Hmmm ... from marketing to politics. Actually, "taxes & subsidies" (government/politics if you will) IS one of the categorical non-price determinant factors that can shift the supply side.
However, it is pretty low on the list (i.e. 10%) in the poll.
the average pro in the US with a decade or more of shooting experience is taking home about 25K after taxes. Even though that probably still makes you "wealthy" in "OBamaworld", the guy behind the counter at the QT is making more per hour than you are in this scenario.
After all is said and done, I averaged a shade over $30 an hour this year. A far cry from my $100+/hr designing/installing
irrigation systems before retiring...but a hell of a lot easier on my back. The "future" looks good to me and I'm living
in the relatively poor State of NM. Find a niche, and shoot well.
the politics of the day have one heck of a lot to do with the death of millions of small businesses
You have it backwards. small businesses are fading because larger businesses have the substantial economic clout to bend the markets for the goods and services they sell and influence the government regulations they are governed by and naturally do so in the direction that yields the most profits for them and disadvantages their competition. They have the cash to influence elections and regulations in ways that even the most dedicated associations of smaller companies lack. Have you paid attention to how much effort and money is being put into getting rid of campaign finance laws and which of the major two political parties in the United Staes is benefitting from that now (thanks to Supreme Court Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) basically unregulated free flow of cash spending and doing their will?
You may be thinking this is a "Liberal" argument, but in truth it is just an acknowledgement of reality. As the cynical version of the Golden Rule goes: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
E-Vener wrote:
You have it backwards. small businesses are fading because larger businesses have the substantial economic clout to bend the markets for the goods and services they sell and influence the government regulations they are governed by and naturally do so in the direction that yields the most profits for them and disadvantages their competition. They have the cash to influence elections and regulations in ways that even the most dedicated associations of smaller companies lack. Have you paid attention to how much effort and money is being put into getting rid of campaign finance laws and which of the major two political parties in the United Staes is benefitting from that now (thanks to Supreme Court Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) basically unregulated free flow of cash spending and doing their will?
You may be thinking this is a "Liberal" argument, but in truth it is just an acknowledgement of reality. As the cynical version of the Golden Rule goes: "He who has the gold makes the rules."...Show more →
You have it backwards. small businesses are fading because larger businesses have the substantial economic clout to bend the markets for the goods and services they sell and influence the government regulations they are governed by and naturally do so in the direction that yields the most profits for them and disadvantages their competition.
So very true. An important factor in this is the belief by Joe the Plumber that what is good for big business is good for small business. Sorry, Joe, but thanks for playing.
The policies that are good for big business are very frequently bad for small businesses, because small businesses are both customers and expenses of big businesses--it's invariably in the interest of big businesses to squeeze small businesses as much as possible.
An example: The PPA and ASMP have been lobbying for years for legislation that would allow small business associations to negotiate with health insurers as groups so that small businesses could enjoy the same price benefits as large businesses. Such legislation would be like thousands of dollars in tax cuts for small businesses. That, however, pits the interests of every small business in the US against the big health insurers...needless to say, the big health insurers have always won.
It's hard to say whether the new health car tax benefits will have as much benefit to small business, but one thing is a fact: The new law does benefit the big health insurers...they're not losing a dime.
Hi there
Youtube and recording hardware certainly haven't stopped me from going out to the Metropolitan Opera or Covent Garden and paying an inordinate amount of money to hear Profesional World class Opera Singers -- judging by the difficulty of obtaining tickets even at these huge prices it shows there is ALWAYS a demand for top quality products created by professionals.
The market for Pro shooters might have changed but the opportunities are still there.
Kyle Yates wrote:
Hi there
Youtube and recording hardware certainly haven't stopped me from going out to the Metropolitan Opera or Covent Garden and paying an inordinate amount of money to hear Profesional World class Opera Singers -- judging by the difficulty of obtaining tickets even at these huge prices it shows there is ALWAYS a demand for top quality products created by professionals.
The market for Pro shooters might have changed but the opportunities are still there.
Cheers
-K
And then, having heard good sound, you probably find yourself not totally satisfied with MP3...thus, "CD-quality" (at least) manages to survive in those genres that high-quality sound makes a difference.
Content from the masses might be getting more common thanks to the proverbial Uncle Bob the photographer and blogger, but there are two more factors at play that are often overlooked by the doom-mongers.
