   |
The Professional Photographer – Regulation a Step Too Far?
written by
David on
January 19th, 2012 and filed in
Business Ideas, Latest News
Tweet
Des Tinney tweeted us a link to an article on The Professional Photographer Magazine website. This article is all about the Undercutters and asks if there should be a regulatory body for the Professional Photography Industry. At the moment it is possible for anyone to set up as a professional photographer, they don’t even have to be any good as a photographer, although in these cases they may not stay in business for too long.
Professional Photographer say ” We’ve had a huge response to Mick Cookson’s article about Weekend warriors in the September issue of Professional Photographer. The issue of part-time or amateur photographers undercutting full-time professionals with cheap wedding packages is one that many photographers have an opinion about. One of the people who reacted to the Weekend Warrior debate is Richard Southall, who suggests that it’s time for the photography industry to be regulated.”
Richard goes onto list many areas in which he feels that regulation would help control and manage the professional photography industry and in effect stop “weekend warriors” invading the space.
The question now is where to begin in answering him. The topic is huge and covers far more than just the desire to make the costs of entry to the professional photography industry greater and therefore a deterrent to those who believe it is somewhere to make beer or pin money.
The issue that needs to be addressed before even regulations are considered is one of who “owns the profession”. There are various membership bodies available to the professional photographer such as the MPA, SWPP (The Societies), BIPP, the Association of Photographers, the RPS, the GPAUK, Photoguild, PPANI, the BPPA, National Photographic Society and many more I have failed to mention. The British Photographic Council which on it’s web site claims to represent a lot of these organisations doesn’t actually appear to do very much at all. The first problem therefore is that the profession has too many voices and this only leads to confusion amongst the general public. The majority of these bodies cover the same areas, they offer benefits to members in the form of offers, they put on training courses, run seminars, competitions and frequently give awards which photographers can use as part of their marketing. Whilst some occasionally reach out to the public and talk about their membership & the benefits of using one of their members, this type of communication is rare and often undertaken without a clear strategy. The majority of these organisations are typical trade associations who spend time and effort only talking to their members and not promoting their members.
Brand Awareness and Education
Professional membership bodies need to promote the photography profession to the public. They need to benefit their members by adding value to the brand name “Professional Photography”. Many of the items that Richard believes should be regulated are things that a properly organised and professional body can help with, and not just in providing insurance options but in making sure the public are aware of the benefits of using their members as well as the risks in using someone who is not registered to them. It would be better if there was one voice and one message and even if there are lots of membership bodies, societies and associations, that they agree on the minimum requirements to being a professional photographer.
Below is the list of areas that Richard felt should be regulated:
- They have Public Liability Insurance
- They have Public Indemnity Insurance
- They provide Employers’ Liability Insurance to anyone who helps them undertake a commission (2nd photographer/assistant)
- They are registered and have declared their part-time earnings to the Inland Revenue
- They pay type 3/4 national insurance contributions
- They are registered for VAT if their earnings are above the threshold
- They have notified their car insurers of their secondary occupation
- They’ve notified their landlords/mortgage company/council that part of their abode is being used for a part-time business and that they are complying and paying the additional monies due.
- They have given guarantees to their clients about safe, long term data storage solutions of their commissioned images
- They have produced and provided COSHH risk assessments of how they work safely and their affect on others in a public environment.
- They have the requisite health and safety equipment if required
- They have all their electrical equipment (lighting, chargers, computers etc.) annually PAT tested
- They have a stated policy on copyright and licencing of images produced
- They get regular Enhanced CRB checks (would you want anyone near your young children without one?)”
This list is quite comprehensive and covers some items, which are a legal requirement, e.g. employers liability insurance (yes this does include unpaid helpers as well), registering for VAT. There are others that are not legal requirements such as public liability insurance and a stated copyright policy. I can understand why Richard feels that regulation would help because as I mentioned earlier it will increase the costs of entry, but who is going to be the regulator? Do any of the professional bodies mentioned above want to step up to fill this void or could the BPC take this up and lead the way? Regulation in its many forms often leads to the strangulation of an industry or profession and once started it stretches it tentacles even further until it almost forbids entry and removes competition, great for those already in but not for those on the outside or the consumer. Maybe the question should be, why is the law not being enforced? The fact that many of those that Richard is wary about may not pay tax and NI or follow health and safety guidelines, is something the existing authorities should be acting upon. Whereas the safe storage of images is more caveat emptor or more fool the client for just assuming this was covered. Again if a photographer fails to take out insurance whether someone informs their insurers of their activities or not may mean that they can charge less as their premiums are lower but this is only an economy for them until they need to make a claim.
