# Money Loser? What Gives?



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

I got an e-mail from AmazonLocal, and one of the deals in it was for a local photographer. This is the text of the Amazon ad the photographer is running. I've redacted the photographer's name, website, etc:

_Photos By XXXXXXXX_
_Sold by Photos By XXXXXXXX
_
_The Details        _
_
You're constantly snapping pictures with your phone or your camera, but are your shots truly amazing? Call in a professional with this deal from XXXXXXXXX and get wall-worthy shots when you pay $75 (usually $450) for a two-hour on-location photo shoot with 25 edited photos on a CD, or pay $45 (usually $200) for an hour-long on-location photo shoot with 20 edited images on CD.
_
_For years XXXXXXXX has been traveling the San Diego area to help clients capture memories that will last a lifetime. She specializes in a natural, candid, unpretentious style that freezes her subjects in genuine moments and imbues her photos with a life of their own. Plus, you get her expert editing prowess, too. When the photo shoot is over, she'll masterfully apply subtle electronic touches to your shots to help them truly pop. Grasp a moment in time with this great deal._

_ 
What You Need to Know_

_&#8226; Limit 10 vouchers per customer
&#8226; Limit 1 per customer per session
&#8226; Appointments are required and subject to availability
&#8226; Merchant cancellation/re-scheduling policy of 24 hours applies; voucher subject to forfeiture
&#8226; All services must be redeemed during a single visit and used by same customer
&#8226; Valid for 5 people per session
&#8226; Valid only for option purchased
&#8226; Distance restrictions apply. Service area includes San Diego County up to Temecula and as far south as El Centro; call merchant for details
&#8226; Available for use beginning on June 25, 2012
&#8226; The amount paid for the voucher does not expire. The remaining promotional value of the voucher above what you paid for it will expire on December 25, 2012

_There are always debates about pricing, and about how low-priced photographers actually hurt the industry (something I don't necessarily agree with). However, in this case, it's pretty clearly hurting _her _business.

For those not familiar with San Diego or southern California, the city of Temecula is about 60 miles north of downtown San Diego. The city of El Centro is about 110 miles east of downtown San Diego. If someone in El Centro books her for a one hour shoot, she's getting paid a whopping $45.00. She's in the red before she even gets home, just considering the price of gasoline.

Why would someone do that? 

I can understand wanting to offer a lower price than the competition, but this is ridiculous. I charge $75.00 an hour (with a two hour minimum), and even that's too low (and will be amended soon). $45.00 for a one hour shoot that's over 100 miles away?

Don't get me wrong, this type of thing doesn't concern me. My clients aren't surfing through Amazon to find a photographer. I'm just stunned that there are people out there who are able to believe this is a good idea.

Whaddya' think?


----------



## CCericola (Jun 22, 2012)

My business manager said things like Amazon deals or groupon do not work for photographers unless you are a multi million dollar company like The Picture People. We have run the numbers and frankly, anyone who thinks it is a good idea is an idiot.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

CCericola said:


> My business manager said things like Amazon deals or groupon do not work for photographers unless you are a multi million dollar company like The Picture People. We have run the numbers and frankly, anyone who thinks it is a good idea is an idiot.



The person offering this is most definitely _not _a multi-million dollar company...


----------



## SCraig (Jun 22, 2012)

I think this is an instance of one of the new breed of instant professional photographers getting a taste of reality.  Not knowing who the photographer is (and I understand your reluctance to show the name) I obviously have no idea of their capabilities, but just given the text of the offer leads me to that conclusion.

The photography industustry has been glutted with 30-day wonders and until something is done to regulate who can claim to be a professional it will continue.  There are no requirements for professional photographers other than being able to pay for a business license and hang up a shingle.  The cream will float to the top and the others will sink, and in my opinion this is one of the "Others".


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

See this all the time! Typically a typical MWAC / Facebook / Craigslist photographer that has no idea about CODB, probably delivers total crap, uses all entry level gear. Probably thought Groupon was a great idea too. They won't last long.


----------



## IByte (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> See this all the time! Typically a typical MWAC / Facebook / Craigslist photographer that has no idea about CODB, probably delivers total crap, uses all entry level gear. Probably thought Groupon was a great idea too. They won't last long.



Lol Charlie I bet you are  getting the brain vein.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

I redacted the name in the ad because I know the person. 

The person's not a bad photographer; pretty good, in fact. I'm just stunned at the approach. The photographer in question could _easily_, and I believe has, earned _far _more money than what's listed in the Amazon ad...


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

IByte said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope.. not at all!   I don't have to worry about it.. since I don't shoot professionally anymore! (and even if I did, I wouldn't worry about it). I do hate what that type of PRO has done to the public's perception of what professional photography is.... but I just ignore most of them now although I read some of the posts they do just for some laughs!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> I redacted the name in the ad because I know the person.
> 
> The person's not a bad photographer; pretty good, in fact. I'm just stunned at the approach. The photographer in question could _easily_, and I believe has, earned _far _more money than what's listed in the Amazon ad...



Well.. if they put themselves out of business.. then there should be more for you!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

SCraig said:


> I think this is an instance of one of the new breed of instant professional photographers getting a taste of reality.  Not knowing who the photographer is (and I understand your reluctance to show the name) I obviously have no idea of their capabilities, but just given the text of the offer leads me to that conclusion.
> 
> The photography industustry has been glutted with 30-day wonders and until something is done to regulate who can claim to be a professional it will continue.  There are no requirements for professional photographers other than being able to pay for a business license and hang up a shingle.  The cream will float to the top and the others will sink, and in my opinion this is one of the "Others".



Tests, Peer reviews, and Certifications.. PLEASE! LOL!


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Well.. if they put themselves out of business.. then there should be more for you!



Probably not. Without getting into specifics, we have a very different target clientele...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Tests, Peer reviews, and Certifications.. PLEASE! LOL!



I'm not certain if this is a joke or not...


----------



## unpopular (Jun 22, 2012)

His terms seem kind of random. Limit of ten Vouchers? Groups of five only? Seems like he's kind of making it up as he goes.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

I dont understand why the expensive "pro" photographers even care. If someone has $800 budget for wedding photography, and they come to you, what do you tell them if they cannot pay any more than that? Do you do the job for $800 or do you tell them they have to find another photographer that will work in their budget? If you wont do the job on their cheaper budget, then you havent lost any business since they could never afford you anyway. Whats wrong with another photographer filling that niche? And whats to say they cant do good work on that budget? And either way, why does anyone else care since. Im going to guess that someone with a $3000+ budget for photography probably isn't looking for someone on craigslist...seems like its a non issue to me. But what do I know... I get paid to get people to a hospital alive..not to take pictures, so my knowledge base on this subject is limited.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 22, 2012)

SCraig said:


> until something is done to regulate who can claim to be a professional it will continue



Pardon my french, but...

