Options
Sportsshooter Article re Free Shots
A similar argument to ones we have seen here. We are not alone in having the debate.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1989
Interesting stuff.
Z
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1989
Interesting stuff.
Z
It is the purpose of life that each of us strives to become actually what he is potentially. We should be obsessed with stretching towards that goal through the world we inhabit.
0
Comments
Last year I woered for a local race track and I got the same thing from almost everyone. Free photos or they would post my name in return on there website. I would spent about 8 hours every day at the track and and then another 2 to 3 hours at home loading photos on my smugmug site. The person that did it the year before me was chargeing half the price I was and thats what everyone want to pay.
Now I don't work for the track anymore, no point in it if I don't make much money at it. It's kind of a bummer becuase I really liked it.
good digital cameras, everyone's an expert.
I'll stick to shooting my kids and family...as least they appreciate my time.
As far as expertise? I don't know that those asking care too much about
the quality as long as they get stuff for free and it's at least usable.
Sorry to be so cynical but it seems to be the way of the world these days and
I really don't understand it (something for nothing that is).
And as in any economic situation, excess supply results in a reducing price. In many cases it seems like the price is reducing to zero.
To attempt to keep the market price high through "word of mouth" is a bit like asking all camera retailers to keep the price of a 1Dmk3 £500 above list price and never discount below list. Remember that the consumers of your photos are in the same position as you, the consumer of camera gear. Have you ever bought any camera kit from an internet retailer, Hong Kong or whatever at below the price of your local camera store? Or do you support your local store and spend more of your hard earned money than you need to. I'd imagine the former is prevalent, rather than the latter.
OK, so its an extreme example, but in a market economy, supply & demand laws rule.
So, what to do? You need to find an area where demand is high and supply is low, and the potential customers have the money to pay for the goods. Personally for me this has meant I now focus on polo (with horses not in swimming pools!), with a good demand from monied clientele and not that many people photographing it. A bit of a niche as it were.
We have to acknowledge that in general, supply of digital photographs, especially sports, will continue to increase for the forseeable future, whilst demand stays level. Result = falling prices.
It used to be that if you wanted certain types of images you had to go to a professional. That meant supply was low, and prices will be high as a result. It also means that if you really only need a "good enough" image you were out of luck. You either got a professional image, or nothing.
That's not really the case any more. There is a much larger supply of photos, and that alone will drive down prices even if the quality remains the same. And there is a greater choice in the quality of imagery, and a range of prices as well. For those who don't require a spectacular image they don't need to pay for a spectacular image.
This choice didn't exist before. Its not like all of a sudden out of the blue people are willing to accept "sub professional" images for little or nothing. That urge always existed, but there was never a supply to fill that demand. Now there is.
This isn't rocket science people, its simple Economics.
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
What makes it difficult are the economics of it. Let's say the average shooter
covering soccer has a 20d and a 100-400mm lens. One game takes 2hrs
(travel time plus shooting time). We'll ignore other gear that's required to
make the whole thing work--like the machine and software to process images
and storage plus the other ancillary stuff and say the shooter has three
grand sunk into gear. If you're a pro, that body is a 1d and a 300 f/2.8 and
the number doubles. Fair enough?
If he or she is trying to make a living or earn enough to fund their hobby
(photography), how will you cover the cost of time or gear if you give stuff
away? And why should a commercial venture expect to receive collateral
it will use to sell something for the promise of "exposure" only? The guy
you gave stuff to will tell everyone he got it for free. The next customer
knows this and pretty soon you have no customers (or income--exposure
doesn't put food on the table) willing to pay for your work.
It's like buying stuff on credit and paying the minimum payment.
No business, especially a public company, would operate like that. To be
successful, there has to be a revenue stream somewhere.
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
I totally understand what customers are willing to pay and I'm suggesting that
as a business person providing goods and services, you have to make money
somehow and giving stuff away isn't it.
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
Its a rather childish argument and it makes Matt look childish, not professional. I highly doubt that Matt Brown (the photographer and author of the article) is qualified to teach Biochemistry. Because of this, the school isn't going to hire him, even if he works for free. Likewise, they aren't going to hire the professor to photograph their sports if he doesn't have at least some amount of skill and proficiency. Clearly he has at least enough to produce images that the school is happy with.