In all walks of life there are those that take advantage and those that live close to the edge of the law, and they would still be the same with regard to regulation. Be honest how many photographers actually do a formal risk assessment?
Creativity v Straightjacket
Finally let’s consider the nature of photography. It sits within the creative profession, and as creativity comes in many forms it would be really sad to strangle it. The majority of “weekend warriors” are involved in wedding photography and often the term professional photographer is associated with weddings in the minds of consumers. There are however many areas of photography such as events, commercial, architectural (this is how Richard describes himself), portrait, landscape, fashion and so on. The requirements of photographers and the support they need is often the same but it the way it is presented and made available that varies from discipline to discipline.
Creativity is subjective as one persons idea of great photography will be different from another, therefore the photography profession needs to nurture, encourage and develop diversity in creativity. Surely this is where the competitive environment should be. I agree that the profession would be better served if everyone was insured and all had proper processes and workflows in place but if these were the centre point of a regulated environment then creativity would soon disappear.
What should be done?
I believe that the profession needs a clear brand and one voice. It needs to have consistency in its qualifications from all associations. It needs these associations to focus on Continued Professional Development (CPD) which has a value and will help their members stand out. The profession also needs to accept that to achieve this it needs to have harder to join membership options and actually bring in clearly defined qualifications that photographers have to take exams to pass or prove in great detail that their experience allows them to qualify. Part of the qualification can include best practice and ensuring some of the regulations that Richard refers to. Above all though it needs the Profession to build awareness of itself in the eyes of the customer and to promote and champion the qualifications it offers to make the qualified professional the customers default choice.
The “profession” needs to get it’s house in order first and then there will be clear water between the professional and the “weekend warrior”. Remember that the customer will choose who they believes gives best value and who they believe will deliver the images, packshots etc. that they will like. Price will only play a part in the overall decision, and until someone takes a lead it will be down to the individual photographer to promote themselves.
This article has been written & supplied by David Finch, Managing Director of Purple Frog advertising and marketing.
Check out a previous articles on Blogtogther that discussed how you should Price your Photography and how to Stand out From the Crowd.
Check out our sister site photogether.co.uk for the latest photographic products for presentation, prints and the studio.
Win Jorgensen Pro Bound Album in our latest photo competition
. . . . . . . . . .Help us spread the news about blogtogether on:
Digg, 
Reddit, 
Stumble Upon, 
Twitter or 
Facebook22 Responses to “The Professional Photographer – Regulation a Step Too Far?”
|
I don’t believe the full time pro has a problem with the part timer who builds up his skills and experience as long as they take the same approach as you Des. The big issue is the weekender who has no training, pays no tax, has no insurance and gives the profession a bad name. Obviously not a very well researched piece. The MPA already has in place all the training advice through a mentoring system plus qualifications and people can only display their logo once they have passed their Diploma in Photographic Practice which is a Government backed Skillset exam. Paul you are correct and I am aware of the different opportunities made available by each of the bodies. Many of the associations provide an excellent service to the photographer, however are the standards of qualification consistent and do the general public understand them? The article is not meant to be critical of them individually but meant to show that they would be more beneficial to the photographer and consumer if they had one voice.  Richard Small says: The bodies under discussion here fall into two very distinct groups. 1) Those that are owned by the membership, and run with a democratically elected body which rotates regularly at the will of a constitution decided by the membership 2) Those that are wholly owned by individuals and run as profit making organisations masquerading as being run for the benefit of photgraphers and photography. The latter are easily distinguished by a continual stream of schemes and events, ever broader and wider, and endless emphasis on members becoming better qualified. It is the latter group that require regulating rather than the photographers themselves. For the record, I am a member of one of the former, and have just terminated my membership of one of the latter. I am a full-time event photographer, which probably makes me the lowest of the low in the pecking order of professionals. I have to say that it bugs the hell out of me the way in which some photographers seem to think that they have a God-given right to do what they do and no one else should have the audacity to even pick up a camera! I cannot see how regulation can ever be implemented within this industry. Part of the problem stems from the fact that what we do is just so varied. Not everyone needs the same level of insurance in place, not everyone needs to store their images for long-term retrieval and so on. There would need to be so many exclusions and clauses it would make regulation virtually impossible. I generally find that there is a lot of back-biting in the photographic world with very little agreement as to what constitutes a ‘good’ photographer. There is too much subjectivity. Additionally, what makes a good ‘event’ photograph can be substantially different to what makes a good ‘portrait.’ If, as a photographer, you complain that there is a competitor charging less than you do then I can virtually guarantee that there are others out there who think *you* don’t charge enough either! I think that it is time wasted to worry about others – time which is better spent on improving your own business offerings and raising your game. Typical huff puff and bluster from those who have some ‘qualification’ and seem to think it should then grant them a cosy job for life. Naturally the list of ‘requirements’ conveniently fit what they already happen to have. Weekend warriors have been around long before digital. If they are declaring their income then they have as much right to trade as anyone. Alas some photograpers just prefer to blame them rather than deal with the real truth. That either they cannot match the quality of some ‘amateurs’ in their area or their incompetent marketing and sales skills mean they are not getting the returns they feel they are entitled to. There are many many professions where formal qualification is not required. Much of the building industry or setting up shops for example. Most with much more capacity to cause misery and financial loss than ours. Adding Enhanced CRB to the list is a prime example of trying to get work through stoking paranoia and running down others rather than sorting your own marketing out. I’ve never had one never been asked for one and can see no conceivable need to require one. The only time a CRB is required is if you have regular unsupervised access to a child. How the hell it that supposed to be applicable to a photographic studio or even home/location shoots? The parent is there doing the supervising. Our job is to take photos. Thankfully parents treat this pathetic scaremongering for what it is. Tired discredited negative marketing.  Darren Lean says: @Richard Small How do The NPS fit in then (www.thenps.co.uk) They are a non-profit organisation but are not run the same way as the MPA etc. They are run by a team of photographers who don’t take any money from it. That doesn’t fit with your view yet they are in my humble opinion the best of the outfits out there. I pay £49 a year to be a members, get benefits that far outweigh the cost of membership yet they are not regulated are they? Regulation will not help the organisations as a bad organisation will be bad regardless of anything put in place.  Chris says: Why stop at Photography lets regulate… Weekend Rock Stars (we all know them) Come on guys if you’re worth your fee people will pay it if youre not then youre ripping them off… Thank you for your kind comments Darren, glad you enjoy being a member, we try hard to be the best organisation we can. The subject of regulation has been raised year after year, the fact is that the government won’t help and nobody else will spend the millions – yes millions of points that promoting any system will cost. We as photographers need to do all WE can to set ourselves aside from the idiots. Rod Pascoe I think the real point has been missed and the answers from some of the contributors on here have been rather childish and arrogant. I have been a professional photographer for over quarter of a century, battling cancer along the way,and find that the main problem appears to be,not so much the regulation of the industry (For all semi-professional, professional and business orientated amateurs), but the effects on the industry of the “weekend warriors” or “terror togs”. I agree that, for an industry wide level playing field,there should be a regulatory body that can address the underhanded practices of those who treat photography as a means by which to undercut rivals, use underhanded and malicious tricks via social websites,and offer certain services, or aspects of them,for free when serious and professionals who rely on the income to keep their businesses going and make a living income. In the north east alone, a number of college graduates are gaining “qualifications” and setting up an alarmingly increasing number of “makeover-style” studios that offer unworkable discounts on services (Because they have another income,do not charge deposits or sitting fees and then try to steal clients from established professionals by using these methods (And others). The only way to resolve this problem is to regulate to a degree. But not to excess. There should be a responsibility imposed on these so-called “terror-togs” whereby,they have to charge realistic prices and observe realistic practices. ( I know of one who offers weddings at £50.00.Yes! £50)and it is this that needs to be addressed. After all, what happens when all of the local professionals have been driven out, other responsible photographers cannot match such ridiculous prices and the suppliers go out of business ? BETTER BUSINESS PRACTICE-Industry wide,should be imposed and made a regulatory requirement before one can set up as a photographer. A NATIONAL REGISTER- A resource that can be checked on-line to see what photographers are actually legitimate. MEMBERSHIP OF A PROFESSIONAL BODY- This should be a prerequisite. FULLY INSURANCE REGISTERED- All should be registered in the ways already discussed. REGIONAL TRADING STANDARDS REGISTRATION- All photographers should have to be registered with trading standards and should be subject to annual checks for all of the above and a “kite mark” issued. Plus,it shows customers that they are not being subjected to a third rate and unmonitored service provider. That is the only sort of regulation needed.Nothing to do with income sources or levels. Oh,and as for the ridiculous comment about regulating Weekend Rock Stars and Shop Assistants,they already are through insurance,employment regulations,employment contracts, agency contracts and health and safety regulations. So,why shouldn’t photographers ? I think that what has been missed from this discussion is the client. Very few of our clients have bought photography before and are not sure where the value is. Careful clients who are spending hard earnt savings on a wedding know that “cheap” photography is likely to be disappointing. There is a market for quality work and on the other hand there are clients who wish to make a purchase decision based solely on price. As business people we have to decide which market we promote ourselves to and then differentiate ourselves with our images and the albums we offer. Photographers who start cheap will soon become expensive if they are successful. Then there are the expensive photographers (often with an L somewhere) who deliver cheap work, we’ve all heard about them and they get us a bad name too, it’s not always the starters.  Mike Wells says: I too am a weekend warrior and work full time as a Bar manager, I have a very understanding boss. I have and do all of the things mentioned in the list and know several full time photographers locally. Only one of them has a problem with weekend warriors in fact this particular photographer has a problem with full timers aswell !! I have no formal training and belong to no regulatory body but not one of my 50 plus wedding clients has complained about poor photography and I do not undercut the full timers, I think I am more expensive than some. Its too big a marketplace to regulate, live and let live, yes there are crap photographers who are cheap but if a customer wants cheap that’s their look out, you get what you pay for, or should do. @Jim Callan I don’t think your plan is well thought through. 1) Who decides what constitutes a “realistic price?” 2) Who defines what is a “professional body” – there are so many so-called professional bodies out there – which ones count? A great number of these bodies are nothing more than a means of making money from photographers – you pay your money to them and gain some perceived authenticity. 3) A National Register. What is going to drive clients to book a photographer from a national register? Do you plan on lobbying for a law which makes it illegal for a client to use a photographer who is not on the register? If not, then it all becomes pointless. There are undoubtedly amateur photographers out there who do a really good job, just as there are professionals who do a lousy one. Of course, the opposite is also true.  Suzanne Fells says: One of the main problems is the size of the market, enough photography students graduate every year to fill all the jobs in Eastern Europe alone. There are way too many of us trying to make a living and way too many organisations. The client, as stated above, does not have a clue what they are paying for / getting but sees an angle to haggle down prices. The check list is a good start and should be a ‘given’ anyway. Couples / employers should ask to see evidence but be prepared to pay a fair market price ( this is not difficult to find). There are many people who hide behind lenses and kit and/ or qualifications but no flair or style and then those who are fantastic photographers without qualifications. There is no need for regulation in the wedding industry. Market forces are applied very well and quality is justly rewarded. I know many ‘full timers’ who claim to be professional but have a distinct lack of creativity in them. Yes, they may be full time, insured, a member of a professional body but they are woefully inadequate as a photographer and struggling to survive as a result. It is just not good enough to judge someones ability to act professionally, deliver great service and be creative at a wedding by looking at 20 of their career best images that could have been taken over a period of many years. There are too many organisations claiming to represent professionals that will let anyone in if they can get subs from them. Do they need regulating? No. The best will adapt and survive. The worst will spiral into extinction. We have a fabulous wedding photography industry in the UK served by a mix of part time and full time photographers. Don’t for a minute consider a thriving part timer is in any way inferior to a struggling full timer. I believe our industry is among the best in the world and the creativity that is eminating from UK photographers with or without the so called professional bodies is exciting. The Tweet ups I go to are full of the forward thinking next generation. Rich with creativity and not likely to ever join one of the dinosaur professional bodies. With current market forces photographers are being judged on their abilities, product offerings, character and customer service. I’m glad they are not judged on what letters they have after their name because they represent zip. I’m not in favour of a barrier to entry into photography. I’d rather see better recognised training given. Thanks Ron & Co So I’m an idiot …. Thanks mate. I’m a part time freelancer who supplies my services to national and multi national