Craigslist PWAC doing radio ads...

Seriously. Heard it yesterday morning on my way into work. A 15 second spot on a popular alt-rock station advertising a 1 hour portrait session for $80. I heard it again today...twice. My curiosity piqued, I had to check the photographer out and see who has the cash to offer their services at such a loss (looked up rates and a 30 second spot currently costs $200 or so per run, 15 sec must be a fraction of that). Went to the website, looks nice and polished. Looked at the prices, fairly competitve for a high quality shop. Looked at the portfolio...not so good. I mean really not good.

I'm talking full on direct flash at a wedding, slow lenses on a rebel body and no post processing kind of stuff. Reading the bio, the photographer (who won't share their real name) did film photography decades ago while in highschool. Got burned out by needy brides doing weddings and gave it up. Only to come back into the digital world.

Hope it's not someone here that would get offended that I'm surprised someone with a very poor and thin body of work is buying radio time to sell a $80 discount portrait session.

There is a market for every budget. If their portfolio is an accurate portrayal of their work and people still pay them then who cares?

I'm talking more about the fact that a low quality photog is dropping a fair ammount of money in radio adverts and only recouping $80 per respondant. Doesn't seem like a money maker to me.

he might know someone at the station who is giving him great rates (or possibly some free publicity in trade for a shoot or something)

How were his print prices? Maybe $80 for the session, and big bucks for prints.

nathancarter wrote in post #14322826
How were his print prices? Maybe $80 for the session, and big bucks for prints.

You might be on to something. This person is a member of a local artists guild and the shot of their flea-market stand looked like they did framing. Draw them in with the $80 session and up-sell the super deluxe framed prints. Their deluxe package includes a bunch of framed prints and a 2 to 3 hour session for $500.

But seriously, when I heard the ad I was expecting a large established operation, maybe a husband and wife team that was looking to get some more exposure by paying for some ads and taking a loss in the sittings. Nope. One person that looks like they bought their first rebel last month and has some free time on their hands.

I know I'm being pretty negative, but I'm still a little surprised by it. Anyone else have a cut-rate photographer advertise on the radio or maybe even the local TV?

Jaymz wrote in post #14322754
There is a market for every budget.

I think P.T. Barnum said something similar.

Nmcgrew wrote in post #14322634
I had to check the photographer out and see who has the cash to offer their services at such a loss (looked up rates and a 30 second spot currently costs $200 or so per run, 15 sec must be a fraction of that).

FWIW 15 seconds is probably about $150 as the fees don't evenly scale down by air-time.

Now do keep in mind depending on the shows CUME that the spots are running on the $150 per spot cost may work out to be a very small amount money per new customer brought in, and many of those customers may up-grade to higher priced packages, the $80 offer is to entice a person to call, from there it is up to the advertiser to work that customer into a profitable and repeat customer.

And as to the actual cost, never forget radio stations love to barter, that is swapping air-time for services needed or something they can script out as a prize.

Wayne

If your going to mention it post the site..

And for $80/hr some people will never see $20/hr in their lifetime. If i could line people up at $80 for average photos i'd do it. If he gets 20 clients it might pay for his gear and 50 clients he can buy a years supply of ramen noodles. But while he's only making $80 the experience being gaining while getting paid something is worth more then nothing. Plus he can build up his portfolio and improve along the way to the point where he feels his services are worth more.

Nmcgrew wrote in post #14322787
I'm talking more about the fact that a low quality photog is dropping a fair ammount of money in radio adverts and only recouping $80 per respondant. Doesn't seem like a money maker to me.

Assume the radio spot was $125.00 (partial of the $200.00 for the 30 second add).

If the photographer books two shoots as a result of that ad, then he's $35.00 to the good. Not a lot of money, to be sure, but better than being in the red.

Radio is widely regarded as being a ridiculously effective form of advertising. See all those cars sitting in traffic on any given day? The odds are good that a lot of them are tuned to the same radio station you were. The odds are also good that the vast majority of those people aren't out to be critical of the ad, but rather listen to the ad as potential clients.

