Posted by Jim Sabiston on January 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Hello all. Hope everyone had a terrific holiday season!
The reason for this post is that I have been approached by an art marketing firm (Artrep, Inc., at www.artrepny.com)several times since winning First Place Photographer at the Sayville Summerfest Art Show this past summer. The company president attended the show and showed strong interest in marketing my work. Sounds like a good thing at first, BUT...
Apparently much of their market is wall art for office and institutional environments, which sounds like an interesting market. The company president describes the environment as a 'fast turnaround' with relatively low 'unsigned stock image' rates for the photographs. In addition, they have requested that they be able to have my digital portfolio on file to augment their quick turnaround requirements.Call me skeptical, but certain aspects of this seem a bit odd.
First, I have had little interest in the stock image market at this point in my career as a budding photographer, having a very strong preference for the 'fine art' side of the market, which I think comes through in my work. In fact, the president stated this quality in my work was far superior to her existing contracted artists and thus the very strong interest in my photography. The price cuts-per-print once an image is considered 'stock' is not palatable to me, especially considering the low volume I currently turn out on average. I am more accustomed to the 30% cut taken by the gallery or seller for a full priced image which I have with some local galleries.
Second, the whole 'fast turnound' thing strikes me as odd. Office and space decoration is a time consuming process. We are not talking broadcast or print news deadlines here. I can deliver a large series of prints ready for framing in less than a week once the selections are made.
Third, I am supremely uncomfortable with releasing my image files to anyone other than a reputable printing house for reasons that should be obvious amongst this group.
Any thoughts and comment on this situation would be most appreciated. My own inclination is to not accept the offer under those conditions. Is anyone familiar with this sort of arrangement?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by Richard Wong on January 10, 2010 at 3:50 PM
"The price cuts-per-print once an image is considered 'stock' is not palatable to me, especially considering the low volume I currently turn out on average."
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on that statement. Stock photography is a form of licensing agreement not a pricing label. However if something is considered less valuable because there is a connotation of being "stock" then it likely refers to something being generic.
Look at it another way, Ansel Adams' photos have probably been licensed as stock photography more than any other landscape photographer and yet his prints prices haven't exactly gone down in value.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on January 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Richard,
In this case, the connotation 'stock' refers to 'generic' images, as you guessed, and printed framed images for office environments, not licensing for print publication or multiple runs - it is a 'per-print' environment. I did not intend to denigrate stock photography, so apologies if it came across that way. I may well expand my business to include stock photography a few years down the road, but my goals lie in another direction right now, that of unique, artistic images recognizeable as my work - part of my efforts to build a name in the local artistic community. A quick look at my recent gallery posts will give an idea of how (mostly) non-standard my work is. That said, there are plenty of images in my portfolio with the potential for stock applications. Somehow, I have difficulty thinking of Mr. Adams work as stock, but I get your meaning!
The company is looking for generic 'pretty picture' images, but wants to pay very little for them ($10 for a 16 x 24 image was quoted). As an aside, this strikes me as a bit odd when you consider the aspect of my work that got their attention in the first place.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on January 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Richard,
In this case, the connotation 'stock' refers to 'generic' images, as you guessed, and printed framed images for office environments, not licensing for print publication or multiple runs - it is a 'per-print' environment. I did not intend to denigrate stock photography, so apologies if it came across that way. I may well expand my business to include stock photography a few years down the road, but my goals lie in another direction right now, that of unique, artistic images recognizeable as my work - part of my efforts to build a name in the local artistic community. A quick look at my recent gallery posts will give an idea of how (mostly) non-standard my work is. That said, there are plenty of images in my portfolio with the potential for stock applications. Somehow, I have difficulty thinking of Mr. Adams work as stock, but I get your meaning!
The company is looking for generic 'pretty picture' images, but wants to pay very little for them ($10 for a 16 x 24 image was quoted). As an aside, this strikes me as a bit odd when you consider the aspect of my work that got their attention in the first place.
Posted by Richard Wong on January 10, 2010 at 11:25 PM
Yeah that makes more sense then. Basically you are saying that if you give up your images for mass-marketed print products then it wouldn't match with your goals of selling to the fine art market. Personally I wouldn't sell something of quality that large for $10. Can you even find a poster at your typical tourist trap for $10?
