In an opinion piece I authored last weekend, I wrote: “Attracting and supporting professional shooters should be the priority.” A commenter asked what I meant, since pros are not nearly as numerous as average photographers, so why do they matter more?
The comment reads thusly: “I would have thought attracting and supporting amateur shooters (many of whom also want quality) offered a far larger market segment than the pros out there? Do you mean that pro shooters (and/or corporate accounts) are the bread and butter of camera companies the size of Canon?”
I started to write a response but realized that it warranted something longer than a quick comment. So let me answer that question with a short story.
The Fall of Lowepro
Years ago, Lowepro was contending for the biggest brand in photography carry equipment with Think Tank. They made great bags that could be seen worn by some truly phenomenal photographers. One day, a new CEO decided that their relationship with pros and their ambassador program was a waste of money, and killed the program.
Lowepro no longer worked with pros and no longer asked for their input. That was okay though, because the real money was made on high-volume, consumer products seen at Best Buy end caps for example, so they didn’t need pros. They leaned hard into the amatuer-tier photographer segment instead.
Within two years, Lowepro’s market share collapsed. The company had multiple rounds of layoffs. The deal with Best Buy meant lots of volume but at horrible margins. It actually cost them money — money they couldn’t make back with high-end gear because they no longer worked with pros. All those former allies were using Think Tank.
There is nothing wrong with making gear for amateurs — in fact, you have to — but in the photography world, it can’t be the only thing you do.
Aiming the entirety of your photo industry marketing at amateurs makes you look like an un-serious company. It makes you look cheap. So not only did placement at Best Buy cost Lowepro money on margins, but it also cost them public perception because while making this move, Lowepro also took its bags off the backs of pros. The bag company that was once the cream of the crop was suddenly only visible alongside a checkout line: the playground of cheap toys and snack foods.
Floundering, it tried to bring back the pro program and worked with photographers again, but it was too late. Lowepro would go on to sell itself to the Vitec Group and is now just a brand inside of another, no longer independent and no longer an industry mainstay.
Pros Matter
No, pros don’t buy the most gear as a whole, but they are the people the average photographer looks up to. If you don’t appeal to pros, you don’t see your gear in their hands on the sidelines of basketball games, soccer fields, or portrait studios. You don’t hear pros talking about working directly with a brand to make gear that directly addresses modern problems. The brand power diminishes at the top and as a result, those below no longer see it.
So I’ll say it again: attracting and supporting professional photographers should be the priority. If you don’t do it, you give nothing to those who aspire to greatness to look up to.
Sony didn’t start forging relationships with professional photographers, news agencies, and journalism networks for nothing. It’s one of the most powerful marketing arms they’ve got and it’s where Canon dominated for a long time. There’s always some level of aspiration involved because you don’t typically buy everything at once. You buy into potential.
I was chatting with Jeremy Gray, PetaPixel‘s News Editor, about this and he told me that when he was getting into photography years ago, Nikon had just released the D3 and 14-24mm f/2.8. Of course, he didn’t buy a D3 back then, he was just a kid. But he bought a D80 kit because he had dreams and the people he looked up to were all using the D3
“I wanted to be able to grow into something like that,” he says.
“It’s just one example, but if someone tells me they didn’t think it mattered that Canon DSLRs and the once-unique white lenses were everywhere for a long time, that’s just not true. It mattered.”
Image credits: Elements of header photo licensed via Depositphotos.