Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry

[xkellie]

Hi all,

found this article an interesting read, and thought i'd share since it's a bit of a hot topic -

Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry
http://www.zarias.com/cheap-photographers-only-kill-themselves-not-the-industry/


Think of the brides out there who don’t have a budget but want some photos of their weddings... Are you saying that if they can’t afford a $3,000+ photographer then they don’t deserve photos? Are you saying that if they can’t afford a Mercedes then they shouldn’t be allowed to drive? ... Hyundai didn’t kill Mercedes.

[ricktas]

Sad for the industry maybe, but in the end everyone is free to charge what they like. If they all charged the same the ACCC would come down so hard of them for price fixing we would probably not have a single professional photographer left in Aus.

Whilst I agree with promoting the benefits of not undercutting others in the photography industry, which I see as more an educational aspect of photography, it is interesting that people who complain about the undercutting would also be happy to walk into Harvey Norman and ask for a discount, or research online and get the best price for their new studio flash setup. We cannot have it both ways, telling others to stop discounting their prices, whilst asking for discounts ourselves.

[xkellie]

i think quality of work has to be considered as well. i doubt anyone with the money to pay a decent photographer would go to a low-end 'tog just because they were cheaper.

most consumers know they pay for the quality of the images and the experience with the photographer. if they want an entry-level photographer for an entry-level price, they'll generally get entry-level photos. if they have the money to pay a quality professional, they'll get quality professional photos. new comers charging less may affect the industry, but i think consumers know what they want and what they can afford, and often they are not the same. if they don't have the money they simply can't afford the going rates for a decent photographer, so they don't lose the business they wouldn't have had anyway.

it might be good if there was some kind of licencing for photographers, that they have to be at a certain consistent, quality level to go into business, but i guess there'd still be those who would ignore it out of ignorance or arrogance.

[Redgum]

You won't necessarily get what you pay for. There's a lot of people charging big money that are not professional or familiar with a particular genre.
Like anything else, look at the product before you buy.
This topic has been discussed many times before. :)

[arthurking83]

sorry I read about these stories all the time, in various fora, including AP, and think to myself BS!!

it's all a load of BS.

he says he shoots 20 bands a month and then he works out he was only 'making' $5/hour!!

Taking into consideration the 'processing time' for each shoot, and that means he used to spend 50 hours shooting and subsequently processing those images for each band!

kids don't cost $1000/per month unless you're an idiot, or that you want them to cost you that much, health insurance is an Americanism... not necessarily compulsory in Aus.

All I can say, is that he's lucky to have been in his situation as a dying photographer, and he'd seriously change his tune about how bad it really was for him, if he'd tried couriering for a few years!!

you can't expect to add your personal daily life costs(such as $1K/month for kids expenses) into a business situation.. it's stupid notion and if he thinks that way(obviously not an accountant type!!) he deserves to fail in any business.

So taken that he left a $10/hour job as slacker at the local copy shop.. how would he have fared with those expenses then? ... by my reckoning he'd be losing approximately $30/hour relative to his life threatening situation as a photographer!!

it's just more hyperbole from a pro photographer(judging by his inability to do math), and is best ignored by people with any common sense.

[farmer_rob]

AK, although his concept of accounting is pretty twisted, it's fair to say that his gross billing of $60k is not his take-home pay. There are costs associated with running his photography business that do need to be taken into account.

To me, it is clear from the start of his article that the simple solution is charge more - he'll make as much money for less work.

[kiwi]

He actually said adding kids can easily cost $1000 per month

I'd agree, easily

I think it's a good article, I have a lot of time for zac, vie listened to him a lot

[Redgum]

AK, although his concept of accounting is pretty twisted, it's fair to say that his gross billing of $60k is not his take-home pay. There are costs associated with running his photography business that do need to be taken into account.

To me, it is clear from the start of his article that the simple solution is charge more - he'll make as much money for less work.
There's a great lesson here that most are missing and it doesn't have anything to do with what you charge. It's what you do.
Too often people put all their eggs in one basket. Zack would have to be creatively dead (he admits this) by the end of the month. His income suffers, his brain suffers and so does his family. There's a message here and Zack's learning the hard way.
Think about life - if you do the same thing day in and day out you get tired, you burn out, you just got to have variety. Same with work. Even if you love photography just shooting bands or doing weddings alone is just plumb crazy. Some day one of those eggs in your basket is going to crack, and that's it. Just ask Zack. Putting up prices hasn't helped him.
You've just got to get variety in your work if you want to survive. Stay in the same industry but try another type of work. Do your bands but also do newspapers/magazines/weddings/corporate/industrial. Think about it. Woolworths and Coles don't just sell one product. The government doesn't have one tax. Like any successful industry the more irons you have in the fire the more you earn irrespective of what price you charge. I think the fancy name is multi-skilling but whatever it's called it's true.

