Countless photographers and videographers keep saying working for free is the worst enemy of our industry. Aviv Vana, the founder of CineSummit, takes another approach to free work and bet it can actually double your work income if you keep one crucial detail in mind.
Working for free is the worst idea ever. At least, it seems to be when reading blog comments, articles, Facebook groups, and other places on the Internet. But the definition of working for free is too often taken literally as a job that doesn’t have an immediate monetary return. According to CineSummit’s founder, and other accomplished business persons or artists, it can help you get more jobs, and thus more money in the long run. Vana goes even one step further and says it’s a great way to double your income.
His point is not to go out and shoot anything for free. Instead, offer your services to future potential clients who don’t have the budget yet, or to people that can give you access to a network worth the amount you’d otherwise bill. This idea reminded me of an article Chase Jarvis wrote a while back. His point was you should accept or do a project only if you get at least two out of the three following things: money, portfolio, and relationships.
What do you think? Do you work for free on a regular basis? Has free work ever lead to new business opportunities for you? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.
Lead image by rawpixel.com via Pexels.
Depends on the type of client. If it is a growth client, then, yes, they can afford you later. The important thing is to ensure that they know what your normal price is at the start. Send them a bill with a separate line item for 100% discount, (even if it means charging them the taxes, if there is a physical deliverable).
A phrase such as, “I'll do this one with a full discount to help get you grow,” implies a quid pro quo without even saying it. They will remember who was with them at the bottom.
Clients who don't have the budget for you yet aren't going to call you if/when they do. If you're the budget photographer, they'll only call you for the budget jobs. When they get that 20,000 dollar budget for a shoot, they're going to call a "real" photographer.
That is why you let them know you are not a budget photographer, by giving them a budget on the “free” shoot, so that they know what you are worth. You tell them, and you show them.
Or I could give that budget to a paying client and get paid in money for my hard work. People don't value "free."
And the money aside, Clients who aren't paying for work often don't take it seriously, so all the parameters and moving parts needed for a successful shoot are going to be half-assed. Locations might not be ready, access and availability to key places and people are limited.
In the end, it's just not worth it. Yes, it might work out for 1 or 2 people, but the vast majority of people who do free work will just be taken advantage of and get nothing of value in return. Those are terrible odds, and I'll let someone else waste their time on them.
«…I could give that budget to a paying client….»
The author was talking about using your free time, when one does not have a client. If one is fully booked with no free time, then this does not apply.
[EDIT] Removed sarcasm [/EDIT]
«People don't value "free."»
If you had to say that, you missed my point.
«…Clients who aren't paying for work often don't take it seriously….»
You really are missing the point, and the examples given by the author. He is specifically targeting those who DO take it seriously, not a haphazard giving away of free services.
«…parameters and moving parts needed for a successful shoot are going to be….»
Again, you did not listen to the author. It won't be as you said, because the person in charge will be you, not them.
«…majority of people who do free work will just be taken advantage of….»
Not if they do it right. Listen to the video again, and see why none of these points of yours will be valid.
Sorry you felt that way. Not meant to come off like that.
What I mean is that all y̶o̶u̶r̶ 𝐡𝐢𝐬 points were already addressed. I addressed giving value to one's work, the author had addressed serious clients vs freeloaders, he had addressed who is the one in charge, he addressed what type of “free work” to do, etc.
[EDIT]
Oh,… wait….
I thought Christian was suggesting I was attacking him. Didn't realise that it was someone else felt like I was attacking Christian.
Either way, the apology to Christian still stands; I did not mean for this to come off as a personal attack against you, Christian.
[/EDIT]
Hah, ha. the Internet is funny.
Someone other than Christian or Alexander down-voted my apology to Christian when Alexander was offended!
I don't know what that means! ;-) :-D :-)
if you do a free job today in the hope to get payed for another job tomorrow, but tomorrow there will be another photographer doing free job hoping to get called the next day...guess what...the next day there will be another photographer doing a free job...so when will you get payed?
I realy dont believe on this way of doing business
No.
...offer your services to future potential clients who don’t have the budget yet.
If so, will they ever have budget?
That sounds like an investment, so why not in return for your 'bid' you get a share in that start-up company.
Personally I don't believe in this idea. Companies are there to make money and so do we as professionals. Remember that every free gig is pushing your CODB up (which you have to take into account for your paying clients, so your rates will rise -slightly, depending of your free/paid job ratio-).
I agree that occasionally working on personal projects or charity projects to show what you are capable off is the right way, that's close to what Chase is saying about portfolio and relationships.
Remember you cannot pay your rent nor your daily bread with exposure.
It is not about exposure, and, yes, with the right client, one who cannot pay this year may just be able to do so next year. He is not advocating giving away free jobs to non-growth clients.
