It's not exactly photography related, but very close, here.
Interesting read!
Whether we like it or not, this is the today's market. One person's "work for free" is another person "free exposure/ad". Actually, I think that was always the free market idea, Internet just leveled the playing field globally and allowed a talented teen from the mountains of India or plains of Kazakhstan to actually compete with a high level pro from Manhattan.
Interesting read!
Whether we like it or not, this is the today's market. One person's "work for free" is another person "free exposure/ad". Actually, I think that was always the free market idea, Internet just leveled the playing field globally and allowed a talented teen from the mountains of India or plains of Kazakhstan to actually compete with a high level pro from Manhattan.
The exposure is over-rated. Google makes money hand-over-fist and I do not see a reason why a for-profit company can't pay for its content, especially since that content generates ad revenue for them. As stated “both of these jobs were high-profile and gave my work great exposure but both clients still paid me.”
The exposure is over-rated. Google makes money hand-over-fist and I do not see a reason why a for-profit company can't pay for its content, especially since that content generates ad revenue for them. As stated “both of these jobs were high-profile and gave my work great exposure but both clients still paid me.”
Exactly. Google earned $1.42 billion in raw profit in just the 1st quarter of 2009
I'm gonna play a Devil's Advocate here for another minute and say that exposure is overrated for established pros. For a person who just starts up it may be a pure oxygen.
That been said, Google is a strange company. Very socialistic, yet profitable. They deinitely have money, but they don't follow one's typical mindpath on how to spend them. Which is probably the reason why they are who they are...
My take is, the exposure is almost incalculable.:ivar
Thing is, it establishes you as someone who works for free.
Is that what you want?
Xris
One man's trash is another man's treasure. One says "I don't do pro bono", another says, "hey, free ad, let's do it". It's all about your priorities and your attitude.
One man's trash is another man's treasure. One says "I don't do pro bono", another says, "hey, free ad, let's do it". It's all about your priorities and your attitude.
All true. But the point I was trying to make is that, if you're in business, it's all about how you position yourself.
1/ Folks use me because I work for free... or
2/ Folks use me because I'm good and they are willing to pay for what I do...
If it's free, it should be charity. If not, it's simply not 'business.'
All true. But the point I was trying to make is that, if you're in business, it's all about how you position yourself.
1/ Folks use me because I work for free... or
2/ Folks use me because I'm good and they are willing to pay for what I do...
If it's free, it should be charity. If not, it's simply not 'business.'
Yes, I agree. When you are *already in* the business, working for free definitely looks like a bad idea. When you do start, it's simply called "internship" or "apprenticeship" or "getting your foot into the doorship" and it happens everywhere. Especially with photography, where the border between a rookie, a semipro and a pro is often vague, with *some* amateurs kicking *some* pros' ass quality wise quite often. Have you ever heard of an amateur neurosurgeon? Or an amateur fighter pilot? Well, neither have I... In photography it happens every day and this "exposure" can be a way to build up "street cred"...
There are ways to make "free" work. But I don't think Google exposure is one of them. Will that exposure REALLY drive a client to you? That's the question you gotta ask. Who is your potential client, where might they find you, what might drive them your way. But shotgunning free stuff in hopes of future revenue is simply giving stuff away and nothing more. If you're going to do free, it needs to be targetted and deliberate.
A full-time professional automotive racing photographer, who is very talented plus very business savvy, told me to offer to shoot a car or two (or three) for the owner of a "used" car business here in Austin. I put that in quotes because how many used car dealerships sell 6 Ferraris in one month... in this economy. In other words, this guy has a lot of cars, a lot of money, and given his sales volume he knows a LOT of my potential future clients. Get a very impressive, portfolio-building car of his in front of my camera. Then do up a marketing print to hang in his lobby. That, John told me, was doing something for free that had a clear and defineable goal towards my end game. That's called a marketing expense, not a give-away.
