[STOCKPHOTO] Teldon and $100 for an image
Dan Heller
Truism #1 about the photography business (http://www.danheller.com/truisms)
sys that more people have photography as a hobby than as a profession.
Placing any expectations on the free market system to ONLY go to the
professional market for images is naive and unrealistic.
Everyone is talking down Teldon because they pay photographers so little.
I place no fault on companies for going to hobbyists for pictures (which
they implicitly do through their rates). If you try to do business with
them, they're certainly happy to do so because, well, you've got photos,
too. But complaining that they don't pay competitively to what YOU need
to earn to make your business successful is silly.
If Teldon doesn't pay enough, don't bother with them. Move on. It doesn't
require discussion (other than to point it out if someone asks).
--
--dan
Photo Gallery: http://www.danheller.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
robi...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/2/01 2:49:44 PM, ar...@danheller.com writes:
<< If Teldon doesn't pay enough, don't bother with them. Move on. It doesn't
require discussion (other than to point it out if someone asks). >>
Newsweek just lowered their pay after not raising it for over ten years, so I
wrote a letter and moved on. There are many agents that want me to pay their
business expenses and mine, so I said no and moved on. 90% of the calendar
companies treat photogs like dirt, so I said no and moved on. This publisher
wants full rights and that publisher wants my first born, so I said no and
moved on. Conte Nasty wants full rights to our past assignment if we want
anymore assignments in the future. I said no and I moved on. The clip
joints said we will give you 10% of an insulting usage fee, so I said no and
I moved on.
Can Mr. Heller please tell me where I am supposed to move on to next?
George Robinson
http://www.georgerobinson.com
C Lauritzen
The point, I think, is that there is little point to talking endlessly about
low fees. What can we do, except stop selling photos to lower-paying
publishers? We can't force them to raise their fees! There are others out
there who are more than happy to accept $100, or even less, for a photo. We
can all stop selling, but then what will happen? The amateurs, or hobbiests
(hobbyists?) will sell for even less, and the publishers will be very happy
to buy for less. Then where do we stand?
Chris & Donna Lauritzen
kaspe...@earthlink.net
Dan raises excellent points. It is futile to sit and lament what is
happening to the marketplace. It is everyones problem to figure out how
to prosper in a deflationary environment.
A quick look around the business world reveals everyone having a tough
time raising prices and everyone trying to reduce costs.
George asked, "where are we supposed to go?" We are supposed to go to a
less expensive way of doing business. For instance, a digital
marketplace.
If we correctly assume that we can't force Teldon to pay more for
calendar images. If the images in question were in a digital
marketplace like Mira, the photographer could simply refer Teldon to
Mira who would fulfill the sale. This would cost the photographer $30
on the $100 sale. But, what is your time worth sending samples,
searching files, preparing submissions, etc. dealing with all aspects
of the sale. Is that great money? NO, but if you can spend your time
turning people on to an easily searched file with and have the sale
fulfilled for you at a cost of only 30% of the sale, it's worth it.
This approach, with other cost cutting measures can enable one to
compete in the deflationary digital environment.
Ken Kasper
--- In STOCKPHOTO@y..., robinson4@a... wrote:
Dan Heller
> I moved on.
> Can Mr. Heller please tell me where I am supposed to move on to next?
I don't want to sound insensitive to your dilemma. And I know you're not
alone in this. Many photographers are facing the same issues. At the same
time, I have no "solutions" for you, just suggestions on approaches. It
wouldn't hurt to recognize the reality of the market. Remember truism #1:
more people have photography as a hobby than as a profession. There's
nothing you can do about that, and to a great degree, this is part of
your problem. Most of those hobbyists dabble with things here and there:
contests, RF discs, sending in portfolios to editors now and then. Often,
they get their pictures published, and they're tickled pink. they aren't
aware of you, nor would they consider how their hobby affects your
business if they were aware. And most importantly, they *shouldn't*
care. It's not their responsibility to curb these actions because it
may somehow inadvertently make it harder for you to make a living.
As for Pro photographers, Truism #5 says that you cannot count on other
photographers banding together in actions to support what <you> believe is
right for "the cause." That is, there is no "one for all and all for one"
culture that will support you. If nothing else, Truism #1 will prevent
that from happening.
All of this falls under the umbrella of the laws of the free market
system -- the law of supply and demand. This system is alive and well,
and its your job to learn how to suvive within it. In Darwinian terms,
the weak will fall and the strong will survive.
In the dimmest terms, if you're going to "just say no" till you're out
of work, maybe this isn't the career for you. (Nothing wrong with that.
join the majority of people who aren't pros, but simply hobbyists who
just enjoy photography and making a few bucks here and there.)
As for me, I live in the same world as you, subject to the same issues
and terms and conditions -- and I'm likely to have done it for much less
time than you have -- and I can tell you that my business isn't even close
to suffering. I know this is also true for many other stock photographers'.
I have seen changes in the market, but I've been flowing with them, not
against them.
Once again, I don't mean to be insensitive to your concerns about low
fees and RF and all the other points you raised. But, "fighting it"
isn't going to solve your problem, nor is searching for solutions that
involve changing things that cannot be changed. You just have to be
creative and learn how to do it differently, or better, or more efficiently,
or in some other way that makes you percolate to the top.
"If it were easy, everyone would do it."
--unknown
Well, photography's gotten easy, and everyone IS doing it. The only
thing that's gotten hard is making money at it. This is what will
truly differentiate photographers from one another in our industry.
--
--dan
Photo Gallery: http://www.danheller.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
robi...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/2/01 2:49:44 PM, ar...@danheller.com writes:
<< If Teldon doesn't pay enough, don't bother with them. Move on. It doesn't
require discussion (other than to point it out if someone asks). >>
Maybe the San Francisco 7 should have just gone digital or moved on. Maybe
Editorial Photographer should just except everything and give up. I am
sorry, I don't except that. We have this wonderful tool now, the Internet,
where we can talk to each other and take action as a group. Unfortunately,
we still live in the past where we think you can't change anything. True,
one person can't change anything. 100 or 200 or 2900 (EP) can.
I wish stock photographers had something like EP. At some point we have to
turn and fight the bullies.
George Robinson
http://www.georgerobinson.com
Trev...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/4/01 7:49:25 pm, ar...@danheller.com writes:
<< Placing any expectations on the free market system to ONLY go to the
professional market for images is naive and unrealistic.
Everyone is talking down Teldon because they pay photographers so little.
I place no fault on companies for going to hobbyists for pictures (which
they implicitly do through their rates). If you try to do business with
them, they're certainly happy to do so because, well, you've got photos,
too. But complaining that they don't pay competitively to what YOU need
to earn to make your business successful is silly.
>>
Dear Dan
I've been around a lot longer than you, I think, and have seen the effects of
companies which make it their policy to buy images from hobbyists. They don't
last. I have seen and know the background of, three calendar companies, four
postcard publishers, two jigsaw makers and countless magazines who have all
folded in the past few years. They all thought it was a good idea to buy
cheaply from hobbyists. The successful ones are distinguished by the
professionalism of the photos they buy.
It takes longer to find good images from hobbyists than from professionals
and the longer search times often outweigh the advantages of cheaper fees.
A few years ago a regional magazine in Cornwall was having difficulties
finding images for their covers. They decided the cheapest option would be to
run a competition for amateurs with a prize of a Hasselblad camera for the
winner. They reckoned they would get at least two years worth of cover
images. They had just one entrant whose picture was so bad they never used
it. The magazine closed about a year later.
Yours
Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England
Trev...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/4/01 11:44:43 pm, kaspe...@earthlink.net writes:
<< If we correctly assume that we can't force Teldon to pay more for
calendar images. If the images in question were in a digital
marketplace like Mira, the photographer could simply refer Teldon to
Mira who would fulfill the sale. This would cost the photographer $30
on the $100 sale. >>
Dear Ken
I realise I must have misunderstood MIRA. Does some part of the software work
out how much the client wants to pay? Cheapskate clients get the same Jay
Maisel image for $100 that another client pays $500 for. Doesn't this just
encourage every client to say they only have $10 to spend?
kaspe...@earthlink.net
Your response misses the salient point. That point is IF shooter X is
going to sell a $100 photo to Teldon, it is cheaper, simpler, and
easier for shooter X to direct Teldon to Mira to handle the sale.
Further, Teldon is more likely to come back if they find what they want
rather than tracking which of the 200 shooters submitting work they
want to maintain contact with.
In other words, shooter X can make $70 on a sale that was handled with
little involvement from them. Or, they could keep $100 of a sale if
they want to communicate, show a sample, prepare and transmit or ship a
submission, track the transaction, bill, collect, recover work, monitor
contract compliance etc. etc.
