Is this too cheap???

Last year the local council used one of my images for their tourism website. I only charged them £25 for the year as I was basically just earing a bit on the side. Now they want to use the same image in a tourism brochure with a circulation of 120,000 for the period of one year. This is an A4 size brochure, and they are going to have my image fill half a page!
The problem is they say they only pay between £65 and £100 for a two year "loan" (I keep the copyright), and they can use the image in any council publications. This is now my living and I think they are taking the p*%$.
IS THIS TOO CHEAP?

Let me know your thoughts please.

tony fanning wrote in post #2352753
IS THIS TOO CHEAP?

Yes. And my first thought is that you you too were taking the p*%$ out of your local pro's by giving your work away previously.

Let me explain. A pro, as you are now finding out, has to pay all his costs, plus VAT, service/replace kit regularly etc etc and that is why we charge more than £25 for an image. Sorry to sound harsh, but I and many of my freelancers get slightly miffed at being regularly undercut by people using another job to subsidise what to them is a hobby but to us is our livelihood.

To address your original point, I would be looking for several hundred pounds.

I now see your point. Last year I was only doing landscapes really and the local press saw a shot on my website and asked to put it in the paper. Of course I was happy to oblige! Then the council asked how much to put it on their website and as it was the first thing I had ever sold I just picked a figure out the air. They were probably laughing as they wrote my cheque!
Anyway after reading all the posts here, I realised I shot myself in the foot and I think they want to make a mug of me again. I`ll see what the concensus of opinions are and take it from there.
I apologise for for taking the food from the local pro`s babies mouths

One price calculator I ran across from a google search priced a run of that size anywhere from about $200 to about $1000 USD (with an average of around $700). I'm not sure how the markets differ between the US and UK, but I would imagine they're somewhat similar.

You seem to have that feeling of getting ripped off, and it seems rightfully so. You can either keep shooting yourself in the foot, or figure out what a fair price is and stick with it. I would personally vote for keeping your toes, but take that all with a grain of salt as I have zero experience with all this ^^;;

tony fanning wrote in post #2353069
I apologise for for taking the food from the local pro`s babies mouths

np. and you seem to have wised up now

Tony,

As you now know, you were far too low first time round - it probably cost the coucil more than £25 to send you the cheque!

As to the new usage have you looked at the NUJ freelance fees guide http://media.gn.apc.or​g/feesguide/photo.html​#Internet?

Paul.

Thanks pal0c, thants a very interesting read. I new I sold it cheap but 16X too cheap!
Like I said, They must have been laughing as they wrote the cheque!

The problem with not charging correctly in the first place will result in your client thinking you are now taking the p*%$ when you quote them a realistic price!

Gary_Evans wrote in post #2352910
Yes. And my first thought is that you you too were taking the p*%$ out of your local pro's by giving your work away previously.

Let me explain. A pro, as you are now finding out, has to pay all his costs, plus VAT, service/replace kit regularly etc etc and that is why we charge more than £25 for an image. Sorry to sound harsh, but I and many of my freelancers get slightly miffed at being regularly undercut by people using another job to subsidise what to them is a hobby but to us is our livelihood.

To address your original point, I would be looking for several hundred pounds.

Welcome to 2006, you have to adapt or die. Every man and his dog has a DSLR, and even in auto mode they can make a reasonable photo if the photographer has a decent eye. Someone will always sell them an image cheap.

If you want your business to survive you have to give customers a reason to choose you and your images.

snapzz wrote in post #2358567
The problem with not charging correctly in the first place will result in your client thinking you are now taking the p*%$ when you quote them a realistic price!

Then nip it in the bud by addressing the issue and telling them that you gave them a deal last year to build good will, but they now know that the photograph makes a memorable impression and you need to charge a professional rate.

tim wrote in post #2358575
Welcome to 2006, you have to adapt or die. Every man and his dog has a DSLR, and even in auto mode they can make a reasonable photo if the photographer has a decent eye. Someone will always sell them an image cheap.

If you want your business to survive you have to give customers a reason to choose you and your images.

What?

Who is this post addressed at? me? You quoted me. Tony? He asked the question. Anyone who reads it? I hope that the rest of your posts are clearer

If by adapting you mean charging less, then that is the most stupid piece of advice I've heard for ages. Yes, the professional world is changing, but most pros are finding work/sales volumes - and yes prices - going up as we can now offer something different to what "Every man and his dog" with a DSLR can.

Maybe less time on here and more time in the real world ?

Gary_Evans wrote in post #2360628
What?

Who is this post addressed at? me? You quoted me. Tony? He asked the question. Anyone who reads it? I hope that the rest of your posts are clearer

If by adapting you mean charging less, then that is the most stupid piece of advice I've heard for ages. Yes, the professional world is changing, but most pros are finding work/sales volumes - and yes prices - going up as we can now offer something different to what "Every man and his dog" with a DSLR can.

Maybe less time on here and more time in the real world ?

Yes I was addressnig you, and no I wasn't suggesting charging less. I was suggesting that you might like to think about how you're going to make money given how many people now have decent cameras. I'm a professional wedding photographer, I offer a quality product and service that amateurs can't get near, that's my value proposition. What's yours? Other than trying to get everyone else to put up their prices?

btw i'm not having a go at you personally, just the general idea that photographers don't have to change with the times.

ok, I understand. Even if your post is based an incorrect assumption you have made about someone you dont know.

FYI, I photograph weddings, my fee is approx 2 1/2 times what my local competition charges but I get more commissions. I am the appointed official photographer to 121 out of 304 university Student Unions in the UK, and I get so many event bookings that I now have 10 freelancers working for me too. So, I now how to get customers, and more importantly I know how to make money I certainly do not advocate working cheaply - I know all about USPs in marketing so I'm not going to be drawn into that debate. I am also not going to talk about my marketing on here.

In 1987 Canon introduced the EOS 650 camera. It was autofocus, auto exposure etc etc and since then anyone could get a decent print. Dont blame digital, its been going on for years. Look upon the new technology has an opportunity, not a threat.

Its not pro-photographers who are causing the problem. Its people who go and buy the latest camera with their day job wages, and then go round offering images for sale for ridiculous prices. This is not a direct attack on Tony btw, just the general idea that extra money can be made "on the side".

I concur with Gary & Graham totally. By the way, how come we are all here?

Lee

Gary_Evans wrote in post #2360759
ok, I understand. Even if your post is based an incorrect assumption you have made about someone you dont know.

Good that you have a strategy to combat amateurs. There's always going to be someone willing to work cheap, you just have to have a value proposition for customers.