Month: June 2007

There’s a new survey out about how teenagers are a fragmented and “schizophrenic” market. Basically, the report says that teens won’t buy/use a product/service because they are told to or told it’s cool, they themselves have to make that determination. In other words, it is the buyer who selects, for his/her own reasons, not blindly thinking what s/he is told to think or choosing for any other reason than it is right for her/his needs/wants.

I think this is very true for all market segments today and it applies to marketing your creative service to your buyers. There’s a lot more choice out there and clients (just like consumers) are selecting what is best for their needs and desires. And, they are willing to pay appropriately (that is, well) for the right creative work.

As I have been “preaching” for some time, selecting your targets is the most important thing you can do in your marketing. Select targets that are the most likely to be interested in your services and your ROI on all your tools will go up–as will your sales.

Marketing these days is more about presenting an offering to a buyer rather than convincing/selling the buyer on the product/service. You are not going to convince any intelligent client to buy your creative services by sending a postcard or buying a sourcebook ad or having a great website. It’s not like they are going to say to themselves, “I didn’t know I needed this service/product, but this great brochure has convinced me otherwise!” If they don’t need your kind of work, then no amount of marketing is going to change that.

But by telling your story consistently and across media, targeting potential clients who have used work like yours in the past or who somehow demonstrate that they may have a legitimate need/desire for your kind of work, you will give that intelligent buyer a chance to choose you for his/her own reasons. S/he will be aware that your company is out there and will understand what it is that you offer. So, if that client needs and wants work like yours, you will get the project. Clients like this will say “Hey, I need this kind of work for the Widget campaign and John Photographer makes images exactly like that; I’ll call him.”

Having come of age in the 80s, anything UK-related has a touch of coolness that still resonates in my formerly punk(ish) soul (okay…maybe not so “formerly”…). So, when EPUK approached me about contributing an article, I was very happy to oblige. EPUK is a group inspired by the Editorial Photographers (EP) group here in the states and they have taken that proverbial ball and run with it. Take some time to check out their site. They have loads of information helpful to photographers everywhere. I’m particularly inspired by their call to action on behalf of “citizen journalists.”

Anyway, when I reviewed the Manual they wanted to use, Websites: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, I noticed it needed a bit of updating. If you want to read the newest version, check it out on EPUK or download the pdf from the Manuals page of the BAP site.

For those of you who aren’t signed up for the Free Manual in Your Email service, there is a new Manual posted on the BAP website (the subscribers received it a month ago, and you could too, if you just signed up).

There are a few other new bits of news and info on the site as well. Click here to check it out.

Finally! There is now a group defending copyright holders and their rights in the USA. The Copyright Alliance is a new organization whose members include ASMP and PPA as well as filmmakers (MPAA), the Directors Guild of America, and even (rather surprisingly) Major League Baseball.

The APA is not listed as members on the CA website, but that doesn’t mean they are not members…or that they are. I’ll need to see what I can find out about that.

Anyway, go, sign up for their newsletter at least, share stories, and help them help us. We may finally have a strong(er) voice in DC and we should all help to promote this group.

The New York Times had several pages devoted to travel photography in their Sunday edition. That information, and more, is available on their website. [note: that link will be less useful after this week as it leads to the main Travel page–there are multiple articles there…for now]

Note also that I am not judging the information or the Times for their reporting or their contract.  Instead, I’m just being a consumer of interesting info and passing it on to you.

If you want to read something recent from the Times that is worth getting frustrated and huffy about, read this article about Microstock. The ending is particularly frustrating as it essentially says “photographers need to do MS because that’s where the future is headed.” Instead, it should say that IF photographers do MS, that’s where the future is headed.

There is an old saying that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will ring true. That is, people will believe it. We have a big, often repeated lie to overcome: digital is cheap.

Pretty much nothing in professional photography is cheap. We use Macs (overwhelmingly) which are higher priced (and much higher value, in my opinion), camera systems cost many thousands, the software licenses for things like Photoshop aren’t $29.95, and don’t even get me started on lights, stands, etc. Setting up a photo business is a large investment and maintaining it is not something you can do for a buck and a quarter. A good chunk of that cost is now directly related to maintaining the digital technology.

And yet, over and over, I hear photographers say “digital is cheap.” Look, it’s bad enough clients already have that in their minds–don’t contribute to that lie. Digital, even if you were given all the equipment, software, etc., is still not cheap. You have to process the images and that, dear friends, costs your time and your time is (as the other old saying goes) your money.

Let’s say you shoot 100 digital frames for your client. You need to convert them to something viewable for your client. You don’t just post (or hand over, heaven forbid!) the RAW images–you make jpegs and edit out the obvious clunkers (model with closed eyes, assistant in shot, whatever) and you present them in an aesthetically pleasing manner (web gallery or disk) that is branded to your business and looks better than just throwing them up on some server. You may even do some basic digital correction/retouching before the jpegs get seen. How long does it take you to do all that? Do you do it well–that is, do your images look good when you show them to your client?

If you are not charging for that time, effort, and expertise, you are cheating your business and making it much harder for you to be successful.

You are also making harder for the next photographer who does respect his/her business enough to charge for this.

