Posted by Anil Rao on December 17, 2006 at 9:36 PM
I have seen numerous examples of photographers getting upset, both here on NPN and elsewhere, because others are giving away their work for free. So what is the real issue? Would it make a difference if instead of giving away my print for free, I just charged $1 for it? How about if I charged $5 or may be $10 for it? What should be the least price that I should ask for that wouldn't get other photographers hopping mad? Who determines this price?
Posted by Steve Foss on December 17, 2006 at 9:58 PM
Anil, to me it's not about whether it's technically "free." Nor is it an issue if you're just giving away a few prints, or selling prints for low prices. Few photographers can make much of a living on print sales alone. But if someone's upset that increasing numbers of hobby photographers are conditioning magazine and Web clients to expect something for nothing, then that photographer's going to get upset when other photographers offer something to those clients for ALMOST nothing.
I know we're talking art, here, but consider a more plebian parallel, if you will. I'm Joe. I'm an office executive by trade, but I'm so interested in carpentry and am so good at it that I've become quite accomplished. And I don't need the money, because I get paid a filthy amount in my real career. I'm so gratified that people will talk about me and my hobby, and it's so much fun to do my hobby, that I do some jobs here and there for friends for nothing (like giving away a few prints). Then I like that so much that I start doing jobs for other clients for $3 an hour, when professionals charge $65 an hour for the same work. My work isn't quite as good as the pros, who put their all into their talents and careers instead of just spending their spare time on it, but it's good enough that people start talking about how cheap I am and that the work is fine for their needs.
Think those folks with their tools have a right to be pissed that they're trying to make a living and a hobbyist is taking work from them?
Posted by Scott Elliot on December 17, 2006 at 10:50 PM
I am an amateur photographer who makes my living at another photographer. One of the joys of my hobby is being able to share my images with friends and relatives. I have no guilt whatever about giving away my photos or making prints for the cost of ink and paper. Being able to share my visions is one of my prime reasons for taking up photography in the first place.
Most of the people who receive my photos would not have bought from a professional if they did not receive my gift. This has cost professionals nothing. Some of the people who have hung my photos in their offices or homes have actually gone on to buy more photos from commercial sources. The pros should be thanking me for creating an interest in photographs, not complaining because I enjoy my hobby.
If they can't do better work than an advanced amateur they should consider another profession in any case.
Anil: the issue is NOT with prints, but with royalty free photography. No one emails me asking for $1 or FREE prints, but I've had plenty of usage requests where the "buyer" was willing to pay nothing more than my name in print and maybe a free copy of the publication. In each case I've said NO, yet they surely found a free image from someone else who was dying to have their name in print.
It's been my limited experience that the tremendous amount of royalty free photography out there has made buyers far less willing to pay a reasonable licensing fee (if they are willing to pay at all).
Posted by Anil Rao on December 18, 2006 at 2:51 AM
Thanks for the replies. The main reason I brought up this question, is because I sometimes get e-mail from photographers who are selling prints for some high $$ values and they are upset that I am offering prints in the same size category for much less. I don't really understand what their issue is. If their work is superior why are they concerned. On the other hand, if they think that my work is better (which I am not too sure about) then shouldn't they be lowering their price instead of asking me to raise mine. It just seems backward to me.
Anil, this is exactly what I do once a year for a week or so around the holidays - I sell prints pretty much for what it costs me to make them (T&M). To me this is not about competition or glory but to stay true to the reason I'm doing photography to begin with, which is to share the experiences and beauty I find in the wilds.
I'm not offering this on an ongoing basis that might threaten anyone's income. A couple of dozen of my prints sold at cost will hardly shake the market.
On the business side (and I know this will get me in trouble) - if your living is based on so precarious a basis that someone can put you out of business with so little effort that they can do it in their spare time - I hate to say this but you really should be making some changes.
Markets are changing, competition drives success for some and change for others. A good business person should be able to predict these tides and adapt. This is not limited to photographers.
I have been working as a professional photographer for more than 30 years. The problem I see is that we don't get paid what we deserve. Would you go to a mechanic and ask them to fix your car for free? If you don't treat your photography professionally then you will not get the respect you deserve. If your work is of professional quality then you should charge accordingly. Ask yourself why are the nature magazines paying the same amount for an image today as they did 30 years ago? Because photographers are willing to give they work away. This doesn’t seem to be as big and issue outside of the nature photography market.
I divide the "free" prints into gifts and contributions. I give some away as gifts to friends and family. I donate some to organizations for their fundraising efforts. If a friend asks for one to pass along, then it's a different matter. Gifts to friends are part of our "household" accounts, no different than going out and buying something, and part of our gift-giving budget. For friends requesting prints, I do them the favor of selling at wholesale, just as I would a business who was going to resell them. Donations or contributions to organizations are accounted as part of our advertizing budget, which is 5% of our gross receipts per year.
For me it's a distinction between personal and business lives.
Posted by Anil Rao on December 18, 2006 at 1:34 PM
> Would you go to a mechanic and ask them to fix your car for free?
We again seem to be confusing two very separate issues. I am not talking about someone asking me to give my work away for free. I am talking about other photographers getting mad at me because I am offering my prints for a much lower price. To use your example, this is like other mechanics in the area getting upset at me because I am offering my services for a lower price.
For what its worth, I will be lowering my prices considerably in the new year. I'd much rather sell several prints at a lower cost than just a handful at some artificially bloated price. If some so called "professional" goes out of business because of this (and I really don't see how my low volume work can do this) that's tough luck.
> we don't get paid what we deserve.
What exactly should one deserve in terms of payment?
I just visited your website and liked what I saw. I also thought that your prices seemed fair and probably in the middle-high end of the market you're targeting, which is just fine. Now, may I ask you a question?
Why do you feel the need, or have the desire, to lower your price? I understand you'd like to sell more of the images than just a handfull, but will you really make-up for the decreased price in increased sales?
You also have a fairly nice description of your printing philosophy and seem to take great pride in your work. Might you not be undervaluing your work if you take the time to care for each image as you describe?
I have a friend who is an amateur sculpture in California. He has fairly good connections in the art world through his wife and set up a meeting with a gallery owner and dealer. He had gotten to the level that he liked his creations and was thinking of selling them in the local (Santa Barbra) art fair each year. The dealer said if she ever saw his work in a public fair she'd never carry him at her gallery. Her point was that you can always back down your prices if a piece doesn't move, but you can rarely raise them successfully, and if they are sold at fairs they lose some of their "prestige".
I think your price really depends on: 1) Why do you photograph?, 2) Why do you sell those photographs?, 3) How seriously do you consider youself an artist?
Just thoughts,
Alex
Posted by Walter Rowe on December 18, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Anil-
You asked who sets the rates that professional photographers charge. The short answer is the photographers do. Here is why they charge the rates they charge.
Professional rates pay for salary, retirement, mortgage, cars, health care, health insurance, auto insurance, utilities, clothes, kids, groceries, household goods, home upkeep, car upkeep, family vacations, business insurance, studio lease, camera equipment, lighting equipment, printers, inks, paper, advertising, postage, packaging, taxes, etc. Those are all reasonable and accurate everyday expenses for any home and any business.
Do photographers deserve a salary? Yes. Do they deserve a retirement savings plan? Yes. Do they deserve to have a house, a car, clothes, food, kids, health care, electricity, water, telephone, vacation and all the rest? Yes. You get the picture (pun intended). Could you pay for all those things on the lower price you want to charge for prints? No. Professional photographers can’t either. That is why they can’t lower their prices to compete with you.
Professional photographers deserve all the same benefits that other professionals receive. That is what makes their rates fair. If you don’t charge fair rates, you aren’t being fair to yourself, and you aren’t being fair to other photographers – even if you don’t depend on photography for your own cost of living. It is true that no single photographer selling at below market rates will put another photographer out of business. However, enough of them will. That is why you see photographers so passionate about your selling prints for such a low price - because you aren't the only one.
With the advent of high quality digital cameras, the market is now saturated with images from people who don’t depend on photography to pay their monthly living expenses. Those people collectively apply a downward pressure on market prices that could eventually prevent full-time professionals from earning enough to live. It is simple supply and demand economics. We don't enter your market and sell the same products for cut throat prices. Don't come into ours and do the same. We will all lose.
Here is another thing for you to consider. Charging market rates lends credibility to you and your work. If you charge below market rates, people will question why you don't charge market rates. They will wonder if maybe your work isn’t that good. Charging market rates says you feel confident about the value of your work and you believe it is worth what you charge for it.
Posted by Joe Becker on December 18, 2006 at 4:14 PM
Anil,
I also looked at your website and liked it. Your prices appear fair in my opinion; the print prices are a bit higher than mine and the mat prices a bit lower. Photography (as a business) is really not that much different than many other businesses. For my day job, I manage a consulting firm that does groundwater and enviromental consulting (we are mostly geologists). At first glance, there isn't much similarity between it and photography as a business. But there really is. Almost any business product or service can be generally thought of as being part of a commodity market or a niche market.
