I brought up this topic of opening a business forum, and since no one is posting, I guess I'll start!
I'm currently under the dilemma of either choosing a staff position or going freelance.
The benefits for me going staff are: Monthly salary, 25% commission on everything I shoot (on top of my salary), company SUV, health and dental insurance and company gear. Sounds great, but you get abused like hell and sometimes do not even get time off for several weeks straight from talking to staffers.
My other option is sticking to freelance. I can distribute my photos anywhere, pick and choose when and what I want to shoot. The way I work now is that I distribute my photos through an agency and get a 60% cut while the agency gets 40%. I actually don't mind it since the company already has the distribution infrastructure and they sell the photos over and over again without me doing anything but taking pictures. Only problem is that sales usually lag behind 3-4 months depending on when the client pays. So everything you get paid for is from 3-4 months back.
Anyways, I'm trying to figure which direction to take. Part of me feels that I can reach my true potential as a shooter working as a staffer, but the other part of me feels I'll sell myself short in the long run. And I always thought the point of being a photographer is to strive to be independent. Another thing is, I stumbled upon this study from the Department of Labor that looks down on freelancing. Financially it looks pretty dismal.
From the Department of Labor (USA):
"Earnings Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $24,040 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $17,740 and $34,910. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $14,640, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $49,920. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers were $31,460 for newspapers and periodicals and $21,860 for other professional or scientific 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."
Another scary quote:
"Job growth, however, will be constrained somewhat by the widespread use of digital photography and the falling price of digital equipment. Besides increasing photographers’ productivity, improvements in digital technology reduce barriers of entry into this profession and allow more individual consumers and businesses to produce, store, and access photographic images on their own. Declines in the newspaper industry also will reduce demand for photographers to provide still images for print."
Maybe if some of the other working shooters can give input on how they approached things it would help me out! I'm in no rush to make a decision by the way! :wink:
I'm currently under the dilemma of either choosing a staff position or going freelance.
The benefits for me going staff are: Monthly salary, 25% commission on everything I shoot (on top of my salary), company SUV, health and dental insurance and company gear. Sounds great, but you get abused like hell and sometimes do not even get time off for several weeks straight from talking to staffers.
My other option is sticking to freelance. I can distribute my photos anywhere, pick and choose when and what I want to shoot. The way I work now is that I distribute my photos through an agency and get a 60% cut while the agency gets 40%. I actually don't mind it since the company already has the distribution infrastructure and they sell the photos over and over again without me doing anything but taking pictures. Only problem is that sales usually lag behind 3-4 months depending on when the client pays. So everything you get paid for is from 3-4 months back.
Anyways, I'm trying to figure which direction to take. Part of me feels that I can reach my true potential as a shooter working as a staffer, but the other part of me feels I'll sell myself short in the long run. And I always thought the point of being a photographer is to strive to be independent. Another thing is, I stumbled upon this study from the Department of Labor that looks down on freelancing. Financially it looks pretty dismal.
From the Department of Labor (USA):
"Earnings Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $24,040 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $17,740 and $34,910. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $14,640, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $49,920. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers were $31,460 for newspapers and periodicals and $21,860 for other professional or scientific 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."
Another scary quote:
"Job growth, however, will be constrained somewhat by the widespread use of digital photography and the falling price of digital equipment. Besides increasing photographers’ productivity, improvements in digital technology reduce barriers of entry into this profession and allow more individual consumers and businesses to produce, store, and access photographic images on their own. Declines in the newspaper industry also will reduce demand for photographers to provide still images for print."
Maybe if some of the other working shooters can give input on how they approached things it would help me out! I'm in no rush to make a decision by the way! :wink: