Sincerely,
Shannon

Initially I had no idea who you are or what your credentials are (besides that whining about $350k). I felt it was unexplicable how the large photo associations of US are so much interested into protecting anything but the interest of their own members in the last couple of years. Sadly now the answer is obvious, they actually beleive what the Getty marketing guys are writing.

@Rob, AKA A Photo Editor: if you want you can erase my comments if you feel the need to protect the ego of this senior executive.

So the weird parts are:
* how come the 40% increase (relative to X, or the initial sum) can be added to 25% comision (relative to the final sum – in your words including those 40%) to reach 65% (out of what?) to prove me wrong?
* how come his 40% increase and 25% comision can lead to you gaining 15%? And those 15% are relative to what?

Anyway, for those reading this and having the schooling of RW: if the numbers are right the poor man made only a 5% increase to his initial sum… and, of course, the rep paid himself out of the rest thus his fee was null. Now, given that the 40% increase in revenue is more or less proportional with the increase in consumed energy and working time THAT is a terrible way to work more for about the same amount of money. Those extra 5% after taxes might not mean that much after all, although I admit it I know nothing about US book keeping and tax system.

What is even more dangerous is the message that misinformed speakers can send to the new generation. Say, for the sake of clarity, that I work 100 hours a month for any given sum. It’s far from economicaly sound to spend 140 hours a month from now on to get only 5% _before_ tax. Those 40 hours can be spend far better to improve one’s education, training a sense of aestetics or just building relationships which might lead to double the income for the same 100 hours a month.

As for pricing images, http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/estimator/ has an online guide. Now if the average Jack and Jill understood this we’d be getting somewhere. …I’d think the average rep would be have similar pricing as the above estimator…

I suppose photography could head down that path too, with temp agencies taking over many projects, and rates set to hourly pay levels (and likely no usage rights for the photographer). The longer photographers sit on their hands, and listen to people telling them it’s not possible, then the more likely this will happen.

We have some amazing tools and resources available to us, yet somehow we cannot put them to use to our advantage. Social media is huge, and can get any message out quickly. Yet search for ASMP or APA on Facebook, and you’ll find less followers than the average cute kitten.

Pricing is all over the place currently. As you indicated, many emerging photographers will under-cut for exposure. Why would publishers pay for content when they can get it at no expense. There is no guide similar to the GAG Handbook, but it is needed in photography.

I am of the mind-set of do-it-first, and then deal with the consequences. I don’t give a shit if I get hauled in front of the US Congress for pushing some standardized rate structures for photographers. There are already numerous professions with standardized rates across the US, and in parts of the EU, yet I don’t see plumbers, mechanics, attorneys, insurance salesmen, nor anyone else appearing to answer “anti-trust” concerns.

The constant fear mongering is complete bullshit. As professionals we need to take control of the future direction of our profession. We need to be fair to our clients, and be fair to ourselves. It is in our clients best interest that we stay in business and create the best possible images for them.

Add to that the will to fight the big guy pitted against the aspiring photographer’s desire to get published. It is like a symphony of self-destruction.

Photographers cannot win unless they embrace collective action, and that is hard for rugged individualists to do.

I agree that we would be better off with a guild that could set rates, at least minimum rates, but that has little chance of happening in this day and age because the fight is legislative and that means spending big bucks, which photographers do not have.

When I was ASMP CEO I tried to set up a co-op because if we all joined a co-op the co-op could set rates. The problem was that it was an expensive endeavor. It needed 1,000 photographers to commit to a $1,000 one-time membership fee to finance it. Photographers would not pay it. I arranged financing through the National Co-op Bank, and then the membership fee dropped to $100. 700 photographers signed up within a month. The 9-11 happened, and the bank withdrew its commitment to fund. That killed it.

Personally, I am put of answers because it takes money to make things happen and photographers have little money to invest in such efforts.

and soo true on the photographers note.

Shooting for free or reduced rates demonstrates only one thing: the photographer’s work is not worth much.

I was not taking your post personally in any way at all. Some of what you have posted is commonly debated. The largest debate being the:photographer works for rep: train of thought. I believe you that there are photographers that really think this, the believe it to the core. There is also the other side of the coin- the group of photographers who want to collaborate. I want nothing to do with the first group, and everything to do with the second..

I have to be honest that I have heard a lot of photographers say that over the years “my rep didn’t do anything for me, I got 90% of my work.” Half of the photographers I have heard say that were not being honest with themselves, and half were right.

You are correct that a photographer should only sign with a rep that they have researched fully. Don’t just sign with a rep to get one.

The most important thing anyone can do here is read Richard Weisgrau’s post below. He spells it out brilliantly. The only addition I would make is that if it took a year for the rep to get him new accounts back then, assume it would take 2-3 times that amount of time to get the ball rolling like that in this great recession.

The line is never blurry because I do not make decisions at ad agencies. I do my best to get my photographers’ work in front of the right people. At the end of the day the agencies choose the correct photographer for the brand and their project. My keys to the door can’t get a photographer shooting an account if they are simply not right for that account.

after reading this of course it makes me really want a rep more. As a younger photographer I notice just getting your foot in the door with new clients is not easy. It all about who you know and who they know. A reps job in knowing.

