| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
CBS acquires MaxPreps! (part II)
Brian Jackson, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
San Carlos | CA | USA | Posted: 2:34 AM on 03.22.07 |
->> As many have mentioned in the original thread after my response, several of the things I discussed have apparently changed, or are going to change, which is a good thing. (increased pay %, ability ot sell the photos which you own the copyright to, etc)
Funny, but the bio page, and the other items were all things Todd and I discussed on the phone back in 2004, good to see them taking affect. Just wish they kicked in a little sooner :-)
Louis, congrats on making so much money from some events, I did not have the same success, and I shoot with L glass (400 f/2.8) and was one of the first to use strobes on basketball and volleyball.
As I mentioned in my 2nd message, congrats to maxpreps on the acquisition, they have built a site that grew rapidly and does provide a valuable service (I found them looking for schedules), I ended up shooting for them spring 2004-spring 2005. |
|
Carl Auer, Photographer
 |
Eagle River | AK | USA | Posted: 4:08 AM on 03.22.07 |
->> I think this is great news for the MaxPreps shooter. In states, like Alaska, where MaxPreps has not had full saturation into yet, CBS should add more credibility to their name. Our state has a photo studio contracted to do all the non media sales for high school state championships. The studio makes the decision on what media publications are allowed in. Local news? OK. AP? OK. MaxPreps? No way. I missed out shooting Mario Chalmers in his last high school game because it was for a small publication in Kansas. They requested my credentials, but when I got there they needed to verify I was on assignment and since it was the weekend and this small Kansas Pub was closed, they had no way to verify I was official (Yes, they need to do that at the time of issuing the credentials, but that is the way they do things here) and since they had not hear of this publication and the guy in charge found it hard to believe that anyone in Kansas would care about McDonald's All-American, Kansas bound Mario Chalmers, I was not given access, which was money out of my pocket, but shooting for MaxPreps, a division of CBS Sports would have made a big difference, and the Kansas pub as well as other publications could have then purchased the images through the "stock" or "wire" side of MaxPreps.
I have shot with MaxPreps for football last season, but not as a primary source of income. I actually got recruited to shoot the kickoff of high school football since Alaska starts before everyone else and I just happen to be here. I had nothing scheduled, and it gave me something to shoot and a little extra in my pocket. It sure beat sitting at home watching reruns on TV. I then started using MaxPreps for my booster shooting at a local high school for the rest of the football season. I was shooting the games already, but only marketing to the school I was shooting for, so handing out the MaxPreps cards to the other team fans generated more traffic and a few sales. Not a lot more but more than I would have made just shooting for my school. And I did not have to do much more than shoot some photos of the other team along with my team. Not that hard to do and really no extra work. At that time, the cut the photographer got was not the best, but that did not bother me. I usually get most of my sales after the last game of the season because parents want to buy the photos from all the games all at once, and since MaxPreps only wanted Varsity action shots and I did JV and Freshman and T&I also, after the 14 day restriction, they went up on my Printroom site and sales poured in. But the teams we played were still able to buy through MaxPreps. And the fact that Maxpreps also offers the photos as "stock" or wire service, shooting to USAToday, ESPN, and more, that is just a bonus.
Now that being said, nothing is perfect. Wire Services, MaxPreps, newspapers, magazines, stock image companies, they all have their pros and cons and it is up to you personally if the pros outweigh the cons for you and what you want. With the amount of SS members that either work at MaxPreps or shoot for MaxPreps, I would say they have to be one of the better choices to supplement your income. Yes, the requirements for quality may seem tough but in the end it should make you an even better photographer.
