- drago : 097365
- Oct 11, 2016
- 4 min read
... or climbing the hills of success; sometimes it is hard to know which perspective to have.
Freelance photography has become such a competitive space and tough environment to earn a living ... and at times it is difficult to maintain a sense of humour and appreciation for your own sense of worth and effort while desiring to deliver quality results for your clients. However, this is not just the conundrum reserved for photographers, but I suspect equally applies to writers, graphic designers, web developers and any field that has become readily accessible through the use if technology, apps, and pre-fabricated platforms that allow businesses to readily create their "unique" identity.
For a couple of years, I have used one particular site to gain access to potential clients to help build the business. Across the world there are more and more sites dedicated to the "shared economy", a business principle of service providers gaining access to clients, by the clients advertising what they need and service providers bidding on what they can provide. I have a "love/hate" relationship with being an active participant in this emerging type of economy. The true profiteers in these environments are the small number of people that own the company and provide the platform for the service to be made available to a massive number of people. From an organisational perspective the founders overheads are insignificant compared to a bricks and mortar organisation that directly employees people to provide similar services. In this "shared economy", the "employees"/ workers pay a commission to the owners of the service to be part of the game.
There was a time, at least in Australia, when there was a battle for "the minimum wage and workers' rights" and gave rise to a trade union movement; and consumers were influenced by "standards of service" and "proof that the service being provided was protected in some way" - who was liable for what was clearly defined. In a "shared economy" environment there are no minimums; there are no minimum standards; and as personal financial pressures increase, service providers become more "desperate" to drop prices in order to just be in the game; while consumers at the same time are less and less prepared to place value or worth on the service provided. If you search hard enough, you will always find someone who will do something for you for less money. In a "shared economy", the risk is skewed and predominately rests with the provider; not the consumer and definitely not with the owner of the "shared economy platform".
There was a time when asking someone to do a job for you that was below the minimum hourly wage or with sub-standard working conditions would have caused an uproar. In the "shared economy" environment, sometimes I am totally perplexed by what people assume to be reasonable terms and conditions; and what people are prepared to do. On the surface, I think a lot can be benefited from a shared economy, and it is mind blowing how technology has enabled us to connect with people and services that in the past would have been impossible to find; yet somewhere along the way in a very short space of time we have also lost sight of some basic values - such as respect for another's time, skill or service. As an observer and participant of the dynamics of what is actually happening at the service-monetary exchange level, there is a brutality driving the "shared economy " agenda.
Here is an example for a "shared economy" site : "I need document delivered from "suburb x" to Sydney CBD today." The person who has posted this job has said they are willing to pay $5 to have this job done. A countless number of people will bid on this job and will be prepared to do it for the price that is on offer. To put it into perspective, the person who does this job will receive a payment of $4.25 as the "shared economy site" automatically takes a 15% commission with no associated risk. Under conventional business, the minimum hourly wage for a courier is $19.50; so whoever does this job should spend no more than a total of 13 minutes from start to finish to get it done in order to earn the legally minimum hourly rate for courier services. Any expenses to perform the service are paid by the provider and not the client. In addition, the provider has to be prepared to pay the first $1000 of any insurance or liability claim that may arise from performing the job. As a comparison, Australia Post charges $35 to courier a document same day; or a minimum of $8.50 to have it delivered next day. More than likely, the person performing this service is paying the price to perform the service - the beneficiaries are the owners of the shared economy site and possibly the client.
This example illustrates the "shared economy" at best. Established businesses are in the long run unable to compete at the rates that are being offered and accepted to perform this "basic service". Those who bid on the job for at least a "fair pay" for "fair service" exchange will not get the job and are excluded from the market. The more jobs that are awarded with this level of terms and conditions, the more they become the social norm of expectation of service payment. The concept of "reasonableness" becomes further eroded. At a philosophical level, I struggle with the idea of "expecting someone to pay us for reasonable price for our goods and services, if we are not prepared to pay those who support us in providing those goods and services a reasonable price for their contribution." There is a hidden cost here in the short term, and a more profound impact on long term sustainability. No matter how successful you may be in delivering a service, financial sustainability continues to become a steeper uphill battle - for both freelance operators, and large established "traditional" organisations alike.
Flying Solo Tip 097365 : When you look up at a mountain, do you imagine how amazing it will feel to take in the view from the apex; or do you concern yourself with how steep is the climb?
