Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry

[farmer_rob]

I think that the deluge of images that confront us every day already devalues the individual image. I was browsing Scott Kelby's website the other day, and he had a heap of American NRL football photos. Excellent shots taken by a skilled photographer. However, I spent perhaps 5 seconds on them, then onto the next thing. How much are those images really worth? I'd argue "not much", judging by the amount of eyeball time they get. I'd say the same applies to Zack's band photography - a passing glance at best.

Some magazines - say National Geographic - need excellent shots, otherwise the brand is devalued. Others, and the mainstream broadsheet newspapers fit here, don't really need a) many photos or b) particularly high quality ones. Yeah, sure there are 'iconic' photos that pop up once in a blue moon, but if you read about the bloke who captured the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the one who missed out, there is a heap of luck and really not a lot of quality (not to take away from the skills of the photographers involved). These days, some bystander with an iPhone could be the one who got lucky in the same situation.

How many looks do any photos from the average AP member get? Even the good ones who win POTW/POTM? Care to monetise that? How much could Rick charge for each viewing of these photos? My bet is nothing, because even if they are great photos, we still just glance and move on. And yet we all get upset about "I'm not going to give away copyright because it is my art" (when in fact it is "sell copyright" because someone is already paying the photographer in the case of professional photography. The chances of 99.9% of these images actually getting more than 100 views ever is 0 (regardless of quality, usage, payment, watermarks, skill, promotion, websites, whatever).

I think the sooner that professional still photographers accept that in the main that they are being paid an hourly rate for their skill in manipulating a camera, and get away from the view that they are the next undiscovered Annie Liebovitz, the better off the whole industry will be. (ie Join the real world of working for a living.) This will marginalise the cheap operators, because then the average consumer will be able to recognise that if they want a quality job, they need to pay more than they pay their gardener, and it will focus the minds of the would-be pro on the choices he has to make - how many hours he does, what he gets paid per hour and why he is doing that rather than mowing lawns.

[arthurking83]

Does every question need to fall into the "regulation" argument ?

Eventually the message that this is actually about will be lost. Which in essence is sound advice to make sure that you factor all your costs in if you want to rely on taking pictures as a full time job.

so sound advice to any photographer getting into business, is that they have to factor in things like beer money and transmissions for crappy cars as business costs?
My personal belief is that these are cost burdens that the average punter/slacker/worker may also have to endure, despite the fact that don't work as pro photographers!(see his comparison to the slacker in his blog post)

....I dont really see what the problem is ? Other than a few people scanning and misreading the actual blog post.

My problem was that I re read the blog post 3 times to try to make sense of it, and every time it made less and less sense as sound business advice!

...Personally, while not paying too much attention to the specific figures, I think that if you read the entire piece, the message is clear, and hits the nail on the head.

It's the actual figures that make no sense.

Ultimately what he's trying to say with his blog post is that as a photographer in business, you have some inherent responsibility to get married, have kids, rent a $900/month apartment.. etc, etc(it's all in his post!) and as a copy boy earning $10/hr you don't.

He was the one that introduced the concept of comparing how much a copy boy earns compared to a busy pro photographer!!

I was so covered up in work that I couldn’t keep up with it. I either had to start raising prices or I was going to die. I once figured out that I was making about $5 an hour. Note that I quit a $10 an hour job for this. Hmmmm. Nice job Zack. Be your own boss and make less than a slacker in a copy shop.

quoted from his blog

and this sounds like sound advice?

With that kind of stupid reasoning and comparisons, I made my comments and stick by them.
From his blog post, I believe that he doesn't possess the ability to give sound business advice for anyone, let alone would be pro photographers. He was definitely better of sticking to his job as a slacker in a copy shop!

had he given a real breakdown of the actual costs of running his business, he may have possibly made sense.

All I know, that as a non photographic business owner, I still have transmissions and mortgages to pay too... but he makes 2x the (gross) income and with most likely 1/2 the expenses that I have to worry about!.. so in effect far more profit.

In my current situation, I'm far better off as low ball band photographer, rather than sticking to my current work!

Had he simply given a break down of what he earns, and what he could possibly earn(if he tried, or was smarter), and then what it costs him to earn that income, without introducing the concept of living expenses as business expenses, then the comparison to his previous vocation would have had some relevance.

it's the bottom line profit that only concerns the business owner... not the costs of living.