I wasn't able to get a car of his in front of my camera, but I did get a marketing print in his lobby. Not quite what I had hoped for, as a car of his would be much more impressive than a '94 Corvette, but you take what you can get.
Oh yeah, and a "marketing print" is not simply a framed photo. It has my business name and contact information in large letters - the print is clearly an ad, not just wall decoration.
I think that is what bugs me most of the Google thing. Its just giving stuff away, plain and simple. For 99.9% of the people out there it is not going to drive a client their way. Its the wrong marketing approach for an up-and-coming shooter. But it does give content to Google, driving ad revenue to them.
Marketing Models
There are all kinds of marketing models for business. Each business can select one or two and test them. In photography, you must be careful because the wrong one can backfire and yield you nothing. Even the wrong pricing structure can yield you no work regardless of your talent.
If you had seen the images on Google without the story of them being "free" who would have known?
Millions of people will see these images, and despite the thousands of photographers complaining about the people shooting the images for free, no one will care.
If some executive sees an image that may work for their particular campaign, do you think that they will magically know that shot appeared on Google for free?
Do you believe that the millions who see these images know that they appeared on Google for free?
How are these images any different than the thousands that appear in magazines every day? You automatically assume that the images in the magazines were paid for, thus making them somehow different in terms of advertising.
I wonder how many people here PAY Google for adwords or advertising?
If you could get a million more people seeing your work is it not worth an image?
Are the people who see these images psychic? Your phone is going to ring off the hook with more free offers simply because you gave an image to Google? I would like to know just how many people know that the images were given away for free that have not read the article?
There are ways to make "free" work. But I don't think Google exposure is one of them. Will that exposure REALLY drive a client to you? That's the question you gotta ask. Who is your potential client, where might they find you, what might drive them your way. But shotgunning free stuff in hopes of future revenue is simply giving stuff away and nothing more. If you're going to do free, it needs to be targetted and deliberate.
A full-time professional automotive racing photographer, who is very talented plus very business savvy, told me to offer to shoot a car or two (or three) for the owner of a "used" car business here in Austin. I put that in quotes because how many used car dealerships sell 6 Ferraris in one month... in this economy. In other words, this guy has a lot of cars, a lot of money, and given his sales volume he knows a LOT of my potential future clients. Get a very impressive, portfolio-building car of his in front of my camera. Then do up a marketing print to hang in his lobby. That, John told me, was doing something for free that had a clear and defineable goal towards my end game. That's called a marketing expense, not a give-away.
I wasn't able to get a car of his in front of my camera, but I did get a marketing print in his lobby. Not quite what I had hoped for, as a car of his would be much more impressive than a '94 Corvette, but you take what you can get.
Oh yeah, and a "marketing print" is not simply a framed photo. It has my business name and contact information in large letters - the print is clearly an ad, not just wall decoration.
I think that is what bugs me most of the Google thing. Its just giving stuff away, plain and simple. For 99.9% of the people out there it is not going to drive a client their way. Its the wrong marketing approach for an up-and-coming shooter. But it does give content to Google, driving ad revenue to them.
Lol... I had almost the same thing with Ferrari dealer... What's up with those?
And yes, I agree, in this particular case of Google it is not something that would drive customers directly to you. It's almost like that shot with XP default background, you know, green hill, blue skye... It's probably one of them most seen images in the world, but I doubt anybody knows the name of the photographer... OTOH, I would be very proud to have one of mine to be in their default collection... For the bragging rights alone, if nothing else. I would then advertise the heck out of it on my own... But that's just me...
Nikolai, you actually surprise me with your comments. I would have guessed you felt the opposite way about work for free.
Simply because of the one shot of your I remember. A woman, can't remember if she was dressed, holding a sign that you do not work for TFP. A red circle with a line through it and TFP in the middle. i think that is how it went.
Anyways...
