A local photographer posted this on the web...



I'm entertained by this type of product / service devaluation that seems to be so prevalent these days. If a rising tide lifts all boats...perhaps a fallling tide lowers them too? (Unless you know when to dry-dock and move your craft!)

I'm thinking -- dude, why don't you just offer to do all weddings at your cost? Don't bother trying to include your hourly worth in your costs either. In fact...why not go down to the corner and set your camera down and walk away?

Have you contacted him?

No.

sheezsh....right now all I'm feeling is I'll have some pithy comment later I bet....

I've found some other bad ads / web-content that just fascinates me...

"$200 per hour or $1200 for four hours" -- hmmm...they REALLY are going for that greater fool approach.

"we offer on-location wedding photography" -- as oposed to those nasty photographers who make you get married in THEIR studio????


I take comfort that I do not compete for the budget bride...but I think I should offer my consultant (or even proof-reading) services to some of those who do. LOL

Here is anohter one from a photographers web site:

"There is no doubting that most people like to save money, and typically professional photographers tend to be expensive. Traditionally photographers charge a fee for a wedding or portrait session and then charge as much as $20-$50 for an 8x10 image, whereas I charge under $2. If photographers offer packages usually those prices are factored into the price of those packages.

At XXXXXXXXX Photography, after your wedding or portrait shoot I want you to enjoy as many photos as you want and share them with all of your friends and family. This is why I charge you exactly what my lab charges me."

so I guess that their gas to get the lab, packaging costs, etc is just "free"? yikes! Eejits!

Now wait a minute Dan. What are you trying to say here? What's wrong with charging $1200 .... oh wait..... Ok, then giving away prints? Seriously I give away.... oh wait, no I don't...... Who is this moron?

But seriously, these are some of the issues that come to mind when I read the posts and hear of all the newbies of which I was 4 years ago. But I went in having another business already in full operation and a strategic plan on how to build my photography business. There's a post I read the title of yesterday here on OSP about the glamorous life of a wedding photographer and I would tend to believe that persona has been projected by the high end wedding photogs and absolutely not to their discredit. But it is why I started my no rockstars thread. The devaluation of our industry runs rampat by start ups that don't have an industry wide, business view of how their decisions effect others and eventually themselves.

I know I keep pointing back to Robin (only because I really think she has her head screwed on straight and I learned a lot from her) but it's a business we're running here. Otherwise you're right, just go set your camera on the corner... along with your laptop, your printer and the rest of your gear and walk away.

Yes…we here at Ford build cars. We think that it is unfair to you that GM and Chrysler add a margin to their vehicles in an attempt to be profitable companies. Here at Ford, we sell the car at cost—we don’t believe in a capitalistic society—socialism rules here! Forget about our families, forget about capital investment, and forget about market cap—We build cars for the betterment of mankind…

LOL...what's the difference...geeez....

If that is how some photographers feel, then that is how they feel. And it seems like they are targeting more budget brides who just want photos rather than appreciating the value of the art. *shrug*

there is another shooter here in Austin (and a WPJA member) who does the same thing - they sell prints at cost.

I my opinion those people don't last very long. I don't want the bride who has wedding photography on the bottom of the list for her wedding.

Aww I wouldn't say that. People have different priorities when it comes to their wedding. And if photography isn't very important to them and they just want photos, well then these types of photographers will cater to them.

A few months ago on the Pictage forums, Dennis Reggie was talking about dropping his print prices to $3, 5 and 7 for a 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10, I think. He said that the guests would love it and that print sales simply aren't his priority. Obviously, DR is making his money by simply being at the wedding, but all that to say that not everyone who sells prints at cost is undercutting the market.

I think its absolutely great when photographers build their business on getting their money up front in the shooting fee rather than relying on print and album sales. This means they are selling themselves and not their products. However, the issue here is that someone is coming out and publicly declaring that all photographers are ripping off brides with their mark-ups. If you want to tell your brides that they will get their prints at cost - go for it. Just say it privately in a client meeting and not on a website. When you downgrade other photographers in order to upgrade yourself, that's when the market takes a hit.

That is the smartest thing ever. Word.

