| 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
In Youth Sports Photography, It’s Pros Vs. Parents - article PDN
John Strohsacker, Photographer
|
Clay Begrin, Photographer
 |
Petaluma | Ca | USA | Posted: 1:25 AM on 10.02.09 |
| ->> John I've seen the Mom's with cameras etc the past few years and some post images online for free or just the print cost. The big difference I see between them and I is the quality of the iamge, the lighting and proper cropping. I believe they take some potential business from me however I also believe the parents that know my work are willing to pay for the quality of images I provide compared to the mom with camera. The one benefit I have right now is the high school low light games like night time football, soccer and indoor basketball and volleyball. They need fast glass and some editing experience to compete. I feel with some time you get the proper exposure and retain clients that will pay for your quality vs the Mom with a camera quality. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
 |
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 3:16 AM on 10.02.09 |
| ->> One thing is, the mom with a camera who is giving them away will not always be giving them away. Their kid will graduate soon. Of course, there may be another come along. Their overall consistency is lacking, but to be honest, most people don't care that much. Free is free. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:12 AM on 10.02.09 |
->> Not really an issue around me. I have found that the MWC can be my best resource. They generally take a stack of fliers and hand them out or get word out to the boosters. Last year and this again this year one of those mom's was my best customer at a tournament AND even got us another tourney based on her rants and raves.
The hs games that I have shot were void of GWC or MWC in any form. Not a one at any level of play or any sport yet this year. Those people tend to cycle through. They come out 2 or 3 times and then figure out that, hell this is work! Or they only cover the peewee's and not the mites or midgets. Or people start to compare what the pro is putting up versus the freebie. In every case that I have witnessed they haven't lasted beyond 3 weeks.
One thing that I agree with in the article is that as pro's and business people we must learn to adapt. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 10:14 AM on 10.02.09 |
| ->> Parents with cameras are sometimes my best print customers. |
|
Danny Munson, Photographer
|
San Dimas | Ca | United States | Posted: 11:00 AM on 10.02.09 |
| ->> I love them. They create a contrast to show what proper images should look like. What I do not like is the constant question, "how can I get my images to look like yours" or "I have it in running ran mode but they are still blurry" I'm always nice but have a hard time helping people that are cutting my throat. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:11 AM on 10.02.09 |
->> Clay, not personally directed at you per say, but if the big difference between your (again, not Clay specifically) work and the MWC types is simply IQ, then you don't have a very sustainable business model but things like IQ are going to narrow each and every year.
For example, I've been shooting the state cheer tournament for a number of years and when I started doing it, there was simply no alternative for parents to get photos. Their point and shoots went up to ISO400 max. Your simply not going to get anything in a gym with that type of setup.
Fast forward a few years and now most compacts can do ISO1600. Is it very good ? No of course not, but its a noisy shot of the event rather than no shot, or a shot with such motion blur it was unusable which was the alternative earlier.
Now as I continued to shoot this, my IQ improved as well, since I kept updating my camera gear, adding remotes, dedicated lens such a 200mm f1.8 etc.
My 1D mkIII and 200mm f1.8 were giving me the best possible images I've ever shot. The cleanest files, best overall look and bokeh, and dare I say after a couple of years of doing it, my skills were better as well.
But you know what happened ? I kept selling less and less. When I was shooting a fairly noisy 1D mk2 and f2.8 glass, at ISO3200 I think (they wouldn't allow strobes) I was selling at least twice the volume if not 3 times as much.
Too much of my customer base was simply buying because they didn't have the means to shoot it themselves. As cameras got better I lost some of those customers.
Now I certainly had my sales from the parents who appreciated the work, the timing of my shots, the remote wide angles on jumps etc etc. Those people could have their own D3 and shoot from the stands and still buy because I was giving them something special they couldn't get otherwise.
But if one of your main factors of success is just better gear/IQ, then its going to be hard to sustain.
I've got a D3 right now, and sure nothing can touch it in terms of IQ. I've still got a real edge over most anyone else in sports like gymnastics where I really need those upper ISO reaches to freeze the action and can't strobe either.
But fast forward maybe 2 years into the future and I bet the entry level $500 DSLR is going to be shooting a pretty usable iso125600 and people with their slower f4.5-56 glass are going to be able to at least shoot relatively sharp images at 1/500th or faster even in dark holes of gyms.