Lower prices are everything in a commodity market, high prices are expected for a niche market. Commodity market items or services are easy to find, typically of lower quality, and cost little. Examples: McDonalds hamburgers, an oil change for your car, royalty-free photos from a micro-agency, or run-of-the mill nature photography prints at an art fair. NIche market items are hard to find or of high quality. Examples: gourmet hamburgers at a high-priced restraunt, engine repairs at the Mercedes dealer, licensed stock photography from a major agency, limited-production gallery prints. To make money, you either have to sell a ton of stuff if your product is in commodity, or a few items if it falls in a niche market. In business, trying to make money with a commodity product is very difficult. Profit margins are very low and you must sell lots of product. A great photography example is stock photography. You can sell a image on the micro-sites for $1 (and get $0.50 commission) and make $100 if you sell the image 200 times. Or you could sell the same image on Alamy for $170 once to make your $100 commission.
In the big picture of all print sales,you, and I for that matter, are pricing our prints more toward the commodity market than the niche market. But it is really more complicated than that. Print selling is not a market. Gallery sales are a market (niche). Art fairs are a market (generally commodity). Web sales are a market (generally commodity). And even within a particular market you can price your items with niche or commodity prices.
I sell prints largely through several art fairs in my local community. My prices at the art fairs are on the high side. There are some photographers I have seen that charge 1/3 or less of what I charge for similarly sized prints. So within my own local art fair market, I have niche market pricing. I sell fewer prints than the other guy, but make a similar amount of money (hopefully) with less effort (yes I like making prints, I just don't like making 500 prints of the same image). You are selling your prints via the web. From what I have seen, your prices are relatively fair for the market you are aiming at. By lowering your prices, you may sell more prints, but you will also have more effort and less chance to do the stuff that I think is fun in photography, going out and taking photos. Alternatively, you make still make the same amount of sales and just make less profit.
Everyone at NPN that sell photography, whether as their sole source of income or simply in their spare time, should remember that once you start selling you are in business. Prices in business are set by the market (and change as the markets change, like stock photography is currently doing as a result of millions of digital cameras in the hands of millions of non-professionals), but you as the photographer get to decide which market you participate in. If you consider yourself an artist with unique work, you really should charge high prices. If you want your work to be seen in lots of places, sell it for a lot less. I personally keep adjusting my prices, but usually in an upward direction.
These other photographers that are complaining about your prices don't understand that. They are pricing their prints in a niche market but think they can sell it like a commodity so they get mad at people who price lower. Forget what they say and do what you want based upon the market you aim for. But if you charge commodity prices, don't expect your work to be highly respected, because it's not priced as such.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on December 18, 2006 at 4:57 PM
Another someone who took a look at your website and pricing. From what I have seen in Central Ohio (yeah, I know, you are out in CA), I really don't see that your pricing is out of line from my observations.
You may want to spend some time on a web search for southern California photographers and see what they are charging. Also keep in mind packaging, presentation, style and subject - are these people competitors? You will probably come out near the lower end of he market, simply because of those competing at the top end.
When I was setting up my pricing list, I did just that. My goal was to end up around the midpoint, or slightly below. For the festivals I have done, I have found that one some weekends, I am nearer the high end, other weekends nearer the low end, which I can live with for now. And the weird part is that when I am near the higher end, I sell better. My product is not any different.
Based on the market you sell to, are you comfortable with the prices you charge?
In any case, ignore the whines of the other photographers. You are definitely not giving your work away and I think your pricing structure is fair.
Well said Walter! Nothing could be closer to the real world of making your living with a camera.
In another venue I was part of a technical team that helped an Alaska fishing lodge that was having financial problems. He priced low, in order to try to reach the sector of the market that couldn't afford the expensive lodges. He was starving to death, hence we were asked to evaluate.
His services and everything else were competitive with the market, but his price was less than half. We interviewed prospective clients, and most shied away because his price seemed too low. "There must be something wrong with the lodge!" most people said.
The business management specialist on our team recommended only one change: Double his prices, but do everything else the same.
over the course of the winter his lodge booked solid for the next summer--- at the doubled rate. After that season he was booked just over two years in advance.
Based on the comments of others and my own experience in business, I'm thinking your price is way too low rather than too high.
Posted by Walter Rowe on December 18, 2006 at 9:05 PM
Anil-
I looked at your images. They are excellent. I see no reason why you should lower your rates.
Contrary to what Dan suggested, I would not ignore the whines of other photographers. They might just be paying you a compliment. They might be saying indirectly that your images are of sufficient quality to command more money than you are charging. Maybe, as Hank related in his fishing lodge example, you should raise your prices. You might find you get more customers due to the credibility the higher prices lend to your images.
Go visit Mountain Light and look at their print prices. They are located in California just like you. Their prices are more than double your prices. Research print prices in your region and set your prices according to your expenses, desired income, and price the competition charges.
I also recommend a new book just published - Best Business Practices for Photographers - by John Harrington. It provides very compelling and confidence building rational for how to set your prices and how to run a photography business like the professional that you are. And lets be clear, you are a professional. You put up a web site and you are selling your work. That makes you a professional. We are all just trying to help you out.
Isn't NPN great!
Posted by Anil Rao on December 18, 2006 at 9:19 PM
Thanks for all the additional comments. A couple of interesting messages comes across after reading the responses above.
1) The apparent worth of a piece of art (photographic print in this case) is dependent on what is being asked for it. 2) As an photographer/artist, I apparently don't have much confidence in my work if I don't charge as much as the other folks in the area (or perhaps I am not serious enough).
This may very well be what the 'pros' have learned from all their experience (in photography and by being in the business for a long time) and if it works for them that's great. However, in my book the value of a piece or art is dependent on its quality and emotional impact, and not some other artificial factor - specially not some "going rate". So I will take the chance of people walking away from my work because they think it is too cheap to own. Personally, I don't really care about that segment of society who thinks something is not nice just because its not expensive.
Posted by Fadil Aziz on December 19, 2006 at 12:55 AM
Anil, I just want to ask you. Say you're a consultant. And you make living by charging clients professionaly for your advice, say by hour. It is your main source of living. Then I just give same consulting as yours in my free time (which I did couple years ago) for almost free, in the same market. What do you think? Are you happy?
I think some people here have made good points & some advices are very constructive and valuable in my humble opinion. But I'm wondering, why you asking for other's opinion if don't want to try to understand different point of view?
I believe to understand why some photographers think differently from you, you should put yourself in their shoes. This way, I believe it will answer better your question despite your marketing strategy.
Posted by Anil Rao on December 19, 2006 at 1:33 AM
Fadil,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your thoughts just as much as those of all the others who have taken the time and effort to post to this thread. I now have a better understanding of why other photographers might have an objection to my marketing strategy.
However, while I respect their need for setting a higher price for their work, I don't see how I can benefit from doing so. I think it is kind of ridiculous to ask me to look at the print pricing at Mountain Light Gallery and then base mine around it. This would only apply if my work was at the same level as that of Galen Rowell and I was equally well known. If Mountain Light Gallerys is asking $x for a 16x20 Rowell print do you think someone would pay the same for a 16x20 from a no-name photographer like me. If I am to make print sales today, the only way I can see it happening is by lowering my prices. Do you have a better suggestion?
I have seen lots of (relatively) unknown photographers hanging prints in gallerys with fancy price tags. Those prints hang there forever! I think its because they have priced their art way outside what the market will bear. I had a few shows in NYC back in 2002 - 2004, where the gallery directors insisted that my 12x18 prints would be offerd at a price that they determined to be appropriate but which I felt was too high. Despite their huge clientle and agressive marketing I only managed to sell 4-5 pieces. Recently, I was showing my work at a co-op gallery where I had put up 16x20 and 22x28 framed prints for the amounts shown on my web-site. Between Nov 2005 and July 2006 I sold 35 of those prints. Mind you, there was hardly any marketing going on at this gallery. Fellow NPNer, Youssef, who came to the opening reception, can confirm that this gallery was off the beaten path with minimal foot traffic. And, folks who think I was going for at a different market segment may be surprised to know that many of those prints purchased from the gallery are now hanging in million dollar homes in Portola Valley, Woodside, Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, etc. which are some of the most affluent communites in the San Francisco Bay Area. However, that isn't what I am proud of. Rather it was the pleasure was knowing that ordinary people with much less to spare were also buying my prints from the same gallery. Many of them personally thanked me for offering art at an affordable price.