Now, if Matt Brown really does know a thing or two about BioChem and is capable of teaching a class, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with him offering to teach a class for free. Whether he simply gets a kick out of doing so, wants the perks of faculty parking, bragging rights, doesn't really matter. Nothing says its immoral, unethical or illegal to do so.
Not everyone on Sports Shooter agrees with this article, by the way. While a minority voice, there are people on the forums voicing these same opinions. One guy gave a great analogy about whether he should not help his neighbor with an automotive repair for free and potentially "hurt" a professional auto mechanic in the process.
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
are a n00b or seasoned veteran.
Clearly the market isn't willing to accpet a price based on the costs of doing business. What happens if you succeed in having all the n00b's and veterans raise their prices? (and raise to what price, exactly?) What now? There certainly appear to be more photographers vying for work than there is work to go around. SOMEBODY is going to budge a little on their going rate to undercut their competition. And then it snowballs. You'll be back to square one. The only recourse is to re-balance the supply and the demand. That might require that many photographers get out of the business so that supply shrinks.
Airlines are going through this problem right now. They are not doing business the way you claim they should, because they are losing money on every ticket they sell right now. They are not pricing their service in a manner that will allow them to continue doing business. Are you going to offer to volunatarily pay more so that they make a profit off of you? Should the airlines simply all raise their fares until they reach at least a small profit, if not break-even?
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
If the cost to the consumer rises, they have choices. Accept the new
cost, look for a lower cost or don't buy the service. If they choose a lower
cost offering and the market generally moves that direction, then suppliers
must figure out how to provide those goods/services or starve and eventually
go under. Sooner or later, the market weeds out the weak.
What do you call negotiated fuel contracts, employee wage concessions,
outsourced maintenance, route consolidation, charging for baggage, work
furloughs, carrier consolidation or ticket price increases? These are all
efforts toward profitability. No?
As far as the airlines go, they'll do a small amount here, a little there, but their problems aren't going to be solved with a wage negotiation here, a fuel contract there. Capacity needs to drop because right now there is a huge amount of capacity and only moderate demand. You are correct that what they are doing is a move towards profitability, and it is a step in the right direction. Its not the same step that Matt Brown is advocating, which is to simply "stop working for free" (i.e. raise your prices). Its analogous to telling the airline industry to "stop flying at a loss" and to simply raise their ticket prices above what the market will bear. What Matt really should be telling photographers is that certain markets are deterioriating. Shift to newer markets. Reduce your fixed costs and operating costs. Locate higher quality clients. Etc.
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
At this particular event there was only 1 pro photographer there for 2 of 3 day event. The local press photgrapers turned up for a few hours during the entire event. There were other amatures snapper (I class these amatures as those that occassional picture in magazines and mentioned on manufacturers web sites) and there and the normal array of point and shooters. During the entire event the closest I came to the Pro shooter was when we were waiting to get onto the beach. I was never in the same area as the Pro shooter on the beach (the beach was 2+ miles long).
Would I charge for my pictures? not until I feel my pictures have reached a higher standard or I was asked to attend an event to take pictures then I would make a charge. But as long as I am attending an event of my own free choice then I will offer my pictures to those who request them. I let people have picture for themselves, I would certainly think twice about giving somebody photographs if they then used those photographs to make money. That why I will not submit picture to some of the news\sports event sites because as soon as you do they own the copyright and do what they like with your picture.
Maybe it is different in the US as opposed to here in the UK. I have some tickets to goto Silverstone Racetrack (home of the British Formula 1 Grand Prix) for a national one manufacturer saloon car meeting. The tickets state that I can not take photographs for the purpose of profit, promotion or public display.
I have taken pictures at a Cycle Speedway meetings, certainly not one of the high flying sports events but the local track is always top three in both national divisions and the last event I photographed also had British and World Champions riding. No offcials came running over to stop me taking photographs and no riders\family came and asked for copies paid for or otherwise, everybody was happy.