Oh, and you do not have to shoot anything you do not want to for MaxPreps. If you do not want to drive across town to shoot a game, then don't. They are not going to hold it against you, but if they do ask you to shoot something specifically, you are going to not only get a set fee, but now 80% of all sales that come from the game, as long as I do not have anything else to do that night, why not? |
|
Jim Leary, Photographer
|
Staten Island | NY | USA | Posted: 9:40 AM on 03.22.07 |
->> I've followed this thread and found it interesting but one thing confuses me. In the thread there is mention of an 80% margin for the photographer and it is mentioned several times. When I visited the MaxPreps site and read the photographers page it clearly states...
"Earn up to 65 percent of photo related sales."
Not only isn't 80% mentioned but it states UP TO 65% which implies not all payments to photographers are 65% but rather anything UP TO and including 65%. Just curious what that all means.
As for the banter going on in the first fifty posts (part 1) I think Thom went on a roll after he received 24 informative votes. His post was interesting but informative? I'm not so sure about that. Sounded more like a guy bashing a company that he has something against.
The way I see it, we live in America, the land of choice and opportunity and if a photographer wants to shoot high school sports knowing all the terms and conditions that the company has laid out then good for them, enjoy! They are not shooting for free, they know exactly what the terms are going on, they know what MaxPress provides for them in recognition and reputation and they choose to shoot. End of story.
I shoot some events for an agency on spec. It allows me to shoot concerts which I enjoy and after trying several other companies, this one gave me the opportunity I sought. Sometimes I shoot a show and get nothing. Other times I shoot and receive several checks from the same event. I know going in what the story is and I accept the terms. That is my individual decision, one that I'm good with.
I understand in the world of professional photography when some get aggitated when they see others shooting for free or next to nothing because supposedly it hurts the industry. To a point I agree with that but when we're talking about shooting on spec or for a set percentage of sales, I really don't see the problem.
In my opinion Thom went overboard a bit with his ongoing bashes but at the same time I put some of the blame on the 24 people that gave his original post a vote for "informative." I think we all have to make our own decisions about who we shoot for, what the compensation is and what, in the end is the satisfaction and benefits for ourselves. I see no reason for the bashing of people making their individual decisions to do what they feel is best for themselves.
Why Thom's initial post in the thread received 24 "informative" votes and not a single "inappropriate" is simply a mystery to me but perhaps inappropriate is too strong a word. I suppose the category "unnecessary" might have been more "appropriate" in that case.
To each his own I say. We should be able to read the terms and conditions of a contract and make our own decisions without having to worry about a disgruntled photographer bashing us for the decision. This is America after all. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:23 AM on 03.22.07 |
->> Jim,
Maybe if there was an "I Agree" button added to the voting bar??? Other buttons like "needs kool aid" should be considered :) too!
I have nothing against MP. I think that people always have a choice of who they're shooting for. With the possible exception of playoff & championships this isn't a case where you really need to trade your soul for access. So if you're posting to the site then you should be doing so full aware of the rewards. It's not like there are credentials for regular hs games, least not around here. Yet :0
I think that Carl brings up a good point, it WILL be interesting to see how the deal helps MP push into places that they have only made slight inroads. Me, I'm just going to kick back and watch things unfold. |
|
Cecil Copeland, Photographer
 |
Marietta | Ga | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 03.22.07 |
->> Jim Leary:
"Why Thom's initial post in the thread received 24 "informative" votes and not a single "inappropriate" is simply a mystery to me but perhaps inappropriate is too strong a word. I suppose the category "unnecessary" might have been more "appropriate" in that case.
Agreed ... I've kept up with this as well, and, while I didn't think Thom's first post was ... anything worth voting on - Thom said what he felt he had to say and that was that! BUT ...I would have marked his 2nd post as inappropriate if "goading" had been one of the criteria for "inappropriate" ... because his 2nd post was clearly meant as a poke with a sharp stick ....
Jim Leary:
"To each his own I say. We should be able to read the terms and conditions of a contract and make our own decisions without having to worry about a disgruntled photographer bashing us for the decision."
