The Online Photographer

The whole discussion of making photography into a true profession like law or nursing might be missing the obvious solution. I think what's needed is simply an Angie's-List-style clearinghouse for reviews and ratings. I've approached Angie's List with the idea but they were not interested.

This would only be for photographers doing business with the public. Professional buyers have their own means of vetting if they themselves are professional. Experienced repeat buyers doing business-as-usual aren't really the problem; the problem is matching up expectations on both the buyer and seller sides in transactions between photographers and people (the public) who only seldomly buy photography, and don't know what it costs, don't know how to choose a provider, and don't know about the potential pitfalls including scams or the cost of incompetence or failure on the part of the photographer.

Such a clearinghouse could provide a wealth of detail about photographers for consumers, but it could also easily serve to educate consumers about what's possible and what various things ought to cost. When I researched this years ago, it wasn't just customers who had problems with bad photographers; it was also photographers who had problems with bad customers.

My idea would be to establish tiers for various levels of cost/professionalism, and create standards for what services each tier provides for the cost range and how much experience they need to bring to the job.

This might also eventually serve to guide practitioners as to what's expected of them in order to move up in the market. (For example, maybe one capability offered by the top tier might be a willingness and ability to travel internationally; an individual practitioner might not have considered such a service, but if it were part of moving up to the highest tier, then he or she might then consider it.)

Weddings are not as small a thing as many people here seem to think they are. For many people, a big wedding is a big deal—one of the top five or ten most expensive things they'll ever buy in their lives. Some weddings can be more expensive than a new car or any single vacation. And the circumstances for most people are not replicable; when you have dozens or hundreds of friends and loved ones coming from all points of the compass for the big day, there is no possibility of a re-shoot if you choose the wrong photographer or the photographer has a breakdown and can't provide what was promised.

I could do a cracking good job of setting up such a service from the conceptual and leadership side, but I lack the software know-how to implement it and the business skills to market it and keep it healthy. If I were young right now, instead of looking at retirement age hull-down on the horizon and headed my way, I would find two partners and go into business. We would revolutionize the wedding and portrait photography business and make modest fortunes, I'm almost certain. (Ah, another road not taken. There sure are a lot of those at my age.)

Someday, somebody will do this, and make it work, and make a lot of money. I hope they do it right for all concerned.

Mike

[UPDATE: Some of the early comments are still railing against "certification" programs. Evidently I didn't make it clear that I'm suggesting this instead of any professional licensing or certification, making the latter unnecessary. Sorry for the lack of clarity. —MJ]

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Speed: "Mike wrote, 'I've approached Angie's List with the idea but they were not interested.' Apparently they've since become interested." 

Mike replies: Hmm. Apologies for the mild paranoia and possible hubris, but this has happened to me rather a lot—I pitch an idea to a company, they say no thank you, then some time afterwards they implement that very idea. My past experience predicts that if I went to the company and said, hey, this was my idea, they would a) claim never to have heard of me, b) claim to not have any record of my proposal (even when I supply copies), and c) reply that it was total coincidence that they happen to be doing just what I proposed. Which I suppose could be true, but probably not every single time this happens. I once pitched three separate ideas to a company, and they claimed no interest, yet by the end of 14 months they had implemented all three ideas, in different areas of their product lines. Seems a bit much to believe that that was mere coincidence.

On the other hand, my ideas were responsible for several photographic products, including a camera variant, and none of them turned out to be moneymakers.

The lesson seems clear—I should stop doing that kind of thing!

Wes: "No one will ever convince me weddings aren't a big deal. I worked as a photographer for a number of years and refused to shoot any weddings; even for friends and family. Messing up a wedding isn't the same as messing up a commercial shoot. Most of the latter could be redone. I knew I couldn't handle the pressure of weddings so I never shot one. Secondly: I was married six years ago and we spent a significant sum on photography and video. My mother-in-law was dying of cancer and we knew we had to hire someone with years of experience with weddings because we only had one chance. And it was money well spent. She died four months later and those images and videos are our most prized possessions. I know not everyone feels they way we do about our wedding photos. And that's a shame."

Tom Kwas replies to Wes: "Weddings are certainly a big deal for the participants, especially as it's a once in a lifetime event (hopefully) that you want to capture for posterity. It takes the ability to deliver photographs of a fairly creative nature, under an ever-changing set of 'inputs'...

"BUT...

