that seems a pretty cynical thing to say Warren.
No and yes. (You make it sound like being cynical is bad.)
NO:
My point was literal. "Crowdfunding" is today's darling because it sounds so warm and fuzzy and it has its own web site (e.g. Kickstarter).
But when others did it +10 years ago for the
exact same purposes - to raise money for book projects or fund startup online photo businesses - it was called "cyber begging" and those folks were laughed at.
Crowdfunding has existed for centuries but under other names.
The Montreal Olympics were partially crowdfunded (remember those $10 lottery tickets); almost every amateur sports team sells 50/50 tickets; all charities rely on crowdfunding; the Girl Guides have been selling cookies door-to-door for a long time; Trivial Pursuit was crowdfunded.
Daily newspapers crowdfund each day's edition. Of course, they don't call it crowdfunding, they call it paid advertising.
Many business often rely on crowdfunding to get started when they get money from friends, relatives, etc.
YES:
(Sadly, this part is going to be a ridiculously long-winded, meandering stroll.)
I'm going to reference Kickstarter.com, specifically its photography section, only as an example. Other similar sites can probably be included.
I'm going to use the words "you" and "your" but that's not a reference to you, John. It's directed at a "generic" photographer. Really.
I bet if any photographer ever went on "Dragons Den", they'd get laughed off the show. Documentary photography (and some other types of photography, too) is simply not a viable business any more. Two reasons are:
(a) it's a totally inefficient use of time. Pictures and stories don't happen on a schedule;
(b) it's not scalable. If you work twice as long, you don't make twice the money.
Throughout the last few centuries, some artists (writers, painters, sculptors, musicians) had "patrons" - people who financially supported them. Some photographers had patrons back in the 1800s and it still happens today.
Spot quiz: when someone goes to the opera, the ballet or an art exhibit, they're called a "patron of the arts". But when someone goes to a hockey game, why aren't they called a "patron of the sports"?
Answer: It's automatically assumed that the arts can't / don't make money so they need people who will continually supply financial support. These patrons are viewed as wonderful, caring, charity givers.
But since pro sports seemingly makes zillions of dollars, it's a business and sports fans are just paying customers.
But "patronize" has two meanings.
Why do some artists (including photographers) view themselves as some sort of sacred being whose purpose in life is to enlighten the rest of society?
A home renovator can be an artist, (well, at least some can). Same for electricians, chefs, doctors, etc. Everyone is an artist, in some way, in their work. Everyone wants to, can, and does, create.
But only a tiny sector of creators asks for other people's money to finance their business.
Since the Internet provides for free access, (and, of course, we know it's not free), many people think that everything on the Internet should be free. This distorted view of things then leads to people thinking that money should also be free, but only
other people's money.
One problem with sites like Kickstarter is that it's fast, free and lazy to post a money request online.
Looking only at the photography section on Kickstarter:
Everyone is a photographer. Everyone's pictures should be in a 10-page spread in Time and National Geographic magazines. Everyone deserves a book publishing deal. Everyone's idea for a photo essay is unique, incredible and will change the world ..... if only they could just get the money to shoot it.
• In one Kickstarter description, the photographer refers to himself as "famous" and "important" eight times in his bio. In fact, he's "world famous". He's an important artist doing important work for an important gallery.
• Another photographer says that if he can raise the required funds, it will "create the energy" for him to go out and shoot.
• Another seeks a few thousand dollars so he can renovate his studio and make wonderful new photographs.
• Another needs several thousand dollars so he can travel Europe for a couple months and take pictures. The people who donate money will get postcards from him!
I know photographers who raised
tens of thousands of dollars and
even more by doing it the real way - sending letters, making phone calls and doing in-person meetings where they laid out plans for their projects.
Sitting back and typing a post into a crowdfunding web site => big whoop.
There's a 1979 movie with Peter Sellers titled
Being There. The title gives away the secret of success.
Hopefully, the irony here is not lost: Kickstarter is crowdfunding its business of crowdfunding.
The only people cashing in are the site's owners. So far they've made $24 million (they keep 5% of all donated money - $486 million to date).