[arthurking83]

I totally understand what he's trying to say(about his chosen industry) and that it's not as easy as people think it is....

It's just the inane arguments put forward(by his simple mindedness).

What he's trying to infer is that he was better off at his $10/hour job at the copy shop, which is clearly rubbish.

@ 10/hr, on an average 40hr/week.. gives him $400/wk. Basically just a bit more than $1600/month. even taking into consideration holidays and other employee benefits when 'working for the man'... compared to his $5k/month as a band photographer.. there's no way he'd be spending over $3k in expenses as a band photographer.. and if he was, then he's an idiot!
The alternative to charging more for your services and making more money in business is reduce costs where you can. This is what I'm having to grapple with as I can't charge more. My only option is to reduce how much money I can spend.
Once again.. it;s all about the lifestyle you choose to live and if spending up big to look more professional is what he wants, then he has to be pepared to suffer the consequences.

it's the way he's put forward his arguments that annoys me... and (because I can be a cynical grumpy ol man sometimes) to me his article is more about scaring others off/out of the industry, using distorted accounting logic rather than points of interest that actually make sense.

i know how to lose money.. trust me! My previous financial(08-09) year was much worse for me than he'd ever see as a band photographer... going by his figures.

For me, analysing his figures, and having a rough idea on how business costs actually work.. I'm at least $20/year better off doing what he does... as opposed to losing any more money doing what I do(this past year hasn't been bad for me tho).

if his point was to educate prospective photographers on how the industry actually works.. with the view to scare them off(or alter their expectations) then form where I'm sitting, it not only hasn't worked.. but now I'm seriously considering taking up the challenge(and hopefully make a bit of money too! :p

as for cost of kids/month.. it all depends on the lifestyle you want to lead... I choose a more frugal lifestyle, out of current necessity.
(having said that, he was based in the USA and their basic costs may be a lot different, with respect to education/health and so forth)

anyhow.. he may well be a well respected photographer in photographer circles.. but as business person(or accountant) his ability is severely lacking.

In the same vein as KR(as a gear reviewer), I now have no respect for his(Zack's) opinion as a pro photographer trying to run a photography business, going by that article.

[farmer_rob]

I must admit that I thought there was a degree of unnecessary obfuscation in Zack's article - e.g. we all pay taxes whether it is against business income or on a salary or wage, so this is not a comparable expense. Also, his ongoing expenses running a band photography business can't be high (Travel, some advertising, some computer & phone expenses? but no studio, external office, extra employees.) Finally, why should he have the right to love his job and get paid an above-average wage for 20 bands a month? (I read somewhere recently that the average wage in the US is about $45k per annum.)

[pvoices1971]

I totally understand what he's trying to say(about his chosen industry) and that it's not as easy as people think it is....

It's just the inane arguments put forward(by his simple mindedness).

What he's trying to infer is that he was better off at his $10/hour job at the copy shop, which is clearly rubbish.

@ 10/hr, on an average 40hr/week.. gives him $400/wk. Basically just a bit more than $1600/month. even taking into consideration holidays and other employee benefits when 'working for the man'... compared to his $5k/month as a band photographer.. there's no way he'd be spending over $3k in expenses as a band photographer.. and if he was, then he's an idiot!
The alternative to charging more for your services and making more money in business is reduce costs where you can. This is what I'm having to grapple with as I can't charge more. My only option is to reduce how much money I can spend.
Once again.. it;s all about the lifestyle you choose to live and if spending up big to look more professional is what he wants, then he has to be pepared to suffer the consequences.

it's the way he's put forward his arguments that annoys me... and (because I can be a cynical grumpy ol man sometimes) to me his article is more about scaring others off/out of the industry, using distorted accounting logic rather than points of interest that actually make sense.

i know how to lose money.. trust me! My previous financial(08-09) year was much worse for me than he'd ever see as a band photographer... going by his figures.

