anything with them "we just need to get all the rights...", it's highly likely they are mis-informed, or just not telling the truth. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I get that dealing with the business end of photography isn't always comfortable. Whether it's determing the specific fees and applicable production charges for an assignment, providing an explanation to a client about a particular item (i.e. "what is post-production? Can't you just copy the photos off the card and burn me a CD - that's all I really need...") so that they not only understand, but they can explain it to their superiors/client, and be on board with it, or calling up a delinquent client about an overdue invoice, all of these, and countless more situations frequently make photographers queasy, even week in the knees.
Frankly, you don't actually have to worry about these things.
(Continued after the Jump)
That is, if you don't want to be in business very long, or if you want to slowly sink your business into the ground.
I was reading my Sunday Washington Post, and the 7/6/08 article Art's Real Thing Was Never Sold On Success, struck me, but not for the reason that was intended. At the end of the article, the artist Chuck Connelly said "I'm not like a 9-to-5-er, get up and paint. I can lounge around all day, get up and put a couple of strokes on something. It's not how much you do. It's that you do the right thing."
When you are just starting out, don't worry about having an assignment every day, or even every week. Worry that each assignment you do is done right. From a qualitiative standpoint, as well as a business standpoint.
This past weekend, I covered the AT&T National Golf Tournament. When my assistant asked what the dress code was, I told her I would be in Khakis and a polo, and she should dress accordingly. When I got there, there were many spectators who were in shorts, t-shirts, and jeans. Though, everyone that was working for the tournament was wearing some variation of khakis and a polo. Immediately, we stood out as being there as a professional doing a job, and we received the respect we were due. I wrote a piece back on June 1 (Proper Attire Whilst Making Pictures, 6/1/08) and it's worth revisiting.
Ensuring that your paperwork is in order, with signatures from clients on contracts/estimates, alleviates other issues down the line, from bad language on purchase orders that come along, to misunderstandings over who owns what.
Moreover, practice explaining things like what post-production is, and why the client should be paying for it; why there's markup on certain items, and what the difference is between a creative fee and usage fee. Oh, and why the client doesn't own the images to do with them whatever they want.
discussing these things - especially at first - is uncomfortable. Add to that uncomfortable situation the fact that you want this client to like you, and to hire you, and yes, to pay you a fair fee for these things, and it gets worse, because things like money are on the line that pays the rent and electricity, and so forth.
But heck, if you'd rather not, then don't bother. You won't be around very long. Your choice. The problem though, is that you'll just make it that much harder for your friends and colleagues who are making the effort to cooperate with the uncomfortable. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Many a time I have been working an assignment that had me properly attired wearing jeans and a polo shirt. Usually, it was at a very informal outdoor event, where even wearing Khaki's and a button down would make me look out of place. Then, I get a call for an unexpected assignment in an office building. Proper attire? Nothing less than Khaki's and a button down, preferrably a suit, and were I without a tie, I would be out of place. Carrying a set of appropriate clothes to change into is just as second nature as carrying equipment - stowed in my car - that would allow me to take other assignments should the call come in for it. For newspaper photographers, these multiple-assignments-per-day issues arise, and most are prepared to handle the variety that is their everyday life.
Messages like "dress the part", "dress for success", "dress for the job you want, not the job you have", and so forth all carry the same message - your attire matters, and says a lot about you.
What does wearing jeans and an untucked shirt say about you when you're shooting a wedding at a top notch hotel?
(Continued after the Jump)
It says you're either inconsiderate, or just plain stupid.
Yesterday, I was making a delivery to a client at the same hotel where I had done an assignment for them the night before. I'd seen the rehearsal taking place, and so, when I arrived to make my delivery, I saw the photographer doing all of the posed images, so, curious that I am about who it was (I thought, perhaps a friend I knew, but it was not) and how they were working, I observed. However, as I continued to observe, I discerned that he was wearing jeans. Then I realized he didn't even have his shirt tucked in.
