From The "Are You Kidding Me?" Department
This classified ad was forwarded to me, found on SportsShooter:
Cal Sport Media is looking for experienced sports photographers to cover NCAA/pro sporting events in the Louisiana area. All work is paid on a comission basis (spec). Must have 400 2.8 and ability to transmit live from events. Quality and experience a must. Please email portfolio. Thank you.Translation:
(Continued after the Jump)
POST JUMP TEXT.You must have a $7,000 lens and $3,000 laptop with $60/mo cellular card to work for us, in addition to every other wide to zoom lens and body (bodies), and we're not going to pay you one red cent for all the time you put in both before the game, during the game, and doing post-production and captioning after the game, or for the use of your equipment. You also have to have done this before (which makes you realize what you're giving up when shooting spec, by the way), and, oh yeah, you have to be good at it. Further, your photos will have a brief shelf life until the next game, so there's a narrow window of opportunity to generate revenue, oh, and you'll be competing for those limited dollars with every other photographer there, many of them actually being paid to be on assignment including the covering of their expenses.
And, when you get a photo sold, we'll take - yeah, 50% of what the photo sells for (or a close approximation of that percentage), and if you have to pay to park at the arena/venue, get hungry/thirsty, and so forth, you're on your own.
No doubt, several people have already responded, giving creedence to the person who coined the phrase "there's a sucker born every minute", even two centuries later.
Or, to bring the mentality into the current generation, with thanks to Forest Gump: "Stupid is, as stupid does." Just because these organizations can get you a credential doesn't mean you should be bending over and shooting for them on spec. There are a number of other ways to get great photos and experience without selling your soul. If they give you a guarantee of $X-hundred dollars a game, plus expenses, paid out against your sales, that's another thing - but they're not doing that. They make no commitment to you, and you're the one literally paying for the privledge of working for them because it will definately cost you actual dollars to go to the venue for the day/evening, not to mention all the required equipment.
Still think Spec is ok? Then see a few of my previous posts:
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
19 comments:
Pyle is a whore and will pimp his photos anywhere. He has bad business practices and doesnt care who he screws along the way. Some sucker will take them up on it. Very sad, but true!
I used to work at a place where Cal Sport was trying to get a foothold. The quality of work they sent was substandard, so I sent them a harsh critique and never heard from them again. It's too bad to see that now they are learning from the business practices of "outlets" like Presswire.
John Pyle is only getting away with what those too stupid, or too lazy to figure out how badly they're getting screwed let him get away with.If I make you a bad offer and you accept it, who is really at fault?
The bad news is there are a million suckers out there, the good news is they finally figure out they can't make any money (DUH!) and quit, making room for the next sucker.
I've known plenty of good photographers that have starved; I've known plently more of mediocre ones who had good business practices and made good money. What does that tell you?
John,
I have read your book and read your blog almost religiously.
I am wondering how Cal Sport Media's arrangement with its photographers is any different than a stock agency. In your blog you recently wrote about getting a "needs list" from your agency looking for pictures. You wrote that you went out and bought a $600 television to make photos for the stock agency. From what I read the agency didn't offer you any money or expense reimbursement for the shoot. The money for the TV and the film and process, time and use of equipment were all paid by you in hopes that the image would sell via your agency. How is that different than what Cal Sport Media, Icon Sport Media and U.S. Presswire are doing. Some images may only have a shelf life of a week but some will be longer. When you went out and bought that television, there was a chance you wouldn't see a penny from the images that you created. However, you made an image someone wanted to buy and you profited. I will agree with second commenter; that Cal Sport Media could do a lot to improve the overall quality of the images some of its photographer's put out, but I suppose it is a bit like the wedding photo industry in that there are high-end photographers, who do a really good job (or convince people they do a good job) and charge quite a bit of money and those who charge $250 and hand their clients a disc the day after the wedding. There seems to be a market both and both types of wedding photographers continue to operate, some more successful than others. Some publications are willing to run inferior quality sports photos than others.