companies, actors, performers and just about anyone who wishes to use me. I’m an idiot who pays his tax to the HMRC. But …. I never call myself professional because I earn less than 10% of my income from my photography. I have a more professional attitude than a lot of photographers in my area, and have never had any complaints unlike them. I belong to the SWPP, and sometime I wish I didn’t. I have met many members, and they are members … If you get what I mean, as these big time pros are so up their own backsides, and put some real crap into the Society magazine. I wouldn’t join the NPS either if it’s run by people like Ron the photographer slayer. I’m fed up with people like you running people down all the time, even though we seem to be doing something right. Having qualification makes no difference either, as I have had requests for work experience from totally useless photography students / graduates who have no idea of what makes a saleable photograph. PS: Dear Jim .. I’m not a terror tog either.  Peter Etchells says: I am a part time freelance photographer and I have been part time for 15 years. I have City & Guilds qualifications in photography and photography for me is a hobby that pays for it’s self unlike golf. I am a full time driving instructor, that is an industry that is regulated and with the economic climate as it is driving instructors are all trying to undercut each other. There are unqualified instructors some operating legally and some operating illegally as well as friends and relatives teaching people to drive. Being regulated would not make any difference apart from an increase in expences. Lots of opposing comments above which is why photography SHOULD be regulated, but it will never happen. Photography today is a free for all, buy a camera, computer and software and your off. There is no mystique left in photography and it seems that some images which verge on the rdiculous….are in fact seen as quite modern/cool? The reason for having Institutes and Associations is to basically protect the photographer and the public at the same time. My own opinion of people not wishing to be members of anything is that they are normally self centered, beleive they are too good to be criticised by others, loners or do not beleive in the common good of the photographic profession. Leading on from the above, the reason photography today is in a complete mess is because photographers do not work together, it has become a free for all marketing exercise, with people cashing in on training, marketing, new this, new that, the list goes on. Photography is a very simple art form, you can either do it or you can’t, those that can’t should, in my opinion, do something else. There should be no need for a photographer to have a CRB certificate. A photographer should never be left alone with anyone under the age of 18 anyway. I’m a photographer, not a childminder! I’ve never had a client yet who wanted to leave their kids! Getting a certificate is just another pice of bureaucracy when all that is needed is common sense. What would I need a COSHH sheet for? The closest I get to using chemicals near a client is when I brew up! Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what the requisite H & S equipment is? Do I need a hard hat to adjust a flash? A pair of rubber gloves to change a lens? Maybe a High-Vis vest will help me stand out at a wedding? Why should I be forced to pay a certain amount of National Insurance contributions? They are based on earnings so if I earn a lot, I pay a lot. If someone doesn’t earn a lot, then they only need pay class 2 contributions. How will my paying more NI benefit my customers or the public? I have a thriving business, set up last year after many years as a keen amateur. I’m completely self taught. I’ve never had a days tuition in any of the disciplines needed to operate a a photographer in business. These include photography, marketing, business management, website building, photoshop etc etc. I have done and still do, all of these things and more! The only thing letters after my name will give me is a longer name to type! They mean absolutely nothing to the general public! If you don’t believe me, tell your next client that you’re a member of the L.L.E. (Local Lunch Eaters – fictitious!) Asscociation and they will be just as impressed as if you had said you had letters from any of the associations!  Thomas says: I think it’s better to educate the public by showing them what really good photography looks like because ultimately this will separate the wheat from the chaff. |
Leave a Reply
|
|
- "I think it's better to educate the public by showing them wh..."
- From Thomas on The Professional Photographer - Regulation a Step Too Far?
- "There should be no need for a photographer to have a CRB cer..."
- From Glenn Smith on The Professional Photographer - Regulation a Step Too Far?
- "Lots of opposing comments above which is why photography SHO..."
- From Graham Holtom A.B.I.P.P on The Professional Photographer - Regulation a Step Too Far?
I am a weekender, I have another job, however I paid my way through college courses, have insurance, registered with hmrc, have accounts, member of swpp…. And slowly building up to one day being full time! Only 5 weddings last year. So am small fry, I am cheaper than the oldies in the area, but it’s a fine line between making money and gaining experience. I use quality products from Loxley, which are expensive but are great.
However the newbies in my area are charging £30 for an hour portrait session including a disc of all their images, at the clients home. And if you request prints / canvas they get them done at ASDA. What chance do you have!