Seriously. I’ve heard a rumor that Campbell-Ewald Art Buyers are asking agents and photographers to cover all the expenses on car shoots they’re shopping around.
Here are the terms they’re sending to everyone:
The new terms are as follows:
Payment on a Sequential Liability basis (agency shall pay vendor once paid by General Motors)
No upfront advance on photo shoots.
I’ve heard people are turning them down. Might be tempting to cover the expenses knowing that will give you a leg up on the competition… would be a very bad precedent to set.
80 Comments
They should go screw themselves. If I could finance a car shoot, I wouldn’t be doing car shoots.
So, you finance the shoot and then wait 4 months to get paid and then do you get to bill them 20% interest and late payments after 90 days?
Wow that sounds like a sweet deal alright… Hopefully nobody is so desperate they take the job anyways despite the terms – a bad precedent indeed.
1. Before taking the job on those terms photographers need to ask and answer the “What if?” What if I never get paid?
2. In the real world, the customers that are likely to default are the ones that are required to pay in advance.
3. In this case, the art buyer has assesed the risk of non-payment and decided not to accept it.
4. Small businesses frequently continue to extend credit to deadbeats up until the day the small business becomes out-of-business.
5. Photographers are not banks or lenders of last resort.
They already had a clause in their contract that allowed them to not pay until they received payment – and that was two years ago. I had never run across that practice before.
I thought we knew this already…
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/03/gm-stops-paying-advances-for-photo-shoots.html
When it first happened I heard there were meetings about it, concerned parties trying to figure out how to stop it.
The only way that this could be remotely ok is if the photographer or producer would be able to bill back for any interest accrued on the fronted expenses (since it would be easier to just put it on credit). And, bill back for the cost of production insurance, similar to film, in case something went wrong or GM didn’t pay the agency. And, somehow add a little on top of that for all the time dealing with those headaches. There is a way to make money on this, but its tough because only the people who are really established can afford to take the project in the first place.
A lot of the stylists I work with often use a credit card to cover enormous prop expenses. If there isn’t an advance, its a real pain because every 30 days they don’t get paid is that much more interest on the card. The only upside – you get a lot of points, so eventually you can cash them in for a microwave.
Sa-weet.
I’m in as long as GM and Campbell Elwald will secure the line of credit I’m extending them with collateral (GM’s plants and unsold stock should do nicely), interest for late payment, and a signed agreement that all other creditors shall subordinate.
If they go for that, then we’re talkin’ business.
Um, I was being facetious by the way…
More like “who CAN cover all expenses on a car shoot.”
I’m with Anthony… if I could finance a shoot like that I probably wouldn’t be a photographer!
A company (or person) coming out of bankruptcy (such as GM) has pretty bad credit, so charging 20-25% interest to finance the shoot’s expenses would be more than appropriate, plus a late fee for each month. If they want to use you as a credit card, then act like one. Of course, whatever photographer does that will probably need to find their own financing, which isn’t easy these days. I don’t know many photographers that want to be lenders, though.
can’t say i am surprised. every time i turn around there is something in this business that takes a little bit from the photographer making it harder and harder to do business. the little guy at the end of the line always gets the smallest piece of the pie.
To answer some of the questions above: they won’t pay interest and will not give you a letter of securement for the debt. They put the liability on the photographer 100%. Would it ever come down to that? Who knows. We don’t want to find out and have declined on bidding on those jobs which during times like this it is hard to say “no”–especially when someone is extending an invitation. Oh, and all CE jobs have unlimited usage for unlimited time–that’s right–read the vendor agreement and they also stamp it on the PO for each job.
@Dana,
@Dana,
Maybe the answer is to find a bank who can shoulder the liability. From the agency’s perspective, why wouldn’t they pay a little extra in fees to not have to deal with it?
I’m not saying that I agree with their terms, but from an agency perspective it makes total sense. They just want to be streamlined and do creative things. Their business is advertising, not banking – so they outsource it. Photographers are also not banks. On down the line, there could be a bank who finances this kind of shoot. As it should be.