Sure whatever I'll have then will probably be doing 60 fps and ISO 80,000, and cost me another small fortune lol, but will my advancement of technology and what it allows me to offer compete with the free factor of a parent being able to shoot it themselves ? I doubt it, at least if my business is based around IQ alone.
I really wish I had a D3 and everyone else had 3meg iso400 max point and shoots. My life would be so much easier and I'd have a ton of customers just for simply showing up. It would be my image or no image. Thats just not the case these days and increasingly wont be in the future.
Just being able to provide a nice clean sharp image of little Timmy isn't going to be a surefire sale. You've got to really have a great shot of little Timmy to even get his parents to consider buying, because they've got free shots of him all seasons. Not at good no, but they've got a bunch and as such, the little Timmy market has become saturated in effect.
Bottom line is that its a rapidly changing world and market and being competitive often requires a new approach as technology can make the old competitive advantages disappear nearly overnight |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 10.02.09 |
->> WTF ??
Is my post really that "huh" to someone ??
I really want to know whats so confusing about what I said because I think its pretty clearly laid out and relevant to the topic at hand.
So again, unless someone is simply trying to be a jerk and mark me "huh" because they don't like what I have to said, step foward, speak up, and let me know what exactly you don't understand and I will try to clear it up for you.
On a related note, I really think SS needs to associate the members name next to the mark they put on a post. I'm sick and tired of people marking things they don't agree with or like as "huh" "off topic" or "inappropriate" and hiding anonymously. Especially when its comes to "inappropriate" because 9 out of 10 post marked that in no way met the specific conditions SS has laid out with that designation. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 10.02.09 |
->> Jeff - I'm with you on both your posts. Great point about relying on gear/IQ no longer a good model because entry level gear can now produce 'good enough' images if parents have the right access.
I also agree on the second point as well. I really would prefer that their have to be a comment associated with any flagging. If you aren't willing to associate your name with an opinion then you really shouldn't get one - not on a sight like this which requires membership and which uses real names rather than screen names. |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 12:13 PM on 10.02.09 |
| ->> For me at least, as the article said, the customers perception of what is acceptable in terms of quality is the biggest difference. Take a look a few Myspace and Facebook type accounts and look at the quality of pictures that many kids and even parents post. They are more than happy with a cell phone picture that is noisy and has poor color. I teach in a high school and I have student/athletes bring me pictures of them all the time that just basically look like crap, but they are more than proud of them. I show them my work and they just "wow, that's nice", but it wouldn't make them or their parents buy it. I routinely shoot events now with at least 3-4 parents out there shooting their "amateur" level cameras while I'm out there with a D3 and 400/2.8 VR that cost an arm and a leg. Tough market right now. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:43 PM on 10.02.09 |
->> To build on Randy's post, not only is the level of "acceptable" at issue, I believe the means of display is as well.
Prior to the digital revolution, if you wanted an image of your kid, you had to get a print of your kid - whether that was by buying another copy of the newspaper, or obtaining an actual photo.
Today, I believe there is a large percentage of the population that is simply happy to view the image, rather than obtain a tangible print. For them, the ability to look at it on line in a gallery is just as good as putting it on the wall.
The view stats on galleries I've put up show that people are looking. The comments I receive from kids/parents regarding events I've posted also show that they like what they see. However, the number of those parents actually buying something is diminishing.
My largest order from a HS football game this season is from a MWC. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:58 PM on 10.02.09 |
->> Don't forget the "fun" factor.
Photography IS fun. Non-professionals have a ball with it. That's the main reason they spend their money to buy the gear and take the photos. Most are not doing it to save money...although it's a bonus if it happens.
A hobbyist photographer has all of the benefits of photography without any of the pressure. They don't have to make enough good shots to pay for their time, or be there hours in advance to prepare, or shoot in bad weather, or work on a deadline. They get to go out with the best gear they can afford and just try to take good pictures. When they get a few, they share them with their friends because it's an ego boost and a part of the whole rush of doing it. They're proud of what they were able to do. Some take it to the next level and try to make beer money off of their efforts, but their primary motivation is having fun taking pictures of their kid and sharing them with other people. You really can't compete with that.
The latest gear has made photography very fun for a lot of people. High ISO capability, image stabilized lenses, higher frame rates, higher resolution, really smart and fast automatic systems for focus, exposure and white balance, all in very affordable packages anyone can buy at Target. Not too long ago this type of capability wasn't available to consumers, and shooting with the consumer gear at the time was not as much fun or as rewarding.
