Cheap phentermine. Cheap phentermine cod….

I want to address PHOTOGRAPHER 2…and what he/she wrote about the AICP.

1. The AICP is not a “union”….it is a “trade association”. If you’re DGA and working with a company that is an AICP member, you should quickly recognize this important difference.

2. The “voice” is…fractured. Ad agencies do not necessarily abide by AICP “guidelines”. There is NO contract between the AICP and ad agencies/AAAA.

3. Over the years, the AICP has tried all sorts of things with its members. Funniest of all back in 1984/85 was the idea of charging for bidding. It was going to be $125 per bid. All members agreed. That is, until the first agency storyboard came in the door and the bidding frenzy was on…and no one charge. So much for solidarity.

4. The major ad agencies are signatory to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), but not to DGA, IATSE or any other union. And the agencies are getting around using SAG actors (using SAG actors requires paying use fees and residuals) by shooting out-of-country (Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc). When they go international, they simply pay the day rate. Plus reap the benefits of lower labor costs as well as a fun trip (for both the ad agency and the advertiser/client).

5. The standardized bid form evolved from Proctor & Gamble imposing their weight on the production companies back in the 1970′s. Before then, it was all budgets-on-a-napkin! And boy, did production companies make money back then. Now…cost controllers review line-item after line-item…and squeeze the production company.

6. There are fix-fee and cost-plus bidding situations. Mostly now, it is small-fee and smaller-fee bidding situations. Every production company is complaining about this…and there is absolutely nothing the AICP can do about it. It’s free enterprise…and the ad agencies are push-push-pushing margins down.

7. Timely pay? Forgetaboutit. The trades have reported that production companies are suffereing 60, 90, even 120 day payment schedules.

8. Yes, billing for payroll taxes is standard. That was imposed first by the IRS back in the mid-1980′s…before that, production personnel were paid as independent contractors…or with cash. The failure to file 1099′s back then irritated the IRS, and they came after the commercial production community. Employers and hirers are the surrogate tax collectors for the IRS.

9. The AICP does NOT look at any contract between production company and ad agencies. Never has, never will. Again, the AICP is a trade association and has no power. All it’s supposed to do is represent – to the AAAA/major ad agencies, to the big advertisers (P&G, GM) who drive the agencies to do whatever (client is always right!), and, in theory, to state and Federal legislatures. The latter – lobbying to government – has been EXTREMELY WEAK – and it’s been weak forever. Congress has never heard of the AICP. They have heard of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), but AICP? Nope. Most states have never heard of the AICP either. Just check out the tax incentive programs….the vast, vast majority don’t even recognize TV commercials.

So….when you are considering an organization for photographers, well…bear in mind what the AICP really does…and what it’s effectiveness really is.

Would Richard please draw bottom- line- picture , in one line form, his thoughts of how to move forwards in today’s markets to get back on track, to an honorable profession of Artistic Image Making.

Thank you.
Elie.

Robert – I could not agree more ! Photographers love to complain and it’s annoying and not helpful to the industry. We are not the only ones whose industry has been changed by the digital revolution. It is up to us to adapt our businesses to the changing marketplace.

Oddly enough, I was reading Photo Icons: The Story Behind the Pictures, and in that book is a reference to Nadar, indicating he was abandoning photography in his studio in the early 1860s, precisely because the kits to do photography were so readily available. Photography in the early days succumbed to mass market saturation, and only some portrait artists, and those with connections, kept the revenues coming in. Sound familiar?

The fault can be squarely placed on technology.

Most anyone with minimal training and a camera can create a good image – the mystery and magic of film is gone. Due to this fact we have a supply and demand problem and the photographer is not on the winning side.

Even if we unionized that would not stop the even larger number of photographers working part-time, free or for the exposure from continuing to flood the market.

I do have hope that new technology such as the iPad will turn the tied toward a profitable publishing market. Spurring a new race to out do the other guy with creativity rather than good enough content and cutting more to survive another year.

Basic photography for a living is about dead and will not return.

Only photographers offering something new, unique and exciting – including multimedia – and can market well (build great relationships and reputations) are going to be the winners.

Rosh

“I would even love it if we could just get some standard licensing language and standard estimating forms…”

Our current trade associations like APA & ASMP offer standard forms for members to adapt to their individual needs, they, plus SAA & EP are places to share information & knowledge to better educate their members, and the PLUS system is an attempt to standardize licensing terms & language across our industry, as well as for our clients & end users.

Union or not, if photographers don’t stand up for themselves, really be willing to say no and walk away from a job, then we have no power to help ourselves.