It is happening, and if you want those jobs then you have to get creative about financing them. Where there is risk, there is opportunity.
@Mason,
If a client can’t pay an advance because they don’t have the finances, they shouldn’t be doing a shoot. The agency’s job is not to find a loan, you are correct here, but their job should be to secure money for an advance and know the clients is in good financial standing to pay off the remainder of the balance due. It’s not, and never has been the agencies’ job to secure funds to do a shoot, it is the end client’s job to fiance funds to pay their bills.
There is no opportunity here. In bankruptcy court, you’d be one of the last vendors to get paid. Agencies do not allow mark-ups on expenses, so you’d be shouldering all the finance charges out of your creative fees. And if you don’t get paid? Are you willing to ruin your reputation with all your subcontractors and vendors because you can’t pay them?
@Erica Chadwick, Also, if they cannot pay an advance, how are they going to pay the balance? From the cars they’ll sell from the campaign? Look out for number 1 and all photographers have is their reputation…and talent, of course…
@Erica Chadwick,
Why would an agency work with a client if they were afraid of not getting paid? Seems like that would be higher on their list of priorities than making sure the photographer gets paid.
Also, why would it be a mark-up on an expense? The cost of financing a shoot is an *actual* expense. Get a statement from the lender and submit that with your taxi receipts. If its really that much money, buy a 1-time insurance policy on the shoot. Submit that premium as an expense.
“There is no opportunity here.” Well, considering the rest of the fearful comments in this thread, including Dana Neibert’s statement that she ‘declined on bidding’, I would say that there is a LOT of opportunity for someone to step up and be creative about financing.
@Mason,
There is no way an agency would accept the line item on an estimate for “finance charges”. And you wouldn’t be able to invoice for that if you didn’t include it in your estimate.
I’d be shocked if you could get a loan from a bank to finance a single shoot. You could get a business line of credit, sure- and if you wanted to wager your line of credit on their ability to pay- that is your business. You could also play the lottery, or go to Vegas…
There are fearful comments here because it’s a scary contract.
@Mason,
I don’t think any bank is going to “shoulder the liability” unless there is something in it for them. Being that the risk on this would be extremely high (no one would be willing to secure the loan; most car shoots run at least a couple hundred thousand in expenses, many at 500K and even some at 1 million and higher), the only way any bank would take it on would be if they could charge loan shark rates. And even then, well, it’s just not going to happen… If you think it might, go down to a bank and proceed like you’ve booked the job and see how much they give you.
Loan argument aside, it’s just not reasonable to expect a photographer to take on that much liability for a company that potentially makes billions of dollars. Back in February when these announcements were made from a couple of the car accounts and I believe all agencies under the Omnicom umbrella, art buyers from those agencies very carefully called around to all the agents and asked, “Hey, given these terms, should we be sending you requests for estimates for these jobs in the future.” I know my agent and I would assume many others politely stated, “If no one is going to financially secure job in writing, we will pass on submitting an estimate.”
From what I’ve seen, most of the accounts that announced those terms have quietly and unofficially let the matter disappear. Most likely a large response from the top shooters and their agents saying, “Thanks, but no thanks” led the agencies to go back to their clients and say, “Hey, this whole ‘no advance on the job expenses’ is going to severely limit your photographer pool.”
So will CE get away with not giving advances? We’ll see. And, also, just because they say no advances doesn’t mean it’s not possible to get an advance. There are intelligent and reasonable ABs on the other side of that purchase order who know how to get things done. So far we’ve never had a problem getting an advance even when there was a no advance policy.
I think you might be a little fearful too if you had to spend $645,768.00 on the expenses on a shoot knowing that it would be 90 to 120 days before you were paid back (that’s about how long CE usually takes to pay their bills–we even went 180 days once with them) and there was also the possibility that you would never be paid back. And, Mason, I’m not a girl.
@Dana,
Thanks for your (very) informed response and I apologize if I insulted your manhood.
