Competition Photo Costs

[cantskiforlife]

No, those are just the individual pictures...I did finally find the Alliance website and after going thru the numerous sections from Friday, I finally found it. And one good pic of me which has my mom sitting in the background taking a pic of me. lol! Too bad a 5x7 is $15.00 or I'd get it! Oh well...was cool to look at, though.

What do you think is an appropriate cost for the prints? I have been struggling with this one recently as % taken by the services I use means I barely make anything whenever anyone orders a print.

I currently charge $10 for a 5x7 and there is a fixed charge of $5 per order plus there is about 15% charge for the transaction. After all is said and done I earn about $3.50.

The costs are probably about the same for Alliance if they use a vendor to print/ship images.

[tanya_the_dancer]

What if you just sold the jpg file to the person and if they want a print they could go print it themselves?

[Larinda McRaven]

I doubt that is even what Alliance makes. They had to pay shipping to get their equipement there. Vendor fees. Program Advertising. Hotel Union Employees to set up their table and give them extension cords. Salary to the photographer and lady at the desk. Paper to print on the spot.

Then they go home and get to make a tiny tiny bit from online sales, which hardly offsets what they lost at the competition.

Welcome to the world of business.

[tanya_the_dancer]

Then Alliance must be making money on something else, otherwise they'd have gone out of business long ago.

[Larinda McRaven]

Most vendors just break even. I work very very closely with several vendors. I see their bottom line. Many regular accountants and business people think they are nuts. Vendors actually do lose money by vending.

What they get though is exposure. And the sales and business that they reap AFTER the competition is hopefully enough to offset the loses AT the comp.

[reb]

I doubt that is what Alliance makes. They had to pay shipping to get their equipement there. Vendor fees. Program Advertising. Hotel Union Employees to set up their table and give them extension cords. Salary to the photographer and lady at the desk. Paper to print on the spot.

Then they go home and get to make a tiny tiny bit from online sales, which hardly offsets what they lost at the competition.

Welcome to the world of business.

Well said.

And there's taxes, FICA matching, FUTA, SUTA, insurance, theft and loss costs, and the list goes on . . .

[etp777]

Plus of course the emotional costs of being in a business where you're forced to be around attractive dancers all day. Man, wish I had such tragedies in my job. ;)

[mamboqueen]

I don't mind paying if the quality is good. I've had some of those on-site prints come out terrible...I prefer the vendors that mail them to me after they take the stuff back and process (using better equipment, I imagine). I do understand the high cost for them to vend, though. Just not sure I personally think some of their work is worth $20/shot to me.

Cantski -- I think you take very good pictures, and I think being a dancer is probably a big plus because you have a sense of when there's going to be a "money shot". I'd be interested in seeing some of your prints in person. Maybe Larinda has some at the studio??

[etp777]

I will say that last photographer I dealt with did a grat job. Onee pciture in particular grabbed a scene from my showcase better than any of 4-5 people taking pictures tha tweekend. As pro says when we get to that point "That's the picture!".


One of my favorite points of the choreography, and photograhpper, even at $20/3 4x6s, managed to PERFECTLy capture that moment, and the emotion/power of that part of choreography.

Heh, looks way better in picture than it did in the video at that same time. :)

[tanya_the_dancer]

I will say that last photographer I dealt with did a grat job. Onee pciture in particular grabbed a scene from my showcase better than any of 4-5 people taking pictures tha tweekend. As pro says when we get to that point "That's the picture!".


One of my favorite points of the choreography, and photograhpper, even at $20/3 4x6s, managed to PERFECTLy capture that moment, and the emotion/power of that part of choreography.

Heh, looks way better in picture than it did in the video at that same time. :)

I agree, I also have a photo moment http://www.dance-forums.com/album/photos/photo-1486.html which did not look as dynamic on video.

However, from photo vending why not eliminate prints altogether and just sell digital source file? Nobody is going to order multiple 4x6 or 5x7 prints of the same picture anyway. Might be the case years ago before digital photos and scanning devices, but not anymore, I think.

[etp777]

Oh, I'd certainly prefer to have original .tiff/jpg/whatever, as high quality as possible. Enlargements of picture I'm talking about are on wall at office, and will be on wall at home as soon as I find frame I like. But would definltey prefer origiinal file to taking 4x6 print enlarged to 8x10 at walgreeens.


Admittedly, this company was video vendor only last iIdealt with them, so don't blame them for having 4x6 only from digital printer. The actually did gr eat for first time I've dealt with them or pictures

[Standarddancer]

agree with the two previous posts. Digital format 1000 times better than paper prints, saves/eliminating printing costs, much easier to store/organize. It's digital era!

[tanya_the_dancer]

I think just selling jpg files electronically would cut the costs for photo vendors, b/c they would no longer need a printer, or paper, or mailing costs for the print, just a supply of their business cards with a website to download photos from.

[Josh]

...as % taken by the services I use means I barely make anything whenever anyone orders a print.

I currently charge $10 for a 5x7 and there is a fixed charge of $5 per order plus there is about 15% charge for the transaction. After all is said and done I earn about $3.50.

What does the fixed charge of $5 per order entail? Does that include printing and shipping to the customer? If so, $3.50 is darn good profit. You're netting 35%, be happy (then go pay your taxes)! Many businesses are very happy to net 10% per unit... find a way to sell more more more, (hint: digital)...!

[ChaChaMama]

Are you still your photos from Capital? I seem to recall there were a couple shots I was interested in, but never got around to purchasing.

GL with your business!

[cantskiforlife]

$5 is the minimum fee per order by the print vendor. It is independent of shipping and printing costs.

I actually prefer to send jpegs because it has a faster turnaround time, saves costs, and people can print wherever and whenever they want.

[etp777]

What does the fixed charge of $5 per order entail? Does that include printing and shipping to the customer? If so, $3.50 is darn good profit. You're netting 35%, be happy (then go pay your taxes)! Many businesses are very happy to net 10% per unit... find a way to sell more more more, (hint: digital)...!


Actually, $3.50 out of $5 woould be 70%. ;) Just sayin. :)

[njdancegirl]

I just purchased pics at NJ Open from Alliance - they charge same price for 5x7 prints as for JPG on CD. $20 for the first; $15 each additional. At first it feels high, but I can print as I like so not bad.

[etp777]

No jps at last comp, just 4x6 prints, but as far as I know, firs ttime that vendor has done pics (it was our regular video vendor). $20/3. Just took them to Walgreens and got prints/enlargements)

[Chris Stratton]

If so, $3.50 is darn good profit. You're netting 35%, be happy (then go pay your taxes)!

May need to keep in mind that hundreds of pictures are taken for every one actually sold.

Okay, today, there may not be consumables costs, but there's still equipment, getting to the comp, standing on feet that long, etc.

[reb]

Actually, $3.50 out of $5 woould be 70%. ;) Just sayin. :)

Your calculator appears to be operating ok etp, but like the covers on books (you're not supposed to eat them), you forgot to consider the units in addition to the numbers - in other words . . . that's not how to calculate margin, or profit!

just sayin ;)




:D

[etp777]

Ha, touche. :)

I'l go back to reminding myself I need to scan in these photos (this photographer ONLY offers 4x6 prints, so don't feel bad scanning, enlarging or duplicating, before anyone says anything)

[Joe]

$5 is the minimum fee per order by the print vendor. It is independent of shipping and printing costs.
Probably "bandwidth" costs.

[tanya_the_dancer]

May need to keep in mind that hundreds of pictures are taken for every one actually sold.

Okay, today, there may not be consumables costs, but there's still equipment, getting to the comp, standing on feet that long, etc.

That's because a lot of photos are not that great, since they're shooting moving objects.

[SDsalsaguy]

That's because a lot of photos are not that great, since they're shooting moving objects.
So what? That doesn't change the fact that what you are paying for isn't only the single photo you but the total investment--including costs and effort--in getting it.

The following comment is not directed solely at this thread, but rather at all the other posts and comments that have come up before in past discussions of ballroom photography:

Those of you who purchase a print and scan it to make duplicates are blatantly violating copyright laws, and if the photographers in question ever chose to prosecute you would lose a lot of money. It doesn't really matter what you think of their prices, the legality on this is very clear.

In a related vein, those of you who think that everyone wants jpegs and that no one re-orders prints are actually voicing your opinions and are not, in fact, speaking for the majority of those who actually express interest in purchasing images. (I say this as someone who has been involved with ballroom photography for the past five years, and who has developed working relationships with most of the more prominent photo vendors.)

Yes selling a jpeg is faster and easier, but it also costs the vendor all residual income from it. Why should they only make the same ammount if you print one 4x6 or 25 8x10s?

Digital photography or not, equipment is very expensive and is subject to wear and tear. Is this supposed to be covered by the $10/jpeg that some of you think the "fair" cost.

Add to all of this the simple fact that video vendors--whose equipment typically works out to be less expensive--are protected from competition whereas phtoographers are not.

These are just some of the issues involved, but I'm truly shocked at how uninformed the perspectives of many DFers are on the topic. This lack of perspective is most clear in those whose posts have incriminated themselves for any possible legal actions ever pursued against them (for your sakes I hope you don't get sued, but I would find against you in a heartbeat if ever involved in such a situation myself).

[samina]

mebbe charging more for a good jpeg is the answer...in this digital world, some of the old paper-based ways of doing business have to change.

[tanya_the_dancer]

So what? That doesn't change the fact that what you are paying for isn't only the single photo you but the total investment--including costs and effort--in getting it.


I merely responded to Chris's comment that only a fraction of photos really gets sold. It's not necessarily the photographer's fault if the photo is bad, btw. I could be making a crappy line in it, and why would I want to buy a photo where I made myself look bad? To remind myself not to do it again? If there is 10-15 photos of me from the event and only 1 of them is good, I will buy only the good one and I do not feel obligated to pay for not so good ones.

[SDsalsaguy]

mebbe charging more for a good jpeg is the answer...in this digital world, some of the old paper-based ways of doing business have to change.
Agreed Sam, but again I want to point out what a large majority of customers still want paper prints (something Larnida has posted about in the past as well). Keep in mind that DF members are highly non-representative of the general ballroom public when it comes to familiarity and comfort with digital media.

[fascination]

I love my paper copies...but...I pay for them...happily

[samina]

True...that I understand. Well...a bit higher charge for the few that want digitals with unlimited rights, and the vendor can still operate a hard-copy biz as well...

I understand the frustration, tho...I do...hopefully some new creative idea will emerge which makes the service both affordable and profitable!

[SDsalsaguy]

Tanya, I certainly agree that you should only purchase the images you want. My point was simply that what you pay (and fairly in my mind) is the cost of getting the images you like, i.e. not only for the taking those specific images.

[LucyDiamond]

True...that I understand. Well...a bit higher charge for the few that want digitals with unlimited rights, and the vendor can still operate a hard-copy biz as well...
I agree with this approach. I prefer buying digital versions, mainly because it works out to be less expensive for me in the long run when I print them locally. Plus, I like having the digital for printing months/years later, if I wish.

Having said that, I know plenty of folks who prefer hard-copy so, I think the vendors should offer both. Win-win set up for everyone, IMHO.

[Larinda McRaven]

Cantski... I can't wait for the first person to say to you that they should not have to pay for your services... or at least only half, since you were going to the comp anyway to dance with me....

[and123]

*snort*

[wooh]

If there is 10-15 photos of me from the event and only 1 of them is good, I will buy only the good one and I do not feel obligated to pay for not so good ones.