All of this has changed, and when I don't think about how it impacts the business of photography, fun to watch. It's cool to see people discovering the joy in that same innocent way that we all did back when we first started. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 1:05 PM on 10.02.09 |
->> In this economy it seems like "free" images trumps paying for quality images.
For alot of people you could have the greatest action shot obtainable of their kid, but if they received a DVD with 500 shots of him and his team standing around from MWC for free you very well may lose out on the sale.
It's becoming more and more a battle to find enough customers who are willing to pay for nice images.
I'm finding dealing with less customers, but ones who appreciate nice images and are willing to pay for them is a better business model than shooting like crazy and hoping your images will sell.
More and more I'm charging a flat fee and giving people a DVD with the images. If I'm doing quality work, I need to be compensated for it, period.
I'm tired of hearing "These are great but Bobby's mom gave us images already." I'd rather deal with people who know my work, pay up front and other than cropping images and providing a DVD I have zero post processing or order fullfilling. |
|
Scott Evans, Photographer
|
Bay Village | OH | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 10.02.09 |
->> David and Michael, I couldn't agree more. Jeff, I also agree about how weak it is to hide in nameless anonymity.
Pragmatically speaking, I do much like Michael and charge a game rate but. I generally bypass the parents and try to deal with the boosters or school. For parents that have historically bought from me, I approach them at the start of the season, and set up an arrangement. Spec just doesn't work anymore in my area but I do think you can still make a decent value prop to the boosters and specific parents and be sure that you are being paid for your time when shooting rather than worrying about Mrs. Bathrobe and her XT. |
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
|
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 1:38 PM on 10.02.09 |
->> Jeff - Great post and sorry to see someone posted it with a Huh. Obviously intellectual capability and the ability to read and understand are not a requirements for membership.
I agree 100% that that the post feedback function is increasingly becoming a joke because there is no accountability for how it is used and since it can be done anonymously makes it too easy for pricks to be pricks. Either associate the name of the person making any designation and make it publicly visible or eliminate the function totally is my vote. You can't write an anonymous post so why be allowed to anonymously state an opinion?
More on topic to the thread, in my small town market in west central Indiana there is really no money to be made from shooting action sports. People enjoy looking at them and will occasionally buy stuff but it is not something that even comes close to being profitable.
I shoot action sports because I enjoy action sports and do it more for my personal enjoyment than anything. Some photographers shoot flowers or landscapes for their personal fulfillment, for me, it is sports.
Where it comes in helpful in regards to my photography business is the networking it generates for things that do pay well such as senior pictures, family pictures, weddings, school photography contracts, league team and individual photography, etc. Being around the parents and school administrators on a consistent basis, interacting and getting to know them, has done much more good for overall business than any other type of advertising I have tried. Because I am constantly around them as their kids have grown up, over time I have become "their photographer" and when they need professional photos I am their one and only choice and they gladly pay a fair rate for my services.
It has worked so well that in an era where many photographers are taking on second jobs to make ends meet, I have gone the other direction and gave up my day job because I have so much photography work I couldn't keep up with it. Virtually all of it generated from shooting action sports because I enjoyed it, with no expectation of making money directly from it.
I do everything I can to help the GWC's and MWC's because they are excellent marketers of me and my services. They are not stealing my business because there is no viable business to steal. What they do is generate business for me because they reinforce my reputation to many others by constantly telling them how I know what I am doing and how I have helped them improve all the free photos they are providing to everyone.
It's amazing the influence the friendly amateur photographer has on the decision making process of their friends when they need professional work done. |
|
Scott Evans, Photographer
|
Bay Village | OH | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 10.02.09 |
| ->> Kevin, that might be one of the best commentaries on this subject I have ever read, thanks! Oh, by the way, Scott Evans marked it as informative ; ) |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:36 PM on 10.02.09 |
| ->> Kevin EXCELLENT post. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:44 PM on 10.02.09 |
->> OK I think that I'm the idiot that marked Jeff's post HUH. It was SUPPOSED to be marked as funny (the D3 vs 3mp comment) but I am noticing that there is no vote for funny and one for huh. So I'll man up and admit that I was clicking the the vicinity and may have fouled up.
Jeff if it was me, I am sorry and I DID get the post. So much for my sense of humor. From now on I'll stick to voting the extremes of I & I.
