# Entertainment Gigs Dried Up Do To Others Shooting For Less Money



## ICPhoto (Feb 27, 2013)

I had a decent little artist and entertainment photography business building, here in Nashville; shooting independent artists.  Over the past several months, that business has dried up.  I had the occasion to speak to a once regular client, that had given me a lot of referral work.  I have developed enough of a relationship with him to ask where he had been.  He said it was all about pricing.  He had asked me to shoot a new album cover for him and I quoted him $300.00 which I thought was reasonable.  he was shocked that I was asking for a higher rate than I usually asked if him.  I tried to explain the lisening thing to him and he just didn't get or didn't want to hear it.
During the recent conversation, he confirmed what I had expected.  People are paying $60 to $90 for 20 images on a disk, to be used in any manner they please.  I told him that I think my work is worth more than that and if I lowered my prices, that is where they would always be stuck.  He said, "Your good but, as long as these cheaper guys can come close, we just photoshop the images ourselves."  Part of the reason I was being hired was for the creative ideas of the shoot, before even snapping the 1st image.  He suggested that taking less money would get me more gigs.  The money might come slower but, at least it would be coming in.

How are all of you dealing with this?  Should I drop my prices and get in line with the other photographer's prices?  I was always taught that if I start charging too little, I was ruining it for the entire industry.  I am by no means Annie Leibovitz.  But, I put a lot of thought, effort and time in to creating artistic images for my clients, who are supposed to be artists themselves.  If I shoot for $90, by the time I am done with sets ups, shooting and editing, I would make more money waiting tables at The Golden Corral.  

I am about to break and give my stuff away like all the others.  At least I will be shooting.  It's not all about the money to me, as photography is a way to supplement my income.  I was hoping to make it my staple some day.  But, at today's rates, that will never happen.  I love the art of it and having my work be appreciated by others.  

Any input will be appreciated.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Feb 27, 2013)

So if they are taking the images and photoshopping them just give them a flat fee to take the photo and let them edit them. of course someone else is going to be cheaper when they are doing half the work for them.

I'm just going to charge the rates I feel i'm worth and what happens, happens, last thing I want to do is work at such a cheap rate that im giving it away for free. Lowering your prices to join everyone else just adds to the problem. There is work out there, maybe you have to start getting creative with what you do and show them that it's worth paying more for.


----------



## ronlane (Feb 27, 2013)

ICPhoto said:


> He said, "Your good but, as long as these cheaper guys can come close, we just photoshop the images ourselves."



Ask him what his time is worth? Is he as good with photoshop as you? That's where the money is going. I suspect that he would say his time is worth more than that and also that he isn't as good with photoshop. If the artist isn't personally doing the editing, they are paying someone to do it and probably are paying them more than the difference. (IMHO)


----------



## gsgary (Feb 27, 2013)

His music is probably only worth $90


----------



## ronlane (Feb 27, 2013)

gsgary said:


> His music is probably only worth $90



In Nashvegas, MUSICIANS are over-saturated.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 27, 2013)

Nature of the photo business worldwide.  Unfortunately most deal with it by going out of business.  Professionals can't compete with free,(it doesn't matter what business either) and the ones that have been driving the business down don't even understand how much being cheap affects it all, and even worse they don't care.  As this isn't your full time job you have the luxury of working for less if you choose.  This probably has affected full time professionals as well.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 27, 2013)

Durys used to have 7 or 8 stores around Nashville.  Now they are down to 1.  The reason being much the same reason as you are stating.  How much of your gear did you purchase from Durys?  Why not?  Is the expertise they offer as part of their built-in services not worth the difference in price?  John Freund is gone.  Photographic Solutions is a printing service now.  Those guys were big 30 years ago.

If you Google "Nashville Photographers" and then click on the map in the right-hand corner it will show 2,338 results.  Ten years ago it was probably 1/10 that and 20 years ago I'd be willing to bet that there were only a couple of dozen.  I grew up in Clarksville and worked in a camera shop back in the 60's.  At that time there were two full-time studios in Clarksville: Danceys and Ardingers.  When I looked on Google a year or so ago there were in excess of 250 "Professional" photographers in Clarksville.

As long as anybody with a camera can claim to be a "Professional Photographer", pay for a business license and throw up a shingle with no requirements for ability, education, or anything else necessary then the problem is not going to get any better.  Face it, the market is saturated.