As a new photographer trying to get into the business I have of course got the common comments about how great my shots are. Of course nobody is buying anything yet
But I have taken some skydiving shots which were well received. That has lead to me quoting provincial championships, which is practically volunteer work based on their budget. BUT I am hoping that will turn into taking pictures of the new jumpers landing on a weekly basis and is practically a guarenteed sale on site, no PP. As long as I take a decent picture.
Nikolai, you actually surprise me with your comments. I would have guessed you felt the opposite way about work for free.
Simply because of the one shot of your I remember. A woman, can't remember if she was dressed, holding a sign that you do not work for TFP. A red circle with a line through it and TFP in the middle. i think that is how it went.
Anyways...
As a new photographer trying to get into the business I have of course got the common comments about how great my shots are. Of course nobody is buying anything yet
But I have taken some skydiving shots which were well received. That has lead to me quoting provincial championships, which is practically volunteer work based on their budget. BUT I am hoping that will turn into taking pictures of the new jumpers landing on a weekly basis and is practically a guarenteed sale on site, no PP. As long as I take a decent picture.
So free sometimes can work. I am hoping anyways.
... She wasn't dressed, like, at all :-)
I think the reason of some misunderstanding is that there are two very different types of people here. Ones that do photogrpahy for living - and everybody else. The first group, already accomplished professionals in their trade, obviously resent the very concept of spending their time and not getting paid. I do understand that. I'm a professional programmer and I too would laugh at anybody who'd suggest me to optimize their database in my spare time. Just like Bill and others are pros in what they do, this is trade where I have long been established. I don't need to work for free anymore, my name and cred is already out there.
As a photographer, however, I'm not there - yet. Hence the need to self-promotion first. Please note: I do not advertise my work as "free". I simply advertise my work. There is no "shoot for free" sign anywhere in my portfolio. No one can't tell of it was a paid image or a TF one. But if they like it - they may contact me, and then the negotiation starts. And this is what happens more an more often, primarily because more and more people see what I do.
Great read, Angelo, but I must point out that there is an obvious answer to the question, "But then tell me… why would you think it is okay to live out the same, delusional, ridiculous fantasy when seeking someone whose abilities are even less in supply than these folks?"
The answer, in the case pf photographers, is (sadly) 'because so many of US say yes!'
If it was common for surgeons and plumbers to work for free, we'd be stupid NOT to ask if they would do it for free for us. Many folks ask anyway.
The difference is, most surgeons and plumbers say "no" -- unless it's a charity gig.
"But then tell me… why would you think it is okay to live out the same, delusional, ridiculous fantasy when seeking someone whose abilities are even less in supply than these folks?"
In the case of photographers I see other issues as well.
Supply is greater than demand for mediocre work. Seems most people, at least kijiji or craigslist people, are more than happy with free mediocre work.
Meaning somebody with a dslr, kit lens, and green square. No post processing because they would rather have the digital files on disc in minutes.
In those cases supply definitely exceeds demand.
Then there are the new professionals. Me being one of those so be gentle with me
Experienced pros are often hesitant to downright refuse to help new pros learn the ropes and ease into professional work. I do fully understand the mentality though, after all the seasoned pros would not only be training their competition, but introducing them to clients that they will later need to compete for.
Which means the new pro is at a loss.
They are pursuing a new vocation, often self taught. No experience and little self confidence in producing the all important once in a lifetime shot. So they do not want to charge big dollars, if any for a gig. This is why I so far have refused two weddings, friends and family but still refused.
So they need experience and few if any established pros are willing to help them with that, again for good reason. So to gain that experience with little or no stress they do the free gigs. Something I have only done so far for an old friend of my wife, still the attraction of taking jobs for nothing more than experience, portfolio material, and credit is there. I am strongly resisting and and slowly finding different routes though.
The last fault I see with this statement is with the comparison to skilled trades, regulated skilled trades. Anybody can call themselves a professional photographer, even the guy that does not know what an aperture is and has never moved the dial off the green square.
Not everybody can call themselves a doctor, mechanic, etc...
So while the supply of photographers that can consistently produce professional results is low, the supply of "pro" photographers is ridiculously high.