Sorry man. |
|
Scott Pilling, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cary | NC | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 10.04.09 |
->> One thing I have noticed along the sidelines with these moms' and dads' with cameras is that they are not always photographing the action like we are. Meaning, as we are constantly attached to our camera shooting the action, they are mostly watching the game as a spectator and not constantly shooting the action. Which definitely works in our favor.
Another thing I do that parents cannot do ( especially during Pop Warner games ) is actually go on the field ( literally 15-20 yards in front of/behind the play in the CENTER of the the field). I have found that it's not hard convincing the coaches and refs to allow me to be there ( as I have been invited to be there by the league director) and when parents make the attempt to join me, they are QUICKLY asked to get off the field.
My key is to get the angles that those MWC and DWC's cannot get.
Dunno if this helps any... |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer, Assistant
|
Longmont | CO | USA | Posted: 3:38 PM on 10.04.09 |
->> I've seen this happen in the Denver market too. A friend of mine was running a youth sports photography company who's whole thing was maximum image quality and impact. From time to time when he had a big gig he would hire me to bring out all the toys and go nuts with things like remotes and such. We had about 3 years totally wowing the moms as they couldn't get either the access or didn't have the tools to get images like we did. He got an exclusive contract to shoot the big regional track tournament where moms couldn't get on the field and that became a big money maker.
Then a local lawyer started showing up and a posse of kid photographers that he was equipping. He would usually show up with 3-5 teenagers each with a 20D and 70-200 f/2.8 and they would shoot like crazy. He would show up the following day with free 8x10's for the parents with his business card (lawyer not photographer!)attached to the back. He would maybe give out a hundred + prints an event. Do the math. I'm sure that for him it was all written off as "marketing/advertising expenses".
When my buddy complained that his photo team wasn't credentialled to be on the field of the baseball tourney, football game, basketball game or whatever this dude got a deal to with a weekly news paper to give them H.S. sports photos in exchange for a media credential. Then he shows up on the sidelines with his army of "assistants" and just keeps on cranking. If he couldn't personally show he would send his team. It got so that I would run into his kids, I got to recognize them easily, at other events and saw that he was giving away photos to the various schools sports departments again for access.
It's kinda hard to compete with a guy who is eagerly losing money when you are trying to pay the bills. Eventually my buddy got out of the youth sports biz because the lawyer dude along with normal MWC's made it impossible.
Ugh! |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:57 PM on 10.04.09 |
->> Jonathan,
Loss leader to build his legal practice?
I'm sure parents took the prints - but that's all. IF you have time to be shooting instead of practicing law, I don't think adults will look at the back of the photo and make the jump to picking up the phone and calling him when they have legal issues.
In other words, eventually the guy goes away or goes into business doing it full time. Of course, if you're giving it away for free... |
|
Scott Pilling, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cary | NC | USA | Posted: 12:17 AM on 10.05.09 |
->> Also, if he truly was that big of a #$%^ head and went through the motions of getting the "Media Credential", you could have just turned around and pulled one on him by reminding him as well as the event people that HE ( not his little teenie shooters ) and he ONLY had a valid credential to be there shooting and that he and he only is able to use that credential ( there is a reason HIS name is on it). On top of that, lawyer or not ( being that he is a lawyer and should know how to read the back of his credential ),he is solely there for the purpose to get photos for the newspaper and they are not in his right to give away or sell them ( as the newspaper was probably hoping to make an extra cent off of them if the parents wanted to purchase them--- I know that's what the newspaper I staffed at for 3+ years was about ). So either way he was violating the statues of the credential.
