Last week I wrote about the latest David Jay hate war, and said that if a courtroom attorney asked whether I agreed with his Shoot and Share strategy - and demanded a Yes-No answer - I’d have to say, “Yes I do.” Why? Because social sharing is a reality whether we like it or not, because social sharing is a powerful new form of word of mouth, and because Shoot & Share is a big step up the social scale from Shoot & Burn. Also I don't like hate wars. But this is not a TV courtroom drama, so if you're thinking of building a career in social photography, we believe the typical Shoot and Share model is bad for business. Why? In a word, no differentiation. Here's what I mean... According to David there's a big shift happening in the photo industry, away from selling products and towards selling services. In reality it's a shift towards selling digital files, not services, and it's the way cheap wedding photography has been sold for quite a few years now. I agree that "sharing" (online) is better than "burning" (to DVD or a thumb drive), but it's not enough to build your career on, as we'll see... To support his Shoot and Share argument, David says what's happening in photography is simply a reflection of what's happened in the music industry. But in fact the music industry is a completely different business model to social photography, and it's important to understand why. A musician records a track or album once, but hopes to sell it many times to many customers. Same with writers, print makers, game developers and many more creatives. You, on the other hand, have one customer per event, or maybe a few - the bride, couple, mother, family in your viewfinder. One of the big changes in the music and publishing industries has been the loss of power by the publishers, and the rise of the long tail. In the old days musicians and writers had to be picked by a publisher. Nowadays they can market and sell for themselves. Of course you've always had to do that, but again, selling wedding photos is never going to make you Amanda F Palmer or the Fifty Shades of Grey phenomenon. It's a different business. You're like a painter not a pop star. You need high sales per customer to thrive.

§

According to David, Shoot & Sharers make their money through the creative services they provide as artists, rather than the hard sell of products. "Essentially Shoot & Share photographers make their money upfront instead of through backend sales." That sounds uplifting, but is simply not believable. What really happens is that Shooters and Sharers pretty much give away "back-end sales". Like the Shoot and Burners (who don't even share) they have nothing to offer but their digital files. With zero room to differentiate, they're not artists, they're price takers. Just like back in the day when low budget "professionals" handed over their negatives. That's unfair, according to David. Shoot & Sharers provide a complete service and beautiful products to their clients, they just aren't dependent on selling products. Yeah, sure! Take a look around a few Shoot and Share sites and see what you think. And didn't he say there's a "big shift" away from selling products?

§

According to David, Shoot & Sharers are making it difficult for other photographers to justify charging massive markups on prints and other products. That I do believe! We have always said it's counterproductive to sell products at unjustifiable markups. How to sell and how much for has been a constant debate throughout our forty years in this business. We have people who sell prints on Workspace at crazy low prices. They struggle to make any revenue. We have people who sell prints on Workspace for crazy high prices. They struggle to make any sales! There's a sweet spot, where you get a good return for a quality print. Dollar prints are an insult, especially since you only get half the money! Workspace has taught us in no uncertain terms that it takes big volumes to make money on small value sales. Shoot and Share, and Dollar Prints, are a tasty business model for David, for WHCC and for the freight companies, but not for you. The big guys do huge numbers, you don't.

§

There's nothing wrong with low price, easy-as photography business if that's what you want. Sure, other photographers will think you sell your art too cheaply, but that's not your problem. What I am saying is that if your goal is a serious long term business to support your family, your lifestyle and your retirement, it's not sustainable. People who "sell their art too cheap" will always be with us. Thousands of them join the industry every year, and just as many leave. Your focus always has to be on how to beat them, not join them. The challenge may be intense but it's not new. Here's to the 3 percent. There's still plenty of room at the top. Cheers Ian Here are two more posts on a similar theme.