The Photography Business and the American Dream

[BCampbell]

the photography business and the american dream | Laurence Kim Photographer

Laurence Kim explains why a photography career is possibl the worst idea ever:

Zero barriers to entry. There is basically a zero barrier to entry to the professional photography business. No qualifications, schooling, certifications or experience are necessary.

Zero leverage/scalability. Unless you’re going to open up a chain of employee-run studio photography stores, you have zero leverage. That is, you are simply trading your time for money, and there is a fixed amount of hours you can work before you run out of time or simply drop dead.

Zero equity-building. Unlike the owner of the dry cleaning store who can sell his business and build wealth over time, your photography business builds no equity. The typical wedding/portrait shooter (Sally Smith Photography) earns zero income the day she shoots her last wedding. Nobody out there will buy Sally Smith Photography. There is nothing to buy.

Zero benefits. You have to buy all of your own health insurance, for example.

I actually can’t think of a worse business than photography. I honestly can’t.

He goes on to say what can be done about it. This is a long, hard look at the business and he says what most are either unwilling to admit or to share. Enjoy!

[Jim Bryant]

Yup.........true. All they need is a PhD (Press here Dummy) digital SLR.

[BCampbell]

Uh, Jim, buddy, did you read it? The article goes way beyond that. I'm not sure I agree with all of it but he knows what he's talking about and lays out a very sensible roadmap.

[UlpilotSC]

My favorite quote in the whole article:

". How much does it cost you to not be an a-hole? How many times have you read a post on online forums like this:* “My contract does not allow clients to use images without my permission, yet I saw they posted some of their wedding images on Facebook without my permission!* How do I get them to cease and desist and/or compensate me for those images?” Are you f_ing kidding me!!* Who are you, Annie Leibovitz?* Instead I would thank them for the free advertising."

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Uh, Jim, buddy, did you read it? The article goes way beyond that. I'm not sure I agree with all of it but he knows what he's talking about and lays out a very sensible roadmap.

Yes I did read it..............that's why I posted it.

[andyw]

Hmmm,

He is making a lot of assumptions, many of them false.
He is also making statements in the opening paragraphs about other occupations which can apply equally to photographers as they do to say lawyers or doctors.

Sure there is no requirement for 4-6 years university to be a photographer and sure, anyone can pick up a camera and call themselves a photographer but to be a successful photographer is no different than being a successful dentist or lawyer. It requires more than just the skill in the trade itself.
Many dentists, doctors and lawyers do NOT earn massive incomes and many photographers actually do earn well.


Leverage or increasing your income is not that different in photography than it is in other professions. Prices increase as skill and reputation increase thus increasing your overall income.
Or it can be built on the efforts of others by building your business from a one man operation to a "proper" business with a number of photographers or others.
There is certainly no requirement to open a chain of studios to increase the size of the business.
I personally know a number of photographers who started out small and are now running decent sized business with anything upto 10 photographers and associated staff (retouchers, set builders etc).


"zero equity building". Yes, if you are a one man band running the "business" from their spare room. Certainly not the case for a decent bricks and mortar business running a studio or even a high street portrait and wedding business.
Again, many examples of these businesses being sold as going concerns and making healthy "retirement funds" for their owners.

He is also wrong on the stock aspect of things. Again there are many photographers around who still make a very good living from stock AND from images taken 10 years or more ago which are lodged with "proper" libraries.

Benefits. Yeah, obviously if you work for yourself then you don't get the health and other benefits that you MIGHT get with a corporation. That's life basically, it is one of the things which you look (should look at) when considering going out on your own.


The statement he made about "clients using images without permission". Yeah fine if you are a wedding snapper moaning about someone using it on facebook. But that does NOT apply to many many photographers and I for one would not be (have not been) happy for a client to use an image in a way which they were not contracted to do so and would use the law to solve it if necessary. That is not being an a'hole. It is called protecting your business.

I could go on and on about a lot of what he is saying but will leave it there.

Basically most of what he is saying could, in fact does, apply to virtually any business.
But as he seems to be thinking that all photographers are wedding snappers then he is totally wrong in many of his assumptions and statements.


Not a particularly good article in my opinion.

[mommywesley]

Originally Posted by andyw

"zero equity building". Yes, if you are a one man band running the "business" from their spare room. Certainly not the case for a decent bricks and mortar business running a studio or even a high street portrait and wedding business.
Again, many examples of these businesses being sold as going concerns and making healthy "retirement funds" for their owners.

I didn't read it over again, but doesn't he say towards the top that unless you actually own a studio...so what he's saying applies to those without a studio. Again I didn't read it over again so I don't recall how he worded it. But it sounds like what you're saying is unless you have a studio you can't run a decent business??

Originally Posted by andyw

The statement he made about "clients using images without permission". Yeah fine if you are a wedding snapper moaning about someone using it on facebook. But that does NOT apply to many many photographers and I for one would not be (have not been) happy for a client to use an image in a way which they were not contracted to do so and would use the law to solve it if necessary. That is not being an a'hole. It is called protecting your business.

What I got from that is just to not be a jerk about how you respond to it. A lot of times people misread or misinterpret the contract, if you're one to not allow them on FB at all, ever, then don't be an a-hole in your asking them to take it down, and if you're one that does let them put it on FB as long as your logo is in tact with you being tagged/credited, then inform them of that etc...

[andyw]

Mommywesley

He says "Unless you’re going to open up a chain of employee-run studio photography stores, you have zero leverage."

There is certainly no need to have a "chain" of stores to have a viable and successful business which can be sold on as a going concern.


The bit about unauthorised usage, my statement still stands.
Again, he is talking about wedding photographers but the article is about Photography businesses.
If I did not control where images are used in my business then I would lose money hand over fist as my images are licensed.

I stress I am not a wedding and portrait snapper hence the reason I think the article is not that good.
If he had said "The one man, out of a bedroom, wedding business" or "the brand new untrained and no business sense photographer" then it would be fine.

As he is saying Photographers and Photography business then he needs to look at ALL photography businesses not just weddings.


Edit: sorry, but I get slightly annoyed at people who write or talk about this in general terms but in actual fact mean a specific area or type of photographer.

Generalising like this does not help imo.

[Niresangwa]

Though I enjoy reading things like this, I agree with Andy, that it wasn't all that well thought out. It used convenient and one-sided examples, that even with only a little knowledge of wealth and economics, (never mind business), it was easy to quash.

Generally, I have to wonder as to why he felt so compelled to write it. The exact same argument could be made against any small business that relies upon the skill of a single owner to drive the business and works on commission.

Even the example of the guy who works for the big box employer... how many cashiers at Best Buy end up making $200k as a regional manager? When he made stretches like that, it really fell down.

Having said that, I think there's a topic to be discussed in terms of the long term viability of the population he's talking about, even if he doesn't specify. It's certainly something that is on my mind...

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

Even the example of the guy who works for the big box employer... how many cashiers at Best Buy end up making $200k as a regional manager? When he made stretches like that, it really fell down.

I didn't read it as a stretch. It was just an analogy of barriers to entry. He did go on to say that there are millions of people that can stock shelves, but not many have the skills or expertise to be a DM. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that is the way I read it. More of an analogy, not an absolute.