November 16, 2003
Weekly Column By
Wedding Photography and the "$39K Schmuck"
On November 6th, on www.cbs.marketwatch.com, a reporter named Chris Plummer wrote an article that has caused a stir among professional photographers. The article purports to name the ten most overpaid jobs in the United States. The top ones are just as you'd expect: CEOs of failing companies, washed-up athletes working out the remaining years of big contracts, and mutual fund managers. Surprisingly, however, the #10 spot named, of all things, wedding photographers.
Here's the entry:
10) Wedding photographers
Photographers typically charge $2,000 to $5,000 to shoot a wedding, for what amounts to a one-day assignment plus initial client-meeting and processing time. Yet many mope through the job, bumping guests in their way without apology, with the attitude: "I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National Geographic calls."
They must cover equipment and film-development costs. Still, many in major metro areas who shoot two weddings each weekend in the May-to-October season can pull in $75,000 to $100,000 for six months' work.
Yet let's face it; much of their work is mediocre. Have you ever really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you by recent newlyweds? Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon they're not, but some charge fees as if they're in the same league."
A lot of photographers, I'm sure, winced when they read this. As a friend who's a (very) high-paid corporate lawyer explains, the public can't afford his services — only corporations are rich enough to hire him. Lawyer jokes exist because the public deals with the bottom-feeders, almost by definition. It's not quite as bad in photography, but dealing with the public is a big negative for most pros, who prefer to deal with professional buyers — ad agencies, editors, stock houses, whatever — who know what custom photography costs and who you don't have to educate each time they hire you. The public, on the other hand, has a nearly indomitable prejudice that photography is cheap, an attitude doubtless inculcated by drugstore print prices and Wal-Mart portraits.
In 1988 I took an interesting seminar from a photographer named Karl Francetic. He said at the time that the average pro photographer in America spent 75% or more of his or her time marketing, charged a day rate of $500, worked an average of two and a half days a week, billed $75K, and kept $39K before taxes.
He called that pro "The $39K Schmuck."
The point of his seminar was, why would anybody want to do that? He (Francetic) cleared $1.6 million before taxes, running two studios round the clock shooting furniture for the furniture industry, while he himself travelled around the country doing high-dollar interior photography.
Interestingly, the reason he taught the seminars was because he had priced himself out of a lucrative segment of the market (the $500-$1000 day rate) yet got a lot of requests for that level of work. He was looking for some photographers to whom he could delegate such work in return for a cut. He thought this would be relatively easy, since he was offering, in effect, to do the hardest part of a photographer's job for him: getting the work. He was offering to help set people up in business, starting with a free portfolio review. At the time, he had been giving the seminar for two years to full houses and not one person had taken him up on his offer of a free portfolio review.
I'd be really interested to know what the figures in the first paragraph are today. I'll bet we could call PMA and find out, although I haven't done so. Pro photography took a big dive in the early '90s...lots of studios and photographers went out of business, and the ones who were left had a lot of belt-tightening to do. I really don't know what the professional situation is today.
I doubt most wedding photographers clear anything like $100K, though. Nor is there any reason to think of a wedding a "one day assignment," except perhaps if you've never done one. In fact, weddings are difficult work. The wedding photographer works like a sled-dog, is under a lot of pressure to produce, has to both educate and coddle his clients, and has to endure a certain amount of contempt from his subjects. I doubt most wedding photographers "mope" through their assignments — except perhaps the ones chosen by true cheapskates. Lots of very accomplished pros won't do weddings, and that's no accident.
Not too long after I took that seminar, I did one of the only weddings of my career, for an old friend I've known since second grade. I shot 40 rolls of film, made almost 400 workprints, and ended up with (I think) 40 or so archival black-and-white fiber prints, mounted in a handmade book with a cover of Hawaiian Koa wood. It took me a year to complete, although I admit I took my sweet time. I charged my friends a few hundred dollars for expenses, and they loved the book — every now and then I hear from them when they've gone through it again. However, I honestly don't think I could do that kind of work profitably for anything less than about $4k per wedding. Even at that I'm not sure I'd want to make a career of it. It's just too labor intensive.
PPA strikes back
Five days after the original article came out, the Professional Photographers of America struck back. Here's the press release:
November 11, 2003
For Immediate Release
PPA Stands Up For Wedding Photographers
ATLANTA, Ga. — Professional Photographers of America took immediate action when a shocking CBS MarketWatch article placed wedding photographers on a "ten most overpaid jobs" list.
PPA President Bob Lloyd and PPA President-Elect Ann Monteith both wrote strong responses to the journalist and set the record straight with facts and figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook as well as a survey of photographers¹ business practices conducted by PPA in 2000.
Click here to read the original CBS MarketWatch article.
Click here to read the response sent by PPA President Robert D. Lloyd.
Click here to read the response sent by PPA President-Elect Ann K. Monteith.
So...overpaid? Ironically, it may be more true that most wedding photographers are underpaid. The reason is that most clients have no idea of the real cost of the work, and are always trying to lowball the job. And the job is difficult enough that a lot of photographers don't want the work. It's bad enough being a $39K schmuck, without having to work 50 hours a week for clients who don't really appreciate what it takes to do what you do.
— Mike Johnston
See Mike Johnston’s website at www.37thframe.com. Also, check out his monthly column in the British Black & White Photography magazine! (Usually available at Barnes & Noble bookstores.)
Please support this column by subscribing to The 37th Frame, Mike Johnston's print newsletter for photographers.
Mike Johnston writes and publishes an independent quarterly ink-on-paper magazine called The 37th Frame for people who are really "into" photography. His book, The Empirical Photographer, has just been published.