Six-figure Photographers

Not that six-figures per year in US $ is so much anymore, but I was just

curious what percent of professional photographers (defined as those who make

any money at photography at all on any sort of a regular basis, say annually)

make or exceed this annually? And if so, what is the pie breakdown by type of

photography? For example, I've heard from a professional photographer that

weddings and kids birthdays are what make the bucks and not so much landscape.

Gee, I really should have specified six figures after photography-related expenses (cameras, lenses, other camera accesories, printers, ink, printing, film and processing, travel, employees, assistants, etc.) and before non-photography-related expenses such as health insurance, etc., and then taxes.

http://www.collegegrad.com/careers/proft30.shtml

 

*** QUOTE ***

 

Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $26,080 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $18,380 and $37,370. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $15,000, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $54,180. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers were $32,800 for newspapers and periodicals and $23,100 for other professional, scientific, and technical services.

 

Salaried photographers?more of whom work full time?tend to earn more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves solely through their art.

 

*** END QUOTE ***

 

As to what kind of photographers earn the most money - in my opinion, it is the photographers who know business better than they know photography. Most photographers do not run their businesses like a business. Dentists don't do what they do because it is fun - so they run their businesses like a business and they succeed. Photographers tend to love what they do and let the business side go hang. And that's what ruins them.

 

Warhol was a businessman. Understand that and emulate it if getting rich is your goal.

Ah the hard truth. But the truth is good to know. Certainly my approach to photography, and my use for it, would never afford much of an ROI. Sure enough, the more I learn about photography, the more I spend (or work hard to save). I guess I knew this, but to see the stats really brings it home.

 

I don't know a whole lot about Andy Warhol except for some general familiarity with his art and his contribution to advertising--a subject I know some about given my ad agency background. I have to wonder if the opportunities afforded to Warhol and Ogilvy alike are a bit thinner today given the current flood of communications and the relative ease with which they come about. IMHO just as it is too late to get rich on the internet boom so is it too late to get rich the Warhol and Ogilvy ways.

 

So for now, back to my relatively less enjoyable job and the slow, expensive, time-consuming, frustrating, and tiring pursuit of my photographic objectives in the little bit of free time I have. After all, photography is only one component of my overall artistic goal.

And the truth shall piss you off...

Well, the way I see it, there are two types of pro photographers: those who shoot artistically whatever they want and sell their work like a painter, and then there are those who are commissioned to do portraits or wedding photography. Those who get hired I would think would earn more. Still, I'd rather shoot whatever I want. I have seen landscape photos on sale for 1,800 dollars, so you'd have to sell about sixty a year to get a six figure income. Which is a very many pictures. In fact, I can't even see taking sixty photos a year that were worth 1800 dollars.

You got that right, Leszek.

 

I forgot to comment on: "...if getting rich is your goal":

 

Beyond the idea that getting rich should never be your goal, but perhaps rather a means to your goal...if you want to do photography you'd better get rich so you can afford it and if you are interested in certain landscapes you'd better get rich quick before they're gone or changed!

Income might be better presented as income for a number of years by individuals. Many

photographers have peaks, and in dense urban situations there are those that go over the

edge to have others come right in behind so that it can look like a single populatiion of

photographers.

 

For example, in 1973 I was making about $73,000 a year. Did it last? Yes, with a bit of loss

to '74 and then it went to insignificanse ... and right afterwards my colleagues went right

into the same well endowed vacuum, then others afterwards. In all, the population

numbers had not changed, but the photographers did.

 

Best,

Pico

60 photos at $1800 is not a six-figure income. It's a six-figure gross, which isn't even close to the same thing.

"Income might be better presented as income for a number of years by individuals."

 

Good point. An average over several recent years would be more useful.

 

"In 1973 I was making about $73,000 a year"

 

That sounds like it was quite an acheivement. Without doing a calculation, I might guess that translating that figure to this decade from a strictly economic standpoint would easily yield a six-figure value.

 

"In all, the population numbers had not changed, but the photographers did."

 

I'm not exactly sure what that means but I might guess that it might relate to the idea that it would be pretty hard for most photographers today to make the 1973 economic equivalent of $73,000/year on a regular basis.

Wigwam hit it right on the head. He said "As to what kind of photographers earn the most money - in my opinion, it is the photographers who know business better than they know photography. Most photographers do not run their businesses like a business."

 

There are two ways to sell pictures. Sell them and market them. If you choose the marketing approach (Web site, stock agencies, advertizing, etc) you will make bupkis. On the other hand if you learn to be a master salesman. You can make a six figure income. Selling your photography is a job unto itself. You must have specific skills that professional salespeople have. You can get these by taking serious (and usually expensive) sales training courses. This is money well spent.

 

I train salespeople as a side business. (Used to do it full time.) I can tell you this. Everybody has a nice portfolio and they whip it out for anyone who is willing to look. It will not sell you. Pictures are not what people buy. Once you figure out what you are selling to a specific customer you can sell them without ever using it. I can't remember the last time I showed mine to somebody.