**** that.

It's not the government's job to protect us from bad portraits.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Tests, Peer reviews, and Certifications.. PLEASE! LOL!
> ...



Nope.. not at all! I would love to see it happen, as would most reputable pro's. If a person had to demonstrate ability through testing, and peer review before being able to get a business license, there would be a lot fewer questionable PRO's out there!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> I dont understand why the expensive "pro" photographers even care. If someone has $800 budget for wedding photography, and they come to you, what do you tell them if they cannot pay any more than that? Do you do the job for $800 or do you tell them they have to find another photographer that will work in their budget? If you wont do the job on their cheaper budget, then you havent lost any business since they could never afford you anyway. Whats wrong with another photographer filling that niche? And whats to say they cant do good work on that budget? And either way, why does anyone else care since. Im going to guess that someone with a $3000+ budget for photography probably isn't looking for someone on craigslist...seems like its a non issue to me. But what do I know... I get paid to get people to a hospital alive..not to take pictures, so my knowledge base on this subject is limited.



I am a former Paramedic.. did mostly lifeflight, and ER... some volunteer ambulance time too. You have probably worked with other medics, and EMT's, that you felt should not even be allowed to touch a patient, haven't you? Is that lesser ability ok, for those that "pay" less? Should only those that can afford more, get the better medical care? 

I feel that same way about photography!    Yes.. the low-ends fill a niche for the people who are cheap, or really can't afford better... and that is fine. But they should not call themselves PRO's! (but that is a touchy semantic issue.. don't want to start that up again) lol!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> ...But they should not call themselves PRO's! (but that is a touchy semantic issue.. *don't want to start that up again*) lol!



Too late!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...But they should not call themselves PRO's! (but that is a touchy semantic issue.. *don't want to start that up again*) lol!
> ...



You are a LIKE HOG!


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> I am a former Paramedic.. did mostly lifeflight, and ER... some volunteer ambulance time too. You have probably worked with other medics, and EMT's, that you felt should not even be allowed to touch a patient, haven't you? Is that lesser ability ok, for those that "pay" less? Should only those that can afford more, get the better medical care?
> 
> I feel that same way about photography!    Yes.. the low-ends fill a niche for the people who are cheap, or really can't afford better... and that is fine. But they should not call themselves PRO's! (but that is a touchy semantic issue.. don't want to start that up again) lol!



This is true. I am a paramedic for a private company. I make less money than  county or city EMS. Even though we do the same jobs, private ambulance companies are often looked down on by the higher paid county guys. Im not saying there shouldnt be standards and protocols, lord knows i do enough continuing education and training to maintain all my certs. My point is...is that PRICE does not dictate quality. Nor does being a high priced pro mean you will get great results. Judge someone based on the quality of work they do...not how much money they make.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



EXACTLY! I judge people on their work... not how much money they make!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Too late!
> ...



Hey! I can't help it I am sooooo "Like"able!







Besides, I need get 4K before the new year!


----------



## sm4him (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



I am trying SO HARD to not click "like" on this post... 

EDIT: I failed.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...But they should not call themselves PRO's! (but that is a touchy semantic issue.. *don't want to start that up again*) lol!
> ...



So, on this professional photography test, I think "what are your thoughts on UV filters" should be the first question.


----------



## sm4him (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> I dont understand why the expensive "pro" photographers even care. If someone has $800 budget for wedding photography, and they come to you, what do you tell them if they cannot pay any more than that? Do you do the job for $800 or do you tell them they have to find another photographer that will work in their budget? If you wont do the job on their cheaper budget, then you havent lost any business since they could never afford you anyway. Whats wrong with another photographer filling that niche? And whats to say they cant do good work on that budget? And either way, why does anyone else care since. Im going to guess that someone with a $3000+ budget for photography probably isn't looking for someone on craigslist...seems like its a non issue to me. But what do I know... I get paid to get people to a hospital alive..not to take pictures, so my knowledge base on this subject is limited.


[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone is saying that the CL and FB fauxtogs shouldn't be able to fill that niche of doing photography for those who simply don't have the budget for it.  But it would be nice, both for the highly-skilled photographer AND for the consumer, if there were basically a way of being certified as a photographer. That way, the consumer has a little better idea what to even look for.
I think of electricians. There are plenty of people I could find to come and do the work if I need some wiring done, and a lot of them would charge WAY less than some of these fancy-schmancy "professional" electricians who think they're hot stuff  (Just Kidding, sparky!!). But you know, I kinda LIKE that I can verify an electrician's credentials before I have him start wiring my house! If I STILL want to risk paying Bubba $50 to run that new wiring, then okay...but at least I knew up front what I was risking.

Yep, we need certified photographers (which is different from "certifiable" photographers, of which we have a gracious plenty already).


----------



## unpopular (Jun 22, 2012)

yeah. well. last I checked a photographer won't burn down your house if they mess up.

not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

I don't think regulation will happen in the photographic field (whether it needs to or not - and I have no opinion on that at the moment)...

For one, you can't DIE if someone does a ****ty job shooting your wedding.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> yeah. well. last I checked a photographer won't burn down your house if they mess up.
> 
> not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely.



True... But they can sure destroy all of your photographic memories from your wedding or other special event!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> I don't think regulation will happen in the photographic field (whether it needs to or not - and I have no opinion on that at the moment)...
> 
> For one, you can't DIE if someone does a ****ty job shooting your wedding.



That doesn't make it ok, does it?


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

At least with photographers, you can get an idea of what kind of work they do by looking at their portfolio. if they have a fair amount of work, and you like what you see, then you have a better chance (not saying its guaranteed) of getting results you will be  happy with. while I will agree that some form of certification would be nice, much of photography is subjective. so who would be the final judges on who should be a "pro" and who should not? 

And like other industries, should there be different "levels" of pro photographers. for example, in medicine (since that's what I know) you have different levels of professional care, and they are paid accordingly based on certification and level of care. 
paramedic -> nurse -> doctor, and so on.  Again, there is enough subjectivity in photography, that as long as the clients are happy with what they get, I think everyone is happy.
and thats what is really important in the professional world yes? making the clients happy. I dont know about photography clients...but when MY patients aren't happy, I hear about it. a lot. If I had a dollar for every time Ive said "sorry SIR, ive already given you the max dose of morphine my protocols allow", well, i'd have a lot of dollars.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No.  That is why we have the court system that we do. Should you need to show a certificate showing that you have been trained and certified to buy an oil filter, or a serpentine belt?