Yet, he was in a five star hotel here in DC, and everyone else was dressed to the nines. The bride and groom were all in their glory. This image was made with my iPhone (I hadn't planned to be making images, just a delivery) as family members in the wedding party were being photographed.
As I was leaving, I passed the bride, and asked who her photographer was, and she told me. So, I did a little research, and he doesn't have a website that I could find, and there is little else on the web about him (but I did locate some videos of him showing off his new apartment). He seemed nice enough, and had pro-level gear, but he just didn't didn't have the right attire.
If you're thinking of finding some excuse to defend this wardrobe malfunction, understand that I don't care that he was doing these images before the ceremony, and that maybe he would tuck his shirt in once the ceremony was about to begin. It remained that he was engaged in work and interacting with the entire bridal party and parents while looking disheveled. Bad form. Bad bad bad.
Previously I wrote about other attire issues - specifically the wearing of flip flops (Leave The Flip Flops For The Politicians, 5/23/07) and discussed just how bad that is. So too, jeans on assignments like this. You are a professional, act - and dress, that way! Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
One of the things that gets me is when someone who has three production trucks, a star trailer, a Musco lighting rig, and six assistants puts together a project, and then expects the masses to snatch their video's off the shelf. Sure, they may sell a bit, but what people - especially those starting out - really need, is a hands-on real world (for most of us) demonstration of how to make lighting work, sans the AD, DOP, or best boy.
Enter my friend and colleague David Hobby, who has produced an amazing set of DVD's that aren't all slick and glamourous, and they're not supposed to be. While Chase Jarvis has shared with the masses how he rolls (helo's, Ninja's, and all), and I've shared with you what we use and why, and how we pack it, David is giving you the best how-to around. I've had the pleasure of watching David at work (among other things, we covered Ronald Reagan's funeral together) and his skill at getting in, getting the shot, and getting out, is a sight to behold.
Thus, it's worth the $139 he's selling the DVD's for. Trust me on this one. Spend the dough and be enlightened. His this link to get yours now, and this link to see what David's saying about it, and several teaser bits to entice you if, for some crazy reason, you're on the fence!
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Yesterday, I was on Capitol Hill. I wasn't there to discuss Orphan Works, but it sure came up. I was at a breakfast with a Senator, and in there were 22 members of the American Library Association on hand. Here's what their website shows they were coming to DC for:
National Library Legislative Day 2008
On May 13 & 14, 2008, hundreds of librarians and library supporters of all kinds are coming to Washington, DC, for an event like no other: National Library Legislative Day (NLLD). And you can come, too!
NLLD is a two-day event in which people who care about libraries participate in advocacy and issue training sessions, interact with Capitol Hill insiders, and visit Congressional member offices to ask Congress to pass legislation that supports libraries.
National Library Legislative Day is sponsored by the American Library Association, Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, the District of Columbia Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association.
On their webpage, they list links for their talking points on Copyright, which you can read and download here. Topping their list of issues is....you guessed it, Orphan Works. Here's their Congressional Visit packet.
As a member of the leadership of the ALA talked to the Senator, her 21 other constituents listened - intently, and nodded their heads at all the right times. So did the 100 or so other constituents from across the state, listen in - democracy in action, they probably thought. This was the first and thus only issue that was addressed (as it was discussed for some time), and the Senator's legislative counsel came to talk further once the Senator left. Talking points were delivered by the ALA, and the message from the libraries was clear - strike the "dark archive" clause of the House version (among other things). They were organized, they had their message ready.
(Complete post, after the Jump)
Where were the photographers? Nowhere to be found. Not that they were expected, they've never come before. There's been no organized effort to get creatives to swarm the hill, and do what's called a "Hill-climb" (so named, because people are typically walking up the slope to the Capitol from below the building). That's not to say the idea hasn't been floated. I know that others have tried to organize these, yes, including PPA and ASMP. But, apathy abounds amongst photographers when it comes to visiting DC for this purpose.
It seems that photographers can't see the strategic benefits of making this outreach. All photographers see is the $1k in expense to come to DC, and the lost day of work back home, and don't recognize that every other professional business has this type of effort underway to ensure that the legislation that has an impact on their livelihoods they have a voice in shaping.