Years ago, I sold computers. I noticed that my customers asked for me. When our store moved to a different brand of computers, my customers still came in, still bought, still asked for me. It wasn't about the computer. I was selling myself.

 

Sales skills, office skills, accounting skills - all of these go into a successful business. What the business does is nearly incidental. Photographers often don't 'get' that.

 

But tell me, what dentist is his or her own receptionist? Makes appointments? Does their own billing? Makes dunning calls for non-pays? Right, none. Dentists are the revenue stream. Revenue streams spend their time being billable. Why would being an independent photographer be any different?

 

If you're a studio photographer, you know that your reputation matters, but it takes time to earn a reputation and have the word spread. In the meantime, what's the first thing people ask for when they stop in off the street? Your brochure. If you made it yourself, you're probably a fool, unless you are also a great advertising person. Hire someone to do that. You take great photos - no doubt. But so do 10,000 other snappers out there. What makes yours different? It is all down to presentation.

 

I've gone to those bridal shows where all the photographers and caterers and so on set up tables. I've seen some great photos in some terrible displays, and I've seen some low-buck booths with some great photographers sitting in there all lonely. The most popular booths were covered in eye-catching crapola. Who do you think gets the work? Same for websites. My website design skills suck compared to the real web hotshots out there. Their abilities are worth paying for if you expect to sell dollar one on the web.

 

And of course, if you are paying attention to your business, you know that all these expenses - they're all tax deductible.

 

Anyway, just a bunch of my blah-blah-blah. I came to the realization some time ago that it isn't about being a competent photographer and working hard. It never was. Oh, you need that too, of course. But sales and marketing beats photographic skills any day if you're looking to draw an income from your photo business.

My "day rate" for product/studio/location photography in the late 70s was $650, half day was $450 ...quickie product shots were $200 unless they were in dozens, as for catalogs when I'd drop as low as $50 ea. All plus film and processing, of course. That made me a utility hitter ...in the lower 1/3 of always-working commercial photogs in San Francisco back then...maybe 20 of us who never had trouble getting work. The high day rate that I knew about was around $2500.I usually shot 2-3 full day equivalents each week, same amount of time as the stars making 3X. They were big league, top tier by any standard. They'd assisted Irving Penn, studied with Minor White etc. Our association's ETHICAL minimum day rate was $200. Advertising agencies avoided people who undercut our rates ...the agencies had to use us because we were by definition good enough to charge full fare. When they hired a rookie, they did it by skill and not by price. Real professional photographers thought that was the right way to do things.

 

Wedding specialists, by contrast, reportedly averaged around $1500 per, and the better several executive portrait photographers (eg for press releases) charged $200-$450 per sitting. Wedding and portrait rates didn't usually include prints, sometimes included proofs.

 

I don't know about today, but at that time people who didn't succeed used today's alibi about sales Vs skill. The best paid guys were the best of us photographically and the best clients recognized the best work. I did reliably well, but didn't like the work enough to stick with it.

Knowledgeable buyers buy skill, John, I can't deny that. But look at your own statement - photographers who had "studied with Minor White," etc got the big bucks. Because they were that much better than you? No, because their reputations preceded them. Maybe they were that much better than you, but that was largely irrelevant after the basics of skills. Sizzle sells, not steak. People buy on the anticipation of what they're going to get. They'll even tell themselves they got it if they didn't in some cases.

 

People who buy cars and wedding photos are typically not knowledgeable buyers. There are always exceptions, but generally one doesn't buy cars or get married often enough to develop any real expertise in knowing a good photographer from a load of coal. All the marketing in the world won't make a bad photographer into a good one, but when two photographers have approximately equal skills and one is marketed better than the other, the one with the marketing package wins enough times to make it worth the investment.

 

If it was only about skill, any major league ball player could get any old agent at all - since the team is just buying their ability, not their sales presentation. But that's not the case, is it? The best agents are the ones that sell their clients better and negotiate better deals - the skills have to be there, but the sales and marketing clearly matter.

 

If it was only about cleaning dishes, any old dish detergent would do. So why would companies spend millions upon millions to differentiate their soap from another brand of nearly-identical soap? Marketing matters.

 

Old days, modern days, it is all the same days. Anybody who tells you they aren't selling anything is selling something, but it isn't very fragrant.

 

As to 'day rates,' making $1500 gross in a single day sounds pretty good. Until one realizes that since most folks only get married on Saturdays, and you can only shoot (on average) one wedding per Saturday, that's only 52 times a year you can earn money if you only shoot weddings. Now take out your taxes, expenses, and pay yourself what's left - about 25K USD per year. People *do* get rich as wedding photographers - and people win lotteries, too. Treat your business like a business and you increase your chances of winning that lottery.

 

Skills are great - but all that stuff about hard work and ability winning the day? Nope. Didn't happen then, doesn't happen now. Hard work matters. Skill matters. The people who win are generally the ones who have the best sales and marketing skills, presuming they can also handle a camera.