Also, did your buddy give a "kickback" to the league for allowing him to be there? If so, then they should have kicked this guy and his little squad out of there just as quickly as they arrived. |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 7:06 AM on 10.05.09 |
| ->> Adding to my post above, this weekend I shot a series of youth football games. Before one of the games a parent walks by and starts talking about how they love my pictures. He then proceeded to show me his cell phone which had one of my pictures, watermark and all, set as his background. He took a cell phone picture of his monitor. I about wanted to smack him right there. At the same game one of MWC was showing everyone a picture that she took during the game. She also showed it to me. Note, she couldn't have been prouder of this picture. I looked at it and it would have been an immediate delete for me...OOF, WB off, blurry, etc. I'm starting to think that for a majority of the population, quality doesn't matter. Seniors in high school are even turning to next door neighbors that have a DSLR to take their senior pictures. I've seen some (being in charge of the yearbook at my school) and you can tell they were taken by an amateur. One of my only selling points right now related to youth athletics is reach. Most parents can't get out 650mm and have a big picture of their kid. Sorry for the rant... |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 8:55 AM on 10.05.09 |
->> Randy,
Do you offer parents the option of purchasing a low res - but unwatermarked file big enough for cell phones, etc? |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 11:50 AM on 10.05.09 |
| ->> Patrick, I do offer a 1MP download, but no one ever buys them ironically. I do sell some digital downloads through MaxPreps though. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> Randy,
Besides doing sports photography, I also have a number of nieces/nephews - some recently graduated from HS. In my opinion, quality really isn't that high on the list. EVERYONE has cameras now - and lots of families have DSLRs. Without doubt, kids/parents seem more willing to have something on their phone/facebook etc vs. a print. And, more to the point, what they display is constantly changing. And, the reality has always been - a year after graduation, senior photos are mostly irrelevant - because kids have so many photos today and parents are more attuned to the photo on their blackberry vs. a framed photo on the wall. I really believe the senior portrait business will start to go the same route as sports photography. Given the short attention span and desire for digital vs. print - people will decide that $400 is too much to pay and that Uncle Joe's photos for $30 worth of printing costs are "good enough". My one niece even decided to forgo her senior portraits - she had them taken by one of the best in her area - but she really didn't like them enough and she and her friends preferred the cameo shots they take of each other with their cellphones. And mom was plenty happy to not have to shell out $400. |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer, Assistant
|
Longmont | CO | USA | Posted: 1:02 PM on 10.05.09 |
| ->> I wonder how the current era of either not making prints is effecting the concept of image quality with the average person. I think that people are getting used to crap photos so to them it's normal to have a dark, blurry, grainy photo that they only look at as a thumbnail or on their phone's screen. I see people taking photos of their kids birthdays and such on their cell phones indoors at night and they seem perfectly happy with the results. Add to that the reigning "if it's on the net it's mine" attitude and I'm not shocked by any of this. In fact the other day I saw a guy who made an 8x10 print from a maybe 600 pixel long web proof of him and his family that he copied from the website of the event photographer, complete with watermark, and he was proud of it. EeeeK! |
|
John Howley, Photographer
|
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 4:19 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> I seem to remember reading something (probably on here) about a company that shot youth/high school sports and posted everything up where it could be downloaded for free. They were making their money off the advertising from all the page views. I think it might have been in Texas.
Does anyone recall that? I was wondering if that company was still doing business that way, or at all? Thanks |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 4:54 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> They were in AZ, and I don't know if they are still around. I had their address once upon a time but that was a year or two ago and I've long since lost it.
I wonder too. |
|
Clay Begrin, Photographer
|
Petaluma | Ca | USA | Posted: 7:58 PM on 10.05.09 |
| ->> Jeff, it's been a few days since I checked this thread. I agree with a lot of what you have to say and didn't take anything personal. I also agree with other comments that many folks care less about quality and are quite happy with the image from a cell phone etc. The IQ isn't everything for me, just one part. The MWC do have a small impact on me, however I have a very good reputation locally and people like me and my work. There are still many people who are willing to pay for quality images and it also allows them to enjoy the game. |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 10.07.09 |
->> John S,
Nice read. Thanks for posting it. I have faced this same problem this year as I have noticed DSLRs flying off the shelves at any type of store. But the biggest thing I have noticed is the difference in the photos. Lets take a Friday Night football game. Unless there is amazing lighting the mom/dad shooting will have some serious trouble. Most will be shooting with consumer zooms like the 75-300 f4-5.6. That is a serious problem compared to a 300 2.8 IS. So lighting will be a serious challenge for them. But as DSLRs get cheaper and easier to get I have noticed people showing up with something like a 5dmkII and a 100-400. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Another thing to note is how we as professionals we know some tricks of the trade, such as flash set ups or anything along those lines to add light. The parents typically will have their pop up flash up. Lastly, one more thing to say is just how we know about exposure. that is the most important aspect of a professional when shooting in these conditions.
I agree with the writer that people just want free images now, and if that means having to go and buy a dslr, then so be it.
As far as the mom and pops crowding the sidelines. I personally have not noticed it. A mom or dad will walk down and take a few shots but then go back up to their seats. Whats better is that I will say hey and at least acknowledge them. While we are there to do a job, it is nice to say something to a fellow photographer. I think the "Fun Pix" area of this site is proof of just that. We love to hang out with other photographers, or at least talk. So why do we always gripe when someone with a dslr, comes down to snap a few shots. I am confident in my shots that I can provide a quality that is desired by parents.
