Someone got paid for that?
<rant>
Everyone has their pet peeves. My biggest pet peeve is seeing people charge for a service that they’re clearly not capable of doing. Take photography, for example. I have seen many-a-photographer complain that amateur or unskilled photographers are hurting the industry when they take or solicit jobs beyond their ability, like wedding photography. The argument is that amateur photographers misrepresent their ability to potential clients and charge well less than what a professional would charge. The client books the amateur over the professional because of the price difference, and is ultimately not as happy with the outcome. The client then has a negative outlook on the industry, and is less likely to book a photographer again – instead opting to have “that one friend with a nice camera” shoot important events.
Of course, that is just one side of the argument, and there are plenty of other arguments in the same vein as well. But it all boils down to one point – someone charging a client for a service that he or she cannot actually perform.
Here’s the backstory: A friend of mine is serving on the Payne County CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates) Board of Directors this year, and is planning CASA’s once-yearly fundraiser. The fundraiser is a black-tie affair and is always very well attended. For the past several years, they have used a local photography studio to take pictures and video for the event. This studio does quite well in Stillwater and sells photography and videography services for weddings and other special events. The video from the fundraiser event is edited and sold for $20 a DVD to raise more money for CASA.
Unfortunately, this local studio is closing its doors here in Stillwater and moving to a town in Colorado soon, so they won’t be able to document the CASA event in February. My friend has seen my work, and wanted to know if I would be interested in the video work for CASA this year. I have attended the event in the past, but had never seen the video, so I asked her to share last year’s DVD in order to get an idea of CASA’s expectations. My expectation was that the video would be pretty good, considering that this is a service the studio charges a lot of money for.
I was dead wrong. I would like to say that there was some redeeming factor about this video, but I simply cannot. It suffered from every single problem imaginable – audio, bad editing, poor video quality, excessive length, aliasing, ISO noise, and so on. I cannot imagine why someone would think it okay to charge for such a thing – and then put their business name all over it to boot.
As an up-and-coming young professional, I couldn’t help but feel angry about this. Certainly, a professional is always developing his or her skills, and my skills are not to their peak yet, either. But that’s why I only take jobs in which I know I can deliver a high-quality product.
</rant>
I know there are a lot of differing opinions on this, and I’d love to hear from my friends in creative industries. Let me know what you think in the comments!
About The Author
Jory
Quirky creator and all-around nice person.
Other posts byJory
Author his web sitehttp://thestoryofjory.com
The “friend/relative with a nice camera” argument with regard to the photography industry is a very real problem. I’ve lost photography gigs because of clients who used this in an attempt to leverage my prices down: “well, my aunt Sally will do it for free…so I don’t want to pay very much”.
Here’s how I’ve started approaching the situation: when a client plays that card I give them a little friendly advice. I attempt to underline the importance of capturing their memories; saving a bit of money now is fine, but will they have something they’re still proud of and impressed by in 30 years? I recommend that regardless of cost that a client find a photographer with a solid portfolio, and stress that taking great family photos is one thing, photographing a wedding is something else entirely, and experience is worth so very much. So far I haven’t convinced anyone, at least so far as I know.
I also got a website inquiry last week that went something like “we don’t have a lot of money…but you can use it in your portfolio…” but that’s another thing entirely. ;)
Perhaps some sort of consumer education campaign on behalf of these industries is in order? I definitely agree that the problems are real and serious – although I have heard several different ideas for how the problem should be solved. Some say, if your work is good, it will stand on its own and people will pay you for it. But I think there are enough consumers out there who feel something along the lines of, “How hard can it be to take a picture/video?” – and that’s when you get people trying to negotiate you down.
The “use it in your portfolio” line is absolutely infuriating. It probably affects graphic/web designers more so than photographers/videographers because people see the fixed costs of that sort of endeavor (film, tape, etc.) but I still get that from people all the time. Mainly they want me and/or my students to do the work as a “class assignment” or something of that sort. I do think students should have some real-life application type work for their portfolios, but I feel that they end up getting used in these situations.
I’m sure we all know this, but the “my nephew said he’d do my website for $50. Why should I give you $3,000 for the same thing?” question gets old really, really fast.
It’s hard to explain to someone who’s not familiar with the industry why SEO, standards and all that matter. Probably about as hard as it is to explain to me what ISO noise is or why I should even care about it.
It’s ridiculously frustrating, but try to hold out hope that someone who’s worth a crap will come along and pay you what you’re worth!
That’s one you probably hear all the time. But I wonder, which is worse? 1) Someone telling you that their 16 year-old nephew, who’s knowledge is limited to tricking out Myspace pages, is going to do the job, or 2) Finding out that another person or company got the job, but that there work is well below standard?
But what if “Aunt Sally” CAN produce photos, of sufficient enough quality, to warrant the difference between free and several thousand dollars in cost?
Has technology improved to the point that it has closed the gap between amateurs and professionals enough that the difference in cost is no longer justified?
I typically agree with “you get what you pay for”, but it seems like the average consumer is now able to get a lot more, for less. Obviously those with specific requirements, or complex needs are going to need more professional services, but does Jim’s Friendly Local Auto-Repair need a $5,000 website, or would a $500 website suffice?
Interesting conversation. Similar arguments happen across a bunch of industries – software developers and musicians are two that I’m familiar with.
As I read all of your comments a couple of things occurred to me.
