Why Won’t Photographers Talk About Price...(article)

...Allen from Photoshelter always writes interesting articles, and this one is no exception and of particular interest I think to the people here.

http://blog.photoshelt​er.com …raphers-talk-about-price/

I just thought I'd post it here: it may prompt some thoughts or discussion. The first article in the series is here:

http://blog.photoshelt​er.com …am-image-on-a-coffee-bag/

A photo brief is presented. Three photographers give a price of between $3-4000 to do the job. In reality the photographer charged $100.00 per image and walked away with $400.00. And in an interview with the client that issued the brief they said that $400.00 really was the extent of the budget and the photographer was lucky to get that.

So no real comment from me, but interested to hear the thoughts of some others here.

Among other things, this is key: 'One of the challenges of the digital age is convincing consumers/customers of the value of what is essentially intellectual property. In the analog age, spending $15 for a CD made more intuitive sense because you received something tangible. Similarly, with photography the print provided a tangible output to the client.'

A lot of people out there still ask 'how much are the photos?', not 'how much is the licence and for how long?'. A lot of them still expect something tangible in return, viz. a CD or flash drive, and they expect to own it. Many are suspicious when the photographer starts edumacating them on intellectual property, licences and the like: they see this legalese as a clever (or clumsy) gimmick to milk them. Add to that the fact that people nowadays are extremely inimical to even the least –real or imagined– semblance of anyone restricting them and 'telling them what to do' (and the younger they are the worse this sentiment is and the stronger the reaction to it), and one might put off the client and lose him before there's even a chance for a consultation. I would underscore this as one of the reasons why many clients go with the low-ballers, as these last named are perceived not only as cheaper options but as 'easier to deal with'.

I dunno.

The photographers I hang around (consumer photographers--portrait and/or wedding photographers) talk about price a lot, particularly in detail how to calculate the COB portion of pricing and in theory how to determine and enhance the value basis through personal branding and marketing.

Holy cow, I have to wonder what company would pay out $4k to put a small photo on 4,000 bags of product which would be visible to only a small group of people? That $1 per bag just for a photo, not including cost of bag, printing, packaging, product cost, shipping, etc. In fact based on the photo example shown, the photo was of someone else's work who probably got compensated $1 for their work.

mikeinctown wrote in post #17869425
Holy cow, I have to wonder what company would pay out $4k to put a small photo on 4,000 bags of product which would be visible to only a small group of people? That $1 per bag just for a photo, not including cost of bag, printing, packaging, product cost, shipping, etc. In fact based on the photo example shown, the photo was of someone else's work who probably got compensated $1 for their work.

It's pretty hilarious that the second photographer seems to be able to justify it in his own mind.
He even does the math, and thinks he should get nearly 10% of gross sales, JUST for the photo on the bag? whew, I don't even know how to respond to that.

nathancarter wrote in post #17872184
It's pretty hilarious that the second photographer seems to be able to justify it in his own mind.
He even does the math, and thinks he should get nearly 10% of gross sales, JUST for the photo on the bag? whew, I don't even know how to respond to that.

That's just plain greed, sloth and envy of somebody else's success. It's photographers with such lamprey-like attitudes that has many business owners now doing it in-house, even if the photos end up being sub-par. I'm all for royalties, but stuff like that is just ridiculous.

I read the PhotoShelter blog post not knowing what to expect. I assumed, incorrectly, that this was about all types of photography. However, the article is focused on commercial usage moreso than headshot and portrait photography for smaller clients. I post my prices openly as it is part of the screening process for me. I don't want to spend 20 minutes on the phone with someone discussing the logistics and details of how we would set up a photo shoot, only to get to the end of the call to find out that their budget is 30% of what my prices are.

If someone calls me after reading my website, they are typically (not always) pre-qualified. I do, on every call, start the conversation with "I am so glad you called me, how did you find out about us". If they say "I was referred by one of your past clients", they PROBABLY know the price range I am in, but I'll walk them through pricing first so if I am out of their budget range, no further time is wasted by either party. If they say "from your website doing a Google search", I immediately follow up with "then you noted the pricing for XXXX while on the site"? If they say yes, then I move on to book the photo shoot with the client.

As a one man show, I can't waste time with tire kickers that aren't able to pay for services, so posting prices is a necessary practice for my headshot and portrait business. I am certain it is much trickier for commercial and editorial photographers.

The first link mentions, "For editorial assignments, pay is often dictated by standard rates, but even those are somewhat flexible with added service fees (parking, mileage, rentals, digital transmit, etc). When it comes to commercial, corporate or institutional work, a dearth of information makes it difficult for both the photographer and the client to assess whether they are getting a fair deal". The article states it will try to gather pricing information from around the country, "we’re going to examine real world pricing by asking photographers around the country how they price specific jobs. The intent isn’t to single out a particular approach as being “correct,” but rather to show regional factors and the nuance that goes into pricing, and hopefully help start a more transparent dialog around pricing that can benefit photographers as a whole."

What they will find, like medical costs, is that regional cost of doing business differences, due to local salary standards and local rental market situation for commercial space, will reflect considerable differences in price for a given service...this is what Medicare reimbursements to medical practitioners are reflected via the 'geographic adjustment factor'. But in that case, it is the government forcing specific price factors on practitioners to accept, and it is not necessarily a mirror of actual operating cost differentials from town to town!

In the case of commercial photography, the 'day rate' concept is based upon the fact that set creation and lighting for product photography can be very time consuming activities as well as expensive undertakings, just to be able to take a photo! A half day or full day can be consumed merely in preparation to take the shot!
And while the actual product might only be a single photo for a catalog, the use of the photo, and the 'value' to the client can vary, so that 10000 copies of a brochure has a different perceived value to a company offering a high end piece of capital equipment sold to hundreds vs. one offering a $200 consumer product marketed to millions. So the 'use' of the photo can vary widely in the 'value' perceived by the client.

Today's portrait or event client's usual expectation of 'photos on CD' cuts into follow-on sales of prints by the photographer, making today's photographer not much more than an hourly-paid shutter finger in the client mind! As a result, if we have two photographers -- one a weekend warrior and the other a full time pro with lots of experience -- how does one justify in the client's mind why they should 'pay more' for the experienced professional vs. the almost-snapshooter approach of some weekend warriors?! Both have similar 'value' perceived by the client, while the 'cost' varies considerably to produce a photo that can be taken to Costco to print cheaply!

Wilt wrote in post #17873503
Today's portrait or event client's usual expectation of 'photos on CD' cuts into follow-on sales of prints by the photographer, making today's photographer not much more than an hourly-paid shutter finger in the client mind! As a result, if we have two photographers -- one a weekend warrior and the other a full time pro with lots of experience -- how does one justify in the client's mind why they should 'pay more' for the experienced professional vs. the almost-snapshooter approach of some weekend warriors?! Both have similar 'value' perceived by the client, while the 'cost' varies considerably to produce a photo that can be taken to Costco to print cheaply!

By using the "artist" model rather than the Olin Mills model. This is a fellow portrait photographer in my town. He requires and gets several thousand dollars for a senior portrait shoot.

I'm not at his level of creative artistry, but my model is "interior decorator" a la Candace Olsen or Christopher Lowell. I'm going to come in and look at your house, talk about where and what kind of portraits you should have, look at your wardrobe and tell you what you should wear, and basically hold your hand through an entire design process. I'm not cheap either.

In both cases, people see up front that they're getting a high-end service and know they will pay a high-end price.