What I have noticed is that I have had to start signing a media sheet in order to get into games. But other than that, everything has stayed the same. |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 8:20 PM on 10.10.09 |
->> I have the unfortunate luck of having a PWC who just retired from a 20 year career as the supervisory prosecuting attorney for the county, a Magna Cum Laude bachelor's degree from UCLA film school, and a passion for photography show up on my sidelines. He has pro equipment, takes amazing photos, and sells them for $2.50 a piece. He refuses to discuss his low ball prices, and when the school tried to limit his access (out of loyalty to me for being there five years), he used his political clout to back them down (something about it being a public school, and some lawyer talk, blah, blah, blah).
He shoots because he has a passion for it and doesn't care one bit about damage he's doing to the industry (and me personally).
He is also killing the wedding industry in this area, as he offers a five hour, two location shoot, with himself and a backup shooter, DVD of all the full res images (edited), 200 4x6 prints, and one 16x20 or two 11x14 gallery wrapped canvas for $1250.00! For $3500 plus travel expenses, he'll go anywhere, give you two shooters, unlimited hours of shooting, 300 4x6 prints, DVD of all images (edited for color, BW and sepia), slide show photo story movie, and two 20x24 gallery wrapped canvases.
The worst part is that he's very good (better than me anyway). He doesn't need the money, he's having a good time, and that's all he cares about. How the hell can anyone compete with that crap? |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:50 AM on 10.11.09 |
->> "How the hell can anyone compete with that crap?"
Ask the mom and pop establishments how they competed when Wal-Mart came to town. Many didn't. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 1:17 AM on 10.11.09 |
->> Jody,
Hang in there, he'll most likely get bored with all the hassles, specially with weddings, and find something else. Passion is fine until it turns into work. That what will separate Pros from Joes. |
|
Osamu Chiba, Photographer
|
Vista | CA | USA | Posted: 1:30 AM on 10.11.09 |
->> Jody,
I don't have any answer for you, but... please keep him within your area. San Diego won't need him. ;-)
O |
|
Shelley Cryan, Photographer
|
New England | CT | USA | Posted: 8:56 AM on 10.11.09 |
->> Jody,
Regarding your sports shooter competitor: Any chance you'd consider asking him to work for you? You could handle the sales/business/website end of it for him as you do for your own shots, and you both could shoot games.
He could concentrate on what he likes best -- shooting -- you wouldn't have a competitor but a new ally.
You could cover twice as many schools, expand your brand, improve your bottom line, and reduce your competition. He'd get greater exposure (your company is better established) and the freedom to not deal with the business end (according to your post, he's not that interested in it as a business).
Worth a thought.
Shelley |
|
Jim Pierce, Photographer
|
Waltham | MA | usa | Posted: 10:52 AM on 10.11.09 |
->> I, mostly, agree with the article and it has changed my view of shooting on spec for sure. Tournaments/event holders want more piece of the pie and the pie is getting smaller. I can only attribute the smaller pie to PWC and the fact that every event is covered and how many prints to people need. However there are still photogs who are anting up the 20%-30% of sales to get the opportunity to make money, not sure how they are doing it or if they actually are as many parents have cameras and every tournament wants/has coverage and it has been someone different almost every year.
The local HS football team has three parents shooting with 4.0-5.6 lenses (night football) I used to cover a game or two and do well.Not anymore when they get 1000's of free images. This I can directly relate to PWC.
Can't desribe how many calls I have received to cover winter sports events and they all ask the same thing how much can you "pay us". This is before they ask what my experience is, who I have worked with what is my website etc. I have covered one tourney the past 5 years and the new person in charge wants to know what my donation percentage is? I always donated but it was up to me, we shall see if I do this again, if not no big loss.
To be honest I am less worried about the PWC but am slightly worried about the "walmart" type companies. One of my largest competitors in the (T&I market) just "joined" with a much larger company which is a division of Life Touch. This is more of a concern to me than PWC, still not a major issue as I may have a new league next fall from these guys, and won a bid for another league this winter against these guys, but a large company like this can offer up the world and is on my radar screen.
Similar to Jody, it does not need to be a laywer or parent but I have come across two HS bus drivers who take the teams to away games. They shoot and GIVE the kids a CD at the end of the year.
Things sure are changing but so am I and things are still going well if not better than ever, just not what the plan was even 1 year ago never mind 3.