This is necessary to be done annually, if not more frequently, so that when issues come up down the line, you have an open dialog. Executive staff at all the organizations can only do so much. It's the constituents - the actual voters - that need to come to DC and make their positions known to their elected officials. Yes, cards, letters, and e-mails can help, but whether it's:
Orphan Works (Senate version S.2913, House version H.R. 5889)
Tax deductibility of healthcare for small business (House version H.R. 2132, and Senate version S. 99)
The Artists Deduction Bill - The tax deductibility of artists works at full value rather than materials only (Senate version S. 548, House version H.R. 1524
Thus, know this, there will be many many more issues that affect you down the line.
Get engaged. Make a difference. And yes, co-ordinate with your organizations. There will be many fights ahead. You can either join in the fight for your own best interests, or suffer the consequences of ignoring the issues while the other side of the debate gets what they're pushing for. Related Posts:
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I was doing my weekend read of the tree-killing newsprint that arrived soggy on my doorstep today, and ran across a quote that spurred this piece. It's from Wal-Mart's chief operating officer, when asked about it's competitors offering free generic drugs, he responded:
"Free is a price that is not a long-term sustainable position."
Enter a few interesting insights that came this way from the Flickr forums, and Craigslist:
We have a cool opportunity for a photographer who wants to make some great marketing contacts....This is our First Annual Golf Classic fund raiser, so we need someone who’s going to do an exceptional job, yet can give us very competitive pricing (since money for luxuries like photographers is sparing)... [we] would like to own the photos after the event......We would also like to be able to provide high quality photos...to the guests throughout the day...To let you know what you’re quoting: I have received many, many responses, some of which are offering to do it for FREE just for the contacts; yet, we are willing to pay something, looking for a premium photographer, so please at least make your quotes competitive."
Zing! They're asking for all three -good - "need someone who’s going to do an exceptional job", cheap - "many responses, some of which are offering to do it for FREE", and fast "provide high quality photos...to the guests throughout the day".
The photos to be taken are unexpected by the person/persons that you are taking the photos of. The person/persons have a celebrity status and the photos taken will be used in a magazine (both print and online). There may be high traffic with other photographers present on this day and time so we ask the following of you if you are interested in this assignment:..You must be experienced...You must have your own equipment/supplies and staff...This is great experience for you as a photographer. You will have the right to use these photos for your own personal use including your portfolio, but you will not be able to sell or transfer the photos to any other source...We are willing to pay no less than $100.00 per photo and up to $150.00 per photo...The photos must each be unique in settings, backgrounds, and pose...All photos will remain your property until we select the photos we would like to puchase...Once the photos are taken you can upload them to a common public server / hosting website, we would prefer you to upload them to photobucket.com.
There seems to be no end to these "opportunities", and no end to suckers lining up to take them.
There's something called the "Project Triangle", and it helps people think through their end-goals. Also of interest is the notion of "project scope", where the area of the triangle inside it is considered the "scope", i.e. "I can do one portrait for the good-fast-cheap" you're looking for, but if you want 10, well, the scope is too big for the same figures to apply. Author James Lewis calls this the PCTS relationship, for "Performance, Cost, Time, Scope." So, perhaps for the fees and turnaround needed, to produce one quality portrait I can do it. But if you want four portraits, the fee and time needed will have to change relative to the scope you've expanded this project to.
It can be light-hearted from time to time, when encountering a prospective client who cites price, to say to this person "I can give the images to you good, fast, or cheap - pick two." Heck, you'll likely not do the assignment anyways, but you can enjoy the conversation none-the-less. And maybe, if you send your estimates for "good and fast", they might just go with you. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I can't tell you the number of times I hear from friends and colleagues that define themselves as "news photographers" that their images aren't worth that much, and re-use/licensing isn't a big deal to them.
Enter Aaron Eisenhauer (his blog), a staff photographer for the Southeast Missourian. Aaron was in the right place at the right time (from a news photographer's perspective anyway) to capture the rescue of a vehicle by a passerby, and a story about the rescue ensued. Next, the paper wrote about how the photo (and events) had received national attention. (check the link for other images from the incident).