If photography were regulated, photographic purchases would also, by necessity, be regulated.  How much of your gear would you 'not be allowed to purchase' if certification were a requirement for photography?


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



*Click* You're one click closer!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 22, 2012)

Government regulation should be to protect the rights of the consumer, not to limit competition. While it could be argued that an attempt to regulate photography may benefit the consumer, it does not protect their rights and would limit options. We have a right to ensure our safety of self and property, thus why doctors, electricians and even cosmetologists are regulated. But we don't have a right to good photographic services.

As an artist, I am also appalled by the idea of the government meddling with photographic technique.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



You can buy an oil filter or serpentine belt to do your own work on your own car. same as you can buy a camera and a lens to do your own photography in your own home. You don't actually have to be certified as a mechanic to work in a lot of shops. its not a requirement as long as the shop has the proper permits and insurance. So i can see how it would be hard to regulate something like photographers, but it wouldn't affect you buying camera gear even if it was.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


Yeah, right after posting I thought the same thing, lol.  I was trying to figure out a good way to re-write it, but figured somebody would quote it before I got there...  (Guess what...)  

I am an aircraft mechanic.  You have to be certified (A&P license) to do a lot of things - but if you work in a shop that is certified, you yourself don't have to be.  You can also buy all of the tools you would need without certification.

I agree with what unpopular said though:


unpopular said:


> Government regulation should be to protect the rights of the consumer, not to limit competition.




I actually think that the laws are already in place, just that they aren't enforced as often as they should be.  How many "Professional Photographers" are working under the radar, without registering their business or paying taxes?  A lot, I think.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

sm4him said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that the CL and FB fauxtogs shouldn't be able to fill that niche of doing photography for those who simply don't have the budget for it.  But it would be nice, both for the highly-skilled photographer AND for the consumer, if there were basically a way of being certified as a photographer. That way, the consumer has a little better idea what to even look for.



Yeah, but, certification can still be meaningless. The last place I worked, the owner was a certified gemologist. Jewelery appraisals for insurance purposes, require them to be done by certified gemologists. You know who did the appraisals at that place? The (for all intents and purposes) SECRETARY! The owner merely signed the document. I have to say, the "secretary" basically ran his business, so, she wasn't really just a secretary. The thing is, anyone can grade stones, measure them, and look up current prices, and write an appraisal. The certification is meaningless. Further, my xBoss was not a very good jeweler/metalsmith, but he could pass the Master Jeweler certificate test which is done through a single organization. It's not free. It's rather expensive for what it is, actually. I am not a "certified" master jeweler. The consumer still faces a crap shoot in choosing who they want to make or repair their goods. Just because someone is certified, means nothing, really. 

But we are talking about "creative" services here, and I don't think it is fair to compare these with professions that, like the electrician, have codes they have to follow.  But at the same time, I would think a weekend mechanic could be just as good, and as knowledgable as a "certified" mechanic. 

Heck! The company that put a roof on my house had some sort of certification, and they still didn't do it right. They didn't install the freeze guard properly, and it needs redone. Standards are all well and good, but it doesn't mean they will be followed to the letter.

On another hand, how would you certify creativity of a photographer? We've seen plenty of people who can shoot technically well done images, yet lack a firm grasp on the artistic side. SO I think there are several side to this, and shooting things like weddings. People without the desire to pay for that creative, amazing, photographer, may just want their day documented. 

These same people may buy jewelery off QVC or the home shopping network. They want the glamour, but can't afford it, so they buy crap jewelery. When they bring it to me to repair, and I say, no, sorry, it's not worth the effort. It's not my problem.

I think this discussion is pretty ridiculous. BUT, as a craftsman, I would think people who go into any sort of business should do so because they are good at it, rather than they see it as easy money. I feel that's whats at the root of a lot of FB and CL photographers. Sure, sure, they love doing it, they have "the passions". But they are't very realistic about their abilities.

Not much you can do about it, and I don't think certification in any form will change anything really.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

And that is a great point.. I think there probably are a lot of photographers working "under the table", but I think that is true for many industries..electricians, plumbers, mechanics, all doing jobs on the side instead of telling their "clients" to go to where they work at. I dare say we are probably all guilty of adding fuel to THAT fire at one point or another by "hiring" someone off the clock to do a job cheaper. Again though, I would ask who is that really affecting except  the clients, (for possibly poor work) and the government (for not getting their tax money)


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

Certification would keep out the people that can't afford the application fees, but that's about it.

Anyone can cram for a test.  To get an A&P license, you have to have 18 months experience, and be 'signed off' by another A&P.  After that, it's just a matter of paying the fees and taking the tests.  Passing the test doesn't mean you're good.

(School counts as experience, if you're wondering how you get started.  And again, neither license nor experience are required to work in a certified facility.  All that is required for that is good interviewing abilities.)


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> How many "Professional Photographers" are working under the radar, without registering their business or paying taxes?  A lot, I think.


 Exactly. Easy money.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 22, 2012)

Certification doesn't mean much of anything.

Once upon a time, a friend of mine called me to go check the electricity in his brand new house. He thought it was doing weird things. Sure was. The wiring was a total mess. The house was built by a reputable local builder who has master electricians on staff. I guess those guys were on vacation...

My parents have a painting that some self-claimed lover of dutch masters always told them was worth quite a bit of money. So, one day, they took it to an expert on that period who certified the painting as being from a small, not very well known dutch master. As a result, my parents decided to have it cleaned. The guy who cleaned it showed them why it couldn't be what the expert said it was. In five minutes, the expert, who works for a famous, international auction house, was debunked.

Certification? Sure, if it makes you happy. But I wonder how you are going to certify something that is so un-certifiable. 



As for the original question, OP, if you know the photog, why not ask her why she did it?


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Certification would keep out the people that can't afford the application fees, but that's about it.
> 
> Anyone can cram for a test.  To get an A&P license, you have to have 18 months experience, and be 'signed off' by another A&P.  After that, it's just a matter of paying the fees and taking the tests.  Passing the test doesn't mean you're good.
> 
> (School counts as experience, if you're wondering how you get started.  And again, neither license nor experience are required to work in a certified facility.  All that is required for that is good interviewing abilities.)