Kind regards
Posted by Anil Rao on December 19, 2006 at 2:01 AM
Hi Fadil,
> Anil, I just want to ask you. Say you're a consultant. And you make living by charging
> clients professionaly for your advice, say by hour. It is your main source of living. Then I
> just give same consulting as yours in my free time (which I did couple years ago) for
> almost free, in the same market. What do you think? Are you happy?
To answer your quesion, I don't think I will have a problem. Perhaps, my viewpoint is jaded by the fact that I work in the software industry as a paid professional and have to deal with the open-source/free-software community/revolution on a daily basis.
On the business side ... if your living is based on so precarious a basis that someone can put you out of business with so little effort that they can do it in their spare time... you really should be making some changes.
Bang on the mark.
The photography market has gone through a revolution in that digital has make the business communication side of that market much more readily availiable, easier to accomplish, cheaper, a 24hr process and hence more photographers 'appear' to be appearing.
That said when you chose a profession, any profession, you accept that your fiscal income will be influenced (not exclusively) by;
1) the amount of work you produce
2) the standard you are capiable of producing said work too
3) how much effort you put into selling/marketing that work
4) what the market capacity is for that work and
most definately,
5) how many others are in the same kind of work, Pro or Am; the more participants there are the more likely that you will have to work harder at 1->3
Hence, I have to disagree with the opinion "the problem I see is that we don't get paid what we deserve" for IMHO nobody deserves anything, you have to work for it! If you work hard and somebody wants to buy it you will get paid - the market, your aspirations/ego, and the buyers personal taste dictate if you can compromise, then finalise, on the amount between what you feel it is worth and what they will pay - and it can be a wake up call!
So my 2 cents worth, Anil, sell if for what you want to sell it for, so that it makes you happy not so that it makes others happy! Simply remember in selling at a price you are putting a price on what your work is worth, and people will then percieve your worth from your work - so choose the selling price wisely, especially if you don't need the cash for basic neccessities.
For those who feel that the above advise is wrong and he should set 'their market rate', you are more than welcome to increase your income by working at my profession and set your own market rate - after all it is a democratic 'free commerce' society.
Posted by Steve Foss on December 19, 2006 at 7:59 AM
Walter, in your initial post you said it better than I ever have. And thanks for the book reference. I just ordered it as a Christmas present to myself.
I have to disagree with the notion that anyone deserves to make a living at whatever they choose. If this were true most of us would not be doing the jobs we do. Who wouldn't want to pursue their passion and make a comfortable living at it? Sadly those who do are the exception, not the norm, and most have to make sacrifices to pay the bills.
I know any number of people who would love to make a career in hiking, climbing, photography, acting, and any number of other venues but really, does this mean they inherently deserve to? How many professional hikers do you know who make a good living at it?
Most on this community have the advantage of living in countries where opportunities for making a living are readily available. What about those who live day to day never knowing where their next meal will come from?
Nobody inherently deserves to make a living as a photographer or any other means. By combination of skill, personality, luck, and circumstances some do. This doesn't mean anyone can get out of bed tomorrow and declare "I'm a professional photographer" and expect the cash to start flowing.
Guy
Posted by Dan Borzynski on December 19, 2006 at 9:21 AM
"In any case, ignore the whines of the other photographers. You are definitely not giving your work away and I think your pricing structure is fair."
From Walter's comments
"Contrary to what Dan suggested, I would not ignore the whines of other photographers. They might just be paying you a compliment."
Yeah, I probably should have phrased that a lot better.
If the photographers contacting you are at your level and their prices are reasonable for the market, then yes, pay attention to them. They are telling you something very useful. That is why you need to do some marketing/price research. If on the other hand, they are selling crap... As I wrote that line, I was thinking of an incident where I did have one photographer tell me I was badly underpriced at a gallery, and then walked over to see his work at a second gallery. $450 Cibachromes taped to the wall. Not framed. Not matted. Just taped. And not very good photos.
Posted by Tammy Mellert on December 19, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Well, I usually don't make comments on this type of subject since it seems (according to all that know me) that I am very critical of my work. Therefore, I under charge my work. I took a look at your site and for me your prices are too low.
I have spent the last seven years trying to work as a photographer and photographing people. It took me months to set my prices and lots of research into the market. I finally decided that it had nothing to do with the market but with how people feel when they see your photographs. Emotions and how they relate to people drive what we buy, especially in photography. Each photograph we take is an extension of us. When that picture was taken of that subject, a part of who we are goes into the image. We saw soemthing in that subject that moved us to take the photo. Each person will see that same subject differently no matter what angle, lighting, or equipment used. For some people that subject strikes their fancy but for others it is just color on paper. Somewhere along the line, we (as photographers) lose site of the fact that it was something other than the possible price tag it will bear on a wall that moved to take that image. That thought comes only after we see the final image.
Last year I hung 15 of what I thought were my best images in a coffee house for two weeks. They allow local artists to display and sell (if you want) their art. I didn't price my work for sale since that is not why I hung them to begin with. The feelings I got from seeing people look at them and the comments the owner was getting was more than any photo could have sold for.
Ok, Oprah moment over - here is the bottom line. You priced those photo's the way you did for a reason - no matter what that is. You lower them and you devaluie not only the work but the reason you took them. People complaining about your prices and what you do with your work need to take a long hard look at their own. Something could have happened that day that had nothing to do with you but you were the convient one to stirke out at. Also, a wise friend once told me that you don't get six-pack abs by eating McDonalds. You need to step up the game a little bit. Aren't we all here to help drive each other to do better. Well, those people just gave you reason to make them complain. Its a dog-eat-dog world and only you can choose to wear milk bone underwear. Muscians don't reduce the price of their CD's that don't sell well. They get back in the studio and try again making the next one better. So get behind your camera, keep making those beautiful images, and give'm hell!
Just my opinion for what its worth.
Tammy Mellert
NE Ohio
Posted by Walter Rowe on December 19, 2006 at 12:51 PM
John Christopher said:
> An analogy... Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and a bunch of other rich guys can decide to give
> away their fortunes in the form of free HIV drugs, and still not make a dent in the overall
> Pharmaceuticals market.
That's because Bill Gates and Warren Buffet purchase those medications from the pharmaceutical makers. The pharmaceutical makers are still getting paid. The beneficiaries get their much needed medications at the expense of an intermediary, not at the expense of the pharmaceutical makers. If it were at the expense of the pharmaceutical makers, it would impact their health as a business.
Anil is trying to understand why photographers get upset when people price their work too low or give it away for free. The reason is that it devalues the art. No just their art, but everyone's art.
I agree that the true value of a photograph isn't represented by the numbers on the price tag but rather by how it emotionally impacts those who view it. I also agree that this is different for every person who sees that photograph.
Posted by Anil Rao on December 19, 2006 at 3:14 PM
Appreciate the additional comments/viewpoints. Despite the fact that this is a touchy subject, I am very pleased to see that we are discussing this in a nice and cordial manner. Thank you all for participating.
> Tammy wrote:
> You lower them and you devaluie not only the work but the reason you took them.
Tammy, can you kindly explain what you meant when you said the above. Why do you think that my photographs and the reason behind their making will be devalued if I lower the price? If for a moment I did accept your theory, then going by the same logic doubling or trippling my price should result in the value of my work instantly shooting up? Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
Posted by Richard Wong on December 19, 2006 at 5:43 PM
I don't think you're devaluing yourself or anybody else. It's not like your prices aren't exactly pocket change. Perhaps for Steve Jobs and everyone else who lives in Palo Alto but not for most people. I'd love to own most of Galen Rowell's photos hanging at Mountain LIght but I own none because I can't afford to. But if I were inclined to, I could probably afford a piece of art from Anil Rao. What is wrong with that?
Am I devaluing my own self image by driving a Toyota as opposed to a Lexus. My car works, and I like it. I don't care how much it's worth because I'm not planning on selling it ever.
"You lower them and you devaluie not only the work but the reason you took them."
Last time I checked Anil wasn't an advertising photographer.
Posted by Tammy Mellert on December 19, 2006 at 7:34 PM
Ok, so you have all missed the point I was trying to make. It has nothing to do with money or material value. It has to do with the reason you took that particular picture in that particular manner on that particular day. I could care less what price is placed on the picures or how much people charge for them. You place the price on a picture based on what you think it is worth and not what others feel it is worth. I would also love to own some other photographers work but also can't afford them. That doesn't mean that someone else down the line can and will buy them. I won't lower the price of my work since to me it is worth the price I have placed on it. If someone won't buy my work, oh well - I move on. I contemplated doing just that with my wedding photography since it seemed to come to halt early last year. I decided not to do that since for me people were getting what they paid for and sometimes more. To Me ( and I am saying this for me before it is taken wrong again), if I lowered my prices I am saying my work is less then what I feel it is worth based on what others say to me. Like I said before, I don't care about the money part of it - never have and never will - I price my work based on what it means to me. No one else!
A car is a luxury item. Yes, some people do put their self worth and image into a car but then again those people are rich and can afford such luxury. Photographers making ends meet with their work can not. If I never make a million dollars, then that is fine.
I will end this now since I know someone is gonna pick it apart again and find something else. I should have never commented but I felt the need. Good luck!
Tammy Mellert
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on December 19, 2006 at 9:36 PM
Some somewhat random thoughts.
You ask why someone would pay the same for a 16x 20 Galen Rowell print as they would for a relatively unknown. Your 16 x 20 limited edition is already much less then half of Galen’s unlimited edition price ($475 vs. $150). Maybe you have already instituted your reduced print pricing – sorry I’m late to the show.
Even your current print pricing seems fair to me.
I see a lot of photographers lower their pricing because they don’t feel like marketing, They believe if they are cheap enough, buyers will find them. I have yet to see this work. McDonalds does as much if not more marketing as your high-end restaurants.
I think the demand for prints is somewhat inelastic – I wonder if this has ever been studied. In other words, if you cut your prices in half, I don’t think you would double your sales. Maybe if your market was college students it would be different, low cost posters probably rule here, but not home print buyers.
People buying your prints for their walls are going to have to look at them for years to come – is $20 going to make a difference? I have found that a photo either strikes a person (place they have visited or maybe the image hits an emotion) or it doesn’t, I don’t think cutting the price is going to turn a non-buyer into a buyer. We have had people ordering this week with overnight shipping from Alaska to make it by Christmas – gosh they aren’t hesitating at paying as much for shipping as they are the print!
So much of marketing is perception. Hank gives a good example. I remember a marketing class in grad school that had us blind taste test various brands of beer (fun class by the way). It was interesting how many preferred the cheap junk brands over the fancy expensive ones. I already knew I was good with the cheaps ones. lol
I have always wanted to try an experiment placing a limited number of prints on a very nice website and pricing them very high ($1,000 +) just to see what would happen. It would have to be done just right with lots of marketing, details on each print and the photographer, but I think it could work for the right person. As a high volume stock shooter, it wouldn’t be a good fit for me.
Anil, having you been shooting / selling for long?
Posted by Anil Rao on December 20, 2006 at 3:54 AM
Hello Ron,
Thanks for joining in. To answer your question, I have been shooting for quite some time but have started selling prints only for the last 3 years. I don't sell through a stock agency and don't do assignment work.
My main reason for lowering prices is not to overcome lack of sales. I believe I am selling enough. I just want to be able to make my prints available to folks who may not necessarily be able to afford my current prices. To many this may not be a concern but for me it is.
Posted by Brad Sharp on December 22, 2006 at 2:20 PM
I found this whole dialog very interesting. I would like to comment on each point that has been made, but in the interest of time, I will forgo those thoughts. I believe your original question Anil, was "Who determines this price" (referring to selling prints). The answer of course is you. Until all professional photographers get together to form a union, and establish minimum rates their work (like the actor's guild), there will be no standard pricing.
And even if there were I think you would find that the prices would vary, as they do now. Pricing is determined by several factors, which makes setting a standard very difficult. For example, if you were to have a gallery show, in an expensive gallery in Park City, you would charge much more for your prints than if you just offered them on line. If you sell your images to an advertising agency, you would ask much more than if you were to sell them to a newspaper. Modeling and product shots sell for more than nature and wildlife shots. Eagle prints will sell more than prints of sparrows.
I just recently submitted some images to Getty, and found that their requirements for submission were very detailed – 14 pages of guidelines to be followed exactly. Then they screen all images that are submitted, and only post the best. Buyers who want the best will shop there, and pay more for the images. I inquired with a different stock agency and they said they would be happy to represent me, and all they did was look at my web site. My point is that prices will vary depending on who your market is.
If you have your prints on a web site, or sell prints at an art fair, you need to place a price on your work. However, it’s just the opposite if you want to sell your images for publication. Then you would contact the publication and they will tell you what they will pay for your image. They determine the price and you determine if you want to sell to them. Here again, there are different layers. Some publications won’t even look at your work unless you have been published many times, with very reputable publications. Others will pay you very little, but it’s not hard to get your work published with them.
I guess a good analogy is that you can sell your prints at Wal-Mart prices, or at Rodeo Drive prices. And it doesn’t always have to do with quality. Sad to say, some people will buy something really bad, even if it’s priced really high.
In addition to the pricing changing depending on where you sell your prints, the each print could sell for a different price. If there is a print that is very popular, you could sell it for much more than a print that hasn’t moved at all in the last year.
Now, having said all that, there is a standard price for selling stock images: http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm As you can see from this site, images are priced on how they will be used, and how big the publication is that they will be featured in.
Bottom line is, price your prints the way you want to, and don’t worry about the other guy. There will always be someone who will price their prints cheaper, and some people who will buy them. On the other hand, there are some people who won’t buy the cheaper prints, even if they are as good, because they feel the price determines the quality.
Posted by Fadil Aziz on December 25, 2006 at 1:16 AM
>>My main reason for lowering prices is not to overcome lack of sales. I believe I am selling enough. I just want to be able to make my prints available to folks who may not necessarily be able to afford my current prices. To many this may not be a concern but for me it is. >>
I can see from this statement that Anil's motif is not purely economic. He wants to make his prints more available to more people though I believe Ron is right regarding the price elasticity. Pure economic motif like marketing strategy, impact of pricing on selling and the perceived value, or price is a value reference (though all of these are right) is not totally "makes sense" for Anil (sorry if my wording not entirely appropriate).
Hopefully we understand now that it's a bit difficult to "synchronize" these two different poles. However, imho the poster should also realize that selling is an economic activity too, so passing some economic motif arguments is very reasonable. We won't argue the pro bono, will we?
Remember, one thing that can reduce some "destructive" impact on lowering price is to use discount. Anil or anyone can use this method, giving some discounts, whether the price discount or volume discount, like "purchase two prints and you will get three". The price still remains the same though. The bottom line is you're making it more affordable/giving more.
Second, different backgrounds also contribute to the opinion ones make. People who selling art print as their main business will likely responding negatively to the price cutting, whatever the reason. On the other hand, hobbyist, or someone who earn income from other source naturally tend not very sensitive with this issue.
Hopefully thinking about these motif and background will make a better understanding on this topic.
Brad, I also use stockprice calculator. It's helpful as a guidance.
Posted by Rick Dunn on December 27, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Anyone who gets upset because other photographers are charging "too little" for their prints is either missing or ignoring the most fundemental concept of business, and that misunderstanding is more of a threat to them than low-priced prints ever could be. The argument that price determines the value of the art is totally backwards; the value of the product determines what a buyer will pay for it (largely independent of the 'price').
I have a lot of respect for the folks who make their living with photography, but anyone who bases their prices on what they think they "deserve" is on very unstable ground. On any meaningful scale, supply and demand define the value of a product or service in a free market economy. So, if your business is threatened by a lower priced competitor, adapt (i.e., differentiate your product from the competition) or lose the business.
Professional photographers trying to put price pressure on the "supply" end of the supply-demand relationship will never succeed. Digital cameras and the internet have irreversibly affected the supply - and more importantly the marketing/accessibility - of images available for usage or printing. Unless the demand has increased proportionally, prices will fall unless the product can be differentiated from the rest.
Posted by Josh Anderson on December 27, 2006 at 11:40 PM
Another photographer actually had the audacity to ask you to lower your prices? Unbelievable.
People shoot for different reasons. Some do it for a profession, some for the passion to express oneself and some for purely a hobby.
I just began shooting seriously for less than two years. For now it is the passion of the outdoors and a way to share my experiences with others. I have found out that I could probably make a living from it, but I am not sure if that is something I want to do at this point. In other words, I’m not sure if I want to ruin to a good hobby.
I wouldn’t worry what others think. Follow your heart.
Posted by Anil Rao on December 28, 2006 at 2:49 AM
Another photographer actually had the audacity to ask you to lower your prices? Unbelievable.
Josh, they weren't asking me to lower my prices; rather they were upset at my low prices and wanted me to raise them.
Posted by Josh Anderson on December 28, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Anil, I have now idea why I wrote 'lower your prices' instead of raising your prices. I did actually read the discussion last night.
Josh
Posted by Gary Crabbe on January 4, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Boy, so sorry I missed this Anil.
To be honest, I think for the bulk of the images on your web site, the prices you charge are fair to a bit low. I think if you are trying to make an affordable option, keep it to the smaller size prints, and have the larger one reflect the market a little closer. However, you have a number of extraordinarily artistic images that I think are almost a shame to sell large prints for so little. Seriously, they should be like special fine works of art. I've often said the photographer should care about the artistic value of their personal vision, and not just dollars based on x-amount of $$$ per square inch of paper.