Karim, how are you supposed to know if this is "the right client"? Can you give me an example of a business job you did for free that turned out in a profitable returning client for you later on?
Not saying there are no exceptions but this seems like an investment to me were you can only hope it would work. Just wondering were you found that crystal ball that tells you this prospect will grow and will stay loyal to you after you did a job for them for free. LOL
Businesses are no charity projects running on volunteers in their free time instead businesses work with paid staff working for a living and so do we as professionals.
We don't collect gear to sponsor companies with a bad advertising habit.
Did you ever tried going to the bakery - in your spare time of course- and ask them for a cake promising them you will come back next week to buy even a bigger one?
I guess this will not work, just a wild guess of course...
«…how are you supposed to know if this is "the right client"?»
Research. the same way producers do. The same way anyone starting a business ought to do before jumping in. Google is your friend, Google Analytics even more so, and, depending on the client one is researching, several other specialised tools.
«Can you give me an example….»
Don't have to. The video did enough of that. But if you insist, a free job with one non-for-profit, at a ‘fair’ event, with several other non-for-profits attending, gave me contact information for several of the executives at these other places. Not only did that first non-profit use me several times after, but so did others.
«Not saying there are no exceptions….»
And that is the crux of the matter.
«…were [sic] you can only hope….»
…And that is where you are falling down. If all you have is hope, then you are not doing it right.
« …you found that crystal ball….»
There is no crystal ball, but there is guidance, and there is wisdome, and there are lessons from experience —and it does not have to be your experience.
For example, would you undertake a free project with Magic Leap? Launched in 2010, it has not yet sold a single product, and has not yet turned a profit. It has been burning through capital investments since its roots. BUT… it has a proven leadership in whom has turned to gold everything he has touched in the past, it has some of the most talented people in the industry working for them, it has the backing of some of the most successful companies and people. Will you say, “Hey, I don't want a foot in that door, they are in so much debt, they are bound to go under, and I will never get a dime from them,” or say, “I need to think up some project I can do for them, because even if they fold, so many talented people, who are currently with successful companies, or successful individuals, would have seen my work. I can exchange contact information with them, and my talent may be called upon.”
Me, I would be the second voice there, not the first. Let's see who has been through those doors; The first three off the top of my head; Mark Hamil, the Marley children, Google. That was all in a one month window a few years back.
Now a few years ago, at my first gig with that aforementioned not-for-profit, I met a certain young rapper, who just released his first (self published) album. I saw him perform, and I filmed him (for the non-profit). he approached me, and we spoke. After getting a handle on him, then going and doing my research, I choose not to do a project with him. I have not heard of that rapper since that day. (Perhaps he changed his name?)
So, no, there is no crystal ball, but there are ways.
«…businesses work with paid staff…. We don't collect gear to sponsor….»
Again, you missed the point. You are correct,… but you missed the point. In the video, see a man who did not one, but two free projects, both with very wealthy men, both of whom have done video projects before, and both accepted his offer. They both paid off for him.
«…ask them for a cake promising….»
AGAIN! This KEEPS COMING UP! The author specifically states he is NOT discussing people who come to you and ask you to work for free! That is NOT THE POINT! That scenario is discouraged in the video so stop bringing it up! Watch the video again!
I watched it again and what I noticed is that it falls in the category "do the thing YOU want to do (for portfolio/ personal project) so you will become better at it and you will be noticed by the ones you want them to hire you.
The thing I disagree with is the fact that it still minimalises the job of an image pro, you have to work for a sustainable living and although it is a fun job, it is still a job.
It's more the opposite, I can do a job for free AFTER you gave me 10 assignments in order to thank you... Not BEFORE!
If they had the budget to give you ten assignments, why would a free job be considered a worthy gift?THAT is saying that they over paid you the last ten times. First one with a growth client at a full discount, (make sure your value is known), then that's it. Show me the money.
It's happening sometime that my agent need a favor from a client and as they give me plenty of jobs, they ask me if I can take care of this favor.
Yes, they over paying me, but as it's my agent, they making money on getting overpriced camera work done.
Oh! so you do a favour for your agent, who in return, gives jobs to you and not the other providers. Yeah, so…. Not the same thing as being discussed in the video.
My point is that free job can be given as a reward, not as a starting point. Not that hard to understand.
But it's look like all your messages following a negative trolling pattern.
(-Crying-) Sorry to see that no one understand you... (-Crying-)
«…free job can be given as a reward, not as a starting point. »
I understand that. …But that is not the issue of this video. Your point is a good one, —and I probably ought to have mentioed that in my first reply— just not in the same vein as this article.
«But it's look like all your messages following a negative trolling pattern.»