I can understand you beef with U.S. Presswire and its allegedly questionable practices of not paying contributors and giving photos away, but I wonder if you looked at a contract from Cal Sport Media or Icon Sport Media. I doubt you did, because if you did you find that the break down for payment is 60/40 in favor of the photographer, not 50/50 (What was your agency's split for the television photo?). Not to mention that the photographer keeps the copyright to the images. And the photographers can submit their photos to other agencies, but there are certain stipulations. Photographers can also audit the company's books (once a year) and remove their photos from it's archive. Perhaps it would behoove John to mention this in his advertisements.
I can't say whether or not John Pyle is a pimp who whores out his photos, but I have not heard bad things about him or Cal Sport Media and for that matter Icon SMI. I'd like to hear some proof. I think to throw those accusations around you could be a little less vague.
I think that saddest part of this post is that oversimplifies the what some of these wire services are doing with the exception of U.S. Presswire. I'm just wondering if "Spec Shooting" is another word for the old practice of filling a stock agencies "needs list" This post more appropriately belongs in rants not business 101.
John,
I like a lot about what you write, blog, and present. However since you're doing such a great job of telling everyone what not to do, shoot spec, how about changing your message and tone and start telling us what to do, so we can break into the business of professional photography? Since I've been shooting on spec and would love to become a full time professional photographer, the time to just go and do it to become a pro stringer passed years ago. I might have been able to do this after college when I shot for the college paper and had a good set of tear sheets to draw from, then I could have taken a very small salary to be a "pro", getting maybe $12,000 a year and small raises to come for a few years after that. But that was then, in the day of film, Plus-X, Tri-X, and growth in the industry, right? This is now in the age of digital, the internet, and LOTS of people who can buy gear and make an image, maybe not a great one though.
What does someone like myself do to get back into it, change careers, and make an impact with the skills that I have when all I'm told is don't shoot spec (like commission only sales like used cars, selling computers, etc) it's evil, but then there are NO JOBS available to apply for at all to become a pro photographer? How do I work at it when there is no work? What are my options?
Please come down off your soap box that consists of your well paid position, your long time in job, you're a well known photographer/writer who has a position and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE come up with a sensible and reasonable answer on WHAT TO DO!!!!! Can you do this? I can understand and see where your points are to NOT DO spec, but I have no ideas on WHAT TO DO, since everyone who is shouting down the idea to shoot spec ALREADY HAS A FULL TIME PAYING JOB SHOOTING FOR AN ESTABLISHED AGENCY/PAPER/MAGAZINE, etc. Hey why not shout it down so you can be more comfortable in what you're doing, keep out competition, and retire in style? :-)
Now for the sad part of the story... I know that you don't want someone to come along and make it possible for you to lose your job, make your life difficult, threaten your livelihood, believe me I know. I've already lost my job, and it's not the first time, or the second. This is painful, and a very good reason to look for another way to put bread on the table doing something that I love and have a passion for?
Try asking a few people who work in IT like I have for several years about what it's like, constantly working in a changing environment, reapplying for your own job every year, yes YOUR OWN job so you can keep the same pressure you've always had. So you say you LOVE the internet eh? You love what it gives you, you can BLOG wherever you want? try LIVING in it like we have for 13 years. Try learning completely new technologies once every 18months because you HAVE to do it to keep your job, that makes the move from film to digital, or 4mpixels to 10mpixels and 8fps, or wearing a RED VEST sound like a dream world right? Yes it does.
Now stop trying to scare people away, stop sticking your head in the sand, and start seeing what this business world is and what it's not, this is the 2000's and there are no safe jobs, you have to earn it. Working on spec is earning it, and due to this work I'm getting more clients for other jobs and assignments, and BTW, I've NEVER given away my work, I charge for it based upon a fair price that I've learned through the combination of reading these posts and experience. I'll still shoot spec until some organization offers me a full time gig, because I HAVE TO DO IT.
Now come up with a great blog on what I SHOULD do to make it happen to become a professional photographer, or even better, send me a private email so I can have it all to myself so noone else can take this away from me and I'll give you a commission as long as it works, sort of like working on spec. If it works you get paid too, if it doesn't then try, try again.
What to do? Well, to start, if you go back and read the blog from day 1 (a free option), you'll find woven within the criticisms of failing models, a great deal of advice about how to run your business effectively and efficiently. The "give up a DVD from Costco/3 Starbucks" option is to spend $18 from Amazon and get the book that I wrote, and donated the advance from, and continue to grow your knowledge base.