"Let's not claim that it can be more disastrous than a commercial or advertising shoot. Photographing for a client last minute, mostly due to their malfeasance, with no chance for re-shoots, to fit a $50,000–$75,000 ad 'hole' that's being held open in a high-end magazine, while you're out of pocket thousands for premium stylists, techs, etc. is just a whole other 'thing.' If you blow the photography at a wedding, your client's still alive, and they still got married, although they might have had a $20,000 wedding with no successful pictures. If you blow a last minute high-end advertising photo shoot, your client is going to be out that $50–75k for a magazine running a white space (for which your client will never use you again and badmouth you to more premium clients), and you're going to be out thousands for freelance personnel that you're never going to get paid to reimburse!

"I was working for a wedding place in high-school and college, and I realized fairly shortly into the process that I was never going to get into that end of the business, but it was because I realized I had an amateur for a client, not because I didn't think I could do it or it had a high level of stress. What you realize is that you've spent your beginning career studying beautiful photography, and 90% of the time, you now have a client you're trying to please who wouldn't know a good pic if it bit them! Now that is a formula for failure!"

Mike adds: Yeah, how many times have you heard someone say they want to 'fire the client'?

Patrick Perez: "When we got married last year my fiance put me in charge of selecting the photographer. We considered several and settled on our choice. We budgeted 20% of our total wedding budget for the photographer (but no photographs) and I felt a bit bad when we were negotiating because as I explained to him, it wasn't that I considered his pricing too high, recognizing that talent and experience merit what in hourly labor terms is lots of money; but we only had a set amount to spend. We ended up getting the price point of one 'package,' but with two extra hours. I firmly believe the fact that we were appreciative of his rate schedule being appropriate, and the fact that it was a Friday wedding, leaving him available for Saturday and Sunday weddings, helped us negotiate.

"We just celebrated our first anniversary two days ago, and I gave my wife the wedding album we couldn't afford last year. $500, and it looks great. I regret nothing!

"I can't recommend Gabriel Van Whye highly enough. He had the experience we lacked, and frankly was as key as our wedding coordinator in making the day a success. He's done more weddings than the coordinator, so that only makes sense."

Two excellent comments arrived in response to Friday's "Two Links" post. Although they reach different conclusions, both are drawn from direct involvement:

From Darlene Almeda: "The commercial photography profession is in desperate need of a certification process much like other vocations. I have known this for decades and, in my opinion, the ease of digital erasing some of the technical necessities film had has only made this clearer.

"Recently I had a new-to-the-neighborhood neighbor approach me about my employment as a full time commercial photography instructor at a local vocational-tech school (post secondary). He said he did not think it was necessary to teach photography anymore since most everybody can do it with digital these days.

"I paused and smiled and asked him if he thought he could do it? He said he thought so. I asked him if he could photograph a six-hour wedding on Saturday and have the images ready for delivery on Wednesday. He stared intently and said he thought so....

"I said okay, let's talk about the wedding since I shot them for years and they are part of what I teach. This is a typical wedding and requires special event lighting, classic portrait lighting, multiple setups and backups, fashion quality formals (advertising usage in local magazine has been pre-planned), wedding directing experience, and a storybook approach to coverage.

"You developed the photography schedule, printed it and met with the bride-to-be a week before the wedding at the various locations to discuss what she should expect for her pictures and how the event will unfold.

"You have expert level Photoshop certification (not the high school level certification) and as soon as Adobe gets Lightroom CC to an expert level, you will pay to sit for that exam as well.

"Your Professional Photographers of America Certification (CPP) hangs in your sitting room and it took you five years to finally achieve it. Some of your art photography work is hanging in City Hall after the mayor's team has selected it for their conference room this year and you are waiting for a print that will hang at the airport for even more local coverage of your photographic artistry (lucky to have been chosen). You must advertise your work through as many art and business-related venues as possible so that your base price of $2,500 per wedding is well known, accepted, and will eventually become part of the wedding/special event carriage trade fabric in the area. Is your work good enough for this, I ask?

"After the Saturday wedding you are exhausted, but come Monday you have to start to work on the 600+ images, complete your sales tax for the month, process print orders, catch up on your Quick Books, and meet with a prospective client for a special event planned many months in the future after their workday is done.

"Now it is Tuesday and you have to get back to the 600+ images you must deliver finished tomorrow. But you have appointments, shipments, and more business to do. Looks like you'll be calling in for one of your part time assistants to see if they can help with the post-processing. After all, you know your clients are the reason your business continues to grow, so Wednesday is delivery day.

"You have two weddings this coming weekend and a couple of portrait sittings before then. Gear needs to be shipped out for repair and Fuji has a fire sale!

"My neighbor has embarrassed himself, but I assure him it is okay. (Just do not ask me to take pictures!)