Your choices are limited.  You can find a niche market that few have exploited yet, you can continue to charge your current prices and accept the fact that you'll probably get fewer and fewer jobs as time goes by, or you can lower your price and hope for an increase in clients.  It is truly a dismal time to be a photographer.

Something that has bothered me is why are there no requirements for professional photographers?  That's a real question I'd love to know the answer to.  Nobody can just claim to be a "Professional Engineer" without passing the legal requirements.  Same for doctors and lawyers.  Realtors have to be licensed, even barbers and hair stylists have to be licensed.  Why is photography the only "Profession" that has exactly zero requirements for making that claim?  Anybody who chooses to do so can run down to Best-Buy and buy a camera, pay for a business license, and call themselves a "Professional Photographer".  It literally only takes a few hours.  Sure they will be out of business quickly, but there will be a dozen more to take their place.

The IT profession was similar.  Everybody with a computer was calling themselves an "IT Professional".  Microsoft took it upon themselves to start the MCSE certification, and were quickly followed by Novel, Cisco, and numerous others.  Once prospective employers and customers started taking notice of those certifications it stopped a lot of the nonsense.  Back in the 90's there were a lot of one-person "Computer Consulting" businesses around here, many of which barely knew how to format a hard drive.  They are mostly gone now, but there weren't any coming along to replace them either.  Right or wrong, it did make a difference over time and professional photography is eventually going to have to do something to their industry.

I keep wondering why none of the professional photographer's associations have not begun to take steps to try and police their so-called profession.  I'd estimate that well under 10% of the self-proclaimed "Professional Photographers" in this country today could not even come close to passing any sort of proficiency examination.  That alone would put a stop to the majority of the problem and just might keep some of you guys in a job.  Just something for you guys to think about.  Someone needs to do something or it's just going to get worse.


----------



## skieur (Feb 27, 2013)

Diversify and find a niche market.  I went into television production, multi-media productions, presentations, and multi-lingual work as well as photography.  I wrote scripts, produced, directed, and worked with translators on media productions.  When the market went down in one area, I simply shifted my time to another. While most were looking for customers, I was dealing with organizations and companies.  Some may think they can find photos or photography cheaply but what they can't do is put it all together into a production or presentation.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 27, 2013)

The sports photographers association in England used to police it and membership was required, not sure if is even still around.  I just don't ever see it happening in Canada or the US.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 27, 2013)

The musician's time is only worth something if he can find someone to pay him for it. My time is worth a lot, but nobody's willing to pay be for 24 hours of it every day. If I am running a shoestring business (for example, if I am a musician) it is not a poor financial choice for to do photoshopping myself, regardless of my hourly rate. So the 'what's his time worth' argument sounds good, but isn't. During the time he's photoshopping together his album cover, his time is worth $0/hour.

If I am reading the OP correctly, though, it sounds like he or she had a client. That client referred a lot of people to the OP, who responded by raising his or her rates on the client.

If someone did that to me, I'd dump 'em like a hot potato. It's possible I'm mis-reading the OP though? It's not really all that clear what's going on.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 27, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> The sports photographers association in England used to police it and membership was required, not sure if is even still around.  I just don't ever see it happening in Canada or the US.



I tend to think that it's inevitable at some point.  Either that or the true professionals will be forced out of the industry.

As it stands now someone with limited abilities can get the same jobs as someone with decades of experience and the ability to back it up.  Weddings and portraits are a perfect example.  People are already shopping for both based on cost alone.  The general public doesn't know the difference between a $1000 shooter and a $100 shooter (or a $0 "Just For Experience" shooter) and in so many cases only find out when it's too late to do anything about it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 27, 2013)

SCraig said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > The sports photographers association in England used to police it and membership was required, not sure if is even still around.  I just don't ever see it happening in Canada or the US.
> ...



I did a web search on professional sports photographers associations.  I was surprised how many there are, then I looked closer and some of seem to be run by one guy, maybe he uses it as a way to justify his business.  If someone started up a professional concert photographers association, got some cards done up as the director of it and passed them out to bands, how would they know any better, they may just look at it and figure "This guy runs the association, he must be a good photographer"  It would be a scam, but people wouldn't check.

Geez I might give this a try.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 27, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> I did a web search on professional sports photographers associations.  I was surprised how many there are, then I looked closer and some of seem to be run by one guy, maybe he uses it as a way to justify his business.  If someone started up a professional concert photographers association, got some cards done up as the director of it and passed them out to bands, how would they know any better, they may just look at it and figure "This guy runs the association, he must be a good photographer"  It would be a scam, but people wouldn't check.
> 
> Geez I might give this a try.



