Hi Dawn, First let me say welcome to the list, you will find that it is usually very interesting. In many ways I agree with the general tone of your post. If you look at the history of the posts themselves I was not blaming the post originator for the business issues stated. It was and still is aimed at my photographic colleagues and their willingness to assist an amateur to produce images for marketing usage. You are also correct in that complaining about market issues may be useless. But I am a member of both EP & other business related groups that work toward the preservation of the current business trends and hopefully improve those in the future. Everyone must work toward that goal. Your disappointment not withstanding the reason many photographers are losing market share is due to AD's and their willingness to get the job "done" as cheaply as possible. Everyone wants to pass the buck upwards. No one person wants to take personal responsibility for their company's contracts, usage demands and WFH contracts. Several major publications are being sued, picketed, and shunned by independent photographers for their business practices. Even Corbis and Getty are having shooters leave because the major corporations who now own them forget who actually creates the images they sell. I do disagree that there is fault to blame. Of course photographers are not perfect, and dealing with them can be a pain in the ass. But if your job is to secure the best artwork for a given project how can that be accomplished by using bottom feeders. I have a string of successful AD's that like my work and each time they change jobs (which is often in this market) they often bring me aboard for current projects. Budgets are a bit*ch for everyone right now. But even when the market was hot here we still got poormouthed by ad agencies. These is primarily due to the fact that the agency would rather pocket the money then pay the photographers, talent, make-up artist etc. Then each time the AD lowers the costs on a job he or she gets a bonus hmmmmm now I wonder why. Since 1998 I have not allowed an ad agency to bill my services. I direct bill to the client/end user only. That way I can make all the profit, hire the team I want, and best of all not scrape 10 points off the top to the agency just for getting me the job. That fact alone has kept me afloat and profitable in this downturn. I have had at least three agencies offer my work to clients at a discount thinking I would play ball and give them a discount. No Dice. Sticking by your business plan and playing hardball has kept me solvent. I do agree with you regarding the self preservation aspects of your post in #2. But two things occur to me, 1. No you don't put your job at risk to hire a pro; you educate the client and probably the upper management that it is their best interest to do so. If you are unable to do so find another line of work. And two the fact that AD's routinely create the images adds to the management's desire for that to take place. Each time you go and take the pictures you lower the chances for a photographer to be used in the future. As far as #3 is concerned you certainly weren?t in the same market as I was. If an AD is tasked to get the lowest possible price for every element in a project how come the price billed to the client is so damn high? After all I read AD week and Businessweek as well as the other pubs and they name prices. In the instance of my earlier post the AD was the one that accepted the admins idea for her to create the images. The AD also owns the agency along with another person. So no one told them they had to cut the costs of the job they did to increase the profit margin and told me so. Happy new year Les Baldwin Well, I'm new to the list and got my intro by reading your response to Julie and I have to say I was more than a bit disappointed. I"m no doubt commiting political suicide on this list by doing this as my first post but here goes--I've never managed to be much of a wallflower, so why start now (wry grin)..... 1) as a former AD for a few upscale national retailers, I can see both sides of this puzzle, and it's not anyone's fault. AD's and others are under increased pressure to produce work inhouse, and they are fighting for their jobs no less than anyone else, and with just as much reason and just as much compunction. No less are those individuals working for smaller firms, that yes, I suppose have the dollars to allocate to properly done portraits, but don't want to allocate those dollars for reasons beyond the control of the marketing/advertising/graphics person.Try to talk a guy who owns a company selling industrical valves the need for a photographer--it ain't gonna happen in most instances. 2) every AD and other individual I've talked to has deplored the fact they are being asked to produce product, staff, and lifestyle photos, but when your job is at risk, it's difficult to deal with. Am I supposed to put my job at risk because your photography studio is suffering (and I don't mean that facetiously)?? Sorry, my but my kids groceries are more important. 3) In every circumstance I possibly could, I pushed having a professional photographer to do a shoot--unfortunately that backfired in many instances--many dollars worth of poorly done work--we did the research, but ended up with poorly done work in numerous instances. Too many very high strung individuals who couldn't do the deadlines, even given a couple of months warning. Too many "artistes"--not enough workers. Not enough talent. 4) the former did much to undermine my ability to succour commercial photographers--more and more I was supposed to do my own photos, which I NEVER but I did secure stock photos or find photographers thru getty or some such agency I knew I could trust. Actually, we researched them thru getty or corbis, and bought shots they hadn't sold as yet 5) Because of all of that, many advertising campaigns that were very promising went down the tubes. You are placing the blame on the wrong individual. She is trying to do the best in the position she's stuck in. Just like you. Just because she isn't a "professional" photographer doesn't give you the right to harangue or blame her for the losses you've suffered, which we can all sympathize with. But don't forget that everyone in this world of print is suffering. Photographers aren't the only ones. And so let's not point fingers. Helping Julie isn't going to cost you a job. That job is already gone. We have to accept that the world is different, and there are many out there that feel that they can do these things themselves. Some will succeed-they will think their work is wonderful and many will think it abysmal, but that doesn't really matter. Because they will do it anyway. So to punish someone who is just trying to do her work doesn't help, and won't fix your world. The truth is the world is changing, and those of us who have worked in print, whether it's photography or design, must adapt or wither. and that is my ever so humble submission on this night of new happenings, respectfully yours, dawn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Les Baldwin" <fotofx@ix.netcom.com> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 11:22 PM Subject: RE: Question about lighting... > Hi Julie, > > It was not mean't to be a tad on the negative side, it was negative. I > live and work in an area where businesses have been gutted like fish. > Several large studios have gone under and general layoffs in this area > have been 20% higher than the national average. We have photographers > from NY and LA moving here to try and get gigs. They move back pretty > quick. > > Many of my best clients have disappeared over the last 18 months. I had > 4 employees, and three part time assistants working for me and I had to > let them all go. The day I finally saw your post, I had just spent the > better part of a week assembling a team to do a large project, after a > bid was accepted by a new client. At the last second an admin staff > member informed the AD that she could shoot the project in house for > costs well below mine because there is no labor fees or usage. I brought > the idea for the shoot to the client, they loved it, I assembled the pre > and post production team needed and they loved that as well. The > campaign would have been the largest I've had in nearly 18 months and > would have provided good income for three people besides me just in time > for Christmas. > > All shot to shit by an admin staffer who says that she can shoot it > because she has a new digital camera and took photo 101 course in JC. > > Fast forward to today, I got a call that the shoot is back on, and that > budget has been cut somewhat, but the images shot by the staffer were > not up to the QUALITY the client was looking for. That is why they hire > me, NOT because I use a certain type of lighting/camera/film/digital. > > You are 100% correct my earlier post was negative and somewhat jaded. > And it was and still is, spot on. It used to be that pros had to compete > with pros for a gig and your rep and creativity were what got you the > gigs. That was then this is now. Now we compete w/ uncles, secretaries, > and any shmo w/ a digital camera and the ability to focus and push the > shutter. I have even had people show up at my shoots with there own > camera thinking they could just "shoot over my shoulder" and use more > than I was selling. > > You stated that you were using the images for "marketing purposes". I > was not aware that marketing was an internal function. After all I don't > market to my self. If you want to ask technical questions to increase > your chops go for it. We all had to. I would love to help just like all > the others on the list. But I will not help you take jobs and money from > pros. So were you honest in your first use or your second? > > Questions? > > Les Baldwin > BTW I did not start from the cradle but I was in grade school. >