Yes ... there's nothing "hidden" at the MaxPreps' site. MaxPreps' conditions, terms, quality expectations, and compensation schedule are right there for everyone to sign-off on before they can even upload a photo. That doesn't make for ignorance, Thom .... |
|
Thom Kendall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Sunderland | MA | USA | Posted: 1:05 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> Cecil,
Yes, the terms and conditions are there for all to see, and that's great. However, what they mean in REAL monetary terms, i.e. how much you can reasonably expect to make over a given period of time is the POTENTIAL "ignorance" factor. Factors affecting REAL income from print sales were discussed by me and also Clark Brooks in "Part 1" of this thread.
It's also true that there are varying levels of knowledge, experience and savvy regarding contracts amongst our Sports Shooter brother and sisters, so just because something looks good on paper doesn't necessarily mean that it will pan out in real terms.
Jim,
Why would you want to blame the 24 people for indicating that what I posted was "informative" to them? Apparently they were enlightened in some manner, and there's nothin' wrong with that. For the record I didn't use the "vote" system to gauge whether or not to proceed with my comments.
As I indicated in response to Clark Brooks, my beef is with undervaluing the efforts of the folks that play a large part in sustaining the success of MaxPreps, or any endeavor. As a community, we all have a vested interest in how, or whether the next guy is valued.
What I find most curious about the responses received over the past day or so is why so many responders objected to the original "suggestion" that shooters be compensated fairly (NOT extravagantly, Micheal Granse) for the content that the photographer uploads to the site, and is argueably the most attractive component of the MaxPreps site. Again, try to imagine the MaxPreps site without photos. Instead the photographer has to hope that the audience for his/her photos are in a buying mood and have money to spend, or the only party that gets any value out of an upload (and all the effort expended to acquire the photos in the first place) is...Maxpreps. They win, always, and you might (if a constellation of factors align properly).
I am also not as "naive" as some apparently think, and I'm fully aware of how the world works, so I'm confident that no additional compensation will be forthcoming from the CBS-owned MaxPreps, regardless of how right or fair it might seem. That doesn't diminish the need to speak up about it. |
|
Jared Dort, Photographer
|
The Wu | AZ | usa | Posted: 1:25 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> Just a thought here -
If your sales on MaxPreps are bad then in theory you'll have to promote yourself more to your customers and MP's website. If you're going to do that, why not build your own website, setup and link Photoshelter to it, and keep 100% of your sales?
If it's a credential thing, there's ways to take care of that, too. Call the AD and tell him what you're doing and give him a 16x20 or two for his office. Most high schools I've been to are just glad someone's there. Coincidently, I've never been asked about my creditial while covering high school sports for the newspaper I previously worked for.
Even today as a freelancer it's not an issue.
There's other ways to do business than using a go-between, it's called you.
I don't work for MP and I never have, although I think they have a great site and a vast amount of info. When I covered high schools on a regular basis, I had parents ask me for prints all the time. If parents are interested, they'll buy, whether it be from you or MP - it just depends what percentage you want to keep.
I think there's too many of us on here that rely on others to do business for us.
Like anything in life, you only get out what you put in, and in this business you have to sell yourself first. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:45 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> Thom,
I saw your point from the beginning. I even agreed with some of what you were posting. I think that the issue is that every time a photographer enters into a deal or contract with a company every other photographer on the planet feels entitled to review the terms of those contracts and then goes one step further and applies those terms to THEIR value system and circumstances in life.
It is this constant need to justify our decisions that has many shooters frustrated with our brethren. When I walk into Wendy's I know what I'm getting, even if I don't read all the fine print I have a good idea of what's coming and it's a choice that I have made between me and Wendy's. What I neither expect nor welcome is a group of other fat people to walk up to me and tell me what I'm doing to myself, and how I'm hurting other fat people by helping Wendy's succeed.
O.K. now everyone knows I'm fat.