Then you, also missed the point. There is no trolling here. I am only trying to get people to see what the author was saying because they all seem to misunderstand him, bringing up issues he never mentioned, or asking questions he already addressed.
That is not trolling.
Oh, and it would be nice if you had context to the quotes. The first quote you show is about a totally different article which someone linked. The last quote was to a reply to someone where he had already made that point, and I had already replied, and he went on to make that point again.
Whatever the context, all your post are policing comment, always let them know that they are missing the point, and of course you do.
You don't bring anything except negativity here
Just here 14 posts are from you, and countless long message irrelevant to the original article.
You have way too many time in your hands, go out and do some work.
Please don't reply to this one again, it's useless. I am done.
Good day, sir.
For the sake of the accusation…. —and you are not required to reply—
«…message irrelevant to the original article.»
When the original author —and to make this clear, I am speaking of the author of the video to which the printed article refers— clearly says “Ⓐ and NOT Ⓑ,” but commentators keep ignoring Ⓐ and mentioning Ⓑ, I am not the one being irrelevant.
«…here 14 posts are from you….»
P.s., One thread is from me, most —eleven of the fourteen you mentioned— of my posts are replies to questions/comments made to me. That means only three replies to other people, (which means you miscounted, as there are five replies, plus one on an off-thread).
«…long message….»
…Because short messages leave too many questions which get asked, leading to long messages.
If you agree with the content and are an architect or a project developer, I love a new house for free and promise that if you do a good job I‘ll pay for the next house. Same for yacht builders, I’d like a 100+ meters yacht for free.
Sure, for a few lucky ones free work might lead to payed work, but they are the exceptions to the rule.
It’s like the lottery.
You want to be a millionaire?
Buy a lottery ticket.
There is always a winner, so it’s a proven concept...
Poor analogy.
I get the impression that people would rather pay for exposure (aka advertising) than getting it for free; seems like a strange business model.
On that note, this is worth a read
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2013/01/21/a-step-by-step-guide-to-g...
Worth a read?
If you like wasting time maybe..
“Though this might sound terrifying, the easiest way to give away half of your work for free while still doing just as well as everyone else is to do twice the amount of work of everyone else.”
Here’s another suggestion: do half the work of everyone else and charge twice the amount for it. That way you have a lot more time to work on your networking skills so you can find clients that pay even more. After a couple of months repeat the process so you do a quarter of the work you originally did and still make the same amount of money. Repeat this process until you don’t know what to do with your spare time, then start working more hours. By this time, you make at least 64 times the amount per hour of work you started with. Once you charge over $1,000 an hour, new clients will think you are the best in your field and other people will do anything for free for you, just for the exposure they get that way…
You missed the point of that article. That article was about being philanthropic. Nothing you said was about being philanthropic.
That being said, that article has nothing to do with this article.
When a photographer offers "shooting for free", he devalues the "photography" and creates the impression of "worthless service", the only thing he would get is bad reputation: yup, that guy is FREE.
In fact, I would argue shooting for FREE is the worst idea of starting any business.
Those so called " no budget" -"potential-clients" have budget for everything else, they just don't think photography is worth paying for.
No but thanks NO.
I am a proponent of “No Free Work,” but I think most commentators are totally missing what this man is suggesting, and I have done what this man is suggesting.
He is not suggesting accepting free work; he specifically omits that as a bad thing. He is not suggesting giving free “charity” work to those who can never afford a professional photographer. He was not general about that, either.
He is speaking about doing work for either, ① a talented up-and-coming player who will pay you when they are up, ② a well-known successful player who can and will get you known among other successful players, ③ a sector with national reach, a project for one which will get you noticed for others.
Examples:
① A free project for 16 year-old Will Smith may be paying off more now than trying to get into the rap industry from scratch without ever doing a free job.
② Doing one free project for Jaden Smith today can get you noticed by so many more in his industries, that, offering him a free gig can get them calling you for paid gigs, (assuming you do a good job). Appearing just one time on the Oprah Winfrey show has found lasting success for so many.
③ Creating a free, unique project for one museum, for one charity fundraiser, for one school district, for one regional library, can get you paid gigs across the whole country in all those sectors.
He is saying one ought to look for and create opportunity for future work, not accept free gigs from people who asks. Someone asks me for free work, the answer is no, but I have no problem with offering myself for free for a one-time project which has potential to draw multiple clients, or potential to be called back for a paying gig.
The problem with your strategy is that you're making too many assumptions that aren't guaranteed and that in my experience don't work out the way you expected. You're going to pour hours of hard work and invest so much time hoping that the person returns the favor by introducing you to other potential paying clients or hires you for future gigs with higher budgets. But the evidence is stacked against those assumptions. Most people won't follow through with their promises. They'll just gladly take your free work and not bother returning the favor.