And that brings us right back to where we would draw the line for "professional". is it an amount of money you command? a certain level of detail in work? An amount of photos in your portfolio? Personally, I don't care whether you call yourself an amateur, a professional,  or a hobbyist. If i'm looking for someone to take pictures, and you can show me good work in consistent photos, that's all that really matters to me.  The measure of your worth is in your product. in what you actually DO, not what some piece of paper SAYS you can do.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> And that brings us right back to where we would draw the line for "professional".


Well, if photography were regulated, the answer would be very simple.  The answer would be that a "Professional Photographer" is someone that has paid a fee and passed a test.

edit
Personally, I prefer our current (open ended) definition of "Professional Photographer" to that.


----------



## Rwsphotos (Jun 22, 2012)

Thank you Bitter And well said.   Being Certified or a high priced does not indicate a persons skill. There is a reason we have portfolios right?? Its to show our potential client our skills so they can judge if we are a good fit for their need. I have seen High priced weddings with mediocre results just like Bitter's Roof scenario certified to do the job but not the skills.  On that note were is the line between beginning professional and fake fauxtog ??  There is one more issue to certification how about business licensees and insurance?  A much bigger fish to fry that is a bigger cause of problems.  Regulations on those vary from state to city.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > And that brings us right back to where we would draw the line for "professional".
> ...



"IF" photography were regulated. But since it isn't, all we can do is have an opinion of whether or not we think someone calling themselves a professional is or isn't. and that's all it really is at this point. someones opinion. I think we are too wrapped up with the word "Professional" And i mean that for both the people that call themselves pros, as well as the people criticizing the pros. In any case, photography is an art, and a lot of it is subjective. Its basically a buyer beware market. The best thing people can do to protect themselves is to do a little research before they hire anyone. I think there would be a lot less heartache if that were the case.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

Rwsphotos said:


> Thank you Bitter And well said.   Being Certified or a high priced does not indicate a persons skill. There is a reason we have portfolios right?? Its to show our potential client our skills so they can judge if we are a good fit for their need. I have seen High priced weddings with mediocre results just like Bitter's Roof scenario certified to do the job but not the skills.  On that note were is the line between beginning professional and fake fauxtog ??  There is one more issue to certification how about business licensees and insurance?  A much bigger fish to fry that is a bigger cause of problems.  Regulations on those vary from state to city.



Portfolios only get the best shots.. not the representative work (at least not where many of the FB / CL photog are concerned). If someone takes 10,000 photos.. and gets 10 good ones, guess which ones go in the portfolio? 

At least some sort of certification that someone knows how to get a decent exposure, good WB, sharp shots.. with a understand of light and how to manipulate it, ability to use flash and other tools (even proof that they can shoot adequately without using AUTO).. would give the consumer some protection against this kind of chicanery!  Peer review of the potential photogs could go a long way in helping the industry become truly professional, if done correctly.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


I thought that was what we were talking about...  Whether regulation of Photography is a good idea or not.

That isn't how the thread started, but it quickly went there...


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Rwsphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Bitter And well said.   Being Certified or a high priced does not indicate a persons skill. There is a reason we have portfolios right?? Its to show our potential client our skills so they can judge if we are a good fit for their need. I have seen High priced weddings with mediocre results just like Bitter's Roof scenario certified to do the job but not the skills.  On that note were is the line between beginning professional and fake fauxtog ??  There is one more issue to certification how about business licensees and insurance?  A much bigger fish to fry that is a bigger cause of problems.  Regulations on those vary from state to city.
> ...




How else but from a portfolio would you be able to judge someones work? What gives the consumer some protection is the contract they sign. There is nothing saying that there cant be clauses in a contract with some kind of penalty if the client is not happy with the photos with some amount of viewable justification. I realize that contract is there mostly to protect the photographer, but as a consumer, why would you sign a contract that leaves you totally hanging in the wind if things go south?  If you are paying for professional services, then you should have the same expectations of quality that the photographer has of getting paid. And it should reflect such in the contract you sign. It would also make it easier if you had to go to court over it. MAYBE the title of professional should go to those photographers willing to back up their work with a money back guarantee. 

As for certification, I cant speak for photographers, BUT, I have seen more than a few paramedics pass school, pass the state and national exam, but are not able to
perform under real working conditions and quit or get fired.  even with certifications, its still a crapshoot. for the record tho, I totally agree that some kind of standardized
certification process would be beneficial.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > until something is done to regulate who can claim to be a professional it will continue
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> As for certification, I cant speak for photographers, BUT, I have seen more than a few paramedics pass school, pass the state and national exam, but are not able to
> perform under real working conditions and quit or get fired.  even with certifications, its still a crapshoot. for the record tho, I totally agree that some kind of standardized
> certification process would be beneficial.


And that right there is the problem with regulation.  It's more about generating revenue than anything else.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 22, 2012)

I just don't get it. Why should there be regulation simply because "the establishment" can't compete with the startups?


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > As for certification, I cant speak for photographers, BUT, I have seen more than a few paramedics pass school, pass the state and national exam, but are not able to
> ...



Well Crap...that's really it in a nutshell


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Rwsphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Bitter And well said.   Being Certified or a high priced does not indicate a persons skill. There is a reason we have portfolios right?? Its to show our potential client our skills so they can judge if we are a good fit for their need. I have seen High priced weddings with mediocre results just like Bitter's Roof scenario certified to do the job but not the skills.  On that note were is the line between beginning professional and fake fauxtog ??  There is one more issue to certification how about business licensees and insurance?  A much bigger fish to fry that is a bigger cause of problems.  Regulations on those vary from state to city.
> ...



It's still a buyer be-aware market. Thing about your argument, is that it always comes off as trying to stop AMOMENT's from having businesses. I think what has been touched on above is more important, that all these FB and CL photographers have insurance, and pay taxes.

I mean, christ, if someone is going to charge $1 per image to edit/process it, we all know their business model is going to fail. There IS a market for the cheap photographers. There is room for them. 

I hate to keep going back to my business, but I am faced with similar things as far as competing with those who are underskilled and under priced. My situation is unusual in that I compete with three other trade shops in my building. I repeatedly have my my customers (remember, these are retail stores I do regular work for) trying out other jewelers trying to get my quality at a cheaper price. Guess what? If they want quality, they come to me. If they want cheap, they go to them. One of my accounts, I set diamond earrings for. We're talking 25-35 pair at a time. I raised my price $2, and that account went to the guy upstairs, cuz he was cheaper. Guess what else? They sent them all back to me to fix! The account is still searching for the same quality at a cheaper price. I just had to fix another batch, they took to somebody else! I am at the point that I am going to raise the price again, another $2. Guess what will happen? The will go someplace else, cheaper, and they will be back, with things to fix.