So, the Omnicom thing didn’t stick, and even when they say ‘no advance’ you can get an advance. Sounds like there’s nothing to worry about as long as agents have good relationships with reasonable art buyers…
$645,768 – would love to see that estimate on aPE.
This sounds crazy, but the contract states that there will be no advance from the agency, but has anyone bothered to ask whether or not the client could advance expenses?
@Dana,
Just wanted to respond to the bit about C-E’s invoice stating it’s a total buy-out in the boilerplate. Indeed it does say that, as do the contracts of other agencies – just cross it out and initial the changes. Or even better – write in the actual terms and initial them. Agency contracts are filled with terms that legal departments put in there that don’t reflect at all the actual deal made by the art buyer and the photographer (see above regarding the lack of advances). That’s why it’s always a good idea to read something before you sign it and make changes if necessary. And it’s also a good idea to memorialize your deal via emails.
And finally, under the Copyright Act, you can’t lose your copyright if you don’t sign. Also, under basic contract law, if the terms of the contract are clearly written on the document, and that’s the part you sign, the fine print doesn’t change them. Not that I would recommend signing something that says total buy-out though. Cross it out.
Yet another of what seems like many so bad precedents being set in this industry…because you just know someone will end up doing it. Won’t be me! But maybe a trust fund kid who really really really wants to be a photographer.
I hope everybody avoids this like the plague it is. The agency should be ashamed of themselves too. Nasty, nasty piece of work.
This kind of deal is happening in lots of different businesses. It’s called “risk sharing”. As an example, if a major aircraft manufacturer wants to use your special navigation equipment on their aircraft you have to foot all development costs to customize for that aircraft. If a year or two down the road they decide to cancel the aircraft you are left holding the bag for all the development costs which never lead to sales. This is one reason there are only a few large companies making equipment for aircraft.
How do photographers overcome this new trend? Merge. Form a group of complimentary talents to pool resources. I know, artists don’t work this way! It could be it is time to consider this due to the changing business situation. By having a talented group you not only can take on the big shoots financially you can set rates which cannot be undercut because you are the only group who can do the shoot. There are other advantages, and yes disadvantages, to this kind of arrangement but I just wanted to put it out there for consideration.
Bend over everybody!
Incredible. They are wagering that photographers are as desperate as the art buyers and the auto manufacturers and that some poor sap is going to bite on this. No matter how desperate you are please don’t take this bait! I would imagine this type of contract for any photographer at any point in his/her career would instigate the beginning of the end.
Campbell-Ewald is part of Interpublic Group who are in quite a bind currently, not that the situation justifies their actions. The risk to IPG is that their bond rating drops, meaning it costs them more to borrow on short term loans. This is the downside of a conglomerate, in that there risk is increased, but I don’t see how they can expect to pass on risk to their vendors, especially since photographers rarely operate on short term loans to fund projects.
I would be willing to provide funding for a GM shoot through IPG, if and only if IPG would issue me 2500 shares of their stock first. I think that would be a fair exchange for having me wait to be paid for a project.
My personal view on all this is that GM and IPG are in trouble. At the first meeting of the new GM CEO with the division of IPG that handles Buick, he bashed every strategy that IPG creatives had put forward, and then suggested they change everything to “show the great style and engineering” of the car. I have to wonder if the new GM CEO has actually seen or driven a Buick.
@Gordon Moat, /Buick’s style and engineering are quite good now — I’ve both seen and driven their cars. GM is right to promote “the great style and engineering” since even you aren’t up to speed on them.
@Speed, Guess you must own a Buick.
@Gordon Moat, You guessed wrong.
@Speed, Then describe to me what aspects in Buick design you like. See if you can sell me (or anyone) on the design.
You see, I have to believe in what I shoot in order to take on a project. It’s more than the money for me. As Dan Wieden (http://www.wk.com) once said, each individual on a campaign should make a connection to that campaign, much like being in a relationship. I could be passionate about a Corvette or a Camaro, and that would come across in the way I approach photographing one, almost like entering a new relationship.