But to get that good one, someone has to pay for the time/equipment/all other costs of getting all of them so you can pick and choose which one you think is good. That one good one wouldn't exist without all those other costs. So you aren't paying for "one good picture," you're paying for the services involved in getting one or fifty good pictures.

**:)Of course, like Larinda said, cantski was going to be there anyway, and he's got a camera, he might as well have been taking pictures for free.:p

[fascination]

*snort*
make that a double;)

[fascination]

But to get that good one, someone has to pay for the time/equipment/all other costs of getting all of them so you can pick and choose which one you think is good. That one good one wouldn't exist without all those other costs. So you aren't paying for "one good picture," you're paying for the services involved in getting one or fifty good pictures.

**:)Of course, like Larinda said, cantski was going to be there anyway, and he's got a camera, he might as well have been taking pictures for free.:pprecisely...and anyone who has had to sort through hundreds of shots of themselves and only come up with one that they can tolerate can bear this out

[tanya_the_dancer]

But to get that good one, someone has to pay for the time/equipment/all other costs of getting all of them so you can pick and choose which one you think is good. That one good one wouldn't exist without all those other costs. So you aren't paying for "one good picture," you're paying for the services involved in getting one or fifty good pictures.

**:)Of course, like Larinda said, cantski was going to be there anyway, and he's got a camera, he might as well have been taking pictures for free.:p

But I did not hire that person to be there and take photos of just me, either. He is serving all attendees, so the costs are spread among all.

Also, I think most people have some $$ limit when they shop for anything, including photos at a comp. Personally, when I shop for photos at a comp, I try not to spend more than $100. Assuming extra charges are around $10, that means that if the product I want is $10 apiece, I would buy 9 different shots at most, if it is $15, I would only buy 6, even if it means that I chose not to buy a photo I would have bought if it was cheaper.

[elisedance]

I think this highlights the issue with all pay-for-service deals. Make sure you have the terms clearly spelled out before hand. Are you paying for a number of shots or only for those you select? There should be a fee for both really - one for the service and the other per image.

[fascination]

I don't think so elise...implicit in all business transactions, just a matter of common sense, is the operating costs of the supplier

[tanya_the_dancer]

I think this highlights the issue with all pay-for-service deals. Make sure you have the terms clearly spelled out before hand. Are you paying for a number of shots or only for those you select? There should be a fee for both really - one for the service and the other per image.

That's how it is if you go to a portrait studio. There is a sitting fee and per sheet fee, but they sometimes waive the sitting fee if you order a certain # of portrait sheets. But a sheet can contain more than one of the same image (1 8x10, or 2 5x7 etc.). I suppose if a photo order has a $5 per order charge, that would be equivalent of a sitting fee in a portrait studio.

[Larinda McRaven]

At a Competition:
buying a jpg
buying a print

Over the Internet:
buying a jpg
buying a print

Private Personal Appointment:
buying jpg
buying a print

Each of these incurs seperate types of fees and expectations. And I think the private sitting is a scenario we cannot use for analogies, since it is so far removed from what we are really discussing.

[SDsalsaguy]

I suppose if a photo order has a $5 per order charge, that would be equivalent of a sitting fee in a portrait studio.
No, the equivalent of a "sitting fee" would be an amount you would pay in advance for the photographer to even bother taking ANY shots of you at all.

[tanya_the_dancer]

Cantski... I can't wait for the first person to say to you that they should not have to pay for your services... or at least only half, since you were going to the comp anyway to dance with me....

So, was cantski one of the official photo vendors at the comp when he was not dancing with you? If not, how does the official vendor feel about him selling his shots?

I think this was brought up once. Most of the time, the average spectator photos are not so good. The average camera just isn't poweful enough to produce a good indoors shot, unless it is a close-up. But if someone has pro quality equipment, they can potentially take photos which are good enough to sell, and in theory they can charge less than the official vendor.

[fascination]

But I did not hire that person to be there and take photos of just me, either. He is serving all attendees, so the costs are spread among all.

Also, I think most people have some $$ limit when they shop for anything, including photos at a comp. Personally, when I shop for photos at a comp, I try not to spend more than $100. Assuming extra charges are around $10, that means that if the product I want is $10 apiece, I would buy 9 different shots at most, if it is $15, I would only buy 6, even if it means that I chose not to buy a photo I would have bought if it was cheaper.again, this still does not change the fact that aportion of his overhead falls to you and a prtion of what he took the time to shoot of you that didn't turn out is time he spent on you

[Larinda McRaven]

No he was not an offical vendor. But he had permission from the Organizer, and the vendor knows him and was aware.

He was however once already stopped from selling photos afterwards when an organizer called to tell him the offical vendor was complaining.

Vendors pay for the opportunity to sell their goods and services at the competition. What happens after the fact is hard rather to regulate.

[SDsalsaguy]

But if someone has pro quality equipment, they can potentially take photos which are good enough to sell, and in theory they can charge less than the official vendor.
Yes, in theory they can -- but unless they are taking images with the express permission of the organizer they are not a designated party and hence protected from legal liability covered by the image use release that organizers receive on entry forms.

For example, if two partners split and one still uses the image from an un-designated photographer against the wishes of the former partner, the photographer could be held liable as they had no model release to sell the former partner's image to anyone at any time.

[SDsalsaguy]

Vendors pay for the opportunity to sell their goods and services at the competition. What happens after the fact is hard rather to regulate.
It may be hard to regulate, but the legality is very clear.

[Larinda McRaven]

Also the vendor is not paying for EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to photograph and sell images from a particular competiton. What they are paying for is a (mandatory) ad in the program (usually at a reduced cost), and a booth in the vendor hallway, and the opportunity to place ads on the tables in the ballroom.

Unless there is something in the contract that says "exclusive"... I would guess it pretty much open to interpretation. Lots of people sell images they take at a professsional ballgame, and yet are clearly not the designated photographer.

If Cantski is not paying for the opportunity to vend and have those perks then that is what he gets, a weekend without those perks.

[Larinda McRaven]

It may be hard to regulate, but the legality is very clear.

Is it? I am unable to gain a profit from something that happend at the competition? Do I have to pay a vendor fee to the organizer when I gain a new student while dancing at a comp? How about a dress sale that doesn't get closed at the comp but is closed via phone 3 days later?

[SDsalsaguy]

Also the vendor is not paying for EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to photograph and sell images from a particular competiton.
Depends on the competition actually. And, as much as I personally dislike comps that prohibit private photography, I also understand this growing trend given how underhanded more and more photographers are getting in this regard. (Note: this is a general statement and in no way directed at cantski as I am unaware of the particulars in his case.)

[SDsalsaguy]

Is it? I am unable to gain a profit from something that happend at the competition? Do I have to pay a vendor fee to the organizer when I gain a new student while dancing at a comp? How about a dress sale that doesn't get closed at the comp but is closed via phone 3 days later?
Yes Larinda... it is. At least in so far as image releases are concerned, any non-officially recognized photographer could successfully be sued by anyone whose image they sell in any form or fashion. Most of the times those buying the images do not mind that these are for sale (to the contrary in fact), but the legal liability is entirely on the photographer as they are not covered under the image use release on entrant's forms and implicit to ballroom entry.

Also, and as I'd previously noted, the more that people continue trying to get around the rules, the tighter the rules will get. Indeed, this is exactly why there are events where CCP (and others) cannot even take a camera into the ballroom, and why Park West and Dore (among others) have had photographers removed from the ballroom.

[Larinda McRaven]

So the issue is with image releases and the people in the photos. Ultimately it has nothing to do with an organzier, a competition, and offical vendor trying to protect his hard-won territory for a weekend?

But when I sign my releases before the comp (I do?) or when I buy my ticket at the door, and somewhere around there is a notice that my image may be taken I sign away my rights. Yet I have Never been made aware who that photographer is or that they have exclusive rights to my image for the weekend, just that I LOSE my rights to my image.

[Larinda McRaven]

given how underhanded more and more photographers are getting in this regard.

And what I think is odd is that the pictures are taken at the competition. And the vendor pays a commission on all sales from that weekend. Yet when they get home and continue to sell photos from that weekend they pay NOTHING to the organizer... So in my mind this clearly defines the stastus between a someone selling from a booth at the comp and someone selling after the fact (whether they are seperate parties or even the same photographer)

Clearly I don't know or understand the legalities in these situations.

I guess I can't really speak for Cantski, but as far as I know, he is aware that any sales are to be pre-approved, if not in conjunction with the organizer and or offical vendor.

[SDsalsaguy]

So the issue is with image releases and the people in the photos. Ultimately it has nothing to do with an organzier, a competition, and offical vendor trying to protect his hard-won territory for a weekend?
[NOTE: I am not a lawyer and my comments should in no way be mistaken for legal direction or advice]

As far as motivation it has to do with all of those. As far as the legality, however, no one on the floor of in the room has consented to their image being used save by the organizer and those parties they designate (as entailed in being the event photographer). Because entry into a ballroom is paid it is not "public" for legal purposes, the organizer, "competition," and vendor -- if they so wished -- all have legal backing in such matters, especially if the images in question are being sold (even after the fact).

Here's a related (albeit not perfect parallel) regarding dress vendors:

While sales can follow up after the fact, a non-vendor cannot show dresses (i.e. solicit business) at a competition. Some do, but they could, in theory, be sued by the organizer and by other vendors present. In much the same way, taking photographs at a competition to sell (even if only after the fact) can similarly be construed as solicitation of business without appropriate sanction.

[SDsalsaguy]

And what I think is odd is that the pictures are taken at the competition. And the vendor pays a commission on all sales from that weekend. Yet when they get home and continue to sell photos from that weekend they pay NOTHING to the organizer...
But this is understood between the organizer and the vendor in question (and, I would argue, part of what the vendor is paying for in their fees... same as dress follow ups after the event).

I guess I can't really speak for Cantski, but as far as I know, he is aware that any sales are to be pre-approved, if not in conjunction with the organizer and or offical vendor.
Pre-approval by the organizer is the key here (at least as far as the legality), but again, my posts are not directed at cantski, especially as I had already discussed some of this with him in person at USDC.

[chrisjohnston]

For the last 2 years Supershag has done the photography for the San Diego Comp.Charging 10 dollars for a 4 by 6 and 12 dollars for a 5 by 7 we were not able to cover even the basic costs(hotel rooms and flights).I have no idea how the other companies actually make a profit.I am not complaining as we do not have to make a profit from photos and we do it to make the overall comp experience better.As far as people selling their photos when they get home I do not believe that this really impacts the official vendors .

[SDsalsaguy]

Thanks for posting Chris. I really don't think most people have a clue as far as the total costs associated with being a photo vendor (or any other vendor for that matter). As far as people selling images when they get home, no, the average person who sells a few images to someone they got a good shot of probably isn't a problem for the official vendors. It is after-the-fact websites that tend to be considered problematic by most of the vendors with whom I have spoken.

[skipper]

Last year in Mexico, the photographer sent me the complete jpg. file of ALL the photos he took for $40. Some were good, others not. But I had my choice of which ones to print. Worked for me! Perhaps you could do an "in advance" with people for photos......

[cantskiforlife]

I think this highlights the issue with all pay-for-service deals. Make sure you have the terms clearly spelled out before hand. Are you paying for a number of shots or only for those you select? There should be a fee for both really - one for the service and the other per image.

Speaking of services. What I hope to offer in the future is the option to hire me per dance (like you would your pro) to photograph the event. This would be a fixed cost per event and you would purchase photos for an additional cost.