Posted by Alain Briot on January 10, 2010 at 11:43 PM
Jim,
Based on your description of what they ask and how much they pay, I would personally pass on this. However, only you can decide whether there is enough money to justify the risks. To me, there isn't.
For frame of reference Jim, we have done a fair number of "installations" in an assortment of offices plus a couple of hospitals and two visitor centers, very similar to those featured on their web site. And our 16x24's have gone for 25 times the price they quoted you, UNFRAMED. The clients took care of that themselves or paid extra for us to do it. The business model they are using makes me think they must be selling tanned pigskin as a sideline, derived from all the fat hogs they're skinning to get their images.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on January 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Hank,
That is just the feedback I was looking for. While I had no hard sources for reference, it seemed to me that what you describe should be typical for that market, unless you are framing simple posters. You don't drop hundred's of thousands of dollars on a renovation and then throw a $10 print on the wall. My prices are somewhat lower than yours but the methodology should still apply. I will send them a thanks-but-no-thanks message while keeping open the offer for standard print purchases at the usual discounts if they are interested.
Hank - Thanks as always for your input and participation in this group. I wonder if you realize how important a resource you are to us mere amateurs as regards this sort of thing.
The deature that company has going for it is visibility and marketing to the institutional client population. There's really nothing but effort stopping any of us from getting into the same market. I get pretty lathered up by the never-ending parade of enterprises that feed themselves by underpaying photographers. Sad to say, they must find plenty of gullible photographers, because they seem to thrive on the practice. I'd call this one the "dollar stock" pathway into institutional photography!
Did you say they want a large print that you have framed yourself and they will pay you only $10.00. Unbelievable! Where can you buy a frame that large for under $10.00. Maybe I mis-read it.
This reminds me of a job application I fell for (cause I didn't have anything else going on). We were suppose to sell "framed-art" to businesses. The trick was to say our "buyer" had bought too many items for a building "down the street" and we were offering the excess for sale cheap. It was one of those pyramid schemes. It really was bad. They made you go in someone else's car so you could not back out during the day once you figured out what was going on. Sounds like your company is just like this one and this is how they get cheap art to sell. As a side, I helped sell about 10 pieces that day and they offered me a job after an interview that evening. It really surprised me what people will buy!!!! (Hmmmmmmmmmm!) I gave them all the BS I could create in the after interview and accepted. Then, I never saw them again. What a bunch of junk. Not one of my better experiences. Have to say this was in my youth before I was wise to the world. This sure got off target, but it might explain one of the traps for photographers out there.
Troup
Posted by Youssef Ismail on February 23, 2010 at 3:00 AM
Jim,
Tell them to hit the road. They are trying to stiff you.
Discussion
10 repliesThe reason for this post is that I have been approached by an art marketing firm (Artrep, Inc., at www.artrepny.com)several times since winning First Place Photographer at the Sayville Summerfest Art Show this past summer. The company president attended the show and showed strong interest in marketing my work. Sounds like a good thing at first, BUT...
Apparently much of their market is wall art for office and institutional environments, which sounds like an interesting market. The company president describes the environment as a 'fast turnaround' with relatively low 'unsigned stock image' rates for the photographs. In addition, they have requested that they be able to have my digital portfolio on file to augment their quick turnaround requirements.Call me skeptical, but certain aspects of this seem a bit odd.
First, I have had little interest in the stock image market at this point in my career as a budding photographer, having a very strong preference for the 'fine art' side of the market, which I think comes through in my work. In fact, the president stated this quality in my work was far superior to her existing contracted artists and thus the very strong interest in my photography. The price cuts-per-print once an image is considered 'stock' is not palatable to me, especially considering the low volume I currently turn out on average. I am more accustomed to the 30% cut taken by the gallery or seller for a full priced image which I have with some local galleries.
Second, the whole 'fast turnound' thing strikes me as odd. Office and space decoration is a time consuming process. We are not talking broadcast or print news deadlines here. I can deliver a large series of prints ready for framing in less than a week once the selections are made.
