Important questions
F45
Registered Users Posts: 225 Major grins
Hi Folks,
This one goes out to the pros...
I just finished reading a rather long thread on SportsShooter regarding spec photographers hurting the industry (undercutting the market) http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=19300
and I was very disappointed to arrive at the end and still not know what any pro considers to be fair market value.
As I'm not able to post on that site I thought I would pose the question here (forgive me for asking yet another pricing question but I think this is important).
How much do you ask for when covering a professional racing event and if you submit work after the fact, what is a fair market price for a published image?? :dunno
In my limited experience I have not seen mags offering any more than $800.00 for a cover (depending on circulation of course) so inside images have to be less...which means unless you're nailing multiple covers and a dozen inside shots every month, how does a pro cover all the expenses of being a professional?
Most full time pros were annoid at the fact that some people shoot local races or events on spec and then try to sell images for $25 or $50 because these low prices are hurting the photography industry as a whole. My feeling is that a quality photogapher offering a quality service is not negatively affecting the industry with this business (be it part time or full time). I do understand however, that offering your images to publications for nothing more than gate access or a few bucks and your name in print is hurting the industry...so what should the minimum price be?
I'd like to be considered by others as a positive asset to the community/industry but in order to play by the rules I need to know what they are :scratch
Thanks for reading and all opinions are welcomed!
This one goes out to the pros...
I just finished reading a rather long thread on SportsShooter regarding spec photographers hurting the industry (undercutting the market) http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=19300
and I was very disappointed to arrive at the end and still not know what any pro considers to be fair market value.
As I'm not able to post on that site I thought I would pose the question here (forgive me for asking yet another pricing question but I think this is important).
How much do you ask for when covering a professional racing event and if you submit work after the fact, what is a fair market price for a published image?? :dunno
In my limited experience I have not seen mags offering any more than $800.00 for a cover (depending on circulation of course) so inside images have to be less...which means unless you're nailing multiple covers and a dozen inside shots every month, how does a pro cover all the expenses of being a professional?
Most full time pros were annoid at the fact that some people shoot local races or events on spec and then try to sell images for $25 or $50 because these low prices are hurting the photography industry as a whole. My feeling is that a quality photogapher offering a quality service is not negatively affecting the industry with this business (be it part time or full time). I do understand however, that offering your images to publications for nothing more than gate access or a few bucks and your name in print is hurting the industry...so what should the minimum price be?
I'd like to be considered by others as a positive asset to the community/industry but in order to play by the rules I need to know what they are :scratch
Thanks for reading and all opinions are welcomed!
0
Comments
I always hear about this event photog's undercutting of the pro's thing, but I have yet to see a pro photographer show up at any of the local motocross tracks I have been to...:uhoh
If I was ever lucky enough to get full track access to a pro motocross event, why in the world would I want to sell my stuff cheaper than anyone else? And I doubt many pro racers buy photo's of themselves.....
Then again I could be wrong.
It doesn't matter if you paint, pull teeth or produce photos for a living; someone will always be ready to come along and do the job for less money.
I think the key here is the fact that some will offer their images to the same mags as the pros for next to nothing and that's the problem. As for carving out a little local business for one's self...that just makes good economic sense.
All that said however, I'm still very interested in hearing about some honest numbers that could be used as bench marks!
By the way, regarding your point on mag submssion requirements being a phone call or email away (you're absolutely right) so who are these folks that are offering their work for next to nothing
Stay focused
Chris Sedg. :cool
www.christophersedgwick.com
F45 - what your talking about is one of the main reasons why I started our business. If someone wants their kid photographed while playing soccer, why should he have to pay the same price as if it were a wedding? It's not the same. Who's going to pay a photographer $600+ to shoot their kit during a game?
As for numbers, we're just starting out but here's our basics (I'm sure some heads are going to roll
If it's a large event, I'll shoot it for free. For example, I did a large soccer tournament last weekend and handed out business cards, telling them they could buy prints online. So far...this isn't working!
Hope this adds a little more info!
- Kevin
I haven't met any yet. Even though I would love to get a cover shot on RacerX magazine, I wouldn't do it for free! What idiot would?
I wish I could give you some prices, but I can't find where I put the specs from Cycle USA and Cycle News, both of which I contribute to, and get paid from monthly. I have only been in the print issue of Cycle News, one time, with two different stories, but have several on-line stories posted. I usually have at least two stories in each months issue of Cycle USA, and have had a full cover one time:D . I don't feel I'm in a position to haggle over the prices, and take their set prices. Now if I was Simon Cudby (MX Photog King) I'm sure I could set my price.
Pro photog's such as Simon Cudby make money by selling to multiple magazines, doing photo shoots for manufactures, having sponsors on their websites and such. They have many more opportunities to make money than your typical local event photographer does. I'm sure there are more ways they make their $ than I can even know.
The company I work for designs and builds ultra-high end wrought iron products. Stair railing, balcony sections, complete front doors, etc. for wealthy customers. We constantly compete against companies that have much lower pricing schedules. A lot of jobs end up going to the lowest bidder. These jobs never have a super high quality product on them either. In the end, you get what you pay for.
However, its really easy to lose out on work because your pricing is too exorbitant. Business is business. If the guy down the street can offer the customer the same quality at a better price, then who is going to get the work? In this article on Sportsshooter, the guy is outraged that shooters are coming in and undercutting his prices. He claims its killing the business, when he really means its killing his business.
The idiot that realizes that sometimes mass exposure and getting their name and work out in the public eye...is far more valuable than a few bucks they initially might receive for a paid cover shot. :uhoh
"Osprey Whisperer"
OspreyWhisperer.com
- Kevin
I recently had one member email me and tell me to raise my prices. He said "your images are good enough, they are worth $85 per digital file". I wrote him back, thanked him, and told him he was in a different market because nobody is going to buy my digital files for $85 each. What happened next was odd. He wrote me back and told me that he doesn't sell a single one at $85 either, but they were still worth it. I emailed back and said if nobody buys it at that price, then the market has said it is not worth that price no matter how good the photo is. I never heard back from him after that. The guy is delusional and I'm sure he thinks the same of me.
In the defense of these people, however, they are right on several important points. One is that low prices are hurting the industry. I have heard a lot of hobby photographers say "so what if I price lower, because if their photo is truly better then people will pay the higher price." The answer is that in amatuer sports price is usually the determining factor, not quality. The racers I sell to certainly like a nicer photo, but when push comes to shove it is the price that motivates them to buy or not. So the cheap hobbyist will get the business even if their product is sub-standard. I lowered prices for 2006 and saw a large enough bump in volume to make up for the reduced profit per-print. I am now attempting a price increase to see how elastic my pricing is now that I have prints in customers hands from prior races. We'll see if they continue to buy at the new prices. If they don't I will likely find something else to photograph.
As someone stated in this very thread, not every photo needs to be wedding quality. Not every photo of Johnny on his motocross bike needs to be spectacular. Plus, consumer cameras are getting good enough that mom and dad can get their own shots that are good enough. Good enough is not pro quality, but good enough is exactly that --- good enough. And free beats expensive every day. A lot of the pros do not seem to understand the concept of good enough because their business model all revolves around the best possible (as it should).
Another thing is customers do not understand what it takes to get these photos in the first place. And how could they? Look at the advertisements from Canon and Nikon. They talk about how easy it is to get pro-quality photos just by using their gear. So why would Dick and Jane buy expensive photos from Joe Pro when there is no skill involved, its just a matter of buying the right camera?
Closely related to this there is a reason why hobbyist didn't intrude on their markets years ago when the world was all film, and there is a reason why it is happening now. People are buying these pricey digital cameras to take their snapshots, vacation photos, pictures of the kids, etc. And why not use them for sports too? They've already bought the camera, after all. The incremental cost is neglible. And why not sell to their kid's teammates parents as well? The pro's arguments that these parents are neglecting the true cost of capturing these images is an important one and is accurate. However what they fail to realize is Mom and Dad would have bought that camera anyway to get all those other photos. Using it to run a hobby business really is next to nothing in added cost.
A customer of mine who just bought a D70 emailed me and said he started taking a close look at my photos and was amazed at the detail. He asked how many megapixels my camera had. To him it had nothing to do with expensive glass, panning technique, choice of shutter speed, decisions about which direction to photograph based on lighting conditions, work done in post-processing, etc. More pixels obviously means more detail. The fact I shoot "only" 8 million pixels was not believeable to him.
Face it, when people believe its the gear that delivers the image then the value of the person behind that gear is considered to be neglible. And that will impact how much they are willing to spend on the photo.
The last gripe of mine is the hypocrisy I find in the people making these arguments. Those who complain about people undercutting them in one forum will show up in another forum doing the very same thing to some other industry. Talking about buying gear from some online discounter rather then supporting their local biz, which sells at a higher price because they are trying to support a living wage for its employees. Or use free software to run their biz rather than help employ a professional software engineer (if the photo is good enough to own its good enough to pay for...you see where I'm getting at). Or buying cheap imported clothing at Wal Mart instead of keeping some American textile worker employed at a living wage. Its all bad when it impacts them negatively, but they forget all about how they negatively impact other people with their decisions as well.
I rejected an offer two years ago to work with a guy who normally does T&I for youth sports leagues. He told me how he is one of the most expensive in the area, but also one of the best. He competes on quality of image and quality of service, not on price. Good for him. Five minutes later he is telling me how he goes to the local camera outlet to view new products and make a purchase decision, and then leaves to buy it online at a cheaper price. How can you respect a person like that?
Being a hi-tech person I can certainly empathize with people who see their livelihood disappear, and that is exactly what is happening here, make no mistake about that. Event photography is a dying breed for making a living. These people are not crying wolf. But you either need to adapt or jump ship. Staying on-board, attempting to bail water, all the while refusing to believe that things are changing, just doesn't make any sense.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
- Kevin
But what I see in today's market ... is everybody with a P&S thinks they're a photog ... so the $$$ gotta come down to reflect quantity not quality. The photo biz is more Walmart than custom boutique.
Unsharp at any Speed
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
It's one thing if the opportunity is there for the sale. It's another if they could care less who you are! For example, I'm photographing for two local semi-pro teams for free. Sounds crazy, and goes against everything you mentioned. But, they would never hire me in the first place. But I get great stock, exposure, sales from the players, and the best experience I could ask for.
I should have re-thought my statement. I would never offer a free image to a magazine simply because they can and will pay me if they really want the image.
As far as what I charge per job, I don't set me prices based on the fact that "I'm just starting out". My prices are set and final.
- Kevin
I would like to hear your thoughts, and what you disagree on, so I have a chance to redeem myself...if possible.:D
- Kevin
Where I disagree here is with the term "business". I don't see how you can run a profitable business at those prices. But you can certainly subsidize a hobby at those prices. And good luck enforcing your useage clause of those photos on the CD. I was recently asked to quote coverage for a corporate race event. I quoted nearly twice that for a dozen web-resolution images plus some number of 4x6 prints and the ability to purchase more prints. No hi-res files, no CD-ROM at that price. We'll see if they agree but I won't work that hard for any less money.
If you want to actually run a business shooting sports such as soccer tournaments on a speculative basis you are indeed going to need to find a way to get multiple good shots of every kid, not just the stars. You are also going to find yourself awash in thousands of images each day to sort through. And this sheer volume of work is going to make you re-think how much you should be charging for this. Whether the parents will pay the amount of money to make that much work worth your while is an entirely different story.
You and I agree on multiple things but disagree on several important ones. I agree that times are changing and that this is negatively impacting people trying to make a living at this. But you seem to think the "new" model can actually support a business, which I disagree with. Its why I said that the event photography business is a dying breed. What I usually disagree with respect to the Sports Shooter members is the reason behind this and how the genie can be put back in the bottle. You fundamentally cannot tell other people how to run their business. You fundamentally cannot tell other people not to make "side money" off their "hobby". And you can't fundamentally require anyone else to protect your way of life. Not saying its a good thing, not saying it isn't hurting a lot of people's livelihood, just saying that's the way it is.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I'm curious, and please don't think I'm be provacative, but why wouldn't they hire you in the first place? What makes them use you now vs not using you?
Andrew
Next Race - MotoGP Donington
:ivar
Next Race - MotoGP Donington
:ivar
Agreed. We can't run a profitable business. What photographer can that isn't charging a fortune, in which no average person can afford?
As for enforcing the usage, I agree, it's been difficult and I have ran onto a problem with a corporate client. I'm still thinking this through, and will probably eliminate the CD with these type of venues. My original goal was to provide prints/images to people that couldn't afford the higher end photographers with huge print packages. Unfortunately, we couldn't find where to draw the line with corporate and we're having to rethink this.
Agreed!
Understood.
Also, if I seemed scattered with my thoughts, it's because I am!
- Kevin
These are local club teams. Though they are very popular and ranked high, they can barely keep the doors open. I should mention, I contacted them. It's great experience to shoot for these semi-pro teams - in bakersfield, the closest pro team is LA so the semi-pro teams are huge here! For me, that's a very cool opportunity that I wouldn't have if I didn't do it for free.
But it has lead to a problem that I need to face. I photographed the arena football game and within a couple of days, they had all the images on their website - full size, no credit line, free to download. This would be the problem that Bill mentioned!:D
- Kevin
Perhaps the magazine carried little merit or reputation? Perhaps it's circulation was limited or nobody reads the rag? Maybe the work really wasn't as good as you or the magazine editor thought it was? Maybe you didn't take advantage of the situation and the coverage? There are many reasons that a prospective benefitial outcome will not be achieved with a "free one" for the sake of getting your work out there. This doesn't have to be a habit..or the norm..but one should realize the benifits of such an opportunity when it arises.
There are quality oportunities..and then there are some that just won't help your situatiojn. You have to weigh the situation and figure if the gamble of the hand out is worth the return. No guarantees in business..and if it was easy and a sure thing..everyone would be doing it. If you seriously think getting a major cover shot on an important magazine doesn't do anything for your reputation or business prospects...you are not seeing things clearly.
"Osprey Whisperer"
OspreyWhisperer.com
I compete in dog agility. Dogs doing agility make great photos, and they're 2-day events, so there's a marketing opportunity for photos. When I first started 10 years ago, there was a skilled semipro who competed with his dogs, but between runs on Saturday shot photos. That night he'd take 'em to the 1-hour place and show up with 4x6 prints the next day in an envelope or box (or sometimes got fancy & shoved into peel-and-stick albums) and then you'd just grab the ones you wanted & gave him $3 each, maybe $2 each if you bought a bunch. I got tons of photos of my dogs that way. Probably spent $10 or $15 per event for several shots of multiple dogs, a dozen or more times a year.
Then the pros started appearing. They generally weren't competing--they were there solely for the photography. Again, shoot on saturday, show up sunday with elaborate spreads with anywhere from 4x6 to 8x10 cropped, color corrected, etc etc. Beautiful photos. At first you could pick up 4x6s for still about $5 or $6, but that meant that I was only getting 2 photos for my $10-$15, so I had to be selective about which ones I picked.
But, over time, the pros got smart (I guess) & realized they had to put all that time into the 4x6s and not earn back the time they spent. So these days there are still some who spend saturday night at home editng and printing, but they print ONLY 8x10s and only one or 2 of each dog that *they* think turned out well--you don't get a choice for your dog. And they charge $20 to $25 for an 8x10. I can't afford that, so I don't buy photos any more.
Some of them instead (or also) post all the photos on web sites afterwards and you can order 4x6 if you want, but then I have to scroll through dozens or maybe hundreds of photos online and still pay at least $8 per photo, usually $10 I think for 4x6, and when ordered, they don't always look as nice printed as they did online, and so I've bought maybe 2 photos in the last year at that price.
There's one guy who produces in b&w and they are absolutely stunning pictures--he has an eye for personality and movement and all the things that make great photos, but he charges something like $100 each and up. I have never bought any of his. We had a big discussion about the dog agility marketplace once, where I said I thought he'd sell a bunch more at a much lower price even if he didn't do a lot of pro editing. He said he wasn't interested in doing amateur photography--he was a pro and an artist. And apparently he sells maybe 10+ photos per show, so it's not small bucks (in my world view anyway), and he must be getting top $ for them because he keeps coming back and shooting for 2 days and then editing everything & posting them online for orders.
But now here's the thing. Last year I took my camera to a competition and shot (barely adequate) photos all day Saturday, took 'em to a 1-hour printer saturday night, stuck 'em in a box Sunday morning with a sign that said Leave me $2 per photo, and I sold maybe 2/3 of my 100-odd shots, even the really iffy ones, because people were desperate for reasonably priced photos. So that more than paid for the printing AND my entry fee into that competition, plus I got to practice action shots and learn from my mistakes at someone else's expense :-).
So all that long story to say that, even in a fairly limited market, there's room for the cheap amateur, the midpriced pro, and the pricey artiste. I very much doubt that any one of them is stealing a lot of business from any of the others.
-ellen
A cover shot on a MAJOR COVER shot on an IMPORTANT magazine will help one's reputation, but an important magazine would respect a photographer enough to know the photographer expects to get paid for his work.
Personally I wouldn't be interested in any cover shot on any magazine, if they expected to get something for nothing. Obviously if your shot is good enough for the cover, they expect it to sell their magazine, otherwise it wouldn't be there. If they make money, so should the photographer.
Reisiting that carrot that's being dangled is hard to do, but the smarter choice, IMO.
In the end, there are millinons of photographers, and most of those have dreams of being a pro, and quiting their day job. Most however realize it is just that, a dream. :snore
But here's my point, if they're "semi-pro" do they play ball for nothing?
(and again, please don't think I'm ragging on you - your answers are not untypical but hopefully this discussion may open eyes along the way...)
It's the argument I get from some riders and their managers and when confronted with a straightforward reply such as, "does <insert name of racer here> ride for cans of soda or a credit on a banner" an odd puzzled looks appears on their faces, then response is usually, well, so and so gives us pictures for free...
All it wuld need is for you to tell these people, even if you're not asking for a lot of money just to cover expenses and some time, that you need to charge. Provided that your work is good I truly believe that if you stopped, they'd come after you.
Andrew
(PS. I think maybe this thread should be moved to Business thread maybe?)
Next Race - MotoGP Donington
:ivar
Honestly, no, they wouldn't call if I stopped shooting because at that time (this time) they don't need a photographer. When I first contacted them by email, I found out that they were not going to reply to me because they couldn't pay for it.
It may not make sense, but I don't see a "loss" when I get so much exposure for practically free! My only cost is time, which would have been taken on the couch if I wasn't out shooting!:D How much would it cost in advertising to get 20,000 image views from one paintball tournament? But if I tried to charge the owner of the field he would have said NO WAY. That's a lot of exposure that would have been lost.
Because I'm new to the area, I need ALL the exposure I can get. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >
- Kevin
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
All your hard work, getting you that "exposure" you talked about?
If they are posting your images, there is a need for them, if you stop, and your work is worthy, they will call you.
Do they give you any photo credit anywhere? Brochure, PA announcements, posters, webpage link, or in their game adds? If they advertise the games, and they are that huge, I would at least ask to have your site mentioned in that add. Otherwise where is your exposure? I would bet if they found out you sold photos to fans they would want their share...don't you think
As mentioned in the last post, the exposure has been great. As for the problem, I only need to address the situation. The agreement/contract was that all used images would require a credit line. I was only commenting on his statement - "good luck enforcing your usage clause". If they don't follow through, I don't shoot.
Do you charge the track owner to photograph the races? Do you only go when someone has hired you?
- Kevin
When I go to the MX track I also submit an article to two magazines, which is how I get my guarenteed income. The track owner allows me free access to the track, in exchange for covering his tracks 10 race Nuke series, but welcomes me anytime.
I ask the editor of Cycle USA where he would like me to go, so as not to double cover tracks, and this series has been my assignment for the last few seasons. So I guess that means someone has hired me, before I go. I took it upon myself to get into the writing portion, as I knew just taking pics and hoping someone would buy may not make it worth my while.
I have been restricted to Sunday races up until one month ago, because of my real job. Now that I have Friday and Saturday nights free I plan on trying to reach more tracks. Don't worry I still have my real job too, just different hours and days off now.
I'm not saying what you're doing is totally wrong, or that I have it totally right, but you should make sure you are getting credit where credit is due.
Once you (or anyone) get that foot in the door you should start making sure it gets all the way in, and not smashed...
You said the exposure has been great, but you haven't said how you get that exposure....I was curious as to what kind you get. Is it only the players that are aware of what you do?
Can you do anything with the photos other than editorial work? Does the league own the rights to all images...etc?
I have invested time and uploading to promote the bizs. but only go where i feel needed, and sell. And that is what i persue, Sales!
agreed.
Yup. Only the players. But for me, that's a lot more than the nothing I would have if I wasn't shooting. ALL of my print sales have been from these events. I've only been at this for a couple of months and I'll take all the experience I can get!:D
The management has been tied up with tournaments, but next week I'm going to tackle them on some free advertising, as you mentioned.
Nope, just sales to the players. My initial goal was to increase my stock. I had a big gap between film and digital, and all my film stock is outdated. I spent the last three years slaving away and my former job and never had time to shoot. So, right now I'm working hard to "feel comfortable" shooting again, and get some decent "show" material.
I didn't expect this discussion to go THIS far. We all do things different, and we all learn as we go. Though I've been shooting for ~18 years, I'm new to the "business" and I still do it for fun, rather than money. If I made all the previous comments as a hobbiest, rather than a business, I doubt it would have gone this far.
But, I do appreciate all your comments, disagreements, and concerns. Thank you.
- Kevin