Sports Accreditation and the fall of photography as a job

[farmer_rob]

You'll find getty, smp etc have a line-up of candidates 2 years long. Supply will exceed demand for as long as I'll be shooting don't worry about that

So do getty and smp etc pay decent money? Why is there a queue for them? Won't their market get undercut in the end? (Or are they relying on volume - ie, be the prime supplier of sports images, and capture 90% of a smaller - dollarwise - market?)

The other consequence is that the sports organisations will start to limit access to getty etc, because of lack of control - we have already seen that fight with the world cup in europe regarding video. Diversity at present limits the control, but if there are only 2 or 3 suppliers of sports images (for premier sports), because they are the only ones with accredited photographers, the control balance changes considerably.

Out of say 8 photographers at a soccer game say there will be one from local news, a staffer, probably one getty staffer and one shooting on spec, same from smp, and maybe a photographer hired by the home club ( but prob actually workiing for free/access), maybe someone from aap

That will put about 2000 images on the market for every game theoretically. Based on supply and demand work it though where the money is.

sorry, you've lost me here. To me, this values an individual image as close to zero,

Not many freelancers get access, to get access you need media support, media are locked into contracts and dont need you

But will the time come when media have no photographers available, because the photographers decided that they needed to feed their families (or became wedding 'togs )? I'm serious - if the trends that are being discussed continue, there won't be people working as serious sports photographers, because they won't be able to afford to.

(BTW, I see the trends as similar for all photography, but sports is an interesting niche because there is a very different market to, say, weddings or advertising or corporate work; and through accreditation, notable barriers to entry.)

[jjphoto]

...
At some point in the future, if the trends above continue (and I have no reason to doubt this), photographers will be paid (even more?) of a pittance for their sports photographs - and won't bother except for fun. Look at Kiwi's statement above. Who will the organisations accredit? What criteria will they use? (Because the ones that fit today won't fit in the future.)...

It's very very simple. Accreditiation is given to individuals who will profit the organisers by their attendance and coverage. If you work for any media outlet that the organiser thinks will help to promote their event then you are a good candidate for accreditation. It's exceedingly easy to get a media pass to some events and almost impossible for others, such as F1, but the principal is always the same. Even when it's because of a contractual arrangement to have a single source for the event, it's still to the organisers benefit otherwise it wouldn't be the case. This will never change because it will always be about profiting the organisers cause. It's the same regardless of the scale, be it a local dance recital, V8 supercars or F1.

JJ

[kiwi]

The point is that yes an individual photo sale is now almost zero, you therefore need to sell that photo to lots of media to make money, to achieve that you need lots of subscribers, ie an agency

Individual mags will still pay a rate to a photographer shooting exclusively for them, but that gigs getting harder, lot cheaper to get stock off Getty etc

IMHO

[jjphoto]

...
But will the time come when media have no photographers available, because the photographers decided that they needed to feed their families (or became wedding 'togs )? I'm serious - if the trends that are being discussed continue, there won't be people working as serious sports photographers, because they won't be able to afford to.

...

How? When there will always be people willing to do it for next to nothing anyway. Some people get a kick out of seeing their stuff in print or a credit. It doesn't pay bills but lots of people will do it for that alone, until the excitement wares off. How is that any different to what's happening today?

JJ

[farmer_rob]

...
"Can't wait till organizers-promoters start charging for the privilege of shooting their events"

whether you like it or not that will probably happen at some point in the future...

Depends - if you can't make money selling pictures from the event, why bother shooting it? And if you don't shoot it, they don't get publicity. Those that over-restrict access either don't need photography as part of their promotion, or are wrong - and will lose relevance because they lose exposure.

If, instead, they are employing their own photographers, a different set of issues arise - clearly, they are either paying someone a living wage to work as a photographer, or they will go through a succession of photographers and end up damaging their brand image because only lesser quality photographers will work for them.

Photography is part of the brand image of events (sporting or otherwise), and poorly done results in poor brand.

[farmer_rob]

How? When there will always be people willing to do it for next to nothing anyway. Some people get a kick out of seeing their stuff in print or a credit. It doesn't pay bills but lots of people will do it for that alone, until the excitement wares off. How is that any different to what's happening today?

JJ

No different, except in consistent quality - and that will drop. However, I reckon there are a lot more willing to do it for free/picture credit than those who want to do it professionally - how do you choose which photographers to represent your sporting brand? It's straightforward now, but will it be in the future?

JJ, you also wrote:

It's very very simple. Accreditiation is given to individuals who will profit the organisers by their attendance and coverage. If you work for any media outlet that the organiser thinks will help to promote their event then you are a good candidate for accreditation. It's exceedingly easy to get a media pass to some events and almost impossible for others, such as F1, but the principal is always the same. Even when it's because of a contractual arrangement to have a single source for the event, it's still to the organisers benefit otherwise it wouldn't be the case. This will never change because it will always be about profiting the organisers cause. It's the same regardless of the scale, be it a local dance recital, V8 supercars or F1.

I agree with one proviso - "if you work for a media organisation" - it seems that in the future this will be far less likely.

Actually, based on all your comments, I'm probably too far out on a limb here, and am defending a prediction that those of you in the real world don't seem to see as realistic. So, I suppose all I can really say is thank you for your thoughts and comments .

(BTW Kiwi, re lens price - revise my depreciation to 20% per year, for at least the first 2 years. The same principle still applies though)

[jeffde]

[QUOTE=farmer_rob;746089]My point was not so much the issues of earning a living (and obviously it is hard) but how will sporting organisations choose who to accredit, when there are no media organisations effectively employing photographers (either salaried, paying for their images or commissioned.)

For the Bathurst 12 Hour if you have been accredited as a photographer 1 year - in applying the next year you have to prove that you had photos published (in print not interent) to get accreditation the next year. No proof - no 2nd chance - I have been lucky enough to organise that and have accriditation 3 years in a row.
There were lots of guys in 2008 - that weren't there again in 2009.
Do it for money no - i have made less than $200 over 2 years and 5 days work -but was it fun YES - did it help with me getting paid by News Ltd for the Bathurst 1000 = YES - will i do it again next year - YES , Was it great experience - YES

I agree though there are more and more people for less and less positions.