Anyone work with an agent?

[jtk]

It's true that some clients use agents to find a particular kind of photographer. I wouldn't know how to find a good array of possible skateboard photographers, for example.

However, it's important to know that agents who work for the photographer can help the photographer get to higher-paying clients. Without that help a photographer can sit forever at her/his standard rate unless he/she spends a lot of time negotiating.

Also, the best agents thoughtfully review the photographer's tear sheets or book before they'll even consider working with them.

The photographer's work reflects on the agent. Sometimes agents fire photographers when better photographers become available.

Back when I did some graphic design brokerage I was looking for an illustrator who did good photo simulations of Norman Rockwell...within my client's likely budget. At some point I simply found one of the actual Rockwell's several peers...my guy wasn't as famous so he leaped at the opportunity and the client was more than happy.

 

[Pieter12]

When I was in the buying end of the business, agents just worked for photographers and illustrators, not clients. That would be an Art Buyer at an ad agency. Agents at that time typically took a commission (20-30% if I recall) of the photographer's fee. They would deal with the client during bidding and estimating, usually show up for a while during the shoot, generally doing a lot of the people-oriented things some photographers are not comfortable with, letting the photographer concentrate on the photography part of the job. Agents would call on clients regularly, send promos, show portfolios, take clients to lunch. Of course, this is all for assignment photography. It seems odd to have an agent for fine art photography if your goal is to get into a gallery, since both the agent and the gallery are going to get a percentage of your sales. There are photography consultants who for a fee will help put together a portfolio, give guidance and maybe steer a photographer to galleries that would be a good fit.

 

[jim10219]

When I was in the buying end of the business, agents just worked for photographers and illustrators, not clients. That would be an Art Buyer at an ad agency. Agents at that time typically took a commission (20-30% if I recall) of the photographer's fee. They would deal with the client during bidding and estimating, usually show up for a while during the shoot, generally doing a lot of the people-oriented things some photographers are not comfortable with, letting the photographer concentrate on the photography part of the job. Agents would call on clients regularly, send promos, show portfolios, take clients to lunch. Of course, this is all for assignment photography. It seems odd to have an agent for fine art photography if your goal is to get into a gallery, since both the agent and the gallery are going to get a percentage of your sales. There are photography consultants who for a fee will help put together a portfolio, give guidance and maybe steer a photographer to galleries that would be a good fit.

In the old days, you'd be right. There's no point in paying an agent to promote you if you're already in at some nice galleries, because it's the galleries job to promote you. In today's world, an agent makes more sense. There's social media marketing, websites, special events, and merchandise to worry about, which can be a lot to take on by yourself. These days, artists often make more money selling tshirts, post cards, mugs, framed prints, candles, beard soap or whatever with their art or logos on them, than by selling the actual art. It's a weird world where you almost have to become more than just an artist. You have to become a brand. And you may be represented by galleries all over the world, even if you're not a famous artist and live in the middle of nowhere. Indeed, I've met several artists that sell in numerous small galleries all over the country and pretty much live in their cars traveling from one art fair to the next. It reminds me of what it was like being in a band. Some even make the majority of their income by giving seminars as they travel, set up by local camera clubs and camera shops.

So all of that can be hard to keep up with by yourself. Then again, you may be in a situation where you don't have to mess with most of it, or it all comes easy for you. So I'm definitely not saying that an agent is necessary. Just that for some people, they can be really helpful, even in situations that might not have made much sense as little as ten years ago.

 

[Pieter12]

In the old days, you'd be right. There's no point in paying an agent to promote you if you're already in at some nice galleries, because it's the galleries job to promote you. In today's world, an agent makes more sense. There's social media marketing, websites, special events, and merchandise to worry about, which can be a lot to take on by yourself. These days, artists often make more money selling tshirts, post cards, mugs, framed prints, candles, beard soap or whatever with their art or logos on them, than by selling the actual art. It's a weird world where you almost have to become more than just an artist. You have to become a brand. And you may be represented by galleries all over the world, even if you're not a famous artist and live in the middle of nowhere. Indeed, I've met several artists that sell in numerous small galleries all over the country and pretty much live in their cars traveling from one art fair to the next. It reminds me of what it was like being in a band. Some even make the majority of their income by giving seminars as they travel, set up by local camera clubs and camera shops.

So all of that can be hard to keep up with by yourself. Then again, you may be in a situation where you don't have to mess with most of it, or it all comes easy for you. So I'm definitely not saying that an agent is necessary. Just that for some people, they can be really helpful, even in situations that might not have made much sense as little as ten years ago.

An agent would be handy if you were trying to publish a book. On the other hand I wonder how much money there is in selling merchandise? I would think if you are a fine art photographer and selling prints either directly or through a gallery, such things would only devalue your art.