@Gordon Moat,
David Dunbar Buick had the engine, Billy Durant was the great promoter. The rest is American car history. GM is based on Buick.
On the design side there was the Y-Job concept car (Harley Earl) in 1938 – more ‘Art Deco’ than a Cord 810.
The Buick Roadmasters of the 50’s area.(I personally prefer the 8-in-line over the V8)
The 1963 Riviera by Bill Mitchell – a milestone in design, still an icon.
Last, but not least, the 71-73 Riviera ‘Boattails’ (especially the ones with Stage option package *smile). Also designed by Bill Mitchell (who did the Stingray Vette too – so you know where the boattail Buick has it’s origin)
Just to name a few (and to keep it short and sweet) :-)
Cheers, Reini
@Reinfried Marass, That’s soooo last century, but maybe it explains why only really old people buy Buicks.
@Gordon Moat, What car camapaigns have you worked on?
@Speed, You first …
@Gordon Moat, Unresponsive. You’re wasting everyone’s time and APE’s bandwidth. Go away.
@Speed, You first
Rob,
Maybe this would be a good opportunity to do a cross-over study with TV productions.
We always see car commercials being shot here in my neighborhood in downtown Los Angeles. And they’re always huge productions. Off-duty cops, road-closures, private security, production vans, that fancy expensive Mercedes SUV camera car, and PAs running around everywhere.
Are these sorts of screws only being turned on the still productions? They don’t seem to be skimping on the TV/broadcast end.
And I thought I heard that the trend for car shoots was going the way of CGI?
Granted, I am a lifestyle shooter so I may have no idea what I am talking about. But at least I admit it up front!
Still, I feel for car shooters nowadays.
Wm.
@William Anthony,
Production companies & directors are being given the same contracts.
@William Anthony,
CGI rarely works out to be a cost savings at the standard of quality that is car ads.
There’s a lot of time and talent involved in putting together a good CGI ad.
In regards to the CGI point, I was just going by several articles I’ve read lately. Like this one:
http://tinyurl.com/l228ff
First Line:
“Photographers will move into CGI, they’ll have no choice,” says leading car photographer Carl Lyttle.
The article also goes on to describe how Art Buyers are hiring their own retouchers, cutting photographers out of the process altogether.
Seems photography is fast becoming just another tool for illustrators. (Albeit digital illustrators.) Ironic considering the camera killed the paint brush over a hundred years ago.
is this a government program?
Maybe reality TV has it right. Produce a cheap product and sell it for a lot.
Sooo, get a car, drive it to a location, hose it off, shoot it with your G10, do some post, and Voila!!
That way if you don’t get paid, no sweat, the $500 dollars is a wash, but if you DO get paid you make a 600% profit!
@Blue, I have a reflector a backup G10 and a couple of coolers. we can start a production co.
YA we shoot cars no problem at at my house at the beach. just like a $45 dollar headshot.
@cowboy,
I love that you get me.
In regards to sequential liability:
I wonder how many other photo assistants are reading this, and thinking “A lot of you guys [photographers] have been doing this to us for ages. Sucks, doesn’t it?”
I’ve been assisting for nearly a decade, with photographers of all stripes. I know times are tough, but this year takes the cake for sob stories across the board. I try to maintain relationships, consider the times, etc…. but when someone bills more one job than I will probably make this year, my care-cup is empty.
Any other photo assistants (or photographers, for that matter) care to weigh in on this? I’ve seen a couple of photographers bow to the sequential liability clause, which means more are likely to follow…. and you know what that means when you’re making that phone call at 30 days. What steps are you taking to CYA?
@Daniel Bergeron,
Hey Dan, not to try to make myself look like a knight in shining armor, but the advance that our productions require on all my jobs is what I do to protect my crew. My producers know that expenses that must be taken care of day of shooting get paid first (some locations want a check the moment you set foot on the property), then crew, then equipment, then talent, and lastly my personal expenses. So even if I don’t get a 100% advance up front, then my crew is taken care of. I know that lots of assistants don’t work 30 days a month so when they take a job, that’s their food money. I’ve had two producers screw this up before (one turned out to be an idiot and the other was borderline embezzling) and they no longer work on my jobs.