In this manner, it would guarantee that my focus is on couples who wish to be photographed and it would guarantee that these couples would actually be photographed.

[etp777]

I think tha'td be a valuable service, cantski. was actually thinking same thing earlier today, and it's what videographers do.

Photographer at our last comp, first time we'd had it, didn't get any shots of me dancing rhythm. Was thinking it would be nice to have this service, so I could know that there's be pictures of me in anyand all dances I wnated.

[cantskiforlife]

So, was cantski one of the official photo vendors at the comp when he was not dancing with you? If not, how does the official vendor feel about him selling his shots?

I think this was brought up once. Most of the time, the average spectator photos are not so good. The average camera just isn't poweful enough to produce a good indoors shot, unless it is a close-up. But if someone has pro quality equipment, they can potentially take photos which are good enough to sell, and in theory they can charge less than the official vendor.


I do sell a lot of my shots when I have permission. When I don't (For instance Capital where I was asked to take them down), I will either give them away or post them without the ability to purchase them.


WOW - So many posts in the last day. Took a while to catch up. I am still trying to obtain clarity on exactly what rights a vendor obtains by becoming an authorized vendor at any particular competition.

I also think that most competitions can handle multiple photographers since the comps are utterly exhausting to the official photographers (16+ hour days) and it is natural to miss an event or two or twenty. I also think my services - the kind of photography I shoot - is substantially different from the normal photo vendor and would actually complement their services.

For instance - I tend not to shoot full-body shots. And I rarely use a flash. My photos tend to be more artistic, sometimes blurry or grainy, and the number of shots I can obtain is far less than a normal photo vendor. Many people do want the full body / full length photograph where the lighting is consistent and the colors are accurate.

Aside - College competitions - and events in gymnasiums are extraordinarily hard to shoot due to inadequate lighting. Also - if you really want good photos - dark solid costumes are not what you want to wear. :)

[fascination]

Speaking of services. What I hope to offer in the future is the option to hire me per dance (like you would your pro) to photograph the event. This would be a fixed cost per event and you would purchase photos for an additional cost.

In this manner, it would guarantee that my focus is on couples who wish to be photographed and it would guarantee that these couples would actually be photographed.
FP had a student who brought his camera, and a very good one I might add, to comps just to photograph FP's students...he didn't charge, as we all helped one another out in various ways...but I can see how that would be very very nice...and I would have happily paid him....one downside to it however, was that it was obvious to the vendors that he was shooting us so we got very few shots by them which was unfortunate b/c I would have gladly paid them for a good shot as well

[elisedance]

I also think that most competitions can handle multiple photographers since the comps are utterly exhausting to the official photographers (16+ hour days) and it is natural to miss an event or two or twenty. I also think my services - the kind of photography I shoot - is substantially different from the normal photo vendor and would actually complement their services.


double amen - I deal with the same issues.

We have photographer who bans anything that looks like 'professional' equipment. That usually translates into any reflex cameras. Its sort of a compromise that makes no one happy.

[samina]

Speaking of services. What I hope to offer in the future is the option to hire me per dance (like you would your pro) to photograph the event. This would be a fixed cost per event and you would purchase photos for an additional cost.

In this manner, it would guarantee that my focus is on couples who wish to be photographed and it would guarantee that these couples would actually be photographed.

love it

[cantskiforlife]

At a recent competition I was asked if I was shooting video (with my Digital SLR). I looked at the guy like he had two heads. Video from a SLR Camera?

Of course now. And I hate to bring it up.... Canon has come up with a SLR that also shoots 1080P Video (Canon 5D Mark II). It will be interesting to see the effects this camera has.... If any.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662

[tanya_the_dancer]

I think tha'td be a valuable service, cantski. was actually thinking same thing earlier today, and it's what videographers do.

Photographer at our last comp, first time we'd had it, didn't get any shots of me dancing rhythm. Was thinking it would be nice to have this service, so I could know that there's be pictures of me in anyand all dances I wnated.

Sometimes talking to the photo person before you dance helps remedy that. Kinda lets them know that you are interested in buying some pics. I think with my 2nd comp, I reviewed already taken photos and talked to the lady who managed the photo booth sometime in between my events (I had a long break, so they had time to print out some photos) and this resulted in better pics from remaining events that day and next day as well.

[fascination]

every time I get a new dress I go up to the photographer and tell him that I have anew dress and am looking to buy lots of pictures ;)

[etp777]

Heh, this was only my second comp (first after returning from kuwait), and first time we had a photographer there. I wasn't thinking about anything like that. ;)

Actually, didn't even notice that he was doing photography this year too until like halfway through second day.

[reb]

Legality and respect

sdsalsguy appropriately brings up the issue of legality, and I wish more people cared about that - and cared about others. When we have been on the cover for a comp, in a book ;), on a magazine cover, all was good and no worries. The problem comes with inappropriate use - we ran into a problem when a person used our image for their non-dance-related business and would not respect our wishes until I reached the point where I had to threaten legal action to get them to listen - they were so busy interviewing themselves about their right (as though it were an entitlement) that they ignored our right.

[reb]

Supplier base

Reading this, I can't help but think this will continue to proliferate because the barriers to entry are low.

I believe the result will be:

At some comps the organizers/vendors won't establish/enforce exclusivity, and
At some comps the organizers/vendors will establish/enforce exclusivity
I don't think either choice will directly affect attendance to any noticeable degree, so the organizers likely won't deal with it from this perspective, but more from the perspective of how they treat their suppliers, how they are able to best provide coverage, and how they want to weigh this aspect among the many inputs and concerns of dancers.

What will be affected directly will be the balance of supporting their supplier base vs the advantages/disadvantages of allowing non-vendor photography.

[elisedance]

What made me really mad was that one vendor - who does a number of big comps in the US - will not allow photography and will also not sell her digital files. that means someone like me, for whom the digital files are essential to make (starting point) pictures is screwed*.

*pre-approved word in context :)

[tanya_the_dancer]

I admit I do not worry too much about somebody using my picture without my permission. I'm not that important that someone would want to.

[etp777]

Heh, I'm not worried about it because I don't keep my frame good enough, and can't seem to avoid looking at floor. ;) And not even at my feet, which I might have some excuse for, but 5-10 feet in front of me on the floor. it really annoys me, messes up allt he pictures.

[elisedance]

"and on this web page we have a collection of 'how not to hold your frame' with our model..." :p (which, from a certain video, I happen to know is not true)

fraid you are never safe from the paparazzis, or however you spell that

[etp777]

:P that video ddoesn't count, that was a showcase. but thanks. :)

[reb]

I admit I do not worry too much about somebody using my picture without my permission. I'm not that important that someone would want to.

If its the one beautiful photo that you approve of - seems good.

Check out this angle though, starting with this:

I could be making a crappy line in it, and why would I want to buy a photo where I made myself look bad? To remind myself not to do it again? If there is 10-15 photos of me from the event and only 1 of them is good, I will buy only the good one and I do not feel obligated to pay for not so good ones.

There are pictures taken of you at a comp where you are not the primary person and yet you can be seen, maybe in one of those unflattering moments?

This is probably unstoppable - guess we just need to be picture perfect all the time!:D

[fascination]

I'll tell ya...I have caught some pictures of my hindquarters in someone elses' photo that I would just die a thousand deaths if the thing was posted somewhere

[tanya_the_dancer]

I imagine that's true if its the one beautiful photo that you approve of.

Check out this angle though, starting with this:



There are pictures taken of you at a comp where you are not the primary person and yet you can be seen, maybe in one of those unflattering moments?

Well, I thought photo vendors prefer to use attractive pictures, preferably of someone well-known for their promotional material. So I am safe here.

So why would anyone buy an unflattering picture of me which I did not buy myself and use it - for what, exactly? Again I am not that important.

[reb]

Well, I thought photo vendors prefer to use attractive pictures, preferably of someone well-known for their promotional material. So I am safe here.

So why would anyone buy an unflattering picture of me which I did not buy myself and use it - for what, exactly? Again I am not that important.

Its not about someone buying a bad picture of you.

Its about someone else buying a picture of them - and you're in it in a way you don't like - and as fascination wrote - you'd might not like them immortalizing you the way you would rather not be imortalized. This happens. I've seen it on websites of people/dancers (not the vendors). And buying is not the only way - people just taking pictures at comps, whether they're sellling them or not.

And back to my other statement - this is proliferating with technology growth, so it'll happen in more ways than just dance . . . better be more than just picture perfect, better just be perfect - or have a great senses of humor! :D

[fascination]

right and even if you are pro/am...haven't you ever been out there with some high profile pro also on the floor?....yea...all I need some great shot of Larinda with my back fat in the background...GRRREAT

[reb]

fasc - that makes me remember waayy back when I was a beginner at some small comps where I would be on the floor at the same time with little ones - I remember instantly learning to set up in the extreme opposite corner - because there was no way I was going to look good next to all that cuteness.

[Chris Stratton]

Hey, Cantski, how am I supposed to view the pictures on your web site when you prohibit me from 'downloading' them?

How else can I get those bits to show up on my monitor, without making a local copy (of unknown permanence) on my computer???

I believe my monitor re fresh es at 60 Hz, so I think if I have your web site open for one minute, I will have made 3,600 copies of one of your pictures... Are those authorized or not?

[tanya_the_dancer]

Its not about someone buying a bad picture of you.

Its about someone else buying a picture of them - and you're in it in a way you don't like - and as fascination wrote - you'd might not like them immortalizing you the way you would rather not be imortalized. This happens. I've seen it on websites of people/dancers (not the vendors). And buying is not the only way - people just taking pictures at comps, whether they're sellling them or not.

And back to my other statement - this is proliferating with technology growth, so it'll happen in more ways than just dance . . . better be more than just picture perfect, better just be perfect - or have a great senses of humor! :D

Well, I can't control every picture people take. You don't really expect me to be upset if I ended up in someone else's picture in a way I don't like, do you? And from a photo buyer perspective, I nixed some otherwise acceptable photos of me because there was too much of another couple in them. The issue of using an unflattering photo of me for some commercial purposes, I can see being upset about it, but I am not going to worry about this right now for reasons I've already stated.

[SDsalsaguy]

What made me really mad was that one vendor - who does a number of big comps in the US - will not allow photography and will also not sell her digital files. that means someone like me, for whom the digital files are essential to make (starting point) pictures is screwed.
I understand why you don't like this situating elise, but the photo vendor does not in any way owe you (or anyone else) anything like this. And, to the extent that people keeping pushing the line on such issues, even more and more restrictive practices are likely to ensue.

[Chris Stratton]

The issue of using an unflattering photo of me for some commercial purposes, I can see being upset about it, but I am not going to worry about this right now for reasons I've already stated.

Just never run for office ;-)

[ChaChaMama]

Supplier base

Reading this, I can't help but think this will continue to proliferate because the barriers to entry are low.


I believe the result will be:

At some comps the organizers/vendors won't establish/enforce exclusivity, and
At some comps the organizers/vendors will establish/enforce exclusivity
I don't think either choice will directly affect attendance to any noticeable degree, so the organizers likely won't deal with it from this perspective, but more from the perspective of how they treat their suppliers, how they are able to best provide coverage, and how they want to weigh this aspect among the many inputs and concerns of dancers.

What will be affected directly will be the balance of supporting their supplier base vs the advantages/disadvantages of allowing non-vendor photography.


Are you talking about exclusivity to one official vendor (e.g. how Dore Photography was the official USDSC photographer and DecaDance could do art photog, but not shoot pro-am), or exclusivity as in forbidding attendees who have no intention of selling photos from taking their still cameras into the ballroom?

I have said it before, but it bears repeating: I do consider this issue when deciding which comps to attend. It's not the only factor, but it ranks pretty high on my list.

Comp organizers can choose to set any policy they want (though I do think they owe it to attendees to publicize these policies in advance). I also have choices. USA Dance comps always allow cameras, and so do quite a lot of NDCA comps. All other things being equal, these comps get my business. (Btw, we almost always buy photos from the official vendor. The camera is to photograph champ level events. We can't photograph ourselves!)

[syncopationator]

Just got a chance to see the pics fron USDSC. You got some good ones of Olga and I. will need to purchase a couple.

[ChaChaMama]

Its about someone else buying a picture of them - and you're in it in a way you don't like - and as fascination wrote - you'd might not like them immortalizing you the way you would rather not be imortalized. This happens. I've seen it on websites of people/dancers (not the vendors). And buying is not the only way - people just taking pictures at comps, whether they're sellling them or not.

As a college professor, I am in dozens of home movies (of convocation, graduation, etc) wearing a very silly looking hat. I guarantee you that that is not my best look...but who cares???

If you are COMPETING/PERFORMING at a competition, I think you really need to be comfortable with the idea that people may be watching and can photograph you. I perform yearly in "The Vagina Monologues" at the private college where I work, and I fully assume that I can be photographed by anyone in the audience at any moment during the show. To me, there is a world of difference between someone taking photos during a performance or competition or ceremony and someone violating people's privacy by surreptitiously taking photos in the changing room at the gym. The ballroom is a performance venue.

[reb]

Are you talking about exclusivity to one official vendor (e.g. how Dore Photography was the official USDSC photographer and DecaDance could do art photog, but not shoot pro-am), or exclusivity as in forbidding attendees who have no intention of selling photos from taking their still cameras into the ballroom?

Hi CCM - I was purposely open-ended - I think there will be varying degrees of exclusivety at some comps since they are independently-run businesses. I also believe there will be comps with few/no exclusivety rules. How many? What types? . . . all of the above.

Thats another way of saying I don't know - but emphasing that I think both/multiple cases will likely exist for some time to come.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating: I do consider this issue when deciding which comps to attend. It's not the only factor, but it ranks pretty high on my list.

Comp organizers can choose to set any policy they want (though I do think they owe it to attendees to publicize these policies in advance). I also have choices. USA Dance comps always allow cameras, and so do quite a lot of NDCA comps. All other things being equal, these comps get my business. (Btw, we almost always buy photos from the official vendor. The camera is to photograph champ level events. We can't photograph ourselves!)

And I remember and respect your feelings on this matter, CCM.

Hey, maybe I'm the straight man! :D

You'll note that I carefully wrote "directly" and "to any noticeable degree" which accounts for you and some other people to choose according to this criteria . . . and also put in that this has a place in the organizers consideration, maybe not the highest among factors, each according to their balancing of the equation.

[SDsalsaguy]

Are you talking about exclusivity to one official vendor (e.g. how Dore Photography was the official USDSC photographer and DecaDance could do art photog, but not shoot pro-am), or exclusivity as in forbidding attendees who have no intention of selling photos from taking their still cameras into the ballroom?

I have said it before, but it bears repeating: I do consider this issue when deciding which comps to attend. It's not the only factor, but it ranks pretty high on my list.

Comp organizers can choose to set any policy they want (though I do think they owe it to attendees to publicize these policies in advance). I also have choices. USA Dance comps always allow cameras, and so do quite a lot of NDCA comps. All other things being equal, these comps get my business.
That's the thing CCM, you at least recognize that organizers have the right to set these policies and that you have the right to choose whether to attend or not. The people I find problematic are the ones who seem to think they have the right to take and sell photos whenever and of whatever they want. In the long run these peopel ruin things for everyone else, as the organizers are then pressured to clamp down by the official photgraphers.

[cantskiforlife]

Hey, Cantski, how am I supposed to view the pictures on your web site when you prohibit me from 'downloading' them?

How else can I get those bits to show up on my monitor, without making a local copy (of unknown permanence) on my computer???

I believe my monitor re fresh es at 60 Hz, so I think if I have your web site open for one minute, I will have made 3,600 copies of one of your pictures... Are those authorized or not?

Oh Chris, I love you (do I need the *). You have had me laughing for the last 20 minutes. I never thought anyone would even think of that loophole to the statement. :p




Sync - Thanks for reminding me. I need to put up a links page for the other vendors. That is what Dore Studios asked me to do... And I am more than happy to do this and support all other photographers.

[Natalka]

I think this whole argument is ridiculous and generated by the few insecure "official" photographers out there who are afraid that their work is not good enough to sell...

Of the "social" photographers that I know, the few, piddly number of photos they sell to some of their friends would never add up to any amount worthy of arguing about...

Just like everything in this business (or other businesses for that matter)...it's all about fragile egos. And if these photographers that are complaining are so worried about their business being taken away from them, they should take better photos!!!

I will tell you for a fact...even if a "social" photographer or a friend of mine took some killer pics of me which I got for free or paid them a fee for, I would still buy gobs of expensive photos from the "official" photographer if they were just as good if not better. WITHOUT A DOUBT!!! NO ifs and or buts. People WANT GREAT PHOTOS of themselves as memories, and we will pay to get them...if they are good.

So, that's the moral of the story.

[cantskiforlife]

I have to agree with SDSalsaguy on this one. He is correct on the legality and morality of most points. The only thing I am not sure of is exclusivity after a competition. I would like to know more about this and I think only the people running the individual competitions would be able to answer this.

I also agree with a lot of other people that there is more than enough demand to support multiple photographers. Especially when the style of photography is different.

[Larinda McRaven]

We have multiple dress and jewelry vendors. Why not photographers.

[reb]

Hey you two - you're making it hard to carry on a conversation . . . :D

:together:

[cantskiforlife]

I don't know what you are talking about. :-D

[reb]

I'm seeing double! At least its a pleasant view . . . :D

[tanya_the_dancer]

Just never run for office ;-)

No politicial plans here, LOL. :) :) :) Besides I've probably already damaged my case worse than any unflattering competition pic could do by wearing "dancing is better than sex" T-shirt in public.

[chica latina]

I have seen unflattering photos of myself in public websites.. Is not fun, but also didn't took my sleep away... I'm sure everyone have had photos that make you look really bad, so it's just normal... plus I know I dont look like that in others or real life.

For me is better to have a not so good picture there, than not at all

So if it happens: Better to laugh about it and not go often to look at that particular picture!!

[cantskiforlife]

...Plus it lets you say - Dear god, did I really do that!!!!

[wooh]

There used to be a website in town with pictures from the dances, and well, most were unflattering. Of everyone.:)

I think getting rid of exclusive photo and video vendors could be an interesting experiment. Could change the way things are done. Like cantski had mentioned, pay the photographer you want to take pictures of you during rounds x,y,z. I like his pics better than the full body ones, that's what I'd want on my wall personally.:) And people that want the other style can pay a different photographer. And video vendors, could have one on each side, whoever takes the best video, provides the best options, wins.

[wooh]

I have seen unflattering photos of myself in public websites.. Is not fun, but also didn't took my sleep away... I'm sure everyone have had photos that make you look really bad, so it's just normal... plus I know I dont look like that in others or real life.


There was a pic taken of me and my husband at a dance social once, from such a weird angle. I'm a big girl and my husband is tall and skinny anyway. But the angle, well, I looked like a weeble wobble and my husband looked like a toothpick. My little sister saw it and kept swearing it had to have been photoshopped to be that extremely unflattering!

[favera]

Interesting discussion here. I just want to point out a couple of thing. Taking photos, displaying and selling them generally does not require a model release. This is considered as “vehicle of information”. This is because self-promotion (of a photographer) is not considered a “commercial” use (which btw requires a model release). Who should be concerned are the people who buy the photos because the “use” of the photo might require a release. See a very good article on that here: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#8.10. This person also has a book about the subject. As I said this is a general rule which can be overruled by the conditions in which the photos are taken.

I think I’m on Larinda’s side, unless the organizers grant exclusivity to the official photo vendors (and even this depends on many things), I believe official photo vendors are only paying to set up a booth in the venue. But in all comps I’ve been, photography was allowed and I would like to know what exactly would prevent non-official photographers from selling their work in these cases.

Also, there was a comment on scanning the prints and displaying them on the web. Not quite ballroom, but something similar was done on a much greater scale and even displayed in museums: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html

[Standarddancer]

Gee, I've just notice Cantski & Larinda have the same exact Avatar! what a couple!

[wooh]

It's such a great picture. Makes me want to use it as my avatar too! But I'm afraid of the legalities of doing so, hehe!:p

[SDsalsaguy]

I think getting rid of exclusive photo and video vendors could be an interesting experiment. Could change the way things are done. Like cantski had mentioned, pay the photographer you want to take pictures of you during rounds x,y,z. I like his pics better than the full body ones, that's what I'd want on my wall personally.:) And people that want the other style can pay a different photographer. And video vendors, could have one on each side, whoever takes the best video, provides the best options, wins.
Except that many events will end up with NO photographers or video since it wouldn't be a worthwhile gamble... i.e. no clue if you'd be the only one or one of 25. Also realize that organizers will not so quickly give up the vendor fees.

[mamboqueen]

I would think at some point, having an unlimited number of photographers lining up all over the ballroom would become a bit of a distraction...and perhaps interfere with the videographer's job!

[samina]

Gee, I've just notice Cantski & Larinda have the same exact Avatar! what a couple!

that's funny. great shot.

[SDsalsaguy]

I would think at some point, having an unlimited number of photographers lining up all over the ballroom would become a bit of a distraction...and perhaps interfere with the videographer's job!
Not to mention the views available to the audience!

[mamboqueen]

Not to mention the views available to the audience!

I'm just afraid I'll take someone out...I can be dangerous in samba! Don't want to be responsible for someone's expensive equipment! :cool:

But yes, if I'm paying $50 to get in and spectate, I suppose I don't want to have to deal with the paparazzi being in my range of view.

[Larinda McRaven]

I don't think getting rid of exclusive rights is the way to go. I think have a formal vendor you can go to and put in an order with keeps things legit.

Just as I think there are lots of people there willing to sell you a dress on the side, we still have official dress vendors. Company names you can trust, someone even the organizer will stand behind if neccessary.

[Chris Stratton]

Just as I think there are lots of people there willing to sell you a dress on the side

Envisioning someone in a long trench coat with various ballroom costumes and merchandise pinned inside...

psst... wanna buy a ballgown?

(better watch out for the shoe brushes if they sit down though)

[mamboqueen]

Envisioning someone in a long trench coat with various ballroom costumes and merchandise pinned inside...

psst... wanna buy a ballgown?

(better watch out for the shoe brushes if they sit down though)

better that than someone coming up to you, dressed in the same fashion, asking if you want your picture taken!

[reb]

I'm just afraid I'll take someone out...I can be dangerous in samba! Don't want to be responsible for someone's expensive equipment! :cool:

But yes, if I'm paying $50 to get in and spectate, I suppose I don't want to have to deal with the paparazzi being in my range of view.

Announcer: "Will the photographers please make room for the dancers . . . " :D

[tanya_the_dancer]

But we already have that sort of thing with dresses anyway, especially resales. Someone who has several pre-owned dresses to sell might post a message "will be at competition such-and-such, can bring some dresses to try on, contact me if interested". I don't see anything wrong with that.