"I love my job. I had four graduates in May (many do not complete the program). Derek got employed as a commercial photographer for an eCommerce company three weeks after graduation. BJ recently got hired as a part time portrait photographer for a studio business; Jamie's studio business began growing a year before graduation (two year program) and Tatyana works part time for herself as a portrait and food photographer while raising her children and helping her husband build his construction business.

"Believe me, there is a profession in photography if: you understand the business and run it as such; are consistently good in the technical and aesthetics of the profession; are people-oriented; and work very hard because your passion guides you.

"Now if the G-men would get the facts straight and turn photography into a reputable profession worthy of certification, it would benefit all involved.

"I have stepped off my soapbox. Thank you."

And...

From s.wolters: "The financial crisis of 2008 also turned the world of visual communication into a slaughterhouse. The change of media from print to digital did the rest.

"I was lucky and sold my design business in time, but so many colleagues, photographers and illustrators et cetera that I worked with lost their work and had to start a different kind of business. But it’s not all sadness. I still have contact with three photographers I loved to work with.

"Photographer 1 once had an enormous photo studio. Large enough to store a lorry and he always had tons of advanced equipment. I used to hire him for technical work. He sold everything and now uses one camera for everything and does his post processing with his laptop at the kitchen table. He changed from commercial studio work to documentary, mainly for cultural clients. By working hard without having to pay assistants, and with overhead costs that are next to nothing, he still makes a good living. And he is much happier now.

"Photographer 2 always worked exclusively with 4x5 film. She excels at portraits. Sells her few long-lasting projects to galleries and international magazines.
She survived because instead of working local she now operates worldwide.

"Photographer 3 was the one I used to ask for difficult concepts. Annual reports mainly. He says that nowadays there are no such fat assignments anymore. He was lucky with one project that made him so famous that he sells his independent art photography all over the world now and he’s earning more than ever before.

"Don't believe that anyone who buys a DSLR can become a professional photographer, just as it is nonsense that anyone who learns desktop publishing will be a good designer. Free professions all right, but that does not make everyone professional. Malcolm Gladwell is probably right. To become good at something one needs talent and at least 10.000 hours of practice. That’s what schools are for. Giving people time to develop and stopping the ones without enough talent. It’s not about certificates, it’s about what you create. It’s much easier to find a good photographer or graphic designer than a good lawyer, doctor or cab driver."

When it comes to business, it's usually best to hear directly from people who have real-world experience. Thanks to Darr and s.wolters.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jayson Merryfield: "I'm going to buck the general trend here and mention my own thoughts as a part-time wedding and portrait photographer—the wedding situation that Darlene outlines above is (in my experience) an outlier. One that certainly does require a professional photographer of her caliber, but an outlier all the same, and I believe it to be an intentionally hyperbolic example of what a wedding photography client would demand and/or expect from a photographer.

"I don't know of any professional wedding photographers (local to myself anyways) who regularly turn around their wedding images in four days, and have never encountered a client who balked at my rough guideline of six weeks to deliver a client's images. That does not mean that these clients do not exist, but rather that they are far from the normal wedding client. I admit, my name does not circulate through the upper echelons of photography...but the majority of people who are getting married don't shop in that market either.

"Does enforced scarcity of photographers through a certification process ensure that all people wanting photographic services can obtain them at price points that are feasible and realistic? I meet with many young couples who are in love, wanting to be married, and who are struggling with the costs of getting married, and only want at the end of the day some good-looking pictures that are sufficiently professional looking, taken by someone who has a clue what they are doing. They don't need (and certainly can't afford) the uber-professional that Darlene has outlined above. And so, they contract themselves with less experience, less equipment, a smaller client roster, and longer delivery timelines, and with that accept the risks of paying less and potentially getting significantly less.

"I guess my overarching point being that, like the cameras that people use, the photography that the less-than-trained photographers Darlene describes has reached the point of sufficiency for a large part of the wedding market, for better or for worse.

"It's also worth mentioning that licensing laws and onerous certification processes aren't generally aimed at protecting clients from poor service providers, but more often work to protect existing service providers from competition, and that protectionist stance proportionately harms younger workers trying to get into a market."

John Robison: "I like dinking around with cameras but realized early on that going professional was way too much work. Reading Kirk Tuck's Visual Science Lab has reminded me just how much work. I think a large measure of his success is that he really does like his clients and gets to know them on a personal level; it's not just a show to get their business. Sure, he has the technical chops and art talent, but it is his basic personality that keeps his business going strong."

Steve D: "I'm conflicted on the certification theme.

