Crabby wrote:
If the client is a reality co. they will be making $40,000-$70,000 on selling that home thanks to your images.
Imo, this is a gross misconception regarding the role of photography in the real estate market. Although, it makes a great pitch if you can get someone to bite on it.
Imo, it is an incredibly rare (almost non-existent, myth only) instance that a photograph, no matter how good it is will actually sell a home/property.
The image doesn\'t fill the role of getting the buyer to \"pull the trigger\" and make an offer on a home. The image fills the role of getting the potential buyer to \"call the agent/owner\" by providing information and/or creating desire. Better images create stronger desire ... the property and the agent then have to be able to continue to carry that desire through to close the sale.
The image cannot \"close\" the sale, that is the role of the agent/owner to either allow the potential buyer to self-close, or to facilitate closing them. Houses don\'t sell because of images ... but agents/owner/broker phones ring do.
Imo, crappy agents will not benefit from awesome images because they aren\'t able to harness the desire that was originally initiated through the imagery. Which just happens to coincide with the trend that crappy agents don\'t want to spend any money on great imagery ... because it adds little value to overall process/outcome for them ... i.e. they screw up a good thing.
Good agents on the other hand, understand how to utilize desire in the realm of the sales process. Good agents thus value the head start they get by using images that generate desire more than just \"informational\" snapshots. There\'s another piece of the puzzle here that I share with good agents about desire ... but I\'m keeping that one close to my chest (i.e. not public) as it is part of my inside track @ levels of desire.
I typically don\'t shoot \"run & gun\" information only. It\'s not that I won\'t, but it isn\'t the segment of the market that I lean toward. My relationship with my agents/brokers, they will let me know if they want a \"run & gun\", but they also know that it isn\'t where my greatest value to them is ... it is more of a courtesy service when it\'s appropriate. If an agent/broker sees me as a cheap run & gun only (even after the desire dialogue) ... I pass.
I study a property and the target market with the agent and strive to deliver a \"desire\" enhancing package of images presenting the strengths for such desire. If this is not something that an agent/broker values and all they want is a cheap labor force to take information snaps ... then I\'m not the right person for the job for them, and they\'ll never value the work, because at the root of the issue is the fact that they don\'t understand the sales process well enough to utilize desire appropriately.
That\'s just the way it goes sometimes ... i.e. not much different than marketing to someone who thinks Sears makes great portraits. You\'ll have to educate them accordingly to create desire/value for your work. Your call at whether that effort/initiative has value to you or you pass.
As to my originally quoted price in the illustration, it was a pretty lowball offer on my side of things because of:
A) My relationship with the web developer and the potential for much more work with his client (which we subsequently learned is work I don\'t want @ undervalued snapshots)
B) The volume of work during a time when I was light-loaded
C) Market bearance (these were not million dollar homes)
D) Expenses (transition time/money) were nominal as they were in very close proximity to each other.
Anyway, this is neither to suggest right/wrong ... just perspective that runs a little deeper than \"you should charge \"X\" amount of dollars. Imo, you have to know your market ... both sides of it.
Crabby wrote:
If the client is a reality co. they will be making $40,000-$70,000 on selling that home thanks to your images.
Imo, this is a gross misconception regarding the role of photography in the real estate market. Although, it makes a great pitch if you can get someone to bite on it.
Imo, it is an incredibly rare (almost non-existent, myth only) instance that a photograph, no matter how good it is will actually sell a home/property.
The image doesn\'t fill the role of getting the buyer to \"pull the trigger\" and make an offer on a home. The image fills the role of getting the potential buyer to \"call the agent/owner\" by providing information and/or creating desire. Better images create stronger desire ... the property and the agent then have to be able to continue to carry that desire through to close the sale.
The image cannot \"close\" the sale, that is the role of the agent/owner to either allow the potential buyer to self-close, or to facilitate closing them. House don\'t sell because of images ... but agents/owner/broker phones ring do.
Imo, crappy agents will not benefit from awesome images because they aren\'t able to harness the desire that was originally initiated through the imagery. Which just happens to coincide with the trend that crappy agents don\'t want to spend any money on great imagery ... because it adds little value to overall process/outcome for them ... i.e. they screw up a good thing.
Good agents on the other hand, understand how to utilize desire in the realm of the sales process. Good agents thus value the head start they get by using images that generate desire more than just \"informational\" snapshots. There\'s another piece of the puzzle here that I share with good agents about desire ... but I\'m keeping that one close to my chest (i.e. not public) as it is part of my inside track @ levels of desire.
I typically don\'t shoot \"run & gun\" information only. It\'s not that I won\'t, but it isn\'t the segment of the market that I lean toward. My relationship with my agents/brokers, they will let me know if they want a \"run & gun\", but they also know that it isn\'t where my greatest value to them is ... it is more of a courtesy service when it\'s appropriate. If an agent/broker sees me as a cheap run & gun only (even after the desire dialogue) ... I pass.
I study a property and the target market with the agent and strive to deliver a \"desire\" enhancing package of images presenting the strengths for such desire. If this is not something that an agent/broker values and all they want is a cheap labor force to take information snaps ... then I\'m not the right person for the job for them, and they\'ll never value the work, because at the root of the issue is the fact that they don\'t understand the sales process well enough to utilize desire appropriately.
That\'s just the way it goes sometimes ... i.e. not much different than marketing to someone who thinks Sears makes great portraits. You\'ll have to educate them accordingly to create desire/value for your work. Your call at whether that effort/initiative has value to you or you pass.
As to my originally quoted price in the illustration, it was a pretty lowball offer on my side of things because of:
A) My relationship with the web developer and the potential for much more work with his client (which we subsequently learned is work I don\'t want @ undervalued snapshots)
B) The volume of work during a time when I was light-loaded
C) Market bearance (these were not million dollar homes)
D) Expenses (transition time/money) were nominal as they were in very close proximity to each other.
Anyway, this is neither to suggest right/wrong ... just perspective that runs a little deeper than \"you should charge \"X\" amount of dollars. Imo, you have to know your market ... both sides of it.