The path is blazingly clear, and I don't pull any punches on the ideas that I either think, or have found, are bad.
Whatever soap box I am on, is built from my own mistakes, and whatever income I am earning, is because each day I earn it all over again. I am 100% freelance, I don't have a salary, I just see how bad shooting spec is.
I have lived in/on the internet since my first site went live on Compuserve in 1995. Before going to college in 1985, I was a paid computer programmer in the SF Bay Area, where I grew up, while still in high school, writing everything from Fortran to dBase for a client I created my own contract for, so I know whereof you speak.
If I don't scare people away with insights, well, the reality of their failed experience will do that for them.
I don't write the blog so everyone will agree with me, I write it based upon my experiences and observations with 17+ years in the business.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong they may be.
As to the point about my former agency's "needs lists", those were directed, by and large, at the photographers who were looking to be 100% stock photographers, yet, I got the list, and I needed a television, and, it became a great reason/excuse to get one that I could then be sure to have become a tax write off as a prop. Further, I wasn't spending all day long several days a week/month for images that had a brief shelf life, it was an image that would generate revenue right up until flat-screen tv's came into use. There's a huge difference between that, and spec sports.
But, well, don't worry, as soon as the Red Camera becomes commonplace on the sidelines, CSM and USPW, Icon, and others will be wisked off the sidelines to meet the still-store demands of the networks who are looking to monetize their footage.
If you disagree with me about everything else, the above point should be reason enough to run (not walk) away from the field of sports photography in the pro leagues or tv-covered college leagues.
"If I don't scare people away with insights, well, the reality of their failed experience will do that for them."
"Scaring people away" doesn't work when trying to change hearts and minds. Neither does calling people suckers and stupid. An instructive post about the photo business would shy away from the name calling.
You're neither saviour or sage. Just one more self-mastabatory photoblogger.
PS Maybe you're an "idiot" or "sucker" yourself for spending the time to write a book and allegedly donating the advance. What a hypocrite.
Feel free to write to the ASMP's Executive Director, or the NPPA's President, or the APA's Executive Director to confirm the donations were made.
Further, I wasn't trying to "scare" people per se, but if that's what happens, then so be it. Being in business for yourself, photography or not, is not for the faint of heart.
Perhaps you'd like to post with your identity revealed, so readers may know of any possible biases that exist from your opinion, in the future.
Either way, thanks for reading. Some messages sink right in, others take a while, some are not realized until it's too late. I do hope that if you're in need of the messages of this post, that you'll be enlightened sooner rather than later.
If you're going to shoot on spec, do so for people in your community and not for corporations. Build your own brand and namesake. People have a need for photography, but often are underserved by their local media and traditional photographers.
John,
I was one of the anonymous posts above. I think that no matter how you couch this topic, the fact that I wrote that you're trying to scare people by coming off very strong, bombastic and a bit egotistical will draw criticism and polarize opinions either way.
What Darren said about shooting spec for your community is a good idea, the problem with it is that it doesn't get as much visibility for your work, I know, I've done it, which is why I'm shooting spec for just a portion of what I do. This way of shooting spec for a "wire service" above is bringing me MORE clients, MORE work, and MORE notice.
Shooting spec for the community wasn't paying well, wasn't getting me a full time job, nor was it getting me any client jobs either.
So my point still stands, if this is working why is shooting spec still so evil?
John,
I can appreciate your opinion. What irks me is that "shooting spec" more similar to "shooting stock" from a "needs list" than the belittling post "Are You Kidding Me Post." If spec works for your business model so be it. The organizations that pay for photographers to shoot games understand the value of doing so. Some publications may opt out hiring a photographer to shoot a game and instead opt for images from the spec wire agencies, but I would imagine that they didn't pay much to begin with and furthermore, they hope to get images from organizations that oftentimes release images of very questionable quality for whatever reason.
I can see your shelf life argument, but I believe that many of the images have a much longer shelf life than a week, just check the numerous college and professional preview and fantasy league magazines at Barnes and Noble in early August.