From the known profit for the financial year that the business has produced, the operator can subsequently determine a lifestyle that they want want to lead...

Contrary to (popular)belief, I fully understand what he's trying to say in his blog.. he just doesn't understand the concept of reason and coherence.

All I know is that, if I tried to claim beer money as an expense for my business, my accountant would laugh his head off!

[Longshots]

I dont see much point in quoting what I said when you're not referring to it ?

Anyway, read the article again because he isnt saying that beer money and transmission is a business cost. What he's trying to say is that everyone has living expenses, and the comment about the beer, etc is relating to that (not trying to claim it as a business expense):
"How much does it take you to live? Let’s put you in a $900 apartment + utilities, add some car insurance, a set of tires, a new transmission for your crap car, a 24-70 2.8 lens, food, and some beer money."

So, again, as a photographic business owner, I'd maintain, he's talking very common sense. Which is, that you need to consider not only your business costs, but what it costs you to live - IF, you are considering your full time employment in photography.

[I @ M]

William, maybe I am reading the article by Mr. Arias the wrong way entirely but the overwhelming view I am left with is that he expected the "a $900 apartment + utilities, add some car insurance, a set of tires, a new transmission for your crap car, a 24-70 2.8 lens, food, and some beer money" living the life of a pro photographer but not really even expecting it as a "slacker" in some shop.

Whichever way he meant it, I find his writing style to be vague and overly dramatic in much the same way as many blog gurus gush forth to engage an overly susceptible and emotionally fragile target audience.

Marketing 101.

[kiwi]

It's not the abc news, he's allowed to have some fun and a bit if literary license to make his point, would be as boring as kiwi pellets without it

[kiwi]

As far as licensing goes

P plates for p&s or program mode
E for exposure proficient
N for nikon proficient

?

[Longshots]

William, maybe I am reading the article by Mr. Arias the wrong way entirely but the overwhelming view I am left with is that he expected the "a $900 apartment + utilities, add some car insurance, a set of tires, a new transmission for your crap car, a 24-70 2.8 lens, food, and some beer money" living the life of a pro photographer but not really even expecting it as a "slacker" in some shop.

Whichever way he meant it, I find his writing style to be vague and overly dramatic in much the same way as many blog gurus gush forth to engage an overly susceptible and emotionally fragile target audience.

Marketing 101.

Andrew, clearly his blog piece is open to many different interpretations, and while I may agree with your final paragraph, I cant agree with your first.

I quoted his sentence that relates to the beer and apartment in full. Why do so many people want to rewrite it?

To be honest, I cant see the fuss. He is saying IMHO, that you need to calculate all costs, which includes your living costs. Most new businesses fail because of that. Its not a problem that is particular to photography.

The title of his topic is on the money. And thats the entire point of his piece. I dont read it any other way. What I know, through my own experience is to sadly watch many newcomers, fall on this basic issue. Its nothing to do with pros needing to be regulated, or being protective of any high charges. What it is good advice to anyone thinking about starting a business - any business that relies on their income to not only cover their costs, but enough to earn themselves a wage to cover their living expenses. Its nothing earth shattering news. But at the same time, the comment seemingly needs to be said over and over again. I started this paragraph with my view that he's on the money, and if you check the advertiser on the post in the picture, is apparently no longer in business.

Just like many who post here, myself included, its his opinion. Take it or leave it.

[xkellie]

Whichever way he meant it, I find his writing style to be vague and overly dramatic in much the same way as many blog gurus gush forth to engage an overly susceptible and emotionally fragile target audience.

being the op, i'm going to take this as a targeted insult. i am far from susceptible or emotionally fragile. the reason i posted the article had nothing to do with the figures or his mention of beer money. i'm not one of his blog groupies, prior to reading this article i didn't even know who the guy was, and apart from a quick peruse of his blog, have not been back since.

the reason i posted the link, as per the article title and thread header, is that i found his view that "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry" refreshing. some people rant and rave about cheap photographers bringing everyone down; i liked that he pointed out that cheap photographers ultimately only bring themselves down. i realise that this is rather obvious, but the way some people go on about the issue you'd think they're destroying the entire profession.

his maths is irrelevant to his point. i've done jobs that have equalled $3/hr. i think he's just making a general comment that you work for peanuts if you're not careful, and at the end of the day it's your own fault.