Good Observations! May I Add...
All true Toshido. Good observations. But let me add that, at least in my town, there are several public colleges offering photography programmes. Each May several hundred new 'pro's hit the street. A LOT of these folks have no business experience but do have a dream and $25k in gear the parents bought them. They proceed to take any job they can -- for free, for $75.00, whatever -- then, after several months after removing several dozen potentially good jobs from the market, they decide there's "no money" in photography, give up and go home.:tough
A few months later, several hundred more 'graduates' hit the street and the cycle repeats.:photo
The camera stores love it. The colleges make public money from it (while receiving kudos for turning out "educated young professionals), and hundreds of publications, agencies, Web firms and the like now depend upon this never-ending supply of almost free material.
Even magazines, once the lifeblood for many photographers, aren't (for the most part) paying for the photo's they run! They use cheap RF stock, contest entries, vanity shots and portfolio spreads!
Fine, for what it's worth. Unfortunately this status quo makes professional photography literally almost worthless (from a monetary perspective) and the photo 'industry', in many ways, little more than a playground of rich dilettantes with too much money and not enough brains.
The good news is, some folks are still actually making a go of it!
I understand, I am just down the road in Guelph at the moment.
A LOT of these folks have no business experience but do have a dream
I would qualify there as well. Not as much equipment as you mentioned though, not even close.
What I do have is time though. I have two young children, and a wife on disability. Had to leave a good job with incredible future possibilities for family reasons.
I have enough equipment to make a start at this and would like to believe I am producing high enough quality images.
Finances are supplied by my wife's disability so I figure I have about 4 years to make this photography thing profitable. If I fail at that at least I save us studio fees for children pictures After the 4 years my children are full time in school and I can return to full time work.
So a lot of what you said I am sure applies, even most applies to me and I agree as well.
As for the college aspect, I am hoping to do both photoshop and business courses to help me with this venture. As well as work with some experienced pros in the area....
But back on topic. As a new photographer attempting to make a living, or at least supplementing current income through photography the attraction of free photography is real and enticing.
I see it, erroneously, as a way to get more experience, different experience, diverse portfolio and word of mouth started.
If not for this board and other similar forums I may have given into the fruitless expectation that free photo sessions would lead to paid photo sessions.
Currently I am reviewing my thoughts on shooting on spec.... Things like minor league sports that is.
People will value your work, exactly how much they pay for it. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
The problem that I see most photographers struggle with the most, is recognizing profitable work, then pursuing it. The other problem is proper pricing.
Back in the day, I would figure my senior budget like this: How many seniors do I plan to do this year?? What was my AVERAGE sale the year before. Then, I would build packages that would generate sales above the previous year's sales. The result, my average went up every year and I had a reasonable idea how much I would make. Every time I sold my 'monster' package, it was a bonus.
My ship came in, though, the day I recognized the value of volume sales. Memory mates paid the rent and utilities for 3 years at my studio. If I had it to do over, I would pursue volume 1st, seniors 2nd and hopefully, weddings never.
It's not that I did not enjoy weddings, but they were a money loser and a ridiculous drain on time. My time budget for a wedding was 40 hours, per. That included all client contact (even interviews that did not result in a sale), assembling images, blah, blah, blah. Weddings were great for the gross, but waaaaay too time consuming.
Too many photographers, develop their pricing by either copying others or looking at others and lowering their prices. Stupid way to run a business.
I figured mine, by adding up the number of clients of each type I expected in the coming year. Figured what I would need for income and divided that by my number of clients. Now I knew how much I needed to make from each client. Then, I figured what the average client would buy of each type and priced that package so that they spent the average that I needed. I also developed 'whopper packages at 2 and 3 times my average and a couple for a little less.
I am explaining it very simplistically and skipping a step or 2, but the basics are there and it worked shockingly well. It was also the tool that I used to eliminate offerings that did not pull their weight (glamour shots, for me.)