I don't believe that the RED camera will replace U.S. Presswire, Icon Sports Media, and Cal Sport Media shooters on the sidelines. That is being done by other shooters who don't want the competition. Television was supposed to kill the radio in the 1950s, but radio is still around. Why have radio broadcasters at a televised sporting event when you could broadcast the audio from the television broadcast? Just like the audio from a television broadcast, the video from a television broadcast is gathered using a different shooting technique than still photographs for print. That is not to say when the RED Camera is shot in the same manner as a still photographer shoot, it would almost certainly produce quality still images for publication. Perhaps you might be right and they will replace the spec agencies that don't start putting out higher quality still images.
Before this post I thought when you referred to shooting spec, it was an image buyer that asked several photographers at the same time to shoot and assignment for them and then paid whatever photographer produced the image they most liked.
To me this is not a very useful insight or at least as black and white as you make it out to be. "Shooting Spec" might be a model that works for some people. It might be the gravy, while their meat and potatoes is shooting weddings and team pictures. Perhaps, something more helpful would be case studies of successful freelance photographers and how they got there without making bad business decisions. I realize that your book has a case study and that is you, but some of the stuff that you espouse in your book is quite difficult for photographers in small markets, etc. I guess I thought there might be a more constructive way of helping out the business of photography like your book.
>>> Some publications may opt out hiring a photographer to shoot a game and instead opt for images from the spec wire agencies, but I would imagine that they didn't pay much to begin with
When you teach your clients that you will work for free, and they don't need to assign you, those are the clients you will support. Recognize that, beyond an email/letter/phone call, the CSM/USPW/Icon has little to no expenses - all the risk is bourne by the photographer, none by the agency.
>>> I believe that many of the images have a much longer shelf life than a week...
When a baseball player plays 80 or so games, there's a ton of fresh images multiple times a week. For football, slightly less so, but none-the-less there's an overabundance, so the week-long shelf life is within reason.
>>>Before this post I thought when you referred to shooting spec, it was an image buyer that asked several photographers at the same time to shoot and assignment for them and then paid whatever photographer produced the image they most liked.
No, that's spec to the ultimate degree of stupidity, and the founder of that idea, David Norris, who built a business on it, has since noted that it was an idea that "didn't work out." Spec is when you agree to work on a speculative basis, only being paid when your work is used. I am glad that folks have that clarification moving forward. It's not my definition though, it's standard.
http://useplus.com/useplus/glossary_term.asp?tmid=16020000
>>>some of the stuff that you espouse in your book is quite difficult for photographers in small markets, etc.
The book espouses hundreds of ideas, all based on solid business practices. Perhaps a DC rate is not the same as a Lima Ohio rate, but the concepts and approach are universal. The negotiations skills, and so forth, are as well.
>>>I guess I thought there might be a more constructive way of helping out the business of photography like your book.
Like, say, this blog? Not every post will be useful to you, but there are many who's perspective has shifted, both publicly, and to me via private e-mail, as a result of my "translation", above. I consider that constructive and helpful to them, and the many others who have not written. Certainly they do.
As one of the afore mentioned idiots, I feel I must offer a slightly different take on this.
$7K for gear - I already own it. It is a SUNK cost, and if it isn't shooting for Cal Sport, it is collecting dust.
$3K for a laptop - Again, I already own it. No expense there.
$60/Month for cell card - I use the FREE wireless at the various facilities, so no expense there.
gas and time - Yes, there is a real expense, but it's not like CSM hasn't actually sold any images, and they do not take 50%
As a shooter that has a 9-5, I can only shoot weekends and evenings, and CSM gives me that flexibility, as well as being able to pick and choose what events I cover, and what I cover at those events.
So, as it isn't costing other photogs any business, and I am stupid enough to do it for now, where is the harm?
"So, as it isn't costing other photogs any business, and I am stupid enough to do it for now, where is the harm?"
Right here:
CSM (or USP, or anyone else who offers a deal like this) has NO COST TO THEM when it comes to getting your images. They pay nothing for your product. Therefore, they can charge less for it than another, more scrupulous agent, who recognizes the value of time, experience, etc. and therefore pays their contributors accordingly.