Regarding your response, it is possible that Jay Maisel would not
approve a $100 sale. In Mira,as it is currently organized he has that
ability. He may not have it in the Mira of the future and would not
have it in C or G. And increasingly, even he will not be able to sell
stock himself and profit in the face of the extreme price competition
that is happening.
You and others keep referring to the myth of the "good paying client"
they will get their lunch eaten by their competitors if they don't
reign in costs. Just look around you at the business world. The reason
our prices are falling is everyone is struggling to cut costs in order
to compete. Everyone except us, we spend ever more to help our clients
cut their cost. Then we wonder why we can't earn a living.
Ken Kasper
--- In STOCKPHOTO@y..., Trevitho@A... wrote:
kaspe...@earthlink.net
No, I was not making any reference to any Mira software. I was
referring to the fact that you, as the seller of images do not control
prices. Yes, you can set your prices wherever you want and refuse to
budge. But, the amount of sales you will get is determined by the buyer
and whether or not they perceive value that is worth paying for.
Your anecdotes about publishers buying cheap photography do not
demonstrate any truth about the industry. They are just anecdotes. They
illustrate the fact that there are exceptions to any statement. There
are probably more companies that have failed by spending too much for
purchased inputs.
There are many successful companies who pay as little as five bucks for
RF images. Your suggestion that image quality determines success for
publishers and profitability for photographers. It does not. Industry
structure determines profit potential. The publishers you mention
likely failed for other reasons. Likewise there are some mediocre
photographers who are fabulously famous for reasons other than the
quality of their images. And, there are greatly talented photographers
who lack the resources to spend sufficiently to make the "big time."
There are also obscure, unknown photographers who work less often but
generate a much higher return on investment. I know, I'm one of them.
All such anecdotal conversations are meaningless. The only relevant
conversations are those that speak about industry wide conditions that
either support or detract from ones ability to achieve success. Sucess
itself is defined by each person.
For example, as our consolidation continues, many photographers will
realize that they can achieve greater sales and publication exposure by
working for Getty. But, to earn a decent living they will need to work
like a dog and subvert control of their destiny to the corporation.
For many, that will suit them just fine. Organizations like the SAA can
help those individuals.
Having been a corporate drone in a former life, that kind of existence
doesn't support my definition of success which includes a good work/
life balance. I believe ones life experience affects ones art. If all
you do is dance to the corporate tune, it will start to show in your
shooting.
It is not my place or anyone elses to pass judgement on anyone's
choice. To each his own. This is why I take great offense to the way I
have been spin-doctored in ASMP as my post the other day indicated.
So, the only relevant conversations are those directed at achieveing
certain desires within the photography industry. Certain general
statements become clearly evident. For example, if you seek fame,
publication etc. more than freedom and maximum return on investment
then you would do well to let others control your business affairs and
perhaps your copyrights.
If you seek to preserve your freedom then maintain control of your own
affairs. Mira was an oppotunity to do that. It may soon be reorganized
to more closely resemble C&G. Therefore, enjoying photography as a
hobby and doing something else for money is a more attractive option
for me.
I may even enter those many contests that currently exclude
professionals from entering.
Ken Kasper
--- In STOCKPHOTO@y..., Trevitho@A... wrote:
>
Trev...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/4/01 4:00:25 am, ar...@danheller.com writes:
<< "If it were easy, everyone would do it."
--unknown
Well, photography's gotten easy, and everyone IS doing it. The only
thing that's gotten hard is making money at it. This is what will
truly differentiate photographers from one another in our industry.
--dan >>
Dear Dan
You must be super talented to think that photography is easy. I see
photography a bit like joiners and carpenters see DIY people. Any fool can go
to their DIY store and buy the materials to put up some shelves. They know
its only a ten minute job and when they've finished it looks like it. A
professional KNOWS it takes a day and when he has finished you can tell the
difference.
There is an agency specialising in Food who asked, on this list, if anyone
had a Haggis picture. If food photography, to take just one instance, is so
easy why are they still asking after more than a year? You would think that
out of the 1,000+ subscribers to this list one of the newbies would have
tried to get a foot into that particular door. The answer is that many
branches of photography are very difficult. I have spent as much as three
days shooting a food pic. One still-life memorably took me a week including
some very late nights. When a car advertiser wants a photographer the list of
good photographers is very short despite the fact that anyone can practice
with their own car.
Photography has become easy in some technical respects so the good guys just
push that much harder.
Yours