As long as I am attending an event of my own freewill and I am not banned from taking pictures by event rules I will contiue to take photographs and pass them on as I see fit, they are after all my photographs.
Tim
Absolutely we agree on this.
I think the goals of "stop working for free" or "stop flying for free" are
certainly admirable. However, it's not enough to simply state them and
expect something to come of that.
From the SS point of view, there is a feeling that pros who sell
for less than market rate and the parents who give things away
are hurting those who make their living at photography (way over
simplified version) and as you say, the markets are changing.
And that change should be enough to cause those who want to
remain to distinguish themselves from everyone else and justify
a higher rate ("that guy is so good we should pay his rate") or lower
their prices (and reduce fixed costs). Or to develop new business (if
you were a sports guy only, add to your portfolio). If you believe
parents are the cause, maybe you market "how to be a sports shooter"
type classes to them? Who knows what the right answer is but do
nothing and you'll swirl in the proverbial bowl.
As for the airlines, I am truly surprised the larger carriers have been able
to survive at all. Look at Southwest. They seem to be doing OK when
compared to other carriers. Guess they must be on to something
draggin, to answer your question. The venue controls who can take photos
and what they can do with them in the US. Some professional sports teams
also have restrictions. Almost all concert venues prohibit photography of
any sort.
Mostly it had to do with them buying large quantities of fuel on long-term delivery contracts. They are not currently buying fuel at market prices, they are buying it at prices negotiated some time ago. Very smart of them, but was also a risky move (after all, the price of petroleum could have actually gone down, and they'd have been stuck buying expensive fuel).
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
The real problem in my industry is that us US manufacturers have monumentally higher production costs than the majority of the guys having their stuff made in China. These guys are the same as the parent photographer handing off crap for free. They hand out sponsorships and free boards a bit like candy, but somehow manage to sell more. This has become the marketing mantality in the US. I've seen people involved in niche markets suggest that the best way to grow the market is to give away thousands of boards and sit back and wait for the orders to arrive. It simply doesn't work that way. Without a huge marketing budget to accompany the free stuff, the sales never arrive.
In order to survive in this extremely competitve industry filled with free product, I've had to specialize, target an afluent market, and sell to them on their level. This is the only way to make money and keep the production in the US.
Sports photography is only going to become more and more like the industry I'm so familiar with. Look at the new Casio that shoots 60 full res frames per second. It's only a matter of time before that technology trickles into the $200 point and shoot. That means every parent will eventually be able to capture that ultimate moment. Sure, 90% of the time they will be shooting directly into the sun without realizing they'll never get the shot, but the 10% of the time they shoot from a reasonable angle. The shear volume of shots will eventually result in success.
The only way to succeed is going to be to specialize in something that the amature can't do. I know others have said this but I guess I had to drone on for a bit too long. Eventually the requests for free photos will just fade into the noise and you'll learn to ignore it. I was able to stem the flow with a response to sponsorship requests by requesting the information that any sane sponsor would need. I asked for the individuals coach's name and the number of days they train per week. The response was dead silence. A clever response to such a request has a better chance of making the requests go away than complaining about them. Make people realize how stupid their request is by making them think for a second.
I probably haven't really helped any but maybe sharing my experience will provide some understanding that this kind of thing happens all the time.
Maybe we should start a thread titled: "appropriate responses to the free photo request"
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
Sure. But one thing is clear (at least I think so). Their costs are/were
predictable for the duration of the fuel contracts. And the ability to
accurately forecast revenue is more important because it gives you the
ability to make decisions based on business needs rather than
reacting to market forces (higher fuel costs) as carriers like United, American,
Continental, et al. are being forced to do.
Of course that they are non-union and don't have the burden of the various
retirement plans probably helps too.
Happens in all industries. Especially when times are tight. I'll give a couple of
examples.
My previous employer's business plan was based almost entirely on free
products. When the electronics industry was having such a tough time, our
business prospered. Of course, the company receives royalties when end
user products were manufactured but design costs were greatly reduced by
having certain pieces available for free. There is risk involved and that risk
is that not every design will tape out and therefore, not every design would
result in royalty revenue. To balance that risk, the company also did a fair
amount of business directly with semiconductor manufacturers.