For me, analysing his figures, and having a rough idea on how business costs actually work.. I'm at least $20/year better off doing what he does... as opposed to losing any more money doing what I do(this past year hasn't been bad for me tho).

if his point was to educate prospective photographers on how the industry actually works.. with the view to scare them off(or alter their expectations) then form where I'm sitting, it not only hasn't worked.. but now I'm seriously considering taking up the challenge(and hopefully make a bit of money too! :p

as for cost of kids/month.. it all depends on the lifestyle you want to lead... I choose a more frugal lifestyle, out of current necessity.
(having said that, he was based in the USA and their basic costs may be a lot different, with respect to education/health and so forth)

anyhow.. he may well be a well respected photographer in photographer circles.. but as business person(or accountant) his ability is severely lacking.

In the same vein as KR(as a gear reviewer), I now have no respect for his(Zack's) opinion as a pro photographer trying to run a photography business, going by that article.

You clearly missed the point of the article - Zack is passionate about what he does and is quite successful - this article was referring to his early days - he devotes a lot of his time now to education - he is not trying to scare anyone off just make them more aware of the reality of the costs associated with the profession, rather than the romance. True he's not an accountant, he has a business manager for that, maybe the figures are exagerated for a reason.;)
You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone, but before berating someone you clearly don't know, may I suggest you spend a little more time researching the subject.

[ricktas]

You clearly missed the point of the article - Zack is passionate about what he does and is quite successful - this article was referring to his early days - he devotes a lot of his time now to education - he is not trying to scare anyone off just make them more aware of the reality of the costs associated with the profession, rather than the romance. True he's not an accountant, he has a business manager for that, maybe the figures are exagerated for a reason.;)
You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone, but before berating someone you clearly don't know, may I suggest you spend a little more time researching the subject.

If AK and I can mis-read the point of the article, there are likely others that did as well, and that reflects back on Zack's communication style. AK is entitled to his views and even though you state as such, your comment regarding berating suggests that you do not respect the rights of others to have an opinion. I think Zack could do well to go back and re-write the article to ensure that his points are not ambiguously interpreted. If it can so easily be mis-interpreted, then Zack has lost the intent straight off, and that doesn't do him any justice, no matter how passionate or successful he might be.

[I @ M]

Zack is passionate about what he does and is quite successful - this article was referring to his early days - he devotes a lot of his time now to education -

After reading this thread and then having a wander through Mr. Arias's website it has become abundantly clear that yes he is passionate and successful in what he does --- making money ---. Yes the article clearly refers to some examples being from his early days just as other parts refer to current day income, I feel that the point he was trying to make is that nothing much has changed from then till now in the way people charge, are taxed and face living expenses. He is merely saying in a self glorifying way that which most people already know. Yep, he devotes time to education, paid workshops seem to be his style, I can't find any costs on his web site, only a reference to deposits and course fees not being refunded if you cancel.

Sorry, he merely seems to be another successful marketing personage that has figured out the easiest way make a living is to promote one's self to cult status, write tons of blogs, some of which are bound to have emotional content to garner sympathy from the reader , hang out on the latest and greatest social networking sites and watch the dollars role in.

[Tony B]

Unfortunately it is easy to set oneself up as a fee charging photographer. Many would bes do not have the training in either business or all aspects of photography many pros have had.
Photography is not the only profession in this predicament. As a qualified professional tennis coach I see similar happenings in my profession. In the 20+ years I have been doing this, the backyard coach/poor pro has been my best advert. There is much more involved in being a professional than the ability to take a photograph, hit a tennis ball etc etc. This is why the majority of professions are regulated as far as membership & the ability to call oneself an accountant, lawyer, nurse or doctor is concerned. It is illegal to pose as any of the aforesaid which gives some protection to the members of the public expecting to obtain the service each profession affords.
My grouse is with anyone charging full fee for work provided if they are not qualified to do so- no matter how good- be they photographer, tennis coach. personal trainer etc etc. It is an expensive process to become certified. In Australia there are many moans about illegal immigrants entering thru the back door. The same reasoning & restrictions should be applied to those photographers endeavouring to enter the profession in similar manner. The difficulty is in the policing as it is human nature to pay as little as possible in many instances.