Guess who decided to turn this photo into an advertisement, after some retouching?
(Continued after the Jump)
Why, FedEx. The photo appeared as the sole visual element in a full page ad that ran in the A section of the Washington Post yesterday. (click to see it larger in a new window).
The first thing that caught my eye was the photo credit - "Courtesy of" it read. Could it be that the newspaper simply gave the photo to FedEx for free? The follow-up article notes "FedEx got permission from the Southeast Missourian to use the image on its internal employee Web site," but this is a national advertisement. Was it Aaron's to license himself? "FedEx is paying us for the photo. We didn’t just give it to them" wrote Aaron in an e-mail when we asked. Whew! FedEx, with their "Courtesy of" photo credit, which in newspaper parlance means "free", is usually used in relation to "Photo courtesy of the Jones Family", when no other art is available.
For Aaron, he's on staff there, so a resale really benefits his employer. Now, some employers have policies (either formal, or informal) where the staff shares in reprint or licensing sales, and Aaron's paper does as well. Aaron writes - " They paid $5,000 for one photo. They also paid $500 for the use of two hi res images from the sequence. Those two images were only used to create mock-ups of the ad, never to actually be used in the print ad. It was only to help them decide which photo they used. They still have the option, if they want, to buy the rest of the photos in the sequence for another $5,000. But for now, they are paying the Southeast Missourian a total of $5,500. I will get a share of this payment, but that percentage is still being discussed."
FedEx also used the image in a newsletter-type manner here, (which I would have expected), but then also on this external, much more commercial use on this FedExStories.com website, as seen, in part, here: The next thing I wanted to know was if FedEx had gotten permission to use the photo of the man rescued. So, we placed a call, and spoke to the 78 year-old who's life was probably saved, Odell Bunch. "Oh yes", he said. "They came and got me to sign something." I asked if they were paying him anything, and he responded "oh, I don't know. I think they're going to send me something, I don't know, and I don't care."
I thought, perhaps that FedEx might buy him a new truck, so I asked. He said "no, the insurance paid for it. The engine was fine, just needed oil and fluids changed." So you're driving the same truck? "Yup" came the response.
I asked about what happened that day, and he was happy to recount the story. One point he made in the re-telling was that he knew his rescuer, Jay McMullin, saying "I know his folks, and he's a good kid, he would have stopped to help anybody." This didn't come out in the story, just that it was a FedEx driver who rescued Odell. Yes, saving someone is good. The FedEx ad leads us to believe that their employee just saved some random person, rather than someone that is a family friend.
But I digress. this isn't just about FedEx paying Mr. Bunch, or not. Nor just about the fact that the guy that is standing in the background on his open car door's edge (the black doors open are the car behind the FedEx truck, not those of the FedEx truck), who was retouched out of the photograph (either because they couldn't find him, or they did, and he wouldn't sign a release), but it's about the value of your news photo - the one you think isn't worth much.
Yesterday, Thursday, April 17, 2008, on page A16 (full page, above), the Washington Post's ad rate (as seen here) for 126 column inches, or 1 full page, runs $12,247.20 for one single day's media buy. With a license to use the photo forever, how many hundreds of thousands will they spend on advertising with just this one picture? Aaron also notes - "The full page ad also ran in USA Today and New York Times that I know of." Ok, so apparently the NYT's ad rate for a full page is $142,083 (as noted here). Maybe I got the ad rate wrong for the Post then? How could there be such a disparity between the Post and the Times? Oh, right, the Post sees itself as an educational company now! (Washington Post Company Now Skooling U, 11/24/07), And a full page in USA Today (as noted here) is $178,700.