"My profession is in high level three dimensional CADD (Computer Aided Drafting and Design)in Civil Engineering and BIM (building information management) fields.  GIS [geographic information systems? Steve didn't define this one. —Ed.] is merging heavily with CAD and is a profession all it's own, but it's fantastic to know both. After 35 years I've done a lot of hiring and (with a few notable GIS-related exceptions) I don't put a lot of weight on certifications.

"If you've made it to the interview with me, the 'fundamentals' have been filtered through by HR (background checks, etc). I am not a tough interview. Sure I have expectations that are probably considered old fashioned by today's standards, like decent attire for the interview...and being a little early is always nice. Once settled in I probably come off  as almost slow-pitch softball, but the truth is I'm really looking hard (I think of it as mining) for two qualities that are very hard to fake: real enthusiasm for the craft (do they think what they want to do is really cool or just a good-paying job...both are fine but the former is critical) and, most importantly, does their interest make them hungry to learn more, learn quickly, get their hands on the bigger more interesting projects, equipment etc.? And someday do they hope have my job?

"Honestly, and as hard as the industry keeps trying, I'm yet to see a certificate that can even hint at that."

Adrian Malloch: "These sort of discussions can best be cut down to size by using the 'Is it necessary or is it sufficient' argument. For example; a camera is necessary to be professional photographer, but not sufficient. Talent is necessary, but not sufficient. And so on with business acumen, marketing nous, curiosity, organisational skills, technical expertise, willingness to take creative risks, accounting skills, personal skills, and so forth. A certification process ought to be a necessary requirement, but by itself it is clearly not sufficient."

Just a brief idle question. Last Friday I posted a link to "Frecklehead Goes Global," a post by English professional Chris Floyd about a personal iPhone snapshot of his, originally posted on Instagram, that was chosen by Apple's advertising agency for use in Apple's global "World Gallery" campaign, "which shows work by 41 photographers across 85 cities in 26 countries." He didn't mention if he'd been paid anything for the usage, but the general assumption seems to be that he wasn't. Probably because pros know that Apple's agency didn't need to pay for the work, and ad agencies don't tend to pay for things unless they have to. There's supply and demand to consider—the agency was looking for iPhone snaps on Instagram, so it's unlikely they were hard up for choices.

Now, I'm not judging, so don't kill me. It's a campaign using mostly amateur work, and amateurs aren't in business to be paid. Still, Chris happens to be a pro. Even so, he was clearly excited and delighted by the attention the photo received. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he and the other 40 photographers weren't paid. (Other than being covered in glory and honor...sort of the ultimate instance of the old adage "you'll get good exposure from it" much dreaded by exploited "creatives" in many fields.)

So I'm just asking—if you're a professional now or have been in the past, how would you feel about that if it were you? On the one hand, it was a personal snapshot, and yes, it's fun and gratifying to have something you did seen on such a scale. 

On the other hand, your picture is being used in a global advertising campaign by one of the richest corporations in the history of the world—in a straight-up professional rights contract, that would easily be worth tens of thousands of dollars. Which Apple can certainly afford.

How do those scales balance in your head?

Reason I ask is that when I was a pro—basically from '88 to '93—I did a lot of little jobs, some of which were almost more work than they were worth, but occasionally I would score a bigger, fatter job, and those occasional "scores" more or less kept me afloat. (Although, after the still-mystifying market downturn of '91—sort of the 1929 of professional photography—those good, "rich" jobs suddenly got fewer and further between).

Again, I'm not judging. There's no controversy here and I'm not trying to manufacture one. It's a hypothetical question—I don't even know the facts. And let's not speculate about Chris per se...he posted his thoughts and he's clearly happy about the whole thing, and he doesn't owe us any insider information about his compensation or lack of it. It's just that this seems like a sort of "signature case," an extreme version of an old, old issue that photographers have been bedeviled by literally since the 1800s...rights and payment, remuneration vs. intangibles, benefit vs. exploitation.

Just curious about how you'd feel about it if it were you.

Mike

UPDATE: It appears Apple did pay for usage rights, but participants were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) regarding the particulars. This might have been because the professionals negotiated better payment than the amateurs and the agency didn't want the amateurs to know about it? (Again I'm speculating. I should stop that. But it's always troublesome when there are disparities like that.) Several commenters had more about this. —Ed.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jim Bullard: "I'd want to be paid. Just because something is 'personal work' or a snapshot doesn't lessen its value to a worldwide ad program for a huge corporation. They are, in effect, making money off my work through the sales it generates and I'd want a cut. That's just fair. If I found a new iPhone in its packaging on the street that a delivery guy dropped, they'd want it back or to be paid for it. Why is my photo that they found on the web any different?"