A better strategy would be to create a personal, passion project or spec ad. A short film, documentary, or personal photo project that you have all the creative control over and that won't feel like a burden because your just spending your time on yourself.
And why would you do a free project for Jaden Smith? That guy is loaded. He's the last person who should get any type of charity.
«…you're making too many assumptions….»
Nope. You think assumptions are being made, but the author is speaking of calculated risks. If one does due diligence, then they are very few assumptions being made, and the payout is at least double the investment, which means, well worth it.
«…in my experience….»
In the experience of so many more, it works out quite well. Ask Jared Polin how he came to shoot so many stage performances of concerts. ASk him what his first gig paid him, then what his last gig paid him, and if he would have gotten his last gig if he did not get his first gig.
Now anecdotal evidence is just that, but perhaps the question is, “What did Polin do that you did not.”
«…invest so much time hoping….»
Therein lies your mistake; hoping. It is not a gamble, it is an investment. What is the difference? In a gamble, you throw the dice, whereas in an investment, you do the research, weigh the choices, then make a decision, (even if that decision is to walk away).
«…follow through with their promises.»
Promises? If you are depending on promises, you are doing it wrong.
«And why would you do a free project for Jaden Smith?»
If you have to ask that question, you missed the point. It is not that he is loaded, nor that he can afford to pay you, nor that he does not deserve charity, (and what we are talking about here is NOT charity). But Smith has three choices here; Ⓐ do his shoot his way with his usual guy and pay his usual fee AND/OR, Ⓑ do a different sort of shoot your way with you for your price.
Consider this; ① If your price is not free, why would he take it, and ② If he went with you for free, what would he be losing? What he gets out of it is a different PoV which he ma or may not like. If a cast is involved, it is a gamble for him. He does not take it, you get nothing. If it is free, it becomes an opportunity for him. he does it, and, whether he likes it or not, you now have a celebrity project in your portfolio, and a professional who may speak professionally about you, even if he did not like the result.
If you are already shooting celebrities, this is NOT for you. The author makes that clear. If you are already doing projects with celebrities, this is for the guy who wants to get into your business by offering a perspective you do not offer.
And how many of those upcoming or already well known and successful players are there compared to people that want to get noticed? One in a thousand? Maybe less? (that’s the reason for the lottery analogy)
And if you are well known and earn a lot of money, why would you not just go to a well-known professional for the job instead of taking the risk with a “nobody” who will do it for free but might not be good enough?
Sure, some might give you a chance anyway and for a small percentage such a chance might be the steppingstone they need, but are they “the rule” or the exception to the rule? I think the latter.
You can be a great photographer or film maker, but to make money you need to be a good salesperson as well or even more so. Even if you do meet potential clients by doing work for free, you need to sell yourself to them. But if you had those skills already, would you be working for free in the first place?
«…that’s the reason for the lottery analogy….»
So producers taking on new talents are gambling? NO! They are doing their research, watching the talents, and choosing the ones with promise. That is what you also do, so, no, it is not a lottery, because it is not a gamble; it is an investment, and you treat it as such. You make choices as such. You do not gamble. Listen to the author's video again.
«…why would you not just go to a well-known professional… instead of taking the risk with a “nobody”….»
Because you have nothing to lose and something to gain. That was made clear in the video. There is no risk for the talent, provided they have time. If the talent has no time, the worst that would happen is they say no. They stand to lose nothing but might possibly gain something. You stand to lose nothing but may possibly gain something.
Remember, someone once took a chance on them. They may well want to consider paying it forward. Not everyone in the world is a “bit-much to deal with.”
==«…that’s the reason for the lottery analogy….»
So producers taking on new talents are gambling?==
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
Working for free hoping that might result in future business opportunities, that’s like buying a lottery ticket hoping to win a lot of money. You might, but the odds are against you.
Doing free work might lead to contacts with potential clients – though I doubt it’s the most effective way – but you still need to sell yourself to get their business and you need skills other than taking good pictures for that. The time and money it takes you to do free work can also be spend investing in the skills you need to sell your business.
==«…why would you not just go to a well-known professional… instead of taking the risk with a “nobody”….»
Because you have nothing to lose and something to gain. That was made clear in the video.==
Nothing to lose? What about someone’s reputation?
If you want to do video for me or my company for free and you do a bad job, that might impact my business reputation as well as your own. If I’m a client with enough money to hire a well known professional, why would I take the risk working with an unknown and unproven filmmaker?
I’m not saying no one will, but how many well know people do you have to contact before you get a free job with enough exposure.
