Advantages/Disadvantages of Listing Rates on your website

[CBarrett]

True enough.  Most Google returns on my name originate at LuLa... LoL.  Good thing I don't dish on my clients here!

[Kirk Gittings]

Wow, I think in recent months we have made a full circle here on LL. After talking couple months ago about photography business being destroyed by young clueless photogs we reached the closing point here and Kirk's quote is the greatest illustration of it.

Of course it would be great to be always in the drivers seat negotiating fees, it would be even nicer if the companies that want to hire an artist photographer would have to offer a complete disclosure of their financial resources prior to negotiation so you can charge them according to their means. Unfortunately it is more likely Kirk that instead of you researching the company to get the feel of their budget, somebody in the company you are hopping to do business with is going to type in Google ( Kirk Gittings Rates Fees ) and in just few seconds find THIS on LL to help them understand how your rates are calculated.

I know that you have been doing a successful business for 30 years but please stop and think about it for a second.
Times have changed. Your thoughts are not private any more. Being and artist does not equal being businessman. We are living in AG era ( AFTER GOOGLE ).
Andre

Did you actually read what I said? What I have stated is exactly what my clients do when negotiating with their clients-they research the project and client and then negotiate the most favorable price. There is nothing I have stated here which isn't a normal everyday professional way of doing intelligent business. My clients are not idiots or children-they are professionals just like I am. You don't check out your clients? Seriously? You don't think they know I would charge a top 10 national firm in a major market that designs world class buildings more than a local two person firm in Albuquerque that designs elementary schools? Come on. Get real. You don't think that top ten firm won't get more usage out an image than a small local firm (like allot more traffic on their website for one) justifying the higher price? Photographers need to do business like a business.

[JoeKitchen]

Lots to think about here and I realize that I am not nearly as experienced as those who posted, but charging more based on where the firm is located just does not seem right.  I understand the concept of being in a bigger market will get more people to look at the work of the firm meaning higher licensing fees for the images.  And also, bigger firms have larger marketing budgets meaning more use and higher fees.  I just feel this style of pricing is going to become outdated.

As we move more and more into a social media and internet platform for marketing, I just dont think a firm needs to be geographically located in a top area to get plenty of exposure to areas across the country (or world).  It is not a stretch today for a firm in Albuquerque to be commissioned to design a hotel in Jamaica (for example?).  And from speaking to an architect who designs hotels, you dont need to be big any more to get a job like that and to be able to design it.  You can be anywhere any size and still get the same exposure with the Internet today.  

The real question becomes if geography no longer depicts the type of work a firm gets, where the project is going to be built, and the scale of reputation they can produce, how do you charge accordantly for the use while still being able to explain yourself, make sense and not offend a client?  Very difficult to answer.

Just as a note this is the first time I have heard of doing this and I have no idea what the correct answer is.  This will be on my mind for quite a while.

[marc gerritsen]

Did you actually read what I said? What I have stated is exactly what my clients do when negotiating with their clients-they research the project and client and then negotiate the most favorable price. There is nothing I have stated here which isn't a normal everyday professional way of doing intelligent business. My clients are not idiots or children-they are professionals just like I am. You don't check out your clients? Seriously? You don't think they know I would charge a top 10 national firm in a major market that designs world class buildings more than a local two person firm in Albuquerque that designs elementary schools? Come on. Get real. You don't think that top ten firm won't get more usage out an image than a small local firm (like allot more traffic on their website for one) justifying the higher price? Photographers need to do business like a business.

i work the same way and agree a 100%

as soon as there is a new client on the horizon i check out their website and google searches results
if i don't like the client's work or if it just does not feel right for any reason i will not take them on

allthough i have been working on getting some standards in my rates, each quote or estimate is different in the end
if a job goes well for a good client more discount will be applied,
i might do work for free if it is for a 'good cause'
charge a starting designer who's work i really like only 50%
i might charge a pompous client extra, if i don't get the job fine, if i get it, i get extra to deal with his/her attitude

and after all it is just all about the good ol' economic law of supply and demand.

