Using Photography in your business name

ssimmonsphoto

One of David Jay's latest videos on Facebook has been pondering my own choice of business name and whether changing it to something else would make more sense. I've been in "business" for just under a year, so it wouldn't be as big an issue to modify/change my name now as it would be in, say, 5 years. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, his premise (as well as many other business-minded folks, so I'm told) is that you are selling yourself and if you have to tell people that you do photography then you are basically selling yourself short. So he recommends getting rid of photography (photo, photographer, etc.) from your business name. My biggest problem right now is that I am one of 200+ Suzanne Simmons in the nation (never mind the world) and a wide range of domains with that, in some variation, are taken. So I'm very baffled as to what I should do, assuming I should do anything.

What do you guys think?

Cygnus Studios

Yes. Take descriptors out of your business name.

I have never been a fan of using personal names as a business name. It limits you in some areas. What happens if you are successful and in ten or fifteen years you want to retire? If your company is John Smith Photography, you will have to find another John Smith to buy the company. With a generic name, anyone under the sun can run the company.

With photography in the name you are again limiting yourself. Who knows how photography will look in 15 or 20 years. You may wish to bridge out to include video, graphics or whatever other new form of capturing the day may include. In my opinion, you want a name that is generic enough for long term goals, yet specific enough to give a general opinion when heard.

Photog4Christ

No. It's ok to have them (descriptors) in there.

I'm going to disagree with Cygnus and agree (somewhat) with David. I said "somewhat" because I don't think there is anything wrong with having "Photography" in your business name, but I do agree with what David said about people know that photography is what you do, so why do you need to have it in the business name.

I disagree with Cygnus (what is your name??). Your name is your brand. When you do a work for a client and they show it off to all their friends, then their friends are going to say "Who took your family portrait?" The response will be "Neal Jacob" verses "Oh, I went to Acme Studios". Since they told all their friends that Neal Jacob did the family portrait, then they will want Neal Jacob to do their portrait.

Also, if you go along with what David said about using your name, then you don't have to file a fictitious name with your local, state government, etc... Your name is your name. "Acme Studios" would be a fictitious name.

emeraldrose

Maybe/Other

I don't really see how it makes a difference I mean catering companies and so many other service companies do it and they don't seem to have a problem. For me I couldn't just be Emerald Rose because that's a band name. But it seems like a couple months after I got my domain using photo b/c i know how hard it is with long domain names, somebody else came along and started using my same biz name and uses the full photography in their domain- lesson get all domains around yours if you can.

Photog4Christ

No. It's ok to have them (descriptors) in there.

emeraldrose wrote:

I don't really see how it makes a difference I mean catering companies and so many other service companies do it and they don't seem to have a problem. For me I couldn't just be Emerald Rose because that's a band name. But it seems like a couple months after I got my domain using photo b/c i know how hard it is with long domain names, somebody else came along and started using my same biz name and uses the full photography in their domain- lesson get all domains around yours if you can.

Yes, you should buy all the TLDs (.com, .org., .info, etc....)


Sears isn't called "Sears Appliances, Clothing, Hardware, Lawn Equipment, etc..."

Best Buy is just "Best Buy" but we all know what they sell.

Same for "Amazon", "Target", "Walmart", "Staples", etc....

Cygnus Studios

Yes. Take descriptors out of your business name.

Photog4Christ wrote:

I disagree with Cygnus (what is your name??). Your name is your brand.

I guess it depends on what your ultimate goals are. I am a business person first, and tend to never think in singular terms. Picture People as an example can have studios all around the world and can be owned by anyone. They are not limited by their name. If they choose to move into video services at some point, it can happen without changing the brand.
Now if someone is completely happy with being brand locked into a certain area with a specific type of work, that is fine. Nothing wrong with it. Not everyone shares those particular goals.

Steve

barnyard

A cousin of mine suggested that the goal of any small business owner should be to build the business so that it is a sellable asset. If that is the intent, naming it after yourself would make it less sellable.

My cousin built and sold 2 successful studios and currently is one of the managers for a professional lab.

Tom B

Tim Kamppinen

I just use "Tim Kamppinen Photography"... I don't see a problem with it. I'm not famous; people don't "know that I do photography" already. Seems clear and to the point as well as being unique because there aren't a lot of Tim Kamppinens running around (if I was living in Finland, it might be another story). I don't feel like I'm "selling myself short." I was able to get a .com domain name rather than something obscure like .biz or whatever, simply because of the uniqueness of my name. One thing that's great about using your name, in my opinion, is that it DOESN'T limit you at all in regards to what you photograph. If I'm a wedding photographer and I call my business "Cherished Moments Imaging" or something equally specific, I'm pretty much stuck in that field of photography. Good luck getting any work in shooting products or architecture, etc. Who knows what you'll want to shoot in 10 years? If you're selling yourself as a photographer rather than a specific type of images, you can change and adapt with no discontinutity between your work and your business name.