Great write up.

also this bring up something I have been thinking about a lot.
Do you think photographer need or should have some kind of Union / SAG thing. Like actors. I think so many photographer mess up the photo world because they think they should do a job for free or super low budget because it will lead to bigger jobs and open doors.
Your thoughts on this

Thanks for your thoughts on this Erica but unfortunately some of what I said that you replied to isn’t just how I think it is but what I’ve heard from reliable sources. Doesn’t mean it’s the case for you, but you also can’t speak for all reps out there in general either.

I have in fact in more than one conversation with a reps at an agency had them tell me that they work for the photographer and that is how a photographer should approach the situation if they go in to business with an agency, or it doesn’t work. I was also at a talk last year in NYC where a rep was telling emerging photographers about how to approach an agency. They also brought up how when a photographer is at that point of crossing the bridge to seek out representation, that a photographer shouldn’t be acting out of “all or nothing” desperation in getting a rep since you as a photographer are paying the rep/agency for them to provide you with a service.

On my other point, I have also had more then one photographer friend tell me when they got their first representation they where mostly ignored for years even with constant meetings and strategies on how to market themselves and what direction to take their portfolio (with most of the cost for these “strategies” to the photographer and little if any to the agency). These photographers having to still get more then 90% of their own work/clients only to have the reps take a cut and put those clients then in their roster afterwards. Two photographers I know had this situation happen to them and when then moved to another agency who actually focused on them, whereas at the previous agency there might be up to 15 photographers but really only 1-3 of those photographers where getting 75%-80% of all the work the rep was pulling in, they all of a sudden had too much work being offered to them almost instantly on moving to another agency. I would say these where mostly lateral moves as well, not going from a small agency to a more established one, instead going from a mid-size to a mid-size agency.

So why I agree with what your intentions are as a professional and at it’s purest core the philosophy of your collaboration position, please don’t think there aren’t reps out there acting in the way I described (I actually did write that not all reps out there do this so, I don’t know why your took it personal) but you also can’t claim that every rep has the best interest of who they are representing. I believe that representation is a tool for a photographer, just like any other business consultant. A photographer must believe that hiring a rep and what that person brings to the table is best for the photographer’s business and not just for the agency. If not, then why have representation as a photographer? What I find a little upsetting at this concept of collaboration in the way you present it, that you would never work with a photographer that thinks you work for him or her, is that some line gets blurred if you really believe this. To me, a rep is supposed to have the keys to the doors and knows what is expected on the other-side when the photographer walks through it. For this service, the rep/agency gets reimbursed. A collaboration would mean you both walk through that door, in that situation, does the rep have the photographer’s best interest or are they also or only looking out for themselves? Again, I’m not suggesting that you Erica do this nor do I believe most reps out there act in this way, but I am concerned of the way collaboration is being used here. My accountant might have ways for me to save money for my photographer business that involve long-term strategies and planning, doesn’t mean they are collaborating with me on the processes I go through as a photographer or successful business. There is a big difference between a partnership or consultant and collaboration.

In 1975 I made a deal with a rep. It was a difficult negotiation because I had house accounts that provided over $350,000 in annual revenues (that was big money in the 70’s). I didn’t need a rep to get the repeat business from the house accounts, but the rep wanted a piece of it for tending to that business too.

Quandry 1: Do I pay a commission on work the rep did not secure? Decision: Yes, because I am so busy with admin and shooting that I have little time to hand hold clients. If I decide pay 12.5% on that business to the rep, it means I have increased my expenses by 12.5% on existing business with no additional revenue. I have to make it up somehow because after all expenses including my salary, I don’t have a 12.5% net profit.

Quandry 2: The new business the rep brings in has a 25% debit automatically attached to it because he gets that % commission. He is unlikely to get that much more over my regular fees so he has to get substantially more business to pay for himself.

Quandry 3: How to deal with 1 and 2 above.

Resolution: The rep and I decide on a 6 month contractual trial period because there is no way he will prove to me except by doing that he will pay for himself and increase my profitability. Nothing ventured is nothing gained, so I decide to risk the possible short term loss to see if I can get a long term gain.

Result: My revenues increase by 40% over a 12 month period. He gets 25% so I get 15%, but that 15% is pure profit. We work together for over a decade and it only gets better. I love it because I don’t enjoy the selling aspect of the business.

Wanting a rep and being able to afford a rep are two very different considerations, if you have house accounts. If not, you still have to appreciate that, if the rep does not bring in enough new business, you are likely to lose money from the added commission expense on the jobs the rep brings in. However, if you already have a successful (profitable) business, from a sales perspective you almost can’t go wrong with a good rep. Selling is an art in itself, and with some exceptions photographers are often not very good it. Sales is the lifeblood of any business, and the better that is done the better the business is. If a photographer can get a rep, it is a smart thing to do, if it is affordable.