Researching the competition

[candidrachel]

I've been spending time this morning researching the competition in my town and came across a company called Petal Portraits who are a frachise specializing in children and baby portraits in a home environment (that's what I want to do) and while I was reading their blurb I came across this paragraph:

"You don't have to be a photographer, or have any photographic or business experience to join our team – we'll provide all the training necessary. In fact, we'd prefer if you were not a professional photographer, as they often do not have the more important skills for which we are looking".

Why would they say that??? Surely if you were gong to run a photography business you at least need to be a great photographer with strong business skills.

It seems very strange to me. Granted I don't have any business skills either but at least I'm getting my arse on the computer chair doing my own private study in my own time.

Any thoughts??

[pasoviennese]

Sounds like a scam to me.

[GadgetRick]

Well, it's good your looking at who you're competing with. However, I wouldn't get too hung up on this. It's not like you'll (usually) be in direct competition for the same job. Can happen but less likely in this business from what I've seen.

Instead of wondering about that, I'd keep that in my mind if you ever should find yourself in direct competition with this company. I'd bring it up if I were competing with them directly for that job.

[Dangelica]

The idea of franchising is to expand your business model to as large a group as possible. While quality suffers in this model the incoming franchise fees and setup fees for a new franchise usually make the person flogging the franchise rich enough to sell out.

Look at it this way. One of the biggest burger chains in the world has nothing to do with burgers. It is interested in real estate investment using franchisees as a tool. The burgers i wouldn't feed to my dog if she were starving but because there are so many churning out average burgers at affordable prices and including gimmicks all in conveinient locations, people end up buying the crap and it becomes your average Joe's "Known quantity" Sharp advertising and gimmicks plus mass production means cheap prices that allow people to justify sub-par quality as a decent choice.

The reason they "Would prefer you weren't a photographer" Is because they want things done their way on their terms from the word go. It also means if anything that threatens a photography business surviving is present , that they can cover it up and placate you until the first guarantee period is over. After that its your problem. Any photographer worth the money is either self employed or working with another professional photographer until they can be self employed. A professional photographer would laugh at the idea of joining a group that prefers non photographers run a photography business. But every joe average who dreamed of being a full time pro and has the spare cash will jump at the offer.

And there is the hook. Get as many fish as you can in "because anyone can run a photography bussiness" and some are bound to survive for at least a while. Most will go out of business but not before the franchisor has made a fearsome chunk of cash and headed off into the sunset.

If you have the passion and do your research thoroughly, start slowly building a solid rep, then you will have more control, flexibility and capacity for income working for yourself than with some unknown quantity selling an unproven model.

[Swisstony10]

Sounds like a similar attitude to Tempest Photographer (see earlier threads by me and others) - despite running a large nationwide business providing school, college and event photography, they also require no experience or knowledge of photography before you attend their three-day training course (it may be four days, I can't remember now).

If it's children and baby photography that they do, then it's more than just business skills that are important. Pretty much every picture I ever take of a child totally and utterly sucks, simply because I just can't relate to or interact with them well. I'm just not a "child" person - never have been, and probably never will be. I don't get them, and they don't get me, which is why I always do my very best to avoid having to take pictures of them.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike children as such, I just don't know how to interact with them, which means that there's no real connection between them and me and the camera, and that shows in the final images. If you do have that skill, then in a half hour session you can have 400 slightly different pictures of them jumping, rolling around, giggling, laughing, pulling faces, and all those other things that'll make their parents want to take out a finance deal for £2,000 to pay the two giant canvas prints and an acrylic block, plus the 10-page commemorative photo-book that they just HAVE to have...

Ok, so I'm perhaps being a bit cynical, but to be honest, that's what this kind of thing is. Tempest, Venture, Petal Portraits, whatever - it's a sales environment. As long as you can learn how to point a camera at a child, probably in P mode, and hold the shutter down in continuous mode for half an hour in the three days that they'll train you, then you can concentrate on the more important factor of selling overpriced print products.

Russ.

[candidrachel]

Thanks so much for the replies!! After doing some more research I discovered that the company is actually owned by a very much respected photographer in our town. Bummer! That would mean I would be directly competing against him. I do actually like his natural, no frills, fun aproach to environmental photo shoots. Maybe if I mirror his approach I could learn some more.

Russ, I thought of Tempest too. It does sound very much of the same mould. Petal even says that they will give you examples of photos in a portfolio to show prospective clients! That means you don't actually have to show examples of your own skills lol!

[Swisstony10]

That's truly awesome!

Can you imagine having some work done on your house?

"Here are some examples of plastering."
"That looks like the intricate ceiling detail from Longleat House to me."
"Yeah, it's plasterwork."
"Did you do it?"
"Nope. Someone did though, and that's what it looks like."

[TheEagleSpirit]

To start with it takes time, patience and good attitudes to teach new photographers what is needed in a specific business. Professionals already know the basic operation and easily fit in. However, learning from someone that knows cameras, lighting, backgrounds etc. would be a great help to learning photographers. I call it on the job training. I have fun taking pictures but have gotten into the specifics of camera settings and the effects, but learning by reading and practicing alone can be a bore. I would like to find someone in my area to take pictures with and learn from them.

[LeeR]

Olan Mills was famous for having a "system" that made people look good. They would show new people how to set the lights, the camera and the people and all the photographer had to do was press the shutter. The results were sutprisingly consistent, if bland and there was nary a bad one in the bunch. On many levels this worked well. It allowed the photographer to concentrate on relating to the client because the technical aspects had been set in stone years before. (I am told that Mr. Mills himself could walk into a studio and tell within a quarter of an inch whether or not the lights were where they were supposed to be.)

Is this creative? Heavens, No! It is consistent; the opposite of creative and, as it turned out, very successful. Would Olan Mills want a professional photographer? Hell, no! That's the last thing they would want. A pro would want to tinker with the lighting; they would much rather have someone so intimidated by the technicals that they didn't mess with them.

That being said, marketing against this concept should be geared towards indiviuality and creativity. It's corny, but a line like "We don't just take your picture, we capture the real you!" might work well.

[Moments that Click]

Originally Posted by LeeR

Is this creative? Heavens, No! It is consistent; the opposite of creative and, as it turned out, very successful. Would Olan Mills want a professional photographer? Hell, no! That's the last thing they would want. A pro would want to tinker with the lighting; they would much rather have someone so intimidated by the technicals that they didn't mess with them.

I agree completely with LeeR regarding this as I have had seemingly similar experience around here in the past with some of our franchise portrait studios. Even before I decided to begin making the baby steps from amateur to someone that makes some coin with my camera, I considered working in one of these studios part time to gain some experience with lighting and posing people. The response once I began to describe my experience and enthusiastic will to learn and grow was luke warm to say the least and I got the distinct impression that it was as LeeR says above during that time.