Since I’m not a photographer, I am not privy to all the info that ASMP general members get. So, I’m late to learning that there is a crazy idea to stop paying the ASMP President a stipend. This is insane.
1) The amount is really small.
2) The amount of time a Pres. puts in is huge.
3) The amount of biz the Pres. loses because of the time s/he puts in is significant.
4) #1 doesn’t come close to making up for numbers 2 & 3. Not hardly.
Look, being ASMP President doesn’t bring you clients and doesn’t improve your business in any way. Those who take on this task do so because they love the industry, are deeply committed to it and to the ASMP members, and because they have a screw loose.
Okay, the last one is totally supposition on my part. But seriously, it is a thankless job and one that no one should take on without getting a little something to offset the losses.
For you members, please make sure to vote as needed to make sure the stipend stays. I know several of the board members and the current (and several past) President(s)–these people unquestionably really want the absolute best for the members. They are good, honest, kind photographers who would love to be able to make every member successful. Let’s not make it harder to get good people to run for President by cutting a meager stipend!
A little trust, faith, and, yes, financial backing to the Pres. would be great.
I’m going to get on my soapbox here for a moment, so bear with me.
The part of Leslie’s post that really bopped me over the head was this: “Look, being ASMP President doesn’t bring you clients and doesn’t improve your business in any way.”
That being said, why do some of the members have their knickers in a twist over whether the prez gets paid or not? If I’m going to be involved in something that’s going to suck up a great deal of my time, well you can bet your bottom dollar that I’m going to want to be paid.
And, since I’m up here on the ole soapbox, here’s another tidbit: I used to be an ASMP member. I decided not to renew because of the member profile that they’re seeking. They’re looking for people who derive the majority of their income from photography.
Sorry, folks, but that just isn’t going to happen around here. I find that Web development pays a lot better, and that there are many more opportunities.
Furthermore, I went to an ASMP seminar last summer. It was at a local photographer’s studio, and the presenter had come in from Corbis in Seattle. And the part of his presentation that bopped me over the head was this: The number of full-time American photographers is declining. However, the number of part-time photographers is increasing.
So, despite ASMP’s insistence on having a membership that consists of people deriving the majority of their income from photography, they’re on the wrong side of an economic trend.
Instead of belonging to ASMP, I now belong to the Stock Artists Alliance. They don’t have any problem with the fact that I’m only doing photography on a part-time basis. A lot of stock shooters work that way.
I just found out that the comments here have some inaccurate info. Here is what I understand to be true:
1. ASMP does welcome part time photographers – the associate category is open to part-timers.
2. The stipend is on the table. Basically, no director can be paid by ASMP for anything, including being president.
As always, hope that helps!
-L
Hi Leslie,
I don’t have my referendum materials in front of me, but I’m pretty sure the president’s stipend is not on the table–only payments to directors for work they do with asmp. But I agree with you, I think we should consider raising the president’s stipend. I recently shot Sean Adams, the AIGA president, and we were talking about how much time he spends with AIGA work every week. Clearly these folks are doing these presidential jobs because they love them, but it would be nice to thank them with more than a pat on the back.
mark
I’m back in the office and looked at the referendum materials and you’re right–the elimination of the president’s stipend is part of the referendum. Thanks for the correction!
mark