You know what's killer? I only charge them $18 a pair to set, polish, clean, and rhodium plate! $18!!!
I will say it again. $18 to set a pair of earings that will sell for over $1000!

People are driven by price, service, and quality. There will always be customers for the FB, and CL photographers. People ARE willing to sacrifice quality for price. The customer in my example is not, and they will continue searching for the quality they want, at the price they want. I will only push them to decide which is more important. The other three jewelers in my building get business because of their price. They are still in business (but complaining business is slow), while I am working 7 days a week, turning new accounts away.

So all this talk of certification ammounts to a hill of beans. People who want my quality of work, will, and CAN pay for it. People who want something as cheaply as possible WILL get it.

My xBoss, complained insessantly about all the jewelers who work out of their house driving prices down. He left this building because his business was failing. What was the problem? Was it these jewelers working out of their house? No! I am doing gangbusters in the same location! Poor business decisions are more likely to effect other businesses, rather than the cottage photography industry.

AMOMENT, for example, could do well regardless of her quality. If she has the customers that find the quality satisfactory (no matter what we think), and that the price is right. But in the end, will the business be truely successful, at 1$ per image edit? Will she find that she is working her butt off to make $10? Probably. If she is smart, and realizes this, she'll raise her prices. Then she'll see how many customers find that the price/quality ratio isn't there, and they will move on.
Certification? Phewy! It won't change a thing*.* <---period!


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rwsphotos said:
> ...



I think the lesson here is we can ALL coexist!


----------



## Rwsphotos (Jun 22, 2012)

Would love to see some sort of standard for the industry but how???    I agree with the the problem with regulation being about generating revenue.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

As far as I can see, the only thing that can be done is educate people.  If people knew what to look for, or what to steer clear of - they would make better decisions.  But you would still have the people who only care about the bottom line.  There's nothing you can do for them.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 22, 2012)

From what I have heard allot of those groupon or amazon type deal only about half the people go thru with the sale.  meaning they pay the money up front, but never end up using the service. just forget or who knows why. if that is the case  your going to make a little bit more per shoot then what is advertised. It could be a deal where they are doing it to maybe break eaven in hopes of getting there name out there more and in front of more people. There is also a posibilitty that they are highering out cheap photographers to do the work for them.

 I applied for a photograpy internship last month, And was basically told I was too far along for them and they had nothing they could teach me. Then they came back and asked me if I was interested in shooting family portraits for them because they were about to do a groupon and were bringing on a couple of photographers like me to do it. So I imagine they were wanting to rope me into photograhing there family shoots and probalby getting $10 an hour to do it for them. if they pulled in a few photographers like this there hourly cost would decrease as well. so between all these methods they could probalby pull in a small profit. and again if its being used for adverising pourposes it could be a win. 

They may also be jacking up there prices on any print photos and hoping some cash generated from that sell will help offset the cost.



As for the regulating who can be a Pro i'm thinking Bitter is likely right it wont amount to much. If it's done it definatly shouldn't be regulated by the goverment, that to me is just a total waste of money. If it is to be done it should be self regulated industry. For example in the Car Audio industry there was an organisation called the MECP that was created to test car audio instalers on there knoledge so that when you went into a store and saw the MECP sticker on the door, you new you were getting a certified installer. Best buy got on this quick. downside is that it was a written test and just because someone could pass a written test did not mean they had the abilitiy or skills to actually install a quality audio system.  I new guys who were worlds above anything coming out of the MECP who were paying there $200 fee or whatever it was because people wanted to see that sticker on there window even though they were 10x the installer of the certified stores. it became for allot of people something to spend money on just so they could ease people minds.

I think there is room for all levels of skill, sure someone may not be able to know you are showing only the best 100 out of thousands of photos. but heck, most people I hire I dont even have that to go on. so the customer is starting out on a better level then allot of trades and professions out there. As long as they are doing it legally that is.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> downside is that it was a written test and just because someone could pass a written test did not mean they had the abilitiy or skills to actually install a quality audio system.


ANY test based 'certification' has this problem.

It's easy to 'teach the test'.  Schools pop up all over for that very purpose.  They teach you to pass the test, and nothing else.  You pay a pretty penny for that too.

'Certification Schools' are a whole industry in their own right.  And all they do is teach the test.  The questions are usually public record.  It would be trivial to create a course that taught the answers.


edit
Even if the questions weren't public record ... how many could there possibly be?  Say I want to start a school...  I hire 20 "students" to go take the test.  Their score doesn't matter, as long as they remember what the questions were.  They report back with the questions, I can now take my time finding out the right answer for all of them.  Knowing that, I could easily start a school and guarantee certification upon completion of the school, for a small fee - of course.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

Good point, 12sndsgood. Car audio installation is a good example of a service that the customer can't view a portfolio of work. There is a certifying organization, and it still means diddly squat. :thumbup:

Hey, Charlie! Have we changed your mind yet? :lmao:

Great discussion though. And no name calling! :hugs:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Good point, 12sndsgood. Car audio installation is a good example of a service that the customer can't view a portfolio of work. There is a certifying organization, and it still means diddly squat. :thumbup:
> 
> Hey, Charlie! Have we changed your mind yet? :lmao:
> 
> Great discussion though. And no name calling! :hugs:



hahaha.. NO!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

So you are really sold on the idea that certification/regulation would stop sales of bad photography?


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

see how nice this has been? A pleasant exchange of ideas between adults(?) where noone runs off crying to mom swearing never to return.
im gonna call this thread a WIN!  :mrgreen: :thumbup:


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> hahaha.. NO!


Dude...  I know where you're coming from, and I know what you want - but it just isn't going to happen.

What you're talking about sort of sounds like a national 'resellers ratings'.  And, really - that is the only way it will happen.  People sharing their experiences.

Any kind of regulation or certification will just make things worse.  You will have "Professional Photographers" that were only taught to pass the certification test...  No experience, no vision - but they have a certificate, so they'll be booked for weddings.

Is that what you want?

If tomorrow, certification was required - I guarantee you that I could start a class that would teach people to pass the test the same day.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So you are really sold on the idea that certification/regulation would stop sales of bad photography?



No.. not at all, that was never my point! I think it would cut down on the numbers of bad togs, quite a bit (if it were more regulated, and watched closer. If they HAD to pay taxes... a lot of them would quit!) I think it would improve the overall standing of the Professional aspect of the industry, as we would have fewer PRO's in general... most of the FB / CL types would not be able to pass the written test, and of those that did.. peer review of their work would shut them down. LET THEM SHOOT.. fine! LET THEM GET PAID by those that don't care or don't know any better! But let them stop calling themselves PROFESSIONALS, as that reflects on those who are PROFESSIONALs! That is my one and only major beef!