For those of you familiar with Linux, Redhat has increased their license cost
which has caused a number of people to re-consider Redhat in favor of one
or two similar but free OS's (Ubuntu being one). Interestingly, Redhat used
to be free (cost of media only) and has, over time, increased in cost as the
number of features have increased. If you have large numbers of compute
servers, the cost to renew software licenses can be quite high and that makes
"free" look very attractive.
You might argue that Redhat seeded the market by initially taking a loss
knowing that once they gained market share and became the defacto standard,
they could begin to change their business model to take advantage of that
leadership position. You could also argue that my previous employer did a
similar thing but in a slightly different way. In each case, the respective
companies became a standard or established a leadership position by
giving something away. And in each case, a customer's expectations for
a "free" (or nearly so) product are no different than one they'd pay an
exceptional amount of money for.
So what's my point? Seeding the market can result in higher sales though
you must be prepared to wait for the results to come in and you must be
prepared to lose money or be very patient for the return.
It is also very true that in each case, a tremendous amount of capital is
required to sustain the initial effort and that not every business can or
should follow that path.
Before photography, I house painted and learned on high end custom homes. We worked for customers who appreciated the fine details of our paint jobs. There was no way a high school kid or weekend warrior could compete with the quality of work. However, on the low end of the spectrum, we couldn't compete with their prices on clients who just wanted paint on the walls. You have to find the clients who appreciate quality.
Exactly. What your employer did was find the right business to differentiate
themselves from the rest of the market. Meaning he can leave the low end
stuff (and the competition) and focus on someone who will pay a premium
for quality work.
Neil
Do you not place any value on your time/efforts/equipment?
My time is the most valuable thing to me. And I hate to see anyone's time getting wasted because of ridiculous undercutting of the market. Free pictures will always happen but there is a point where it is too much to benefit anyone. We all know someone who gave a print to a publication just to have their name up for all to see -low self esteem I guess.
I've heard the arguement that people will charge for photos when they're good enough. Do you really think you'll get people paying, when yesterday you gave them what they wanted for free? You don't think that someone just like you won't come along and pull the same stunt. When I started in this business do you think my pics were as good as they are now? Of course not, did I charge people for them anyway? Of course I did, but I was confident that I was giving them the best I could and that the next time I would get even better shots for them.
Who sponsors you for equipment? I would love to have free gear that never needs to be serviced or replaced. There is no free here. Digital cameras are wearing out everytime you use them. Every file has a cost to it, not just the initial outlay. Are you really going to just give your stuff away instead of at least recouping your costs?
I really hope that people see the light and start to put a value on their work as well as others.
It's obvious you place a value and you are not going to give it away for free. However, it's up to the photographer to decide what it's worth. There's always a cost, but the photographer is the one who decides who bears those costs.
That's an insulting statement, plus that's how I got started freelancing.
For those that try to make a living at photography have chosen to compete with free pictures. It's a fact and part of business. I can't tell someone who is doing it for fun to stop giving pictures away for free.
I stand by my statement. You may think it's harsh because that's the path you took. By doing so you have declared your work as worthless, and that's the wrong way to go. It's always the same- "they gave me the photo credit." Well that's just incredible they gave the photographer credit for the work they produced. How generous.
And no, we can't stop anyone from giving away free pictures. The point is and I believe I stated this before: there is a point when this is not beneficial to anyone. A working photographer is losing business even though they most likely have a superior product. The noob giving away free pics to everybody is just getting taken advantage of with no real appreciation of their time.
Did you miss the part about FREELANCING? As in getting PAID because I submitted work? You are in no position to make any kind of judgment about me or any other photographer in what they do with THEIR work or how they FEEL about their work.
And I have said it before: Take care of yourself and if your work doesn't rise above the noob to the point where someone would pay for it, get in another line of work. You describe scenarios that can be applied to any skilled field. Photography more so than any other field, but thats part of trying to make a living in the field. You can cry about it or deal with it.
Cheers