Also, there is usually more than one official dress vendor at a comp. Why having more than one official photo/video company wouldn't be OK?

[Larinda McRaven]

Well video company I can see having only one... they take up very valuable real estate in the ballroom. And to have quality personalized videos they need to have platforms and clear sight line. We would lose all of our seating to the vieo companies if there were several.

But as for having 2 photographers or even 3, I don't see a problem.

[SDsalsaguy]

Also, there is usually more than one official dress vendor at a comp. Why having more than one official photo/video company wouldn't be OK?
Margin of return.

Go back and re-read the post Chris made about SuperShag's photography at San Diego. He said it very clearly: they lost money on doing the photography (but did it as a service to the competitors none the less).

Most vendors are not clearing close to as much money as most people seem to think. Sure they can bring in a lot, but their expenses are far greater than most people here seem willing to acknowledge. Next we have the fact that the photographers have the most expensive equipment and spend more hours/day than anyone else. Now add to that the return per item sold, e.g. the difference in profits between a dress and a photo (or even a handful of prints).

I am not against multiple photographers -- indeed far from it! -- but it is not a simple picture (no punn intended) by any stretch of the imagination.

[cantskiforlife]

It's such a great picture. Makes me want to use it as my avatar too! But I'm afraid of the legalities of doing so, hehe!:p

Feel free, we can totally play with the mods. :)

Heck, I am having a hard time finding my own posts as it is.

[reb]

Heck, I am having a hard time finding my own posts as it is.

:uplaugh:

[SDsalsaguy]

Heck, I am having a hard time finding my own posts as it is.
Serves you right! :lol:

[dancerman]

No he was not an offical vendor. But he had permission from the Organizer, and the vendor knows him and was aware.

He was however once already stopped from selling photos afterwards when an organizer called to tell him the offical vendor was complaining.



Vendors pay for the opportunity to sell their goods and services at the competition. What happens after the fact is hard rather to regulate.

I can totally understand someone complaining, being a vendor at many comps. The vendor fees get very pricey and when a vendor pays, their expectation is knowing who they are competing against for business. If one person gets in and is able to sell his/her product with no fee, the playing field is no longer level.

I agree with the last part as well. If I, as a vendor get residual business after the comp, which I always do, it is mine to keep. Some comps charge a vendor a % of their gross sales in addition to booth and advertising fees, but it only includes those items sold during the comp, not residuals, "Thank God"!!

[dancerman]

Gee, I've just notice Cantski & Larinda have the same exact Avatar! what a couple!

Yeah, and who has the exclusive rights to the original on that one? Any bettors in the crowd????
:wink:

[dancerman]

At a recent competition I was asked if I was shooting video (with my Digital SLR). I looked at the guy like he had two heads. Video from a SLR Camera?

Of course now. And I hate to bring it up.... Canon has come up with a SLR that also shoots 1080P Video (Canon 5D Mark II). It will be interesting to see the effects this camera has.... If any.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662

Interestng point Can't Ski.
This past year at a very well known and well attended comp in Boston (name witheld), someone's digital camera was taken from him, brought into the hall and the video clips he had recorded on it were erased. I saw it unfold as did many others. It created quite an uproar amongst their group. Whether we agree or not, rules are rules at these comps. We can argue for change, but still have to abide by them.

I as a vendor may pay $1000++ to have the right to sell my wares, plus the other costs involved. I would be pretty unhappy if someone else was doing the same for free, whether it be dresses, jewelry, or photographs. It also makes it very difficult to turn a profit.

Keep in mind, if vendors cannot make a profit many are not going to continue attending. This hurts you, the customer, because now you have fewer choices. The prices become less competetive, you pay more for less, the selection of costumes becomes limited. Instead of being able to buy several brands of shoes, you can only buy one. Who loses???

[wooh]

This hurts you, the customer, because now you have fewer choices. The prices become less competetive, you pay more for less, the selection of costumes becomes limited. Instead of being able to buy several brands of shoes, you can only buy one. Who loses???

But this is where photos and videos are different from dress/shoe/jewelry vendors. The customer is already limited to one video vendor, one photo vendor. So there is no competition and the selection is already limited. But as SD has said, more competition for them might make the ones showing up stop showing up. It's an interesting economic situation.

[Joe]

Interestng point Can't Ski.
This past year at a very well known and well attended comp in Boston (name witheld), someone's digital camera was taken from him, brought into the hall and the video clips he had recorded on it were erased. I saw it unfold as did many others. It created quite an uproar amongst their group. Whether we agree or not, rules are rules at these comps. We can argue for change, but still have to abide by them.


Unless he signed a release, isn't that theft?

[Larinda McRaven]

ouch...

[dancerman]

Unless he signed a release, isn't that theft?

Well I'm not a lawyer, thank God ( Contempt of Court keeps coming to mind).
However, it was announced so many times before, during and after the incident that it would be done, I would think no. They didn't keep the camera. She just wanted to remove the video clips. I actually don't even know if they were successful at removing them. I just know the camera changed hands for a while. It made for a pretty interesting diversion in between dances. The poor chap who owned the camera looked a little confused, which made it a little more comic.

[dancerman]

ouch...

Was that "ouch" about the theft question or the ownership of the Avitar picture comment, Larinda??
:rolleyes:

[dancerman]

Envisioning someone in a long trench coat with various ballroom costumes and merchandise pinned inside...

psst... wanna buy a ballgown?

(better watch out for the shoe brushes if they sit down though)

Tried it once, but the crystals were so heavy, I threw my back out!!
:applause:

[dancerman]

But this is where photos and videos are different from dress/shoe/jewelry vendors. The customer is already limited to one video vendor, one photo vendor. So there is no competition and the selection is already limited. But as SD has said, more competition for them might make the ones showing up stop showing up. It's an interesting economic situation.

I can't say. I just know if I were a photographer and I paid good money to sell my services/products, I would not be happy that I was losing business to independents who were paying nothing and making a profit. The professional needs to make a fair profit to jusity her/his attendance. Otherwise, just as in costumes, you end up without the quality products that everyone wants available to them. So I would be interested in the take of the photog's and videographers. I know shoes, costumes and I don't want to have to compete with someone who isn't entitled to be there under the guidelines of the event.
Final point. That is why the bigger and more popular the event, the higher the cost to vend. It's an extremely competetive business. If you want to earn, you have to pay. The more potentail profit, the more the cost.
Does that make any sense to anyone besides me? Just curious.
:confused:

[tanya_the_dancer]

Keep in mind, if vendors cannot make a profit many are not going to continue attending. This hurts you, the customer, because now you have fewer choices. The prices become less competetive, you pay more for less, the selection of costumes becomes limited. Instead of being able to buy several brands of shoes, you can only buy one. Who loses???

Here is the thing, though, with shoes and other merchandise - it already exists before the comp and there are other venues to buy and sell it, like internet, for example. So if a competition vendor does not carry my favorite brand of shoes, I am not forced to buy a different brand. I can go online and buy what I want this way.

Designer dresses - well, that one is harder, because at some point, if you want a dress made especially for you, you need to sit down with the rep and talk about it, but I suppose that can be worked out long distance. On other hand, it is probably harder for the dress vendor to convince a potential customer to use them over another designer without an opportunity to show them their products. So it probably improves dress vendors business to be at a competition, but it is not as essential.

With photo/video vendors however, their product cannot even be produced without them being present at a competition. So it is an interesting economic situation there.

[mamboqueen]

There are different interests at play here.

The vendor wants exclusivity, and you can hardly blame them.

The "independents" want to take photos, I imagine because they love to do it, and wouldn't mind making some money in the process.

The customers want good, inexpensive shots.

Competing interests all around...but I think the paying vendor's position really has to be the strongest because he has a contract to do business with the organizer. I have never read one of those contracts, so can't speak to how they are specifically protected from competition. At some point, it doesn't become worthwhile for the vendor to keep setting up shop if they have people who sidestep the vendor process, or they raise their prices to offset their loss to others. It does seem unfair that they should pay fees to sell their work, and others can do the same without having to pay the fees. And if contracted vendors decide it's not worth their time anymore, then what happens when *no* photographers show up to the comp?

Don't know -- it's a conundrum of sorts.

[dancerman]

Here is the thing, though, with shoes and other merchandise - it already exists before the comp and there are other venues to buy and sell it, like internet, for example. So if a competition vendor does not carry my favorite brand of shoes, I am not forced to buy a different brand. I can go online and buy what I want this way.

Designer dresses - well, that one is harder, because at some point, if you want a dress made especially for you, you need to sit down with the rep and talk about it, but I suppose that can be worked out long distance. On other hand, it is probably harder for the dress vendor to convince a potential customer to use them over another designer without an opportunity to show them their products. So it probably improves dress vendors business to be at a competition, but it is not as essential.

With photo/video vendors however, their product cannot even be produced without them being present at a competition. So it is an interesting economic situation there.
However, you still should support the professional or they may not be there. It has to make sense to the consumer but it has to make sense to the vendor as well. No one wants to work for nothing. We have pride in our work, but we are in this to be successful financially. At least that was my original intent.
I look at photographers as selling a product. You can hold it, touch it, and share it with friends. It has a cost. It has a value.
Yes, a condundrum of sorts, MQ. You are right.

[mamboqueen]

Actually, if I were the vendor, and the contract said I was exclusive and I found out that the comp organizers were permitting or even aware that this other business were going on, I'd say it's a breach of contract and I don't owe them any money. It's all how the contract is worded....and the vendor would have to have proof, I imagine, that this other business was going on. This is, of course, hypothetical, because any trip down that path would likely result in problematic relationships hence on...but, it may also send a message.

[ChelD]

Just to be clear, the opinions I am about to express are mine alone and are not to be thought to represent the position of the video company for which I work.

Warning - long post - sorry!

The videography situation is a liitle different from that of photography since we only tape dancers who have pre-ordered. However, as has been said above, it is much more difficult to make a profit than one might think. There are certainly competitions where we haven't made a profit even though we were the only video vendor. It would definitely not pay to attend if there were more than one.

Larinda also has a good point about the space required to set up. Sometimes when we don't have a large crew it is because the number of entries doesn't warrant it. Sometimes it is because the organizer has limited the space we can use because they need the space for spectators. Setting aside space for 2 video vendors would take away a lot of seats and reduce their ticket sales.

We are generally required to pay a vendor fee and a % of sales, buy a full page ad, and occasionaly we are required to sponsor prize money for a heat. In addition, we have to book our rooms through the organizer even if the prices are higher than we could get if we booked them directly. Then there are the transportation costs, salaries, equipment, supplies, etc. etc. With baggage restrictions these days it is getting more and more expensive to get the equipment to the comps. Especially if we can't fly on Southwest which still allows 2 bags free.

Given the current economic situation, I expect it is going to get even more difficult since photos and videos are likely to be among the first items to get cut back by those who are economizing but still want to compete.

Aside from vendor issues, another reason to limit private recording is to protect the dancers. It is easier to monitor that the images are being used appropriately if the number of people being monitored is limited. We only sell video to the dancer who ordered it and it must be of them. We often have people ask to order a video of their favorite pro dancer, amateur dancer or even of another pro-am couple ("want to see what they do that I don't do"). We do not allow this unless the potential tapees (is that a word?) personally tell us that it is ok. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I don't know if the photography vendors restrict to whom they will sell pictures.