Fair is a relative term and means many things to many people. If after the first 2 or 3 gigs with MP your not happy with what you're being paid AND you still schlep yourself out to more and more games and u/l. That's not Max Preps making a fool of you, your doing it to yourself, or you are using each game to learn and grow and accept the trade off. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> Speculative shooting (no guarantee of payment) is almost always a bad idea. Yes, it does affect the entire industry.
I've written about spec shooting several times in my Common Cents column, most recently at http://www.loundy.org/commoncents/2006/cc_03-06.html
--Mark |
|
Jim Leary, Photographer
|
Staten Island | NY | USA | Posted: 4:34 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> Eric,
That was very well put. Frankly, it is not my concern what others have to say about what I do nor do I really believe that nonsense of "bringing down the whole industry" because a photographer shoots on spec. I realize that if too many are shooting for nothing just to get an opportunity to shoot something, then we may be doing damage to the industry but shooting on spec is very much part of the industry and there are different levels. For instance, I know some people that shoot for or have shot for Wireimage on spec. This is a good agency that will more than likely sell some photos if you are shooting a relevant event. While I'm sure they have many staffers they are also willing to take material from freelancers on spec. To me this is completely acceptable and good business. Yes, perhaps the photographer has to take on some minor expenses to complete the shoot but where the potential of sales is high, this is really an insignificant issue. Perhaps, as Mark points out in his article if a whole group of photographers are shooting the same event on spec, then we may have an issue but I don't see a lot of that anyway.
No, I think we have a right to choose our own spots and make our own decisions. I shot for an agency for twelve years and was paid per event and I have been a freelancer for four years where I get paid various ways. Sometimes there's a flat fee and others there is not. As for shooting on spec, I find the opportunity exciting when the subject matter is relevant and has good potential to sell. On one hand a photographer may get a flat fee for shooting an event, maybe $200 but shoot the same event on spec and the rewards can be much greater. That's why I don't think it's fair to oppose the practice of shooting on spec. We, as in dividuals must make up our own minds and put a value on our skills, then proceed by taking on assignments with conditions we find acceptable.
I commend any photographer that has worked his/her way up through the ranks and shoots as a staffer for a big agency or publication. That is truly an accomplishment but in the real world that course is a rough one to travel and conquer and there simply aren't that many sapots. In fact, many agencies seem to be letting staffers go and accepting more images from freelancers. Do you really think that's going to change if a couple photographers "stand their ground and refuse to shoot on spec?" C'mon.
For those not so fortunate to be a staffer, there are other options which include shooting on spec or simply shooting part-time for a second income. Those paths do not make the photographer less significant or less talented. It is merely a choice. I've seen both sides of the fence and while its certainly nice to be locked in with a company, shooting freelance is very exciting too and the freelance route has provided me with a much more diverse set of opportunities. Whereas I used to shoot one sport all the time, I now shoot three plus concerts too. There are many options and opinions in this industry and I think its unfair to judge someone for doing what they love at a rate or within an agreement that is right for them. Actually, sometimes I have more respect for the freelancer than I do for those fixed into a position because they must constantly strive to be better and shoot more merely as a requirement for survival.
Frankly, I'm tired of listening to so many others evaluating and condemning the decisions of others in the photo industry. Eric put it well when he said...
"the issue is that every time a photographer enters into a deal or contract with a company every other photographer on the planet feels entitled to review the terms of those contracts and then goes one step further and applies those terms to THEIR value system and circumstances in life."
