Stop Accepting $200 Jobs...

[BCampbell]

Awesome, awesome post at A Photo Editor today about pricing and struggling new photographers, with something discussions on the topic here usually lack: a real world perspective. Lots of food for thought.

A Photo Editor - Stop Accepting $200 Assignments!

[SusanH1970]

I saw that on a Flickr group. Good read.

I think it's horrible advice.

The photography market is oversaturated which tons of images and tons of photographers. You know what happens when a client won't pay your price? They'll find someone that will. And they will find one. There's so much competition out there, it's not hard to find a photographer to meet almost any price (even free).

So telling someone "Don't accept any job under $XXX" is just stupid...it's a desperate attempt by established photographers to try and keep prices artificially high. It doesn't work. It only works in markets with very little competition and high barriers to entry. That's why your cable bill keeps going up

I've done the math. I've already decided that I can't make it in photography full-time. But part-time...

[NaturalWoman]

um, why would anyone care that i'm accepting a $200 job. for me it depends on the time required to get the job done.

i don't charge a lot for my artwork, but i have several buyers, who choose my work over someone selling for hundreds more because i do good work. then again, it's not a full time gig for me, so i don't need to charge through the roof. if it was my full time job, then i probably would not take a 200 - 8 hour job - unless i really need to put food on the table. that's just ME.

why do people care really what others are bringing in and are charging. i don't care if people work for free. have at it. their standard is not mine and it's their business.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by Photoboothguy

So telling someone "Don't accept any job under $XXX" is just stupid...it's a desperate attempt by established photographers to try and keep prices artificially high.

[...]

I've done the math. I've already decided that I can't make it in photography full-time.

At a risk of sounding like a smartass, I think the two may be connected.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by photoboothguy

i think it's horrible advice.

The photography market is oversaturated which tons of images and tons of photographers. You know what happens when a client won't pay your price? They'll find someone that will. And they will find one. There's so much competition out there, it's not hard to find a photographer to meet almost any price (even free).

So telling someone "don't accept any job under $xxx" is just stupid...it's a desperate attempt by established photographers to try and keep prices artificially high. It doesn't work. It only works in markets with very little competition and high barriers to entry. That's why your cable bill keeps going up

i've done the math. I've already decided that i can't make it in photography full-time. But part-time...

*dingdingding*

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by NaturalWoman

then again, it's not a full time gig for me, so i don't need to charge through the roof. if it was my full time job, then i probably would not take a 200 - 8 hour job

I'm fairly certain the article (and sentiment) was intended mostly for people looking to build names and careers for themselves in photography, not people who have dayjobs and see photography more as a creative outlet that occasionally brings in a couple bucks.

why do people care really what others are bringing in and are charging. i don't care if people work for free. have at it. their standard is not mine and it's their business.

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

Say you're a lawyer who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a solid Ivy League education, busted your hump interning for years, fetching coffee and reviewing mind-numbing briefs, and lost more sleep than one can imagine while prepping for the bar. And, after all that hard work, sweat, toil, and tears, you finally, finally get to a point where you can command compensation commensurate of your abilities and experiences. Then, as you open the doors to your law firm, your first client walks in off the street and says

"Why are you charging me $100 an hour for your advice when that guy down the street with a couple law books and a degree from Bahamas University of Law only charges me $10?"

Would this not irk you? Would you not take it as a bit of an affront to have your skill and experience devalued on account of someone who doesn't work at your profession half as hard as you do?

Photography is in a singular position as it is a field where career professionals share the same space as hobbyists and artists. You never hear of an amateur neurosurgeon, or a hobbyist quantum physicist. But in a profession where it's bad enough that you have to hear "Well, my cousin just bought a d60 so we're just gonna have him do our ad campaign. But your portfolio is really nice!" to have to also deal with being undercut by fellow professionals, almost to the point where making a living is near-impossible (since a lot of the undercutters are often people with other means of support and can afford to make peanuts), it can make things frustrating.

But again, I'm pretty sure that the article wasn't intended for folks that pursue photography as a passion that brings in the occasional buck to supplement their primary means of income. It's more a reflection of the state of the industry and something affecting people who see photography not just as a creative outlet but also a career.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by Photoboothguy

it's a desperate attempt by established photographers to try and keep prices artificially high.

Pretty much all service-based industry pricing is artificial. That's the sheer nature of a service-based industry.

Now if you were meaning to say that they were needlessly high, I'd again disagree with you. An established photographer's prices are no more "needlessly high" than an established musician's take from a nationwide concert tour, or an established actor's salary for his megablockbuster movie. Sure, you could walk down to the local watering hole and probably find a better guitarist than John Mayer who happens to be making $50 for a gig, or watch some community theatre and discover a better actor than Brad Pitt who does his shows for a pittance. But that doesn't make John Mayer or Brad Pitt -- or Joey Lawrence or Chase Jarvis or Joe McNally, for that matter -- any less worthy of the figures they command.

Finally, to say that the established photographers are attempting protect their salaries is equally naive. Joe McNally doesn't care if you only charge $200 for a full-day shoot, because you're not cutting into his market base. It's the non-established photographers -- the ones that are still trying to slowly climb the ladder, rung-by-run, to establishment -- that care. And they only care so far as trying to make a living, not trying to make bank.

[Rajah Sulayman]

One quick last note: anyone reading the article would note that the "$200" isn't a hard-and-fast dollar amount so much as a representative number for a sentiment being expressed. It's about not letting clients and low-cost colleagues devalue your own work and time and effort, not about having a specific minimum pay.

[zona5101]

rajah - excellent replies. I appreciate you sharing your comments and point of view.