[farmer_rob]

Risky comment there Tony B - there have been a number of threads about whether or not photography should be "regulated". Regulation driven by existing practitioners in the industry to raise the barriers of entry is really just self-interest, however much there are arguments about the benefits to the consumer. If the benefits are really there, the consumer will already be looking for a badge of recognition.


the ability to call oneself an accountant, lawyer, nurse or doctor is concerned. It is illegal to pose as any of the aforesaid which gives some protection to the members of the public expecting to obtain the service each profession affords.

I think you'll find that "accountant" is not as tightly regulated as you might believe. As for Lawyer, Nurse or Doctor - there can serious consequences for the purchaser of their services if they do not do their jobs properly - the same cannot be said for Photography (or Tennis Coaching, or Farming) - and so regulation is driven by government AND consumers, regardless of what the practitioners themselves want.

Next we might need to regulate blog-writers - in case Zack seriously misleads AK, and causes him to have apoplexy and keel over :D (Or AP posters in case Tony B, pvoices1971 or farmer_rob start pounding the keyboard in frustration and injure their hands :D)

[Redgum]

Hey Rob,
There is a simple form of regulation that could be installed. Anyone wanting to use the word "photographer" in their business name needs to pay a bond of $50,000 to the government. Each time there's a proven complaint from a client $5000 gets deducted to consolidated revenue. That gives you ten chances to get your photography right before you go stony broke. Sorta like mortgaging your house when you go into business. :D That way you could sort the weekend warriors from the professionals?
Just a thought. ;)

[arthurking83]

.....

Next we might need to regulate blog-writers - in case Zack seriously misleads AK, and causes him to have apoplexy and keel over :D ....

if that's a good camera brand and does ISO6400 nice and clean... I'll have two then! :p

I still think that if he(Zack) want's to make a point(and be taken seriously), he still has an obligation to make that point using sound and coherent reasoning, and not distort facts and figures to exaggerate the perils of one vocation compared to another.



... I really need cleaner ISO6400(and above) image files ... :beer_mug:

[ricktas]

Regulations and controls do not stop shonky dealers. Yes ultimately they get caught and may lose their licence to 'practice' but not before clients/customers have been through them and learnt the hard way. Yes we have licensing for Doctors and Lawyers, etc but it seems almost weekly we hear about another lawyer who has been dis-barred for stealing clients money etc, or a Doctor that has been de-registered for some reason. Discussing the impact of shonky dealers is valid and valiant, but will regulation stop it? No!

Unfortunately we do not live in a utopian world, and the old saying 'buyer beware' seems to have lost its meaning and everyone expects someone else to be looking out for them, rather than looking out for themselves. Rather than regulation, education, of both the photographers and the public is the key, as I see it.

[etherial]

As camera's are getting better and more affordable, (not to mention everyone carrying one every day that are becoming more and more capable), it will be impossible to regulate. Get used to it, the Photography landscape will change dramatically over the next few years.

[Longshots]

Does every question need to fall into the "regulation" argument ?

Eventually the message that this is actually about will be lost. Which in essence is sound advice to make sure that you factor all your costs in if you want to rely on taking pictures as a full time job.

I dont really see what the problem is ? Other than a few people scanning and misreading the actual blog post.


BTW I agreed, to a point, with Redgum - again :) (well not the $50,000 deposit idea ;) - just the posts before that! )

Personally, while not paying too much attention to the specific figures, I think that if you read the entire piece, the message is clear, and hits the nail on the head.

The odd thing about being around for longer then some out there, and still possessing a good memory for details, is that I hear many newly established photographers who rely on a wide range of photographic skills to stay in what would be considered full time photography; is that THEY are the ones that shout and complain that people arent charging enough. And yet ironically, many of them have entered the market by being the cheapest (or as Zack would describe it "low ball cheap photographer"), and then a few years later after Financial sense progresses them forward to charging something that keeps them in business, they're concerned about the same section of the market that they themselves evolved from.

It seems to me that those who enter the market by being good, by being creative, by being individual, instead of relying on fitting in on a particular pay/charging rate (ie he cheapest); are becoming less and less. And again its worth noting that those who do that approach of being better, not cheaper; would also appear to go on and succeed.

So as I have read Zacks piece, instead of worrying about the details, I can see and understand the message he's saying. Personally I think its sound advice.

[farmer_rob]

I think that the deluge of images that confront us every day already devalues the individual image. I was browsing Scott Kelby's website the other day, and he had a heap of American NRL football photos. Excellent shots taken by a skilled photographer. However, I spent perhaps 5 seconds on them, then onto the next thing. How much are those images really worth? I'd argue "not much", judging by the amount of eyeball time they get. I'd say the same applies to Zack's band photography - a passing glance at best.

Some magazines - say National Geographic - need excellent shots, otherwise the brand is devalued. Others, and the mainstream broadsheet newspapers fit here, don't really need a) many photos or b) particularly high quality ones. Yeah, sure there are 'iconic' photos that pop up once in a blue moon, but if you read about the bloke who captured the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/04/sixtenths-of-a-second-two-lives-forever-changed.html), and the one who missed out, there is a heap of luck and really not a lot of quality (not to take away from the skills of the photographers involved). These days, some bystander with an iPhone could be the one who got lucky in the same situation.

How many looks do any photos from the average AP member get? Even the good ones who win POTW/POTM? Care to monetise that? How much could Rick charge for each viewing of these photos? My bet is nothing, because even if they are great photos, we still just glance and move on. And yet we all get upset about "I'm not going to give away copyright because it is my art" (when in fact it is "sell copyright" because someone is already paying the photographer in the case of professional photography. The chances of 99.9% of these images actually getting more than 100 views ever is 0 (regardless of quality, usage, payment, watermarks, skill, promotion, websites, whatever).

I think the sooner that professional still photographers accept that in the main that they are being paid an hourly rate for their skill in manipulating a camera, and get away from the view that they are the next undiscovered Annie Liebovitz, the better off the whole industry will be. (ie Join the real world of working for a living.) This will marginalise the cheap operators, because then the average consumer will be able to recognise that if they want a quality job, they need to pay more than they pay their gardener, and it will focus the minds of the would-be pro on the choices he has to make - how many hours he does, what he gets paid per hour and why he is doing that rather than mowing lawns.

[arthurking83]

Does every question need to fall into the "regulation" argument ?

Eventually the message that this is actually about will be lost. Which in essence is sound advice to make sure that you factor all your costs in if you want to rely on taking pictures as a full time job.

so sound advice to any photographer getting into business, is that they have to factor in things like beer money and transmissions for crappy cars as business costs?
My personal belief is that these are cost burdens that the average punter/slacker/worker may also have to endure, despite the fact that don't work as pro photographers!(see his comparison to the slacker in his blog post)



....I dont really see what the problem is ? Other than a few people scanning and misreading the actual blog post.
My problem was that I re read the blog post 3 times to try to make sense of it, and every time it made less and less sense as sound business advice!





...Personally, while not paying too much attention to the specific figures, I think that if you read the entire piece, the message is clear, and hits the nail on the head.
It's the actual figures that make no sense.

Ultimately what he's trying to say with his blog post is that as a photographer in business, you have some inherent responsibility to get married, have kids, rent a $900/month apartment.. etc, etc(it's all in his post!) and as a copy boy earning $10/hr you don't.

He was the one that introduced the concept of comparing how much a copy boy earns compared to a busy pro photographer!!


I was so covered up in work that I couldn’t keep up with it. I either had to start raising prices or I was going to die. I once figured out that I was making about $5 an hour. Note that I quit a $10 an hour job for this. Hmmmm. Nice job Zack. Be your own boss and make less than a slacker in a copy shop.
quoted from his blog

and this sounds like sound advice? :confused:

With that kind of stupid reasoning and comparisons, I made my comments and stick by them.
From his blog post, I believe that he doesn't possess the ability to give sound business advice for anyone, let alone would be pro photographers. He was definitely better of sticking to his job as a slacker in a copy shop!

had he given a real breakdown of the actual costs of running his business, he may have possibly made sense.

All I know, that as a non photographic business owner, I still have transmissions and mortgages to pay too... but he makes 2x the (gross) income and with most likely 1/2 the expenses that I have to worry about!.. so in effect far more profit.

In my current situation, I'm far better off as low ball band photographer, rather than sticking to my current work!

Had he simply given a break down of what he earns, and what he could possibly earn(if he tried, or was smarter), and then what it costs him to earn that income, without introducing the concept of living expenses as business expenses, then the comparison to his previous vocation would have had some relevance.

it's the bottom line profit that only concerns the business owner... not the costs of living.