Third, I am supremely uncomfortable with releasing my image files to anyone other than a reputable printing house for reasons that should be obvious amongst this group.
Any thoughts and comment on this situation would be most appreciated. My own inclination is to not accept the offer under those conditions. Is anyone familiar with this sort of arrangement?
Thanks in advance.
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on that statement. Stock photography is a form of licensing agreement not a pricing label. However if something is considered less valuable because there is a connotation of being "stock" then it likely refers to something being generic.
Look at it another way, Ansel Adams' photos have probably been licensed as stock photography more than any other landscape photographer and yet his prints prices haven't exactly gone down in value.
In this case, the connotation 'stock' refers to 'generic' images, as you guessed, and printed framed images for office environments, not licensing for print publication or multiple runs - it is a 'per-print' environment. I did not intend to denigrate stock photography, so apologies if it came across that way. I may well expand my business to include stock photography a few years down the road, but my goals lie in another direction right now, that of unique, artistic images recognizeable as my work - part of my efforts to build a name in the local artistic community. A quick look at my recent gallery posts will give an idea of how (mostly) non-standard my work is. That said, there are plenty of images in my portfolio with the potential for stock applications. Somehow, I have difficulty thinking of Mr. Adams work as stock, but I get your meaning!
The company is looking for generic 'pretty picture' images, but wants to pay very little for them ($10 for a 16 x 24 image was quoted). As an aside, this strikes me as a bit odd when you consider the aspect of my work that got their attention in the first place.
In this case, the connotation 'stock' refers to 'generic' images, as you guessed, and printed framed images for office environments, not licensing for print publication or multiple runs - it is a 'per-print' environment. I did not intend to denigrate stock photography, so apologies if it came across that way. I may well expand my business to include stock photography a few years down the road, but my goals lie in another direction right now, that of unique, artistic images recognizeable as my work - part of my efforts to build a name in the local artistic community. A quick look at my recent gallery posts will give an idea of how (mostly) non-standard my work is. That said, there are plenty of images in my portfolio with the potential for stock applications. Somehow, I have difficulty thinking of Mr. Adams work as stock, but I get your meaning!
The company is looking for generic 'pretty picture' images, but wants to pay very little for them ($10 for a 16 x 24 image was quoted). As an aside, this strikes me as a bit odd when you consider the aspect of my work that got their attention in the first place.
Based on your description of what they ask and how much they pay, I would personally pass on this. However, only you can decide whether there is enough money to justify the risks. To me, there isn't.
Alain
That is just the feedback I was looking for. While I had no hard sources for reference, it seemed to me that what you describe should be typical for that market, unless you are framing simple posters. You don't drop hundred's of thousands of dollars on a renovation and then throw a $10 print on the wall. My prices are somewhat lower than yours
Hank - Thanks as always for your input and participation in this group. I wonder if you realize how important a resource you are to us mere amateurs as regards this sort of thing.
The deature that company has going for it is visibility and marketing to the institutional client population. There's really nothing but effort stopping any of us from getting into the same market. I get pretty lathered up by the never-ending parade of enterprises that feed themselves by underpaying photographers. Sad to say, they must find plenty of gullible photographers, because they seem to thrive on the practice. I'd call this one the "dollar stock" pathway into institutional photography!
This reminds me of a job application I fell for (cause I didn't have anything else going on). We were suppose to sell "framed-art" to businesses. The trick was to say our "buyer" had bought too many items for a building "down the street" and we were offering the excess for sale cheap. It was one of those pyramid schemes. It really was bad. They made you go in someone else's car so you could not back out during the day once you figured out what was going on. Sounds like your company is just like this one and this is how they get cheap art to sell. As a side, I helped sell about 10 pieces that day and they offered me a job after an interview that evening. It really surprised me what people will buy!!!! (Hmmmmmmmmmm!) I gave them all the BS I could create in the after interview and accepted. Then, I never saw them again. What a bunch of junk. Not one of my better experiences. Have to say this was in my youth before I was wise to the world. This sure got off target, but it might explain one of the traps for photographers out there.
Troup
Tell them to hit the road. They are trying to stiff you.