@Dana,
I suppose I should have included a disclaimer in my post accounting, coffee fueled, rant. There are still plenty of good guys out there. I recall you as being cool to work for, and that you took care of Max and I with quickness. Certainly not among the guilty.
@Dana, My policy for assistants and crew is: Bring an invoice to the shoot and get paid on the spot. While some crew (food and prop stylists for example) need time to gather receipts and do the math for an invoice, photo assistants are usually paid at the end of the shoot with the check book. Prior to this policy, some assistants would promise to email me an invoice, and on a few occasions, an invoice never arrived. I realize that assistants often live job-to-job and feel that it is important that they get paid asap.
@Greg Ceo,
Do you pay your assistants as Independent Contractors, or as Part Time Employees? Do you take out taxes on them? If so, how could you pay them the day of?
@IRS, Independent Contractors. If I used the same 1st assistant every week and required him or her to be available on call, or work regular hours only for me (though they could have one or two other p/t jobs if they were p/t for me) and they had a “Continuing Relationship,” working for me, then I would need to pay them as a part time or full time employee and take taxes out of their check. (This I did when I had a full time 1st assistant.) By definition, Independent contractors are free to work when and for whom they choose. They can turn down work for me and work for whomever they choose. If I call up my favorite 1st assistant to see if he or she is available for a job and he/she tells me, “Sorry, I got a job working for Mary Ellen Mark and I’m booked that day,” I can’t fire him or her, because he or she is not a full time or part time employee. Clearly, according to the law, photo assistants who work on occasion for me are independent contractors.
@Greg Ceo,
http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1179.html
This “twenty question” form has always been the thing that’s scared me. According to this, if you answer “yes” to even one of the questions, the person can be considered a part-time employee. But the whole issue seems very vague, honestly. Amazing to me that it’s not more clear cut.
@IRS, According to the Ohio Law paper you sent me it states “The answer of yes to any one of the questions (except #16) may mean the worker is an employee.” The key word here is “May.” It is the totality of circumstances that determines whether or not someone is a full time, P/T employee or Independent Contractor. Although my lawyers would have to do more research on the topic, and it is a worthy topic, at this point I am still confidently paying my assistants as independent contractors. If I regularly shot every day on Thursdays and hired someone to assist me every Thursday, then they are a P/T employee and I must take taxes out of their checks. Hiring someone every once in a while for a shoot as an assistant, and they have the ability to turn the job down, and they work for other people, then they are an independent contractor. Yes, they use my gear, or the gear I rent and yes, they do have to show up at “Call Time” for the shoot. But they could walk off my set at any time. I couldn’t fire them, I would just never work with them again. Just as when a guy building a built-in-bookcase in your apartment for you agrees to show up at 8AM and “Build.” He perhaps needs to use your drill. You didn’t train him. He already had bookcase building skills before you hired him. He builds the bookcase. You pay him. 9 months later, you need him to make a cabinet. He shows at at 8 and builds a cabinet all day. He borrows your screwdriver. He is an independent contractor. I’m pretty sure, so is your photo assistant.
@Daniel Bergeron,
What expenses do assistants ever incur on a job?
Your analogy is apples to oranges.
Waiting to get paid for time & labor and waiting to get reimbursed for actual money out of your pocket are two different things.
Assisting terms are as negotiable as shooting terms.
@Greg,
I believe you are missing the point, so I will try again:
Agency telling Photographer “We can’t pay you, until client pays us”= BAD!!!
Yet:
Photographer telling Assistant “I can’t pay you, until client pays me”= Acceptable. (even when that is NOT what was agreed upon.)
Better?
FWIW- my original post had nothing to do with “expenses an assistant may incur”, which is why I specifically addressed sequential liability. However, if you really want to go there:
I, as a photo assistant, am putting MY time/expertise, into YOUR production. As we all know time = money, so in effect, I am partially financing your production.
Cheers.