 

[Pasto]

Thanks to all for the comments/suggestions. I also wish to apologize for posting and disappearing! Life became full all of a sudden These are the sections of the agreement that had me nervous:

1) Artist grants to Representative an exclusive first option during the Term to represent any other photographic projects by Artist.

I felt that this section restricted me from shopping my future projects to other potential agents, particularly in the event that the representation forming the object of the agreement does not result in any benefit to me. Of course, they may refuse to accept any future projects, and in that case I would be free to shop them around.

2) In the event of any breach by Representative, Artist’s sole remedy shall be an action at law for damages.

I could sue for damages, but I can not force them (by way of injunction) to stop using my pictures.

There are other aspects that made me nervous, but these were the most salient sections.

I finally decided to sign the agreement as I realized that I had done all I could for the series of pictures in question, and anything extra would be welcome. Of course there is a possibility of making some money, but if there is any money coming my way it would be very little indeed. Their commission is 60%, and they take their expenses from the remaining 40% before anything comes to me.

I hope I don't regret this....

 

[AgX]

Commission plus expenses ??

 

[DF]

You want to get your work out there - so start by pounding the pavement. Go to some galleries or some frame shops and see what they think of your wares. Maybe a frame shop would display your stuff in front ??

 

[MattKing]

Commission plus expenses ??

Or more appropriately, 60% Commission plugs expenses!?

 

[warden]

I finally decided to sign the agreement as I realized that I had done all I could for the series of pictures in question, and anything extra would be welcome. Of course there is a possibility of making some money, but if there is any money coming my way it would be very little indeed. Their commission is 60%, and they take their expenses from the remaining 40% before anything comes to me.

I hope I don't regret this....

Outside of asking here did you do research in your area about typical artist representation and what it costs? 60% + expenses (what would those be?) seemed steep to me and a little googling reinforces that opinion. Between the agent and the gallery I don't know how you can make money unless your prints sell for very large sums of money.

Aside from the cost I don't like the "action at law for damages" wording. I don't know about the law in Canada (and it's too late anyway since you signed the contract) but could you specify arbitration instead?

 

[jim10219]

An agent would be handy if you were trying to publish a book. On the other hand I wonder how much money there is in selling merchandise? I would think if you are a fine art photographer and selling prints either directly or through a gallery, such things would only devalue your art.

It depends on the target market of your art. If your work is being shown at high end galleries in major metropolitan areas where you're making ten thousand dollars per print, then you'd probably be right. If your work is being shown at smaller galleries in smaller cities or traveling art festivals, then the average customer probably doesn't have $10k to drop on a print or two. Still, if they like your work, they'd probably want to take something home of it. This is where merchandise comes in handy. They will easily drop $50-100 for a signed matted reproduction inkjet of that print or maybe $20 for a coaster or $5 for a post card. While you won't make as much money per item sold, you make more money due to the volume of your sales. This can also increase the value of your original prints because it gives the customer a lower priced option to take home and dream about owning the real deal. It reinforces the idea of one being a luxury good and the other being a value product. It also serves the purpose of putting your work into the hands of more people and getting your name out there, without flooding the market of actual product. It's like a form of advertising, only they're paying you for the advertisement. And lastly, it separates you from the other photographers in the area who aren't worthy of being merchandised.

If, however, you're able to sell prints for several thousands dollars without all of that, then you probably don't need the advertising. Your work is already well enough known and in demand. At that point, you run the risk of devaluing your work because it would be able to be purchased by the average person (even if it wasn't an official print). You're removing the property of exclusivity which is key for any luxury item, such as high end art. However, it's still possible to sell merchandise and maintain the value of your work under certain circumstances, if carefully managed. The trick here is to make sure the products are very high quality (and not inkjet prints or some other product that's easily producible by the average person), produced in limited numbers, and made by someone other than the original artist, yet sanctioned by the artist. You probably don't want to go the coasters and t-shirt route in this scenario, but matted and framed, limited edition, reproduction prints and books could work, so long as the quality was high enough and their cost still reflected a sense of exclusivity. And in some cases, these items, if printed in small enough quantities, can become quite valuable themselves and help to increase the value of the original works. Look at a first edition of Alec Soth's "Sleeping by the Mississippi" for an example.

It's complicated to navigate the market properly here, and there's not a single answer that applies to everyone. The right thing to do largely depends on who you're marketing towards. Rich older people will have a different reception to merchandising than young rich people, who will also think differently from middle class, middle aged people. This again is why an experienced agent will come in handy. They can help you decide what's right for you, and put you in contact with the people necessary to put your work on display in the best light.

