Marketing / Consumer Behavior, Price and Photography

Setting aside my insanely damaged POTN image, specifically my flipped title and uniquely animated avatar, courtesy of the TF, my graduate studies involved consumer behavior.

For a long time, I have been wondering why prices and demand for professional stills have been in a free fall.

For the moment, I think that the camera manufacturers have done a very good job of marketing cameras to people in a way which makes the buyer believe that s/he can capture pro quality images.

The campaigns are brilliant, because they make the buyer of a camera feel that if only s/he had a Canon, the pleasures would be limitless, and the results on par with the Hollywood-class videos in which the idea is embedded:

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=bVS9-1Jjlmk
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=xMcmur3pK7M&N​R=1

...think about the age of today's wedding couple vs. the date of this ad (1984):
http://www.youtube.com …2er1FpFdc&featu​re=related

But at the same time, some images by famous photographers, living and dead, are worth millions.

Why?

The essence of 'value' is perception.

Controlling that perception drives price,and profit.

That is the essence of marketing.

It is explained well in this 15 min video, although the video itself is about perceptions of pleasure.

http://www.ted.com …tml?awesm=on.te​d.com_9UzN

I hope someone gets "inspired" to differentiate her/himself by saying things no other photographer can say, and then profiting from work s/he loves.

/end potentially distracting attempt to convey useful information

Yeah.

Well a dSLR can now be had new for what, $600 or less complete with kit lens? A professional service is $400 and up and a one-time go.

I can see how people who think on a cost only basis are going with the camera. Why hire someone to create when you can create yourself for even less money?

Car analogy.

Why rent a limo when you can buy a car? Certainly if you "need" luxury for that one time engagement you rent a limo but if you plan on going a lot of places you buy a car and drive yourself.

Photographers need to be that luxurious limousine. If they can't do that, they'll have to be a taxi and let a lot of people onboard, cheap, and expect to be abused. A lot of photographers are taxis. Either their marketing isn't sufficient to get the people who pay for quality or they simply aren't quality. There are a LOT of professionals churning out snapshots.

True. Photographers, like Dentists, end up needing to execute marketing, sales and business operations yet they're unprepared for it.

I think photographers also lack political clout. If they had it, then a license would be required, just like a hairdresser. Or, they could call themselves 'Dr' like Chiropractors.

Odd thing is, I get questions ALL the time from people at LAX events about how they too can get good results. What they do not want to hear about is the time investment; they have money, so they just want a gear list followed by magically perfect captures. Which should be sharp. And the camera should have 'known' where to focus. All if that because of Canon marketing. Kudos to them.

I wish I knew what exactly the photographer countermeasure could be.

That is worth having a beer or three over.

S.Horton wrote in post #12847319
True. Photographers, like Dentists, end up needing to execute marketing, sales and business operations yet they're unprepared for it.

I think photographers also lack political clout. If they had it, then a license would be required, just like a hairdresser. Or, they could call themselves 'Dr' like Chiropractors.

Odd thing is, I get questions ALL the time from people at LAX events about how they too can get good results. What they do not want to hear about is the time investment; they have money, so they just want a gear list followed by magically perfect captures. Which should be sharp. And the camera should have 'known' where to focus. All if that because of Canon marketing. Kudos to them.

I wish I knew what exactly the photographer countermeasure could be.

That is worth having a beer or three over.

Simple:

Hand them your business card.

I think you are overlooking the fact that many people simply don't have the high expectations that we all think they should have or did have.

Good enough really is good enough for most people if the price is appropriate, it was with film, it is still with digital. What has happened is the mystique of getting a good shot is now gone. With film you had no idea on what you actually got until you went to the lab. A good pro, confident in their abilities and knowledge, could provide what was required of them with a great deal of consistency and confidence without the crutch of being able to see it instantly.

Now the fact that you can keep reshooting until you are happy has taken away the mystique of the "good" shot. People realize they can't take perfect photos every time but when the can take as many as they want and see them instantly until they are happy their ability to meet their needs is much easier to meet. This leads people to believe that in part anyone can shoot enough photos and get some good ones, to the point that they don't care that you can get them 10 fantastic images in 15 shots, as long as they can end up with 10 good images it could take 15, 50, or 300 for that matter.

Where photographers have failed is in their presentation to the client of what they offer. Too many individuals still present themselves as a product. The majority of customers do not value the product like they did with film. When most photographers talk about their service it revolves around their product. The print with me to control quality, the retouched images, the posing and what not.