That in and of itself is a money-maker.  Start an association, make it sound important, charge $25 a year membership fee, send them a membership card that cost $0.10 to print and laminate, send out a monthly newsletter with a bunch of your old photos and other people's names, wait for more members.  What could be easier?


----------



## OLaA (Feb 27, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The musician's time is only worth something if he can find someone to pay him for it. My time is worth a lot, but nobody's willing to pay be for 24 hours of it every day. If I am running a shoestring business (for example, if I am a musician) it is not a poor financial choice for to do photoshopping myself, regardless of my hourly rate. So the 'what's his time worth' argument sounds good, but isn't. During the time he's photoshopping together his album cover, his time is worth $0/hour.
> 
> If I am reading the OP correctly, though, it sounds like he or she had a client. That client referred a lot of people to the OP, who responded by raising his or her rates on the client.
> 
> If someone did that to me, I'd dump 'em like a hot potato. It's possible I'm mis-reading the OP though? It's not really all that clear what's going on.



I didn't read it that way the first time through, but yeah it does seem that way. Also curious what your rates were to begin with? Not that it would solve the issue as a while, but if you were under cutting prices to start with before you got busy, maybe you dug your own hole?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 27, 2013)

SCraig said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I did a web search on professional sports photographers associations.  I was surprised how many there are, then I looked closer and some of seem to be run by one guy, maybe he uses it as a way to justify his business.  If someone started up a professional concert photographers association, got some cards done up as the director of it and passed them out to bands, how would they know any better, they may just look at it and figure "This guy runs the association, he must be a good photographer"  It would be a scam, but people wouldn't check.
> ...



Did you want to send me $25 to my pay pal account, I'll make you vise-president of the association?


----------



## KmH (Feb 27, 2013)

There is really no need to shout with the way oversize text. 

There is professional photography, and then there is professional photography:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/317427-pricing-article-digital-photopro.html

Raising prices is one of the most difficult and short/near term expensive (advertising) things a business can attempt to do. When a business does raise their prices they basically abandon their current customer base, as you have found out, and have to build a new customer base.

The trick is keeping the business alive until that new customer base gets built.

Shooting on the cheap when starting out very often means shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Feb 28, 2013)

SCraig said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I did a web search on professional sports photographers associations.  I was surprised how many there are, then I looked closer and some of seem to be run by one guy, maybe he uses it as a way to justify his business.  If someone started up a professional concert photographers association, got some cards done up as the director of it and passed them out to bands, how would they know any better, they may just look at it and figure "This guy runs the association, he must be a good photographer"  It would be a scam, but people wouldn't check.
> ...




Kind of what happened in the car audio world. it was never really regulated. so someone came up with the idea that people need to be certified so they new they were getting a quality installer. so what was the result.  all sorts of schools popped up charging kids to "become certified" a couple thousand dollars and you could get your certification and become a great installer. reality was these schools just teach you to pass the test. most places like best buy jumped all over this so they could tell there customers that there installers were all certified. I still wouldn't take my car to a best buy to have them install any audio gear. the certifications were just a piece of paper to get you the job and weren't an indicater of your skill. it was more just a money grab by the schools and a shiny sticker to put in your window of your audio shop.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 28, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



Its the same thing with Personal Fitness trainers.  Someone could have worked as a personal trainer for years, then Goodlife decides that all trainers had to be certified, so they came up with a three day course to "teach" people to become trainers, you had to be certified to work in any gyms. What they taught was basic anatomy, a few exercises and a lot about how to sell yourself as a trainer.  The course taught people how to get certified, and most of the trainers I have seen really don't know what they are doing.  It was a clever cash grab by Goodlife and that being re-certified every year costs more money.  I have spent over 25 years in gyms, and I was a certified trainer, I decided not to stay certified, it was pointless as the market became flooded with anyone that could write a test and do a 15 minute in gym test.  A simple unregulated cash grab.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 28, 2013)

ICPhoto said:


> I had a decent little artist and entertainment photography business building, here in Nashville; shooting independent artists.  Over the past several months, that business has dried up.  I had the occasion to speak to a once regular client, that had given me a lot of referral work.  I have developed enough of a relationship with him to ask where he had been.  He said it was all about pricing.  He had asked me to shoot a new album cover for him and I quoted him $300.00 which I thought was reasonable.  he was shocked that I was asking for a higher rate than I usually asked if him.  I tried to explain the lisening thing to him and he just didn't get or didn't want to hear it.
> During the recent conversation, he confirmed what I had expected.  People are paying $60 to $90 for 20 images on a disk, to be used in any manner they please.  I told him that I think my work is worth more than that and if I lowered my prices, that is where they would always be stuck.  He said, "Your good but, as long as these cheaper guys can come close, we just photoshop the images ourselves."  Part of the reason I was being hired was for the creative ideas of the shoot, before even snapping the 1st image.  He suggested that taking less money would get me more gigs.  The money might come slower but, at least it would be coming in.
> 
> How are all of you dealing with this?  Should I drop my prices and get in line with the other photographer's prices?  I was always taught that if I start charging too little, I was ruining it for the entire industry.  I am by no means Annie Leibovitz.  But, I put a lot of thought, effort and time in to creating artistic images for my clients, who are supposed to be artists themselves.  If I shoot for $90, by the time I am done with sets ups, shooting and editing, I would make more money waiting tables at The Golden Corral.
> ...


Sounds like you need to up your game..


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 28, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> ICPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I had a decent little artist and entertainment photography business building, here in Nashville; shooting independent artists.  Over the past several months, that business has dried up.  I had the occasion to speak to a once regular client, that had given me a lot of referral work.  I have developed enough of a relationship with him to ask where he had been.  He said it was all about pricing.  He had asked me to shoot a new album cover for him and I quoted him $300.00 which I thought was reasonable.  he was shocked that I was asking for a higher rate than I usually asked if him.  I tried to explain the lisening thing to him and he just didn't get or didn't want to hear it.
> ...



It's easy to say this, but what would you suggest be done to "up the game"


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 28, 2013)

SCraig said:


> I keep wondering why none of the professional photographer's associations have not begun to take steps to try and police their so-called profession.  I'd estimate that well under 10% of the self-proclaimed "Professional Photographers" in this country today could not even come close to passing any sort of proficiency examination.  That alone would put a stop to the majority of the problem and just might keep some of you guys in a job.  Just something for you guys to think about.  Someone needs to do something or it's just going to get worse.



How, exactly, would a group such as PPA keep someone from calling himself a professional photographer, or conducting business as such?

The only way it could do it would be if photographers had to be licensed to engage in their profession. The problem with that is that photography is, above all else, an art form and, in that regard, it's no different than poetry or music. You cannot say that someone is "proficient" simply because an art form, by its very nature, is wildly subjective. Should we license songwriters? Should we allow some umbrella group to tell someone they can't paint an abstract landscape?

My daughter shoots weddings, which is something I am loathe to undertake, simply because of the pressure. I've seen her work, and the most accurate description I can come up with for it is "technical trainwreck". 

And she's working all the time.

"Proficiency"? Well, she's making a tidy sum every time she ventures out to shoot a wedding, so I'd call that pretty proficient. She turns down clients on a regular basis simply because she's booked all the time.

I've got a pretty deep well of experience with "music photography". I've done product shoots, album covers, magazine covers; what have you. The reality, unfortunately, is that people are more reluctant these days to pay what they used to. This has simply become the way of the world. Yes, there is money to be made, but usually not much, and usually not often.

Where I make more money than anywhere else is with print sales of HDR stuff. The funny part is that I pretty much suck at HDR. But what I think, or what anyone else thinks, doesn't really matter. The only opinion that truly matters is the opinion of the person forking over cash for a print.

Find something that people are willing to pay for, and then exploit the living Hell out of it. Since January 1, I've made almost two grand selling HDR prints of random, goofy stuff that, to be honest, _*I *_wouldn't pay for.

But, as long as there are people who _will _pay for it, I'll keep shooting it...


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 28, 2013)

KmH said:


> Raising prices is one of the most difficult and short/near term expensive (advertising) things a business can attempt to do. When a business does raise their prices they basically abandon their current customer base, as you have found out, and have to build a new customer base.



A friend of mine is a guitar builder in San Diego. He hasn't raised his prices a penny in 12 years. It's gotten to the point where he never will, simply because he no longer can. His "business model" is the recipe for a slow, agonizing death...