If you put a video/picture of yourself on the internet that is your choice. If someone else buys, or takes, a video/picture of you and posts it somewhere, that is another story. Particularly if there are young children involved.

Recently there was an incident where a "gentleman" was taking pictures of a junior girl at a comp. He was not taking pictures of anyone else and initially persisted in taking pictures even when asked to stop. He claimed that the parents had asked him to take pictures of their daughter. They had not and were understandably upset. Unfortunately, as in many areas, a few people can ruin things for the majority.

Sorry for rambling on! Good thing I've only had one cup of coffee this morning or it might be worse!

[dancerman]

Actually, if I were the vendor, and the contract said I was exclusive and I found out that the comp organizers were permitting or even aware that this other business were going on, I'd say it's a breach of contract and I don't owe them any money. It's all how the contract is worded....and the vendor would have to have proof, I imagine, that this other business was going on. This is, of course, hypothetical, because any trip down that path would likely result in problematic relationships hence on...but, it may also send a message.

Well first, they already have their money before we show up and they ain't giving it back. And yes, this business/sport is very political in nature. Messages are great, but sometimes they can be counterproductive. Squeaky wheels? It's pretty easy to replace them.

[tanya_the_dancer]

However, you still should support the professional or they may not be there. It has to make sense to the consumer but it has to make sense to the vendor as well. No one wants to work for nothing. We have pride in our work, but we are in this to be successful financially. At least that was my original intent.
I look at photographers as selling a product. You can hold it, touch it, and share it with friends. It has a cost. It has a value.
Yes, a condundrum of sorts, MQ. You are right.

I guess my point is that to produce their product they have to be present there. Otherwise there is no product. If you sell dancewear, you do not have to be there to make it.

So that complicates the conundrum further.

[dancerman]

Given the current economic situation, I expect it is going to get even more difficult since photos and videos are likely to be among the first items to get cut back by those who are economizing but still want to compete.


I hope you don't mind but I cut a lot of your quote for space reasons. Everything you said makes total sense. I love going to comps as a vendor, but it is hard to justify the returns sometimes. I do it because I want to and will as long as I can afford to do it.
I am sure it is no different for the instructors who travel with their students to compete, though. So to all of the pros out there that do it for the love of dancing as well as the returns, Thank you.
If no one else tells you they appreiate it, I certainly do!

:applause:

[SDsalsaguy]

Excellent points Chel; thanks for weighing in on this!

[ChaChaMama]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread and feel like I am learning a lot.

I would, however, like to offer a dissenting opinion on a couple aspects of this, principally the question of people taking photos of someone other than themselves and posting them.

ANY TIME your child participates in a team sport, performance, parade, ceremony, school event, etc., that child may show up in someone else's photos, which may then be posted to a blog, Facebook, MySpace, a photo sharing site, a community newspaper, etc. Sometimes your child's appearance in someone else's photo or video is virtually unavoidable. If your child plays football, for example, it can be very hard to photograph just the one child. If your child is part of a dance team, presumably many photos will include your child. Furthermore, even in individual sports, people will often take photos of top competitors, e.g., Dominique Moceanu (U.S. national champ at 13, Olympic gymnast at age 14) had her her photo taken by many, many people other than her parents. I think every parent needs to consider these issues when decided what activities to enroll his/her children in, because expecting organizers to restrict photography is often unrealistic, particularly at higher levels of competition.

My own investment in this topic:
CCP photographs some dance competitions as a hobby. He often focuses on amateur competitors, including younger divisions. He also shoots some pro events. He never takes pro-am unless it someone we know personally and who has specifically asked us to do that.

His experience suggests that amateur competitors often appreciate having an additional photographer on hand. For example, if you look at the comments on his gallery from 2008 Nationals, there are lots of thank yous from competitors in JI, J2, and Youth.

http://www.pbase.com/anc/nationals2008

The larger pro photography units that cover NDCA comps often do not cover the all-amateur USA Dance comps. I talked to one pro company, and the person I spoke to said that one time when they did attend such an event, the sales did not merit their expenses. Some of the amateur comps do have official photographers, such as Igor Ofenbakh, who does such a nice job at MAC...but not all amateur comps are so well served.

I think there really is a place for different kinds of photographers in the food chain. But again, organizers can put in place the policies they choose. Customers will vote accordingly.

CCM

[wooh]

I'm really disappointed that in honor of this thread we haven't all made our avatar be the pic of cantski and larinda. Of course, I haven't either yet, so I guess I can't talk.:)

[cantskiforlife]

I'm really disappointed that in honor of this thread we haven't all made our avatar be the pic of cantski and larinda. Of course, I haven't either yet, so I guess I can't talk.:)

Now would that be violating copyright? ... If someone posts an image without explicit copyright statements - does that mean someone else is allowed to use it? --> For instance I posted the avatar pic on Facebook without any statements saying they were copyrighted.

[mamboqueen]

You have to have the person who owns the work's permission...not just a statement saying it is copyrighted (unless it is your own, of course). I imagine the worst thing that will happen is you'd be asked to remove it. Not a lot of lawsuits come without warning.

[dancerman]

Now would that be violating copyright? ... If someone posts an image without explicit copyright statements - does that mean someone else is allowed to use it? --> For instance I posted the avatar pic on Facebook without any statements saying they were copyrighted.


I think we need to get a lawyer on board quick. If it's copyrighted I would magine the onus is on you to let people know. That is the purpose of the little c next to copyrights. On pictures who knows.
I just finally put an Avitar up today, after over a year, and I'm not changing it!
:cowboy:

[Kitty]

In a related vein, those of you who think that everyone wants jpegs and that no one re-orders prints are actually voicing your opinions and are not, in fact, speaking for the majority of those who actually express interest in purchasing images. (I say this as someone who has been involved with ballroom photography for the past five years, and who has developed working relationships with most of the more prominent photo vendors.)

Yes selling a jpeg is faster and easier, but it also costs the vendor all residual income from it. Why should they only make the same ammount if you print one 4x6 or 25 8x10s?

who is to decide about what the majority think? I am speaking for myself. I want digital files to post on facebook or send to my grandma by email.

ok, so maybe some people will order and reorder prints. I will not. Again I am speaking for myself. If i am not to voice my opinion, how will vendors know.
I have purchased photos from vendors, but always digital files! For example, I have purchased 3 photos from MAC and 2 from Columbia comps from vendor @ 15 each. That is a total of $75 for just 5 photos for one couple! files came on a CD, but i would be happy with files by email. All awesome photos, this photographer is just first class!
I have NEVER purchased a print. For practical reasons. What am i going to do with it?
since then I also bought several photos from Alliance (i think they were about $10 each, or $15) and would love to purchase some from cantski..

I know this is painful to photographers to realize and accept. But these are the times we live in. A friend of mine is a photographer. He sometimes works at weddings on weekends, and one time took 500 photos of me at a comp (for free) .. he only sells digital files now. He can sell prints too, but he provides a digital file with them. Whether photographers like it or not, the times are changing, and they will have to adjust sooner or later.. like with the records business.. first there were complaints regarding online dowloads, but now that i can legally download a song for a dollar or two, that is what i am going to do. SDsalsaguy, do you have an iphone?


I have heard some arguments from a vendor who did not sell digital files to me.. they told me all this stuff about the reprints business, and quoted a price of hundereds of dollars if i actually wanted to get a digital file from them.. yeah i want the photo. But i dont' want it for THAT MUCH. Jeez, do people really think that i will give away few days worth of my salary for a photo? would you?


and the most ridiculous thing, is that instead of calmly telling me that it is their policy to not sell the digital files, they actually got an attitude. This is the argument they gave me: how would i feel if someone paid for just one lesson and then would expect the teacher to teach them for free for the rest of his life?
I am not stupid, and i don't want them to talk to me like I am stupid. This analogy is FALSE!!!!!!!!!! buying a digital file is not equivalent to teacher teaching the student for the rest of his life for the price of one lesson, because selling a digital photo does not entail any additional active work, and teaching does. The real analogy is that of videotaping a lesson, in order to view this same lesson for free for the rest of student's life. Should videotaping lessons be allowed, and should it cost more? This is up to the teacher, but as far as i know, few teachers mind, and some encourage.


Regarding hundreds of pics taken that don't end up in sales, preparatory work, equipment, and overhead costs: do you think these exist only in photography? a dance teacher has spent years and top dollars studying dance, to say nothing of the special shoes and clothes he/she has on.
If the overhead costs are too much, revise your business model.


complaining that customers don't appreciate won't get anyone more business. Only getting customers the products that they want, at prices they are willing to pay will get the business somewhere.

[mamboqueen]

I used to be a paralegal for the only company in the US (well, at the time...not sure if they still are) that licenses copyright en masse (i.e., not author by author). But, here is the website that will give you all you need to know about copyright...it's a bit slow in loading:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

[cantskiforlife]

You have to have the person who owns the work's permission...not just a statement saying it is copyrighted (unless it is your own, of course). I imagine the worst thing that will happen is you'd be asked to remove it. Not a lot of lawsuits come without warning.

Good thing I own it. :) ... Thanks to Natalka's use of my camera.

And yes, I would think that the onus would be on me to identify the images as copyrighted. I also think that people wishing to use an image should try to find the owner to obtain permission..... But this is sounding like a slippery slope argument in my mind so I am not sure where to go with it.

[mamboqueen]

Also - you don't have to state that a work (of yours) is copyrighted - it is copyright protected by the mere fact that you took the photo or wrote the article. Filing for copyright protection with the governmenal agency that handles it just offers you some additional avenues of recourse in damages. So, when Billy Joel goes and sings a song and Joe Schmoe whips out his notebook and shows that he had written it first and got ripped off, then he has a case, even if he didn't file the copyright (albeit, he has to prove he wrote it first....).

[mamboqueen]

I think in this particular industry, asking for permission to post, and then giving credit when you have the permission, is simply the way to go. I have yet to be denied permission -- it also serves as advertisement for the photographer. Of course, offering to buy some prints might help :)

[Kitty]

I think there really is a place for different kinds of photographers in the food chain. But again, organizers can put in place the policies they choose. Customers will vote accordingly.

Well put. Unfortunately sometimes customers cannot vote or do anything to express their preferences. But often they can.

Special thanks to Igor Ofenbakh. He does an amazing job!
and special thanks to CCP!

[mamboqueen]

Personally, I think fascination can singlehandedly keep the ballroom photography industry afloat.

(heh...she's in Indy today, yes??!! :))

[cantskiforlife]

I do agree that a lot of these companies should be rethinking their business models. This should be done on an ongoing basis (continuous) and should always be around the best way to make money (morally) and survive in the long term.

This also goes for the competitions. They should (and in some manner probably do) poll for ways to improve the comp experience in all forms, including vendor selection, vendor fees, etc, etc...

I am not saying that things are bad or good with this post... just that many of these businesses would benefit from a more active role in assessing the market needs and modifying their business to meet them.

[mamboqueen]

I have always thought a post-comp survey would be a good thing.

[Kitty]

I can't say. I just know if I were a photographer and I paid good money to sell my services/products, I would not be happy that I was losing business to independents who were paying nothing and making a profit.


It would probably be wrong to prohibit taking amateur photos in the ballroom. In fact it did upset me quite a bit at Embassy. It would be impossible to prohibit am photographers from selling photos. And would not be reasonable to expect consumers to pick higher priced photos in order to "support" the official vendor.

sounds like vendors need to talk and discuss things with the comp organizers to reduce the cost of being an official photo vendor. If the vendor has a table, he/she should probably pay a fee, but maybe not as high a fee?

on the other hand, the pro photographers are probably making a bulk of sales from proam heats on thursday and friday and saturday morning.. etc.. amateur photographers usually are there on friday and saturday nights, or during junior sessions. that is not a lot of overlap, especially given that junior or even pro competitors are generally not the demographic to splurge on photos.