Jim |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 10.11.09 |
->> Thanks for the suggestions. I've thought about approaching him, but based on previous conversations I've had with him, I'm certain having him work for me will not be an option.
I've decided to cut bait at that school (at least for now). If I shoot a game there, it will be on my terms.
I've decided that this situation is the catalyst I needed to go after better/different assignments and I plan to do just that.
Jody |
|
Phillip Davies, Photographer
|
Garden City | NY | US | Posted: 12:57 AM on 10.12.09 |
->> The "how much can you pay us" issue is not going to go away at schools games or other events. Over the past few years we've seen it becoming more of an issue at events we cover.
This year we modified the software on our Web site so that we can now give the buyer the option to select a school or organization for a "donation" when they checkout. A the end of the season we total the amount and send a check to the school.
This system also encourages parents to buy from us. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 1:55 AM on 10.12.09 |
| ->> Jody, if you have an exclusive deal signed with the school, you have legal grounds to stand on. He's only a man, remember that. You can hire someone to represent you and enforce the exclusive rights you have to shoot and offer prints for sale. If you have no agreement in place, you're SOL. |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 5:50 PM on 10.18.09 |
->> I have no agreement in place. I'm SOL. It's whatever. I forgot to mention that this guy actually told me to get out of his shot when he stopped to take a photo and I was in the background. I had to laugh at the irony of that because I would NEVER disrespect another shooter like that, especially if I was on their turf. I may politely ask someone if they would move, but I would never wave my arm, point and them and tell them to get out of the way. My response was to stay put and put my fingers up behind the head of the person he was trying to shoot. Childish, I know, but it felt good at the time. :~)
I heard from a friend of mine that he's telling everyone he's the school's photographer and that he doesn't care about making any money on the sports photos because he's having fun and he's only shooting sports to expand his portrait/wedding photography business. Apparently this guy really doesn't care how bad he's hurting other people. I hate to sound bitter, but I'm really pissed off about it and I just want to punch this guy right in the smacker. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 8:20 PM on 10.18.09 |
| ->> Jody, do not hit him, he may cry. There are gong to be people like him anywhere you go. So what is his website??? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 8:54 PM on 10.18.09 |
| ->> Jim are you talking about McGrath's ? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:05 PM on 10.18.09 |
| ->> Jody you put up one more finger than I would have. |
|
Jim Pierce, Photographer
|
Waltham | MA | usa | Posted: 9:12 PM on 10.18.09 |
->> Eric,
Nope not Mcgraths but Lifetouch studios. They do a couple LL's in your area if I remmeber correctly.
Jim |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 10.18.09 |
->> If you compete in the same marketplace for the same customers with the same or a similar product, it comes down to price. And once you start competing on price, it is just a race to the bottom.
I think I started doing posts about this in 2006 in response to various threads along the same subject.
You must provide a unique product or substantially better product or you are just a commodity where the market drives the price (down).
A friend of mine commands very high prices for weddings and he works as the only shooter. He shoots primarily medium format on Tri-X. People hire him for that look and he delivers beautiful and unique work. They hire him for that look and not because he does canvas wraps.
When I shoot bodybuilding competitions, I know what everybody else shoots and I don't shoot that way. Although my market is the magazines and commercial, I know my photos will be picked up outside my assignment based on their unique look.
You have to be selling based on what you are creating and not on price. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 10:52 AM on 10.19.09 |
| ->> Jim is probably referring to the Captive Images/Keepsake Photos/FlashPhoto/Lifetouch "merger" |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:11 PM on 10.19.09 |
| ->> Hadn't heard about that. I would have thought that the LT/McGrath merger would have been a bigger cause of worry to Jim. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 2:22 PM on 10.19.09 |
| ->> Who is McGrath? |
|
Jim Pierce, Photographer
|
Waltham | MA | usa | Posted: 8:29 PM on 10.19.09 |
->> Delane, Eric
Mcgrath is a large publisher they do alot of yearbook stuff in my area along with Lifetouch. Lifetouch seems to do more HS work while mcgrath does many colleges, at least that is who I run into and where.
Eric, in my original post I stated "slightly worried" and this was compared to a PWC. I am not loosing sleep over it just always good to know who you are up against. I was well aware of both prior to the merger and would have assumed you are too since they are also in your area.
Hey who knows maybe I get a call to merge, everything is for sale for a price...
Jim |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|