Thomas Fitzgerald: "Apple does pay for those images. The terms are under NDA which is why anyone who was in the programme can't talk about it, although some did. (I was in the first round last year). Apple was in no way taking advantage." 

Jim Richardson: "I wasn't involved in Apple's World Gallery campaign, but I was involved with Apple when they used one of my iPhone pictures (from Scotland) during the launch event of the iPhone 6. Apple paid for use of the image. The rate my agency (National Geographic Creative) negotiated was appropriate for that kind of usage. We were happy with the transaction. In the case you are talking about for Apple's World Gallery my own opinion is that of course they should pay. It's an advertising usage, multiple countries, prime display, highly valuable to Apple.

"Usage rates should always be determined by the value of the picture to the client, not the value to the photographer."

Arthur: "There's never a bad time to remind people of the classic Harlan Ellison interview on the subject of 'publicity' vs 'pay.'"

Mike replies: Yes, everybody should see that at least once. I've posted that video on TOP...and eventually decided that, given the subject, I should pay Harlan for it. I did, and I got a great reply from him. Here's the post.

David Paterson: "Speaking as a retired professional photographer lucky enough to have enjoyed a 35-year career, I doubt if there was a single year during which I was not asked several times to work for nothing, or next to nothing. The question always came from some ad agency and instead of cash there would be—as you say—'good coverage' or 'prestige,' or they might say they regard this client as a 'charity.' The calculation you had to make was not 'can the client really afford my fees' (they always can), but 'how much do I value my relationship with this art buyer or art director' (who is doing the asking). If I thought there was the potential for good, proper, paid-for work I would go along with it once, but if the same outfit tried the same play again, I would reluctantly turn down this 'opportunity.'

"The problems of obtaining payment in the modern Internet age come down mainly to supply and demand. There are billions of images out there available for free; this echelon of photography has effectively been de-monetised and all photography has been de-valued; why would any corporation pay for something they can get for nothing? Right and wrong no longer come into this; we're beyond that; it's just how things are."

Lorne Black: "According to this year-old article at Cult of Mac the photographers are paid, but sign a non-disclosure about the terms. Dunno it the same is true for this year's ad campaign."

Warren: "As you mention, 'you'll get good exposure from it' is a manipulative abuse heard in many artistic fields. As a musician who has heard this and seen it, this sort of thing makes my blood boil. Anyone who allows their work to be exploited this way does their profession serious harm, victimizing themselves and their peers. Businesses which seek to use this strategy deserve contempt and scorn. While I strive to avoid rudeness or hostility I am always blunt about rejecting such offers. I am also not shy about expressing my thoughts to colleagues who perform for hypothetical incentives in lieu of real compensation."

Richard Parkin: "Don't you think it's interesting that out of the zillions of images on Instagram they picked one by a professional photographer? I don't know how many images they are using in the campaign or whether any/all are by professionals but it tends to show that maybe the camera is not so important.  ;-) "

Jake: "I'm certainly happy that I decided against photography as a profession when that option existed many decades ago but as a happy snapper today, I'd be more than pleased if Apple would use a photo I'd made with one of their iPhones. That is, if I had an iPhone."

Richard N: "Chris Floyd isn't stupid. Of course he got paid."

cameraman: "You can't eat a blue ribbon."

Bob Rosinsky: "Back in the day when I was getting commissions to photograph dogs, the Museum of Modern Art gift shop contacted me. A buyer asked if MoMA could reproduce my dog photos to insert in their new line of picture frames—the kind used for family photos, vacation snapshots, etc. I asked how many different images they wanted to use. The lady listed five or six different pictures. She added that MoMA would be marketing the frames in its catalog, so my pictures would be seen there too. I quoted $500 per photo—a reasonable price. She said they had no budget, but they would give me photo credits, and I'd be getting a lot of exposure.

"I asked if in lieu of payment, MoMA would loan me a few paintings from their collection to decorate my living room. I explained I would paste a card next to each artwork: On loan from MoMA, NYC. I explained it would be good exposure for the museum—a lot of people in central Florida are not aware of MoMA.

"She said 'forget it.' I told her, 'you're passing up a great opportunity for free exposure.'"  

Tim Swan (partial comment): "In my experience as both a designer and a photographer, ad agencies and large companies are the most likely people to not use art without payment or clearly negotiated compensation. They fear copyright lawsuits, and—especially designers—know what it's like for people to want free work in exchange for the exposure."