Actually, I think it is the buyer who eventually determines the price. I was told by a potential buyer that I do not charge enough. I asked for 150 dollars for a matted 11x 14 print. In Dan Elster's thread "Is it Ethical..." a buyer bought a print for 350 dollars and then is selling it in her gallery for 1800 Obviously she thinks the print is worth more than 350. If you have what the buyer wants then he will be willing to pay any reasonable price, despite the droves of photographers who are giving their work away. I think photographers should only get upset if you are deliberately luring buyers away from them by offering "Photos for Sale: Cheap." By that I mean the other photographer has a potential buyer and you approach him with your offer.
I believe marketing and promotional skills play a big part in the success of a photographer. And not a price war.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Dan Truong on January 9, 2007 at 5:34 AM
Anil,
I finally kinda went through this thread we had discussed a while back. I'm not gonna comment on the pricing because (1) I don't sell, and (2) I'm barely good enough to criticize... I would I'd be happy just to get pennies from a stock company.
However I am gonna comment on your attitude towards the answers to make you do some introspection. You asked for opinion and advice, because part of you wants to hear why people react a certain way. A surprising number of people have been responding, probably because you have earned their respect from your seriousness, dedication, and quality of photography.
However, I noticed you tend to camp on your position and still do not budge in your opinions, and I think it's not right. Lucky for you you're often right :). We all tend to behave like that of course but it's a little childish. So I invite you to clean the slate, project yourself in the position and state of mind of people who posted opposing viewpoints, and try to use their arguments used to convince you (play devil's advocate). Maybe you'll acknowledge their point more readily and be less dismissive about it.
I suspect you are more interrested in having people looking at your work than getting money from a select few - you have a robin hood tendency and the desire for recognition.
As someone who's job is also threatened by freeware and Linux, I also understand the heat, it is adapt or decay. So when Linux takes over hopefully I'll be able to move on :) There's no point hating it. In fact I like having Linux for my webserver! I just try to hold it off by giving as much added value as I can to keep it a step ahead.
Howerver not everybody thinks like that and that's why we have unions and custom taxes to level the field. So though it's not your fault if a photographer can't put his kid through college, you're part of the problem and must understand the grief...
The problem is that 40 years ago, taking a decent shot required skill, knowing the camera, understanding the light and mastering the development process. Today any moron can get a lucky shot & put it online for free, one that beats famous shots in a gallery - done 40 years ago because the hardware now is so good and so forgiving.
To be a pro, you gotta be a big step ahead. That includes having good PR and name recognition, high-end equipment to make photos that stand out, but also a lot of creativity to go past what john smith will think of shooting with his camera.
That's where I think you're (kinda) percieved as a threat: You have that creativity in your shots, so you're more than that death by 1000 cuts, you're a gouge.
You told me you chose rocks as a study topic because it was rarely done, and it was an easy subject (because it doesn't move). Well, that gives you a signature by which people here and your customers know you, and likely something that makes you stand out enough you could get name recognition. When I see some of your pics I go ah yeah, that one's anil's. BTW, the only shot I have of you at home, when people look at what I have, they often stop on yours - I think because it's abstract and so different from what I take -.
How about this solution:
You could put an artist statement note on the pricing/ordering page emphasizing your philosophy that you don't want money to be the limiting factor for people to appreciate your work, and so you state the minimum price (at cost), the suggested price that kind of work usually go for and note that says the customer should pay whatever he feels is a fair price that he thinks it is worth... you want your art to be accessible for people with more modest income, which is why the minimum price is listed. Kinda like donationware or shareware.
The reason I say this is in the US, many people have the strong notion of fairness, and would not concieve cheating you, especially if money is no object, and the price they'd pay would be part coming from the percieved value. Also some would take pride in actually dumping 2X or 3X what you list.
BTW, I kinda agree that in the US if you're cheap then you're cheap. Proof of concept: there's no distinction in the phrasing of the two! That is the money driven state of mind here, even for intelligent people. The above solution would not make you percieved as cheap, allow you to collect when possible, yet be accessible to those not willing or capable of paying up.
Downside: if you become too successfull you'll have to raise your prices because you'll have to process too many orders. I wish you that problem Then you can start making volume cibachrome prints for a discount.
Thanks for chipping in. My main reason for posting this thread was to try and find out why other photographers might object to my pricing scheme. Thanks to the many responses here, I now have a better understanding of some of the possible reasons. However, just because I asked a question and have been given some advice it doesn't mean that I have to accept it. I am not saying that the others are wrong - its just that I don't happen to agree with their viewpoint for my own needs.
Your suggestion of keeping the prices low and then asking for added donations is interesting. I will have to think about this some more.
BTW, I think Guy [Tal] summed things up pretty well in his post above.
Discussion
41 repliesI know we're talking art, here, but consider a more plebian parallel, if you will. I'm Joe. I'm an office executive by trade, but I'm so interested in carpentry and am so good at it that I've become quite accomplished. And I don't need the money, because I get paid a filthy amount in my real career. I'm so gratified that people will talk about me and my hobby, and it's so much fun to do my hobby, that I do some jobs here and there for friends for nothing (like giving away a few prints). Then I like that so much that I start doing jobs for other clients for $3 an hour, when professionals charge $65 an hour for the same work. My work isn't quite as good as the pros, who put their all into their talents and careers instead of just spending their spare time on it, but it's good enough that people start talking about how cheap I am and that the work is fine for their needs.
Think those folks with their tools have a right to be pissed that they're trying to make a living and a hobbyist is taking work from them?
Most of the people who receive my photos would not have bought from a professional if they did not receive my gift. This has cost professionals nothing. Some of the people who have hung my photos in their offices or homes have actually gone on to buy more photos from commercial sources. The pros should be thanking me for creating an interest in photographs, not complaining because I enjoy my hobby.
If they can't do better work than an advanced amateur they should consider another profession in any case.
It's been my limited experience that the tremendous amount of royalty free photography out there has made buyers far less willing to pay a reasonable licensing fee (if they are willing to pay at all).
I'm not offering this on an ongoing basis that might threaten anyone's income. A couple of dozen of my prints sold at cost will hardly shake the market.
On the business side (and I know this will get me in trouble) - if your living is based on so precarious a basis that someone can put you out of business with so little effort that they can do it in their spare time - I hate to say this but you really should be making some changes.
Markets are changing, competition drives success for some and change for others. A good business person should be able to predict these tides and adapt. This is not limited to photographers.
Guy
For me it's a distinction between personal and business lives.
We again seem to be confusing two very separate issues. I am not talking about someone asking me to give my work away for free. I am talking about other photographers getting mad at me because I am offering my prints for a much lower price. To use your example, this is like other mechanics in the area getting upset at me because I am offering my services for a lower price.
For what its worth, I will be lowering my prices considerably in the new year. I'd much rather sell several prints at a lower cost than just a handful at some artificially bloated price. If some so called "professional" goes out of business because of this (and I really don't see how my low volume work can do this) that's tough luck.
> we don't get paid what we deserve.
What exactly should one deserve in terms of payment?
I just visited your website and liked what I saw. I also thought that your prices seemed fair and probably in the middle-high end of the market you're targeting, which is just fine. Now, may I ask you a question?
Why do you feel the need, or have the desire, to lower your price? I understand you'd like to sell more of the images than just a handfull, but will you really make-up for the decreased price in increased sales?
You also have a fairly nice description of your printing philosophy and seem to take great pride in your work. Might you not be undervaluing your work if you take the time to care for each image as you describe?
I have a friend who is an amateur sculpture in California. He has fairly good connections in the art world through his wife and set up a meeting with a gallery owner and dealer. He had gotten to the level that he liked his creations and was thinking of selling them in the local (Santa Barbra) art fair each year. The dealer said if she ever saw his work in a public fair she'd never carry him at her gallery. Her point was that you can always back down your prices if a piece doesn't move, but you can rarely raise them successfully, and if they are sold at fairs they lose some of their "prestige".
I think your price really depends on: 1) Why do you photograph?, 2) Why do you sell those photographs?, 3) How seriously do you consider youself an artist?
Just thoughts,
Alex
You asked who sets the rates that professional photographers charge. The short answer is the photographers do. Here is why they charge the rates they charge.
Professional rates pay for salary, retirement, mortgage, cars, health care, health insurance, auto insurance, utilities, clothes, kids, groceries, household goods, home upkeep, car upkeep, family vacations, business insurance, studio lease, camera equipment, lighting equipment, printers, inks, paper, advertising, postage, packaging, taxes, etc. Those are all reasonable and accurate everyday expenses for any home and any business.