@Daniel Bergeron,
“Campbell-Ewald Art Buyers are asking agents and photographers to cover all the expenses on car shoots”
What expenses, as an assistant, are you asked to cover? Assistant sequential liability and the photographer sequential liability–the focus of this blog post–are not the same.
Still, apples to oranges. One requires large amounts of cash (or interest accruing credit) and time, the other only requires time.
It’s a free market. Negotiate a favorable payment time-frame with a photographer or pass on the job.
Well, regardless of our complaints, we all know that there are dozens of overqualified photographers who will undercut each other and agree to these nonsensical terms.
@David,
My suspicion is that their productions will suffer. Imagine you say, “What the heck, I have some money in the bank and a few credit cards. I can do this and wait to get paid after the shoot. Maybe.” Now imagine shoot day or even preproduction. Bills/purchase orders/deal memos start pouring in. In the back of your subconscious mind you know you’re on the hook for all this for at least 30 to 120 days and maybe for good. You might start cutting corners. Telling location scouts to cut it a couple days short and settling for a good but not great location. Saying, “Don’t really need a back up digital back way out in the desert–what could go wrong?” and “Let’s fly in the day of the shoot instead of the day before to save on some hotel bills.” Maybe those are stupid examples but you get my drift.
You’re probably right. Someone will bite. But will Strogalski or Fisher bite? Probably not. But the AD, the AB and the client will want the Strogalskis and Fishers to shoot their car jobs. If anything, this is just a huge exercise to see who can push around who and demand what.
I guess the next question is has anyone taken a good size national ad job for a huge client and succumb to the “finance it yourself we’ll pay you in a couple months” terms? If so, how did it work out? How well did you sleep at 30 days after billing it? 60 days? 90? 120?
Sounds like a quick path to bankruptcy,
I’ve read about this before. What they’re saying is that any contract with the Ad Agency is worthless. Would you enter into a business contract upwards of 6 figures with a worthless contract? It’s a sure prescription for failure.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Perhaps a contract directly with the auto companies is the solution.
@Bruce DeBoer, Actually, the contracts *are* with the client. Read them closely and you’ll see a clause that states the Agency is acting as Agent for the Principal and that all the rights and responsibilities in the contract accrue to the Principal (aka the Client), not the Agency.
That said, the contracts are clearly drawn up by Agency legal and negotiated by the Agency. It might indeed be interesting to negotiate directly with the Client. But legally, the contracts are already with them.
@Greg, Thanks Greg. Sounds treacherous.
Geez.. This is bad.. and surely bad business for anyone to consider, unless they can afford to take the risk. (A photographer with deep pockets). And yes I think it is a horrible precendent to set for any photographer to accept terms like these.
Big Biz hires folks to come up with contracts like these for THEIR advantage, not the contractor. Knowing that GM is financially a huge mess, it doesn’t surprise me that they would come up with something like this.
“Hey Guys.. we really are broke now.. but we need to build our brand back up, you know like maybe like it was in the 1950’s -remember those Golden years?, Can we do it on your hard work and dime?” “We will pay you back.. we swear.. we promise, no lie, we swear we will pay you back”.
I don’t shoot car ads. I’d love to one day., but there ain’t no way in Detroit that I’m ever going to work like this. Even if I could afford to.
@Forrest MacCormack,
I don’t think GM could write terms that are more arbitrary, abusive and exploitative if they tried. GM’s arrogance and sense of entitlement is truly mindboggling.
Hopefully no one will agree to be used by GM in this manner – not even a trust fund baby with his/her own bottomless gold mine who really, really wants to be a photographer (as soneone else so insightfully observed).
This is disgusting!
Let’s think outside the box shall we?
Why does the idea of production for a car shoot have to be like, well a car shoot?
Why not look at Ryan McGinely’s work for Levi’s and apply that same idea of uber simple aesthetic to a car ad?
Are we not supposed to adapt as well?
Shouldn’t we be offering simpler services, to meet the leaner times?
@Scott Rex Ely,
I agree to a point.. But not all car ads can be shot “from the hip” with minimal gear.