And as long as there are too many “photographers” for too few clients/jobs, as now pretty much anybody with a sub $1,000 digital camera & a copy of Photoshop is a “photographer”, it is a buyers (i.e. clients) market. The advent of digital photography & huge leaps in technology has seriously lowed the bar for entry to becoming a photographer, with little to no technical expertise required, little to know knowledge of the history of art or photography learned, and an aesthetic vision shaped by television commercials & video games.

All we can do is be as good as we can be with what we do, have our own unique visions so we are not competing only over who can do the job for less, educate new photographers & assistants about business practices, share information and experience with our peers (and don’t just think of them as competitors), and support our chosen trade association(s). If it is not doing what you want it to do, volunteer, get involved and lead it in the direction you want it to go.

As a National VP of APA, as a former local board member of both APA & ASMP, I know firsthand how hard it is to get people involved, and how we need leaders, not complainers, people with vision instead of hindsight, people willing to go that extra bit, with no immediate quid pro quo in the hopes that down the line we can squeeze a few more years out of this profession we all love (most of the time ).

Of course it’s also getting even worse when you are now seeing people already in the fold (ie. fashion editors, art directors and the likes) who now realize you can hire 1-2 “lighting assistants” and a digital tech and a retoucher and now they can be the “photographer” on set. Pretty soon photographers are going to have to make a career choice. Either you’re going to be: 1. Camera Operator or 2. some sort of Director. I can’t tell you how many magazine shoots I’ve been on as recently as just over a year ago as an assistant where clients and editors are watching the digital tech’s screen and deciding when the shot has been “gotten” and force the photographer to move on to the next setup. They will also go through images right on set and pick the edits regardless of any concept the photographer might have for crop and other post work. Photographer are slowly losing control of content and losing respect of having a high skill-set and decision making skills when it comes to what is a good image and what isn’t. There are many reasons for this. Content, composition and artistry is in less demand nowadays and being passed over by style and perceived “sexy-trendy-hip-coolness” for a lack of a better descriptive. Also social networks where a new form of digital candid has become a style and TV content being mostly reality TV has dumb-down expectations of content and I think clients are starting to realize this. Also maybe because the mystique of not seeing film until it’s developed is gone and having to rely on the photographer to know what they are doing and having to be trusted in having gotten the shot is no longer. It’s sad to say but I truly believe many clients are starting to take an attitude that anyone can operate a camera now and a synergenic lightbulb is going off in marketing meetings of what better then to get a “name” as the photographer, since they perceive photography as a craft is fast becoming moot. Bring in a “name” to add a sort of exclusivity to content. I will predict you will see in the very near future someone you know isn’t a photographer,for argument purposes let’s say Johnny Depp, and it will be ads like: Hidi Klum for Jorache Jeans as shot by the creative eye of Johnny Depp. And what your going to have is what used to be a photographer as a camera operator (better yet camera settings “”setter then handing it off to “photographer talent”), grip crew to set-up the scene and production with digital tech, etc. all very much a moving film set. It’s already happening where film directors like Brett Ratner shooting campaigns and Tyra Banks walking around acting like a photographer when obviously she has an entire support system setting everything up and doing post and she becoming a glorified button masher shooting enough to get at least one shot. I truly believe we are heading this way unless photographers can somehow reclaim the importance of artistry over style and coolness and clients believing they are hiring a skill set over we can fix it in post. This is why a union would be one way to protect this and force the industry to hire experience and skilled talent, just like in the film industry does with having all those unions protects various members of a film crew.

Collective or cooperative actions are not happening out of fear, which is total crap. Fear ruins good work, and in this situation can ruin a great profession. My feeling is that it is better to do first, risk getting noticed by the government, and then scale it back (if needed). Where’s that great independent spirit of creativity and desire for challenges?

“Saying NO”. Is that all we are left with? We can’t collectively bargain, we can’t unionize, we can’t come together as a guild, the idea of a co-op has failed. Eventually the client finds someone who will say YES. And that’s because for a great many clients “good enough” is all that is needed. And maybe therein lies the answer. But even if someone is better than “good enough”, and there are many of us who fit that category, I fear it’s as you wrote: “…GIGANTIC holding companies dictate prices, policies and usage. We are handed a contract, told what we can charge if we want to get the job, and told the contract is not negotiable in terms, usage, etc…”

The ‘real world’ seems to go against the paper world here. In the ad and ed worlds, we have GIGANTIC holding companies (Omnicom, Interpublic, Publicis, Conde Naste, Clear Channel, etc.) that get to dictate prices, policies and usage. We (collectively) are handed a contract, told what we can charge if we want to get the job, and told the contract is not negotiable in terms, usage, etc.

I know my rights and abilities, and I do cross lines out, counter their terms, etc, and do all I can to negotiate from the strength of “saying No”.

It’s the upside down relationship that bothers me. Photographers cannot work together against these giant companies and their policies because that would run afoul of anti-trust.

