I think AKC clubs (ours atleast) has something in the bylaws about club members not being allowed to profit from the club, including vending. Actually I'm not sure if has something to do with non-profit status... not my major, I don't understand it ;). We do have one member who is a vendor (used to have two) and now we also have one who is a local photographer... The photographer takes really nice pictures, not any that I can afford though. I personally like one of the photographers in the Northeast that puts all of your pictures on a CD and lets you use them on shirts and websites for a decent price. I agree that there should be as many photographers and video people around that want to do it. Now this photographer is being lined up for future trials, which is fine, but I don't see why they can't share the ring with others! A little competition is healthy... keeps everyone in check. Katie

Hmm.... It seems like videographers could be thought of as vendors too.   And unless the "approved videographer" has many people working for them, there are going to many unhappy people who won't be able to get a video of their run - just like what happened at the AKC national some time back. 

There has been an ever growing number of still photographers at the trials which has certainly been of benefit to exhibitors.  Although I have photographers that I prefer, I have bought photos from other photographers because they were in the right place at the right time to get a photo of my dog.

Freedom of choice to the consumer!!   

Chris

Eric,

Sorry, but for very selfish reasons I have no desire to help you persue the  "big time". As you have grown bigger and bigger, we see you less and less. Your videos were such a great help to me and Kody as we began our agility adventure.  Now that Bailey has started competition, we are missing the advantage of reviewing our runs. Have you thought of training   someone to  handle the San Diego area?

Cheers, Jean

It's not about me. It is about the free market and giving competitors a choice. And it is about trial chairs abusing their power to help their friends and themselves. 

For example, I charge roughly $5/run at USDAA show. I was talking to someone that is at the regional, and they are charging $12/run. There is good reason they would not want me there. I wonder how they are spitting up the profits.

Another example, I know that Tien Tran wanted to go to a show in Arizona. The trial chair said she couldn't come. The reason gave was that they had a local photographer coming. But the real reason was that the trial chair was mad at Tien about something personal.  

Think of it this way, what if the trial secretary denied your dog entry to a trial. Denied you entry because A) she didn't like you or B) you are a better handler and might beat her.  Fortunately they are not allowed to do that.

All I'm suggesting is that if a trial is open to vendors, that it be open to all vendors.

 

Maybe dog trials work different from equine events, but horsepeople EXPECT to be able to have video and photos, so the show actually contracts with a videographer and photographer.  Bids go out and someone is hired. They are working FOR the show and are paid a fee, usually a set day-fee fo reach day.

The photographers have access to the exact spots in and around the ring they need to get fabulous shots. 

 This would not work very well, for horses anyway, if a bunch of photographers were working, and it would be so cost prohibitive to pay that many photographers for folks to have "choices."

 This does not in any way prevent OTHER photographers and videographers from showing up and doing their own thing, but they won't have the same access to the video booth or be allowed in the ring.

 The same is done with a farrier and on-call vet.  The show association requires that A-rated shows HAVE to have a farrier on grounds and a contracted veterinarian on call.  This does not mean you cannot bring in and use your own vet or farrier.  But the show HAS to pay ONE person to actually work the show.

In short, these are services OF the show, which means they are paid employees of the show. 

As such, I can see where it would be very cost prohibitive for dog clubs to also hire more than one photographer to work the show. 

If the trial is not contracting a "show photographer" as such, then you are right, anyone should be able to rent vendor space and show up and do their thing.

 At large horse shows, there might be several hundred vendors renting a space for their product, including dozens of viedographers say at the Quarter Horse Congress.  We individually contract with the video service we want.  They all have their booths there and you can contract ahead with your fav or you can get a last minute catch-contract.  The show has nothng to do with it other than the rental spaces they manage of the vendors.

 There is still an official "show photographer," as the win photos have to be done exactly how the show wants them for the AQHA publications and whatnot.

 Perhaps the difference is, at horse shows, vendors PAY the show to rent the booth space.  It happens that competition IS fierce, and it is not unusual for several photographers to set up shop (they pay for their space) and they get plenty of business as horse people adore photos nd video and so many (photos and video) are being taken for marketing purposes for breeding and sales stock, where business is big and good photo or video is hugely important.

 Have you thought about doing video at equine events?  <g>

Barbara and The Symphony of Hounds

The only time I've (as someone involved in trial organization) run into the issue of vendors having exclusive contracts with a dog show is when the *vendor*, not the club, required an exclusivity contract before they agreed do a trial.  The club didn't have anything to do with it except that the club went with the deal, perhaps thinking exclusivity was normal.  There used to be a couple photogs in NorCal that wouldn't come to a show unless they were assured they'd be the only photog at the show.  With our huge shows these days, we NEED multiple photogs (and videographers!) - plus I think local clubs finally learned they didn't have to accept exclusivity agreements (i.e. that there are plenty of vendors who don't require exclusivity).

 

/karey

It's kind of like the whole Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan cat fight. They won't go to a public place unless they're "sure" the other one won't be there. Like Eric says, bring em' on!

 Katie