----------



## Awiserbud (Feb 28, 2013)

Its all relative, i'm guessing these bands that chose to use a cheaper photog for their album cover are a local band, In the past they may have paid the going rate for photography work, but its all too easy to get things done cheaper now every man and his dog has DSLR's, can you blame them.
Now look at bigger bands, Bands who have made it in the music industry, they don't waste time trying to save a hundred bucks by looking for a cheaper photographer, no doubt their record label will set them up with a professional photographer.
try approaching the record labels, PR managers, and studios, you'll obviously have to have a decent portfolio to sell yourself, Thats where working for peanuts pays off, Don't ***** about not getting paid enough for what your doing now, think of it as adding more ammunition to your arsenal in order to be the one that everyone wants to shoot their next album cover.


----------



## davidzacek (Feb 28, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> Its all relative, i'm guessing these bands that chose to use a cheaper photog for their album cover are a local band, In the past they may have paid the going rate for photography work, but its all too easy to get things done cheaper now every man and his dog has DSLR's, can you blame them.
> Now look at bigger bands, Bands who have made it in the music industry, they don't waste time trying to save a hundred bucks by looking for a cheaper photographer, no doubt their record label will set them up with a professional photographer.
> try approaching the record labels, PR managers, and studios, you'll obviously have to have a decent portfolio to sell yourself, Thats where working for peanuts pays off, Don't ***** about not getting paid enough for what your doing now, think of it as adding more ammunition to your arsenal in order to be the one that everyone wants to shoot their next album cover.




This is your best bet in my opinion. I live in Austin and the music scene is very similar. Everybody here is in a local band and nobody has any money. The problem is that most "local" bands are considered "local" because they suck, and nobody outside the city has heard of them. So why are they worth your time?

Bands don't have any money, and when they do, it often gets spent very quickly. You want to target the people who make money off the band. Producers, managers, labels, studios. These are people with a good sense of business. They are investors at their core, and they know how to spend money to make money. Those are the people you should be showing your portfolio to.


----------



## rlemert (Feb 28, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Something that has bothered me is why are there no requirements for professional photographers? That's a real question I'd love to know the answer to. Nobody can just claim to be a "Professional Engineer" without passing the legal requirements. Same for doctors and lawyers. Realtors have to be licensed, even barbers and hair stylists have to be licensed. ...
> 
> The IT profession was similar. Everybody with a computer was calling themselves an "IT Professional". Microsoft took it upon themselves to start the MCSE certification, and were quickly followed by Novel, Cisco, and numerous others. Once prospective employers and customers started taking notice of those certifications it stopped a lot of the nonsense. ...




There is a difference between being "licensed" and being "certified".

Licensing is generally a legal requirement that arises because of the potential to "do harm to the public interest". The potential impact of many fields (engineering, law, etc) should be obvious; barbers and hair stylists are (potentially) putting chemicals on your body that could have a harmful impact.

Certification, as has been pointed out several times, just means that you've completed a course of training and are supposedly qualified to do the tasks for which you are certified. And, as has also been pointed out, it's only as good as a) the certification body, and b) the consumers of that service are able/willing to support. IT certification was successful because corporate clients recognized the need and saw its value.

Photography will probably never require a license because it just doesn't have the potential to harm someone like other fields do. You may not like how you look in your picture, but it's generally not going to be life-threatening. In order for certifiication to work you're going to need an agency that the public will recognize and trust to provide that certification, and there's going to need to be a demand from consumers for the expertise represented by that certificate. The only demand I see is from professional photographers; I don't see the general population recognizing any value added provided by a certificate.


----------



## Awiserbud (Feb 28, 2013)

And that demand is only brought about because they feel they are losing work to amateur photographers, Its an argument that has been around for years, usually from miserable old farts who feel nobody should own a DSLR unless they too are professional.
Its simple, if your a damn good photographer then you have nothing to worry about, your work will sell itself. we all like to think we can produce professional results, extensive compliments from people on Flickr and Facebook makes people think they are the next big thing, but the reality is those people who tell you your photos are awesome are not the ones paying for your work, When people pay for photography they take a much closer look at what you've got.
I don't see how regulating photography will help anyone, the only people who will benefit will be the organisation paid to control it.