I said two days ago that if I won the lottery I'd buy three cameras, and several people asked, "which three?"

Okay, here's what I'd really do if I suddenly had truly excessive amounts of money:

I'd start a camera company.

I don't know how much it costs to develop a digital camera model, but I remember hearing in the '90s that a new premium model of camera cost $10–20 million to develop. If those amounts of money were trivial to me, I'd just pay existing companies to develop cameras to my specification and according to my ideas. Then I'd play Steve Jobs and say "yea" or "nay" to what their designers and engineers came up with, and we'd keep working on it until they got it right. Then I'd fund a marketing group to market the products I paid to have created.

Several of my company's products would not cost nearly as much as $10 million to develop.

My company's cameras would not be cutting edge. They would not be calculated primarily to inspire sales. They'd be designed to be used...by photographers, to make the kind of work I tend to care about; and to be fun, since that's what cameras primarily mean to me. (Cameras, that is, as distinct from photography.)

They wouldn't be very much like anything that exists now. Certain of my plans would be considered, shall we say, quirky. And iconoclastic. And not very closely related to current trends.

I've carried my three main ideas in my head with me for many years. As to whether they would sell...no idea. But I guarantee you, you could, and you probably would, have a whole lot of fun with what I would come up with.

So that's my lottery daydream, comma, camera department.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Michael Perini: "Ok, fun daydream, what happened to 'I'd never want to win more than 4 mil, maybe 6'? Now you've in 'if 20 mil were trivial' territory. What percent of our net worth do we consider trivial enough to blow on an idea that may or may not be successful? 1% ? 5%, 10%...? You might need the whole 1.3 billion. That was fast.  ;-) "

Mike replies: You caught me being inconsistent. Okay, if I were to get my 4 million-after-the-dust-settles desire, what I'd do would be to buy SEVEN Fuji lenses, and three different bodies (all the styles—one compact, the SLR-style X-T1, and the rangefinder-style X-pro[x]) and then keep updating the bodies as new ones appeared. I could actually theoretically do that today, without winning anything, but it just seems too indulgent. Sybaritic, even!

It oughta be axiomatic: "Personally, when I give my services away, which ain't often, I assume I'll never see a dollar from that client, ever." (Josh Hawkins)

I think photographers should use the Hawkins Axiom as a rejoinder whenever anyone asks them to work for free in return for "exposure."

Nonclient: "Well, we can't pay for this work but it will be good exposure for you, and we'll consider you for paid work in the future."

Photographer: "Actually, it's well known in photography that the opposite happens. The only exposure you get from free work is a reputation for working for free, and, if you work for free, most often you'll never, ever get a paid job from that client. So it's considered unwise to work for free for people you respect and want as clients. The idea even has a name—it's called the Hawkins Axiom."

Would that work? Try it sometime?

Probably won't catch on. The takeaway, though: If you want to get paid work from a client, better not work for that client for free.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Mike Cytrynowicz: "Hawkins Axiom sounds good. Like Murphy's Law, etc. Photographer: 'The well-known Hawkins Axiom tells me that if you can't pay for this work, I shouldn't work for this pay.'"

Yvonne: "Perfect, and it could catch on if it spreads around enough. Well said, Josh Hawkins!"

Ed Hawco: "It needs to be catchier in order to catch on as an axiom. How about: The only exposure you get from working for free is exposure as someone who works for free."

Nick D: "The other strange thing I've noticed about clients is that those who want to spend the least are always the most demanding. Clients who have spent decent amounts of money are nearly always really relaxed about the outcomes too. Go figure. My designer colleagues seem to have similar experiences too."

Mike replies: Same with magazine advertisers. A big company that comes in with six full pages won't give you any trouble at all, but the the guy who's bought a $60 classified ad has all sorts of demands and will need lots of handholding.

Sietse Wolters: "In the thirty years that I have been working as a designer I always used three criteria:

1. You have to like the client
2. You have to earn money
3. You have to make good work.

"When you score only two out of three it is still worth doing the job. If you have a pleasant relationship with your client and it pays well, but the results are a bit disappointing, that’s not too bad. If you like the client and you can make great work and you don’t lose money on it, that’s fine. If the client is an asshole, but he pays well and the work is topnotch, that’s okay. But when you score only one out of three don’t do it. Of course starters have to fill their portfolio. And there are always moments when there is not enough work and you have to feed your family (and those of your employees) so you have to grab all the work you can get. But in the end only a nice relationship, only money or only good artwork is not enough if you want to operate professionally."