So many in this industry seem to be saying "don't take an assignment for low rates or on spec - take one for the team and stand up for our rights to get higher pay." To that I simply ask, if I stand up for your rights and refuse an assignment will you stop by my house later and feed my family? No, I didn't think so. So, if you see me at a game, concert or other event please don't spew your "union of photographers" garbage on me because I'm there having a damn good time doing exactly what I want to be doing and comfortable with whatever arrangement I've made to get paid for the event. |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 03.22.07 |
| ->> Mark, by its very nature, "event" photography is, strictly put, "speculative" shooting. I say "strictly", because the reality is that most of us who do this on a regular basis now fairly well how much revenue a given event will generate. While I have had some surprises in that area (most of them pleasant), I'm generally pretty close in my estimates. To call such an endeavor "speculative" is inaccurate at best. By your definition, anyone who is in business for themself and not receiving a salary is doing speculative work. Whether they are pounding the payment handing out flyers, buying expensive yellow page ads, or simply creating display art for the studio showroom, independent photographers perform speculative work all day long; the need and value of such doesn't change simply because you have a camera in your hand. |
|
Jared Dort, Photographer
|
The Wu | AZ | usa | Posted: 7:50 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> I hate the fact that gas is $2.69 per gallon in Arizona, but I still have to get gas.
I'm not thrilled with the large one-stop-shopping store in our city that potentially is putting smaller stores out of business.
The truth is, if nobody bought gas for a day or so, Big Business would take a hit and understand that we're not happy with the hike.
The same is true about the aforemention store - if no one shopped there they'd fold.
Why is the photography business different. If there were no spec shooters (and I'm not talking about the guys at events), companies would be forced to pay for your work. At some point they'd have to pay not only to get coverage, but include what you'd make off stock.
Of course, this will never happen.
Credentials for the big game are more important than money. Having an image from the NBA, NFL or MLB in a portfolio will get you farther than a nice shot of a Little Leaguer. Saying "I shoot pro games" is key.
None of that is true.
I have a friend who's a member here who decided to shoot spec for 15 days covering a MLB team. He's a great shooter, so the fact that he made $75 during that span had nothing to do with quality. He then decided to start his own business instead and it's been very profitable. He does event work for a sport he loves and he's keeping more than 50%, 65% or 80%.
The bottom line is there's always work and always will be. It's how you market yourself. It's how you sell yourself and how you network. That's how you survive.
Waiters work on spec along with some compensation for being employed. They provide quality service - for the most part - in hopes of a tip.
The waiter has a right to choose if he works, and so do we. However, the waiter isn't doing it for free, and neither should you. |
|
Thom Kendall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Sunderland | MA | USA | Posted: 10:37 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> Jim,
If your so tired of hearing alternative viewpoints, then why do you even feel it necessary to respond to mine? I'm quite sure your energies would be better used in some other way.
Dave,
Speaking of inaccurate...Mark is NOT saying that "anyone who is in business for themself and not receiving a salary is doing speculative work" He is saying that, IN GENERAL, seek out and take jobs/assignments where the details/nature & amount of compensation are known BEFORE the job is done, rather than expending copious amounts of time/effort/money on a project only to have the actual monetary benefit delayed by who-knows-how-long and affected by who-knows-how-many variables. Example: I shoot for a D1 university athletic program, and the deal is I get paid x dollars for shooting a game. It's not "give us the pictures now, and if y and z happen, then we'll pay you 80 % of x dollars". But hey, if it works for you...
Obviously there are many shooters that do quite well shooting stock, and I of course applaude them for their success. But when Jim talks about "feeding his family", I gotta believe that the sure thing beats the spec gig just about every time. |
|
Jim Leary, Photographer
|
Staten Island | NY | USA | Posted: 11:01 PM on 03.22.07 |
->> Thom,
Its not the alternative viewpoints I am sick of hearing. Instead its the whining photographer that blames everyone else for his lack of income except the real cause of the problem... himself. It's become almost status quo to blame freelancers for "the decline in photography and in the opportunities." Thats BS, plain and simple and so is the claim that those out there shooting on spec are having a negative effect on the industry. If you're good enough to work among the elite at places like Getty, Reuters and Corbis then your work will prove it and you will get a job with them. Whether there are guys out there shooting on spec or not, will not have any bearing on whether you are an elite photographer worthy of a staff job. Other than those staff positions which are quite few and far between, so much of the industry calls for freelance work and some of that work is on spec. Its a fact of the photography world and it will never go away.
