need help on a commercial shoot

[michaelnotar]

i recently got a call for a product shoot and a shot they described this image they have in mind, didnt have anything to do with the water droplet stuff and guestimated a figure for them, but said it was just a ballpark figure. ($500 with a few hours of shooting and post, both at $100/hr.)

then i told them i have the special knowledge and equipment to photograph water droplets and splashes etc and they were immediately interested and excited as was i. they either want to incorporate water stop action into the shot with their product (custom shoot) or i might be able to interest them in some stock shots i have of water droplets and splashes.

if i was in a real town, this would be easy, but i think less here  i would usually shoot and license the images and collect the appropriate fees for both. the norm here is to include a buyout of rights to the client when they hire me and actually im fine with that. its the reality of working here.

i anticipate a problem if they are interested in a stock photo and ask why they have to pay for the use vs. custom photography where they dont.. more specificially the problems could be (from their point of view)...

1. so if i have you shoot my product i dont pay for use, but for stock ones i do? easy reply actually, its how the stock industry works, so no problem here

2. can you recreate the stock image using our product? (a liquid. basically changing the color of the liquid which could be PS'd.)
perhaps the answer is no... not the best thing to say at an interview. i would like the business and satisfaction of doing a shoot, but then realize i am somewhat screwing myself cuz they wont expect to pay useage and i would be in no position to charge for it. i feel i should get it, but cant and accept that fact working where i do.

my training in this taught me to bill a creative fee, expendables/materials, post production fees and usage for commercial shoots, summarizing ofcourse. in regards to special shoots using specialized gear or knowhow, to bill extra, as it seems reasonable to do so in such a situation. for the water droplet stuff, adding 40% to the creative fee was deemed appropriate and adding upwards of 25% to usage.

now i am not complaining why cant i be like the big cities, im trying to take what i learned and apply it in a small town, simple minded kind of way that will make sense to me and the client.

in summary, i do feel like i deserve more compensation for my special skills for the shoot. so some of my ideas for solutions are:

1. do quote a creative fee with atleast 40% extra added in... i was thinking of perhaps much more because i cant get usage in the future and it makes more sense to the client to pay me 2x as much upfront for the shoot which includes use vs. 1x for the shoot and 1x for usage in the future even though i cant get usage.

2. ask for usage if the shoot involves water droplets....doesnt sound great to me though... what grounds do i have to ask?

and finally i anticipate their question of why do you charge extra for this one thing you know how to do...? ( i charge $100 an hour if im doing a product shoot, food shoot, architectural shoot etc... but have never been asked to do water droplets, i could see their argument here if really simple thinking is used)

thanks for reading all this and for replying with your thoughts.
__________________

[Daniel Arnaldi]

so if i have you shoot my product i dont pay for use, but for stock ones i do? easy reply actually, its how the stock industry works, so no problem here

Your problem starts right here, which is the reason you are struggling with the rest of your pricing, your usage fees should apply to all your images, not just stock. If the client wants to buy the image outright then this is an extra you can offer.

As you can see, you create a problem for yourself when you have usage fees only on stock images, the client may like to use a stock photo but wants to avoid usage fees and tries to commission you to recreate a stock image which you have to refuse to protect your price to the detriment of your  client relations.

I have a pricing structure that I find works well for me.
1.   Usage fees across all my images (stock and commissioned), including the option to buy an image outright. The usage fees are the same for both, usage fees are for usage, regardless of the images origins.
2.   Fees for the shoot, a daily flat rate plus costs including travel, extra equipment, locations or studio costs etc. If you think that your client might baulk at the idea of paying a separate usage fee for a commissioned work then add the price of buying the image outright to your shooting fee. If they try to hire you to recreate one of your stock images they’ll soon realise that it’s cheaper to simply buy the stock image outright.
3.   Post production/retouching which is a half hourly rate, more often used in commissioned work but this is also useful if the client wants to alter a stock image saving them the cost of commissioning an original work when they find a stock image that is close to what they want, which also makes it easy for you to extend your usage rights fees to the derived work.

Hope this can help you.

[michaelnotar]

yes that is how it should be, but isnt here. all rights are expected to be included in the creative fee. and i do so because i want to be in business. i spend a good amount of my time to just get them to stop saying my photos and explaining they are not buying the photos nor own them.

my solutions so far are:
- if the shoot doesnt include high speed photography i will bill as normal, usage included in that rate.
- if the want to license the stock image, apply usage for the desired use. modify the image in PS if needed at addl expense.
- if they want to to recreate the stock shot verbetum per say, either refuse explaining its undermining myself or charge a creative fee + usage (explaining im the only one here that can do this and if you are interested you would have to go to a larger city and definately pay more for both creative and usage)

the last makes the most sense but is really hard for this area, perhaps it would go over well if i keep the usage reasonable without giving it away.

[Daniel Arnaldi]

I’m finding it a little difficult understanding that where you live has any bearing on usage fees, you don’t set your fees according to your cost of living, you set them according to what the market pays, having said that checking what the asking prices for similar stock to yours is a good place to work out if your fees are reasonable. The internet has removed a lot of borders and when it comes to stock we’re all working in the same market.

Obviously you know the clients in your area better than I do but it seems to me that they may have an issue with the perception of value, I know I’ve had my fair share of these types. Perhaps when you quote them for a commissioned work you automatically include the price of buying the image outright into your creative fee, if they find that is too high then talk about rights managed options as a way of saving money by paying only for what they use the image for. Assuming your pricing for usage rights are in keeping with the market your client might see this as a cost benefit against owning the image.