Does that make any more sense?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > hahaha.. NO!
> ...



Been there.. seen that! In IT, we have so many MCSE's (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers) that can't even install a simple driver on a pc, much less do subnet calculations... it isn't even funny!  I know what you mean!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 22, 2012)

So then how about this. instead of having goverment step in and regulate. Have goverment step in and start hammering the FB/CL startups that are doing things illeagally. Make some examples. Let it be known that they are going to stamp out these illegal business? Would be quiet easy I would think to find out who is on the up and up and who wasn't. Heck a $500 fine would likely put a lot of them out of business. Use the money generated from fines and fee's to fund the manpower.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

It does make sense, but you don't see that it really won't have your desired effect, in my opinion.
What I do agree with though, is making sure they are paying taxes, and insured.

The Master Jeweler certification also has peer review, but the neat thing is, YOU get to pick your 3 reviewers (from the industry) along with 2 from the organization.

As far as I see it, my occupation has exactly the thing you are looking for, and it just doesn't matter.
Another organization we have, is the jewelers board of trade. You don't pay to be listed, you don't have to be listed either. It is mostly a listing tracking how long you've been in business, credit worthiness, and such. And they give you a rating. If you don't pay your bills, they can be notified, and complaints can effect your score. But again, it's voluntary, and the guys working out of their house, not listed.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Have goverment step in and start hammering the FB/CL startups that are doing things illeagally. Make some examples.


The laws are already in place.  Apparently, it isn't a big concern to the government though.

You know who it is a big concern for?  The IRS.  Not trying to bust anybody, but the IRS would be VERY interested in hearing about illegal businesses not paying taxes...


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> So then how about this. instead of having goverment step in and regulate. Have goverment step in and start hammering the FB/CL startups that are doing things illeagally. Make some examples. Let it be known that they are going to stamp out these illegal business? Would be quiet easy I would think to find out who is on the up and up and who wasn't. Heck a $500 fine would likely put a lot of them out of business. Use the money generated from fines and fee's to fund the manpower.



Im all for that...as long as it was across the board. they cant just go after FB or CL photographers. they would have to go after electricians, mechanics, babysitters...anyone advertising any skillset for money should be paying taxes. My wife does it 4 times a year for her business. the funny part is...you report your business income, you pay your taxes, and hope you dont get hassled too much if they decide to audit you for some reason, yet all the IRS would have to do is a quick craigslist search and get some peoples numbers that arent paying a dime in taxes but I guess thats too much work.


----------



## sm4him (Jun 22, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Good point, 12sndsgood. Car audio installation is a good example of a service that the customer can't view a portfolio of work. There is a certifying organization, and it still means diddly squat. :thumbup:
> 
> Hey, Charlie! Have we changed your mind yet? :lmao:
> 
> Great discussion though. And no name calling! :hugs:



Wow, over 3 pages since I chimed in, and yet...NO DRAMA! Clearly, ya'll aren't doing this right. 

I really don't have anything else to add, but I will say the opinions expressed by Bitter and some others have made me at least rethink my position. I still tend to agree with Charlie, at least in terms of what would "ideally" be accomplished, but there have been some excellent points made as to whether it would really change anything.

Might just have to be torches and mobs in the moonlight, then, if we wanna get rid of the fauxtogs.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

sm4him said:


> Might just have to be torches and mobs in the moonlight, then, if we wanna get rid of the fauxtogs.



If torches means posts, and mobs means members, and moonlight means this forum, then I think we got it handled.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

sm4him said:


> Might just have to be torches and mobs in the moonlight, then, if we wanna get rid of the fauxtogs.


They aren't going away, and they have been around as long as photography has.  Deal with it.  

As long as the market will accept substandard performance for a low fee, these kind of photographers will always exist.


I have a portrait of a relative of mine, dating to somewhere in the early 1880's.  The name of the studio is on the print - I've looked him up.  He would be considered a fauxtog today.  It's a good print (better than the fauxtogs of today), but it isn't 'mind blowing' or anything.


All I'm saying is that as long as there has been a market for photography, there has been a market for "budget" photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > Might just have to be torches and mobs in the moonlight, then, if we wanna get rid of the fauxtogs.
> ...



Its the same in any market, for any product. no different than ordering something cheap from overseas. Its the law of supply and demand. 
I dont really see a problem with it though...it keeps the cheapo plebs happy. :mrgreen:


----------



## sm4him (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> I have a portrait of a retaliative of mine, dating to somewhere in the early 1880's.



First, after another thread earlier today, let me be clear--I *KNOW* this is simply a typo, and I would not normally "correct" it...but it made me laugh out loud. So, I'm just sharing my weird sense of humor, not playing grammar police.

But--what's a "retaliative?"  Is that a retaliating relative? Because I have a BUNCH of those in my family. :lmao:


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

LOL.  That is obviously a typo.  Let me fix that and we'll pretend it didn't happen.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2012)

A retaliative is a relative that ALWAYS gets you back!


----------



## sm4him (Jun 22, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> LOL.  That is obviously a typo.  Let me fix that and we'll pretend it didn't happen.



Oh, yes, my mistake. I see now, it clearly says "relative."  Ha! Now everyone's just gonna wonder what kind of medication *I'm* on!


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2012)

sm4him said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.  That is obviously a typo.  Let me fix that and we'll pretend it didn't happen.
> ...


Yes, and they will also wonder why the people who have quoted me chose to change what I wrote.  Those bastards.  LOL!


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> If you wont do the job on their cheaper budget, then you havent lost any business since they could never afford you anyway. Whats wrong with another photographer filling that niche? And whats to say they cant do good work on that budget? And either way, why does anyone else care since. Im going to guess that someone with a $3000+ budget for photography probably isn't looking for someone on craigslist...seems like its a non issue to me. But what do I know...



The photographer is willing to do a one hour shoot in a town that's 110 miles from where she lives; 220 miles round trip. For that one hour photo shoot, i_ncluding her travel time and mileage,_ she's charging $45.00. Let's say she drives a vehicle which has a 15 gallon tank. At $3.89 a gallon, she'll spend $58.35 for a tank of gas. She's _immediately _in the red for $13.35, and she hasn't even left her driveway.

Honestly, I don't know what "niche" that might be, but I can't imagine _anyone _wanting to fill it...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Well, the very obvious problem with that is that photography is an art form, is it not?