I'm not sick of different viewpoints but I am sick of some putting the blame on others for their incompetancy and incapability to make a living in the photography industry. As I said in my last post, if I stand up for the unity of the staffers by refusing work then I want to know when they are coming to my house to feed my family. I'm standing up for them but the question really is, when will they stand up for me? ... the guy who isn't a staffer and the guy who needs to find work on a daily basis to feed his family. All that jibberish about freelancers and spec shooters ruining the industry as a whole is such absolute garbage and I'm tired of hearing it. That's all I was saying and I stand by that. Photographers need to stop blaming other photographers for their lack of talent and motivation and get off their rear ends and earn a living the way everyone else that succeeds in this industry does. Produce and be noticed. Stop blaming everyone else. |
|
Thom Kendall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Sunderland | MA | USA | Posted: 9:50 AM on 03.23.07 |
->> Again, Jim,
If your tired of hearing it, then don't read the posts that express those opinions, and don't respond to them.
If you are refering to me as the "whining photographer", let me clarify a few things. First off, I'm making a fairly comfortable living as a freelance photographer without being involved in spec situations, so I'm not blaming anyone for my LACK of income, because there isn't one. Others that make spec work for them are to be admired. I have no beef with the way they choose to make a living. Secondly, this is probably the first time that I've devoted any significant energy to a subject since I started as a Sports Shooter member, and most of the energy was expended fighting off responders who couldn't seem to grasp the original point.
Just in case you forgot what my original post was all about, it was about increasing the compensation for the shooters that helped MaxPreps get to the point where they were an atractive enough venture to be bought by CBS. Does that sound so unreasonable? |
|
Allan Campbell, Photographer, Assistant
|
Lake Oswego (Portland) | OR | | Posted: 11:50 AM on 03.23.07 |
| ->> I think we need to remember that EVENT and EDITORIAL photographers see things through different colored glasses. I may be wrong but I think when people like Mark Loundy, Rick Rickman and others talk about the state of the industry they are refering to the EDITORIAL and CORPORATE markets and not EVENT PRINT SALES. Some of the advice like good contracts, fair pricing etc.. will lend itself to all markets. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:44 PM on 03.23.07 |
->> Allan,
That's an excellent point, but too often lately the lines between the "event" photographers and the 'editorial' photographers aren't so well defined, or respected for that matter. |
|
Jim Leary, Photographer
|
Staten Island | NY | USA | Posted: 4:24 PM on 03.23.07 |
->> Allan/Eric,
I hear what you are saying and there definitely is a difference between the two but with the issue of shooting on spec I still believe it is a completely legitimate way to go whether its event photography or editorial. Ultimately, the photographer needs to decide what is and isn't worth his time when shooting on spec. For instance, within the most popular of professional sports like football or baseball there are plenty of photographers shooting games on spec and there is a good chance some of those images will be sold. To me that's a completely legitimate shoot on spec and wil likely bring forth worthwhile rewards for both photographer and editor.
In the case of concerts, I shoot on spec at smaller venues and its hit or miss but at the same time I'm making a few bucks and building a portfolio which now has me in place to start shooting bigger shows, so in this particular case my shooting on spec served as a stepping stone towards bigger and better opportunities. That is often a legitimate value of spec shooting. As stated once before, shooting on spec can help jumpstart a career or simply supplement a regular income but whatever the value, as long as the shooter is satisfied then I say its legit. Both parties involved are getting what they want. The hiring editor gets material and the shooter gets some pay, some exposure and some portfolio material. Its a win-win for the two parties involved. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:20 AM on 03.24.07 |
->> Jim,
I certainly won't come to your house to feed your family, but if enough people keep shooting on spec, eventually, you won't be able to feed them either.