Do photographers deserve a salary? Yes. Do they deserve a retirement savings plan? Yes. Do they deserve to have a house, a car, clothes, food, kids, health care, electricity, water, telephone, vacation and all the rest? Yes. You get the picture (pun intended). Could you pay for all those things on the lower price you want to charge for prints? No. Professional photographers can’t either. That is why they can’t lower their prices to compete with you.
Professional photographers deserve all the same benefits that other professionals receive. That is what makes their rates fair. If you don’t charge fair rates, you aren’t being fair to yourself, and you aren’t being fair to other photographers – even if you don’t depend on photography for your own cost of living. It is true that no single photographer selling at below market rates will put another photographer out of business. However, enough of them will. That is why you see photographers so passionate about your selling prints for such a low price - because you aren't the only one.
With the advent of high quality digital cameras, the market is now saturated with images from people who don’t depend on photography to pay their monthly living expenses. Those people collectively apply a downward pressure on market prices that could eventually prevent full-time professionals from earning enough to live. It is simple supply and demand economics. We don't enter your market and sell the same products for cut throat prices. Don't come into ours and do the same. We will all lose.
Here is another thing for you to consider. Charging market rates lends credibility to you and your work. If you charge below market rates, people will question why you don't charge market rates. They will wonder if maybe your work isn’t that good. Charging market rates says you feel confident about the value of your work and you believe it is worth what you charge for it.
I also looked at your website and liked it. Your prices appear fair in my opinion; the print prices are a bit higher than mine and the mat prices a bit lower. Photography (as a business) is really not that much different than many other businesses. For my day job, I manage a consulting firm that does groundwater and enviromental consulting (we are mostly geologists). At first glance, there isn't much similarity between it and photography as a business. But there really is. Almost any business product or service can be generally thought of as being part of a commodity market or a niche market.
Lower prices are everything in a commodity market, high prices are expected for a niche market. Commodity market items or services are easy to find, typically of lower quality, and cost little. Examples: McDonalds hamburgers, an oil change for your car, royalty-free photos from a micro-agency, or run-of-the mill nature photography prints at an art fair. NIche market items are hard to find or of high quality. Examples: gourmet hamburgers at a high-priced restraunt, engine repairs at the Mercedes dealer, licensed stock photography from a major agency, limited-production gallery prints. To make money, you either have to sell a ton of stuff if your product is in commodity, or a few items if it falls in a niche market. In business, trying to make money with a commodity product is very difficult. Profit margins are very low and you must sell lots of product. A great photography example is stock photography. You can sell a image on the micro-sites for $1 (and get $0.50 commission) and make $100 if you sell the image 200 times. Or you could sell the same image on Alamy for $170 once to make your $100 commission.
In the big picture of all print sales,you, and I for that matter, are pricing our prints more toward the commodity market than the niche market. But it is really more complicated than that. Print selling is not a market. Gallery sales are a market (niche). Art fairs are a market (generally commodity). Web sales are a market (generally commodity). And even within a particular market you can price your items with niche or commodity prices.
I sell prints largely through several art fairs in my local community. My prices at the art fairs are on the high side. There are some photographers I have seen that charge 1/3 or less of what I charge for similarly sized prints. So within my own local art fair market, I have niche market pricing. I sell fewer prints than the other guy, but make a similar amount of money (hopefully) with less effort (yes I like making prints, I just don't like making 500 prints of the same image). You are selling your prints via the web. From what I have seen, your prices are relatively fair for the market you are aiming at. By lowering your prices, you may sell more prints, but you will also have more effort and less chance to do the stuff that I think is fun in photography, going out and taking photos. Alternatively, you make still make the same amount of sales and just make less profit.
Everyone at NPN that sell photography, whether as their sole source of income or simply in their spare time, should remember that once you start selling you are in business. Prices in business are set by the market (and change as the markets change, like stock photography is currently doing as a result of millions of digital cameras in the hands of millions of non-professionals), but you as the photographer get to decide which market you participate in. If you consider yourself an artist with unique work, you really should charge high prices. If you want your work to be seen in lots of places, sell it for a lot less. I personally keep adjusting my prices, but usually in an upward direction.
These other photographers that are complaining about your prices don't understand that. They are pricing their prints in a niche market but think they can sell it like a commodity so they get mad at people who price lower. Forget what they say and do what you want based upon the market you aim for. But if you charge commodity prices, don't expect your work to be highly respected, because it's not priced as such.
You may want to spend some time on a web search for southern California photographers and see what they are charging. Also keep in mind packaging, presentation, style and subject - are these people competitors? You will probably come out near the lower end of he market, simply because of those competing at the top end.
When I was setting up my pricing list, I did just that. My goal was to end up around the midpoint, or slightly below. For the festivals I have done, I have found that one some weekends, I am nearer the high end, other weekends nearer the low end, which I can live with for now. And the weird part is that when I am near the higher end, I sell better. My product is not any different.
Based on the market you sell to, are you comfortable with the prices you charge?
In any case, ignore the whines of the other photographers. You are definitely not giving your work away and I think your pricing structure is fair.
In another venue I was part of a technical team that helped an Alaska fishing lodge that was having financial problems. He priced low, in order to try to reach the sector of the market that couldn't afford the expensive lodges. He was starving to death, hence we were asked to evaluate.
His services and everything else were competitive with the market, but his price was less than half. We interviewed prospective clients, and most shied away because his price seemed too low. "There must be something wrong with the lodge!" most people said.
The business management specialist on our team recommended only one change: Double his prices, but do everything else the same.
over the course of the winter his lodge booked solid for the next summer--- at the doubled rate. After that season he was booked just over two years in advance.
Based on the comments of others and my own experience in business, I'm thinking your price is way too low rather than too high.
I looked at your images. They are excellent. I see no reason why you should lower your rates.
Contrary to what Dan suggested, I would not ignore the whines of other photographers. They might just be paying you a compliment. They might be saying indirectly that your images are of sufficient quality to command more money than you are charging. Maybe, as Hank related in his fishing lodge example, you should raise your prices. You might find you get more customers due to the credibility the higher prices lend to your images.
Go visit Mountain Light and look at their print prices. They are located in California just like you. Their prices are more than double your prices. Research print prices in your region and set your prices according to your expenses, desired income, and price the competition charges.
I also recommend a new book just published - Best Business Practices for Photographers - by John Harrington. It provides very compelling and confidence building rational for how to set your prices and how to run a photography business like the professional that you are. And lets be clear, you are a professional. You put up a web site and you are selling your work. That makes you a professional. We are all just trying to help you out.
Isn't NPN great!
1) The apparent worth of a piece of art (photographic print in this case) is dependent on what is being asked for it. 2) As an photographer/artist, I apparently don't have much confidence in my work if I don't charge as much as the other folks in the area (or perhaps I am not serious enough).
This may very well be what the 'pros' have learned from all their experience (in photography and by being in the business for a long time) and if it works for them that's great. However, in my book the value of a piece or art is dependent on its quality and emotional impact, and not some other artificial factor - specially not some "going rate". So I will take the chance of people walking away from my work because they think it is too cheap to own. Personally, I don't really care about that segment of society who thinks something is not nice just because its not expensive.
I think some people here have made good points & some advices are very constructive and valuable in my humble opinion. But I'm wondering, why you asking for other's opinion if don't want to try to understand different point of view?
I believe to understand why some photographers think differently from you, you should put yourself in their shoes. This way, I believe it will answer better your question despite your marketing strategy.
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your thoughts just as much as those of all the others who have taken the time and effort to post to this thread. I now have a better understanding of why other photographers might have an objection to my marketing strategy.
However, while I respect their need for setting a higher price for their work, I don't see how I can benefit from doing so. I think it is kind of ridiculous to ask me to look at the print pricing at Mountain Light Gallery and then base mine around it. This would only apply if my work was at the same level as that of Galen Rowell and I was equally well known. If Mountain Light Gallerys is asking $x for a 16x20 Rowell print do you think someone would pay the same for a 16x20 from a no-name photographer like me. If I am to make print sales today, the only way I can see it happening is by lowering my prices. Do you have a better suggestion?
I have seen lots of (relatively) unknown photographers hanging prints in gallerys with fancy price tags. Those prints hang there forever! I think its because they have priced their art way outside what the market will bear. I had a few shows in NYC back in 2002 - 2004, where the gallery directors insisted that my 12x18 prints would be offerd at a price that they determined to be appropriate but which I felt was too high. Despite their huge clientle and agressive marketing I only managed to sell 4-5 pieces. Recently, I was showing my work at a co-op gallery where I had put up 16x20 and 22x28 framed prints for the amounts shown on my web-site. Between Nov 2005 and July 2006 I sold 35 of those prints. Mind you, there was hardly any marketing going on at this gallery. Fellow NPNer, Youssef, who came to the opening reception, can confirm that this gallery was off the beaten path with minimal foot traffic. And, folks who think I was going for at a different market segment may be surprised to know that many of those prints purchased from the gallery are now hanging in million dollar homes in Portola Valley, Woodside, Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, etc. which are some of the most affluent communites in the San Francisco Bay Area. However, that isn't what I am proud of. Rather it was the pleasure was knowing that ordinary people with much less to spare were also buying my prints from the same gallery. Many of them personally thanked me for offering art at an affordable price.
