Just wondering if anyone has worked personally with corperations that sub-contract photographers to shoot high-end weddings then handle everything else: meetings, processing, album design in house. They have the connections with venues and planners and just contact the photographer to check for availablity when a bride is intersted. Photographers basically shoot for the day, give them the data card and get a check for considerably less than what the bride pays with considerably less work. The photogrpher gets experience and portfolio work in high-end venues, the corperation is paid maybe 3-4x what the photographer is payed, but again do the design, purchase the products, cull, edit, etc.
Well there are all different types of associate photographer setups. We've been looking into doing the associate thing ourselves. It really just depends on the business, pay, quality ect...
Don't forget that as the photographer working for the company, there's something to be said generating the sale. So, while the photographer may feel like they're doing the majority of the work because they're the one shooting, in the instance you mentioned it makes sense that the company is making much more as their name, brand and work have provided the sale and income.
In my opinion, these types of scenarios work best for photographers who want to shoot, but don't want to have their own business (BIG difference). For a photographer looking for a portfolio or to go out on their own, it often doesn't work well for the company or the photographer because both people want opposite things.
Most photographers in this situation THINK they could make more money on their own. Some may be right, but it's really hard to make a living on your own. There's a lot less risk but also less reward potential for something like this.
I am curious. In these types of relationships:
1. Who holds the copyright to the images?
2. Whatever the answer to #1 is, are the photogs typically allowed to use the images they shot for their portfolio, web site, future self-owned business, etc.?
3. Is the relationship typically Employer/employee or customer/contractor? If customer/contractor, this would seem to imply that the photog may still need to have insurance, handle taxes, and possibly register a business?
The photographer gets experience and portfolio work in high-end venues
Before anyone considers this kind of arrangement, make sure you're clear on the rules concerning portfolio work. Also check on any non-competitive restrictions. For instance, if you contract with one of these companies and you're approached to shoot a wedding, can you go ahead and shoot it on your own?
When I did wedding photography almost all our business came from referrals. It may take a while, but if you're good your business will snowball through word of mouth. I think it goes even faster nowadays with social networking. I think you may stall growing your business if you cut of getting weddings from referrals. If people are pleased, will they recommend the company or you specifically?
Working for a corporation might have enough advantages to make it worthwhile, but I'd think through all the ramifications carefully first.
If you're considering this, I'd like to know more about the problems you're trying to solve going this route. I've looked at your web site and there's some really nice work from what I've seen. I guess I don't know enough about your situation, but I don't see why you can't grow your business by yourself.
amonline wrote:
I believe they are usually contractual "work for hire"; in which case, you're throwing away your copyright - one reason I'd never do it.
This is the main reason I stated above that this is a good course of action only for a photographer who doesn't want to run their own business...
When I first went full-time in photography, I hated the idea of having associate photographers. After all, it's fun to hate corporations ... As the business has grown, I've realized a few things:
- It's really hard to make money at this
- Most of the work is behind-the scenes, the photography part is easy and fun
- If you're not trying to grow, you're shrinking
- The shelf-life for a wedding photographer isn't 40 years, it's often a young person's game
If I had the opportunity to make extra income doing something I love while maintaining a steady office job and not having any backend work, that'd be pretty tempting. In the same way, most successful studios have expanded to some degree to help bring in income without spreading themselves so thin and missing their lives every weekend.
I know that sounds pessimistic (I promise I love this job ), but I really think for the right people, it can be a great relationship. But if the photographer has aspirations on their own, there's little that it offers you.
dmacmillan wrote:
Working for a corporation might have enough advantages to make it worthwhile, but I'd think through all the ramifications carefully first.
If you're considering this, I'd like to know more about the problems you're trying to solve going this route. I've looked at your web site and there's some really nice work from what I've seen. I guess I don't know enough about your situation, but I don't see why you can't grow your business by yourself.
I agree with you, but it's not always about good work = good business, particularly if the person doesn't want to run a business. I know of at least 5 people off the top of my head who are incredible photographers but prefer to work for someone else than take the risks involved with going on their own.
My position is unique in that I am *hoping* to go FT in the spring-- at this point I like all of the different aspects of wedding photography, from shooting to marketing and album design etc., though when I think about long-term I have to agree with Tony, it seems to be a young person's game. I have the biz end covered and am doing great with referrals-- but going FT is a big risk and not so big if a company is willing to suppliment 1/4-1/2 of that with 5-10 wedding days. I give them a portofio, blurb and package lists: they raise the price to a point where they are able to make a reasonable profit and add my listing to their catalog of photographers-- they network like crazy in their circles, do all the leg work and the bride chooses who she wants.
They would be looking at me as a subcontractor, but I just heard: they don't have a contract for us to both sign with all of the stipulations in it!!!! That seems shady. I really can't work for them without a contract, that is absolutely insane. Very very odd. The stipulations discussed in our meetings were: I shoot under my own name, I can use the images, I can network on my own behalf. I absolutely want my payment terms and all of that in writing before I go any further. I guess why things are this way is b/c the ceo of the corp has been in this forever and everyone tursts the reputation, but I think it's still crazy.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
I know of at least 5 people off the top of my head who are incredible photographers but prefer to work for someone else than take the risks involved with going on their own.
littleme wrote:
wow-- how much have I missed this forum?
My position is unique in that I am *hoping* to go FT in the spring-- at this point I like all of the different aspects of wedding photography, from shooting to marketing and album design etc., though Tony is right about it mainly being a young person's game. I have my i's dotted and my t's crossed as far as the business end with contracts, insurance even responce emails-- but going FT is a big risk and not so big if a company is willing to suppliment 1/4-1/2 of that with 5-10 wedding days. I give them a portofio, blurb and package lists: they raise the price to a point where they are able to make a reasonable profit and add my listing to their catalog of photographers-- bride chooses who she wants from there.
They would be looking at me as a subcontractor, but I just heard: they don't have a contract for us to both sign with all of the stipulations in it!!!! That seems shady. I really can't work for them without a contract, that is absolutely insane. Very very odd. The stipulations discussed in our meetings were: I shoot under my own name, I can use the images, I can network on my own behalf. I absolutely want my payment terms and all of that in writing before I go any further. I guess why things are this way is b/c the ceo of the corp has been in this forever and everyone tursts the reputation, but I think it's still crazy. ...Show more →
So what are they providing? Are they doing the selling, scheduling, upselling afterwards, processing, etc? This sounds less like an associate situation and more like a listing service?
For an associate situation to work profitably for the owner the associate simply isn't going to make much money. Associate fees are part of COS and a low COS is paramount to sustainability and profitability. The associate may feel that they are doing all the work but the corp is assuming all the risk which is where the responsibility and the right-to-profit really lie.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
I agree with you, but it's not always about good work = good business, particularly if the person doesn't want to run a business. I know of at least 5 people off the top of my head who are incredible photographers but prefer to work for someone else than take the risks involved with going on their own.
We're on the same page.
You've made some great points in this thread. Many of the points you made led me to return to college 25 or so years ago, earn another degree and change fields.
A mom and pop photo studio has always been a tenuous way to make a living. I think in this day and time it is even less viable. There are those who make a comfortable living at it, but they are a rare exception, especially if you don't live in a large city.
It's hard to make the dreamers see the majority of being a full time pro is business work. As you pointed out the "fun" part of the job is a small fraction of the time spent.
Going back to the OP's question, if you have no aspirations to go full time, you've got a day job that makes meeting customers and post processing hard, being able to turn over the cards and be done with it might be worth the reduced potential pay.
littleme wrote:
They would be looking at me as a subcontractor, but I just heard: they don't have a contract for us to both sign with all of the stipulations in it!!!! That seems shady.
I suggest you proceed with caution. Best of luck.
For the most part, I think a lot of photographers could be better off working and building a larger business/brand with less risk. If you have a person that is AWESOME with business and marketing, and works really well with sales, combine that with a production team and a stellar photographer and you could create a very large empire in a small town.
Like Tony said, just because you are a good photographer doesn't mean you're going to be busy. It's the combination of business acumen, good relationships, proper marketing and branding, and the last secret ingredient is good work. For a team of 5-6 people running a large business, the photography really is the last thing. Having better photography just makes it easier to sell, and also increase prices.
Good photography doesn't mean anything without a good business and brand behind it.
I'll also 2nd that it is hard to make good money at this. Remember, it's likely not a business you'll be selling in 20 years, so think long term on how you'll retire when you put down the camera.
TRReichman wrote:
[So what are they providing? Are they doing the selling, scheduling, upselling afterwards, processing, etc? This sounds less like an associate situation and more like a listing service?
For an associate situation to work profitably for the owner the associate simply isn't going to make much money. Associate fees are part of COS and a low COS is paramount to sustainability and profitability. The associate may feel that they are doing all the work but the corp is assuming all the risk which is where the responsibility and the right-to-profit really lie.
- trr
If by listing service you mean an agency like wedding wire-- no far from it. They have people on staff who specifically meet with brides, post process, design albums, upsell etc. (I obviously don't see any of the profit from that, but I am paid for my time. It is an actual company with actual offices or so I am told-- we spoke on the phone, haha. It really doesn't matter what their mark-up is, as long as they are paying me enough. To be clear, for payment we are talking 1/4 of my current salery for shooting 5 wedding days and 1/2 of my current FT salery to shoot 10 wedding days. This gets me closer to where I need to be to make FT photography feasable. But again, nothing is feasible without a contract, just too risky.
Get a contract and go for it if you like it. The biggest thing for me when I was shooting for studios was that I really didn't feel as connected to my clients (since I basically just met them the day of their wedding and then they vanished) since they weren't really my clients. If the price is right, and they'll let you use the images in your portfolio (and you're working under your own name with a blurb and everything) it couldn't hurt to give it a shot and see if it's a good fit for you.
I haven't done any wedding work for the large corporations but a bunch of my work is for a studio in my area and seems to be handled in a similar way. Agreement states they are the studio's images and that I can't show the images online but I can use them in any type of portfolio (just not online). I shoot the wedding cull the images into a keep and cull folder and then deliver the files. From time to time I even do some minor post work if requested. I also do some limited bookings for weddings too.
I've done some freelance work over the years for several big name studios in my area, and without fail, each one of them has found ways to screw me around.
Definitely have the pay rate stated in a contract. And what happens if they book you for a date and then pull it out from under you? You turned away other jobs, but will you get any compensation? Compensation for a lost date is not about being given another date. And what if your work brings in referrals? Shouldn't you get something for playing a part in bringing in more profits? What if your work incites customers to buy more? What's your bonus for that performance? What if they are greedy and raise their take so much over your package price that less people book? Besides your income, how might that affect your name?
... As the business has grown, I've realized a few things: