Do You Market Any Photography Education You Have?

[mark_fasano]

If you've gone to photography school, or completed seminars, or courses, or

whatever, do you post this background info on your websites? If so, why? If not,

why not?

[steve_levine]

Since suddenly 99% of my competitors don't even know how to shoot, of course I mention my education and experience.

[neilambrose]

<p>If your formal training is good then by all means mention it, even make it a key differentiator in your marketing. But have an understanding of where your training positions you, otherwise it may backfire.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Since suddenly 99% of my competitors don't even know how to shoot, ...

 

Just curious, what suddenly happened? In any event, how nice for you.

[devoted]

I do indeed, I have an AFA, a BA, and belong to a professional association where I'm working on getting more qualifications.. I paid for that piece of paper and faced countless professors to get it. I do make a point of marketing it.

[christopher hartt dallas]

Pictures are like apple pies - when they're good, they're good; and when they're not good, they're not good. It doesn't make the pie taste any better or worse knowing that the chef is a French Culinary graduate. So far as that goes...have you ever noticed how many "award winning" photographers there are? It seems that hordes of photographers are trying to market themselves by selling education, training or awards when the artist's images should be the object of a buyer's attention. Pictures, after all, do speak louder than words IMHO.

[annealmasy]

I used to. When I first started out, I needed all the credentials I could show since I didnt have

a large portfolio.

 

Now that we have tons of referrals and a huge portfolio, I don't mention it. No one seems to

care either. :)

[bruce_rubenstein]

Greg Gibson (http://www.greggibson.com/) doesn't mention his two Pulitzer Prizes on his home page, but it does come up right away when you enter his site.

 

I don't think that making a big deal out of a trade school degree is going to make much of an impression on most clients. Your work has to sell itself.

[sandra_schaffer]

"Since suddenly 99% of my competitors don't even know how to shoot, of course I mention my education and experience."

 

Now THAT is an arrogant Statement. Made me laugh!

 

You can go to school forever to be something but the proof in the pudding are results which usually come fron experience. Your work should sell itself if it is good enough.

[picturesque]

I don't mention education because not many prospective clients care whether I was schooled in photography or not. They care about the final product. They do care about experience, though. I often get asked about the length of time I've been photographing weddings.

[steve_levine]

Arrogant? The competition around here is advertising weddings for $300-500. After viewing their webby-pages, I doubt if any of them even took photography in high school.

[ian_cooke1]

Wow Steve, with that kind of competition you must have more clients than you know what to do with and be raking in the dough!

<p>

Frankly, I wouldn't even call that type of work "competition" . Competition is someone who is in the same market and vying for the same clientelle as you are. So maybe you have no "competition" then, which is great! Gee, I sure wish I was in your position!

<p>

<br>

I'm sort of like Anne. I used to mention it a lot, but have stopped. Every once in a while I get asked by someone about how I learned or if I went to school for photography, and then I explain, but I rarely volunteer the information. <br>There's not much point in bragging about how much you know versus what your "competition" doesn't know :-)

[Brad_]

>>> do you post this background info on your websites? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

>>>> Since suddenly 99% of my competitors don't even know how to shoot, of course I

mention my education and experience.

 

Would like to see how that's done - can you post a link to your site?

 

And would still like to know WHAT happened so suddenly that made 99% of your competition

not know how to shoot. Must be great being in such an enviable position!

[rob_s___san_francisco_bay_]

">>>> Since suddenly 99% of my competitors don't even know how to shoot"

<p>

As many people wiser than I have pointed out, you should look at "competitors" more as colleagues than "competition". We are all better off in every way if we support each other. I know I would not be where I am without the help of some very cool photographers I've met along the way, and I've hopefully been able to help them out equally in return. I've also started using assistants/second shooters and have been glad to offer helpful advice. Instead of complaining about people not knowing how to shoot, why not help them shoot better? <p>-- It just raises the bar for everyone in many different ways. It's also another way to **market** your photography education.

[mstudio]

"The competition around here is advertising weddings for $300-500. After viewing their

webby-pages, I doubt if any of them even took photography in high school."

 

They would be your competition only if you charge $300-$500. There's a market for

everyone. Don't fear the ones that didn't go to school and are bad, frankly you shouldn't

fear

anyone if youre good. You also left out the ones that didn't go to school and are realy

good and charge alot more than $500.00. Competition is good and forces people to be

better.

[jacob_brown]

"suddenly 99% of my competitors don't even know how to shoot... The competition around here is advertising weddings for $300-500."

 

So you've visited the sites of all the competition 'around there' and 99% of them not only undercut your price but demonstrate obvious incompetence ... suddenly.

 

Well that makes sense.

[susan_davis2]

Ha ha! 99 percent! Steve Levine, could you post your website so we can see examples from someone who DOES know how to shoot? Your comments make me curious.

[conraderb]

IMHO, an education in photography is only icing on the cake. I think that too many photographers with weak portfolios mention it b/c they are insecure.

 

credentials are neither necessary nor sufficient for strong wedding photography.

 

at worst, it makes someone who barely knows what they are doing look more legitimate. for the couple who like credentials, this may mean disappointment when they realize that many fantastic photographers never took a course in their life.

 

a quick story - I recently worked with a brooks graduate who, IMHO, has weak images.

 

I happened to have a couple approach me about shooting their wedding a while ago, but they went with him because "he went to Brooks". No problem with me.

 

Later on, after the couple received their prints and expressed regret that they didn't hire me.

 

When I worked w/ the photographer, it was clear that he had no edge up on me for any technical details, despite the $90,000 or more spent on his education.

 

THAT is hilarious.

 

So - education is neither necessary nor sufficient. If you have it, fine. But it doesn't mean that your images are any good.

 

The above story can be repeated for many photographers who are 'award winning' or 'internationally published'. I am award winning, and 'internationally published', but I don't mention that b/c I think that makes me look insecure.

 

As always, the proof is in the pudding. The images matter the most. If a photographer puts credentials on their site, that's fine. But it's all wasted money and effort if their images aren't strong.

[conraderb]

Oh yes -

 

"Since suddenly 99% of my competitors don't even know how to shoot, of course I mention my education and experience."

 

IMHO, if competition doesn't know how to shoot, then mentioning education should be ever less important as long as one's work is strong. if education compensates for quality, that means your education is a marketing tool instead of a photographic tool.