Is the era of "Paid Photographers" drawing to a close?

neilwood32 wrote in post #9164800
Thats one way of getting people in the door!

yes but getting them to leave may become a problem

digirebelva wrote in post #9165645
yes but getting them to leave may become a problem

Nah, when you put out the licorice M&Ms, they'll leave.

I don't think the blame I see being applied to up and coming 'togs is all that fair. I can understand how it must annoy established 'togs, but most people start off their own business by undercutting the competition. It's how you get your foot in the door.

So am I to understand - based on your earlier premise - you feel it's more the attitude of the buying public that is shredding the industry? Their expectations for cheap images/expectations due to cheaper/better dSLR's? I believe that's part of it.

But at the same time - without the (historically) embedded costs of film, processing, printing and albums - the new 'togs are in the position to SEVERELY undercut.

ConDigital wrote in post #9172712
I don't think the blame I see being applied to up and coming 'togs is all that fair. I can understand how it must annoy established 'togs, but most people start off their own business by undercutting the competition. It's how you get your foot in the door.

Obviously it's a combination of factors.

Ah..... but you're not committing to one or another of them .

ConDigital wrote in post #9173022
Obviously it's a combination of factors.

sapearl wrote in post #9173431
Ah..... but you're not committing to one or another of them .

There's no need to, I think they're both relevent.

ConDigital wrote in post #9172712
I don't think the blame I see being applied to up and coming 'togs is all that fair. I can understand how it must annoy established 'togs, but most people start off their own business by undercutting the competition. It's how you get your foot in the door.

Depends on what you mean by "undercut."

If one business can truly reduce its overhead and sell for less at a profit, that is not "undercutting." The Mercedes dealer in downtown Tulsa is not "undercutting" the Mercedes dealer in downtown San Francisco.

What happens in photography (and other fields--the Harlan Ellison video is about writers in Hollywood) is that wannabes either don't understand business well enough to know that (barring some supernatural break), if you start out charging too little to stay in business, you will go out of business.

Yeah, you can charge less than the competition if your costs are less than the competition, but if you don't charge enough to make a profit, you're in the process of going out of business.

Other businesses can and do take advantage of the constant stream of wannabe professionals who are at some stage of going out of business. The guy they took advantage of last year is now long out of business, but there is always another rube eager to be ripped off, ready to take his place.

And the wannabe will never be rewarded for the work he did for free. When the company's big money is at stake, they're not going to give the high-end contact to the guy who worked for free. That cherry assignment is going to the guy who charges what he's worth.

RDKirk wrote in post #9173681
And the wannabe will never be rewarded for the work he did for free. When the company's big money is at stake, they're not going to give the high-end contact to the guy who worked for free. That cherry assignment is going to the guy who charges what he's worth.

I was (and am) handsomely rewarded for work that i did for free.

Because of work that I volunteered for at a schools athletics carnival I now have contracts with Triathlon Australia, Triathlonphotos.com, and several community jobs are awarded to me every year (not a contract, but i get them every year.)

And because of the exposure of the triathlon contracts, I've done (to this point) three weddings for TA employees.

So it does happen that big companies give contracts and "cherry assignments" to those who have shot for free- provided their work is of good quality.

It's already been established above that we're not talking about charity work and community goodwill volunteer work. Everybody does charity--that's an entirely different situation and not applicable to the discussion. Clearly, I was talking about doing free work for commercial profit-making enterprises.

I've done lots of free work for for-profit companies and organizations when I started. I can remember doing 6 or 7 of them- and because of it, every repeating event each company has they have hired me again and happily wrote out the check when I told them my fee.

So, maybe the sky isn't falling.

Point .

But..... I'm just wondering which has been the more prevalent factor. And the negative buying pressure of a down economy has made it even more difficult to examine objectively.

ConDigital wrote in post #9173458
There's no need to, I think they're both relevent.

sapearl wrote in post #9174771
Point .

But..... I'm just wondering which has been the more prevalent factor. And the negative buying pressure of a down economy has made it even more difficult to examine objectively.

Sorry I can't answer your question. I'm even less of an economist than I am a photographer

20droger wrote in post #9132181
. . . . no two doors are the same size, no two windows are the same size, and absolutely nothing is any standard size.

Ahhh, good old Land Rovers. You need to find something more comfortable though.

20droger wrote in post #9163956
You entice people to be your clients with M&Ms?

Indeed, leave a trail on the ground and let them follow