Is that any way to treat a visitor?

Today I was working at a large University which shall remain nameless……

I arrived for the job nearly an hour early,  (which turned out to be just as well),  and parked up at the security building to get directions and help with parking, were I was told that all the parking was full, and their was no visitor parking area.

Now,  is it just me,  but really shouldn’t a large university have a visitors car park specifically put aside for administrative visitors or guests,  and shouldn’t this be at a convenient spot?

After waiting in a cue I was finally able to park after 45 minutes,  which would have made me viciously late if I had arrived at a normal time.(One other person attending the same meeting as myself took two hours to park!!)   Of course their was no consideration given to the need of the visitor to bring large things along like lights,  cameras,  backdrops,  etc. 

This is a publicly funded institution which feels that it is acceptable to treat its visitors with disdain.  No respectable business would act the same way.

It brings to mind the behaviour of most football clubs.   On match day the reporters (Who of course have to carry a pencil and notepad) are provided with VIP parking,  whilst the photographer is usually forced to park on some street miles away and then lug tens of thousands of pounds of gear in through the crowds.

Its not acceptable,  its a health and safety issue,  and it’s also just about treating your guests and visitors with respect. 

Surprise Surprise…….

It would appear that the Guardians bully tactics may have in fact backfired on them….

I had a chance to work with a very good snapper who also happens to be a regular contributor to the Guardian…..  I was pleased to here from him that he simply was not even going to entertain the new terms that they have attempted to impose.

 ”Its my photography,  why should I just give it to them”  was his reasoning. 

So,  like at least 2 other of the Guardians regular contributors,  he now attaches a note to his material that “These pictures are provided under my standard terms and conditions and no syndication is allowed.”

This is a huge shift in position,  which the Guardian will  find it difficult to undo….and which will probably spread to other papers as well.  Photographers are finally at the end of their tether and are realising that there is no downside to moving their relationship with the newspapers to the same standards that they would have with any other commercial client,  and working to a set of terms and conditions which they impose. 

For too long the papers have had a hugely advantageous relationship which they are now abusing for commercial ends,  effectively they are dealing with contributors the same way they would deal with any other commercial supplier.  So why shouldn’t we as photographers treat them the same way?

The Nationals are losing touch….

with reality.

We are seeing a increasing number of rights squeezes by the National newspapers,  with the latest example being the Guardian’s attempt to force contributors into handing them the right to syndicate their photography,  and give them a virtual veto over further use by the photographer of his own pictures.

However  the time when they could dictate terms to their contributors has now gone.  With a freeze on rates over the past decade,  and a substantial decline in volumes,  they are no longer spending enough money to substantially effect the behaviour of the industry.

For National freelancers the rates now being paid are so low,  and the work so rare, it simply is not possible to abandon more rights and lose more possible medium and long term income streams without going out of business.  

More importantly for many photographers,  this wholesale demand for all rights strips the them of the only thing that has any value,  their library. 

The best photographers simply wont accept this, certainly not for £150 per day all in.

But the National papers are so far removed from reality that they just don’t seem to understand what is happening in the real world.  As a consequence of this they are going to paradoxically lose even more control of the editorial material that goes into their papers,  as their choice is increasingly restricted to the 3 big agencies.

The newspapers simply don’t seem to understand what their actual product is,  they don’t understand that the newspapers value to the customer lies with the editorial content within.  With huge choice for the customer now available both at the newsstand and on the internet,  if they don’t grasp this fact  then these valuable brands are going to be flushed down the toilet. 

Relying on the same limited agency sources for their photography, and consequently producing a newspaper that looks virtually identical to all of its competitors,  is a sure way to loose market share.

Its only through making proper investments in content,  including photography,  that they will be able to create a distinct product that will grow readers.

Trying to do it on the cheap by exploiting and abusing the already struggling freelance will not do this. 

The Guardians recent moves to impose blatantly unfair terms on its freelances, far from supporting photojournalism,  damages the very basis upon which it is produced,  and in the long term this behaviour will mark the end of the National newspapers as a influence on public opinion.