Remember this the next time you say you don't care about re-use/re-sales of your "news" photos. Pictures are worth, yes, a thousand words, and this picture - over $5,000, the assignment, potentially $10,000+.This isn't a unique situation. I've seen ads using news photos for Hershey's, and the Red Cross, to name just a few. (heck, even a news photo of Eliot Spitzer ended up in an ad (see it here) from his State of the State address, but I'd doubt he signed any releases - but someone licensed that image for an ad!) Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Those who actually have brain-cells functioning realize that the production of quality images - consistently and over the long term - is best left to the professionals. Surely, the Infinite monkey theorem applies to microstock - and that non-starter that is being referred to as mid-stock. Yes, NotSo-LuckyOliver tried to parlay the "we're not microstock" approach into something.
What did their investors want?
(Continued after the Jump)
Why, a big cash payout, of course! Investors like to see large dollars as a return on their investment. When they see their one potential big buyer going private, and a wait-and-see attitude on the other players in the market, that burn-rate must have gotten scorchingly hot, and they decided to cut their losses.
I just can't see my way clear to feel sorry for the people who are losing their jobs, or losing their image outlet. They are just one player in a segment of the industry that has been doing damage to the profession of photography. It's a nice idea - (nearly) free images for all, but like communism, the economic viability of both is doomed from the beginning.
As they fall, photographers will respond - "see, I told you so..." Those that remain will utter that, at-least. Those that have left the profession will only shake their heads, wishing the microstock demise would have come sooner so that they could have remained photographers.
"We spent the last year looking for the funds to grow LuckyOliver because, without the addition of significant capital, the return on investment for LuckyOliver and its contributors would not be satisfactory. After reviewing the options, the investment team decided that it was in the best interest of all stakeholders to shut the company down."
Let's re-phrase that, shall we? Try clearing out the nice-speak and saying:
"the investment team didn't see it as smart to pump more money into a failing business model, so they decided to cut their losses, and hobble home licking their wounded pocketbooks."
Even Bryan notes that he was pursing "...a passion that often went beyond reason."
I am not convinced that there will always be a robust microstock industry. How many redundant servers can continue to run with a significant staff to take orders and collect $1 here, and $4 there? I expect that iStockphoto will, in some shadow of it's former self, remain. Jupiter will likely collapse under it's own weight - and the fickle demands of shareholders who no longer see this industry as meeting the growth that they want for their own return on investment. Further, the novelty will wear off for many of the amateurs, and the demands for releases and indemnifications of Corporate America by judgement proof individuals, followed by the lawsuits that inevitably will quash this field, will just poison the well.
One of the primary problems from a cost standpoint is the cost of maintaining customer call centers. Corporate America has wrongly outsourced that to India, and many are reeling from that stupid move. These costs, both needed to service contributors as well as the paying customers, along with IT upgrades will be what makes these models worse than risky.
We photographers, those still standing in the aftermath, will be left to pick up the pieces. And we will.
Those UnLucky "Olivers" are headed elsewhere already, as noted here. From iStockphoto, to fotolia, Crestock, to all the rest of the soon-to-be gone shops. Let the dominoes continue to fall!
To those doing this industry harm, I shall applaud as you fail. If you are contributing images to these organizations, I can say that what goes around comes around, and, to be sure, karma's a bitch. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Continuing the day's theme, this from Craigslist in their "Best of craigslist":
I'm a fabulously wealthy photographer / artist making money hand over fist. Here's what I need:
A mechanic to overhaul my custom '57 Chevy. A maid to clean my house on a regular basis A doctor to perform some minor surgery on me. A band to perform theme music for me where ever I go. A carpenter and electrician to build an extra wing on my sweet house in East Austin. A nanny to watch my spoiled kids.
Of course there will be no pay involved. In return for your services you will get FULL CREDIT on my website, AND you can add all of this work to your PORTFOLIO! If you ask me, this is an absolutely awesome deal!
I hope to have you work for me soon!
------- (with thanks to Walter Rowe for sending this in!)
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
One recurring conversation that I hear taking place is about photographers and second jobs - you know, the ones that make it possible to pay the bills.
The problem is, this is bass-ackwards from how it should occur.
Take, for example, the waiter. A waiter has figured a way out to pay their bills (even if just barely) from month to month. A waiter in this position has a great opportunity to start a business in the field of photography out right. How so?
