tonyhart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Well hello Todd. I've been expecting you.... 
a) Yep, English mad. As in of questionably sound mind. I'm all for some sort of dress requirement. It should involve being smart and being physically covered. No Borat mankini's thank you very much. The point I'm making is that while a certain level of dress code strikes me as both reasonable and respectable (we agree thus far) dictating to an external contractor with regards to how many layers of clothing they wear is micromanaging and unnecessary. Here in the UK 'Morning Dress' which includes tails (tailcoats) is pretty common at weddings. It's considered very formal clothing. To analogise, it'd be like expecting all hired personnel to wear tails because "that's what everyone else is wearing." I'm not disputing the need for a dress code of sorts, but I firmly believe that specificity of dress to the levels described is excessive.
b) To me, having my comfort compromised over a super long working day is a big deal. If it's not for you, then that's entirely fine. It is however worth noting that you will, with alarming regularity, turn up in threads of this nature and state unequivocally that the client/venues needs are perfectly reasonable regardless of the situation. If that's how you roll and it doesn't phase you, then bully for you, but from my POV there's a desire to be indefatigably helpful and, quite separately, a willingness to set aside all possibility that the client or venue may be overreaching. I'm all about the first but I don't subscribe to the 'client is always right' rigmarole because it's an obvious fallacy that causes its own set of issues.
c) See, that's where we differ. The payoff is important to me, but over the course of a year rather than the course of a wedding. I am certainly not obsessed with it. If I looked at the bottom line and said 'oh cripes, where did I go wrong?!' I might rethink, but I'm willing to take clients and venues that operate in a sensible and reasonable manner rather than feeling obliged to lap up every whim, request and demand on the misguided belief that a readiness to say no from time to time will lead to joblessness and destitution.
Here's an interesting adjunct to the discussion. When Apple started their retail division Ron Johnson, the then Senior V.P. of Retail, pushed for an ethic entirely counter to the received understanding of how to operate a retail business. Rather than put profits first, rather than operate the stores exactly the same as any other, he suggested two things:
1. Put customer first
2. Do it our way
They went on to be, as we all know, the most successful retail stores, in pretty much any sector, anywhere in the world. The two points are not mutually exclusive either. There's a way to offer brilliant service without bowing to every whim and fancy. Take sale prices for example. With the exception of very specific retail holidays, Apple does not negotiate on price. Prices do not fluctuate in the short to medium term either. You can't walk into an Apple store and haggle for a discount or a deal. Options which are entirely possible elsewhere. Staff levels are another area. They have LOADS of staff and they're all pretty knowledgeable. It costs more and doesn't help increase profits in the 'traditional' sense, but it results in an unparalleled customer experience.
The willingness to buck the trend and put their vision ahead of the normal 'retail efficiencies' paid off BIG style.
When Ron Johnson left Apple, they hired John Browett who was leaving UK electronics firm Dixons. Dixons has a ridiculously bad rep here in the UK as a stack-em high, sell-em cheap, customer service drought area. As a longtime Apple nerd (my Dad had an Apple II) I sent an email to Tim Cook [url=]http://www.tony-hart.com/files/tim_cook_email.php[/url]expressing my concerns on the pending hire. Despite Tim's reassurances, a few weeks ago, Apple started moving, under Browett's leadership, to a more profit driven model, abandoning the 'standards first, profits will take care of themselves' mentality that had got them there:
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/16/apple-messed-up-with-retail-store-cutbacks-denies-mass-layoffs/
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/28/apple-retails-emphasis-on-profits-continues-tied-to-operational-perspective-of-cook-and-browett/
The point of this lengthy anecdote is this. It's possible to bring your OWN values to this profession (many in fact) and do a damn fine job. Customer service and the word 'no' are not mutually exclusive concepts. My work, my clients satisfaction, my profits, and my personal enjoyment of my job have massively improved since I've learnt to politely, but firmly say no.
Now let me address some of your points directly.
TRReichman wrote:
I'm going to make an assumption. If you are shooting black-tie weddings you're probably working with folks who see themselves as upper-level operators. They can afford to get what they want. In fact, they can usually afford to get EXACTLY what they want without compromising. So why choose a great photographer who is obstinate about their appearance when you can hire one that is perceived to be just as good of a photographer and also looks the part - why hire the other guy?
That's certainly one way of looking it, and probably spot on for some of these upper-level operators that you reference. I'd argue that just as many upper-level operators (I like this term) like to be told by professionals exactly what works, and why. I have never been picked up for not wearing a tie, but if I was, I'd politely explain that a tie interferes with my primary aim, which is to shoot in as successful a way as possible. The photos sell me, not the tie. I've chosen my gear carefully, and although it's placement on my person is partly down to individual choice, a tie interferes with camera straps (which I like). These are not arbitrary decisions, but rather ones carefully thought out. If these upper-level operators want me they get my approach, not there's or some other photographers. There's room for negotiation and I'm flexible in areas that it doesn't matter, but where I know it does matter, I'm willing to stand firm.
I'd also make the point that a lot of higher end clients don't care half as much about the details. That's been my experience at least. The cheapo brides want this just so, and that just so, but the higher-end brides are WAY more classy and are willing to recognise that work and approach are interrelated.
TRReichman wrote:
Photographers seem to take the stance that it is ridiculous for a client to dictate dress. I would just advocate taking a second to look at it from the other side and wonder why a paid professional would make a big deal about dressing appropriately for the job. Almost everyone on Earth has a job and a dress code, so we probably look pretty petulant when we make an issue out of it.
You seem to be confusing the concept of 'dress code' with 'uniform'. My girlfriend is the head of sixth form at an independent (private) school here. Her 6th form kids (17-18yo) have to dress smartly but they do not have a uniform like the lower school years. Pastels shirts are fine, t-shirts and dyed hair are not. Within the confines of the school rules there is room for individual interpretation. These kids have less over-bearing rules than some of the crap spewed forth by venues. It goes without saying that I'm going to be smart, I'm going to be well kempt, I'm going to be polite. You don't get to dictate whether I wear my spiderman briefs or my superman boxers.
TRReichman wrote:
Hey, I love this topic. I love it because photographers make a big deal about it and refuse to do it and it makes it FAR easier for me to book very expensive jobs that other photographers can't book because their lens belt/casual shoes/rolled up sleeves/whatever is more important to them than tens of thousands per year. Call me crazy, say I roll over, I dry my eyes on fat checks.
I'm glad it's working for you. Thing is, it's working for me too. I've never once lost a gig by setting reasonable limits.
We're never going to see eye to eye on business, but the above represents my view. It's not intended to change your mind though, merely to defend my position.
|