In the end it’s all about return on investment. Before you invest do research. How many hours do you need to invest in free work on average to get a decent return? What’s the success rate? How big is your market? Who is your competition? What are the reasons most people fail despite doing free work? What skills do you need to be successful? How do you know if you have those skills?
None of this is in the video, only some anecdotal “evidence”.
«That’s not what I’m saying at all.»
If it is not a lottery when a producer does it, why is it a lottery when someone else does precisely the same thing?
«Working for free hoping….»
Ah! That is where you are going wrong. That is not what one does when doing the kind of free work he speaks of in the video. Do try and keep up.
«…but you still need to sell yourself to get their business and you need skills….»
Who said anything different? Not me, and not the author of the video.
«The time and money it takes you to do free work can also be spend investing in the skills you need to sell your business.»
You make it sound like a dycotomy. If so, it is a false one. One invests in the skills one needs to sell the business, then sells the business according to the plan. This is just one such plan of many.
«Nothing to lose? What about someone's reputation?»
How? How is someone's reputation —aside from the persondoing the free project— at risk?
I have money and time on my hands, and a regular I pay to do projects. Someone new comes along and offers me a free project. I either, Ⓐ do both projects now, or Ⓑ use my usual guy, or Ⓒ use the new guy, see how it works out, and if it does not, go back to my regular.
If I do not have the time, I say no.
How is my reputation at risk? Only that of the one offering the free project.
«…why would I take the risk working with an unknown….»
Asked and answered above. really, if you are not taking the time to read my posts, please do not comment on them. I am beginging to think that you are the type who read, “Do Free Work! How to Get Massive Exposure,” and watched the video, while the entire time repeating the mantra, “Exposure does not pay bills!”
You are right; exposure does not pay bills, but this is not about those people who come to you with, “Do this for us and we will give you free exposure.” This is about you, taking an idea to someone who can actually give you exposure, and making it happen.
«In the end it’s all about return on investment.»
No one said anything different.
«Before you invest do research.»
Now you are just repeating what I said.
«How many hours do you need to invest in free work on average to get a decent return?»
Wrong question. The correct question is, “How many hours does one need to invest in one's project & the clients to get a decent return?” The answer to that is governed by all the other questions.
«None of this is in the video…»
Of course not! What do you want; a three day seminar? It is a fifteen minute video!
[EDIT]
I may have confused some of what I said to Christian with what i had already said to you. …OR some of what Christian said with what you said.
Sorry.
[/EDIT]
Do you need a three-day seminar to show some numbers that support your argument? Thirty seconds should be enough, he wasted half a minute on BS at the start of the video. But hey, you can’t show what you don’t have, can you.
It seems to me you are trying very hard not to understand anything I write. Without real dialogue there’s no point continuing this.
¶①
«Do you need a three-day seminar to show some numbers that support your argument?»
Straw-man logical fallacy.
¶②
My comment on a three-day seminar was CLEARLY in response to two things. The first is your penultimate paragraph asking, «How many hours do you need to invest in free work on average to get a decent return? What’s the success rate? How big is your market? Who is your competition? What are the reasons most people fail despite doing free work? What skills do you need to be successful? How do you know if you have those skills?» The second is my response saying that the very first question was in error, thus changing the parameters entirely.
¶③
You then concluded that there is only anecdotal evidence. Now you want numbers —a.k.a. statistics of anecdotal evidence— to be given in thirty seconds. …That will lead to, “where is the source of the data,” but that is irrelevant, as the data you are asking for is meaningless, because the first question is driven by the rest.
¶④
In other words, first one asks oneself, “What skills does one need to be successful, and how does one know if one has those skills?” Once one knows the answer to those two, (and only when one does) can any of the other questions be asked.
¶⑤
The next question is, “What project can one undertake with one's skills, and who is one's competition?” Once that is established, one can ask, “What’s the success rate, and what are the reasons most people fail despite doing this work?”
¶⑥
The answers to that now decides, “How many hours does one need to invest in one's project & the potential clients to get a decent return?”
¶⑦
So, no, it is not a thirty second response because the answers vary from individual to individual, project to project, potential client to potential client, and requires a great deal more than 30 seconds to get to the bottom of it all.
¶⑧
«It seems to me you are trying very hard not to understand anything I write.»
Au contraire. I am trying to understand you well, but it seems that you gloss over what I post when I respond. Sorry you feel that my misunderstanding you is the problem.
¶⑨
I do not feel that real dialogue is about making people believe something, but making people understand something, even if they disagree. I do not believe that you are trying to understand, but have an incoming bias against “free work” —as I myself have, and made clear— and therefore is not making an effort to understand from where the author of the video is coming.
You’re very first response to something I wrote was: “Poor analogy.”
Two words, nothing more not even an explanation why you think that would be the case.