Would you want to license sculptors? Painters? Sculpting and painting are no more or less "art" than photography. I think we can agree that licensing sculptors owuld be pretty silly. Why should they have a different standard?

Honestly, I've never heard a convincing argument in favor of it...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I am a former Paramedic.. did mostly lifeflight, and ER... some volunteer ambulance time too. You have probably worked with other medics, and EMT's, that you felt should not even be allowed to touch a patient, haven't you? Is that lesser ability ok, for those that "pay" less? Should only those that can afford more, get the better medical care?
> ...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2012)

Licensing and certifications would mean nothing.

Look at how many people have a driver's license. I don't know about you, but I know a lot of _really _bad drivers.

A license guarantees nothing, and believing otherwise is pretty delusional. All it shows is that the holder was able to exhibit a level of skill to pass a test one time. It in no way means that the tested skill will be employed.

And, again, photography is an art form. Regulate _that_, and then the regulation of musicians, painters, poets and writers won't be far off...


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> The photographer is willing to do a one hour shoot in a town that's 110 miles from where she lives; 220 miles round trip. For that one hour photo shoot, including her travel time and mileage, she's charging $45.00. Let's say she drives a vehicle which has a 15 gallon tank. At $3.89 a gallon, she'll spend $58.35 for a tank of gas. She's immediately in the red for $13.35, and she hasn't even left her driveway.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what "niche" that might be, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to fill it...



If only half the people actually do the shoot she is now making $90 a shoot.  And if she hires a photographer to shoot for her for $15 bucks an hour who lives in that area  she can possibly turn a profit


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 23, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the best way in that situation would be if the photographer could line up a couple of shoots in that area. assuming they actually had to go the max distance from their home, with a bunch of sessions lined up it COULD turn a nice profit even with the $100 in gas.


----------



## IByte (Jun 23, 2012)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> I think the best way in that situation would be if the photographer could line up a couple of shoots in that area. assuming they actually had to go the max distance from their home, with a bunch of sessions lined up it COULD turn a nice profit even with the $100 in gas.



....drive a hybrid


----------



## unpopular (Jun 23, 2012)

... and we were doing so well.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 23, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh?

None of that makes any sense...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 23, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



I see where you're coming from, but I think that's asking a lot. Even if there were four people in El Centro (the furthest town) who wanted to schedule shoots, the photographer would  would have to rely on everyone being able to not only be available the same day, but also be able to work their schedules so that they can successfully be shot all in the same day; Customer #1 gets an hour shoot. Add some travel time. Now shoot Customer #2 for an hour. Add some more travel time to get to Customer #3, who you'll shoot for an hour before driving to Customer #4.

I just don't see how it's likely to be a workable situation...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 23, 2012)

IByte said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, because that hybrid will be paid off in no time with those $45.00 shoots.

I e-mailed the photographer to find out what the Hell she's thinkin'...


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> IByte said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



I think we are all dying to hear the answer.  :mrgreen:


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 23, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > IByte said:
> ...



Me, too...


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



for the record, I definitely do not mean that in an offensive manner... I just dont understand the profit margin in regards to the distance they are offering to travel for such a small amount. especially if their prices are normally $450 for 2 hours, and $200 for one hour.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 23, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Oh, I'm with ya'. I know for a fact that her "normal" rates are right around the $150-$200 an hour range. How she figured _this _would be a good idea is beyond me...


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 24, 2012)

Where did I lose you?   A lot of those groupon and yahoo deals the people pay up front.  So Say the photographer gets 100 people in on the deal.  Now allot don't show up or schedule in time or just forget.  I've heard close to half don't ever use it. So now you got paid for 100 people at 45 bucks a person.  If half dont use it it's the same as having 50 people pay you 90 for the shoot.  Now you just hire out the photo job to some beginner for 10 bucks an hour  who lives in that town. No mileage   Cheap photo cost. Profit.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 24, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Where did I lose you?   A lot of those groupon and yahoo deals the people pay up front.  So Say the photographer gets 100 people in on the deal.  Now allot don't show up or schedule in time or just forget.  I've heard close to half don't ever use it. So now you got paid for 100 people at 45 bucks a person.  If half dont use it it's the same as having 50 people pay you 90 for the shoot.  Now you just hire out the photo job to some beginner for 10 bucks an hour  who lives in that town. No mileage   Cheap photo cost. Profit.



If I'm running a business, and I decide to put something like this out there, I'm going to be concerned with the worst case scenario. I'm going to want to know how much offering it _could _end up costing me.

You're operating on the basis a number of assumptions coming to pass. What if half _don't _forget to use it? What if _everyone _who buys one uses it? Frankly, I think that's probably more likely than half the people forgetting about it. If I put money into something, _I _don't forget about it. Why would I assume _others _would?

Operating on the basis that your clients will "forget" is foolish. It's an unwise gamble that could, most certainly, go south if that's what you're relying on in order to make a profit.

As for the hiring of a ten dollar an hour photographer, I see a couple of issues there. First, the business name is "Pictures By Bill" (not the real name). Well, if someone _else _shoots that picture, then Bill has no involvement at all. Bill doesn't own the copyright. Bill can't control what happens with that photo. Yet, as far as the client is concerned, if the $10.00 an hour guy does something offensive with that photo, Bill's on the hook because _that's _who the client hired. Of course, this is assuming that Bill can actually find someone local to get their gear together, drive to where the shoot is, do the hour long shoot, drive home, and e-mail or upload photos for a whopping ten bucks. I don't know about you, but I would think that's a rather lofty expectation. 

Do you know of anyone who would actually agree to do that? I certainly don't. 

And, all that notwithstanding, would you _want _to attach your business name to the work created by someone who was willing to work for ten bucks an hour?

I sure wouldn't...


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 24, 2012)

well considering I had a local company here offer me to do this same exact thing for a groupon a few months ago I would say that yes, there are companies out there that will hire out people to do the shoots for them. Do I think this is a great business plan? no, not at all. I wouldn't do it for the very things you mentioned but there are companies out there that do that exact thing. As for the copyright, company XXX doing the groupon hires a couple of kids, says this is a great way for you to build your portfolio with us, here sign this litle contract stating blah, blah blah and it's done. The kids are sub-contractors working for company XXX but company XXX retains copyrights.