This is exactly how/why online stock photo sites like Getty, iStockphoto, etc .make money. This is how/why Apple makes money through iTunes and its App stores. This is how/why lotteries make money.
To make money -> be the middle man and sell to people's desire/greed for easy money.
Here's a post from my new web site: BusinessStarter.com:
I'm starting up a new pet food business but can't afford to hire photographers to shoot pictures for my advertising or my web site. I've always wanted to start a business and help puppies and kittens.
If you're a photographer who would like to help me get my business started, here's my plan:
• donate five hours of photography and I'll give you a credit line on my web site;
• donate ten hours and I'll give you a credit line in a newspaper ad plus I'll send you a personalized thank-you card;
• donate 25 hours and you'll get 15% off in my store.
I'm sure many photographers will happily donate their time and skills, right?
There's no difference between someone looking for money to start up a business to sell, say, pet food, and a photographer looking for money to shoot a project.
When your kid wants money for a new bike, do you:
(i) give them money,
(ii) tell them to stand near the side of the road with an "I need money" sign, or
(iii) tell them to get a paper route, cut some lawns or set up a lemonade stand?
The point is, while folks are standing on the side of
Kickstarter Avenue holding up their "I need money" sign, the parade passes them by. The person should be in the parade (with their sign) rather than just on the sidelines.
Or, to use another analogy: instead of strolling the yellow brick
Kickstarter Road to the promised land where a wonderful wizard will give you what you want, remember that you're wearing ruby slippers.
Money, and tons of it, is out there. You just need a decent plan.
"I want to go to Paris to take some pictures and I'll sell a bunch of inkjet prints" isn't a plan. It's a hobby destined for a garage sale.
Hey, Google invests $300 million per year on startups. Unfortunately, none on photographers because no photographer has come up with a good idea yet. It's too late to invent Flickr, Youtube, Tumblr, 500px, etc. I guess all the good ideas are gone.
if many of us working outside of the dailies were to rely on the good will of the folks handing out assignments or the agencies, we would be making weekly trips to the food bank.
A lot of stuff published in most dailies is superficial, predictable crap. Sadly, that's what it's become. Cheap and cheerful. Don't upset the readers.
But you can't blame or shame someone into doing business with you.
If the dailies aren't buying then either they're the wrong customer or your marketing needs to be changed.
Follow the money not your ego.
...the disconnect between the cronies at the old institutions and the wealth of talent that emanates from this region. many have left to work overseas and provide little to no content here in Canada. this is a sad and frustrating situation.
Agreed.
Many Canadian photographers are working in the U$ or overseas. How is this different than Canadian actors, musicians, filmmakers and models who move to the US or Europe?
The economy is what it is and it is what you make it.
the world of top tier photojournalism and documentary work is almost entirely divorced from the media empires here in Canada. it's a damn shame the powers that be at said empires can't recognize this.
Absolutely true.
But until a photographer becomes a publisher, nothing will change. Media companies are afraid of change (ironic since everything around them is changing), afraid of risk, afraid of being first, afraid of being last, afraid of being different, afraid the public might wake up.
But who needs an empire? I thought old media was dead - good riddance to those self-serving gatekeepers. Long live the Internet where we're all publishers and everything is free!
Since nobody is lining up to hire you on staff then, like magic, you're self-employed! Congratulations, Mr. or Ms. Small Businessperson.
First rule of business: if it doesn't make money then:
(a) stop doing it;
(b) change it;
(c) buy lots of lottery tickets;
(d) get rich parents or a wealthy spouse.
Pick one because there are no other options.
Confucius is claimed to have said:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
The translation may be off but he may also have said:
Give a photographer an assignment and he's happy for a day. Teach a photographer to market himself and he's happy for a lifetime.
or maybe it was:
Give a photographer an assignment and he's happy for a day. Teach a photographer to complain about being a photographer and he's happy for a lifetime.
- My 0¢ worth.
Everything is easier said than done. And that's a good thing. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it.
Topic: BBC on the current and future business of photojournalism (Read 22521 times)