You could have asked what I meant or at least explain why you think the analogy doesn’t apply.
But you didn’t.
If you want me to understand something, judging without explaining is not very effective. Neither are patronizing remarks like “Do try and keep up.” Or “Wrong question. The correct question is...”
I don’t have a bias against free work, I just don’t think doing free work is the solution to the “problem”.
The “problem” in this case is getting not enough payed work.
You can jump to conclusions based on anecdotal “evidence” like in the video, but that’s not the best way to handle a problem in my opinion.
At 2:41 in the video we get the text: “WANT MORE PROOF?”
Nothing was proven, not even close. You talk about logical fallacies so this should be clear to you.
Analyze the problem first, try to find the route cause, figure out solutions, test them, evaluate them to see if the solution is effective. That’s what people need to do if they don’t have enough payed work.
Doing free work might be part of a solution and if you do a video about that at least show some real evidence. Maybe some statistic, x% of film makers got more payed jobs after x months after doing what’s suggested in the video. Their average increase in income was x%. You just have to look for research that has been done already. A simple quote and a reference to the source.
If you think the guy in the video is correct and you want intelligent people to understand, you need to come up with some evidence. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Or loosely translated: The burden of proof is upon the one that makes the claim.
«Two words, nothing more not even an explanation why….»
Because immediately after, I started this thread which explained in detail, and you obviously got it because, rather than commenting, “…that’s the reason for the lottery analogy,” to that post, you did it here, so stop making it sound like you got no explanation. I thought that my in-depth response deserved a thread of its own as it applied to more people than just you.
«…at least explain why you think the analogy doesn’t apply.»
I did in the first, third, and fourth —and second, but that was a reply to someone else— of my posts in this thread.
«…Or “Wrong question. The correct question is...”»
Fine, the first one does sound a little bit condescending, but the second one is in no way patronising. It is showing where your line of thinking deviated from what the author was saying, and goes directly to why the lottery analogy is poor. Did you even try to understand the differences between the two questions, or did you say, “wow, patronising,” and not bother?
«I don’t have a bias against free work, I just don’t think doing free work is the solution to the “problem”.»
Yeah, …And I do not have a bias against pain, I just don't think it is helpful. …And, no! The problem isn't, «getting not enough payed work.» The problem is getting an ‘in’ into a closed industry.
«…jump to conclusions based on anecdotal….»
No one did that but you. The video is not based on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence was given in support of the premise (not conclusion) of the video. Why? Because of people like you who say it will not or does not work. One example is enough to make such a statement a lie. If one person can make it work, (and several anecdotal stories were given by different people), it means that what they are suggesting is doable. No anecdotes were given as proof, but rebuttals. The amount of success that can happen is entirely dependent on several factors which I pointed out (due to your questioning).
«…At 2:41 in the video we get the text: “WANT MORE PROOF?”»
Ask yourself, “proof of what?” Watch the video at 1:20 for the answer. What he was proving was indeed proven. He rebutted the naysayers those that say, «that “don't do free work,” stuff….»
«Analyze the problem first….»
And herein lies the problem with this discussion; you think he is speaking of one problem, when he is speaking of another. He is clear about what he is not talking about, but you still are harping on that.
«…figure out solutions, test them, evaluate them to see if the solution is effective.»
That is precisely what I said.
«Doing free work might be part of a solution….»
That, too, is what I said.
«… at least show some real evidence.»
Wait…. What?!? Go back to 1:20-3:54. Those were not fake people with fake stories about fake success. But, even without the “proof”, the premise still holds. It is what producers do all the time!
«Maybe some statistic, x% of film makers got more payed jobs after x months after doing what’s suggested in the video.»
Didn't read my last post, then, did you? If you did, you will know what is wrong with that. To be clear, this is not the data you originally asked for, but the explanation concerning that applies. look in paragraph ⑦.
Such statistics in a general case of all film makers who got paid jobs, after so long, having done one of a myriad of things, is meaningless to a photographer who chooses the wrong project to do with the wrong client. If you then say, “well I want to do this kind of project with this kind of client,” then it is on you to research that. No one can do that for you in advance on a YouTube video. No such research for your particular circumstances has been done before. You are trying to lay a generic golden egg. The Golden Goose is unique to your circumstances. In your own words, (which echoed mine), “Analyze the problem first, try to find the route cause, figure out solutions, test them, evaluate them to see if the solution is effective.”
«Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.»
You fail to understand the claim. I tried to spell it out. You thought I was patronising. Sorry, I cannot help you. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Statistics will not help.
For the sake of others, his claim is that it is possible to make money and gain clients by doing certain free projects. His claim can be proven with one example; he gave several, each a different circumstance.