[xkellie]

didn't mean that first line to sound as hostile as it came out, just wanted to defend myself.

[Redgum]

I think I @ M was referring to the original blogger, not the OP.

[xkellie]

he implied the target audience would be "overly susceptible and emotionally fragile", and i would consider myself a target audience... but maybe his "piece is open to many different interpretations".

[arthurking83]

I still think his ability to do math, and come across as coherent is vital.. not just important.

As the OP says.. I also don't know this fellow, and if he wants real respect then he has to make sense.
I have very little respect for the likes of KR also.. and not because i don't like the fellow!.. he's probably a great bloke and spends loads of beer money on his mates.. but if he talks BS, then he should be treated with that kind of respect too.

Just because his views are opposed to the general wave of thought on the state of the photography industry(and I have to say I agree with his sentiments) doesn't mean that his thoughts are something to take as sound advice or that he actually knows what he's talking about.

respect is earned the good ol fashioned way... good coherent arguments followed up by accurate proof, and then a coherent analysis.

While his final analysis may agree with your or mine(or not).. he still should at least try to make the math(or accounting practices) make sense.

In this case, I may even follow up on this chap's blogs, just to see what alternative points of view he takes... if he's anything like KR, and changes his mind mid sentence.. he may be great value just for the comic relief!

ps. can I make money as a would be controversial blogger posting whatever garbage comes into my head at any given moment... or are there restrictive governmental regulations and laws to abide by?... I only need an extra $5k/month in income

[I @ M]

Andrew, clearly his blog piece is open to many different interpretations,

Can't agree more, interpretation is the key and yes he does go to pains to point out that one must be able to identify all their costs associated with running a business and be able to work out how many dollars per hour / job to charge the line that made me interpret his article the way I did is --- " My goal was to shoot 10 bands a month at $250 each and fill in the rest of my financial needs with second shooting for Marc and and any other jobs I could gather." --- and that part made me think that he expected his band photography to line his pockets whilst "other" employment kept him financially sound.

[I @ M]

xkellie, my replies are far from targeted insults, especially towards you.

You opened the topic and it is one that has a valid place on AP in the "business of" forum and you bringing to public notice the link to Mr. Arias's article is a good thing.

Whether we like to read a blog / article written by Zack Arias, Thom Hogan, Joe McNally, Ken Rockwell or ( insert your favourite blogger here ) we are all lumped together as an audience.
The above group of names other than "your favourite" have one thing in common and that is a facility within their site to relieve you of money.
They all have a target audience marked out and continually market to that segment of their audience.
That is where my comment about susceptible came in, they are constantly working away at selling to those who are susceptible to a particular style of marketing.
Emotionally fragile audiences may not have been the best description for me to use with regard to readers of photography related sites but it was more referring to "other blog gurus" who target a particular vulnerability in people.
You obviously are not going to be the type to avidly read every article posted by ******** and then pull out the credit card to purchase their goods but plenty do.

I wonder if anyone ever does donate to Ken in order to keep his family fed.

[Longshots]

the reason i posted the link, as per the article title and thread header, is that i found his view that "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry" refreshing. some people rant and rave about cheap photographers bringing everyone down; i liked that he pointed out that cheap photographers ultimately only bring themselves down. i realise that this is rather obvious, but the way some people go on about the issue you'd think they're destroying the entire profession.

his maths is irrelevant to his point. i've done jobs that have equalled $3/hr. i think he's just making a general comment that you work for peanuts if you're not careful, and at the end of the day it's your own fault.

While I thought Andrew meant the original blogger as well; I completely agree with you about the message from the blogger. And I agree that its refreshing indeed that someone is stating what I think should be obvious "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry".


Oops quick update, as Andrew clearly was writing his reply at the same time OK so Andrew did mean the audience ? OK dont agree with you Andrew, and have to be mystified by your comment re the audience they are "constantly working away at selling to those who are susceptible to a particular style of marketing" ? I read a lot of blogs, forums, etc - and have never bought anything from them - well perhaps I went to one advert here and bought one item . My feeling is that be berating the "typical" audience who reads this type of information is a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot, because by saying this you would be hard to exclude the entire audience of AP ?

[ricktas]

And I agree that its refreshing indeed that someone is stating what I think should be obvious "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry".

Don't think there is any argument there.