Underpricing your images

reyvee61

In another thread here Diva suggested that underpricing your images can sometimes backfire as the mentality goes, "Surly a five dollar image can't be as good as a fifty dollar image, right?"

Dive didn't write that but rather that is me mimicking a potential client.

The reason I'm mentioning this here is because I know all of you from the threads involving people photography and would really love to hear everyone's take on this.

Mods...if you feel this does not belong here please feel free to move it.

On a recent shoot I shared with two other main photographers in Hollywood I had the opportunity to shoot Red Carpet style portraits of some actors and actresses.

The event was a charity event for Variety and if you Google "Cher Rue's Annual Christmas Charity" the first search results that return are from Getty Images and Wireimage.

I poked around Getty Images and found out that the going rate for a commercial use image is about 49USD and that has limitations and only for a three moth period of time.

Question is...are people in general thinking, "Has Rey lost his marbles" because I'm providing the same images for 4USD for personal use and 6USD for commercial use?

Technically I feel my images are better since I use a diffuser to soften shadows while my counterpart used direct flash but thats just my opinion of course.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
Thanks

I should add that digital download sales have been good since Saturday as many of the stars are purchasing personal use downloads....
I've also made it known that I will donate half of my proceeds to the charity....

Nikolai

In short (and purely IMHO) I think that you "did lost your marbles"
But every person has to make a decision of his/hers own on this.

Basically, there are two polarities: few, exquisite and expensive and plentiful, basic and dirt cheap. And everything in between.

I know some people managing to make money on various points of this spectrum.
And I know much more people who're not making any no matter where they tried...

reyvee61

Ha ha, I thought so...... (my marbles)

Anyone else have any thoughts on this

divamum

I think auspices and market are vital pieces of information in determining prices - $4 a picture for (for instance) a school play is probably about right. But Getty are essentially charging a "corporate" fee - those "agency" pictures will go around the world in newspapers, on TV, in magazines etc etc - they're not really priced for private consumption (although presumably individuals do buy them, or are they only available to the media? (And somebody please correct me if I haven't properly understood how these sorts of professional agencies work)

Purely subjective statement alert: I will say that I think there has to be a fine line between reasonable cost, and price-gouging because one has a captive market. Most of my own shooting work doesn't involve prints so it's not something I encounter really except when I'm a client, ie when I'm in a show that somebody has shot. In fact, a fairly recent experience: did a show where the photographer displays via Smugmug - because of that I know EXACTLY what his markup was . Frankly, with that knowledge - and also being fairly certain that he was paid a decent fee for the gig itself, which comprised multiple events over a few weeks, iow what I can guess was a very nice contract - I felt like I was being had. Even making myself think like a full-time photographer living off their pictures, I just couldn't justify a 7000% markup on what looked like SOOC jpgs (very good SOOC jpgs, but even so). I don't think anybody in the cast bought them, or the $30 digital downloads....

So, in a way, he shot himself in the foot. Speaking for myself, at half those prices I'd have thought, "Yeah, he's got to make a living - fair enough." and bought some. As it was? No way - it would have completely broken the bank.

/highly personal and subjective musings.

ivar

The direct line with 'People' shots is a lot thinner as opposed to the business side of things so I moved this to 'Mind Your Own Business'

reyvee61

That's definitely something to think about Diva.......

reyvee61

ivar wrote: »

The direct line with 'People' shots is a lot thinner as opposed to the business side of things so I moved this to 'Mind Your Own Business'

Thanks Ivar

agunther

I wouldn't sell at such cheap prices. I think you need to visualize some sort of curve. The lower the price, the more people will buy, but will you actually make more money? Obviously this curve has some sort of maximum. I think the maximum is somewhat flat, but it is there. If you sell too cheap you will lose out and if you sell too high you will too.
I often find clients that are willing to pay more, are easier to satisfy. Clients in the range you are talking about are more often what I call "high maintenance". In the end, you may wish you had at least gotten some money for the amount of support you have to give.
I also think that you are priming your clients expectations. For instance, most people are primed with the price of all sorts of things. For instance Satellite TV is free in Germany, where people now are expecting free satellite TV. They have been primed with free. In the US, we pay quite a bit for it and don't consider that an issue, since we have been primed to think Satellite TV costs at least $50/mo. You can find countless examples. What I am trying to say is, that once you have set this price, you will find it extremely difficult to justify an increase to your clients. Make sure they understand its a one time discount or whatever, to avoid setting the price in their expectation.
Just my 2ct

divamum

One other random musing on this (and lest I sound like I know what I'm talking about - I'm new at this too! - I'm really just thinking out loud here" I have a lower-priced basic headshot package which I call my "student special" (to make it clear I know it's a budget package, and that it is intentionally created as such). It includes a time limit (full pkg is unlimited - although in reality they seldom go much longer than 3 hrs) and fewer final, ready-to-print images (although edited images are available a la carte, at a higher price than the a la carte edits in the "full" package). Net result? EVERY TIME somebody has selected the lower-priced package to save money, they've wound up buying extra edits and have actually spent money than they would have with the higher-priced package's inclusions.

I'm beginning to think that some people are more comfortable adding on charges than having a higher base cost, even if they wind up spending more overall in the end. Food for thought.

reyvee61

agunther wrote: »

I wouldn't sell at such cheap prices. I think you need to visualize some sort of curve. The lower the price, the more people will buy, but will you actually make more money? Obviously this curve has some sort of maximum. I think the maximum is somewhat flat, but it is there. If you sell too cheap you will lose out and if you sell too high you will too.
I often find clients that are willing to pay more, are easier to satisfy. Clients in the range you are talking about are more often what I call "high maintenance". In the end, you may wish you had at least gotten some money for the amount of support you have to give.
I also think that you are priming your clients expectations. For instance, most people are primed with the price of all sorts of things. For instance Satellite TV is free in Germany, where people now are expecting free satellite TV. They have been primed with free. In the US, we pay quite a bit for it and don't consider that an issue, since we have been primed to think Satellite TV costs at least $50/mo. You can find countless examples. What I am trying to say is, that once you have set this price, you will find it extremely difficult to justify an increase to your clients. Make sure they understand its a one time discount or whatever, to avoid setting the price in their expectation.
Just my 2ct

Great points made here....

reyvee61

divamum wrote: »

One other random musing on this (and lest I sound like I know what I'm talking about - I'm new at this too! - I'm really just thinking out loud here" I have a lower-priced basic headshot package which I call my "student special" (to make it clear I know it's a budget package, and that it is intentionally created as such). It includes a time limit (full pkg is unlimited - although in reality they seldom go much longer than 3 hrs) and fewer final, ready-to-print images (although edited images are available a la carte, at a higher price than the a la carte edits in the "full" package). Net result? EVERY TIME somebody has selected the lower-priced package to save money, they've wound up buying extra edits and have actually spent money than they would have with the higher-priced package's inclusions.

I'm beginning to think that some people are more comfortable adding on charges than having a higher base cost, even if they wind up spending more overall in the end. Food for thought.

I think this is a good strategy overall and my mistake with this event is my very low pricing being that I am donating half the money to the charity. I could be giving much more if I had set my pricing accordingly.

I'll definitely make it known that these are economy pricings.....

angevin1

Glad to hear sales are good. Whats the question?? Have you lost your marbles?

Marbles, no. Glib: yes.

I believe you do the rest of us an incredible disservice, and make us all look overpriced....on the commercial use photos!

If you think your images are better, submit them to Getty. If they are, they'll tell you and pay you accordingly.

As far as the personal-use photos...."Hey, there's the cheap photographer!" ...may not be what you'd like to be remembered as.

It seems like every week or two someone posts some such similar, and then wants to know if that's alright with everyone else.

I give away what I want to who I want and sell to the rest, at a fair price. For commercial use, I have to have more details, unless you'd like to buy it for lifetime use, then I got a number and it's got zero's to the left of the decimal. Actors/Actresses, add a zero.

Enlightphoto

There is a saying, and which applies to photography as much as anything else:

"If you don't value your own work, it's unlikely that anyone else will either."

Personally, I'd never sell the commercial use of my images for a couple dollars. But that's me. Many other people do. That's them. The question is, do you feel good about yourself and your work where you've priced it? If the answer is no, then you're underpriced. If you price out of fear, you'll always be on a downward angle.

Submitted respectfully and IMHO.

divamum

I give away what I want to who I want and sell to the rest, at a fair price.

A very sensible philosophy, I think.

reyvee61

angevin1 wrote: »

Glad to hear sales are good. Whats the question?? Have you lost your marbles?

Marbles, no. Glib: yes.

I believe you do the rest of us an incredible disservice, and make us all look overpriced....on the commercial use photos!

If you think your images are better, submit them to Getty. If they are, they'll tell you and pay you accordingly.

As far as the personal-use photos...."Hey, there's the cheap photographer!" ...may not be what you'd like to be remembered as.

It seems like every week or two someone posts some such similar, and then wants to know if that's alright with everyone else.

I give away what I want to who I want and sell to the rest, at a fair price. For commercial use, I have to have more details, unless you'd like to buy it for lifetime use, then I got a number and it's got zero's to the left of the decimal. Actors/Actresses, add a zero.

Tom thanks for your honesty as I've heard from friends on this debate (pricing) and I've been told similar things by them. I'm new to the game as far as pricing goes so I'll learn from my mistakes as I go and in the future I'll do more research regarding certain types of shoots.

When I took this assignment I had no idea what I was getting into but I enjoyed my time there as well as the experience I gained.

reyvee61

richy wrote: »

I do think you are underpricing yourself. To some degree it depends on volume, if you get 500 sales for a nights work then perhaps thats ok. Everybody is free to set their own pricing and I don't think its right to rant at people for being too cheap, thats capitalism Everybody sets their own prices. My angle would be to offer a suggestion as to why others prices are higher and how this should reflect on you and your decisions.
My personal pricing is based around an hourly rate. I do not charge silly markups on extras (just enough to cover extra time, taxes, postage and the cost of procuring the prints at a local printer I trust and respect) but I am a bit steep on the hourly rate. I find it keeps it simple and avoids people feeling like I pulled them in with a cheap rate then robbed them once they were captive.
The reason why think its important not to base your charging around "yay I got $500 this month, I can buy a new flash" (no disrespect intended, just trying to briefly surmise a way of thinking) comes down to continuity and scalability.
Many of us put personal money into buying kit to get started, your business plan and pricing needs to reflect acquiring more kit (to replace old broken kit, plus backup kit and better kit) plus insurance, taxes and wages and your 401k !
Secondly scalability, as demand increases (we hope ) your pricing needs to be able to fully support you and you don't find yourself working your a$$ off for less than minimum wage because what was nice pocket money for an odd job didn't scale into a liveable wage.
You are free to set your pricing as low or as high as you want, some will get snobby with you if its too low, some will think you are a tart if its too high, just set it based on what you need to grow your business and feed your kids and retire before age 120. One of the best things you can do is work backwards from a target income to get to a price per hour \ gig.

Great advice.

reyvee61

Enlightphoto wrote: »

There is a saying, and which applies to photography as much as anything else:

"If you don't value your own work, it's unlikely that anyone else will either."

Personally, I'd never sell the commercial use of my images for a couple dollars. But that's me. Many other people do. That's them. The question is, do you feel good about yourself and your work where you've priced it? If the answer is no, then you're underpriced. If you price out of fear, you'll always be on a downward angle.

Submitted respectfully and IMHO.

"If you don't value your own work, it's unlikely that anyone else will either."

As an independent artist singer/songwriter I full understand this.
Point well taken.....

Glort

angevin1 wrote: »

I believe you do the rest of us an incredible disservice, and make us all look overpriced....on the commercial use photos!

If you think your images are better, submit them to Getty. If they are, they'll tell you and pay you accordingly.

As far as the personal-use photos...."Hey, there's the cheap photographer!" ...may not be what you'd like to be remembered as.

It seems like every week or two someone posts some such similar, and then wants to know if that's alright with everyone else.

I give away what I want to who I want and sell to the rest, at a fair price. For commercial use, I have to have more details, unless you'd like to buy it for lifetime use, then I got a number and it's got zero's to the left of the decimal. Actors/Actresses, add a zero.

Wise by name, Wise by nature.

Sorry to sound abrupt, but when I see people selling images for $4 and 6 bux, the first thought that comes into my head is: "why the hell do you bother and what enjoyment do you get out of stuffing it up for everyone else?'

How long did you spend at this event? What is your expected sales total?
Will it pay you an hour rate commensurate with what the guy pumpin gas down the road gets? Of course he dosen't have '000's tied up in equipment let alone everything else involved so if your making play money, why do you bother in the first place?

I really don't give a figg what I sell, the only number to me is what I walk away with at the end of the day. Last weekend i made 33% of my money in 2 sales. I don't care that i only sold x prints or whatever, What I'm concerned with is how much I can take to the bank monday morning.

Many people seem to be under the impression ( and I have had "customers" tell me, " if you were cheaper, i'd have bought more". Perhaps that is true, perhaps you would have bought the same but the bottom line is, If you got more, my overheads were also more so I would have made less event though you spent the same.
Notice they never say " I'd have spent more" or " You would have made more profit", just that they would BUY more.
Totally different animals.

I'm admittedly a bit cheesed off on this subject atm as I'm really getting a bit sick of people that have no right in business trying to play at it. Inevitably they have day jobs that supports them where as those of us who's day job is Photography have the rug pulled from under us.

What if I turned up at some cheap a$$ photographers workplace or started advertising in their industry the same services or products that keep a roof over their head for 1/10 of the value their company charges and then palmed it off as saying . " Oh, I just like doing plumbing, I know I undercharge but I like to play plumber for fun and what I make covers me buying a new plunger now and then so it's all good".
How happy are they going to be with that when the Boss says " Soryy, we're laying you off as we can't compete with these part time plumbers that undervalue their work so much we can't match it and remain viable. "

I'd like to see photography become licenced like other trades are and here in Oz, most if not all trades now have a business component of which passing is a requisite of getting that trade licence.

If you want to help a charity, great, I do it with my photo work, but they get the images for NOTHING which is a totally different thing to charging penuts and belitttling and bastardizeing the industry.
If you want to help this charity, shoot for nothing and Give them the images to sell. I'll bet they will put on and GET a much better price for them than you did.

I also wonder how these celebs work? Do they do these gigs for $20 an hour or some other irrelative price, do they do them for free or are they paid thousands for their time/ appearance?
Which ever one it is, you should model your work on the same principal.

You say your images are good or better than the other guys or whatever, why do you price them as if they were garbage?
Clearly you have a pride in your work and a respect for quality but you fail to respect it yourself so how do you expect others to value it?
Sorry again but it seems crazy to me.

The other thing that gets to me is all the " someone is using my pic without permission " whinges that turn out that the person did not pay due care and dilligence to what they were doing and now feel like the person that used their image owes them a million Dollars.

Personaly I think selling images for personal and private use at those prices is ridicilous especially to the target market you have.
If a pic you have sold for $6 end up being used as the promo poster for a new movie, are you going to be content with that ? i think a lot of people would be back bleating they got ripped off or it's unfair or whatever.

Please take my suggestion and spend some serious time education yourself on sales, Marketing and business.
It will be the best thing you ever did in photography and not only be valueable to you but also the people you are trying to help through your charitable efforts as well as those trying to eek out a living at this game full time with nothing else to prop them up.

angevin1

reyvee61 wrote: »

Tom thanks for your honesty as I've heard from friends on this debate (pricing) and I've been told similar things by them. I'm new to the game as far as pricing goes so I'll learn from my mistakes as I go and in the future I'll do more research regarding certain types of shoots.

When I took this assignment I had no idea what I was getting into but I enjoyed my time there as well as the experience I gained.

You're Welcome!

I have used this Calculator before.

r3t1awr3yd

Glort wrote: »

Wise by name, Wise by nature.

Sorry to sound abrupt, but when I see people selling images...

THIS is the general consensus that I've gotten from everyone around a couple of forums.

"Work for full price or free, there are no discounts."

Everyone seems to have issue pricing their work though. Understanding that your work is worth money only seems difficult in photography. I'm sure no one feels that way about their day job. lol.

Enlightphoto

angevin1 wrote: »

You're Welcome!

I have used this Calculator before.

No offense, but the photographersindex calculator is extremely limited by what it offers.

I have a pricing help page that should guide you to a few better pricing resources.

Cheers,

reyvee61

Glort wrote: »

Wise by name, Wise by nature.

Sorry to sound abrupt, but when I see people selling images for $4 and 6 bux, the first thought...

A rather lengthy and well thought out reply and just as I take constructive criticism on my work in this field as well as the music industry I will carefully read between the lines and take what I can use moving forward.
I do appreciate the effort you have taken to reply to this thread as it is important to me.
I did ask for it after all by posting this.

There is however, a new movement in the digital age of photography that can't be ignored as everyone and their brother in law is shooting digital and selling sooc images at budget rates.
Gone are the days of the darkroom and the costs associated with it.
Nowadays all one has to do is load images onto a printer and they're in business.
Or so one would think…

I actually spend time giving my image files some love since I shoot RAW so I certainly do not fall into the category above.

I would love to sit somewhere between the so called budget photographers and the top “artists” eventually as far as rates and pricing are concerned.

The same thing is happening in the music industry as digital recording has made it to the masses...everyone is doing it and making money and convoluting the industry.....or are they?

Independent artists are taking over and the big labels are struggling to make money and add to that pirating of intellectual property if things weren't bad enough.

I'm finding more and more photographers I meet are taking the budget route but when I see the effort they put forth I can see why.

I had a chance to be a part of the music industry revolution (changing the machine) but I bowed out because personally I didn’t feel like I needed to change anything. If I like an artist’s music I pay for it like everyone else.
And if I wish to keep my own material on the underground scene then so be it…
I have a family to take care of and prefer to keep my appearances local where I can still come home to them and not have leave for months at a time on tours.

Point is, there will have to be a happy medium where artists can “customize” their “business” based on their needs.

As irate as that might make the recording industry officials or photographer/artists I don’t believe that this issue will just go away, in fact quite the contrary….

I'm a realist after all......

reyvee61

Wally, Gary thanks for your input as well......

angevin1

Enlightphoto wrote: »

No offense, but the photographersindex calculator is extremely limited by what it offers.

I have a pricing help page that should guide you to a few better pricing resources.

Cheers,

None taken, though it is the first one listed on your page; a very well thought out page too!

Glort

reyvee61 wrote: »

There is however, a new movement in the digital age of photography that can't be ignored as everyone and their brother in law is shooting digital and selling sooc images at budget rates.

I would love to sit somewhere between the so called budget photographers and the top “artists” eventually as far as rates and pricing are concerned.

I'm finding more and more photographers I meet are taking the budget route but when I see the effort they put forth I can see why.
Point is, there will have to be a happy medium where artists can “customize” their “business” based on their needs.

A budget Price would be one which is cheaper than the standard going rate but is still indicative of a sustainable pricing structure for the goods or services offered.

Selling pics for 4 and 6 bux is not budget, it's bastardisation wich is a very different thing and causes damage to an industry. In many industrys here, its called predatory pricing. It means that the price puts other competitors out of business but the pricing structure is not a sustainable one.

Again, there is a big difference between " budget" which i believe most people would take to infer a lower profit margin and no profit margin at all or completely insufficent to sustaing the business for a forseeable time in the future.

The toruble here is that " budget " Photographers whom " customise " their " business" in such a way will not be around for long and when they have moved on to the next rush of blood to the head, the damage they have done will remain and be both ongoing and cumulative.

Budget photography is not a problem.
Unrealistic pricing that devalues the efforts of the photographer and all other photographers certainly is.

reyvee61

richy wrote: »

Middle of the roat pricing is fine, you might not make a huge salary but you should get 40-60k if you are kept busy, nothing wrong with placing yourself there, but don't ever settle for your work being in that category! You dont ever want to be the status quo of the tog world. One of the advantages of charging a sustainable amount is it gives you the money to create oppertunities to develop your skill. If seminars and workshops are your thing then you have a few k a year in your opex for that, or perhaps a photo vacation , that kind of thing. You dont have to charge 20k a day, but 3-5k a day (considering you may work 2-3 days a month in slow periods and have costs) is a fair region to aim for.
For sure we have to adapt, things like dvd's of images etc, thats cool, the hourly rate takes care of that, but shooting bargain basement doesn't help you
All credit to you for putting your family first, I have a lot of respect for that, just make sure you respect your work thats going to be paying those college fees!

Thanks for chiming in

reyvee61

Glort wrote: »

A budget Price would be one which is cheaper than the standard going rate but is still indicative of a sustainable pricing structure for the goods or services offered.

Selling pics for 4 and 6 bux is not budget, it's bastardisation wich is a very different thing and causes damage to an industry. In many industrys here, its called predatory pricing. It means that the price puts other competitors out of business but the pricing structure is not a sustainable one.

Again, there is a big difference between " budget" which i believe most people would take to infer a lower profit margin and no profit margin at all or completely insufficent to sustaing the business for a forseeable time in the future.

The toruble here is that " budget " Photographers whom " customise " their " business" in such a way will not be around for long and when they have moved on to the next rush of blood to the head, the damage they have done will remain and be both ongoing and cumulative.

Budget photography is not a problem.
Unrealistic pricing that devalues the efforts of the photographer and all other photographers certainly is.

Those budget photographers I'm speaking of are charging rates of approx 25 dollars per hour and handing over discs with full res files and no watermarks...as many as two hundred files.....

I've looked at the website Shakodo and I registered so I could learn more about appropriate pricing.
According to what I read there sites like Getty image and WireImage are doing the same thing by underpricing stock photography for commercial use....
This thread has been a great learning experience and enlightening to say the least and it's given me the insight to move forward.

Thanks

divamum

This thread has really given me cause to think about streamlining my own pricing - because I don't deal in paper sales as a rule, I've been kind of loosey-goosey about this, but given that it does come up occasionally it's time I set some "global" print prices and unified my galleries at some kind of sensible market rate. Thanks for the incentive to do so!

I think one of the other points this discussion raises is to to consider the difference between what one CAN charge and what one SHOULD charge (which includes "too low" as well as "too high").

Again using the example above where I was the consumer instead of the photographer, let me clarify why I was somewhat taken aback by the high print prices encountered: I have performed for commensurate-level organizations as the one mentioned in my example, and for those companies, when you requested photos of yourself, you were simply handed a disk of everything that was shot with the proviso that you could use images freely for personal promotion as long as you credit the photographers (eg on your website). Compare and contrast with the $15 4x6 and $30 download pricing of the other guy! That's a huge difference in business protocols within the same market, and I can't deny it surprised me.

These are respected professional photographers in a niche market and my point is really trying to understand/reconcile (or not) the massive disjunct between the pricing structures I've encountered. I don't think any of these guys can be accused of undervaluing the quality of their own work, yet one offers performers photos of themselves gratis, and another charges a bunch to buy them (and, while I don't know for 100% certain, I think it's safe to guess that both were paid solid fees for the shooting sessions, and thus any print/download sales were extra icing).

So, while as a photographer I absolutely respect the work that goes into creating shots, the difficulties of supporting oneself as a freelance artist, the frustrations of amateurs undercutting professional sales and people in general undervaluing the time, effort, and artistic energy that goes into shooting ... I also think that there is a balance to seek in pricing appropriately rather than simply trying to make as much as one can simply because the market will bear it (especially when it's a captive market with no choice but to bear it). In my example, I wouldn't have felt cheated by $15 8x10's, for instance - that would still have left a comfortably healthy markup, but it would have seemed a reasonable cost to me as a consumer, whereas for a 4x6 that I know is actually only 21-65 cents, it seemed way overpriced. "Fair" pricing is as much in the perception of value (added value?) as in the actual numbers, I think.

Richy and Tom really said it for me, and I think this is going to be my new mantra:

I give away what I want to who I want and sell to the rest, at a fair price.

This thread in general - has certainly given me pause to think. (And has also made me very happy that I don't for the most part deal in print sales and have my fee already built into the package cost .... :hide )

divamum

Love the quote diva highlighted, it does sum it up very well, sad to see the inspiration-control-art one has been replaced

Noooo!! Not replaced - let's say... "added to". (Or perhaps just mantra for a different catgeory of discussion? )

inspiration-art-control still rocks my world

l

Glort

divamum wrote: »

I think one of the other points this discussion raises is to to consider the difference between what one CAN charge and what one SHOULD charge (which includes "too low" as well as "too high").

I charge what I can charge and if in doubt, I err on the high side.

To me, the idea of working out the costs, and i mean all the costs of doing business is a bloody great bore and a waste of time. I have been doing this as a business for a long time and I know what my yearly costs are and what my sales are and my pricing model is to make sure I charge a damn good profit so I don't have to think what it cost me, I know I'm well and truly covered without thinking about it.

It seems to me photographers forget their own buying habits when it comes to pricing their work and adopt policies and mindsets that in a lot of cases are rather stupid.

When most people as consumers want something, they buy it even when they consider it expensive of on the high side. In a lot of cases that adds to the satisfaction and reassurance the product must be good.
Yes, people will baluk at the point they think something is a rip off, but if they think it is just priced a bit what they thing it should be, very seldom does that get in the way of them buying it.

Photographer as I have said must be the worst business people in the world. Most seem to have this ignorance that price is the be all and end all of making a sale when they contradict that reasoning in their own purchasing habits.

If a shooter things they won't get anymore than a few bucks for a print and can rattle off REASONS rather than excuses as to why that is FACT, then the intelligent thing to do is get out of that market and not perpetuate the problem. If you can't do that for whatever reason a person wants to concot, then simply be satisfyed with taking happy snaps and face up to the truth and reality of the situation.

I shot a couple of major events the last weekends and made zip. I'm not going to keep doing these or offering my pics at idiotic prices, I'm simply going to move on to other areas and see how they go. There is no point in bashing ones head against a brick wall.

I recently got a lead on a business opportunity that was a classic undervalued market.There were a couple of shooters involved with the venue already that were clearly there for reasons other than what they purported of being professional photographers.
I looked at the market and found I could offer a much better product, already have the infrastructure to deliver an infinately better service BUT, I could/ would not be able to compete with the prices these other people were charging whith them already having bastardised the market so throughly.

These tryhards had done an excellent job of conditioning the market to pay grossly undervalued prices and I'm not intrested in fighting to turn that around, even if it is possible. Much easier to move on to other markets and start from scratch rather than try and repair damage left by others.

One thing that makes me roll my eyes with many people is when you advise people to raise their prices and they come back with something to the effect that they won't make any sales if they do that. In many cases that is an opinion rather than a tested fact. Secondly, if your prices are so low you making nothing now, what the hell is the difference if you try something different and still make nothing?

At least that tells you your just beating a dead horse and you should go find a live one. Of course the other irony in the people that wine about the low and undervalued market they are playing in are alos the ones perpetuating it.

In this game, the people that make money are the business people that are in photography, not the photographers trying to be in business.

WillCAD

I've seen it happen, first-hand.

The major reason I got into photography is that one of my best friends is a wedding photographer. His prices are not outrageously low, but they are on the low side in this market.

A few years ago, someone I worked with was planning a wedding, and I shared my friend's web page with the bride to be, and another woman who had been married the previous year. Both of them agreed that they liked the example work on his page, but the prices turned them off; the attitude was that he couldn't possibly be all that good, since he was charging about 20% below the average of the other photographers they had looked at (many of whom were some of the most expensive in the market.)

The other major factor in her decision to pass on my friend was that his site listed packages, and the package contents were smaller than the packages of most of the other photogs they were looking at; ironically, however, if they added on the extra pieces to make a package comparable to the competition, the price was not 20% lower, it was within about 5% of the other photogs they were considering. But the base package price was what turned them off initially, because they looked at the number and the number was low, so they figured that my friend couldn't possibly be a "good" photographer due to the lower price. Despite all evidence to the contrary, that single number put off both women, and my friend didn't get the job.