(Continued after the Jump)
Someone in this position can do an honest assessment of what it costs to be in business, and also what it costs to earn a living doing photography.
Say, for example, as a waiter you earn $150/day with wages and tips. An honest assesment of your cost of doing business (CODB) as a photographer might reveal that it would cost you $350 a day for every day you're shooting. So, even though a call comes in for $200 a day - more than your waiter income, but less than your CODB were you a photographer, you can - and should - decline the assignment.
Why?
Well, being a waiter, your CODB is just a pen, paper and a decent outfit. In fact, you may even have a uniform, but nothing more. Your CODB as a photographer would include costs for computers, internet, cameras/gear, business insurance, and so forth. The declination of the $200 assignment leaves you free to do business in paradigm which keeps you profitable, and moreover, leaves you free to seek out the proper paying clients that you not only can do your first assignment for, but also grow a solid relationship with - enough so that you can afford to leave your waiter job.
IF you have taken a second job to sustain your CODB as a photographer, then you're likely going to fail. It's really not a matter of if, it's most likely a matter of when.
In other words, your second job should be that of photographer! Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I recieved a retort from a Chicago area photographer a week or so ago about an APA/Apple Store presentation he'd seen by Brittney Blair, Photo Editor of Chicago Magazine from back on February 11th. APA's website reports the presentation as "...Brittney’s Pro Session discussion focused on the best ways to break into photography, how to catch a photo editors attention, and steps to landing your dream assignment." However, one glaring issue arose. Ms. Blair is reported to have said, either exactly, or very near exactly, "You know that nobody can make a living off of editorial magazine photography."
I'll share what the attending photographer was infuriated about. He noted in his missive to me:
(Continued after the Jump)
Is she poisoning everyones expectations to keep their idea of how much they should charge lower?
Secondly, don't magazine writers earn a living?
Don't magazine editors and PHOTO EDITORS earn livings?
Doesn't the publisher of a magazine earn a living?
Don't the ad sales team earn livings?
Doesn't the printer of a magazine earn a living?
In fact they would EXPECT to.
Why should editorial photographers have to believe they can't earn a living????
Isn't a photo on the cover what sells a magazine to the casual shopper?
Are not photos the "stoppers" that capture something like 1.7 seconds of a page flippin' reader's attention and get them to read the article?
The attending photographer goes on to object:
"She later went on to say that she know sometimes that with pre-production and expenses a photographer might only break even or lose money on a shoot but that the exposure in a regional publication is worth it. Would she accept breaking even or losing money on HER job to be worth the exposure?? Maybe for an intern, but not a professional. Are the guest "experts" we as photographer flock to for advice telling the truth or building the walls of a ghetto?"
Well said, well said.
I will note that I was a previous speaker at an APA/Apple Store Presentation in that same store in Chicago just over a year ago, and my message was exactly opposite this one. Further, Friday I completed a profitable editorial assignment, and today, Monday, I am completing both a profitable editorial assignment as well as an even more profitable corporate assignment.
I will say, APA nor Apple vetted these message points - they surely did not vet mine before I presented. I know that APA's thought process is 100% contrary to several of the points reported out above. Further, the good folks at Apple are truly committed to helping photographers succeed, hence not only this APA seminar series, but also, their ASMP seminar series, both of which have been extremely well received.
Even if this photo editor did not say this (and I believe this photographer's reporting that she did), it stands as a common mentality amongst many photo editors who believe we should all be blessed to have our work appear in their publications. Think again - its' our work that will enhance the otherwise blank or text-filled pages you are printing on those presses of yours.
You, dear photo editors, should be fighting to pay us assignment fees that you know will allow us to sustain ourselves. I know many that do, and I work for a substantial subset of that group. I appreciate the photo editors that I work for, and who look out for the creatives that supply art for their pages.
Further, the good folks over at Editorial Photographers, EP President Brian Smith among them, would also take issue with her suggestion of how the world turns for photographers. Or, perhaps, I am sounding a bit like the Bitter Photographer now?
