Stop Accepting $200 Jobs...

[elkidogz]

Simple math

Do you work for 200 a day?

200 / 8 hours = $25.00 per hour.
200 per day x 5 day work week = 1000.00 per week gross.

can you sustain your equipment, pay your bills, feed yourself (and family) on 1000.00 per week?'

I can't.

[kelleyrie]

Originally Posted by elkidogz

Simple math

Do you work for 200 a day?

200 / 8 hours = $25.00 per hour.
200 per day x 5 day work week = 1000.00 per week gross.

can you sustain your equipment, pay your bills, feed yourself (and family) on 1000.00 per week?'

I can't.

seeing as how I currently work for $62 a day(6 hour days) in a non photography related field ....um yeah I would work for $200 a day

[elkidogz]

my point is that you can't be a professional photographer at $200.00 a day salary.

[no.absolutes]

Originally Posted by elkidogz

my point is that you can't be a professional photographer at $200.00 a day salary.

I think if it were a steady 200/day, 5 days/week, yeah, I think it'd be possible. 48k a year is enough to live and maintain equipment.

[wannabephotographer]

Originally Posted by kelleyrie

seeing as how I currently work for $62 a day(6 hour days) in a non photography related field ....um yeah I would work for $200 a day

That's $200 a day in NY which is equivalent to probably less than $62 a day where you are .

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by no.absolutes

I think it'd be possible. 48k a year is enough to live and maintain equipment.

The former, yes; the latter, not so much.

If you bill yourself as a professional photographer, you're expecting to have at least a facsimile of professional equipment. Which isn't to say that you should pack $50,000 worth of gear, but a d60 and a few second-hand Tokinas aren't gonna cut it.

Also bear in mind that professional photography brings with it professional responsibilities. You'll want to incorporate (most likely as an LLC) in order to insulate the "you" that's a regular person from the "you" that's a business. And speaking of, you'll need liability insurance to keep you covered if your assistant knocks over a light stand and brains someone with a heavy light.

Oh! And you'll need an assistant, too! Sure, you can probably get by on your own, but it's tough to focus on your work and the art when you also have to worry about rigging, setting up, and spiking your equipment.

And don't forget that the $48k you make as you-as-a-business will be taxed a lot more heavily than it would if it had been made by you-as-an-employee. You're effectively paying double tax now, the tax that you pay as an earner and the tax that the business pays as a business. Plus you're paying more for medical, and social security, and all that fun stuff.

Mind you, I'm sure I'm leaving out a ton of other expenses, but you get the drift. In the blink of an eye, that $48k isn't quite the $48k you thought it was.

[ErikTaubman]

Back in 1990, I was working for a company basically doing basic network admin and helpdesk type functions. I was making in the $45K+ benefits and was doing pretty well. Over the next 15 years, I learned more, took some classes, etc and slowly advanced to network administrator and ultimately network engineering. (As a side, I got burnt out in 2003 and got away from the IT industry all together, but that is a different story.)

Today, if you look at helpdesk positions, they pay in the range of $9 per hour to $11 and hour and the companies are filling the positions with competent people. Again, these people are doing the same work I was 15 years ago, for a third of what I was getting paid.

Are the people who take these jobs undervaluing the IT industry, or has the industry changed to the point that the job is only worth $10 an hour? Can I still get a position handling helpdesk functions and still make $50,000. Absolutely, but I will be doing more than just help desk.

Now apply your answer to the photography industry. Times are changing and just because you can not "live and run your business on $50,000 a year" does not mean that the market has not and is not continuing to change.

Finally, are you losing work, having to lower your price, or give more product, because of the "$200 photographer" or because of the economy in general? Be honest with your answer. Chances are the $200 photographer has nothing to do with your market

Just my 2 cents (or $25 depending on who is paying!)

[NaturalWoman]

Originally Posted by rajah sulayman

People care because it devalues the industry, the artists, and the art.

i don't feel devalued at all. i will tell and show my client why i'm better than joe free. i guess that's the marketing and selling part of it.

if this were my bread and butter, 200 a day would not cut it, of course, for me, but it's still my choice to accept or decline.

i work for lawyers, they come a dime a dozen too. if a client questions the rate, they can find another attorney or be given a discount. most of them take a slight discount. some lawyers charge over 200 an hour and they aren't very professional at all. heheheh.

txs for your input

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by NaturalWoman

i don't feel devalued at all.

You're also not relying on your photography as your sole career, something you've invested countless hours and sums of money into developing. The perspective on a lot of this shifts significantly when looked at as something you enjoy that brings in the occasional extra buck versus something you want to make your life's work and will stop at nothing to build a successful career out of.

Ultimately, that's the operative difference between whether a "$200 job" is acceptable or not. And whether the philosophy of "Stop Accepting $200 Jobs" is an important one to you.

[archersdad]

I would like to point out that spending $50,000 on gear does not make someone a good (or professional) photographer. If customers are choosing a $200 photographer over one with a much higher fee, maybe the higher-priced photographer is not doing enough to justify that higher fee. It could also be the photog's sales ability; not everyone is cut out to be a salesperson.

Many people consider $200/day to be great pay. That is more than the median income in the US. The median teacher's salary is less than that. Should teachers, who also meet the definition of professional, stop teaching because some accept less than $200/day?