The worst part of this lie is the implication within it: clients won’t pay for this. Horse-hockey (as Col. Potter used to say). Most clients will and those who won’t are not good clients. They are clients who are taking advantage of you. Why do you want to work with people who do not respect you and your business?

Only you can show clients that you value your work and your business. And you know, even when you feel less-than-self-confident, that your work is worth it. I definitely know it–I see it every day in the work my clients share with me.

Sequencing a portfolio has more of an impact than you might think. Yesterday, I had a client ask me to look at a prospective portfolio edit/sequence. I thought he had made some really strong choices, but there was something still not quite there about the whole thing. The flow was off and that made the individual images look weaker than they really are.

I made some suggestions, he made some changes, and between the both of us, we found a much better flow. Now the images look more related, showing a more cohesive sense of vision and, as a result, each individual image shows its own strength. The whole is better because its parts fit better in this order.

Unfortunately, there is no simple way to describe and teach good flow. It would make my life much easier if I could tell you all “put people who face the same way next to each other” or “similar object shapes go together” but there quite simply are no rules like that. Each work has its own best proceeding and following images; each image may, or may not, work well in a multi-image layout. What will work for your work may very well not work for any other photographer, and vice versa.

And, no matter what, even with the “best” sequencing and edit possible, there will always be someone who will have some problem with it. Perfection for all is simply not a reasonable goal.

A good portfolio edit and flow is, thus, not unlike the Supreme Court’s definition of pornography (or at least Justice Potter Stewart’s): I know it when I see it.

Yesterday’s post got several comments (which I really welcome!) and it generated some emails directly to me. In those emails, some important issues were raised which I’d like to share here.

First, one said that if the advertisers weren’t paying for the photography then Condé Nast must be, right? Well, yes and no. We don’t know how the system is really working internally. Maybe CN is passing on photography costs, maybe they are paying them themselves, but my suspicion is that, whoever is paying, CN is trying to get the photography for less than it is worth and will, in the future, try to even get it for free (or just for “expenses”). There are lots of photographers who really want to shoot for CN magazines; imagine one of them being called up with this line:

We want to consider you for an upcoming feature in Vogue but right now we have a project we need shot for one of our advertisers. We’re not charging them for this work so we really need you to help us out on the fees. If you can do this for us, it’ll really help your chances of getting the Vogue project…

How many photographers would jump at that if they didn’t hear now, ahead of time, from all the pro groups and many individual photographers, just how bad of a deal that would really be!? Too many. If we talk about this now, pro-actively, we can reduce the impact of this.

Another email kind of confirmed the idea of CN trying to get photos for less than their value when the author wrote of having shot “advertorials” for CN and having been paid “well” for the “day” he shot. Warning bells went off as soon as I read the word “advertorial.” An “advertorial” is an invented and coded word for an advertisement, period. Originally, “advertorials” were supposed to look and feel very much like the editorial content in the publication–just be paid for (in cash or trade) by an advertiser–but now the word is being used for entire multi-page inserts which, while they are often more word-y than most ads, are clearly not close enough to resembling the editorial content to fool a brain-damaged monkey, much less an average human reader.

The usage rate for an “advertorial” should never be any less than for any advertising use with the same parameters. They are ads–nothing less.

The use of the word “day” in reference to the author’s fees in his email also had me spooked. Yes, the number he quoted me would be quite nice for a one-page ad in any CN magazine (running one time), but if he shot, say, images for a 4+ page insert in that one day, or if that ad ran in several issues, then he was underpaid. That’s usage value.

Remember, time is a minor part in figuring your Creative Fee but has nothing to do with your Usage Licensing Fee. A total (combined) fee of $X may sound great for a day’s work, but in fact, may be not enough when the extent of the usage is calculated in.

By using the term “advertorial” CN is already trying to get the work for less and may, in fact, already be having some success in that arena (not that I am implying the person who worked for CN did ANYTHING wrong– facts to suggest that are not established). We need to get on this issue and educate our fellow creatives about the dangers of these offers.

It would be very easy for me to get angry about this little piece of news: Conde Nast (publisher of mags like Vogue) is offering advertisers design help…for free. This move obviously hurts creative professionals as it devalues their part in the extremely lucrative advertising financial system. The injury starts with the designers/art directors (obviously) and their agencies, but it is only a matter of time until this slides into photography.

Now, historically, publications have offered to make the ads they publish for years, usually for a small price, though sometimes for free. However, the publications in question have not been of the stature of CN’s holdings.  This is some ugly creep.

But rather than get angry, let’s think about what can we do to stop it. Well, there is always the classic boycotting of these pubs–both in purchasing and in creating art for them. I rather think, however, that this will not have enough of a market impact on this company (though I love the idea–boycotts can be very effective when you get enough participation). The one thing we can and MUST do is agree that when that call comes to shoot one of these ads for nothing or for very little (“it’ll be great for your book!” you’ll be told) we have to make it clear that this is not an acceptable deal.

We have to agree to this now, before it happens, and we need to get the word out to as many photographers as we can–no free or cheap shots for Conde Nast publications in-house produced ads (actually, any ads, but let’s stay focused here).

So please, post to your various forums, share with your local communities, get the word out. I’ll be sending this post to my list, just to help get the ball rolling.