From the known profit for the financial year that the business has produced, the operator can subsequently determine a lifestyle that they want want to lead...

Contrary to (popular)belief, I fully understand what he's trying to say in his blog.. he just doesn't understand the concept of reason and coherence.

All I know is that, if I tried to claim beer money as an expense for my business, my accountant would laugh his head off!

[Longshots]

I dont see much point in quoting what I said when you're not referring to it ?

Anyway, read the article again because he isnt saying that beer money and transmission is a business cost. What he's trying to say is that everyone has living expenses, and the comment about the beer, etc is relating to that (not trying to claim it as a business expense):
"How much does it take you to live? Let’s put you in a $900 apartment + utilities, add some car insurance, a set of tires, a new transmission for your crap car, a 24-70 2.8 lens, food, and some beer money."

So, again, as a photographic business owner, I'd maintain, he's talking very common sense. Which is, that you need to consider not only your business costs, but what it costs you to live - IF, you are considering your full time employment in photography.

[I @ M]

William, maybe I am reading the article by Mr. Arias the wrong way entirely but the overwhelming view I am left with is that he expected the "a $900 apartment + utilities, add some car insurance, a set of tires, a new transmission for your crap car, a 24-70 2.8 lens, food, and some beer money" living the life of a pro photographer but not really even expecting it as a "slacker" in some shop.

Whichever way he meant it, I find his writing style to be vague and overly dramatic in much the same way as many blog gurus gush forth to engage an overly susceptible and emotionally fragile target audience.

Marketing 101.

[kiwi]

It's not the abc news, he's allowed to have some fun and a bit if literary license to make his point, would be as boring as kiwi pellets without it

[kiwi]

As far as licensing goes

P plates for p&s or program mode
E for exposure proficient
N for nikon proficient

?

[Longshots]

William, maybe I am reading the article by Mr. Arias the wrong way entirely but the overwhelming view I am left with is that he expected the "a $900 apartment + utilities, add some car insurance, a set of tires, a new transmission for your crap car, a 24-70 2.8 lens, food, and some beer money" living the life of a pro photographer but not really even expecting it as a "slacker" in some shop.

Whichever way he meant it, I find his writing style to be vague and overly dramatic in much the same way as many blog gurus gush forth to engage an overly susceptible and emotionally fragile target audience.

Marketing 101.

Andrew, clearly his blog piece is open to many different interpretations, and while I may agree with your final paragraph, I cant agree with your first.

I quoted his sentence that relates to the beer and apartment in full. Why do so many people want to rewrite it?

To be honest, I cant see the fuss. He is saying IMHO, that you need to calculate all costs, which includes your living costs. Most new businesses fail because of that. Its not a problem that is particular to photography.

The title of his topic is on the money. And thats the entire point of his piece. I dont read it any other way. What I know, through my own experience is to sadly watch many newcomers, fall on this basic issue. Its nothing to do with pros needing to be regulated, or being protective of any high charges. What it is good advice to anyone thinking about starting a business - any business that relies on their income to not only cover their costs, but enough to earn themselves a wage to cover their living expenses. Its nothing earth shattering news. But at the same time, the comment seemingly needs to be said over and over again. I started this paragraph with my view that he's on the money, and if you check the advertiser on the post in the picture, is apparently no longer in business.

Just like many who post here, myself included, its his opinion. Take it or leave it.

[xkellie]

Whichever way he meant it, I find his writing style to be vague and overly dramatic in much the same way as many blog gurus gush forth to engage an overly susceptible and emotionally fragile target audience.

being the op, i'm going to take this as a targeted insult. i am far from susceptible or emotionally fragile. the reason i posted the article had nothing to do with the figures or his mention of beer money. i'm not one of his blog groupies, prior to reading this article i didn't even know who the guy was, and apart from a quick peruse of his blog, have not been back since.

the reason i posted the link, as per the article title and thread header, is that i found his view that "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry" refreshing. some people rant and rave about cheap photographers bringing everyone down; i liked that he pointed out that cheap photographers ultimately only bring themselves down. i realise that this is rather obvious, but the way some people go on about the issue you'd think they're destroying the entire profession.

his maths is irrelevant to his point. i've done jobs that have equalled $3/hr. i think he's just making a general comment that you work for peanuts if you're not careful, and at the end of the day it's your own fault.