Of course, the other part of the equation is building enough value so that clients will pay what you are asking. That is the key, build unlimited demand for your shockingly limited supply. Giving away work, takes away from the number of jobs that you can be paid to do...
but, what do I know, I quit the studio gig and work for UPS......
Comments
Whether we like it or not, this is the today's market. One person's "work for free" is another person "free exposure/ad". Actually, I think that was always the free market idea, Internet just leveled the playing field globally and allowed a talented teen from the mountains of India or plains of Kazakhstan to actually compete with a high level pro from Manhattan.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Exactly. Google earned $1.42 billion in raw profit in just the 1st quarter of 2009
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
That been said, Google is a strange company. Very socialistic, yet profitable. They deinitely have money, but they don't follow one's typical mindpath on how to spend them. Which is probably the reason why they are who they are...
My take is, the exposure is almost incalculable.:ivar
Thing is, it establishes you as someone who works for free.
Is that what you want?
Xris
1/ Folks use me because I work for free... or
2/ Folks use me because I'm good and they are willing to pay for what I do...
If it's free, it should be charity. If not, it's simply not 'business.'
Yes, I have...they are called "interns" and "residents", and they do get paid.
A full-time professional automotive racing photographer, who is very talented plus very business savvy, told me to offer to shoot a car or two (or three) for the owner of a "used" car business here in Austin. I put that in quotes because how many used car dealerships sell 6 Ferraris in one month... in this economy. In other words, this guy has a lot of cars, a lot of money, and given his sales volume he knows a LOT of my potential future clients. Get a very impressive, portfolio-building car of his in front of my camera. Then do up a marketing print to hang in his lobby. That, John told me, was doing something for free that had a clear and defineable goal towards my end game. That's called a marketing expense, not a give-away.
I wasn't able to get a car of his in front of my camera, but I did get a marketing print in his lobby. Not quite what I had hoped for, as a car of his would be much more impressive than a '94 Corvette, but you take what you can get.
Oh yeah, and a "marketing print" is not simply a framed photo. It has my business name and contact information in large letters - the print is clearly an ad, not just wall decoration.
I think that is what bugs me most of the Google thing. Its just giving stuff away, plain and simple. For 99.9% of the people out there it is not going to drive a client their way. Its the wrong marketing approach for an up-and-coming shooter. But it does give content to Google, driving ad revenue to them.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
There are all kinds of marketing models for business. Each business can select one or two and test them. In photography, you must be careful because the wrong one can backfire and yield you nothing. Even the wrong pricing structure can yield you no work regardless of your talent.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Millions of people will see these images, and despite the thousands of photographers complaining about the people shooting the images for free, no one will care.
If some executive sees an image that may work for their particular campaign, do you think that they will magically know that shot appeared on Google for free?
Do you believe that the millions who see these images know that they appeared on Google for free?
How are these images any different than the thousands that appear in magazines every day? You automatically assume that the images in the magazines were paid for, thus making them somehow different in terms of advertising.
I wonder how many people here PAY Google for adwords or advertising?
If you could get a million more people seeing your work is it not worth an image?
Are the people who see these images psychic? Your phone is going to ring off the hook with more free offers simply because you gave an image to Google? I would like to know just how many people know that the images were given away for free that have not read the article?
Website
Lol... I had almost the same thing with Ferrari dealer... What's up with those?
And yes, I agree, in this particular case of Google it is not something that would drive customers directly to you. It's almost like that shot with XP default background, you know, green hill, blue skye... It's probably one of them most seen images in the world, but I doubt anybody knows the name of the photographer... OTOH, I would be very proud to have one of mine to be in their default collection... For the bragging rights alone, if nothing else. I would then advertise the heck out of it on my own... But that's just me...
Simply because of the one shot of your I remember. A woman, can't remember if she was dressed, holding a sign that you do not work for TFP. A red circle with a line through it and TFP in the middle. i think that is how it went.
Anyways...