Kind regards
> Anil, I just want to ask you. Say you're a consultant. And you make living by charging
> clients professionaly for your advice, say by hour. It is your main source of living. Then I
> just give same consulting as yours in my free time (which I did couple years ago) for
> almost free, in the same market. What do you think? Are you happy?
To answer your quesion, I don't think I will have a problem. Perhaps, my viewpoint is jaded by the fact that I work in the software industry as a paid professional and have to deal with the open-source/free-software community/revolution on a daily basis.
Bang on the mark.
The photography market has gone through a revolution in that digital has make the business communication side of that market much more readily availiable, easier to accomplish, cheaper, a 24hr process and hence more photographers 'appear' to be appearing.
That said when you chose a profession, any profession, you accept that your fiscal income will be influenced (not exclusively) by;
1) the amount of work you produce
2) the standard you are capiable of producing said work too
3) how much effort you put into selling/marketing that work
4) what the market capacity is for that work and
most definately,
5) how many others are in the same kind of work, Pro or Am; the more participants there are the more likely that you will have to work harder at 1->3
Hence, I have to disagree with the opinion "the problem I see is that we don't get paid what we deserve" for IMHO nobody deserves anything, you have to work for it! If you work hard and somebody wants to buy it you will get paid - the market, your aspirations/ego, and the buyers personal taste dictate if you can compromise, then finalise, on the amount between what you feel it is worth and what they will pay - and it can be a wake up call!
So my 2 cents worth, Anil, sell if for what you want to sell it for, so that it makes you happy not so that it makes others happy! Simply remember in selling at a price you are putting a price on what your work is worth, and people will then percieve your worth from your work - so choose the selling price wisely, especially if you don't need the cash for basic neccessities.
For those who feel that the above advise is wrong and he should set 'their market rate', you are more than welcome to increase your income by working at my profession and set your own market rate - after all it is a democratic 'free commerce' society.
I know any number of people who would love to make a career in hiking, climbing, photography, acting, and any number of other venues but really, does this mean they inherently deserve to? How many professional hikers do you know who make a good living at it?
Most on this community have the advantage of living in countries where opportunities for making a living are readily available. What about those who live day to day never knowing where their next meal will come from?
Nobody inherently deserves to make a living as a photographer or any other means. By combination of skill, personality, luck, and circumstances some do. This doesn't mean anyone can get out of bed tomorrow and declare "I'm a professional photographer" and expect the cash to start flowing.
Guy
From Walter's comments
"Contrary to what Dan suggested, I would not ignore the whines of other photographers. They might just be paying you a compliment."
Yeah, I probably should have phrased that a lot better.
If the photographers contacting you are at your level and their prices are reasonable for the market, then yes, pay attention to them. They are telling you something very useful. That is why you need to do some marketing/price research. If on the other hand, they are selling crap... As I wrote that line, I was thinking of an incident where I did have one photographer tell me I was badly underpriced at a gallery, and then walked over to see his work at a second gallery. $450 Cibachromes taped to the wall. Not framed. Not matted. Just taped. And not very good photos.
Walter, thanks for catching me on this.
I have spent the last seven years trying to work as a photographer and photographing people. It took me months to set my prices and lots of research into the market. I finally decided that it had nothing to do with the market but with how people feel when they see your photographs. Emotions and how they relate to people drive what we buy, especially in photography. Each photograph we take is an extension of us. When that picture was taken of that subject, a part of who we are goes into the image. We saw soemthing in that subject that moved us to take the photo. Each person will see that same subject differently no matter what angle, lighting, or equipment used. For some people that subject strikes their fancy but for others it is just color on paper. Somewhere along the line, we (as photographers) lose site of the fact that it was something other than the possible price tag it will bear on a wall that moved to take that image. That thought comes only after we see the final image.
Last year I hung 15 of what I thought were my best images in a coffee house for two weeks. They allow local artists to display and sell (if you want) their art. I didn't price my work for sale since that is not why I hung them to begin with. The feelings I got from seeing people look at them and the comments the owner was getting was more than any photo could have sold for.
Ok, Oprah moment over - here is the bottom line. You priced those photo's the way you did for a reason - no matter what that is. You lower them and you devaluie not only the work but the reason you took them. People complaining about your prices and what you do with your work need to take a long hard look at their own. Something could have happened that day that had nothing to do with you but you were the convient one to stirke out at. Also, a wise friend once told me that you don't get six-pack abs by eating McDonalds. You need to step up the game a little bit. Aren't we all here to help drive each other to do better. Well, those people just gave you reason to make them complain. Its a dog-eat-dog world and only you can choose to wear milk bone underwear. Muscians don't reduce the price of their CD's that don't sell well. They get back in the studio and try again making the next one better. So get behind your camera, keep making those beautiful images, and give'm hell!
Just my opinion for what its worth.
Tammy Mellert
NE Ohio
> An analogy... Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and a bunch of other rich guys can decide to give
> away their fortunes in the form of free HIV drugs, and still not make a dent in the overall
> Pharmaceuticals market.
That's because Bill Gates and Warren Buffet purchase those medications from the pharmaceutical makers. The pharmaceutical makers are still getting paid. The beneficiaries get their much needed medications at the expense of an intermediary, not at the expense of the pharmaceutical makers. If it were at the expense of the pharmaceutical makers, it would impact their health as a business.
Anil is trying to understand why photographers get upset when people price their work too low or give it away for free. The reason is that it devalues the art. No just their art, but everyone's art.
I agree that the true value of a photograph isn't represented by the numbers on the price tag but rather by how it emotionally impacts those who view it. I also agree that this is different for every person who sees that photograph.
> Tammy wrote:
> You lower them and you devaluie not only the work but the reason you took them.
Tammy, can you kindly explain what you meant when you said the above. Why do you think that my photographs and the reason behind their making will be devalued if I lower the price? If for a moment I did accept your theory, then going by the same logic doubling or trippling my price should result in the value of my work instantly shooting up? Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
Am I devaluing my own self image by driving a Toyota as opposed to a Lexus. My car works, and I like it. I don't care how much it's worth because I'm not planning on selling it ever.
"You lower them and you devaluie not only the work but the reason you took them."
Last time I checked Anil wasn't an advertising photographer.
A car is a luxury item. Yes, some people do put their self worth and image into a car but then again those people are rich and can afford such luxury. Photographers making ends meet with their work can not. If I never make a million dollars, then that is fine.
I will end this now since I know someone is gonna pick it apart again and find something else. I should have never commented but I felt the need. Good luck!
Tammy Mellert
You ask why someone would pay the same for a 16x 20 Galen Rowell print as they would for a relatively unknown. Your 16 x 20 limited edition is already much less then half of Galen’s unlimited edition price ($475 vs. $150). Maybe you have already instituted your reduced print pricing – sorry I’m late to the show.
Even your current print pricing seems fair to me.
I see a lot of photographers lower their pricing because they don’t feel like marketing, They believe if they are cheap enough, buyers will find them. I have yet to see this work. McDonalds does as much if not more marketing as your high-end restaurants.
I think the demand for prints is somewhat inelastic – I wonder if this has ever been studied. In other words, if you cut your prices in half, I don’t think you would double your sales. Maybe if your market was college students it would be different, low cost posters probably rule here, but not home print buyers.
People buying your prints for their walls are going to have to look at them for years to come – is $20 going to make a difference? I have found that a photo either strikes a person (place they have visited or maybe the image hits an emotion) or it doesn’t, I don’t think cutting the price is going to turn a non-buyer into a buyer. We have had people ordering this week with overnight shipping from Alaska to make it by Christmas – gosh they aren’t hesitating at paying as much for shipping as they are the print!
So much of marketing is perception. Hank gives a good example. I remember a marketing class in grad school that had us blind taste test various brands of beer (fun class by the way). It was interesting how many preferred the cheap junk brands over the fancy expensive ones. I already knew I was good with the cheaps ones. lol
I have always wanted to try an experiment placing a limited number of prints on a very nice website and pricing them very high ($1,000 +) just to see what would happen. It would have to be done just right with lots of marketing, details on each print and the photographer, but I think it could work for the right person. As a high volume stock shooter, it wouldn’t be a good fit for me.
Anil, having you been shooting / selling for long?
Thanks for joining in. To answer your question, I have been shooting for quite some time but have started selling prints only for the last 3 years. I don't sell through a stock agency and don't do assignment work.