[xkellie]

didn't mean that first line to sound as hostile as it came out, just wanted to defend myself. :)

[Redgum]

I think I @ M was referring to the original blogger, not the OP.

[xkellie]

he implied the target audience would be "overly susceptible and emotionally fragile", and i would consider myself a target audience... but maybe his "piece is open to many different interpretations". ;)

[arthurking83]

I still think his ability to do math, and come across as coherent is vital.. not just important.

As the OP says.. I also don't know this fellow, and if he wants real respect then he has to make sense.
I have very little respect for the likes of KR also.. and not because i don't like the fellow!.. he's probably a great bloke and spends loads of beer money on his mates.. but if he talks BS, then he should be treated with that kind of respect too.

Just because his views are opposed to the general wave of thought on the state of the photography industry(and I have to say I agree with his sentiments) doesn't mean that his thoughts are something to take as sound advice or that he actually knows what he's talking about.

respect is earned the good ol fashioned way... good coherent arguments followed up by accurate proof, and then a coherent analysis.

While his final analysis may agree with your or mine(or not).. he still should at least try to make the math(or accounting practices) make sense.

In this case, I may even follow up on this chap's blogs, just to see what alternative points of view he takes... if he's anything like KR, and changes his mind mid sentence.. he may be great value just for the comic relief!

ps. can I make money as a would be controversial blogger posting whatever garbage comes into my head at any given moment... or are there restrictive governmental regulations and laws to abide by?... I only need an extra $5k/month in income :D

[I @ M]

Andrew, clearly his blog piece is open to many different interpretations,

Can't agree more, interpretation is the key and yes he does go to pains to point out that one must be able to identify all their costs associated with running a business and be able to work out how many dollars per hour / job to charge the line that made me interpret his article the way I did is --- " My goal was to shoot 10 bands a month at $250 each and fill in the rest of my financial needs with second shooting for Marc and and any other jobs I could gather." --- and that part made me think that he expected his band photography to line his pockets whilst "other" employment kept him financially sound.

[I @ M]

xkellie, my replies are far from targeted insults, especially towards you.

You opened the topic and it is one that has a valid place on AP in the "business of" forum and you bringing to public notice the link to Mr. Arias's article is a good thing.

Whether we like to read a blog / article written by Zack Arias, Thom Hogan, Joe McNally, Ken Rockwell or ( insert your favourite blogger here ) we are all lumped together as an audience.
The above group of names other than "your favourite" have one thing in common and that is a facility within their site to relieve you of money.
They all have a target audience marked out and continually market to that segment of their audience.
That is where my comment about susceptible came in, they are constantly working away at selling to those who are susceptible to a particular style of marketing.
Emotionally fragile audiences may not have been the best description for me to use with regard to readers of photography related sites but it was more referring to "other blog gurus" who target a particular vulnerability in people.
You obviously are not going to be the type to avidly read every article posted by ******** and then pull out the credit card to purchase their goods but plenty do.

I wonder if anyone ever does donate to Ken in order to keep his family fed. :D

[Longshots]

the reason i posted the link, as per the article title and thread header, is that i found his view that "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry" refreshing. some people rant and rave about cheap photographers bringing everyone down; i liked that he pointed out that cheap photographers ultimately only bring themselves down. i realise that this is rather obvious, but the way some people go on about the issue you'd think they're destroying the entire profession.

his maths is irrelevant to his point. i've done jobs that have equalled $3/hr. i think he's just making a general comment that you work for peanuts if you're not careful, and at the end of the day it's your own fault.

While I thought Andrew meant the original blogger as well; I completely agree with you about the message from the blogger. And I agree that its refreshing indeed that someone is stating what I think should be obvious "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry".


Oops quick update, as Andrew clearly was writing his reply at the same time :) OK so Andrew did mean the audience ? OK dont agree with you Andrew, and have to be mystified by your comment re the audience they are "constantly working away at selling to those who are susceptible to a particular style of marketing" ? I read a lot of blogs, forums, etc - and have never bought anything from them - well perhaps I went to one advert here and bought one item :). My feeling is that be berating the "typical" audience who reads this type of information is a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot, because by saying this you would be hard to exclude the entire audience of AP ?

[ricktas]

And I agree that its refreshing indeed that someone is stating what I think should be obvious "Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry".

Don't think there is any argument there.