Jeremy Winterberg

I agree with Tim and Photog4Christ.. I think that having your name + photography or whatever... is great. When you become known world-wide and famous... Then you can change it to just "Jeremy Winterberg" because in reality the customer doesn't give a rip if you do photography, they want your name. (If that makes sense?)

For example... David Jay is one of those famous people that sell's his name not his profession. He doesn't have to let people know he's an amazing photog, because everyone knows him and that he's amazing.

Edit: Just watched the video... he makes sense actually. Although I still stand by my "until you're well known" stand point.

divamum

Sears is a bad example for the argument against using one's name, since the company is actaully Sears, Roebuck and Company, and named for Mr Sears and Mr Roebuck who founded it. Selling the business on with their names doesn't seem to have been a problem...

I don't see any reason not to use Name+Photography. Realistically, how many dgrin photographers are going to sell their photography business on as something OTHER than their own work? Also, I think it avoids the problem of two DBA's - if you shoot for somebody else, it's your name. If you shoot for yourself, it's your name. Makes it much easier to put checks in the bank (this is the reason I sustained my maiden name for professional reasons BUT included my married name in my *full* name - I use it as a middle name - so that I can bank just about any variation of payment somebody chooses to give me.)

I think comparing a 1-man photography studio to a larger company such as Picture People makes no sense - that was always the arm of a larger corporation, wasn't it? (Forgive me if I'm wrong - I didn't look it up so if it was a 1-man startup that went corporate, forgive me).

Just my overinflated 2c.

Art Scott

I haveran my Photography business under my name and also 3 other names.....with my name no one asks who owns or runs the studio......and when I put my siggy on photos from SunRise Studio, or Contemporary Visions....the clients seemed to be confused as to why my name and not the company name was on the photos......since I want all my work to be known as coming from me then I went back to my name and that seems to be working out quite well....as to the added Photography (in my case: Fotografie) well that is actually just for the website....as when it is done I will have it (the site) translated into both German and Czech and Fotografie is a bastardization of the Czech and German words for Photographer..........and it catches peoples attention............of course with a portrait of a model in nice blouse and shorts leaning back onto a large rock near a pond it is pretty obvious Iam a photographer...so the Fotografie is not really needed on the B-card at all.......................

Cygnus Studios

Yes. Take descriptors out of your business name.

divamum wrote:

I think comparing a 1-man photography studio to a larger company such as Picture People makes no sense - that was always the arm of a larger corporation, wasn't it? (Forgive me if I'm wrong - I didn't look it up so if it was a 1-man startup that went corporate, forgive me).

It seems that some people would choose to be larger if the possibility presented itself. As I have said, I am a business person who happens to make a living with photography. Next year, I could just as easily earn a living with videography. The year after I could easily earn a living making independent films. All of these possibilities fall under the generic name.
I would be willing to bet that not everyone that stumbles across smugmug/dgrin is determined to remain a 1 person operation.

divamum wrote:

if you shoot for somebody else, it's your name. If you shoot for yourself, it's your name. Makes it much easier to put checks in the bank

I really don't get this statement.

Am I supposed to believe that opening a business bank account in a generic name is somehow more difficult than opening a business bank account in my name?

Am I supposed to believe that depositing a check made out in my personal name is easier than depositing a check made out to a company that I own?

Am I supposed to believe that depositing a check made out in my personal name from the company I happen to own is harder than a company that I do not own?


From what I have read, the vast majority of members here work a job outside of photography yet I am pretty sure they get a check in their name from whatever company they work for. I wouldn't think that this would be a problem cashing the check.

divamum

Regarding the growth aspect of a studio's name: please know that no offense was intended - I just think that perhaps this decision may be slightly different depending on the person's career/business aspirations, and whether they think of their photography as something personal (they take the pictures and the business IS their personal artistry, which can't really be somebody else) or in a larger sense (they are founding a photography business, whether they themselves are doing the shooting or hiring employees who will do it for/with them).

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I really don't get this statement.

Am I supposed to believe that opening a business bank account in a generic name is somehow more difficult than opening a business bank account in my name?

Am I supposed to believe that depositing a check made out in my personal name is easier than depositing a check made out to a company that I own?

