Apologies ahead of time for Yet Another Pricing Question. I did my due diligence and searched the forum the best I know how for relevant topics already discussed and couldn't find anything.
I am a wedding/portrait/sports photographer.
I have recently been approached by a small business owned by a friend to do some product photography for their website. I've done some of this in the past, but usually as favors or for family. I am well equipped and know what I am getting into as far as the technical requirements for the shots.
The problem is, I have no idea how to price this. By the shot? By the hour? I believe I will be shooting somewhere between 10 and 20 products (these are small industrial tools), probably 2 shots each, one overall, and one detail, primarily for use on their website, but also possibly for print ads and brochures.
Additionally, for a few of them there will be some onsite "action" shots showing the tool or device in its intended usage scenario. This will be at one or more industrial or construction sites.
I have my pricing structure for stuff that I normally do, but this is all new. Suggestions as to how to go about giving them an estimate? I know what I get for weddings, and I have a set rate for family shoots and an hourly rate for event coverage, but not really sure how to tackle this.
There are a few words to consider here when figuring your price for this job. These are small business, friend, website, and possibly.
It helps to break these kind of jobs down into the different pieces, with that in mind, it sounds like you have 2 different scenarios, the product shots and the location shots. I'd call these major and minor shots.
Since they don't yet know how many product shots it would be best to price per item (2 shots/angles per) so if they end up shooting 7 or shooting 28 they and you know how much it will cost. With a 'day rate' you might get 3 shots per day or 35 depending on the situation.
Then look at the location shots as major shots as they will take more effort and thought and time, so price accordingly.
Price the usage as website only for now but tell him how much more (+50% +100% +200%? more?) if they will need use them in brochures and print ads.
You can backwards price it by figuring out in your head what your day rate is and divide by how long it'll take to shoot each item (10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour?) taking into account unpacking the products, cleaning or painting, setting up, background purchases, etc. to come up with the per item fee.
Too much info will confuse many people so maybe just tell him the bottom line (Creative Fee+Expenses+Usage) rather than line items. Maybe give two versions, one web only and one web and print...
Micky Bill wrote:
There are a few words to consider here when figuring your price for this job. These are small business, friend, website, and possibly.
It helps to break these kind of jobs down into the different pieces, with that in mind, it sounds like you have 2 different scenarios, the product shots and the location shots. I'd call these major and minor shots.
Since they don't yet know how many product shots it would be best to price per item (2 shots/angles per) so if they end up shooting 7 or shooting 28 they and you know how much it will cost. With a 'day rate' you might get 3 shots per day or 35 depending on the situation.
Then look at the location shots as major shots as they will take more effort and thought and time, so price accordingly.
Price the usage as website only for now but tell him how much more (+50% +100% +200%? more?) if they will need use them in brochures and print ads.
You can backwards price it by figuring out in your head what your day rate is and divide by how long it'll take to shoot each item (10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour?) taking into account unpacking the products, cleaning or painting, setting up, background purchases, etc. to come up with the per item fee.
Too much info will confuse many people so maybe just tell him the bottom line (Creative Fee+Expenses+Usage) rather than line items. Maybe give two versions, one web only and one web and print......Show more →
He is going to give this guy a heart attack by bringing up usage. Price the work right in the first place, including unlimited usage and move on.
In fact ask him for his budget upfront and save yourself a bunch of time. he will end up paying what he wants and thinks he will pay, either to you or someone else. As a business person only you can decide if the money makes sense.
You are right, there are a couple of key words, small and friend....
infocusinc wrote:
He is going to give this guy a heart attack by bringing up usage. Price the work right in the first place, including unlimited usage and move on.
In fact ask him for his budget upfront and save yourself a bunch of time. he will end up paying what he wants and thinks he will pay, either to you or someone else. As a business person only you can decide if the money makes sense.
You are right, there are a couple of key words, small and friend....
I think I agree. I've done a lot of web research now, and see the "usage" thing brought up repeatedly. I don't get it. It's silly, frankly. No one else in the world (including me) has any use for those photos. The amount of work I do is the same, no matter what medium they're going to be used in, so what's the point? Who wants to renegotiate down the road when he decides he wants to use them in a format that differs from his present vision? Who wants to try and enforce that? Who's going to try and convince a client that he can't do what he wants with photos he paid good money for? Who cares? Why should I want more money from no more work?
I plan to price to pay for my time (shooting and in post), and give full rights.
I think I have arrived at a scheme of an hourly rate + per shot price + expenses. That covers me for shooting time and post processing time.
Erik Moore wrote:
I think I agree. I've done a lot of web research now, and see the "usage" thing brought up repeatedly. I don't get it. It's silly, frankly. No one else in the world (including me) has any use for those photos. The amount of work I do is the same, no matter what medium they're going to be used in, so what's the point? Who wants to renegotiate down the road when he decides he wants to use them in a format that differs from his present vision? Who wants to try and enforce that? Who's going to try and convince a client that he can't do what he wants with photos he paid good money for? Who cares? Why should I want more money from no more work?
If you normally shoot weddings then you don't have to deal with usage. Other types of photography have different business plans. I am not going to try to explain everything but most commercial / advertising photographers take the usage into account when pricing a job. And an editorial photographer will be paid differently if the story is shot for Vanity Fair then for The Happy Valley Shopper's Weekly.
If you don't care about it then tell him $__ per hour for everything and call it a day.
"Why should I want more money from no more work?" Because "theoretically" the pictures that you produce have some sort of value to the client, and the more people who see the pictures on the web, or brochure or trade ads or on a billboard "theoretically" will buy more widgets and bring in more money to your client and be more valuable....or not.
Just because you don't get it doesn't make it silly. Maybe for you and this client it is not worth it, probably not.
And I'd ignore all I have said and go with what infocus said. Ask him how much he wants to spend, when he says a couple hundred dollars you'll have your price .
mickey, I think we have both been shooting advertising for a few decades...
Do you think a small, local manufacturer understands licensing? Is it worth it to try and spend a whole bunch of time trying to educate a guy who might create a half dozen new ads over the course of 10 years and maybe...maybe 2 or three print brochures, that the more he uses the images the more he will need to pay?
I mean from his perspective, he sells tools. Lets say this guy make die grinders. Not really sexy stuff but an important tool never the less. And I sure his die grinders make use of some really creative engineering and so on.
Lets use the licensing model to sell his die grinders, and YOU want one. You pay x dollars for a years worth of use but only at your home garage. If you want to take it off site you need to add a new x dollar fee. What to use it another second year? Another X dollars. Does that make sense?
Lets face facts. Not every commercial or advertising gig has licensing potential. For those that don't you price it right, at the onset and sell them unlimited company and industry exclusive rights. Let them use the images for PR and advertising but not for third party sales or give aways, like to a supplier for use in one of their ads. There is just not a lot of residual value in images like these. Even then the chances of a residual fee for a third party is slim to none.
One other fact of the new reality...photography is becoming a commodity. The guy may very well only want to pay 200 bucks. As a business man you need to decide, do I do the work at this price point or not? SOMEONE will. I pass on jobs all the time. I make an effort on SOME of them to try to educate the client on what the increased cost for my work gets them. Some of hem get it and some, not so much. In the end they ALL get their images one way or the other, good or bad.
I know.
I wasn't really thinking licensing per se but more along the idea of pricing differently for two different uses (web only or everything else). Neither the client or the OP are interested in licensing agreements but the OP did bring up the different uses the client might have so I thought he had some idea about usage.
I can argue both sides of the licensing fence, and I understand how many don't understand it or think it's silly. But like it or not 'for now' that is how some photographers price a job.
Micky Bill wrote:
If you normally shoot weddings then you don't have to deal with usage. Other types of photography have different business plans. I am not going to try to explain everything but most commercial / advertising photographers take the usage into account when pricing a job. And an editorial photographer will be paid differently if the story is shot for Vanity Fair then for The Happy Valley Shopper's Weekly.
I think I need to apologize, I obviously ruffled a feather or two. I shouldn't have said it's silly, especially after asking advice about it. I think that that pricing model probably has its place.
I understand why it would be good for the photographer. I don't understand why a client, big or small, would be happy about me demanding ahead of time to know exactly everything they want to do with the photograph. I can't think of any other product anywhere that pricing works the same way. (Ok, maybe corporate software, in some cases?)
And I'd ignore all I have said and go with what infocus said. Ask him how much he wants to spend, when he says a couple hundred dollars you'll have your price .
Or not. I have no intention of being taken advantage of, and I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to business negotiations.
Micky Bill wrote:
I know.
I wasn't really thinking licensing per se but more along the idea of pricing differently for two different uses (web only or everything else). Neither the client or the OP are interested in licensing agreements but the OP did bring up the different uses the client might have so I thought he had some idea about usage.
I can argue both sides of the licensing fence, and I understand how many don't understand it or think it's silly. But like it or not 'for now' that is how some photographers price a job.
its not thinking its silly, it's knowing when make sense. Many times it just makes no sense and simply serves to complicate matters and just might cost you $$$$.
I'm open to doing it both ways, provided it makes sense for the client and me.
Which brings us to "different usages".
I would argue that web usage is as important if not more important that print these days. I have faced this from good clients before...."give me web quality images". What the heck are web quality images I ask? They say, you know not really good...just good enough for the web.
HUH? Does Ford shoot crap images of their cars just because they are going on the web? And we help this attitude along by pricing web usage lower than print??
Erik Moore wrote:
I think I agree. I've done a lot of web research now, and see the "usage" thing brought up repeatedly. I don't get it. It's silly, frankly. No one else in the world (including me) has any use for those photos. The amount of work I do is the same, no matter what medium they're going to be used in, so what's the point? Who wants to renegotiate down the road when he decides he wants to use them in a format that differs from his present vision? Who wants to try and enforce that? Who's going to try and convince a client that he can't do what he wants with photos he paid good money for? Who cares? Why should I want more money from no more work?
I plan to price to pay for my time (shooting and in post), and give full rights.
I think I have arrived at a scheme of an hourly rate + per shot price + expenses. That covers me for shooting time and post processing time. ...Show more →
I hardly think that properly managing ones Intellectual Property is "silly". You stated that your specialty was weddings so you clearly have not been concerned with licensing your images. Now, you have a project that requires additional information in order to properly price and you disregard a major factor in pricing which is "how will the images be used". I suppose that it would not effect your price if two potential Clients like McDonalds and a small locally owned burger joint came to you for similar project. One must figure out quickly what end of the spectrum the Client operates at and gather information regarding how extensively the images are to be used, the importance of the images and for how long just to name a few points.
tcphoto wrote:
One must figure out quickly what end of the spectrum the Client operates at and gather information regarding how extensively the images are to be used, the importance of the images and for how long just to name a few points.
Why, exactly? So I can charge more? The argument is circular.
I completely understand that the commercial photographer's tradition is to charge based on usage. I get it. Big customers that will use the image everywhere can generally afford to pay more. But it seems to me that only the photographer benefits from that arrangement. When I buy a car, they don't charge me based on how many miles I intend to drive it. The car costs a certain amount to produce, and the makers and dealers want to make a certain amount of profit from their work. When I buy a house, the builder doesn't ask how big my family is, or how many guests I will have.
Why is photography different? The only argument I have heard so far is "so we can charge more".
It seems that commercial photography is a product of labor. It's mostly technical (with a little art thrown in), but the end result is a product of their product, my photography, and possibly a stylist or art director's vision. Does the stylist also get to ask how it will be used? If I spend x hours creating a product that was commissioned by a client, why should I expect to keep getting paid down the road if they decide they want to use the photo that they already paid for, again?
I don't make my living from commercial photography, so I can afford to ask these questions, at least rhetorically.
I would suggest that you take a look at the book Pricing Photography by Heron and MacTavish. It is a great resource and goes into detail on pricing and licensing of images.
Funny how you're a photographer arguing from a Clients perspective with no experience in Commercial work when others with experience are trying to help you.
tcphoto wrote:
I hardly think that properly managing ones Intellectual Property is "silly". You stated that your specialty was weddings so you clearly have not been concerned with licensing your images. Now, you have a project that requires additional information in order to properly price and you disregard a major factor in pricing which is "how will the images be used". I suppose that it would not effect your price if two potential Clients like McDonalds and a small locally owned burger joint came to you for similar project. One must figure out quickly what end of the spectrum the Client operates at and gather information regarding how extensively the images are to be used, the importance of the images and for how long just to name a few points....Show more →
Sheesh, the suggest was to figure the possible usage into the quote and present it as a single figure. This was suggested to keep the client, most likely someone who would freak out at the mention of 'licensing"...well...from freaking out.
And of course this IS managing ones intellectual property rights properly. It just might not fit YOUR standards
tcphoto wrote:
I would suggest that you take a look at the book Pricing Photography by Heron and MacTavish. It is a great resource and goes into detail on pricing and licensing of images.
Funny how you're a photographer arguing from a Clients perspective with no experience in Commercial work when others with experience are trying to help you.
I'm not really arguing. Just asking questions as to the logic behind the tradition. And the only answers I've heard so far are "because that's how it's done". Buying a book that explains how it's done doesn't interest me in the least unless it explains why photography is different from any other service that produces a product. Perhaps your recommended book does that? It looks like a useful book to have either way.
I do appreciate the input I've gotten here so far, including yours. I don't mean to sound ungrateful.
I also think that infocusinc's suggestion to keep the nature of the client in mind when devising a strategy is wise.
tcphoto wrote:
I would suggest that you take a look at the book Pricing Photography by Heron and MacTavish. It is a great resource and goes into detail on pricing and licensing of images.
Funny how you're a photographer arguing from a Clients perspective with no experience in Commercial work when others with experience are trying to help you.
Are you really helping him when this concerns a very small local client? Its about reality. This is NOT General Motors or MAC Tools.
My contention here is very simple. If you go to this small client armed with per photo usage fees from a source like Fotoquote for example, this client my very well just shoo you right out of his office. Is that the endgame here for this photographer and this client? To toss the assignment dollars into the waste bin?
All of this is really client and MARKET dependent. If your potential clients understand licensing it make perfect sense, as long as the other photographers in your market price accordingly.
If the clients don't understand and your competition does not charge for usage...and you do...you are just not going to work for those clients. There is nothing wrong with saying no. That too is a perfectly honest business decision.
The reality of any business transaction is value of any good or service is the actual amount of money the PURCHASER will actually pay. As the seller you and you alone can decide if the amount of money offered is sufficient.
Again...consider what it is you are willing to sell, and price it so you make money...
Aside from market/licensing considerations (any small local business is likely to be on the internet but that doesn't mean they are competing with the big boys), compare this to what you already do.
Is the product shoot a cookie cutter operation? Much like team or wedding formals, the organization of the shoot can control the time as much or more than the nature of the "product." If all the family members are there or the teams are lined up, the shoot goes faster than if every "new" item or shot requires wrangling to get the subject ready and in front of the camera. Is it more like a "portrait" or wedding in which individual shots may require individualized set up, lighting and/or editing/post processing attention, or more like a team shoot where there's very little individual "work" and pretty much every item gets handled the same?
That could help you get around the time issues and may help you frame a response in your bid that helps the customer get his/her mind around the pricing as well.
Is there someone else he will be delivering the shots to for further use? A printer or web designer? Have they got any input on the "output" needed?
Parton me, I thought that I was responding to a thread on the "Pro Digital Forum". There are certain questions that I ask when a potential Client contacts me. I want to hear about the actual subject of the shoot and how they would like them captured, how many shots are needed plus how and how long will the images be used. If they are experienced, they know that the answers will affect the quote. If they have no experience, I can gather the information and give them a single number plus expenses although your invoice better include details of their usage or it may backfire on you. I know what my COB is and must meet that number in order to remain profitable. I know that the small business will be on one end of my pricing scale and the Fortune 500 on the other. It is all about the value that you add to the project and how efficiently you can deliver images.
When was the last time that you dealt with a top level Talent Agency? They will be asking the same questions that I've presented and have done so for the last decade or more.
tcphoto wrote:
When was the last time that you dealt with a top level Talent Agency? They will be asking the same questions that I've presented and have done so for the last decade or more.
Again, I'm not disputing that this is "the way it's done". Just wondering why. Still. Appeals to authority don't really help.
Your COB is the same whether the client is big or small. Takes you the same amount of time either way.
tcphoto wrote:
Parton me, I thought that I was responding to a thread on the "Pro Digital Forum". There are certain questions that I ask when a potential Client contacts me. I want to hear about the actual subject of the shoot and how they would like them captured, how many shots are needed plus how and how long will the images be used. If they are experienced, they know that the answers will affect the quote. If they have no experience, I can gather the information and give them a single number plus expenses although your invoice better include details of their usage or it may backfire on you. I know what my COB is and must meet that number in order to remain profitable. I know that the small business will be on one end of my pricing scale and the Fortune 500 on the other. It is all about the value that you add to the project and how efficiently you can deliver images.
When was the last time that you dealt with a top level Talent Agency? They will be asking the same questions that I've presented and have done so for the last decade or more. ...Show more →
??