jeff tessier photography

Hey, you gonna pay for that?

This post is mainly for my students ...

In his 1835 book Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville is exploring the differences between American and French society when he formulates the very useful theory of how civil society grants special status to those who are practitioners of the "secret sciences".  Specifically, de Toqueville is arguing that the role of the priesthood in traditional French society had been replicated in American democratic society, except that for the early Americans it was the lawyers who practiced the rarified art, the secret science.  The secret science and its practitioners are valued and protected because they are necessary to the daily functioning of society and because the product or service they produce is not replaceable by the work of non-specialists, by those who have not trained and been admitted into this elite group.  The other obvious example from our society would be physicians. 

And, of course, photographers.  Until about ten years ago.

Okay, maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, but bear with me.  And anyway de Toqueville was not praising the practitioners of the secret sciences - certainly he recognises that both of the groups he was looking at encouraged people to fearfully doubt their own competence and to grant more than was in fact due to the abilities and stature of the elite.  His point, though, was that the democratisation process does not dismantle all forms of inequality and that in particular there are ways in which the training and knowledge required for a profession makes the practitioners of that profession unequal to others, in that respect.  Democratisation does not make everyone an equal practitioner of every art.

I suppose it's because of the "digital revolution" - that is, the easy availability of low-cost, high-quality digital cameras, and the trend toward understanding "Photoshop" to be a simple verb, rather than a complex and thorny piece of software - I suppose it's because of that revolution that professional photographers now have to deal with "clients" who approach the prospective work already thinking that what they are going to pay for the work, if anything, should reflect the fact that they themselves, or maybe their niece or nephew or brother-in-law, also has a digital camera and could probably do for free what they want to hire me to do, work for which I will charge.

And I'll charge fair rates because I don't approach this job thinking, What camera am I using, or, I'm gonna "Photoshop" it tonight, or, basically, thinking that what they need from me I can buy at the camera shop.  Photography of any sort - whether for commercial or fine art purposes - is a craft, and one that I spend a lot of time thinking about.  And I measure myself, professionally, according to how well or poorly I use that craft to move from idea to image, throwing into that process a messy mix of creative vision, planning, knowledge, idea modification, equipment wrangling, past experience, model and location handling, shooting time, finishing, etc., etc.

That's my job, and I'm going to charge for my work because notwithstanding the enormously democratizing process that's changed the photography world in the past ten years, I'm still privy to a secret science because I don't view the craft in terms of how available the equipment is, or how feature-rich the software is, or - God forbid - the fact that I can check my work by looking at the back of the camera.  I know the client needs great images, and since I've chosen to make the love and the honing of that secret science my life's work, the client needs me (or, of course, another photographer).  But since I'm committed to the study and practice of what the client needs from me, they need to pay me, so that I don't have to spend my days working the counter at Starbucks, because then I wouldn't be available to give them the amazing images they need for their project/business/campaign/wall.

I want to back this up two ways.

First, a guy who works in the creative industry back in my hometown of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote a cogent blog post about this issue on his own site.  His name's Mike VanJura and he books talent for clubs in the city.  Here's the post.  He's addressing the problem of bands (typically young bands) being told that a venue can't pay them to play a gig but that it will benefit them anyway because "it'll be a great exposure gig."  He boils the answer down to five points:

1. You are a business.
2. There is always a budget.
3. Exposure to who?
4. It cheapens the industry.
5. There's always a paying gig on the same night.

These are essentially the reasons I use when I decline "offers" to work for free or for unjustly discounted rates, and I'd advise other photogs to do the same.  The list is great in how it illustrates how extremely lopsided the relationship is when you're faced with a client who wants to treat you as a volunteer.  The assumption is that I will throw myself into a job and do my best work and in lieu of payment, or even respect, gratefully accept the opportunity to ... throw myself into a job and do my best work without payment or respect.  And be thankful!

Secondly, I want to reference a request (presented as a "proposal") that landed in my Mohawk College inbox recently.  (This was in fact the impetus for this entire post, this long-winded and overly long post.)  Often people in the area who need photographic services will contact Mohawk's Creative Arts department and explain their needs, and Anne King, the indefatigable and honourable administrator of Continuing Ed Creative Arts, will then relay these requests to all the instructors and select alumi.  I think people only contact Mohawk College looking for photogs once they have decided that the photographic work they require is worth ... exactly $0, because nearly all of the requests that I see are from people who have this attitude and who find a way to make that point clear in their pitch.  Nearly always this point is driven home when the "client" references the "promotional", "experience", or "portfolio" value the work will have for the photographer, not mentioning the "monetary", "commercial", "concrete" value the photos will have for himself.

To wit, a proposal from a local real estate agent, who wants photographs documenting the look and life of a neighbourhood in Ancaster, to be used on postcards that will be "mailed on a regular basis" to 1500 households in the "target area".  That's a fantastic idea, and right away I can think of a long list of possible images to make to use in this campaign.  And I'm glad to read that "The approach is collaborative between the photographer and [the agent]" and that I'll receive "full credit" and have my contact info provided.  I'm getting less excited when I read that I will be doing this work "free of charge" and "in exchange for the advertising exposure for the photographer".  As for the value of "exposure," see the Mike VanJura post I linked to above.  I would only add that the proposed deal promises a photographer "exposure" to a client base, filled with people who will see the photographer as someone who works for free.

The agent is asking me to provide images that will help him make a sale, or many sales, even over a period of years.  A typical sale in his target area would earn him about $20,000 (given a 6% commission).  And to make that sale, he needs to enlist the work of many others, as part of his business costs - he pays for printing costs, advertising, listings in local media, etc.  What is it about photography that makes him think that when it comes to that particular business cost, he can treat it as not worth paying for?  Good photography is still necessary, still absolutely necessary, but not worth paying for.  He wants to enlist the work of the photographer to get him a sale - to get the prospective buyers in the door, to get the interested families to the open house, to make it look good in the MLS listings - all for non-monetary compensation ("advertising exposure", "full credit").

What's galling to me in this scenario - and this example is typical enough that probably most photographers reading this aren't surprised at all, or even offended, though they should be - what's galling to me is that the pitch itself is premised on the idea that the photography being requested is of concrete, monetary value to the business requesting it, and in the same breath that business makes it clear that the only compensation given to the person providing it will be non-monetary.  Recall VanJura's point #2: There is always a budget.  If you're being asked to help someone make money, remember that they have a budget in order to make that happen, since making money requires spending money first.

I passed on the realtor's offer.  But I kept his name on file, since I think I'll be selling my house in the next few years and I want to enlist the work of someone who's into the idea of working for free.  I hope that I can get him to do all the work to make the sale happen, to get the prospective buyers in, to get me the best price, to do all the legwork and paperwork, to advise me on how to dress the house, to hold the hands of all the young couples that come through, and then thank me when I let him put that sign in the yard with his name on it.  I bet he'll get a lot more jobs from that.