Photographers are now service and experience providers. Present yourself as being someone who will provide a fantastic experience that includes having fun, being relaxed, quality and impactful/meaningful images and you'll be more successful. Talk only about your quality and you'll end up with having to grind away...

S.Horton wrote in post #12847319
True. Photographers, like Dentists, end up needing to execute marketing, sales and business operations yet they're unprepared for it.

I think photographers also lack political clout. If they had it, then a license would be required, just like a hairdresser. Or, they could call themselves 'Dr' like Chiropractors.

Odd thing is, I get questions ALL the time from people at LAX events about how they too can get good results. What they do not want to hear about is the time investment; they have money, so they just want a gear list followed by magically perfect captures. Which should be sharp. And the camera should have 'known' where to focus. All if that because of Canon marketing. Kudos to them.

I wish I knew what exactly the photographer countermeasure could be.

That is worth having a beer or three over.

Just like smart folks in healthcare (dentists included) and all those big corps selling the dream they hire folks that are really good at selling the dream to help advertise and market. Why shouldn't photographers? Most commercial photographers hire reps to market them.

Why is photograph a profession that everyone thinks they have to be good at it all? Chefs usually partner or higher someone to run the restaurant so they can do what they do best. Most really successful photographers I know hired reps to rep them (marketing), have studio managers (those that have studios) and they all have very good accounts to take care of the money and help with decisions concerning finance leaving the photographer to do what they do best, create.

Ansel Adams wrote a lot about having standards for professional photographers over 60 years ago.

THIS is why the photography industry is loosing value:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1071801

10 bucks to process an image and I've seen other requests on here for free image processing.
Such requests hurt the industry.

Same as when businesses request free images from photographers in exchange for "exposure".

airfrogusmc wrote in post #12847549
Just like smart folks in healthcare (dentists included) and all those big corps selling the dream they hire folks that are really good at selling the dream to help advertise and market. Why shouldn't photographers? Most commercial photographers hire reps to market them.

Why is photograph a profession that everyone thinks they have to be good at it all? Chefs usually partner or higher someone to run the restaurant so they can do what they do best. Most really successful photographers I know hired reps to rep them (marketing), have studio managers (those that have studios) and they all have very good accounts to take care of the money and help with decisions concerning finance leaving the photographer to do what they do best, create.

Ansel Adams wrote a lot about having standards for professional photographers over 60 years ago.

I'm slowing starting to agree. I finally decided to put my clients to work because I suck at marketing. Most other stuff I'm good at, but I'm not your average consumer so I can't think like one.

cdifoto wrote in post #12847576
I'm slowing starting to agree. I finally decided to put my clients to work because I suck at marketing. Most other stuff I'm good at, but I'm not your average consumer so I can't think like one.

I mean it really depends on your market and the type of photography you do but clients (word of mouth) is in most cases the best advertising.

Sam,

Heres what Adams had to say about licensing in 1943.

Sorry I was to lazy to type this:

airfrogusmc wrote in post #12847925
Sam,

Heres what Adams had to say about licensing in 1943.

Sorry I was to lazy to type this:


Ansel Adams

Whether you agree or not one thing I do think is we would have a profession that would be highly respected and would demand real compensation if we had some sort of licensing.

Was he referring to the emergence of 35mm film camera???? Even back in the days, those large and medium format cameras aren't that common. And he is already complaining about the lack of standard or protection of the profession. There is one problem with the photography as a profession. I am sure this has been mentioned before. It is a luxury. More or less, a very liberal tools, in a political sense. The more the photography as an artistic medium it becomes popular, it creates various new photography styles. If only pros are allowed to make photographs, all of your shots would be posed and un-candid. We will be like some indigenous tribes in some remote villages in Africa or Amazon seeing a camera the first time.

You can make the profession as exclusive as you want, less people would want to be photographed. They don't need it. Their lives move on.

TooManyShots wrote in post #12847973
Was he referring to the emergency of 35mm film camera???? Even back in the days, those large and medium format cameras aren't that common. And he is already complaining about the lack of standard or protection of the profession. There is one problem with the photography as a profession. I am sure this has been mentioned before. It is a luxury. More or less, a very liberal tools, in a political sense. The more the photography as an artistic medium it becomes popular, it creates various new photography styles. If only pros are allowed to make photographs, all of your shots would be posed and un-candid. We will be like some indigenous tribes in some remote villages in Africa or Amazon seeing a camera the first time.

You can make the profession as exclusive as you want, less people would want to be photographed. They don't need it. Their lives move on.

No, he was referring to the professional industry as a whole and not equipment but skill or lack of with whatever equipment and a real lack of visual language awareness. Again whether you agree or disagree one thing for sure is the profession would be more respected if there were some kind of way to really separate the GWCs from the really TECHNICALLY qualified. If it were to happen it would have needed to happen when Adams and many others were discussing it 60+ years ago. The genie is outta the bottle now and the profession, in many areas, is not much of one. And like it or not in the commercial world of photography it kinda is exclusive. Thats why its not so easy to get into and even harder to stay in.

"Qualified" is an arbitrary term I refuse to use. It's a word pretentious people use so they can feel superior.

Dead or alive, safe or unsafe...these are not subjective. "Art" is subjective and therefore inherently unregulatable.


Oh an there are technically proficient GWCs just as there are professionals churning out unimaginative drivel.

What you and Ansel seem to want is a bunch of people who can light a scene but fear being original because they might lose their license.

cdifoto wrote in post #12848265
"Qualified" is an arbitrary term I refuse to use. It's a word pretentious people use so they can feel superior.

Dead or alive, safe or unsafe...these are not subjective. "Art" is subjective and therefore inherently unregulatable.


Oh an there are technically proficient GWCs just as there are professionals churning out unimaginative drivel.

What you and Ansel seem to want is a bunch of people who can light a scene but fear being original because they might lose their license.

I'm not sure I agree with Adams or not but one thing for sure and the commercial world is the perfect example because if you are good you can really make a good living doing it but usually you have to pay your dues and doing that you become technically apt and you also make connections and that keeps the GWCs out of that industry for the most part. But our profession would be a better more lucrative one if there were some standards that if the GWC was that good he could qualify to. Its already been happening for years in the high end commercial world. So it works there. There is a real reason why its going to keep getting harder and harder to make a living shooting things like weddings, family portraits and sport for instance. There is nothing for the public to separate a truly qualified photographer from a guy with a rebel and a web site. Again it will never happen because of all the resistance you see here on this site alone but if it had happened and it were in place most areas of professional photography would be benefitting from it of course unless you were one of those without any real skill. It would mean real livable incomes in all areas and respect because not everyone with a camera would be a licensed pro. Its really a none point because it didn't happen and it wont. I do find it interesting that the idea is almost as old as photography because Adams was not the first one to have the idea.

And there is a visual language and that can be qualified as to how much one understands it, just as there is technical aspects that also could be measured. But again we'll never see it though I do agree with Adams that a vast improvement in the field would be the result especially in respectability and in monetary area.

Oversimplified but sump'm on the visual language.
http://char.txa.cornel​l.edu/language/introla​n.htm

A little something pulled out from the bottom of the first page:
"The important point to remember is that we should all feel free to like or dislike what we will, on grounds of personal taste. HOWEVER, please note that there is a distinction between personal taste or preference and objective judgements of success or failure in a work of design or art. It is possible to recognize that a work is successful and significant, even though it does not suit our personal taste. It should be clear that unless one can lay claim to a high level of expertise it is rather immoderate to condemn a work as "bad" just because one doesn't like it. It is important for an artist to understand this distinction, and even more so for a designer, who will surely be called upon to do creative work in a framework of someone else's tastes and ideas.

It is possible to learn how these objective judgements are made. A lot of it has to do with this business of visual language, and learning more of that language is what this course is about. There are objective criteria by which we can determine whether or not a work is successful ("good")."

airfrogusmc wrote in post #12848322
I'm not sure I agree with Adams or not but one thing for sure and the commercial world is the perfect example because if you are good you can really make a good living doing it but usually you have to pay your dues and doing that you become technically apt and you also make connections and that keeps the GWCs out of that industry for the most part.

Commercial doesn't have an exclusive hold on this.

The lack of regulation is precisely why some sink and some swim. All the competition drives quality up. There's a lot more quality photography out there than you realize. The successful...truly successful...professio​nal photographers are kicking ass. They don't NEED a gild.

Ansel Adams was a good photographer but if he really thought a gild would keep quality high he had no idea about economics or market supply & demand.

Look at USA telecoms. Little competition = high prices, poor service. Look at the oil industry. Little competition = high prices.