And I'm not saying this is a great way to run a business, I surely wouldn't put myself in that position myself. But it is the way some people operate. And is one way that people make money off of these things. The other way is by upselling. I did a coupon for window tint from a local family. I new the people so I jumped in. I ended up going with a higher grade of tint so there was an upcharge, and talking to one of the salesman they had several sales that worked into full alarm installs and a couple of audio installs.  Are you taking a gamble? sure, but some people are willing to take that risk.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 24, 2012)

Who cares? is this the market you're aiming towards? Let them do the $40 portraits, I don't want those clients anyway..


----------



## animotionphoto (Jun 24, 2012)

The idea of regulating professional photography repulses me. Anyone who would legislate or try to petition to do so repulses me as well. My main bread making business is regulated to the hilt with licenses and mandatory insurances just to keep the lights on. Experience and even statistics have proven that regulation does not control poor quality or competition, but infact diminishes imagination and higher quality.  With regulation comes government standards and mandatory insurance requirements that only protect the consumer and paints an easy target on the back of the business owner for frivolous lawsuits. 

I got into professional photography because of the fact that THE MAN wasnt looking over my shoulder or had his hands in my pocket. You would think that with everything going on around us now, that regulation would be completely off the ideals for most people, but I guess some people still like the idea of the government wiping their arses until age 26.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 24, 2012)

animotionphoto said:


> The idea of regulating professional photography repulses me. Anyone who would legislate or try to petition to do so repulses me as well. My main bread making business is regulated to the hilt with licenses and mandatory insurances just to keep the lights on. Experience and even statistics have proven that regulation does not control poor quality or competition, but infact diminishes imagination and higher quality.  With regulation comes government standards and mandatory insurance requirements that only protect the consumer and paints an easy target on the back of the business owner for frivolous lawsuits.
> 
> I got into professional photography because of the fact that THE MAN wasnt looking over my shoulder or had his hands in my pocket. You would think that with everything going on around us now, that regulation would be completely off the ideals for most people, but I guess some people still like the idea of the government wiping their arses until age 26.



While I agree with not regulating art's like photography, there is a definite NEED, and I will say that again...a definite NEED for government regulation of certain professions. Art is subjective, making it difficult to really pin down as to what is "right or wrong". I think however, that you could not deregulate things like medical fields, engineering, major works projects..I can only imagine if the government told our medical director at work "just do whatever you like, its all good". Or, God forbid...they just let us Paramedics write or own protocols for our narcotics... Hmm...that could be fun.   :lmao:


----------



## Buckster (Jun 24, 2012)

After we put the kibosh on bad photographers who have the audacity to call themselves "professionals", let's go after bad portrait painters, sculpters and then cartoonists.  Those people need to be reigned in, especially the ones that are selling their stuff in what amounts to yard sales for yard sale prices and making less money than they put into it in time and effort, by anyone's standard.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 24, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Who cares? is this the market you're aiming towards? Let them do the $40 portraits, I don't want those clients anyway..


You forgot to mention film as the answer to this photographic problem.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 24, 2012)

Considering the the photographer in question doesn't usually do this, according to Steve, we might consider that she has some other idea in mind.

Perhaps this is a marketing idea to exand her business by word of mouth by getting a few new clients to buy and display and fawn over her services to their friends and family.  It's easy enough to explain that she was running a special at the time.  I recently got a free canvas wrap done by a vendor on this very forum, along with 4 other members, in exchange for our honest opinions about the product and service.  The reviews were all good reviews and will no doubt be beneficial to them.  The prints are now out in the world on display, looking great, and acting as advertising in their own right - all it takes is for someone to ask, "where'd you get that?  That's really nice!  I'd like to get something like that of my little Jimmy!"

Perhaps she feels she can sell them more on the back end, if she can just get them in the door, so to speak.  "Here's those photos I promised on the CD, oh, and here's the web site where you can buy BEAUTIFUL prints of all sizes in all qualities, even with matting and frames, on cups, mugs, T-shirts, and more.  Enjoy!"  There's a reason Amazon sells the Kindle for less than the cost to manufacurer it - it's an automatic conduit to the rest of the stuff they want to sell.

That's just off the top of my head, and I'm certainly no marketing genius.  Just noting that sometimes the most straightforward path to the money isn't necessarily the best one.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 24, 2012)

Exactly! 

My sister is the worst penny pincher I know. She got a coupon for a free session, and something else. Marked a $250 value. She bought it hook line and sinker, and ended up spending over $350. The photographer charged her $50 for an 8x10!  My sister thought she got a great deal! The studio was also an hour drive from her. 

The pictures she received, and the book were quite nice, and the photographer was top notch. 

I know the difference here is that my sister drove to the studio, but still, coupons work, and can draw people in who think they ate getting something for nothing. A good salesperson can up sell them, and turn a profit, and still make them think thy got a great deal.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 25, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Considering the the photographer in question doesn't usually do this, according to Steve, we might consider that she has some other idea in mind.
> 
> Perhaps this is a marketing idea to exand her business by word of mouth by getting a few new clients to buy and display and fawn over her services to their friends and family.  It's easy enough to explain that she was running a special at the time.  I recently got a free canvas wrap done by a vendor on this very forum, along with 4 other members, in exchange for our honest opinions about the product and service.  The reviews were all good reviews and will no doubt be beneficial to them.  The prints are now out in the world on display, looking great, and acting as advertising in their own right - all it takes is for someone to ask, "where'd you get that?  That's really nice!  I'd like to get something like that of my little Jimmy!"
> 
> ...



Yeah, I'm still waiting to hear back from her.

And I was one of those four other people...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 25, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Who cares? is this the market you're aiming towards? Let them do the $40 portraits, I don't want those clients anyway..



Maybe you just didn't read it right.

In my initial post, I said that this was of no concern to me. Later on, I stated that the photographer in question normally charges far more than $45.00 for a one hour portrait shoot...


----------



## GerryDavid (Jun 25, 2012)

CCericola said:


> My business manager said things like Amazon deals or groupon do not work for photographers unless you are a multi million dollar company like The Picture People. We have run the numbers and frankly, anyone who thinks it is a good idea is an idiot.


 
If done right, these groupons can be extremly profitable, im surprised by how negative these threads tend to be.  I wish groupon offered deals in my city, there are two but they are each 3 hours away.  Of course many studios dont offer the right deal and have a good chance at loosing money if they dont get any upsells.

If you keep the portraits at your studio *no travel expense or time loss*, keep the sessions short *with the option to buy more time* and keep the stuff the customer gets to something cheap in both time and expenses like a couple prints, then there is lots of room for upselling.

Then you factor in a good % of the people that buy the thing never show up and after a certain amount of time their coupons are no longer valid and you keep the money.

The real winner is groupon, I wish I thought of this setup.


----------

