One recurring conversation that I hear taking place is about photographers and second jobs – you know, the ones that make it possible to pay the bills.The problem is, this is bass-ackwards from how it should occur.
Take, for example, the waiter. A waiter has figured a way out to pay their bills (even if just barely) from month to month. A waiter in this position has a great opportunity to start a business in the field of photography out right. How so?
(Continued after the Jump)
Someone in this position can do an honest assessment of what it costs to be in business, and also what it costs to earn a living doing photography.
Say, for example, as a waiter you earn $150/day with wages and tips. An honest assesment of your cost of doing business (CODB) as a photographer might reveal that it would cost you $350 a day for every day you’re shooting. So, even though a call comes in for $200 a day – more than your waiter income, but less than your CODB were you a photographer, you can – and should – decline the assignment.
Why?
Well, being a waiter, your CODB is just a pen, paper and a decent outfit. In fact, you may even have a uniform, but nothing more. Your CODB as a photographer would include costs for computers, internet, cameras/gear, business insurance, and so forth. The declination of the $200 assignment leaves you free to do business in paradigm which keeps you profitable, and moreover, leaves you free to seek out the proper paying clients that you not only can do your first assignment for, but also grow a solid relationship with – enough so that you can afford to leave your waiter job.
IF you have taken a second job to sustain your CODB as a photographer, then you’re likely going to fail. It’s really not a matter of if, it’s most likely a matter of when.
In other words, your second job should be that of photographer!
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you’ve got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Originally published on Photo Business News & Forum on April 6, 2008. Comments are closed; this post is part of the archive.
But on your point, I think it’s a stretch as best.
A great argument against what you are advocating is the number of full-time newspaper photographers who, realizing their cost of doing business is subsidized by the newspaper, eagerly run out and underbid freelance jobs.
Annual reports, weddings, commercial work, you name it. It’s pervasive. In some cases, photographers do realize their true income potential end up leaving their jobs, most do not and
These kinds of photographers have decided not to be responsible for the health of their profession. It’s just a great way to make an extra buck, they think.
And it’s also very clearly a tradeoff, so while the newspaper ‘subsidizes’ them with computers, equipment etc. the staff photographer’s meager salary demands to be subsidized itself.
The irony is that when they end their newspaper careers (and most if not all will be find themselves at that point) they will have to rely on the same income stream that they used to think was ‘icing on the cake.’
I fail to see how his CODB is less if he is a waiter. Most of those expenses seem like they are going to be there either way.
You’d be considering the CODB for the Waiter and the CODB for the Photographer separately – considering that each is a “division” of that person’s company. As I noted above, the “waiter” division’s CODB is pen/paper/uniform.
Consider that there is no wear-and-tear on gear that sits idle, so the diminished value of that gear is zero as it pertains to wear-and-tear, however, it’s fair to see that there is a diminished value for digital/computer gear that ages out. However, a strobe system would not.
John
Of course a day job may not just have the $200 payment as a benefit – if it has the potential to lead to more work then you have to consider that as well.
– Shannon
http://www.shannon-jensen.com