As a new photographer trying to get into the business I have of course got the common comments about how great my shots are. Of course nobody is buying anything yet
But I have taken some skydiving shots which were well received. That has lead to me quoting provincial championships, which is practically volunteer work based on their budget. BUT I am hoping that will turn into taking pictures of the new jumpers landing on a weekly basis and is practically a guarenteed sale on site, no PP. As long as I take a decent picture.
So free sometimes can work. I am hoping anyways.
I think the reason of some misunderstanding is that there are two very different types of people here. Ones that do photogrpahy for living - and everybody else. The first group, already accomplished professionals in their trade, obviously resent the very concept of spending their time and not getting paid. I do understand that. I'm a professional programmer and I too would laugh at anybody who'd suggest me to optimize their database in my spare time. Just like Bill and others are pros in what they do, this is trade where I have long been established. I don't need to work for free anymore, my name and cred is already out there.
As a photographer, however, I'm not there - yet. Hence the need to self-promotion first. Please note: I do not advertise my work as "free". I simply advertise my work. There is no "shoot for free" sign anywhere in my portfolio. No one can't tell of it was a paid image or a TF one. But if they like it - they may contact me, and then the negotiation starts. And this is what happens more an more often, primarily because more and more people see what I do.
Maybe your business will be next?
British Airways asks staff to work for free....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/British-Airways-asks-staff-to-cnnm-15540212.html?.v=1
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
great read.........
Great read, Angelo, but I must point out that there is an obvious answer to the question, "But then tell me… why would you think it is okay to live out the same, delusional, ridiculous fantasy when seeking someone whose abilities are even less in supply than these folks?"
The answer, in the case pf photographers, is (sadly) 'because so many of US say yes!'
If it was common for surgeons and plumbers to work for free, we'd be stupid NOT to ask if they would do it for free for us. Many folks ask anyway.
The difference is, most surgeons and plumbers say "no" -- unless it's a charity gig.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Times 2 or 3!
Repeat after me: " I will NOT work for free! I will NOT work for free! I will not abase myself and my craft and work for free!"
Got it?
http://www.imagesbyceci.com
http://www.facebook.com/ImagesByCeci
Picadilly, NB, Canada
In the case of photographers I see other issues as well.
Supply is greater than demand for mediocre work. Seems most people, at least kijiji or craigslist people, are more than happy with free mediocre work.
Meaning somebody with a dslr, kit lens, and green square. No post processing because they would rather have the digital files on disc in minutes.
In those cases supply definitely exceeds demand.
Then there are the new professionals. Me being one of those so be gentle with me
Experienced pros are often hesitant to downright refuse to help new pros learn the ropes and ease into professional work. I do fully understand the mentality though, after all the seasoned pros would not only be training their competition, but introducing them to clients that they will later need to compete for.
Which means the new pro is at a loss.
They are pursuing a new vocation, often self taught. No experience and little self confidence in producing the all important once in a lifetime shot. So they do not want to charge big dollars, if any for a gig. This is why I so far have refused two weddings, friends and family but still refused.
So they need experience and few if any established pros are willing to help them with that, again for good reason. So to gain that experience with little or no stress they do the free gigs. Something I have only done so far for an old friend of my wife, still the attraction of taking jobs for nothing more than experience, portfolio material, and credit is there. I am strongly resisting and and slowly finding different routes though.
The last fault I see with this statement is with the comparison to skilled trades, regulated skilled trades. Anybody can call themselves a professional photographer, even the guy that does not know what an aperture is and has never moved the dial off the green square.
Not everybody can call themselves a doctor, mechanic, etc...
So while the supply of photographers that can consistently produce professional results is low, the supply of "pro" photographers is ridiculously high.