----------



## invisible (Feb 28, 2013)

Didn't e.rose just move to Nashville? That's probably where the work is going


----------



## Mully (Feb 28, 2013)

I have watched this cancer spread for over 20 years, cheaper,cheaper and now free....this is what happens when so called photographers have no stake in what they are doing.  Today so many skim off the top and drives the price way down.  Stock was a good source of income for many photographers 20 years ago, not so today and what killed that industry was stock on a disk.  200 high rez images for $59.95.  The good old days were truly good and I am glad I was in the deep end of the pool instead of todays waders.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 28, 2013)

The buggy-whip industry caved in when the automobile took over too. It sucks, but change happens.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 28, 2013)

rlemert said:


> There is a difference between being "licensed" and being "certified".
> 
> Licensing is generally a legal requirement that arises because of the  potential to "do harm to the public interest". The potential impact of  many fields (engineering, law, etc) should be obvious; barbers and hair  stylists are (potentially) putting chemicals on your body that could  have a harmful impact.
> 
> ...



I'm aware there is a difference between "Licensure" and "Certification".   All of the professions I mentioned require LICENSURE in Tennessee.  In  addition, a few more that I found interesting and probably about as  dangerous as photography:
Auctioneer
Boxing  Program
Display Exhibitors/Sponsors
Locksmiths
Motor Vehicle Auctions
Motor Vehicle Dealers
Motor Vehicle Reps
Motor Vehicle Salesmen
Pre-License Providers
Timeshare Registration
Vacation Lodging Service
Recreational Vehicle Dealers
Responsible Managing Employees
Result Sheet

In my opinion a lot of people ARE getting "Hurt" by incompetent photographers:

1. People hire a cheap photographer for their wedding and get garbage in return.  Repeating a wedding simply to have a competent photographer shoot it over is normally not a possibility, so those people are going to have to live with those photographs for however long they remain important to them.

2.  A company on a strict deadline hires an incompetent photographer to shoot a catalog spread and they get garbage in return.  Extending the deadline to reshoot is not an option.  What do they do?

I should be able to think of others, but it's been a long day and I'm tired.

Sure, "Let The Buyer Beware" and all that, but the fact is that people are being "Hurt" by incompetent photographers.  At least as much as some of the professions that require licensure (not certification) in Tennessee.



invisible said:


> Didn't e.rose just move to Nashville? That's probably where the work is going


Oh, good point!


----------



## amolitor (Feb 28, 2013)

Mm, hmm. Good to know. Good to know.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 28, 2013)

When I was a member of the corporate world, one of my main functions was to think about how the products I was responsible for would change given the continuing changes in the nature of the clients we were serving/chasing.  Which way were our clients moving?  Why?  How did this change affect our business model?  What kind of opportunities did the change represent?  What would we have to do to interest the people moving in that direction?  Who else was moving into the same space?  What did they have that we didn't (and conversely, what did we have that they didn't)?  This exercise was done twice a year, and was painful, as we often had to throw out our pet projects and cherished ideas, and start effectively from scratch.  

I've run several of my own businesses for about 17 years now.  Almost every year something happened (usually externally) that would force major adaptations and redirection of effort.  The nature of our client base keeps changing.  How we approach them has to change.  Who is our competitor(s) keeps on changing.  The skill-set we need to compete changes as well.  And I don't think we are unique.  What we do now has little resemblance to what we used to do ten years ago.  We all have to examine our assumptions regarding our business model and know that perhaps 50% of what we used to do will become obsolete during the year.  Of course, which 50% won't be known up front, so it's not hard to guess wrong, and zig when we should have zagged.  But the sooner you recognize that what you're doing isn't working, the sooner you can make a change and find the new track.  It ain't easy.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 2, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> Now look at bigger bands, Bands who have made it in the music industry, they don't waste time trying to save a hundred bucks by looking for a cheaper photographer, no doubt their record label will set them up with a professional photographer.




I know several "bigger" bands and performers, and I can assure you that this just isn't true. They all want to save money where they can. Someone like Taylor Swift doesn't worry about it, because she has an entire mechanism of "Taylor Swift Inc" doing all the heavy lifting. All she does is write catchy songs and try to look cute on stage. But you would probably be surprised to learn just how _not _big a lot of these "bigger" bands are. 

I'm very good friends with the guys in Barenaked Ladies. The first time I ever saw them in concert, I thought for sure they had an army of roadies setting them up and striking them down after a show. I later learned that their crew consists of five people. When I shot them in New York, Goo Goo Dolls opened for them, and t_heir c_rew was only _three _people.