Anyway, having saved themselves the money they ought to be paying you to produce an image, they no longer need to recoup it with their sale price. Ergo, price of stock image goes down. Not only must other companies must follow suit to remain competitive, but YOUR OWN AGENCY is now charging less for an image than it could/should, and is therefore paying you less than it could be getting--had it been forced to price production costs into the equation. It is, in short, doing you, and everyone else, a severe disservice.
By giving your work away, you help drive down prices. You thereby ensure that I make less money off my stock sales (you are, in effect, "costing me business.") And worse yet, you ensure that you make less money off your own stock sales.
If that's not detrimental to the industry as a whole (to say nothing of your own wallet), I don't know what is.
It's not like they have NO expenses. They just run leaner (and some could argue pay a higher commision % as a result)
What is the difference then with a company like Vizio. A company that has jumped into the TV business, and offering cheaper LCD flat screens than Sony, Mitsubishi, RCA...
They have lower cost of production, so sell at a lower price, and are forcing prices down in general. Is Sony crying foul, or are they getting leaner and more competitive, and differentiating thier product more?
Business is business, whether it's TV's or photography.
Spec shooters are fools with money to burn in the first place. They have something to prove, so they work for dang near free undercutting the working man that is trying to earn a living.
There will always be someone like this. You can't beat them, you can't join them, so just bash the hell out of them and make it fun!
Don't be an idiot.... Getting paid 50% or 60% of a $5.00 or $1.00 sale is not fun or worth it for any profitable business model. These spec agencies along with a few larger ones are pulling down the value of your hard work and ruining the market. Spec shooters only contribute to the devaluing problem. Darren said it best. Listen to him and John they know how to run a decent photo business!
Where are you guys getting the idea that Cal Sport is undercutting the other image providers or selling images for less? They sell images at the standard industry rates, (I can read my images sales statement.)
I personally know that they had a buyer from a publication looking for images that stated they also saw images at Getty that they were interested in, and could they match Gettys price of $30.00 per image. Well CSM could not match and would not come down on the price and the buyer stated they liked our images but getty has a much better price.Getty got the sale.
Darren Carrol and John Harrington immediately assume that CSM is under cutting on image prices, and that is just not the case. The guys at CSM are very open about everything, they return emails and give constructive criticism and feedback. They are not getting a free ride either, there has to be cost to them associated with the time with man hours on the photo desk, submitting requests, coordinating photographers, correcting captions and image sizes, editing etc..and not to forget mainting a constantly growing image archive and actively selling images, both immediate feeds to the newspapers they syndicate to and selling the archive of stock images to publications.
For those that think CSM is playing at a wire service they have it all wrong. CSM does not make a dime if the photographers images don't sell. CSM has images published in all the major and smaller sports publications as well and newspapers nationwide and internationally, NY times, NY Post, London Daily times etc.. they run them because they want to use the photo not becasue of any break on the price, Getty has that market covered. CSM does give assignments to photographers when a client contacts CSM with a particular need for coverage and does not keep any of the assignment fee. I have had images run in SI several times sometimes multiple images in an issue and at the end of the month it appears on my check from them.
Did I mention that CSM photographers retain all rights to there images and can submit work to others image providers? They only ask that you not submit the same images to other providers that you send to them as this would only have them competing for the same image and they will not get into a bidding warb to sell an image. Now does that sound like a company that is undercutting images prices?
Mr. Harrington, how about calling out the anonymous posters that are calling people "whores" with no knowledge of what they are talking about.
And to the anonymous poster whith claims of substandard images being produced? I see great images being produced by the CSM photographers and yes I am sure if you comb their archives you will find images that are not as great as others, but take a few minutes and look at the getty, presswire, Icon archives or just pickup your local paper or USA today,not every shot is spectacular.
"They have something to prove, so they work for dang near free undercutting the working man that is trying to earn a living."
Curious how many of those that are decrying the practice of spec because it undercuts or otherwise destroys the industry shop at big box stores, buy foreign made products, order products off the internet instead of shopping locally, etc....all of which someone in the economy will state is "undercutting the working man that is trying to earn a living."
Guess it only matters if you happen to be the one trying to earn a living.
Post a Comment