[tanya_the_dancer]

It would probably be wrong to prohibit taking amateur photos in the ballroom. In fact it did upset me quite a bit at Embassy. It would be impossible to prohibit am photographers from selling photos. And would not be reasonable to expect consumers to pick higher priced photos in order to "support" the official vendor.

sounds like vendors need to talk and discuss things with the comp organizers to reduce the cost of being an official photo vendor. If the vendor has a table, he/she should probably pay a fee, but maybe not as high a fee?

on the other hand, the pro photographers are probably making a bulk of sales from proam heats on thursday and friday and saturday morning.. etc.. amateur photographers usually are there on friday and saturday nights, or during junior sessions. that is not a lot of overlap, especially given that junior or even pro competitors are generally not the demographic to splurge on photos.

You know, a couple of times I've seen the official photographers dispense with printing out pictures and putting them into those binders, and they just gave everyone their business card with the website and told us that the photos will be up in about a week. That probably cut down on their operating expenses, since they didn't have anyone running the table and taking orders.

[dancerman]

It would probably be wrong to prohibit taking amateur photos in the ballroom. In fact it did upset me quite a bit at Embassy. It would be impossible to prohibit am photographers from selling photos. And would not be reasonable to expect consumers to pick higher priced photos in order to "support" the official vendor.

sounds like vendors need to talk and discuss things with the comp organizers to reduce the cost of being an official photo vendor. If the vendor has a table, he/she should probably pay a fee, but maybe not as high a fee?

on the other hand, the pro photographers are probably making a bulk of sales from proam heats on thursday and friday and saturday morning.. etc.. amateur photographers usually are there on friday and saturday nights, or during junior sessions. that is not a lot of overlap, especially given that junior or even pro competitors are generally not the demographic to splurge on photos.

Point one I agree. Amatuer photography should definitely be allowed, IMO.

Point two, I don't really agree because; first, it is infringing on the bona fide vendors and second, in some venues it is actually illegal. Some cities and towns require a vendor license or permit to sell. I know that because some vendor contracts spell it out, along with releases verifying one has liability insurance as well. So there are more underlying vendor issues and expenses that come to light.
Thank goodness I am not a photographer. Shoes and clothes have their own set of problems, but I'll gladly deal with them, thank you.

[Chris Stratton]

Point two, I don't really agree because; first, it is infringing on the bona fide vendors and second, in some venues it is actually illegal.

I don't think she was talking about amateur photographers selling their work at the venue, I think she was talking about them selling it afterwards, probably online.

And I don't think there's anything that can be done about that directly, though one possible outcome could be the person finding their "amateur status" as a photographer revoked in the eyes of that competition organizer.

[cantskiforlife]

One thing I find interesting - In all other venues outside of ballroom that I have attended - college sports, concerts, plays, etc... I have never heard of any restrictions on photography (Besides NO FLASH). How come I find ballroom to be the only venue with this restriction?

[waltzgirl]

One thing I find interesting - In all other venues outside of ballroom that I have attended - college sports, concerts, plays, etc... I have never heard of any restrictions on photography (Besides NO FLASH). How come I find ballroom to be the only venue with this restriction?


Do those venues have photography vendors who are selling pictures of the event? I think it has to do with trying to protect the business of the "official" comp photographer. That's certainly the case with videotaping at comps.

[ChelD]

As long as the organizers make a % of all vendor sales it will be in their interest to limit non-vendor sales of anything.

That being said, on the east coast the organizers often sell video passes for the session when the junior amateurs are dancing. (no pros on the floor) In that case they make their money from selling the passes. In that case, we don't provide video services for that session as it definitely would not be worth it. As a side issue, I'm not sure why this seems be restricted mostly to the east coast.

If they sold "photography" passes, that would get them around their financial interest in limiting sales to vendors, but it wouldn't be so good for the vendors unless we got a % of the passes, which doesn't happen now.

[dancerman]

I don't think she was talking about amateur photographers selling their work at the venue, I think she was talking about them selling it afterwards, probably online.

And I don't think there's anything that can be done about that directly, though one possible outcome could be the person finding their "amateur status" as a photographer revoked in the eyes of that competition organizer.

I understand and agree completely. I also would hate to see the professionals not be there because they are not making money. When I have competed, I have bought photos every time because I don't get that many photos of me dancing. If I were always out there I am sure it would be different. Being a vendor probably shades my glasses a little bit, so to speak. I have more empathy now than I did before I bought hundreds of pair of shoes to lug around.

:rolleyes:

[wooh]

It seems if you need your business "protected" then maybe you need to rethink the quality/demand for your product. Like Dore and Chrisanne could compete against 50 of me trying to sell gowns at a comp, because I'd be handing out some ill-fitting, poorly made swatches of fabric with rhinestones glued on. They wouldn't have to worry, because nobody would be buying from me because they make a truly quality product. If a photographer's quality isn't good enough to compete without the protection of being the sole vendor, maybe they need to rethink their business model? Like the photographers that Tanya mentioned that just hand out business cards with a web address to check and order from. Maybe add in that you let them know you want pics so they get good ones of the people that want them instead of wasting time and energy on people that don't. How much money is wasted on printing proofs that nobody wants? How much money is spent on someone to man the booth and take orders and transport equipment to print photos? Could the money lost on reprints and exclusivity be made up for by selling digital files after the fact? Especially in this digital age? Just because it's always been done that way, doesn't mean it should still be.

[wooh]

I have more empathy now than I did before I bought hundreds of pair of shoes to lug around.

Sounds like a heavy backpack? Maybe a briefcase too?:p

[Kitty]

Thanks wooh,
my point exactly.

photographers need to think about what products their clients want and at what prices.

not how to prevent customers from getting what they want, and cheaper, from someone else

[dancerman]

It seems if you need your business "protected" then maybe you need to rethink the quality/demand for your product. Like Dore and Chrisanne could compete against 50 of me trying to sell gowns at a comp, because I'd be handing out some ill-fitting, poorly made swatches of fabric with rhinestones glued on. They wouldn't have to worry, because nobody would be buying from me because they make a truly quality product. If a photographer's quality isn't good enough to compete without the protection of being the sole vendor, maybe they need to rethink their business model? Like the photographers that Tanya mentioned that just hand out business cards with a web address to check and order from. Maybe add in that you let them know you want pics so they get good ones of the people that want them instead of wasting time and energy on people that don't. How much money is wasted on printing proofs that nobody wants? How much money is spent on someone to man the booth and take orders and transport equipment to print photos? Could the money lost on reprints and exclusivity be made up for by selling digital files after the fact? Especially in this digital age? Just because it's always been done that way, doesn't mean it should still be.
That's a tough analogy because the ill assembled dress and costume makers do thrive. Lots of women don't have several K to spend on an outfit and still be able to afford to pay for their competitions to show it off..
With photography I can see where your dollar return per sale (eg 5.00 or 10.00 pictures) takes a lot of sales to make a decent income. Gross profit margin is all well and good, but try to make a good living selling penny candy. Sorry that's the best analogy I could come up with at the moment. I have a lesson in a couple of hours and I have to go practice. I've brought enough bantering here for one day.
And Can'tSki, don't forget to get those pic's during the few moments that I actually have my head up!!!
:rolleyes:

[dancerman]

Sounds like a heavy backpack? Maybe a briefcase too?:p
Yeah, tell me about it. I bought a minivan just to move them around. As far as the briefcase, with a shoulder strap.

:cool:

[wooh]

Gross profit margin is all well and good, but try to make a good living selling penny candy.

Definitely have a point there. I have no horse in this race (especially since I dislike horse racing) as I don't compete and don't vend. But since I'm recently trying to get a little business off the ground, business models really intrigue me. And this has so many variables, it's just fascinating to me how any of these businesses actually stay in business.

[Chris Stratton]

Like Dore and Chrisanne could compete against 50 of me trying to sell gowns at a comp, because I'd be handing out some ill-fitting, poorly made swatches of fabric with rhinestones glued on.

The real competition would be people reselling lightly used gowns of the same sort that the makers offer and resell; also perhaps individual makers of comparable quality gowns. Of course that already happens; with perhaps a few sentimental exceptions, almost any gown you see on a top pro or amateur is implicitly for sale.

I don't think the low end business has the margins to justify anything but internet sales.

[Kitty]

The real competition would be people reselling lightly used gowns of the same sort that the makers offer and resell; also perhaps individual makers of comparable quality gowns. Of course that already happens; with perhaps a few sentimental exceptions, almost any gown you see on a top pro or amateur is implicitly for sale.

I don't think the low end business has the margins to justify anything but internet sales.

I think that the cheapo costumes analogy was a neccessary part to woohs point.

If you take quality professional pictures and at a reasonable costs,
you should not worry about having to compete with amateurs who take fewer pictures that are blurry, too close or too far away, have more than one couple in them, don't have either partner's face in them, and don't catch the couple in a good moment ( well, this one just has to do with the quantity really) etc...


from what you said, it follows that amateur photographers low end and low quantity business has too low margins to justify anything but internet sales. which is something that we already know..
Does this mean they are not really in competition with the professional photographers?

[tanya_the_dancer]

I think that the cheapo costumes analogy was a neccessary part to woohs point.

If you take quality professional pictures and at a reasonable costs,
you should not worry about having to compete with amateurs who take fewer pictures that are blurry, too close or too far away, have more than one couple in them, don't have either partner's face in them, and don't catch the couple in a good moment ( well, this one just has to do with the quantity really) etc...


from what you said, it follows that amateur photographers low end and low quantity business has too low margins to justify anything but internet sales. which is something that we already know..
Does this mean they are not really in competition with the professional photographers?

I guess the issue is that you can get quality pictures if you have the right tools and some know-how. I know a couple of competitors who are also professional photographers. They have good cameras and take really good pictures when they're not dancing. And when they're dancing, they can get someone to use their camera and get decent pictures of themselves (maybe not as good as if they were using it, but still better than your average P&C camera, or your cell phone camera). So, theoretically they could do same thing cantski does. And that would be similar to the situation with dresses Chris described - resellers of lightly used high-quality dresses.

P.S. right now they don't sell their comp pics, it's more like fascination described - they just take the photos of people in their group.

[reb]

This is a great discussion, I am glad DF is here, and I like and admire DFers very much. Love the Ballroom world!

Copyright (c) 2008. reb Enterprises Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[dancerman]

Definitely have a point there. I have no horse in this race (especially since I dislike horse racing) as I don't compete and don't vend. But since I'm recently trying to get a little business off the ground, business models really intrigue me. And this has so many variables, it's just fascinating to me how any of these businesses actually stay in business.
Good luck to you. I wish you the greatest of success. I admire anyone who takes the leap. I think I have broken every one of the rules, but have managed to stay in the race. I highly recommend against that route though, makes for many sleepless nights.

[dancerman]

The real competition would be people reselling lightly used gowns of the same sort that the makers offer and resell; also perhaps individual makers of comparable quality gowns. Of course that already happens; with perhaps a few sentimental exceptions, almost any gown you see on a top pro or amateur is implicitly for sale.

I don't think the low end business has the margins to justify anything but internet sales.

