There’s an interesting post over at strobist.com about taking money out of the equation when building a portfolio. There’s a range of feedback in the comments from “inspirational” to “damaging.” Strobist isn’t the first to mention this style of thinking as others have stressed the idea of “giving more than you receive” to be downright smart business.
Have a read.
My thoughts…
I don’t think David is emphasizing the right thing. It’s how you frame the debate and I think he did it wrong…starting with the headline.
If you read the responses, most of them seem to come from the standpoint of photographers who agree with the idea…not business peope who understand the economics of doing “Free” work. What sense does that make?
That’s how a photographer thinks.
A businessman says, what is the cost/benefit of doing this?
One of the local guys who owns the fashion market here struggled for years to make it. Every year he shoots a fashion spread for a local monthly magazine. They pay about $200 a day. This guy makes a good amount of money each year, why would he take the money for local monthly? He loses or breaks even on the shoot.
He does it because the benefit outweighs the cost. He knows that all the ad execs read the magazine so they get to see his work. Earlier in the year he was called to shoot Tiger Woods in the same style he shoots the fashion spread. They saw his work in the local magazine. That’s good marketing and good business sense. So did he really loose money on it?
So that’s a distinction he needs to make more clear. Now we have people talking about free. It’s not free, it’s good marketing. The benefit outweighs the cost. If it doesn’t…like shooting a pie contest for the New York Times for $50, then don’t do it.
David needs to emphasize thinking like a business person…calling yourself one is different than calling yourself a photographer.