 







 

[JonathanBenoit]

I try to find a middle ground. Like it's been said earlier, as an architectural photographer, I need to be able to converse with the potential client about their specific project. Although architectural photography is an artistic skill there is an extreme amount of technical creativity with both an architectural photographer's finished photographs and with the architect's design. I might be somewhat biased, but the relationship with the photographer and architect is much greater than that with a photographer and art director for a fashion shoot. It is easier to put package pricing for that type of work. Dealing with smaller firms, it's almost a balancing act. I try to learn as much about the potential client as I can before sending them a quote or estimate. It's very easy to tell by their website how serious they are. Dealing with larger architectural firms, its just competition.

[Rob C]

I try to find a middle ground. Like it's been said earlier, as an architectural photographer, I need to be able to converse with the potential client about their specific project. Although architectural photography is an artistic skill there is an extreme amount of technical creativity with both an architectural photographer's finished photographs and with the architect's design. I might be somewhat biased, but the relationship with the photographer and architect is much greater than that with a photographer and art director for a fashion shoot. It is easier to put package pricing for that type of work. Dealing with smaller firms, it's almost a balancing act. I try to learn as much about the potential client as I can before sending them a quote or estimate. It's very easy to tell by their website how serious they are. Dealing with larger architectural firms, its just competition.

Not to hi-jack anything, but do you actually want art directors around at all? In the fashion example you mentioned, the art director should really stay snug at the agency and hire the photographer for his skills; that's how it used to be - I remember it very well.

Oh well, I did say there was once a Golden Age...

Rob C

[jing q]

for clients who are not exactly familiar with market costs, it helps to give them guideline prices.
It's a really daunting process to have to run through 20 different suppliers in a cost estimate, of course a client's going to worry if they're being screwed over on any particular area.

I don't think having it on a specific photographer's site is necessary (unless it's a direct to consumer service like portrait photos)
but having certain guideline rates for contractors on a site like ASMP is helpful for photographers to figure out rough pricing and also for clients to get educated.

[ziocan]

I try to find a middle ground. Like it's been said earlier, as an architectural photographer, I need to be able to converse with the potential client about their specific project. Although architectural photography is an artistic skill there is an extreme amount of technical creativity with both an architectural photographer's finished photographs and with the architect's design. I might be somewhat biased, but the relationship with the photographer and architect is much greater than that with a photographer and art director for a fashion shoot. It is easier to put package pricing for that type of work. Dealing with smaller firms, it's almost a balancing act. I try to learn as much about the potential client as I can before sending them a quote or estimate. It's very easy to tell by their website how serious they are. Dealing with larger architectural firms, its just competition.

I think more than biased, you may not know a lot about fashion photography.

Relationships between photographers and AD, vary depending on the character of the individuals more than the field they work in.
I would not classified or stereotype anything, since each case is different.

As for "extreme amount of technical creativity", that apply for many fields of photography and again it depend on the individual way of approaching his tasks.

[ziocan]

Not to hi-jack anything, but do you actually want art directors around at all? In the fashion example you mentioned, the art director should really stay snug at the agency and hire the photographer for his skills; that's how it used to be - I remember it very well.

Oh well, I did say there was once a Golden Age...

Rob C

I think the golden age is still there.

AD in general, interfere very little. At the end we are the art directors at the shoot.
If the AD is there, most likely is listening, sometime pretending they are saying something....
Generally, inputs are given, but sometime not at all,  the direction is chosen by the photographer and "they" thrust his/her judgement.

[marc gerritsen]

However, in a lot of cases these days, they just want you to cover all bases - by providing them with images that they can use in different ways.

i hate when that happens especially if they ask me to shoot something that they will never ever use for sure, but you have to be polite and swallow and keep shooting
always wonder why they can't make up their minds before hand (actually i know but can not say it here!  haha)
m

[Rob C]

Charging per image was one route I used to employ - in fashion - an image meaning, more accurately, one garment. Nobody was going to use more than the one shot of it for an ad or for a catalogue, and it allowed me to charge a worthwhile rate and it was then up to me to decide when I had it in the can and whether or not I needed to spend more time on it.

I didn't like the idea of day rates, because to make them worthwhile numbers was a bit daunting to clients before a shoot - far better to let them make their own price up as they went along by limiting the cost to the number of articles they wanted me to shoot; that way, they felt - and were - in charge, even if they probably spent more in the process.