Maybe he scores half a dozen clients off that one ad. Now he grosses $480.00. Take out a buck and a quarter for the ad, and he's got $355.00.

Again, it's not a lot of money for shooting six one hour photo sessions, but still much better than being in the red, especially if the guy isn't doing it as his primary form of income, and assuming he's not doing any type of upselling with pacakges or framing, etc.

Aside from that, this really does just seem to be one of those threads where someone is complaining about someone undercutting them in price. Well, what any of us think about what he's doing is of no consequence. If the photographer is comfortable with what he's charging, and his customers are comfortable with what they're receiving in return for what they pay, that truly is all that matters.

I also have to say that this is the first I've ever heard of a photographer advertising on the radio. Pretty slick move, if you ask me...

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14326385
Assume the radio spot was $125.00 (partial of the $200.00 for the 30 second add).

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14326385
If the photographer books two shoots as a result of that ad, then he's $35.00 to the good. Not a lot of money, to be sure, but better than being in the red.

If he only books two shoots from the ad, he is not only in the red, he is in the tank.

It can also be a black hole if the one using it doesn’t understand their niche market, that stated, if this guys niche market is males 18-34 needing a wedding photographer on the cheap, than he has his market down pat, losing plan but down pat.

Not so, the known demographics do not support that theory.

Unless you are in radio you are seldom listening to ads, radio is like an end-cap at CVS and where the magic works is when the listener hears an ad relevant to their life, and at that moment buys into the product they “just” discovered over-the-air.

In this example the photogs market, if he defined it properly, would be males averaging 24 years old, getting married for the first time, are limited finically, and who also need a lower priced alternative to what the fiancée has come up with.

And he is still losing his ass.

Wayne

I agree with Cannel One.

It's really depressing seeing so many posts in the business forum by people who have no idea of how to make a profit in this industry.

Let's say this person is paying a rate of $150 per run. I heard it twice that one day at roughly the same time. I'd like to believe it was being run hourly. Let's say 8 times a day. And also assume a run of 5 days. So, that's 40 spots at $150 each, or $6,000. How many $80 shoots is that going to take to break even? Or $500 full rate shoots? Obviously something missing here.

Even if it was just twice a day, it's still $1,500 for the work week.

Nmcgrew wrote in post #14329490
Let's say this person is paying a rate of $150 per run. I heard it twice that one day at roughly the same time. I'd like to believe it was being run hourly. Let's say 8 times a day. And also assume a run of 5 days. So, that's 40 spots at $150 each, or $6,000. How many $80 shoots is that going to take to break even? Or $500 full rate shoots? Obviously something missing here.

Even if it was just twice a day, it's still $1,500 for the work week.

...yep: you are missing something.

Are you interested in running an ad on the radio? Then find out how much it costs, work out whether or not it is worth the investment, then run your ad.

But why are you wasting any time at all worrying about what another photographer chooses to do? If running the ad proves to be as unprofitable as the figures you are showing, then you won't hear any more ads from this photographer. And if it proves to be a boon for his business, you will hear a lot more.

If you think that $80.00 is the sum total of what the photographer will end up charging then you really need to do more research into how different photographers use different business models to hit their price point. The "low sitting fee/high print sales" business model is an extremely popular one and savvy photographers use it extremely well to make a lot of money.

Now craiglist is primarily an American phenomena and according to google PWAC stands for either the Plymouth Whitemarsh Aquatic Club or the Providence Worshipping Arts Center: I'm not quite sure what either has to do with the business of photography. Would you care to explain your thread title a bit more?

Person With A Camera.

And I totally understand up selling. Ages ago I worked at a car dealership as a service writer. Dark days. Whydo I care, if I do at all is I find the whole situation interesting. Do I want to advertise on the radio? No, waste of money for me. Don't think classic airplanes are going to give me a ring based on a radio spot(majority of my work has been in aviation) And I'm smart enough to know my fledgling portrait business is not worthy of the investment in that level of advertising. FYI my business model is based on a high price low volume principle and so far so good. If I ran an ad on the radio for a $80 session I wouldn't have enough time to keep up with the volume of customers.