Mike replies: That's great—very smart. Good advice. Thanks Sietse.

bruce alan greene: "I'm in motion pictures, but it has always been the same situation in this industry: So many desperate hopefuls, that there are many opportunities to work for little or free. And I've had good and bad experiences working for little or nothing. I'll share just one.

"A producer at one of the major media companies was doing a personal project, a short film. There was some small chance that the personal project would lead to a professional project in the future, but that rarely happens.

"But, being an honorable producer, she offered to pay me a small amount. I turned it down and offered to donate my time and even donated $200,000 worth of equipment to the cause. And spent two enjoyable but hard-working weeks on the project.

"The project was completed, but never went anywhere. I have not worked with this producer since (it's been almost a decade now), even on projects for her studio employer.

"But, I am still friends with the producer and we keep in touch.

"CUT TO: three years ago. My daughter graduated from college with a degree in literature. She had no job skills, and no idea what to do. And then, the producer in this story asked me if my daughter might like to see what they do at the studio. Take a little tour. My daughter said 'okay,' not sure what to make of it.

"Two months later my daughter had turned that connection into a job as the lowest production assistant, but she was in. Two years later, she has used that position to get a job as a writer producer at the same company. To my family, this 'freebie' has been one of the best money making investments ever! (of course, all that writing practice in college hasn't hurt her:)

"And the lesson: Don't work cheap or free on a 'for profit' project, and rather than show that you are desperate to work 'cheap,' offer to donate your professional skills at no charge. Show that you are so successful, that you don't need the money.

"For all others, use the Hawkins Axiom."

A few more thoughts about working for free. One thing I'm interested in discussing is how badly it works. Tom Kwas notes that he's done work at deep discount for start-ups that promised him paid work later, once they "get their ducks in a row," only to have the same companies hire ad agencies later which then gave the work to their own suppliers. Several others pointed out much the same thing, saying that freebies done for "exposure" only result in more requests for freebies in the future.

Nick D observed that "gratitude or goodwill cannot be assumed," and that's a big problem in my view—half the time when you do people a favor, it results in them being dissatisfied with you in some way, usually because you're not doing more for them than you did!

A few times when I did portraits as a favor, I'll supply one good print of my choosing, and sometimes the recipients are dissatisfied because they didn't get proofs to make their own choices from. I'll explain that that's what I do for paying customers, and that makes them feel like I've somehow given them less than my best. Once, I had a portrait subject absolutely love the portrait I gave her but still wanted to see "all the outtakes," and she got upset when I wouldn't show them to her!

I had another customer who also loved the work I did, but very strongly felt that the price was too high. So I gave him 50% off the bill. And my reward was that he still thought the price was too high.

Another time, I had a customer refuse to pay, but refuse to return the work as well, because he liked it so much. His argument? That I couldn't possibly have any other use for pictures of his family, so I might as well let him keep the prints! I had to show up at his house demanding that the work be returned before he very grudgingly paid me half my bill.

There's that problem: you can't assume goodwill in response to an accommodation. Doing work for free is just as likely to disqualify you for future jobs as it is likely to qualify you for them. And, ironically, charging too little is often just an encouragement for people to think that you charge too much.

I've done what Brad B suggests. He writes, "Yes, there is a problem with peoples' perceptions of the value of things they get for free. One idea I've heard, but never used, it to always sent an invoice, even if your are not charging. List the price you would have charged and then list a discount for the same amount whether it be a 'friend discount' or 'family discount.' This way there is a zero balance, but they can see what they would have been charged, had they not gotten it for free. I'm wondering if there are other TOP readers who have done this." This has worked well for me when giving discounts and doing work for reduced prices. No one objects to paying $75 for materials when I present an invoice that says the price is $750, minus a friendly discount of 90%.

Here's another wrinkle: some photographers won't work for the public. That means no portraits, no weddings. The reason? They want to work for professional buyers who understand how much original photography costs and who have budgets to work with. Many misunderstandings come from working with people who don't know the rules of the game. Some photographers just don't want the hassle.

And (as an aside) that leads me to a little tip. Here's one way to make a million dollars in photography: start an "Angie's List"-style referral, rating, and mediation service for wedding photographers and clients. In my experience, the biggest problem that photographers have with the public is the same as the biggest problem that the public has with photographers. Namely, weddings—misunderstandings, mismatches, and frustrated expectations between wedding photographers and their clients—going both ways. A service that allowed agglomerated independent feedback, that set standards for expectations, and that helped mediate difficulties on both sides would be a boon to all concerned.

