Month: July 2009

I’ve been saying for years that I think photographers should license their own stock now. Agencies don’t serve the purpose they used to so there is no reason to give them the HUGE cuts most demand. You can market your own work and the technology advances has made it easy to process any client licensing transactions. It takes some work to set up (not that much, but some) and you have to market, but it is the way to go, in my opinion.

Rob at aphotoeditor.com has the same attitude. He’s got a good post today about it.

While I am still hearing from many photographers that they are slow, slow, slow, I am now hearing more and more saying that they are getting work again. Most of these photographers had experienced some sort of lull, but the phones are starting to ring again.

Now, of course in this climate when the phone rings that may not mean a great (money) project immediately. Clients are going fishing a bit and if they have the luxury of time, they will likely try to bait you so as to get cheaper rates. You can’t get angry at them for that–it’s good business to ask for a lower rate (good for them, that is). You need to remember that they are going to try, but don’t let them scare or bully you into dropping your rates. You don’t have to go cheap to get work… even today.

This is where it gets hard. Taking a pass on a project because the numbers are not right is really hard at the end of a lull. It’s easy to get excited that the phone is ringing at all and it is even easier to get sucked into “I must make something, anything, now!” mentality. Don’t go there. Don’t let the fear cause you to make bad business decisions.

Things are starting to turn, hang in there and keep your head about you. If you have been marketing to the right targets, those who want you for your vision, they’ll be willing to work with you at your price. Sure, the bottom-feeders will go for the bait, but most bottom-feeders do not make great creative work.

That’s where the difference lies–make great work and you can take a pass on the bait.

So Garcia has moved to intervene in the Fairey v AP case. Good for him and I hope he wins both ways. But this post isn’t about the Fairey part of this, it’s about the AP’s claim that Garcia was an employee. Garcia says he never signed the contract. I half-jokingly said on the BAP Facebook page that if Garcia was an employee, then were are his benes?

The benes issue is not unimportant. If the AP wins its claim that Garcia was an employee (that is, if there is no contract and they still win–which is entirely possible), then they’ll have to pay back taxes, etc. They’ll likely have to pay a lot, and not just for Garcia, but all of its “employees,” including, likely, penalties. The IRS is not to be messed with in situations like this and you know they are paying attention to this, of course.

The IRS has been cracking down on companies that are using people just like employees but calling them “Independent Contractors” so as to avoid the tax liabilities and other costs associated with employees.

This is partially why I am wondering about AP’s motivation in claiming copyright. If Garcia was an employee and they paid taxes, etc., for him at the time, then fine–he loses and learns a tough lesson. But if they have not treated him as an employee by withholding taxes and paying their share of FICA, etc., then they could seriously shoot themselves in the foot by calling him one now.

So why are they saying that he was an employee but no one seems to have produced a signed contract to that effect. Hmmm…

(NOTE: I am not a lawyer! Anything on this blog and in this post is just personal opinion)

Cecilia Marshall is an Art Producer in NYC and her blog is worth a read. There aren’t a lot of business details in it, but you can get a sense of the industry at, perhaps, a different level or point-of-view than your own. It can be eye-opening, I think, for many of you.

Her post today is definitely worth looking at. She toured Stockland Martel, one of the best-known/respected repping firms out there. While she doesn’t share much in words, the images she has posted are revealing. Look at the promos and portfolios. Look at how many there are of each and how organized everything seems to be. Even though the shots don’t show detail, you can just tell that the quality of the materials is high. In other words, there is great investment in the promotion of the photographers (et al).

I point this out, well, to nag a bit. To break through and to build and sustain a successful photography (or other creative) business requires investing in its marketing. I’m not saying you have to hire me or any consultant; rather, the materials you put out to the world, in every way, must be of a certain quality.