To those of you who are content in your full time, self-sustaining jobs where you know the assignment fees you are paying photographers do not sustain your talent pool, I say, bollocks to you. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
It's 3am, Wednesday, and I am finishing the booking of air and travel for the next 10-day assignment which begins after I finish photographing Kermit the Frog on Capitol Hill, travels to Rochester NY, then Los Angeles, then Las Vegas, then Oakland, then Los Angeles, before returning to DC. It's an exhaustive trip, and we spent much of the day today in pre-production, packing bags to confirm to size and weight restrictions, and so forth.
In Los Angeles, the client is staying in the West Hollywod area, and gave us several recommendations for where to stay. Typically, we make these calls ourselves, however, we were surely amenable to their suggestions. One of them was the Hyatt West Hollywood. I checked Orbitz (graphic above), and it was $215 a night, for this 4-star "upscale" hotel.
I decided to have a look at Priceline, to see where hotels would fall price-wise.
(Continued after the Jump)
Remarkably, by selecting 4-star, and West Hollywood as my options, I found myself and my team booked into...the Hyatt West Hollywood for $106 a night! A significant savings, to be sure! Laughably, Orbitz's site says "lowest price guarantee", which is clearly not the case here.
In the end, this was over a 50% savings from booking with Orbitz.
I post this as a suggestion that, as the title of the entry says, "it pays to do your homework." Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
One of the many problems for photographers is how those who couldn't care less about the business of photography do damage to the business of photography. Often, these are people who have other jobs that pay the bills, and they look to photo credit to give them pleasure, acclaim, and notoriety, getting their satisfaction at the expense -- literally -- of those who earn a living making pictures. Many times, these are "moms with cameras", or MWCs. What I'd like to highlight today is something different. It's a MWC who is endeavoring to do things right.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Back in October, we launched Assignment Construct, which delved into the what, where, when, why and how (not so much the who), of assignment photography. To date, nearly 20,000 people have looked at over 50,000 pages of those insights.
So, what was missing? Well, aside from the "who", it was really, the "how much."
(Full post and comments, after the Jump)
Enter Estimates & Bids, and the approach that "many minds, useful results" can provide insights to all.
One of the things that has been happening for probably seven or eight years, is that friends and colleagues have been calling to bounce ideas off me as to pricing and negotiating for a wide variety of assignments. These are calls I was happy to take, and moreover, I've made a few calls myself.
Of late, I've been getting a nice collection of e-mails of the same nature, and moreover, I get the calls and e-mails myself from prospective (and repeat) clients, all looking for estimates for the work I do for them. These inquiries go beyond the inquiries I get that can be resolved by referring to my online calculator on my pricing pages on John Harrington.com. So, what better way than to take those requests, and shine the light of day on them in a public forum. To engage the collective mind, and do a little learnin' in the process?
So, if you're writing to ask me how I might price an assignment, I'm happy to help, and the conduit not only to my help, but that of the collective brain trust of photographers, is Estimates & Bids. Friends and colleagues will continue to call, but, the results of that exchange will (with their permission) likely end up on Estimates & Bids. You will then have the opportunity to put in your two cents, ask questions, and everyone benefits.
But, this is interactive. This requires participation in the comments section of each post. But, for a number of reasons, we've opted to keep the comments moderated, so the level of comment and learnin' will be much higher (hopefully!).
This will, by no means, be something that would take the place of Blinkbid or fotoBiz/fotoQuote. In fact, those software packages should be what you use to prepare your estimates to send off! They have things like terms and conditions, coaching capabilities for your phone calls back and forth, databases of past work, and tracking capabilities, secondary pricing modules for post-assignment stock inquiries, and so forth. I certainly rely on fotoQuote on what seems like an almost daily basis, but which I can be sure is definitely a weekly basis!
Lastly, if you have an inquiry from a prospective client, send it along, and we'll consider posting it with (hopefully) enough time between when you send it and we post it, and when you need to send in your own estimate. Perhaps this will help you in providing a thoughtful response to your prospective client's request.