All true Toshido. Good observations. But let me add that, at least in my town, there are several public colleges offering photography programmes. Each May several hundred new 'pro's hit the street. A LOT of these folks have no business experience but do have a dream and $25k in gear the parents bought them. They proceed to take any job they can -- for free, for $75.00, whatever -- then, after several months after removing several dozen potentially good jobs from the market, they decide there's "no money" in photography, give up and go home.:tough
A few months later, several hundred more 'graduates' hit the street and the cycle repeats.:photo
The camera stores love it. The colleges make public money from it (while receiving kudos for turning out "educated young professionals), and hundreds of publications, agencies, Web firms and the like now depend upon this never-ending supply of almost free material.
Even magazines, once the lifeblood for many photographers, aren't (for the most part) paying for the photo's they run! They use cheap RF stock, contest entries, vanity shots and portfolio spreads!
Fine, for what it's worth. Unfortunately this status quo makes professional photography literally almost worthless (from a monetary perspective) and the photo 'industry', in many ways, little more than a playground of rich dilettantes with too much money and not enough brains.
The good news is, some folks are still actually making a go of it!
I understand, I am just down the road in Guelph at the moment.
I would qualify there as well. Not as much equipment as you mentioned though, not even close.
What I do have is time though. I have two young children, and a wife on disability. Had to leave a good job with incredible future possibilities for family reasons.
I have enough equipment to make a start at this and would like to believe I am producing high enough quality images.
Finances are supplied by my wife's disability so I figure I have about 4 years to make this photography thing profitable. If I fail at that at least I save us studio fees for children pictures
So a lot of what you said I am sure applies, even most applies to me and I agree as well.
As for the college aspect, I am hoping to do both photoshop and business courses to help me with this venture. As well as work with some experienced pros in the area....
But back on topic. As a new photographer attempting to make a living, or at least supplementing current income through photography the attraction of free photography is real and enticing.
I see it, erroneously, as a way to get more experience, different experience, diverse portfolio and word of mouth started.
If not for this board and other similar forums I may have given into the fruitless expectation that free photo sessions would lead to paid photo sessions.
Currently I am reviewing my thoughts on shooting on spec.... Things like minor league sports that is.
The problem that I see most photographers struggle with the most, is recognizing profitable work, then pursuing it. The other problem is proper pricing.
Back in the day, I would figure my senior budget like this: How many seniors do I plan to do this year?? What was my AVERAGE sale the year before. Then, I would build packages that would generate sales above the previous year's sales. The result, my average went up every year and I had a reasonable idea how much I would make. Every time I sold my 'monster' package, it was a bonus.
My ship came in, though, the day I recognized the value of volume sales. Memory mates paid the rent and utilities for 3 years at my studio. If I had it to do over, I would pursue volume 1st, seniors 2nd and hopefully, weddings never.
It's not that I did not enjoy weddings, but they were a money loser and a ridiculous drain on time. My time budget for a wedding was 40 hours, per. That included all client contact (even interviews that did not result in a sale), assembling images, blah, blah, blah. Weddings were great for the gross, but waaaaay too time consuming.
Too many photographers, develop their pricing by either copying others or looking at others and lowering their prices. Stupid way to run a business.
I figured mine, by adding up the number of clients of each type I expected in the coming year. Figured what I would need for income and divided that by my number of clients. Now I knew how much I needed to make from each client. Then, I figured what the average client would buy of each type and priced that package so that they spent the average that I needed. I also developed 'whopper packages at 2 and 3 times my average and a couple for a little less.
I am explaining it very simplistically and skipping a step or 2, but the basics are there and it worked shockingly well. It was also the tool that I used to eliminate offerings that did not pull their weight (glamour shots, for me.)
Of course, the other part of the equation is building enough value so that clients will pay what you are asking. That is the key, build unlimited demand for your shockingly limited supply. Giving away work, takes away from the number of jobs that you can be paid to do...
but, what do I know, I quit the studio gig and work for UPS......
Tom B
Hey Tom. That is probably the most level-headed, open-eyed, post I've seen on DG in three years! Direct, easy to understand, and right to the point.
In my humle opinion, you know exactly what you're talking about.
Good luck with the new job. Sounds interesting.
Ever deliver anything from SM?
Tom B