There's a real need for this. If some computer-savvy company wants help setting such a thing up, I know exactly how it should should be organized. I'd be happy to consult for a fee. Just please don't ask me to do it for free, or for half price, or in return for the promise of future work.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Malcolm Leader: "As a non-professional photographer I only sell prints when someone falls in love with a shot. I only charge costs plus a bit for my time. Even then, I would rather give away a print free as a gift to good friends. This is what happens most of the time. I can afford it and, this is important, it makes me feel good!

"In my profession as a registered Professional Engineer, I am required to charge my published rates. Discounts and the like are against the law and I could be fined and/or have my license revoked. This is one of the checks to assure quality engineering work is performed and the public is not endangered. Not a bit like photography, I admit!"

Joe Boris: "Count me as one of those photographers who has 'never worked for the public,' until very recently. After 30 years of shooting for ad agencies (or corporations directly), I'm now using an online referral service to market my photographic services directly to the public. After agonizing over which and how many 'perfect' images to post on their site page (just as I have in my advertising portfolio for years), I'm finding that even when my price quote falls within a prospective client's image needs and intended budget for their shoot, half of the time that client looks only at my quote, and never clicks through using the direct link to view my posted work. So fully half of these people requesting a photographer are shopping price alone, after I've paid (a small fee) for the privilege of submitting a quote to them. It bothered me at first, but now I'm just happy not to be creating images for those who are unable to appreciate the difference between cost and quality. 'Free' would be akin to the seventh gate of Hell."

Dave in NM: "The perceived value of professional services is a contentious issue in every field. There have been occasions when my services as an architectural designer have been considered by builders to be a necessary evil, rather than a valuable contribution, necessary to the successful completion of a project. It's a pleasure when I have the opportunity to work with an experienced or an appreciative client that understands what I'm bringing to the process. C'est la vie. You move on, and try to work with and for people who understand."

Steve Caddy: "I echo the 'working for the public' sentiment. Although I'm not a professional photographer, I was a professional designer for well over a decade and have seen the same pattern play out in software development as well as in various kinds of consulting.

"The big end of town not only appreciates the job to the point that they're have the budget and desire to value the work in terms of its effect (when effect is important), but they appreciate that a lot of the value in great professionals is that they don't need to be directed and managed, and that that reliability and consistency has its own inherent savings—both in cash and opportunity. Not only do professional organisations have the budget, they don't have the nit-pickery. They trust you do the job (the set-up, selection, direction, editing). It's part of why they hire you. More money, less hassle, and—if you do the job well—recurring bookings.

"Private individuals and small businesses don't have that mindset or understanding. They bring their personal perceptions of value to it, not their professional ones.

"The caveat is that this value is always going to be weighed against the market rate. We commissioned a reasonably large piece of work a year or two ago, enough to book one or two photographers out for a couple of months, but time pressure meant we needed to move quickly.

"We had three great photographers, who I would have loved to hire, submit quotes that were more in the realm of advertising or feature editorial rates. Close to day rates multiplied by weeks.

"Our budget was realistic, but didn't cater for that, and we only had time to interview serious people who wanted the work and could turn it around. In all three cases, the guys I would have loved to have hired called back weeks later—'I've been thinking about your project and would love to be involved. If my initial quote wasn't palatable I'd be happy to have a conversation about how I could work to your budget; it's an interesting project after all and I'd love to be involved. If you're still interested, lets have lunch in the next couple of weeks to discuss. Looking forward to hearing from you.'

"By that time we were already in production. I was used to seeing that pace of work from my book-publishing days, where product cycles were months or years long, and I was so annoyed! I was annoyed because we could have had better work. But I was more annoyed, because better people, who wanted the work, could have been given the work had they not seen us as a cash cow, had they been aware of the scope of the project and the rates that their contemporaries were charging. It's not 1995 any more."

JK: "A few years ago a friend came to me wanting a print of one of my photos. 'I'll pay whatever you want,' he said, and I knew it wouldn't be a hardship for him to do so. But I was a bit torn, charging full market price to a friend. So we came to what I thought was a fair agreement: in return for the print, a big full-on dinner at his house made by his wife, who is a legendary cook hereabouts.

"Well, I went to considerable effort and expense with the printing and the framing, as one does. He was delighted with it, and promised our big night of food and wine would be forthcoming. And then I waited, and waited, and waited. There always seemed to be an excuse why it couldn't happen yet.

"After a couple years I finally told him, forget about it. Keep the print, forget about the dinner.

"So I've learned my lesson. When it comes to friends, either make it purely a gift or else charge the going rate. If I'd simply given him a dollar amount he would have paid it, and we'd still be friends."