So, please take a look. There are three real assignments aready up - two assignments I got a call for, and one that was an inquiry from a colleague, to lead things off. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Thanks to my colleague Stanley Rowin over at Pro Photo Business Blog for revealing this YouTube piece, of a photographer spiraling down from a high dollar figure to free during this 60 second example of self-flagellation, and further evidence of the negotiation axiom "whoever speaks first loses" after price is discussed:
(Continued after the Jump)
Interestingly, the character playing the photographer, humorously named Mark Focus (that's got to somehow be funny to all the people with Canon Mark III cameras having focus problems) is actor Eric Krupnik, who is also listed as a production assistant for this 1969 movie titled Putney Swope. Was Krupnik living the mentality of his character as well? Krupnik has done little since in the film industry, whereas Putney Swope (played by Arnold Jackson) went on to a well rounded career as an actor!
The plotline and one comment about the movie from IMDb:
ark satire in which the token black man on the executive board of an advertising firm is accidentally put in charge. Renaming the business "Truth and Soul, Inc.", he replaces the tight regime of monied white ad men with his militant brothers. Soon afterwards, however, the power that comes with its position takes its toll on Putney...
This movie shows that the free enterprise system and the quest for the almighty buck transcends all racial and ethnic barriers. Ultimately the market place determines the message that is sent to the public....A conservative white-collar advertising company is taken over by a group of street-wise African Americans...who wants to make a buck and believes he can sell products by telling the the truth. But the movie shows that no matter how hard he tries to do something different, the market place and the political system demands that he conform, rendering him no different than his predecessors. Interesting, off-beat movie.
Gotta love the low-five that the "militant" bodyguard (played by Buddy Butler) gives Putney Swope at the end! Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Yes yes, I know, everyone has New Year's resolutions. I'm not suggesting you do that, but you will anyway, and you'll likely not follow through on that weight loss plan, get rich scheme, or other bright idea that, at 11:45pm this evening, will seem like such a good idea three shots in, but will be just a blur of an idea the morning after.
Instead, consider that, from a tax and bookkeeping standpoint, beginning to use accounting software like Quickbooks (at right, the TOP link is the PC version - 2008, and at BOTTOM is the Mac version, currently 2007, make sure you pick the right one!), MYOB, or invoicing/estimating software on January 1, 2008 is, in fact, the easiest and cleanest way to get your financial house in order.
It's not that you shouldn't have done it months ago, in fact, the day you started your business (or before) you should have, but it's high time you do so if you have been procrastinating.
(Continued after the Jump)
It's as simple as buying the software today, Monday, and it'll likely arrive by Friday. Over the weekend, you can learn a bit about it, and when your bank statement for December arrives a few days later, use as the closing balance for your December statement (which probably actually closed between the 31st and the 7th) your opening balance in the software.
As checks from jobs from December come in, just re-create your invoice in the software as they were however you did it previously, using the categories that apply, like "photographers assignment fees" become "professional services", and so forth.
After several months, the notion of going back to reconstitute several months' worth of transactions is daunting, so you have a wonderful window of opportunity to get your act straight in a real and meaningful way for the coming year. In addition, six months from now, you'll be able to, with a few clicks of a mouse generate reports that make you look like the real business that you are, and show you how your income is trending, and where your profit centers are. Sound foreign? If so, what are you waiting for, get on it!
Happy New Years!
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
2 ... 2 ...
One of my daily reads is Seth Godin's blog. He has a lot of good things to say, and I know that others, including Leslie Burns Dell'Acqua reads him daily as well, and she too highlighted his message for the day about mediocrity. I'll take a similar tact.
!
One of the many problems for photographers is how those who couldn't care less about the business of photography do damage to the business of photography. Often, these are people who have other jobs that pay the bills, and they look to photo credit to give them pleasure, acclaim, and notoriety, getting their satisfaction at the expense -- literally -- of those who earn a living making pictures. Many times, these are "moms with cameras", or MWCs. What I'd like to highlight today is something different. It's a MWC who is endeavoring to do things right.
Back in October, we launched 
Thanks to my colleague