by Kirk Russell, 3Lenses.com

I often hear from financially struggling photographers who, when asked to explain a loss of business, offer: “It’s so easy for new people to get into the business today. And they don’t have to be good photographers, because they can rely on Photoshop to fix their images.” Is this really IT?

But what about…

• The cost of equipment, props, and backgrounds is so much less than it used to be. Really? Is future success dependant on keeping the cost of entry into the industry too high for others?

• “Soccer moms” entering the industry can afford to spend hours, or days, manipulating images before their clients see them. Really? How long could you stay in business doing that?

• Competition will dominate the market by offering photography, products, and services that are far below consumer expectations, and traditional standards. Really? Consumers have actually become more demanding, not less so. They are less likely to compromise quality and service, and less likely to pay more for “name brands” when comparable photography and products are available for significantly less.

• People with little or no business, sales, or marketing experience can start a studio, and in just a couple of years, attract enough people, and do a better job than established, successful photographers. Really? Unless established photographers are complacent, or unwilling to evolve with the times, they should be able to run circles around newcomers.

Even if any of these points are valid, they are only attitudes. And attitudes can be changed. You can change the attitudes or perceptions of consumers, even when it seems competition has leveled the playing field. Consider Kmart and Target as examples of competitors who compete to attract the same consumers to their stores. Just a few years ago most people saw few differences between these two companies; both offered basically the same products, and their store exterior and interiors looked much the same.

But today most people would agree that Target’s image is dramatically different than Kmart’s. Target has more consumer appeal because its image is more stylish, and innovative. And this is in spite of the fact that most of Target’s inventory hasn’t changed. What did Target do to change client perceptions? Target changed its MARKETING!
Target didn’t add many new products to their shelves, nor did they spend advertising dollars trying to convince consumers that their products were superior to competitors. They changed the look of store interiors, and the image they projected in their marketing.

Target and Kmart had equal opportunities to capture the attention of consumers, but only one chose to use innovation to engage consumers.

A sitting duck is an easy target. If you don’t introduce innovation into your studio with new photography, products, service, and marketing, but steadily raise prices, you invite competition to offer comparable photography at lower pricing. And when people respond, you may blame the competition, or write it off as lower consumer expectations.
The point is that if you become complacent, and don’t breathe new life into your business, every year you will become less and less appealing.

Tags: Kirk Russell, marketing

permalink |

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm and is filed under business, marketing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.