"Record companies" just ain't what they used to be, and they leave a _lot _up to the performer. Instead of setting up a photographer for a band, many record companies now will simply tell the band "We need good photos" and leave it on the band's shoulders to provide them.


----------



## IByte (Mar 2, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Durys used to have 7 or 8 stores around Nashville.  Now they are down to 1.  The reason being much the same reason as you are stating.  How much of your gear did you purchase from Durys?  Why not?  Is the expertise they offer as part of their built-in services not worth the difference in price?  John Freund is gone.  Photographic Solutions is a printing service now.  Those guys were big 30 years ago.
> 
> If you Google "Nashville Photographers" and then click on the map in the right-hand corner it will show 2,338 results.  Ten years ago it was probably 1/10 that and 20 years ago I'd be willing to bet that there were only a couple of dozen.  I grew up in Clarksville and worked in a camera shop back in the 60's.  At that time there were two full-time studios in Clarksville: Danceys and Ardingers.  When I looked on Google a year or so ago there were in excess of 250 "Professional" photographers in Clarksville.
> 
> ...



IT world.  At least being Cisco certified still holds a lot of weight.


----------



## CCericola (Mar 2, 2013)

The bigger they are, the cheaper they can get


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 2, 2013)

skieur said:


> Some may think they can find photos or photography cheaply but what they can't do is put it all together into a production or presentation.



That is true. I'm making a book. Need pdf files and a cover design. Don't know how to do it. Got the pix, text on Word, but that is it.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 2, 2013)

KmH said:


> There is really no need to shout with the way oversize text.
> 
> There is professional photography, and then there is professional photography:
> 
> ...



I think raising prices can happen if you have a loyal base that will take a price hike. Or you are in such demand you don't mind or even welcome some lost biz beacuse you can't handle it all.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 2, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > Now look at bigger bands, Bands who have made it in the music industry, they don't waste time trying to save a hundred bucks by looking for a cheaper photographer, no doubt their record label will set them up with a professional photographer.
> ...



I think that is human nature. Rich or poor, people don't like being raped.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 2, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > I keep wondering why none of the professional photographer's associations have not begun to take steps to try and police their so-called profession.  I'd estimate that well under 10% of the self-proclaimed "Professional Photographers" in this country today could not even come close to passing any sort of proficiency examination.  That alone would put a stop to the majority of the problem and just might keep some of you guys in a job.  Just something for you guys to think about.  Someone needs to do something or it's just going to get worse.
> ...




HDR...now your talking!!

Good work!!!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 2, 2013)

I feel for you struggling guys. Doesn't affect me in exactly the same way as you. But it does effect me in other ways. Since I don't aspire to make money with photos, I don't care. But with what I try and do with my work, all the photo competition does affect me, even if I don't look to make money on it. 

For 7 months last year I was one of the 'shoot for free' photogs. Advertised, put up flyer's, newspapers ads, stopped by beauty schools, agencies, Model Mayhem, etc. 

Outcome: Not one 'work for free' job. 

I even offered high quality 13 x 19 prints for free. Now, I did get one dad call me to shoot his son's senior portrait. But that was not what I was looking for. Was not looking for nude gals either. Just wanted something I could be proud of and put in my book.

Also got an email from an undercover cop trying to entrap me with shooting a young boy. One Model Mayhem reply from a gal that never showed up. And last but not least, a hooker that wanted me to pay her $200 and I could do whatever I liked. But that was it for 7 months of trying. (I do live in a small town,  if I lived in NY or L.A. it would probably be different.)

So I gave up all that craziness and said screw it, I'm not going after free photos for modeling any longer. I went back to my roots of street photography and am very happy with it. 

The world is just polluted with photos and photographers.  2 billion photos every week uploaded to Facebook attests to that fact. Billions more get put on the web daily and weekly.

What Facebook Deals with Everyday: 2.7 Billion Likes, 300 Million Photos Uploaded and 500 Terabytes of Data

Just how our world turned out. When I was a wet darkroom photog 44 years ago, few people knew how to process a print. Now anyone can pop out fine prints with a $80 ink jet from Walmart. 

...something has to give.

Best of luck finding your niche!


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 3, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> HDR...now your talking!!
> 
> Good work!!!




To be honest, it shocks the Hell out of me that people want to give me real American money for some of these shots I've taken. At best, I'm an HDR hack. But if these folks want to believe that my photos are the best thing since white toothpaste, I'm not going to tell them any different...


----------