P.s., your Latin is poor. it is loosely translated, “that which is freely asserted, is freely denied.” Your ‘translation’ is more of a corollary.
Fact 1: You’re very first response to my analogy were those two words.
And you did that *because* after that you replied to *someone else* without saying anything about the analogy? How is that relevant?
Only after I mentioned one of the reason for the analogy you used more words.
Fact 2: Your reply after that started with: “So producers taking on new talents are gambling?”
The question mark might give the impression of you asking me something even though it’s more a conclusion than a question. But you didn’t really ask me anything, did you, because right after that you went on with “NO!” followed by another conclusion based on the wrong assumption because that was not what I meant at all.
Two opportunities to start a real dialogue, none taken.
Fact 3: Your next question: “If it is not a lottery when a producer does it, why is it a lottery when someone else does precisely the same thing?”
Again, it’s basically a conclusion in the form of a question. It’s not what I tried to say with the analogy.
This was the third opportunity to simply ask something like: “Please explain what you mean exactly?”
Before you can say the analogy doesn’t apply, you need to understand my reasoning behind it.
If you did, we could have had a real dialogue and, in the end, we might have disagreed anyway, which is fine by me.
I don’t want to keep on fighting over this, so let’s agree to disagree.
Another thing we seem to disagree on is evidence.
==«… at least show some real evidence.»
Wait…. What?!? Go back to 1:20-3:54. Those were not fake people with fake stories about fake success. But, even without the “proof”, the premise still holds. It is what producers do all the time!==
No they are not fake people and yes, they are successful, but that in itself is no evidence that proofs the cause of their success was doing free work. Evidence needs to be verifiable. At best, there might be a correlation.
Let’s for the sake of argument except this correlation. Now you need to know if these successful people are representative. They might very well be exceptions. Maybe 1,000 people tried this and only 2 succeeded with this strategy. If that’s the case, the reason of their success is most likely not doing free work.
==P.s., your Latin is poor. it is loosely translated, “that which is freely asserted, is freely denied.” Your ‘translation’ is more of a corollary.==
I know that’s the usual translation in English, but I didn’t want to use that. If “corollary” is a better term instead of my “loosely translated” that’s fine with me. English is not my native language either.
Once again you drew the wrong conclusion (do I see a pattern?). My Latin is fine, my English could be better in this case.
«…after that you replied to….»
Everyone! It was a top level post, because I realised that I was making the same comments again and again, so my very next post was a top level post where I addressed that. No I did not mention the analogy, because I mentioned the reason why the analogy was poor. It is not a random gamble but a calculated decision, which, apart from covering by examples, also covered in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph, “He is saying one ought to look for and create opportunity for future work….»
There was no need to to bring up the analogy again.
«Your reply after that started with….»
that is because you are not following a conversation. That was a reply to you asking, «And how many of those upcoming or already well known and successful players are there compared to people that want to get noticed? One in a thousand? Maybe less?» That position was already challenged and addressed in the thread.
«Again, it’s basically a conclusion in the form of a question.»
So you got it. Good! You do see why the analogy is poor.
«It’s not what I tried to say with the analogy.»
Nope, but it is what I said in the first post, thus showing why the analogy was poor, and yet you brought it up again. The point is that it is NOT a random gamble, which a lottery is.
«…is no evidence that proofs the cause of their success was doing free work.»
So i do free work and make contacts BECAUSE of that free work. Then I get paid work either because, ① I called one of the contacts I got, ② one of the contacts called me, ③ someone called me, having seen my project, …but that is not proof? Baffling! I have no idea what proof you are looking for.
«Evidence needs to be verifiable.»
Er,… no. This is not a science experiment. We are talking clients here, and one does not share client info on the web all willy nilly. You either trust or you don't. You clearly don't. I cannot see what any of the players here stand to gain by lying.
«…if these successful people are representative.»
Er,… no. …Because there can be no representative sample in a permutation. It varies on the talent, the client, the project, et al. Been through this.
«Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.»
Zoals het nodeloos wordt beweerd kan vrij worden ontzegd.
Sa't it is fergees beweard kin wurde frij wegere.
Neither dutch nor Frisian, (nor Papiamento), is my native language, but to jump from the original, which speaks of the tearing down of an argument which has no grounds, to the demanding proof from the one who makes a claim is not an error of translation. the translation was incorrect either way. the corollary —a position that follows from a previously accepted position— still stands. I never questioned it.
However, I will now accept that alot of what I said may have been lost in translation.
You use a lot of irrelevant words to hide your lack of arguments and you can’t even agree to disagree.
In the end your interpretation of the claim made in the video is:
“that it is possible to make money and gain clients by doing certain free projects. His claim can be proven with one example”
It’s possible to make a lot of money by buying a lottery ticket. This claim can also be proven with one example.
Because I bought a lottery ticket, contacted the organization and showed them my winning ticket I made a lot of money.
Now did I just provide verifiable evidence for causality?
If so, this must be a science experiment, because only there you need verifiable evidence...
And it’s still a gamble because there is no guarantee you’ll make a lot of money, only a slim chance you might.
If you do “certain free projects” however, you’re almost guaranteed to make money afterwards…
Or maybe not? Well we don’t know.
Now what kind of proof might I be looking for?
(Please don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question)
Why do you keep making outrageous claims then say, don't answer my rhetorical question?
I recognise that a question that stupid MUST be rhetorical, but the premise which drives the question is a fallacy.
To begin with, (and you do not have to respond if you think my arguments are irrelevant words), «…your interpretation of the claim made in the video is: “that it is possible to make money and gain clients by doing certain free projects.”»
That is the end of my claim about what the video is about. You said that that claim must be proven. If one person did it, then it is proven.
So what about the lottery? Well, no one made any claims about that, so that is a straw-man logical fallacy. It still does not bring about an equivalency between the two, as a lottery is based entirely on randomly draws balls, whereas the video is speaking about properly researched projects and clients. It would more akin to Texas hold'em (or dos y tres), than the lottery, as in the former, one can make a calculated decision to check, bet, call, or fold, while in the latter, there is no guidance at all. Even then, what the video speaks of is even less of a risk than Texas hold'em, but I am NOT about to explain that yet again.
Your false equivalency is not holding up.
this is such bad advice. The examples in the video such as Tony Robinson are high budget clients to start with. This was not a photographer or videographer landing that gig. There is a huge production team in place to setup the lighting, video, stills etc. Essentially they just used this person as a free behind the scenes shooter. And if you shoot for free for a startup what exposure do you get? They are brand new... Even if they did blow up and become successful their next step will be to start using production companies or ad agencies and even if they ask the prod company or ad agency to use you because you shot for free for them the agency is never going to use a photographer that shot for free. They will know they do not have the experience to work with creative briefs, creative calls, estimating etc. Plus agencies always try to keep budgets as high as they can because they believe in paying fair rates to creatives. I have discounted my rates for smaller companies that are not using the images for national advertising but there is no way i would shoot for free. I wouldn't shoot for a day rate under 3500 in any situation and when i do discount i always have a favored nations clause that nobody on the crew (models) can be paid more than my discounted rate or they have to raise mine to match the highest paid person. If you want exposure shoot personal projects and take meetings at ad agencies and show your work. If you work for free you will always be knows as the photographer that works for free. Ask most art buyers at agencies, when they get tripple bids for projects its rarely awarded to the lowest bid. They are worried that low bidders will not produce the quality they need or do not have a handle on how much production goes into a shoot.
I would like to say that you are missing the point, but apparently, that will not go over too well.
«…such as Tony….»
You are right about Tony (Robins??? Robinson???) that he would normally be a high budget client, and that at his events, the lighting, etc, is done by his own crew, and that the cinematographer shot BTS footage. No one is saying otherwise. …But I have this question; “How many people shot BTS footage of Tony before that?” AHA! That cinematographer DID ‘land that gig.’
«…shoot for free for a startup….»
Covered that already. All startups are not the same. One must do the research and choose wisely.
«…their next step will be….»
Irrelevant to the various purposes. …That being said, their next step may be to use you, IF you demonstrated a unique quality which had set you apart. If you are doing the same as everyone else, then go work for a production company or ad agency; you may get the gig.
«…because you shot for free….»
That is NOT why they will ask for you. Definitely missed the point.
«…They will know they do not have the experience….»
Why would you think that the people we are speaking of have no experience? There is a disconnect. this is a non-sequitur fallacy. Even IF the agency knew you did one project with them with no monetary compensation, that does not suggest any of what you brought up.
«…agencies always try to keep budgets….»
Irrelevant. There is no connection between the two. …But this is not the goal, anyway; to get hired or used by an agency.
«I have discounted my rates….»
…Something others have suggested that a creative never do. Instead of discounting your rates, try to offer a lesser package or give a value added incentive. Discounting your rates says, “that is not my real value, this is!” That is why the author (of the video) suggests free. Free says, “My normal rate is ¤x,xxx.00, but I am doing this for me, so there will be no charge for you this time.” It establishes your true value, and still gives you the advantages discussed in the video.
Additionally, this is NOT speaking about accepting a job for free, in exchange for exposure, etc. The author is clear about that; to say no. He is speaking about you offering to do a project for free. Totally different scenario.
«…shoot personal projects and take meetings at ad agencies and show your work.»
THAT IS PRECISELY what the video is about!