Actually, Chris, with all due and total respect, that really isn't true. There are several classes of buyers. I know that from experience. There is a market for high and low end product. I'm not talking junk. I'm, talking lower priced product. Not everyone has a lot of money to shell out, but they still want to look better. That's a good thing, actually, IMO. Companies like Rainbow Shui (Not sure of spelling), even though they are Internet based, still provide what a certain percent of dancers want. Lower end and lower price, buy more for less. Mercedes vs VW. BMW vs Hyundai.

[wooh]

Good luck to you. I wish you the greatest of success. I admire anyone who takes the leap. I think I have broken every one of the rules, but have managed to stay in the race. I highly recommend against that route though, makes for many sleepless nights.

Ahhh thanks!:)

[etp777]

Definitely best of luck wooh. I've been on both winning and losing ends of small businesses (my own lost, one I invested in that loved oones have is doing well), so heart definitely goes out to small business owners. :)

[wooh]

:):)

[NielsenE]

I've only been to one competition where personal/private photography wasn't allowed. No explanation was offered so I don't know if it was due to exclusivity for the photographer or exclusivity of the videographer and too many bad experiences with video capable cameras.

But I'd agree with cantski... vendors in general, especially photographers need to explore alternate business models. Most complain about how hard it is to turn a profit, and most competitors complain that the cost is too high. I agree and understand both viewpoints... and that tends to indicate that the business model is wrong. I also think that the clothing/show vendors in general should start offering more for the male dancers... at many of the pro-am events I've been at recently, its been about a 1:2 or 2:3 male:female ratio rather than the even more lopsided numbers from a few years ago. Yet we're lucky to have more than a few choices for shoes or latin shirts... and I have yet to see a real men's tailor at a competition ( though I know a few make the rounds of some of the larger NDCA ones)

The photo vendor who works locally for the franchise comps I attend seems to have a good system in place. He's able to bring significant equipment; 2-4 photographers, plus 1-2 table workers. Normally he has 3-4 computers to preview on. Offers jpg sales at the event, or prints either ordered at the venue for a slightly discounted priced or afterwards for higher. He's been able to arrange the previews by heat number, so its very easy to find your photos (ie one folder for each heat). He doubled his price between the first and second competition he shot (raised his rates to the industry average). And the quality is true professional. Early on they also offered nice mix & match packages (ie 2 8x10, 4 5x7, 8 wallets, etc -- standard portrait type deals) that were quite the discount (if still expensive in total) and could be any combination of images. When they changed fulfillment/printing shops they lost that special which was sad, but you should have seen the business they got from that deal.... amazing....

And whether its a good or thing or not, I don't know, but they are very aware of who checks out their photos throughout the competition -- if you're checking in daily to see what they have so far, you're basically guaranteed to be focused on more in your later heats. Through even with that they still do a great job of capturing a shot or two of everyone in each heat at least, if they do happen to get 5 or more of the more likely costumers.

[Chris Stratton]

Actually, Chris, with all due and total respect, that really isn't true. There are several classes of buyers. I know that from experience. There is a market for high and low end product. I'm not talking junk. I'm, talking lower priced product.

That's why I didn't deny the existence or importance of a lower priced market, instead I said "I don't think the low end business has the margins to justify anything but internet sales."

Companies like Rainbow Shui (Not sure of spelling), even though they are Internet based, still provide what a certain percent of dancers want. Lower end and lower price, buy more for less.

And that's exactly the example I had in mind - they can charge what they do because their physical presence is in a place where expenses are low, and their only business presence here is their virtual one. Where they to send staff to exhibit at competitions, expenses would go up, and so would prices. Once you add that overhead expense (which isn't all that much less than it would be exhibit top of the line gowns), it makes sense to balance it with a somewhat higher quality, more expensive product.

[dancerman]

But I'd agree with cantski... vendors in general, especially photographers need to explore alternate business models. Most complain about how hard it is to turn a profit, and most competitors complain that the cost is too high. I agree and understand both viewpoints... and that tends to indicate that the business model is wrong. I also think that the clothing/show vendors in general should start offering more for the male dancers... at many of the pro-am events I've been at recently, its been about a 1:2 or 2:3 male:female ratio rather than the even more lopsided numbers from a few years ago. Yet we're lucky to have more than a few choices for shoes or latin shirts... and I have yet to see a real men's tailor at a competition ( though I know a few make the rounds of some of the larger NDCA one
Nielsen,
As far as the men's that's very true. When we started 2+ years ago our intention was to focus on menswear because no one else does. The problem is men don't shop! (sorry to those of you who do).
The business still specializes in the man but doesn't support our existence. Same thing with shoes. They are difficult to tranpsort, and if there is more than one vendor at a comp hard to sell. But without them it would be more difficult.
By the way, having more than one shoe vendor is a good parallel to having more than one photographer. It makes it extremely difficult for either vendor to make a profit. In that case it isn't about competetive pricing or business models. Its about location, reputation, and popularity. And luck.

[dancerman]

That's why I didn't deny the existence or importance of a lower priced market, instead I said "I don't think the low end business has the margins to justify anything but internet sales."

Right.

And that's exactly the example I had in mind - they can charge what they do because their physical presence is in a place where expenses are low, and their only business presence here is their virtual one. Where they to send staff to exhibit at competitions, expenses would go up, and so would prices. Once you add that overhead expense (which isn't all that much less than it would be exhibit top of the line gowns), it makes sense to balance it with a somewhat higher quality, more expensive product.
Sure. I understand what you are saying, Chris.

[Joe]

The problem is men don't shop often!.
FTFY.

The issue with sales of men's dancewear is that men's fashions don't change as rapidly as women's fashions do. How often does a man really need a new tailsuit? How often does he need another black Latin top, or Latin pants? Probably, part of the issue is that we men aren't "born to shop" like many (most?) of the ladies are.

As far as photography, the photogs that will make money are those who either sell expensive photos, or who sell good photos, whether they're amateur photogs or pros. (If you want to make a lot of money, sell photos that are both expensive and good.) I've seen "pros" who take lousy shots, and "amateurs" that take great pics (like CCP).

[fascination]

let's not confuse shopping and buying;)...hate to shop ...love to buy...am a vendor's best friend

[dancerman]

Well, I think every time you dance you need to buy a new shirt! We need to influx more cash into the economy, where better to do so than at your local shirt vendor?? It's a great way to help the economy and you would save money on dry cleaning. (Sorry, only joking)

Seriously, you are right on all counts. It's like mens shoes. We buy them in black, once in a while black and white. Women, on the other hand, colors and styles are pretty wide ranging. There are surfacing more and more mens shirt styles though. The trick is to find the styles that men will buy.

FTFY.

The issue with sales of men's dancewear is that men's fashions don't change as rapidly as women's fashions do. How often does a man really need a new tailsuit? How often does he need another black Latin top, or Latin pants? Probably, part of the issue is that we men aren't "born to shop" like many (most?) of the ladies are.

As far as photography, the photogs that will make money are those who either sell expensive photos, or who sell good photos, whether they're amateur photogs or pros. (If you want to make a lot of money, sell photos that are both expensive and good.) I've seen "pros" who take lousy shots, and "amateurs" that take great pics (like CCP).

[dancerman]

let's not confuse shopping and buying;)...hate to shop ...love to buy...am a vendor's best friend


Yes, and :friend: we love you very much!!!!

[dancerman]

Yes, and :friend: we love you very much!!!!

Of course, we love you even if you don't buy, but it sure does help!

;)

[Joe]

Well, I think every time you dance you need to buy a new shirt! We need to influx more cash into the economy, where better to do so than at your local shirt vendor?? It's a great way to help the economy and you would save money on dry cleaning. (Sorry, only joking)
Well, if the shirts came starched and not needing to be pressed...

[dancerman]

Well, if the shirts came starched and not needing to be pressed...
Touche!!
:rolleyes:

[decaDance]

Hi everybody,

I'm finally taking some time off myspace, facebook, ballroom dance channel, mydancechat, and ballroom advisor and thought all this discussion about dancesport photography very interesting. This only my 2nd post ever on DF. For those who don't know me I have been a pro-am dancer for over 10 yrs and a professional dancesport photographer for almost 6. I founded Decadance Photography almost a year ago and have been full time in the trenches of the competitive world of dancesport photography. Dore Studios has been this business for 40 years and use to do most events in the US and several intl comps as well. Park West came around like 10+ yrs ago and Dore gave up a lot of their smaller comps to focus on select larger more recognized comps. Alliance focuses most on videography but got into dancesport photography a few years ago. I use to work for Alliance as their head photographer until I started Decadance Photography with my partner Stephen Marino. There are several smaller companies in the US but I consider the above mentioned the major players.

I think over the last several years there has been little competition in the photography area, so dancers did not have too many options to choose from. Only a hand full of companies are in the business and have stayed.
We all have pretty tight profit margins as vendors and as there are more non-official photographers in the digital age shooting at the comps and selling photos, the photo vendors who pay sometimes over $1000 to the organizers just to attend the event, lose business. This does not include travel, hotel, food, printing, equipment, etc. Sometimes the photo vendors are lucky to break even, just to attend the event in the hope of getting more business from other comps in the same circuit.

On the other hand, over the past year Decadance has been invited to the same comps as Park West, Dore Studios and Supershag Photography...we've all shot together and it may seem competitive but there are so many dancers on the floor, one photography company can't cover an entire comp. Ideally there should be one photographer in each corner of the ballroom so dancers have many (hopefully good) shots to choose from.

This year has probably been the 1st time there has been more than one photo vendor at a comp. The organizers have liked our work as well as the dancers, so having more than one photo vendor can definitely add value to a comp. But this could hurt the sales of both photo vendors...competition can be good among vendors.

For the organizers, this is a business and if anyone wants to make money from their comp, they want you to pay a vendor fee. So if there is one official photographer or maybe two if we show up, and dozens of others who bring their expensive digital SLR's shooting to sell photos...the photo vendor can lose a good chunk of their business and not want to come back next year. Organizers don't tend to negotiate on vendor fees. Dancers win by getting more good shots from different photographers, but in the long run vendors got to make a living and prices will go up.

Now about cost for photos, the trend is up. My guess is that organizers have been asking for more $ from vendors and/or sales have been going down (economy, less good photos, more non-vendor photographers, etc.) Dancers probably don't mind paying higher prices as long as they are getting a good product, right? Some have a fixed budget for their pics, while some never buy and some will pay anything for all their photos.

I really don't have a problem with other photographers shooting at comps as long as they don't interfere with me shooting on the floor. But since this is my full time profession and if I thought that I would lose money from another non-vending photographer I would politely ask them to stop shooting (they have every right to shoot and I couldn't stop them from selling online).

There is a difference between shooting a few heats for friends and shooting all day long to post online and sell. I hope I am not contradicting myself.
I just read a lot of posts and have just been giving my ideas and opinions.

What I can see happening is that dancers and people that pay to see the comps will start to lose the ability to photograph at comps (no photography permitted, just like the videography.) It's already happening at some comps, like at Embassy. Since vendors also pay a % of photo sales to the organizer, less sales means less for the organizer. If photo vendors feel like they are losing money to non-vending photographers organizers may ask for a photo pass sold to anyone who pulls a little camera out of their pocket (maybe $20-$50). Also rules will become and are different at each event, so it will be very confusing for the dancers.

Bottom line is that dancers want good, great, exceptional photos of their dancing for memories, to study with, gifts, websites, ads, etc...

And photo vendors need to make money as well as the organizers...

Any questions directed to me or Decadance Photography, feel free to email me. Thanks!