There are many superbly talented and business-savvy photographers who have been seeing their income drop because the market is being depressed by photographers who employ poor business practices. When the market will settle for "good enough," there is no way to compete with a kid shooting for access and a credit line.
As I said in my $peculating column last March:
"If you're going to shoot on spec, make sure that it's on your terms and fits into your business plan. Perhaps you can see where this is going: If 'bad spec' becomes more common, eventually more and more photographers will be shooting for less and less until everybody is shooting for nothing."
Dave,
I wasn't referring to shooting spec situations for yourself. I was referring to taking spec assignments from third parties. Where there is a possiblity of your performing the work and the assigning party deciding that they don't want to pay you for it.
--Mark |
|
Jim Leary, Photographer
|
Staten Island | NY | USA | Posted: 12:51 PM on 03.24.07 |
->> "I certainly won't come to your house to feed your family, but if enough people keep shooting on spec, eventually, you won't be able to feed them either."
I've heard that argument for years now and I just don't buy it. Guys running around shooting for a byline are not a threat to the industry because most of them are not offering quality work to begin with. I suppose there are rags out there taking anything they can get for free but not legitimate publications.
The trend toward freelance over staff is not happening because kids are shooting for access. It's happening because of the competitive nature of the business. From a business standpoint, why should an agency pay a staffer a hefty salary with benefits, paid holidays etc. and watch him do a pretty good job when they can open up the competitive market and offer very good freelancers an opportunity to vie for the work? While I shot for an agency I saw within mine as well as other companies that there were photographers doing sub-standard work because they were employed full time, getting set salaries and had little motivation to give it their all day in and day out. Well now with all the competition from freelancers those staffers better stay on their toes and produce high quality work becuase if they don't there's a freelancer that will. I think that's good business.
I have seen over the years just how difficult it is to get in and stay with an agency and/or pubication. The freelance sector gives everyone a chance. If a freelancer is good enough they are noticed and recognized. Sometimes that requires shooting on spec but the idea behind spec shooting is that if its good enough to sell, then both the editor and shooter win. Its not like the photographers are shooting for free. There is in fact a great potential for limitless income in spec shooting. Why should a company settle for a photographer on salary when they can enjoy the benefits of the competitive freelance sector?
In any business, competition for jobs is a good thing and those that do the best job get rewarded so why doesn't that apply to photography? If a staffer is doing a good job that his company is happy with then in most cases his job should be secure. Those photographers out there that are losing their jobs are not being ousted by "kids shooting for access and a credit line." Those companies doing that are trying to save money by cutting staffers so they can cut their losses on salaries, benfeit packages and bonuses. That goes on in every business sector. Lookm at Getty Images. From what I have heard they undersell the competition and they are buying up company after company. Well, they can't do that and keep paying staffers high salaries so they cut some jobs. The "kid shooting for access" is certainly not toblame for that.
Sorry, but I've been listening to this silly argument that low level freelancers willing to shoot for next to nothing are bringing the industry down and I think that's quite inaccurate. There are thousands of kids out there that would be willing to play major league baseball for next to nothing but MLB doesn't employ them and those in MLB don't suffer because of all those out there willing to play for less. Even in businesses like for example graphics or computer work there are people out there willing to work for less just to get a job but each and every person must be evaluated, the quality of work examined and then the selections are made. So it goes in photography as well. The best in the industry will remain staffers or at least get plenty of freelance work and yes there are some rags that will settle for mediocre photography but those are not the driving forces in the industry. I just don't buy the silly argument that freelancers shooting on spec ruin the photography world. Its called competition and the quality material is going to be used. The amateurs shooting on spec in the industry won't last. They will naturally fade away and the competitive nature of the industry due in part to freelancers shooting on spec will only raise the quality of work, not diminish it.
Its just my opinion but I believe in the freedom of choice that our great country allows us and within that choice there are the photographers who choose to shoot on spec, confident that their work will sell. That's just free enterprise, competition and the American way. |
|
Dave Rossman, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 03.24.07 |
->> Jim,
The following remarks are in regard to shooting assignments on spec, not self generated story ideas.