That CEO up in that boardroom isn’t going to
understand why his product doesn’t look as great or better than what was done in the past, (heavy production values). That sort of free-wheeling life-style shooting might work occasionally for an ad or two.
But.. Sometimes (often) GM is going to want their car shot at some exotic or not so exotic location (expensive studio – rented or otherwise) that requires car prep and transport, they are going to want great lighting. They are going to want something a little better than what could be shot by any decent photographer with a hand-held DSLR.
So who fronts the cost for the crew to help light? The rental of lights? The travel expense? The scouting expense? The location fees? The studio expense? All this can add up to quite a bit of money.
Sure offer them simpler services.. but sooner or later they are going to want high end production values to sell their products. They seem to love the status quo. What worked in the past has still got to work. They aren’t going to want to scale back anything.
They have never been about scaling back much, one of the reasons GM is in such dire financial trouble is because of stubborn thinking. It took them forever to come up with a hybrid car when Toyota and Honda were cleaning up and setting themselves up as the “first to market” winners. GM killed a perfectly good electric car a few years back that looked like it could have been a real winner. (The GM EV-1) They were content selling SUVs at high profit margins.
GM is not nimble on its feet. I wouldn’t expect them to go for forward-thinking, let’s do it cheaper, (maybe better) shooting styles and ad campaigns. I could be wrong.
@Forrest MacCormack, The point here is that the terms of “What IS” are egregious and perverse. I say got to the next stage of “What will be” and that may mean supplying a product that doesn’t adhere to traditional production values. As a taxpayer who is currently subsidizing major corporate entities in these economic times of downturns and reevaluation I would think that viable options related to anything that can help build new and imaginative problem solving opportunities would at least be considered. As suppliers, we might recognize that sticking with tradition has a much higher cost in the risk category and now more than ever would be the time to step up to the plate and OFFER something innovative other than a 300megapixel captures and all the trimmings that go with it. Again I encourage people to use the Ryan McGinley Levi’s ads as examples. Was he a famous fashion shooter? NO. Did someone see his work as a good match for a jeans campaign? Yes, TWO major brands did. I see too many people coming up with solutions to the archaic and not solutions to the ingenious. Thanks for the reply.SRE
I know, shoot the whole production on your iphone, design an app called carshooter, let the carshooter.com community trade images, you can choose if you want a desaturated look, the look of the day, or the high end ad look with a vignette. Use all your profits from carshooter to fund your car shoot.
Agency has no upfront cost, you developed a fan base of people who love to shoot cars with their iPhone and GM gets an ad without fronting money.
Everybody winds. I wonder how many people will chase this idea?
While this is certainly a bad practice, it’s not really that bad a deal unless you’re a regular car shooter already.
If you’re already to the level where you’re dealing with projects this large, then you’ve probably either already moved on, or you’re laughing in the AD’s face, and waiting for the next wannabee car shooter to throw his credit cards down on the table, hoping for a (potentially very expensive) promo piece.
No one in their right mind, no one who’s already at this level, would ever sign off on these terms. I’m sure it’s just a temporary sign of desperate measures, and either GM and their agency will go belly up at some point, or normal business practices will someday return. (Or else, their production values will noticeably decrease in the short term).
In the big picture, this is just part of the The Great Thinning Of The Herd. A massively overpopulated occupation — commercial photographers — competing for a radically shrinking piece of the pie. Capitalism in action. Those who can stay in, will, and those who can’t will simply find other ways to feed themselves.
If they don’t pay you just keep the damned car!
They really are overreaching. This is something that is being pushed by corporate legal departments. It would make more sense to insist that the agency get paid by their client before a shoot can begin, rather than place the burden on the shooter. I guess they are scared of the “voidable preference” in bankruptcy, which allows a bankruptcy trustee get back any money the bankrupt paid out 120 days before the banmruptcy filing. I know because I had to pay back some money paid to me by a bankrupt company.
Rob, here is a suggestion:
There has been a lot of discussion here about the potential negative impact of sequential liability, but why not look at it as a new type of service offering?