My main reason for lowering prices is not to overcome lack of sales. I believe I am selling enough. I just want to be able to make my prints available to folks who may not necessarily be able to afford my current prices. To many this may not be a concern but for me it is.
And even if there were I think you would find that the prices would vary, as they do now. Pricing is determined by several factors, which makes setting a standard very difficult. For example, if you were to have a gallery show, in an expensive gallery in Park City, you would charge much more for your prints than if you just offered them on line. If you sell your images to an advertising agency, you would ask much more than if you were to sell them to a newspaper. Modeling and product shots sell for more than nature and wildlife shots. Eagle prints will sell more than prints of sparrows.
I just recently submitted some images to Getty, and found that their requirements for submission were very detailed – 14 pages of guidelines to be followed exactly. Then they screen all images that are submitted, and only post the best. Buyers who want the best will shop there, and pay more for the images. I inquired with a different stock agency and they said they would be happy to represent me, and all they did was look at my web site. My point is that prices will vary depending on who your market is.
If you have your prints on a web site, or sell prints at an art fair, you need to place a price on your work. However, it’s just the opposite if you want to sell your images for publication. Then you would contact the publication and they will tell you what they will pay for your image. They determine the price and you determine if you want to sell to them. Here again, there are different layers. Some publications won’t even look at your work unless you have been published many times, with very reputable publications. Others will pay you very little, but it’s not hard to get your work published with them.
I guess a good analogy is that you can sell your prints at Wal-Mart prices, or at Rodeo Drive prices. And it doesn’t always have to do with quality. Sad to say, some people will buy something really bad, even if it’s priced really high.
In addition to the pricing changing depending on where you sell your prints, the each print could sell for a different price. If there is a print that is very popular, you could sell it for much more than a print that hasn’t moved at all in the last year.
Now, having said all that, there is a standard price for selling stock images: http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm As you can see from this site, images are priced on how they will be used, and how big the publication is that they will be featured in.
Bottom line is, price your prints the way you want to, and don’t worry about the other guy. There will always be someone who will price their prints cheaper, and some people who will buy them. On the other hand, there are some people who won’t buy the cheaper prints, even if they are as good, because they feel the price determines the quality.
I can see from this statement that Anil's motif is not purely economic. He wants to make his prints more available to more people though I believe Ron is right regarding the price elasticity. Pure economic motif like marketing strategy, impact of pricing on selling and the perceived value, or price is a value reference (though all of these are right) is not totally "makes sense" for Anil (sorry if my wording not entirely appropriate).
Hopefully we understand now that it's a bit difficult to "synchronize" these two different poles. However, imho the poster should also realize that selling is an economic activity too, so passing some economic motif arguments is very reasonable. We won't argue the pro bono, will we?
Remember, one thing that can reduce some "destructive" impact on lowering price is to use discount. Anil or anyone can use this method, giving some discounts, whether the price discount or volume discount, like "purchase two prints and you will get three". The price still remains the same though. The bottom line is you're making it more affordable/giving more.
Second, different backgrounds also contribute to the opinion ones make. People who selling art print as their main business will likely responding negatively to the price cutting, whatever the reason. On the other hand, hobbyist, or someone who earn income from other source naturally tend not very sensitive with this issue.
Hopefully thinking about these motif and background will make a better understanding on this topic.
Brad, I also use stockprice calculator. It's helpful as a guidance.
I have a lot of respect for the folks who make their living with photography, but anyone who bases their prices on what they think they "deserve" is on very unstable ground. On any meaningful scale, supply and demand define the value of a product or service in a free market economy. So, if your business is threatened by a lower priced competitor, adapt (i.e., differentiate your product from the competition) or lose the business.
Professional photographers trying to put price pressure on the "supply" end of the supply-demand relationship will never succeed. Digital cameras and the internet have irreversibly affected the supply - and more importantly the marketing/accessibility - of images available for usage or printing. Unless the demand has increased proportionally, prices will fall unless the product can be differentiated from the rest.
People shoot for different reasons. Some do it for a profession, some for the passion to express oneself and some for purely a hobby.
I just began shooting seriously for less than two years. For now it is the passion of the outdoors and a way to share my experiences with others. I have found out that I could probably make a living from it, but I am not sure if that is something I want to do at this point. In other words, I’m not sure if I want to ruin to a good hobby.
I wouldn’t worry what others think. Follow your heart.
Josh, they weren't asking me to lower my prices; rather they were upset at my low prices and wanted me to raise them.
Josh
To be honest, I think for the bulk of the images on your web site, the prices you charge are fair to a bit low. I think if you are trying to make an affordable option, keep it to the smaller size prints, and have the larger one reflect the market a little closer. However, you have a number of extraordinarily artistic images that I think are almost a shame to sell large prints for so little. Seriously, they should be like special fine works of art. I've often said the photographer should care about the artistic value of their personal vision, and not just dollars based on x-amount of $$$ per square inch of paper.
Cheers,
I believe marketing and promotional skills play a big part in the success of a photographer. And not a price war.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I finally kinda went through this thread we had discussed a while back. I'm not gonna comment on the pricing because (1) I don't sell, and (2) I'm barely good enough to criticize... I would I'd be happy just to get pennies from a stock company.
However I am gonna comment on your attitude towards the answers to make you do some introspection. You asked for opinion and advice, because part of you wants to hear why people react a certain way. A surprising number of people have been responding, probably because you have earned their respect from your seriousness, dedication, and quality of photography.
However, I noticed you tend to camp on your position and still do not budge in your opinions, and I think it's not right. Lucky for you you're often right :). We all tend to behave like that of course but it's a little childish. So I invite you to clean the slate, project yourself in the position and state of mind of people who posted opposing viewpoints, and try to use their arguments used to convince you (play devil's advocate). Maybe you'll acknowledge their point more readily and be less dismissive about it.
I suspect you are more interrested in having people looking at your work than getting money from a select few - you have a robin hood tendency and the desire for recognition.
As someone who's job is also threatened by freeware and Linux, I also understand the heat, it is adapt or decay. So when Linux takes over hopefully I'll be able to move on :) There's no point hating it. In fact I like having Linux for my webserver! I just try to hold it off by giving as much added value as I can to keep it a step ahead.
Howerver not everybody thinks like that and that's why we have unions and custom taxes to level the field. So though it's not your fault if a photographer can't put his kid through college, you're part of the problem and must understand the grief...
The problem is that 40 years ago, taking a decent shot required skill, knowing the camera, understanding the light and mastering the development process. Today any moron can get a lucky shot & put it online for free, one that beats famous shots in a gallery - done 40 years ago because the hardware now is so good and so forgiving.
To be a pro, you gotta be a big step ahead. That includes having good PR and name recognition, high-end equipment to make photos that stand out, but also a lot of creativity to go past what john smith will think of shooting with his camera.
That's where I think you're (kinda) percieved as a threat: You have that creativity in your shots, so you're more than that death by 1000 cuts, you're a gouge.
You told me you chose rocks as a study topic because it was rarely done, and it was an easy subject (because it doesn't move). Well, that gives you a signature by which people here and your customers know you, and likely something that makes you stand out enough you could get name recognition. When I see some of your pics I go ah yeah, that one's anil's. BTW, the only shot I have of you at home, when people look at what I have, they often stop on yours - I think because it's abstract and so different from what I take -.
How about this solution:
You could put an artist statement note on the pricing/ordering page emphasizing your philosophy that you don't want money to be the limiting factor for people to appreciate your work, and so you state the minimum price (at cost), the suggested price that kind of work usually go for and note that says the customer should pay whatever he feels is a fair price that he thinks it is worth... you want your art to be accessible for people with more modest income, which is why the minimum price is listed. Kinda like donationware or shareware.
The reason I say this is in the US, many people have the strong notion of fairness, and would not concieve cheating you, especially if money is no object, and the price they'd pay would be part coming from the percieved value. Also some would take pride in actually dumping 2X or 3X what you list.
BTW, I kinda agree that in the US if you're cheap then you're cheap. Proof of concept: there's no distinction in the phrasing of the two! That is the money driven state of mind here, even for intelligent people. The above solution would not make you percieved as cheap, allow you to collect when possible, yet be accessible to those not willing or capable of paying up.
Downside: if you become too successfull you'll have to raise your prices because you'll have to process too many orders. I wish you that problem
Thanks for chipping in. My main reason for posting this thread was to try and find out why other photographers might object to my pricing scheme. Thanks to the many responses here, I now have a better understanding of some of the possible reasons. However, just because I asked a question and have been given some advice it doesn't mean that I have to accept it. I am not saying that the others are wrong - its just that I don't happen to agree with their viewpoint for my own needs.
Your suggestion of keeping the prices low and then asking for added donations is interesting. I will have to think about this some more.
BTW, I think Guy [Tal] summed things up pretty well in his post above.