 

[Pasto]

Clarification: recourse for breach of contract is by arbitration, also the work is marketed as a story and not individual prints to collectors. I reserve the right to sell individual prints, show the pictures in galleries (public and private), as well as publish the pictures in a book, etc.The purchasers (potential) are print periodicals and internet sites whose mandate is consistent with the story. My work documented migrant laborers, a story that's pretty current internationally. Thanks again for your input.

 

[jtk]

Perhaps join American Society of Media Photographers...formerly american society of magazine photographers. Membership does entail serious intent.

ASMP.Org

https://store.asmp.org/chapters lists members

https://www.asmp.org/join/why-join-asmp/

I'm not a member but I definitely would consider that now if i wanted to do photo for publication (as opposed to advertising, art etc).

Members get exhaustively detailed advice and contract forms and all sorts of consultative services.

I know a few whose asmp memberships have indirectly led to sales

 

[Pasto]

Thanks for the tip jtk!

 

[jtk]

Thanks for the tip jtk!

Luigi..excellent web site, excellent work

 

[Pasto]

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[jtk]

When I was in the buying end of the business, agents just worked for photographers and illustrators, not clients. That would be an Art Buyer at an ad agency. Agents at that time typically took a commission (20-30% if I recall) of the photographer's fee. They would deal with the client during bidding and estimating, usually show up for a while during the shoot, generally doing a lot of the people-oriented things some photographers are not comfortable with, letting the photographer concentrate on the photography part of the job. Agents would call on clients regularly, send promos, show portfolios, take clients to lunch. Of course, this is all for assignment photography. It seems odd to have an agent for fine art photography if your goal is to get into a gallery, since both the agent and the gallery are going to get a percentage of your sales. There are photography consultants who for a fee will help put together a portfolio, give guidance and maybe steer a photographer to galleries that would be a good fit.

In my experience the agent DOES NOT "TAKE" any commission at all. The client (typically advertising agency) simply pays for the photo (or other art) work. That the agent is involved is not a surprise...the client met the photographer through the agent...

The photographer is contracted with his agent to refrain from directly doing any professional work without the agent (same arrangement as with actors). These are elite, very expensive photographers.

Some photographers have created their own agencies to market their own work as well as the work of other photographers. Some photographers are in such demand that their billings are astronomical.

https://www.thehandbook.com/celebrity/annie-leibovitz/

 

[removed account4]

day rate in boston for architectural and others is $8G +
factor in the agent's commission/fee its still a pretty good deal

 

[Pieter12]

In my experience the agent DOES NOT "TAKE" any commission at all. The client (typically advertising agency) simply pays for the photo (or other art) work. That the agent is involved is not a surprise...the client met the photographer through the agent...

The photographer is contracted with his agent to refrain from directly doing any professional work without the agent (same arrangement as with actors). These are elite, very expensive photographers.

Some photographers have created their own agencies to market their own work as well as the work of other photographers. Some photographers are in such demand that their billings are astronomical.

https://www.thehandbook.com/celebrity/annie-leibovitz/

Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but if the agent does not "take" a commission, then how is he (more typically in my experience, she) paid? I don't ever recall being invoiced by an agent directly, usually the photographer.
Some photographers will have a person on staff that does all the things a rep would do, calling on clients, etc.

 

[jtk]

At my own level-of-food-chain day rate ($450-650/day rate plus stylists etc...working around 3-5 days/week) I struggled for business that paid $2500/day for the work of photographers that I knew personally.

Those photographers were arguably no more accomplished than I was but they were represented by agents...agency art directors trusted the agents more than they trusted photographers they had yet to know (such as myself). It could initially be a barrier-to-access/closed loop but the agencies also did regularly work directly with people on their way up, such as I was.

The client called the agent because the agent represented photographers the client liked. The agent scheduled the shoots appropriately. The agent billed the client. The agent's money is built into the rate.

The clients of some advertising agencies are too important for them to take risks with new photographers and don't mind spending a few thousand extra dollars here and there in order to get aesthetic certainty. Make good sense.

Photographers who work via agents are like actors in that respect...professional actors are represented by agents.

 

[jtk]

... I have never hesitated to walk in doors without appointments to make my own presentation/pitch. I never knew a successful commercial photographer who was afraid or too lazy to do that.

Someone like me might want to consider an agent, raising rates accordingly. Why? Because the agent might get me in doors I hadn't known about (didn't have time to find on my own) and because clients who are receptive to agents are used to paying a lot more for the work.

Should I have taken my usual "competitive" (middle market) rate or used an agent to connect me with extra clients who were used to paying a LOT more, paying me a lot more into the bargain?

If I planned to bill $1000 for a particular perhaps-two-day shot, an agent might bill $2000-$2500 for the same shot, paying me $1500 and saving me marketing time. That's how it works.

I actually knew agents, never thought to contract with one. A regret.