So let’s say that photographers are all scary evil people, and would happily collude to set prices. What exactly would happen then? Would Omnicom and Conde Nast end up on skid row with a begging cup because the photographers have robbed them blind? Would photographers get together in the top floors of Manhattan skyscrapers and dictate world (photography) policy in smoke filled rooms?

It may not be a true monopoly if there are four gigantic advertising holding companies – but from the position of an independent owner/operator photographer, the perspective feels very similar.

is not an art buyer pitting one photographer against another to reduced their fee (which is simply another expense for the ad agency’s client) a kind of exploitation? is this not exploiting market conditions and photographers’ fears and paranoia of losing out on a job unless they reduce their fee?

is it not exploitation when a well respected, world-renowned publication of rupert murdoch’s giant globe-trotting media empire refuses to pay a measly $20 for a lens rental? and claim they’re being generous because they pay for travel expenses, even though they have an already low day rate? (the editor’s a wonderful guy, but this did happen to me.)

we are being shit on, and take it because there is no other recourse, no collective body to back us up. everyone is so scared that they won’t be able to pay the bills that the ‘free market’ turns into survival of the fittest, or more accurately, whose survival of the lowest. it’s a race to the bottom.

i think some kind of unionization is a great idea. and if the law says it’s illegal, then change the law.

-Nate.

Years back we said content is king. We were wrong Distribution is king. Digital wins hand down in any distribution comparison. The iPad makes digital content enjoyable.

How serious is an FTC inquiry – in 1989 it was about $80,000 in attorney’s fees to represent us. That was an inquiry. An investigation would have bankrupted ASMP. However, ASM has published its forms for decades and made them free for the taking. How many photographers adopted them? I don’t know, but I’ll bet it is a small number compared to the pool of photographers that would benefit from them.

That’s a pretty scary statement from an art buyer…

Ellis, theoretically you are correct, but practically it would not change much. There are not enough mentors to go around in an era when the population of pro photographers has grown to levels previously unimaginable. Many photographers are not interested in being mentored.

A few week ago, I offered advice to a photographer (who asked for the advice) on a business topic. My advice was based on 40 + years in the business and as the author of four books on the business of photography. Oddly enough the person asked for marketing advice, which is your expressed concern. My advice was rejected out of hand as being old world. The recipient had read otherwise on the Internet. He did not understand that the principles of marketing have not changed since thew first business was created. Only the marketing tools have changed. Still he thought that the tools were marketing instead of seeing them as a vehicle. When I focused on cause and effect, all he wanted to do was talk about Websites, which are the end of the marketing chain while he read that they were the marketing chain. Mentors can open a closed or simple mind. Simple and closed minds are hurting the business because they do not understand the basics

What new photographers need are not more associations or unions or guilds. What they need are mentors.

I think that is true of some older photographers as well. (Example: I really want one for marketing frankly. Not a guru; not a consultant; not a rep; not a seminar; a mentor.)

it is easier to talk about the mechanics of iamge processing than it is about business.

But the business side has workflows too. Some are more efficient than others. Some are more savvy than others.

But we’d rather talk about the physical mechanics of the business instead of the wetware stuff like business skills a or actual iamge content.

We are not “fucked” unless we do it ourselves, which has been the norm in since the mid 90′s. Prior to that time we did get the editorial day rate up every other year, and that is like a raise in minimum wage. Other rates go up as a result.

When I left ASMP in 2002 it was with a written recommendation to its Board that ASMP ought to move forward in Congress to get an exemption from antitrust law so that it could set minimum not maximum rates.

That plea could be supported by this logic. We are granted copyright by law, and copyright is a legal limited monopoly that is supposed to motivate us to create more. However, market forces have worked against us so we have no power to exercise our limited monopoly, and therefor we are discouraged from creating new work.

What did ASMP do? Nothing! iIt prefers to educate photographers about workflow and negotiating in an environment where workflow is an unreimbursed expense and negotiating is a game between the powerful and the powerless.

It is not hopeless if 10% of the real working photographers in the land rise up. That segment has been turning the business around since the early 1940s. ASMP used to organize it. Since I left, it has failed to do so.

Photographers organizations are beneficial, and have accomplished a great deal. I am happy to support them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they have done enough, and seem to back off too readily to legislative challenges.

As does MLB and the NFL. I’m sure there are others as well. Why not one for us?

Gordon wrote: “…EP, et al who have no balls in this…”

Gordon,
Lets keep in mind the work done by EP to get Forbes and Business Week to negotiate contracts very favorable to photographers. Those 2 deals are probably the best in the editorial business world.

Every time these discussions come up, someone screams anti-trust. Really it is ASMP, APA, EP, et al who have no balls in this. Photographers need pricing guidelines, especially those of us newer to the profession.