1.) Jory’s original post wasn’t about an amateur undercutting prices or offering buddy deals. It was about an established professional who charged “a lot of money” for a product that Jory considers lousy. (I trust her judgement.) As a consumer that doesn’t know much about photography I have a couple of choices – I pay a lot of money for a “professional” and have a 50/50 chance of getting a good product. Or I pay an amateur and likely get what I paid but have a chance of being pleasantly surprised. Well that’s an easy choice. I often hear “professionals” complaining about not being able to make a living but the reality is that if all “professionals” charged fair prices and produced consistently excellent (pro-quality) work the market for amateurs would be really small.
2.) The comments seem to suggest that people should not use amateurs for work – and that certainly their work is of little or no value. At the same time Jory suggests that people should not approach college students/classes (amateurs by definition) with opportunities to practice their selected craft for free. (This sounds a lot like the suggestion is to PAY amateurs. Confusing.) The opportunity for students to do “real” work with low risk of screwing up seems to me to be invaluable. Sure, the opportunity for abuse exists but to me the risk seems worth it in order for students to gain experience that is “worth so very much”. I struggle when professionals make arguments that necessarily eliminate any path for an amateur to one day become a professional. It feels more like self-preservation than genuine concern about the integrity of the craft.
3.) As with the example given in Jory’s post there are lots of “professionals” that produce lousy work. My bet is that they don’t think their work is lousy. In fact, I bet they think it’s pretty good. I would argue that it’s not pro vs. amateur that’s the problem – it’s hubris and self-delusion. A bad photography that practices successfully for 10 years because their clients don’t know any better is probably still a bad photographer… who considers themselves a pro. The issue Jory had was not one of pro vs. amateur but one of an individual who was clueless about the limits of their own capabilities. The corollary here is that there are lots of folks who consider themselves “amateurs” that do stunning work – maybe they do it for free, maybe they do it on the cheap – but it’s still great work.
4.) “Professional” suggests pursuing a craft for money, for a living even. The challenge to any professional is to find a business model (and marketing strategy) that allows them to practice their craft and still make a living – part of that is understanding how their industry changes. As Tanner pointed out, the barrier to entry for photographers (videographers, software developers, graphics designers, web developers, audio engineers, etc.) has plummeted in recent years. Access to tools is no longer a point of differentiation. In the case of photography, for example you used to need a photographer in order to increase the likelihood of capturing the perfect moment because each photo was expensive and you had to make every one count making a photographers intuition imperative. Today you can get the same result (a great photo of a single moment) by taking 1,000 digital photos at no cost proving the age old adage that it’s better to be lucky than good. As a professional photographer you can whine about why this is an affront to the craft of photography (and continue not to get hired) or you can embrace it and understand how you can use it to evolve your own business model. The profession of photography (like all “professions”) is about making a living – not taking pictures. If you are more concerned with taking remarkable pictures then perhaps you should consider being an amateur (who practices solely out of passion).
Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you guys are coming from. I just thought you might like some counter point.
My final thought is that this: The pro vs. amateur argument is the same one out of work professional journalist and writers are making about people like Jory who are blogging.
Enjoyed the conversation,
Matt
Tanner, my answer to that question is as simple as it is predictable…in many cases, wedding photography being one of them, technology can only take you so far. Having the newest, most advanced camera won’t make you any better a photographer than having the finest kitchen knives and prettiest china will make you a better cook.
Perhaps someday cameras will become self-aware and therefore creative, but until that time a good photographer can do more with a cheap film camera (high fives, jory?) than Aunt Sally could with a $2000 DSLR.
Though I think Aunt Sally’s getting a bad rap here. I’m sure she’s a very nice lady.
Awesome counter-points, Matt. We did deviate from the original point post, though I think it’s all closely related. I liked your first counter-point a lot, as that’s ultimately the reason I’m trying to stay on the fence about this issue. Seeing that CASA video just got me going, haha.
On the point about students doing work for free, I think we differ slightly. I should also clarify more, because as you noted, my comments seem to counter the post. I suppose, due to my own (mostly bad) past experiences doing work for free, I am suspicious of people who ask for free work. The company or person should be willing to sacrifice something in exchange for the end product, whether that’s credits, leads on paying gigs, whatever. I just think students in particular are vulnerable – there are companies who take advantage of students’ eagerness to get that experience. But, I suppose that in and of itself is a learning opportunity! In situations where a company wants students to work for free, I advocate that: 1) the company pays legitimate expenses related to the production, 2) both sides clearly state their expectations for the final product and 3) that the student retains most of the rights to that work. You’d be surprised how many people don’t want to give them that much.
I also concede that we all started as amateurs, and we’re all amateurs compared to someone else. It just drives me nuts to see those people pass themselves off as being better than what they are. You’re exactly right – hubris and self-delusion are probably the culprits here.
Jory,
Actually I think you and I are exactly aligned on the student work issue. Some folks just want a free lunch. Those folks are losers, no one likes them, and we should all feel sorry for them… while we tell them that student’s won’t do their work for free.
That said, there are legitimate businesses, start-ups and non-profits that have good products, services, and causes that just need a little help. They’re willing to pay what they can, but that’s often far from the going rate. On the other hand there are students desperate for real world context and experience – both for professional development and resume building. I’m often bewildered at how rarely, as a society in general, we seem to be able to match these two groups of folks up in more meaningful, mutually beneficial ways.
I hope you do advise your students to be weary of “work for free” gigs, but I also hope you tell them that there are legitimate opportunities out there that can provide them valuable real-workd experience and that they should always be open to exploring opportunities.
I enjoyed the conversation & am looking forward to seeing you at Ignite.
-M.