#1 You said,"Its not like the photographers are shooting for free."
Yes they are.
You also said," Why should a company settle for a photographer on salary when they can enjoy the benefits of the competitive freelance sector?
I agree. Why would a company pay someone to shoot an assignment when there are a dozen shooters willing to shoot for free(spec). See above #1
The moral of the story is spec doen't pay. Agencies know that. I wish more photographers did. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 2:17 PM on 03.24.07 |
->> Those earning an income from shooting on spec are not working for free, they are paid if their images are used.
Some are there on assignment and move the rest of the take from the event, through an agency, many staffers do this already.
If there are those covering events and their images are being used and all they receive in return is access and a credit line, then that is not a good thing at all.
Having said that, if you are provided access and you do your research and capture images that sell and are compensated for those images, what is the problem with that?
That is probably the the key issue here, those shooting on spec for a byline and access only and those that get paid when there images are used.
and more inline with the Maxpreps thread, most of us that have Max Preps move images for us do not need Max Preps to get us access to cover the event, at least the photographers I know are already covering the events and just have Max Preps move images for them which is just extra income. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 03.24.07 |
->> "Guys running around shooting for a byline are not a threat to the industry because most of them are not offering quality work to begin with."
They really are a threat, because you'd be surprised with how many outlets would rather have crap images for free than good images they had to pay for.
Sometimes I really don't know how some freelancers that my paper deal with get by- we don't even have to offer them a really low rate for a game- several have quoted us $25/ image used... so they end up driving, shooting and transmitting sometimes for less than $75... wow... |
|
Jon Cunningham, Photographer
 |
Lisle | IL | USA | Posted: 7:17 PM on 03.24.07 |
->> Jeffrey said: "you'd be surprised with how many outlets would rather have crap images for free than good images they had to pay for."
The truest statement made since this thread began.
I'll add to that that many of those same outlets are run by people who don't know or care about quality images, only the bottom line.
It's the photographers themselves that ever push towards higher quality. There is always some publisher ready to take advantage of that effort, at less than fair compensation. |
|
Jim Leary, Photographer
|
Staten Island | NY | USA | Posted: 9:44 PM on 03.24.07 |
->> "The moral of the story is spec doen't pay."
Those last three assignments I had that didn't "pay" netted enough to pay off some bills and have a nice surf and turf dinner. I love those non-paying jobs that I shoot for free.
As for the "outlets" that settle for crap... there will always be a supply of mediocre or poor images and "outlets" that will accept them. If suddenly that dimished do you really think those "outlets" would suddenly start paying top dollar for images? Of course not, they'd grab a used 10D and hand it to the new office boy to shoot their events. Companies that pay little or nothing for their photography are either going to disappear because of their lack of quality or they are going to find another cheap alternative over and over. They will never pay "pro" rates and since they never had and never will, they are not in the equation.
I agree that too much "free" shooting can have an effect on the industry but contrary to the word according to Dave R, shooting on spec is not shooting for free. That is simply an untrue statement. Does it ever come down to that? Of course but in most cases it does not. I'll be more than happy to go out and shoot five events on spec make $200-300 on four of the five jobs and zero on the fifth for an average of about $220 a shoot. Thats just part of the freelance market. Its similar to being an outside salesman working on commission. For example, lets take a guy that sells Canon copiers to businesses and makes his pay on commission. If he goes out to five businesses and sells two copiers for a commission of $500 does that mean he worked for nothing at the three businesses that didn't buy? Is he hurting that business sector by working for "free" 60% of the time? I think not.
So there it is. Since "shooting on spec" seems to rub some the wrong way lets change it here and now and solve this age old problem of semantics. From now on freelance photographers don't shoot on spec - they shoot on commission. Yeah, thats it ..... commission. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|