Sadly, too often I don’t see that quality. Too often I hear “I can’t afford to ______ .” I don’t want to be harsh, but the reality today is that you can’t cheap your way in. Clients have a ton of photographers to choose from. To get their attention you need, first and foremost, great images; then you need to show them in ways that enhance them. As I wrote in my latest book, you can put a supermodel in WalMart clothes and sure, she’ll look better than the average woman, but put her in Chanel and no one will be able to ignore her.

Not having the cash is a barrier, sure. Are you going to let it block you or are you going to find a way to get past it? Maybe you need to save up and/or work outside jobs, maybe you need to sell something, maybe you need to get a loan or find someone to invest in your business. There are ways around it. You’re a creative, you can find a solution.

The Copyright Alliance has a good post about the Anderson/Gladwell Free debate.

I’m not going to go into the discussion. First off, what am I going to say? I mean, really, is there any chance I’m going to suddenly flip and start saying that I think y’all should give away your work? No. Not going to happen.

Also, I haven’t read the book. I’d actually like to, it’s important to be informed on all sides of an issue, but I don’t have the time with my school reading, etc.

Still, this is an important issue. The fact that this debate is getting so much traction is a sign that we may be approaching the climax of the issue–are artists (authors, etc.) going to be pulled under in the tsunami of free or are enough people going to stand up to it?

If you have some extra time, I suggest perusing the interviews on Communication Arts Insights page(s). These are short interviews with various creatives and even some well respected reps. It’s a great resource to get an idea of repeating themes and concepts shared by these successful people.

There are several helpful things I have found over and over in these interviews (and I haven’t read them all), like:

• the best creatives don’t play it safe
• it’s still all about relationships
• a phone call or a hand written note can do more than you think
• it’s work, but it’s joyful work
• collaboration is still prized
• being grateful is pervasive
• find the right targets for your work
• you need to start with great work
• great work comes from within, not external forces
• if you don’t believe in your work, you can’t get others to

Some things to ponder over the weekend…

Lots of people are completely wigged out these days and most of that wigginess is money-related. Most creatives deal with money issues in one of two ways: 1) tighten spending so much that Lincoln screams; or, 2) ignore because maybe that way it’ll go away. Neither is going to work.

The most recent Creative Lube talks about money, more specifically, financing your business. Then today Livebooks posted a piece by Doug Menuez all about dealing with your cashflow and some basic business planning and ops.

Burying your head isn’t going to do any good and being miserly will hurt your business in the long run. You need to learn how to walk the middle path. Also, you’re in business–time to start running it like a business–that means being responsible and doing the work-work. When you run your business like the real business it is, you have a much better chance of being successful.

The more time I spend in my Business Organizations class, the more I am struck by just how poorly most creative businesses are structured and managed. This class is about the law of businesses, not the management of them, but we do spend a lot of time essentially observing management through the cases we read for the class. Far too often, I am very sorry to say, anything resemblances between a well-run business and a creative business, especially a photography business, are purely coincidental.

A few of the basics to consider…

• Do you keep your business accounts completely separate from your personal ones? That is, credit cards, bank accounts, loans, etc.? Just making a note at the bottom of a check (biz purchase) is not enough.
• Do you pay yourself a salary from your business? Regularly and the same amount?
• Do you reinvest in your business?
• Do you have a plan for what happens to your business if you get incapacitated or die?
• Do you have outside, non-photographer/creative mentors or Board Members (even you you are not a corporation)? They can give you important perspectives on your business decisions.
• Is your spouse/significant other involved in your business and if so do you have an employment contract with her/him? (you should)
• Do you have employment contracts with all your employees? (you should)
• Do you hire professionals to help you? (you should)

These are just a few of the kinds of things that a good businessperson, regardless of industry, will think about and do.

And my techno-wizbangery errors continue…for those of you who get the free Manuals in your email, I apologize for the duplicate send. New software and a sloppy operator (me). Mea culpa.

Here is another good blog to follow…a NY attorney (Stephen Filler) is blogging about photo-related issues and he writes in a very accessible style. Bookmark-worthy.