ArticlesI am an amateur juggler. Occasionally I get asked by strangers for help finding some performers for a gig. Generally, it is at the last minute, and for a group that does not want to pay the rates that the professionals have quoted them.
I generally don’t like receiving these requests. The reasons are complex, but one reason stands out.
Another related reason is that, while I enjoy juggling for fun, that doesn’t mean I enjoy being a booking agent for fun. There are people who will do this service for you, and they will take a percentage for their time. If you are not paying me big money for this unattractive task, I am not really interested.
The main reason I prefer not to fill bookings with amateur friends is that many of my other friends are professional jugglers. I don’t to be involved in providing the public with potentially sub-standard entertainers that will both undercut the income source of professional jugglers and pollute the mindspace of the punters. (“Oh, we got some jugglers a couple of years ago, and they were terrible! So this year, we are getting a singer.”)
I am an amateur photographer.
Once, I was giving away some copies of my prints to the people who were photographed. I received a snarky comment from a professional photographer – she bleated that, unlike me, she couldn’t afford to give away copies of her prints for free.
The comment surprised me at the time, because she was a professional portrait photographer, who produced fantastic studio images that I could only dream about. I was just taking snaps of friends and acquaintances.
I don’t see myself as a threat to her livelihood, but from the tone of her voice, she did.
I am a software professional. Like professional jugglers and photographers (and painters, fire-fighters, interpreters, cabinet-makers, writers, ambulance-drivers, musicians, army grunts, sports-players, anglers, police officers, gardeners, actors, … the list goes on surprisingly long), there are people who do my job for fun and make their work product available for free.
Why don’t I find this threatening to my livelihood?
There are open-source projects in the broad area of my current work, and some people predict that they may well earn themselves a significant marketshare over time. I feel no snarkiness towards the freeware authors; I don’t lament that they don’t stick to their day job. I don’t label them as scabs who hurt the industry. I see them as legitimate competition that my company needs to significantly outperform if we deserve to keep our marketshare.
I can see there’s an inconsistency in my thinking here, but I am not sure how to resolve it.
Comment by Nobody on October 26, 2006
I believe you’ve misstated at least part of your problem, and perhaps you have misclassified it as a minor problem. You claim you lack empathy when in fact you have empathy, otherwise you wouldn’t take on the urgency of others tasks, care about supplying amateurs in place of professionals (perhaps even your judgment of amateur versus professional is in some empathic question), nor would you notice or care to consciously remember, never mind record, the snarky photographer’s concern, etc.
Perhaps the reason you don’t know how to resolve the inconsistency is because you don’t have enough evidence. It is possible that by the time you have the evidence, if ever, it will be past the time when something can be done about the process that generated the evidence.
So perhaps you must carry on with your beliefs. Perhaps you must question your desire. The choice is yours.
Comment by Aristotle Pagaltzis on October 26, 2006
I think I know the answer, but I’m afraid I can’t articulate it.
Part of it lies in this: shrink-wrap software is sold to many customers, ideally bringing in much more than it cost to create. Custom software OTOH cannot be replaced by open source: a consultant will find a livelihood, whether he is developing custom software or customising an open source product. (Or, for that matter, a vendor’s overpriced pieced of crap. Don’t even get me started on a rant about this.)
Comment by Julian on October 26, 2006
Dear Nobody,
Thanks for your sage words.
That’s funny. I was thinking about this exact word in the shower this morning, before I read your comment. I decided that I chose the wrong word. It’s not empathy I lack, but commitment (to the stranger and their self-inflicted problem).
Yes, I am questioning my desires/beliefs here; I can see I haven’t thought through this carefully enough to resolve it, but I am getting stuck.
Comment by Julian on October 26, 2006
Aristotle,
I agree that there’s definitely several business models for open source software, and that there are room for consultants to make a living.
However, that’s not where my career is at the moment. I am in the pay of a vendor. Our products are inevitably overpriced when compared to $0. To compete, we need to make sure they aren’t pieces of crap and find other ways to differentiate ourselves from the freeware projects.
I think my point is that I am quite happy to take on that challenge in my industry. I think the professional photographers should be happy to take on that challenge in their industry; I can’t believe I am a threat to them.
Hmmm… I should ask some professional jugglers their opinions. Perhaps they are happy to take on this challenge too, and I am being over-protective of them.
Comment by Cassie on October 30, 2006
Funny that, Julian. Before I read your latest comment, I started trying to articulate my response. Here is part of my feeble attempt.
1. One would assume you have a better understanding of your own industry, and therefore may more accurately identify threats, opportunities/legitimate competition, etc, than you would in other fields.
2. The photographer just sounded like she was crazy. Or you misinterpreted what she meant. You should discount this conversation.
3. Just as there is a difference between market price and cheap, there is also a difference between cheap and free. You seem to be comparing cheap, undercutting jugglers to free, open source software dudes. I think this is partly where the inconsistency lies.
To clarify:
I assume when someone offers something for free, it’s usually because:
a) they love it; or
b) they want some experience before they start charging; or
c) they want to make the world better in some way by offering their skills.
I think these reasons are all fine.
When someone offers something at a cheap rate that undercuts prices already established in the market, they do this because:
a) they’re unaware of the market price; or
b) they don’t think they’re worth the market price; or
c) they’ve found a way to cut costs so they can pass the savings on to you; or
d) they’re bastards and/or evil.
I believe the only good reason here is (c), but there aren’t many costs with being a juggler, so this is unlikely to be of great significance in this industry. Therefore, cheap jugglers are bad, mmmkay?
4. Even so, not all performers view all other performers (or “performersâ€) as threats. I am a professional juggler. I’m not a great juggler, but I like to think that I can perform ok and that I can run a business. It is important to know your product, your target market, and your competition. If you don’t sell your product based solely on price (i.e. you differentiate yourself to your competition in other ways), then undercutting evildoers aren’t going to be such a threat to your livelihood. If they are crap performers, they may be doing bad things for the industry, but there are ways to get around that.
And yes, most performers I know like to keep working to improve their skills, not just to compete, but also for personal satisfaction.
How’s that?
Comment by Julian on February 24, 2007
Cool; this page was cited in an essay about the impact of amateurs on professional photographers.
My name was misspelt, but that suits me fine.