Assuming you have two different accounts and that people always corrrectly make the checks out to the right name, then no it's not a problem. But. Perhaps as a photographer it's less prone to glitches, but I have many freelance opera singer friends who have a DBA name as well as their "real" name, or who have changed names after marriage etc and have had all sorts of problems if the check was made out to the "other" name, especially if they were trying to bank it somewhere other than their own branch, out of state, out of the contry etc. Theoretically, it's fine if your home bank has a record of both names on file, but that doesn't mean that problems haven't emerged; they shouldn't, but they do. By having my name as I do (married and maiden both appearing as my full name) I've managed to avoid problems with this to date, but I know many people who have had difficulties. I suspect having one's name in a business name would similarly minimize potential difficulties if one is running a 1-man show out of a personal account etc.

(Similarly (although tangentially) travel documents (especially internationally) have to be in the EXACT name of the picure ID used; I know people who have been burned by this when a company has issued a plane ticket for them in their professional name, but their driver's licence or passport is in another one. /tangent)

In any case, not trying to be contentious, just pointing out some related issues that occurred to me as I read the thread, albeit from a slightly different perspective.

Short version of my response: what Tim said

Jeremy Winterberg

divamum wrote:

Short version of my response: what Tim said

lol

lynnesite

Didn't see the poll in time. I've run my other business as "Lynne Glazer Microsystems" since 1988, and that has worked for my desktop support as the industry has changed. It let me drop major/corporate networking along the way, as I stick to SOHO now.

My photography business has been "Lynne Glazer Imagery" since its inception in 2003, a wide enough umbrella to cover the stock, commercial, event, fine art, personal work. I personally would not choose "Photography" as it feels limiting to me, way too common. I really like having my name in the business. No expansion plans here, either but there is occasional graphic design and other branching out which still "fits". The "cherished memories" type studio names are kind of worthless to me in terms of recognition unless there is strong marketing behind it. I have almost zero skills in that regard.

I think I've had "lynnesite.com" since 1997 and later added "lynneglazer.com" with a redirect. I use the watermark © Lynne Glazer to reinforce my little "brand". Google analytics shows that searchers are using that well.

Tim Kamppinen

I am a business person who happens to make a living with photography. Next year, I could just as easily earn a living with videography. The year after I could easily earn a living making independent films. All of these possibilities fall under the generic name.

This is where I think a lot of people here will differ with your position... Speaking for myself, I'm interested in making a living with photography, period. I don't want to be a jack of all trades; I want to specialize in one thing that I really love to do and make it work. I have zero interest in videography... I could see making independent films one day as I'm a film buff myself, but I'm sure I couldn't just pick it up and be making a living "a year after next." It would be a whole new field to learn and experiment with before ever turning a buck. If I was serious about it I though and wanted to do it somewhere down the line, how hard would it be to change my business from "Tim Kamppinen Photography" to "Tim Kamppinen Productions" or "Tim Kamppinen Studios"? Any potential customers with whom I already have name recognition will still know who I am; the name change would only be an indicator that I've started doing something new.

Jeremy Winterberg

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

This is where I think a lot of people here will differ with your position... Speaking for myself, I'm interested in making a living with photography, period. I don't want to be a jack of all trades; I want to specialize in one thing that I really love to do and make it work. I have zero interest in videography... I could see making independent films one day as I'm a film buff myself, but I'm sure I couldn't just pick it up and be making a living "a year after next." It would be a whole new field to learn and experiment with before ever turning a buck. If I was serious about it I though and wanted to do it somewhere down the line, how hard would it be to change my business from "Tim Kamppinen Photography" to "Tim Kamppinen Productions" or "Tim Kamppinen Studios"? Any potential customers with whom I already have name recognition will still know who I am; the name change would only be an indicator that I've started doing something new.

In addition to the videography topic. I have many clients hire me for my video services (I actually have a major project starting on Aug 3rd for a client)... and I still have Photography as part of my business name... Point in Fact: It really doesn't matter, you're not limited by your Business Name.

Unless its like - Fluffy Kitten Killer Photography - in that case you're screwed!

Art Scott

Jeremy Winterberg wrote:

In addition to the videography topic. I have many clients hire me for my video services (I actually have a major project starting on Aug 3rd for a client)... and I still have Photography as part of my business name... Point in Fact: It really doesn't matter, you're not limited by your Business Name.

Unless its like - Fluffy Kitten Killer Photography - in that case you're screwed!

Videography is a type of photography....it is supposedly moving and just not still (motionless).........

Jeremy Winterberg

Art Scott wrote:

Videography is a type of photography....it is supposedly moving and just not still (motionless).........

My point exactly... I just forgot to say it.

D'Buggs

Over the years I've started and SOLD several business's that incorporated my name with zero difficulty - What was actually sold was customer base/contacts, and good will. The name was never up on the block.