Rant-o-rama

[Warren Toda]

1)  You might have noticed that some stock picture agencies, known for having zillions of cliché stock images and for paying photographers pennies per photo, have been moving into the news/editorial photography business.

One US stock agency is currently fishing for photographers in some Canadian and US cities.

Having run the basic stock image business completely through the ground, they're looking for new revenue. These companies first turned to entertainment and celebrity photos which are the low hanging fruit of "news" photography. But since this has also been run into the ground, cheap stock agencies are moving to where they (wrongly) think the big money is - sports photography.

Of course, sports photography is pretty much dead as well. The exception is commercial sports photography.

Over the past two years, and as recently as last week, I've been approached by a handful of US and UK stock picture agencies, both big and small. I was offered the "opportunity" to join their company.

Of course, this was actually a request for me to work on spec as a contributor.  Although one British agency did offer to pay £90/day (about $150/day) which included all expenses. But at that exorbitant rate, I wouldn't get any additional sales commission.

When you shoot on spec, volume is your friend. You need to shoot anything and everything and hope something hits the target. But as a photographer running a business, this is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

Unless you get hired on staff with all equipment and expenses fully covered, plus various employment benefits, these "jobs" are not worthwhile.

If you're just starting out in photography, you probably won't believe what I've just written and you might jump at such an offer. You'll think that working for free is better than nothing. Go ahead. Sometimes you have to make your own mistakes before you learn your own lessons.



2) There's an article in today's Globe and Mail about a new photo-related business that's not too far from being another stock agency.

This new company will link vacationers with local photographers. For example, if you were to travel to Rome, you might like to hire a local photographer to do some nice vacation photos of you and your family.

Sigh.

(i) Everything old is new again and everything new can be repeated ad nauseam.

This type of photo service has existed at least as far back as the 1980s. Of course back then, it wasn't online. Back then (and today, too) a smart photographer would market themselves to local tour companies. When a busload of tourists came to town, they could hire a local photographer to travel with the group for a few hours and shoot nice photos for them.

A smart photographer might also market themselves to large conventions that are coming to town. This photographer would be available for any persons or small groups of people who want some pretty pictures of themselves while they're in town visiting.

If you live in "vacation land" or other touristy area, you could market yourself to nearby resorts. Any guest could hire you to accompany them on various outings or other adventures (fishing, sailing, rock climbing, etc). Many such resorts may already have a preferred photographer.


(ii) The business model of having a middleman broker deals between customers and a large group of service/product providers never ever favours the latter group because this business model always encourages price shopping and pushes prices down. Always.


(iii) This type of business is good for photographers who want to give up on their marketing and not take on any responsibility. Responsibility is proportional to money.


Other businesses exactly like this have come and gone. This new business will have to expand to include not just vacation pictures but also family photos, wedding photography, event photography, etc. and dilute itself down to match its diluted customer base. But as a photographer running a business, this is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.