First, there is a far greater demand for content in general than there ever has been before and, second, as the internet matures there will be an increasing recognition of the value of quality content versus 'regular' content churned out by the Uncle Bobs of the world.
The media is now starting to cotton on to this second factor, which IMO is good news for pro photogs in the long run because I believe we'll see a whole new market for 'quality' content (particularly of the niche variety) begin to evolve in the coming years.
pipspeak wrote:
First, there is a far greater demand for content in general than there ever has been before and, second, as the internet matures there will be an increasing recognition of the value of quality content versus 'regular' content churned out by the Uncle Bobs of the world.
Quality content has always been valued on the Internet, it's just a matter of who creates, controls and distributes that content that has changed over time and will continue to change. In the future you will find fewer and fewer single entities controlling content and more individuals collaborating to create and distribute content, which ultimately will improve quality across the board. Also, the metrics used to define quality have been changing and will continue to change.
^^ agreed... the metrics are always changing, but I'm not convinced that quality (however it is measured) is as recognized as it once was, largely due to the kid-in-candy-store syndrome that is swamping people with so much content that some have come to confuse quantity with quality.
I am starting to detect (professionally and anecdotally among friends) that the sheer quantity of content that's appeared in the last five years is starting to create an overload that people are increasingly desperate to find ways around, whether by filtering using software/services or simply by switching off the flow (I know several people who have given up on Facebook, for example, or now leave their crackberries in the office every evening).
But predicting how the future will play out is a fool's game IMO since we can virtually guarantee that the information services that will come to shape how we consume and judge content in five years either don't currently exist or are not yet on the radar.
I'm curious about ten years from now, and twenty years from now. Technology will have forced Uncle Bob out of business because cousin dimrod will be able to create any style of image desired with a few clicks of a mouse.
@Halle
Stock photography may well have died by then, to be replaced by software that will create images of isolated toothbrushes and ethnically diverse teams of smiling business men and women with a few clicks too.
Love it! I am a student with aspirations and a long way to go, but I do shoot manual nearly all of the time (even with sports - so maybe I truly am as bad as it gets). Granted, I could do manual as badly as I could do with any of auto modes, but at least my mistakes are my own. :-)
Andrew Wood wrote:
@Halle
Stock photography may well have died by then, to be replaced by software that will create images of isolated toothbrushes and ethnically diverse teams of smiling business men and women with a few clicks too.
You're not far from wrong Andrew. Stock is an interesting subject, and I was at the top of the list beating the drum as pro shooters were selling themselves and all of the rest of us down the river with five dollar stock. Once I determined all hope was lost and joined in, I've discovered that those 10 to 15K in royalty checks annually are better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
I am not sure 'quality' is much in demand by the general public. I did some model shoots recently and gave the models the agreed number of images on CD.
As it happened, I had decided to try compatible cartridges on my inexpensive Canon A4 printer, and did a number of A4 practise prints from the shoot (as well as a couple of 'proper' A3 prints from my Epson).
I gave the prints to the models as I didn't want them, apologizing for the slightly strange colours on the A4s....shouldn't have bothered...they were over the moon with them. Apart from the A3s being bigger, I doubt if they noticed any qualitative differences.
A lecturer friend of mine remarked some years ago that adding the final 10% of quality took 90% of ones creative skill and effort.....but why bother, as 90% of the public wouldn't recognize your efforts. So be businesslike...cater for the 90% and save 90% of the hassle.
Or words to that effect. I believe his analysis was 90% accurate.
It's an interesting paradox that in a time where making a technically perfect photo is becoming simpler and cheaper every day, most photos never reach the surface of a sheet of paper, but will be viewed solely on a computer monitor, often as a part of a web site. And all our hours of post processing are wasted on third rate monitors and computer software. Still, for professional photographers, this is an opportunity, since making a photo that tells a story requires skill, a skill that doesn't come included with any lens or camera, technically advanced or not.
There are currently over 100 million websites, and although not all of them require photos from external sources, many do. Some, like news sites, are updated several times per day. Even with prices that in many cases are a fraction of what they used to be, any skilled photographer with some business sense can make a profit out of this. The market changes, and we have to change with it. Those who don't, will go the way of the Ford Edsel and the Spruce Goose.
The "future" looks good to me and I'm living
