which pricing method makes more sense?

kapalua

for portraits?

option 1: session fee $200 + minimum print order of $200

option 2: portrait session: $400, includes $200 print credit

either way, my intent is to make a minimum of $400 per session.

which option do you think is more appealing to potential customers?
thanks.



[URL="http://www.laurencekim.com:scratch"]www.laurencekim.com:scratch[/URL]

AntoineD

option 2, whithout a doubt, but both are… the same

AT least, option 2 seems less mandatory.

Scott_Quier

Like you say, either way it's $400. Now, the question is, payment plans. Does the client pay the $400 up front, do they pay the $200 for the session then come back with the $200 when they want to order the prints?

Option one might well lead to the case where the client doesn't come back for the prints because they all of a sudden have higher priorities for their cash. But, then again, they were there and gave you the first $200. Does the $200 cover your costs for the session?

In the second option, you get the money up front and the burden is on the client to come back and actually place the order. OK, but does the $400 drive away clients that may have sat for the $200? If the client had the $400 for the session, then there is a decent chance that they will have more disposable income to add to the print order, above and beyond the $200 already committed to the prints.

Did this help? I doubt it as I'm sure you've already considered all these points. But, I do hope this did address an aspect of the question that you hade not yet considered.

mercphoto

kapalua wrote:

for portraits?

option 1: session fee $200 + minimum print order of $200

option 2: portrait session: $400, includes $200 print credit

Option 2, but I say that only because I don't know how you would enforce the client coming back for that $200 print order. What if they don't?

Shay Stephens

Charge $400 for the portrait session, with prints being extra. Problem solved :-)