Regarding calendars, that was a whole other bundle of fish and the only way I ever found I could devise, and come out on top with, was to cost everything out beforehand to the best of what I could imagine would be involved and then simply add my percentage on top of that. Nobody ever wanted me to break it down; all that mattered was the bottom line and an indication of what it was going to rush them per unit. Of course, the ever present problem with bespoke calendars, not being a print house, was that there used to be a minimum quantity of units needed to make it possible - I think around 3,500 was the smallest that I ever produced. Any less and the cost per unit became stupid. See what wonderful advice the old dogs can offer you?

Rob C

[marc gerritsen]

If you charge per image, then that won't happen as much, because they will know each additional image they ask for will cost them X amount more.

well i do charge by the image, but when that image is being created especially the commercial clients will want to shoot variables, like "lets put the towel in" shoot
"actually the green one is better then the red one" shoot " take the chair out"  shoot  'put the chair back in"   shoot etc etc

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Fascinating discussion here. Regarding the issue of adjusting rates based on client size, I do not view it as "charging more" instead I view it as "charging less" to smaller clients because larger clients get first priority and smaller clients are used as filler between larger clients. In that since larger clients understand why you charge smaller clients less just to stay busy in free time, all the while giving them your top priority and most flexible scheduling. Otherwise charging more would just be manipulative and really this pricing scheme should be kept to a minimum.

[JoeKitchen]

After considering this for a while, I am in the process of changing my pricing guide based on use and exposure that the images will receive, and I have started to explain it like that to my clients.  Although I have always operated a rights managed model, I feel this is the most profitable and fairest for your clients, as long as you can explain it in a way your clients can understand.  With that said, I am still basing my estimates for architect/designers on the time it takes to create the images (mainly because all architects use the images in the same way) but adjusting my fee based on the location of the firm, which will have an impact on exposure.  I also have created a social media "add-on" package for designers with prices based on the size of the firm.  Firm size plays a role here because the larger the firm the more contributors to their social media outlets (in maybe more outlets) resulting in larger exposure.  

For hospitalities I completely agree with Ashley on how to price, by the image and exposure received, not on time taken to create it or the amount of professionals needed.  It is more of a gamble, especially if you use others besides your assistant and will eat away at your profit, but if by using other professionals and the time it takes you increase the value of the images to your client, they would be more likely to increase the range of licensing they want resulting in a larger profit for you.  Also, it is fairer to your clients because you can now take their budget and type of business in account when creating the estimate; you just need to explain it to your client in a way they can understand.  And of course the only way to get to work is by creating extremely valuable images that your clients will want to use.  

Also, I am trying to come up with a non-threatening way of explaining to clients that the usable life of an image is not that long if you are serious about your marketing, which is true.  Architects/designers are naturally aware of this and put it into action whether they realize it or not by having their latest projects at the foreground in their marketing.  Because of this, and once again consistency, I am not putting a timeline for architects even though there is one.  For hospitality I think the usable life would be 7/8 years before the establishment would need to start rethinking there marketing so as to stay current with the times and tastes.  But others may be shorter, so time constraints here are necessary in order to be fair; you should not charge you client for 8 years if they only need the images for 3, which should be explained in a way that make sense.

Once again these are my thoughts I came to and am not totally sure if it is the best.  At this time though it seems the best and most fair to me.

[Kirk Gittings]

Fascinating discussion here. Regarding the issue of adjusting rates based on client size, I do not view it as "charging more" instead I view it as "charging less" to smaller clients because larger clients get first priority and smaller clients are used as filler between larger clients. In that since larger clients understand why you charge smaller clients less just to stay busy in free time, all the while giving them your top priority and most flexible scheduling. Otherwise charging more would just be manipulative and really this pricing scheme should be kept to a minimum.

I really like the above of thinking and will use it in the future if ever asked.....though in all honesty I have had an unpublished "tiered" price structure for all of my career and never have been asked. "Charging more to clients in major markets because they expect it" while absolutely true was said kind of off the cuff. Thanks for that contribution.