The real issue is how we define OUR business model. And, although this might seem obvious, we've gotta achieve a healthy level of profitability SOMEWHERE in our offerings... or our business just isn't gonna be around in the long run.

If we sell 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints at $3, $5 and $7, respectively... then we'd BETTER be well-compensated to the tune of $15K-$20K for photographing the wedding, tweaking the "images" in post-processing, and producing fabulous heirloom albums. In that scenario, then yeah... the print sales become less of a priority and more of an after-the-fact bonus. Unfortunately, we just don't set a $15K price-point overnight and expect the phone to ring off the hook the next day without first establishing oneself very well in the high-end circles.

So targeting your audience is key here... If you can work your way into an upper-tier business model where you're getting paid primarily for YOU as the "highly sought-after, well-recognized" photographer, then I guess you've earned the right to price follow-on products accordingly WITHOUT damaging the overall professional photography infrastructure.

But let's also be very realistic... if you've achieved that status, you're playing to an entirely different market segment than the guy or gal whose trying to break into the "shoot-and-burn" bargain basement market segment where they run the greater chance of devaluing perceptions of clients living in the budget market and the lower end of the mid-range market.


David

Which is why don't sell "prints," we sell "images," or "portraits."

For portrait sessions, we charge $95 for an 8x10, and that's hardly mind-blowing...I know many photographers who charge much more. And why? Because we're not selling ink and paper, we're selling the image on the paper. I have no problem with my clients knowing that 8x10 only cost us $3.50 to print. Of course they know that, they're intelligent people.

Competing on the price of ink and paper, rather on the value of the image, is a sure-fire way to get yourself in a never-ending race to the bottom, and who wants to win that race?

What I can't figure out is why any photographer would want to encourage clients not to pay for the intrinsic value of the image and only for the ink and paper. This is contrary to the way consumers think and spend, anyway. People are used to buying CDs and DVDs for $15 or $20, when they know they only cost $0.10 to print. They know they're paying for the content on the disc, not the disc itself. What's the point in trying to change the way people already think about artistic content in a way detrimental to the artist? Odd game to play, I think.

Erin -- you have true wisdom. I don't think Denis Reggie is out there bad-mouthing the industry or other photographers when he says he's considering the $3, $5 and $7 reprint strategy.

I agree that the manner in which low cost prints are communicated is important and definitely should not be used as a marketing tool. And that photographer sounds like a tool. I'm sure that DR would be very discreet, if he did indeed decide to go that route.



I love this analogy. I'm "stealing" it.

Just for the record, I don't think that prints should be sold for the cost of ink and paper (ours start at $12), I just wanted to share what DR said.

I like that analogy too, until I imagined how many people would say they make copies of those CDs and DVDs...

I don't know that I've run across anyone here that comes right out and makes comments like this guy. And I figured the ones who were selling prints at amazingly low prices were not exactly targeting a different market anyway (or wouldn't be around in another year).

Unscrupulous clients have been known to scan and copy our photographs, as well, which makes the analogy that much more valid, no?

Hey Matt!
I share the same thoughts in it's the art itself not the paper and ink that determines the value.

BTW I enjoy your perspective and reading your posts
LisaO

Wow! So I am assuming this is more "volunteer" work for them instead of a profession? Did they say what they charged for the session?

So why does anyone really care what this dude is charging for his prints? I don't.

Dan started it.

Well, where I had the problem with this is that this person is telling others our cost and criticizing our prices in order for him to give them away. It's one thing if this is someone's hobby, and they just want to do it for nothing, but there is no reason to criticize someone's prices who does this for a living and puts lots of time and money into equipment, insurance, fees and continuing education.

Other than that, I really do not care at all what they are charging.

Well the answer is obvious. The price discrepancy between the cost of the print and the sale price of the print is the value of the artwork. By selling his images at cost, perhaps he's simply pricing himself appropriately?

I think this kind of stuff is why every established photographer should find a rookie and mentor them. If we can continually raise skills and business sense, we can raise the tide a lot. I think that has been one of the great strengths of OSP. This poor guy just doesn't get it. He needs a friend...

java script:add_smilie(%22:rolleyes:%22,%22smid_9%22)

I think it was $1200 or $1500 -- the ad came from Craig's List so that should tell you a bit about his target market. He freely admitted he was just starting out. I would think he should aim a little higher...but what do I know, he's probably very busy...but probably not very profitable.

Do I care...well, not much...but maybe a little. I mean some of us are trying to raise the value of wedding photography (which would even benefit the value segment, to a certain extent)...it's disheartening to see a fellow lensman hawking that prints should be sold for cost. But I hope he gets a lot of requests to photoshop people in or out of shots, fix fly-away hairs, correct skin blemishes, etc. Perhaps that will teach him to consider whether or not he still thinks his prints are worth only the cost of paper and chemicals...I tend to agree. Unfortunately I have time constraints...but maybe someday I'll offer a "get a clue" seminar. I'll probably just charge the cost of the room and the seminar materials...it might appeal to the right people.

I'm a newbie, so forgive my naive question, but how do you find the happy medium between having prints sales stay profitable and ensuring that your clients (whose happiness should be extrememly important to you) are able to afford (without having to get a home equity loan) to have a house full of the beautiful images you created? I just really sympathize with clients who might start to feel like "their" images are being held hostage, you know?

Does this count at a hijack?

I am not making this up (in my best Dave Berry), I got this email from a bride this morning:

we are only interested in two to three snapshots from our ceremony, and poses. We have not had alot of time to plan, so we are trying to find professionals with reasonable prices, or good ideas. Please respond via e-mail, as i am not home much and my fiance\' isn\'t very interested in any of this, so he will tell you we are not interested if you get on the phone with him. Thank you very much for your timely response. Tracy and theeler.


Perhaps we can hook them up Dan?

~Bill

ETA: my favorite part is 'with reasonable prices, or good ideas'

Perfectly reasonable question, Kelly. You do that by talking with them beforehand to find out what they want from their portrait session or wedding, and showing them the prices required to create that work of art. Therefore, they already know about what they're going to be spending ahead of time, so it's no shock when the sales presentation comes around.

The reality is that you have to make your money on the front end, or the back end, or a combo of both. If you sit down with an accountant, or take a workshop from Liana Lehman or Laura Novak or someone similar, you'll see that it's expensive to run a full time business (more so than you may think) and each client that you make time for is going to have to pay their share of that overall cost or you'll sink.



It's OK, right Dan?

;-)

OMG!!!!

That deserves a response after the Seinfeld episode with the soup nazi - "......no pictures for you - NEXT!"

OR

how about "......we have a package just like that and if you wish you can super-size it for an additional .99"

I really wish that was a joke of an e-mail!
LisaO

I don't think it was a joke. I had an inquiry last week for a wedding for a date I have open. all was good until she said "We don't really care about pictures, but we like yours and we can pay about $200 for 3 hours and a disc of digital negatives." Sorry - NEXT!

~rc

Hey Kelly! I agree with Bill, and I choose to make my money on the front end. It's worked out for me on a lot of levels, and it does make the clients happy, but more than anything, I've been so happy with every single bride I've worked with, and even with all their families. I include a CD with all my packages, so the option is there to purchase extras like prints or albums, but they don't have to. I find that it attracts a lot of go-with-the-flow types and people who like simplicity, which I'm all about. It works out perfectly for me--I've had great experiences so far and anticipate many more, and am generally really happy with the whole situation.

Now, this is a hijack: <hijack>

I miss Dave Barry.
</hijack>

Kelly, that's a really good question. I'm a portrait photographer (just beginning to move into weddings), and I've changed my price structure in response to asking myself this question. I ended up lowering my price for small prints (8x12 and smaller), and made them basic prints (I still haven't come up with a name yet) - they've been tweaked, but not retouched beyond the basics or worked extensively in PS. I'm raising the prices of my larger framed prints (which I'm now calling signature prints) by a bit, as I've found I need to make more to make framing worthwhile. The profit off of each print (not including the profit for framing) is significantly more than for basic prints, as I've spent much more time on each individual image.

I haven't yet implemented the change, but my hope is that it will encourage clients to buy lots of prints for sharing, and will make even more profit then I did when they were feeling bad about paying that much for a 5x7, and only bought a few. For more image enjoyment, the way to go is with an album - one can only hang so many prints in a house.

Matt- I love this reasoning... I had an Ahhh moment. I may have to use this the next time someone says, "But I can get a print at Costco for 19 cents!"

lol.Didn't you know that gas is free in wonderland I love this email...lol. Great stuff!

good point Matt. I guess I wasn't trying to suggest that the analogy itself wasn't valid, but from an unscrupulous point of view, I was afraid it might sound more like giving them permission --"you copy those discs and you know it's wrong, but as long as you pay $xx for a print you can copy that too". maybe I just need to raise my prices (or lower them). heh.

One thing you have to ask your self is this... are you a business or a mission? If you consider yourself a business (or wanting to be a business if you are starting out) think of this...
What if the car repair place did everyone's car repairs for almost no charge? What if the grocery store gave away groceries at very little cost to it's customers? What if the clothing store gave clothes away for cost? Do you think any of these places would stay in business?

Now, there are missions that help people with all the things I mentioned above. They are there to help people with these things if they can't afford them. If you want to be a mission and help people who can't afford photography, the that is your choice and that is fine.

Do you want to be a business or a mission?

Hey Kari! I don't agree with working for free when you need to support your family or selling prints at cost. I definitely think there's value in the prints above and beyond what it takes to actually print them. My point is more that I'm just scared that all the decent photographers will become rock stars who are putting "value of my time" premiums on EVERY PART of their workflow and that the people who have modest budgets (like $10,000 to $20,000) will only be able to afford the kinds of guys who will do a shoot and run with a Point and Shoot. You know? I just want to make sure that there are some good photographers out there for people like me who didn't spend $50,000 on their wedding, and that photographers are still willing to work HARD for the money they're being paid, rather than taking the "I want to work 4 hours a week and make $100k/year just because people know who I am" approach. I guess I"m just anti-ego.

Kelly, you and I are definitely on the same page about this.

someone please correct me if i am wrong, but is 10,000-20,000 for a wedding photograhper really considered modest???????

I meant $10k to $20k for the WHOLE WEDDING!

For that particular ad...the guy includes the files...so I don't get why he also offers prints and the album at his cost? And why, if he includes the disc, does he go around telling people what a print costs? I mean...they can go to Walgreens and find out what a print costs. Heck...they should ask Walgreens how much the print costs THEM and see how far back they can trace the actual cost of goods...

Anyway...I'm pretty sure the guy's name isn't "Mark Upton"...

Regardless of your "status" within the industry, you need to put a high value on your time. I understand you're just starting out, so you haven't reached this point, but in a year or two, you will. Just ask around to other studios in your area.

Heck ask here...everybody who's a full-time photographer who's just rolling around in free time, please raise you hand.

*crickets*

Anybody?

*crickets*

Thought so This business can suck away all your spare time, all your time with your friends and family, and you don't have to be charging $10k a wedding for that to happen. Regardless of what you're charging, it still takes about the same amount of time for a $2k shooter to complete a wedding as a $10k shooter (assuming similar packages). There will come a point when you have more clients than you have time in the day to help them all, and at that point, something has to give. You either have to quell demand by raising prices, or start missing deadlines, breaking promises and upsetting your clients, who are people you love. "Charging for my time" is not an ego thing, it's a "not drowning" thing

I can pretty well guarantee you that...uhhh...highly visible photographers (I refuse to use the word "rockstar") do not work four hours a week. Do you realize what kind of marketing efforts it takes to consistently book at that level? A lot.

It's kind of sad, actually. You think, "I would like to book at those high levels because it's more money and prestige," but then you start to realize, "Wait, I have to spend so much to do it that the point becomes moot." It's also sad to realize that, for the most part, we consider the top of the industry to be about $10k a wedding. Maybe a little more here or there. Whereas it's not particularly difficult for an established studio in any given town to do $5k-$7k a wedding. So, in this industry, the difference between the median and "the best" is a measly $5000 or so. That's not a whole lot of gravy for being amongst the very best at what you do.

Matt, I just wanted to say that it's good to have you around here. You have brought some excellent material to OSP. Oh, and I do work 4 hours a week. Thank you very much. I typically get about 3-4 weeks worth of work done per day.