Clearly there are consumers of photographic services who would prefer to do business using a sequential liability payment model. The question is how can professional photographers accommodate this preference without undermining profitability and taking on huge financial risk?
The fundamental issue here is under a sequential liability payment system photographers are essentially extending a line of credit to organizations purchasing photographic services. Credit is the backbone of business. However, in virtually every case where credit is offered, the provider of credit charges extra fees to make the offering profitable. Moreover, the contract used is structured to protect the credit provider from risk. I don’t see why the same concepts wouldn’t work here.
So here is my thought. You (Rob) have done a great job of providing informative interviews with knowledgeable people on various aspects of photography. Why not do the same thing with sequential liability?
A couple thoughts:
1. Talk with an attorney about the best way to structure a contract for a sequential liability agreement. If there is someone willing to offer a boilerplate template of a sample contract, that would be fantastic.
2. Find someone who can discuss capitalization of this sort of service offering. I realize fronting a shoot involves a lot of money. But lots of businesses require working capital to buy goods/services for resale. This sort of offering won’t be for everyone. How do you assess your business to determine whether it makes sense?
3. Talk to an accountant on how to manage this type of offering. What are the tax implications? How do you manage the books? etc.
Clearly there is added complexity here, how do you get your head around it and make sure you pass the added cost of complexity on to the consumer?
4. How to price the offering? Maybe interview someone from the banking sector? Clearly this type of contract should be priced above situations where the agency pays the photographer for expenses up front. But how much more would be fair, reasonable and still profitable?
My bottom line thesis here is this whole concept isn’t that scary if you look at it from a business perspective. You just have to figure out whether it’s a type of service worth offering and whether there is enough profit to offset the extra time/financial commitment necessary to offer it.
@Tom, Commercial Paper would solve this. Unfortunately, you need one or more banks willing to fund such a market. CIT Group would be the most likely, since they back the fashion industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Paper
@Gordon Moat,
Understand. I think there are several options for funding this sort of offering. Commercial paper would be one option.
I’m just saying instead of discussing this topic as pox on photographers, let’s discuss it as a type of business service which may, or may not, be appropriate for individual photographers.
There is obviously a market for sequential liability business transactions. The question is how can you offer such a transaction with maximum profitability and minimal financial risk? And how do you assess whether your business really justifies offering this sort of service?
Rob has done an excellent job of providing overviews of other business issues facing photographers (hiring an agent, proposals, etc.). This topic probably deserves the same treatment.
What happens when this trend moves to other genres of advertising?
[…] sentiment among many photographers. Most recently I noticed it in the comments to a blog post at A Photo Editor. The basic complaint, which is repeated over and over, is that either a) clients are demanding more […]
Two words: “F*CK THAT!”
Car shoots are typically high dollar, high production projects. It’s very important to act as a creditor – take it very seriously; act like a bank and be conservative. Any difficulties with payment could do irreparable damage to your company.
I think I wrote this before but for automobile productions in Germany this has been common practice since a long time. I always had the impression there is abolutly Zero understanding from the client about the business, finances and the creative process of the the photographer. And they dont really care to inform themselves. Yes it’s bad style to give your clients names but in these case it’s simply justified as well: These people ARE ignorant, cynical Cretins and Assholes.
You think is wise? with bank credits getting more difficult and with payments being delayed a lot, are you sure you want to cover all the expenses and don´t have any payment upfront? here in latinamerica is really common to see this kind of stuff happening, payments were delayed 6 months now the time has gone farther to 8 to 9 months, and now must of us are shooting only gigs that pay at least 75% upfront (what business can live with payments being delayed 8 months?).
So my dear neighbors up in the north I truly won´t recommend you having this kind of business of covering a photoshoot and waiting for payment because as the market is today you don´t know when the F you are going to get your money back and anyone knows that a long delay in payments is a PITA because you end up digging money from other gigs to cover the usual expenses from your photo business because you didn´t received the other payment on time.
Comments are closed for this article!