Comments on: Don’t Be Scared of the F-Word When Exploring New Business Models

By: Matthew C. Kriner

Matthew C. Kriner — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:07:25 +0000

Or just take a pick and make sure you can bring it back if she hates it.

By: Gavin Heaton

Gavin Heaton — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:34:55 +0000

I think it's a matter of finding a balance between Fee and Free. But, of course, Free in most instances is the price you are paying for marketing (ie you provide value for nothing, but save the money you would otherwise have spent on your own marketing). I am not saying it is easy, but it is possible.

By: Fredrik Naumann

Fredrik Naumann — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:43:02 +0000

In these discussions I always come to think of this great rant by writer Harlan Ellison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

By: Paul Melcher

Paul Melcher — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:58:37 +0000

Thought provoking.. I like. However, the idea that photographer are like rock stars and should give away their expertise for free in the hopes of selling T-shirt on the side is flawed.
You are giving away what is your core business in the hopes of compensating in another market for which you have no special aptitudes. It's plain stupid.
Same goes with the "freemium" concept being shoved around as a revolutionary idea. Does everyone forget that those companies that have become succesful by offering free (Google, Twitter, Facebook) are or have been backed by millions of dollars of investment ? How do you replicate that as a lonely photographer ?
Let's not kid ourselves and everyone else. The model that you propose are unrealistic : hyperlinks are not edible : you will be the most well known dead photographer.
Again, kudos for the approach. That is exactly the type of thinking this industry needs.

By: vlatko juric-kokic

vlatko juric-kokic — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:56:46 +0000

Um, there's a glaring hole in your argument for "free" photos.

Harrison didn't give away the photo for free. You yourself make that clear in the last part of the text.

You mention the new business model which consists of "find someone else who will pay for your work". That's fine. That's terrific. But not "free", what would have otherwise happened if Harrison gave the photo to the publication without any payment.

So we are talking about different things here...

Still, it gave you another twitter follower.

I don't know why I have the need to justify myself, but I will: like Pete Brook, I also gave away my work, both photo and writing, to various things I want to support. The difference is that I was the one who decided it, it was not imposed by somebody else. I guess the difference really is what people usually talk about in the "free" versus "paying" debate.

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:14:14 +0000

Very good thoughts and attitudes towards a difficult and often aggravating issue. I am facing one such dilemma even now. This post has inspired me to at least want to be more creative in terms of compensation...hopefully, during these types of discussions I will find that balance where I feel that I am adequately rewarded and subjects/clients receive the product they desire and need.

Thanks for clear minds and expressing it so well.

By: Pete Brook

Pete Brook — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:36:56 +0000

I said "bollocks" on twitter and I still maintain "bollocks" here, although your argument is VERY well made. I fear that in an economic order that still hasn't got to grips with micropayments, the choices remain 'charge' or 'free'; and with that choice too many photographers will fall upon the sword of martyrdom for a craft that isn't supported by its new infrastructure. Jonathan, you and I would probably agree that if the weaker fall by the way side because they either aren't good enough, inventive enough or diligent enough than they deserve what they get, but in the tussle between creators and distributors (if that distinction remains applicable) then the big guns will win and the individual, the creator will lose. As another commenter mentioned Clay Shirky, I will too. I think his projection of current media production not being predictable (if ever settling down) in the next 20 years is spot on. In such an environment of uncertainty, I think we need to offer caveats to folk before we start yelling that they should give it out for free. If I may make a generalisation, younger and more tech-savvy creators will have lesser expectations for monetary reward, more diverse skills and (possibly) fewer risks to put on the line by trying the exciting approach you suggest. I wish them luck. I myself put a lot of content out there for free, but it is because I have a passion for prisons, reform and media representations through photography. I wouldn't know how to forecast possibly future benefits, or what they may be. I just know I can create currently because of my circumstance. Maybe, new media, new alliances and new opportunity is the great equaliser and maybe we are experiencing a democratisation of knowledge, but I would hesitate in making such a rallying call for all to jump on-board. That said, the economics of one household based upon these tactics is small fries compared to the larger macroeconomic forces battering whole industries. I guess, I am saying, we should think ourselves lucky if we have the circumstance and control to take a risk, but we shouldn't presume it'll work out for all that take it. If I wasn't one of your Twitter followers already, I would be now. Pete PS. You're article was one of the best I've read at Black Star in recent memory ... and you should be recognised for that!

By: Jonathan Worth

Jonathan Worth — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:39:39 +0000

Thanks Jason,thanks Duane- support and input appreciated. Few more books for you (and Tweeters) : Clay Shirky "Here comes everybody", Jeff Jarvis "What Would Google Do" and Fred Ritchin "After Photography". Cheers,jDubbyah

By: Duane Stevens

Duane Stevens — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:00:50 +0000

After thinking for the past few years that "free is evil," I can identify with the photographers in that camp. Actually, I can identify with both sides... since I've often fallen into the desire for ego-strokes vs. payment.

But the essence of this posting is true: Be willing to EXPLORE the option; it may or may not work for you. If you want to delve into this deeper, may I suggest the recent book "Free" by Chris Anderson. See Chris's free blog: http://www.thelongtail.com/

By: Jason Collin Photography

Jason Collin Photography — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:40:26 +0000

Sorry, I forgot to say in my comment that this blog post has at least earned you a new Twitter follower Jonathan.

By: Jason Collin Photography

Jason Collin Photography — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:38:38 +0000

There are some very good arguments made in this post Jonathan, and it made me laugh when you pointed out Black Star actually does not pay the guest bloggers for their posts!

I cannot help, like you, to throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what works. I still mix in the occasional for credit only job (if I have no paying photog jobs at the time) and hand out a free print here and there (for example action dog shots to acquaintances in the dog park). I go to my local post office once a month and pin a new 8.5x11 flyer of my photography services. Sometimes I randomly leave a business postcard on a windshield or two.

It kind of seems like photographers who can say no to credit only work can afford to, and photographers just starting out or surviving part-time on photo work, who need the money, might be the ones saying yes to credit only work more. So this creates the head chasing the tail circle of want to make money from photography, am only offered credit only work, so need the exposure, but will not ever start to get paid for photo work until I say no to credit only jobs.