Author Topic: Undercutting the market  (Read 5533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2016, 07:13:04 PM »
I think the part of "charging what a job is worth" just doesn't have a definitive answer. The value depends on the expertise of who's shooting it, right? A billionaire won't get a great driving experience in a Ford Focus just because he can afford a Ferrari.

The value of the photography is far more complicated than that and completely subjective. This is the crux of our most difficult pricing problem in photography, particularly in personal portraiture and/or weddings.

What makes someone value the photographer charging 2-3 times as much as the other photographer especially when the output is reasonably equal?

People aren't going to pay your rates just because you think they should. The trick is to figure out your target market, where they are, who they are, etc., or you simply won't be able to charge what you want.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Offline Houston George

  • Resident Cheapskate
  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
    • View Profile
    • http://www.houstons-photography.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2016, 08:29:26 PM »
Quote
The value of the photography is far more complicated than that and completely subjective. This is the crux of our most difficult pricing problem in photography, particularly in personal portraiture and/or weddings.
Subjective, yes. That's why we don't all have the same favorite author or actor. In the end, don't great results give a job more value than crappy results? The original rub was that a job worth $2000 was shot for $500. I guess I'm in the minority by thinking that you generally (with rare exceptions of course) get what you pay for.

Quote
What makes someone value the photographer charging 2-3 times as much as the other photographer especially when the output is reasonably equal?
Yes, that's quite a challenge for sure. Do you feel that it's common for photographers of equal quality output to be that far apart in price within the same area? And targeting the same clients?

To answer your question directly, the higher end photographer would need to excel in marketing, have more and better references, and probably need to simply be more likable and professional in a first impression situation and in subsequent face-to-face meetings. Even then, the gap in price would be hard to overcome if the results are the same.

Quote
People aren't going to pay your rates just because you think they should. The trick is to figure out your target market, where they are, who they are, etc., or you simply won't be able to charge what you want.

I agree, but it seems the wave of advice is always to simply raise your prices. The question as it pertains to this thread is this; If the photographer targeting the $500 clients happens to land a client targeted by the $2000 photographer, whose targeted market was the client really in?

Houston

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2016, 09:38:52 PM »
Some believe we value more that which we pay more for. I, however, don't believe that. I believe that value and price are somewhat mutually exclusive. You cannot just claim to be worth $2000. You need to back it with something of perceived value. Price cannot stand on its own for its own sake.

Much to your final point, whose market was the person in to begin with if they opted to pay less? I would argue they were never in the $2000 market to begin with and therefore could never be "stolen", so to speak.

http://www.jgbm.org/page/5%20Richard%20Murphy.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Offline Jeff Behm

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.behmphoto.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2016, 09:56:42 PM »
Since very little of what we photographers offer is essential in the strictest sense of the word, it's value is what the buyer and the seller agree it is, a variation on what Mike likes to say, "beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder."

If it's true that the value of art is what the buyer and seller agree it is, there really is harm to our industry in low-ballers diminishing the value of our offerings by treating an artform as if it were a commodity.  We're not selling corn here, in which all sellers are roughly equal. Unfortunately, in the original scenario, the buyer had agreed that the value of an artistic rendition of her newborn was $2000. When the low-ball price was interjected, doubt as to value was inserted into the equation.  That has accomplished a couple of things; it changed the seller by removing the job, it almost certainly changed the caliber of the work that would be created, it perpetuated the low priced seller's assumption (self image) that $500 is all the work is really worth and it has forever reduced the valuation the buyer was willing to extend. 

This story is the poster child for how our industry has self destructed. Uninformed sellers who are not prepared to sustain proper industry valuation are selling at unsustainably low prices out of fear and ignorance. The preponderance of these same practitioners have not attained the wide range of skills and flexibility necessary to deliver under all circumstances, thus excusing to themselves and their enablers the need to sell cheap. 

There has always been an element of this in the arts, not just photography; dilletents abound. But the past decade has witnessed what may actually be a flip-flop of the percentages:  the business of photography may now have a greater proportion of photo-illiterates running pseudo-businesses than qualified photographers. Yet both groups present themselves as professionals. Meanwhile, the buying public, due to the vast amounts of trashy imagery to which they are subjected by the media of all types, is less and less able to make a determination as to where to spend their money, let alone how much.

Offline Houston George

  • Resident Cheapskate
  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
    • View Profile
    • http://www.houstons-photography.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #29 on: April 13, 2016, 01:17:01 PM »
Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I think the general buying public can clearly see the difference in images created by a skilled photographer versus the hacks. In the aforementioned scenario, I think it's just as likely that the end product will reinforce to the buyer that saving money equals a less than spectacular end result. In no way do I believe that people receiving crap somehow endear themselves to that same crap in the future. Quite the contrary, I could see the client kicking themselves swearing to never go cheap again.

There's just so much disdain and finger pointing. I guess the fingers ultimately have to point to Canon, Nikon, and Adobe for eliminating the barriers that once existed. Add social media to the mix and it has been the perfect storm of affordability, instant gratification, manipulation, and marketing. Aside from what I've stated previously about the legal obligations of doing business, there isn't really any grounds for anyone to berate, call out, or otherwise shame those who pursue photography at whatever level they so chose. Times have simply changed.



Houston

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2016, 10:42:37 PM »
Someone isn't a "hack" just because they charge less and just because they charge less doesn't mean their work is inferior.

Often it is the opposite - which is precisely why so many professionals are frustrated.

We can't just claim higher value because we feel we deserve it. We have to market it.

Don't blame the consumer for not seeing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Offline Todd Muskopf

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6890
    • View Profile
    • http://www.muskopf.org
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2016, 06:34:39 AM »
Someone isn't a "hack" just because they charge less and just because they charge less doesn't mean their work is inferior.


I had a senior client come to me last year.

They told me that they came to me after talking to one of my former clients who told them "you can pay more somewhere else and get worse photos, or you can go to Todd".

I guess that means that I'm cheaper than the big studios, and they like my work better.

Why am I cheaper?  I feel that since I have no huge overhead (building, employees, etc.), I can afford to pass that on and end up in the middle of the price range.

The low end is still the low end.  There are literally hundreds of "on location only with no lighting and only one camera" photographers who provide digital files for $100 in my area.  That's the low end.  Those people are hacks and their work is inferior. :)

Offline Jeff Behm

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.behmphoto.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2016, 08:53:13 AM »
In keeping with Todd's point above, I no longer keep a big studio or full time staff as I once did, so that's kept my price down from what it would be if those things were still part of the mix.  I also have less overhead than I would if I were in NYC, rather than the outer rim of the Baltimore/DC metropolis.  But that only really applies to a certain extent, because keeping track of norms for the market is part of being responsible within the industry and maintaining its viability, long term.  Selling short is counter productive.  Monetizing a hobby while calling ourselves professionals is counter productive to sustainability. 

Offline Houston George

  • Resident Cheapskate
  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
    • View Profile
    • http://www.houstons-photography.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2016, 09:33:47 AM »
Someone isn't a "hack" just because they charge less and just because they charge less doesn't mean their work is inferior.

Often it is the opposite - which is precisely why so many professionals are frustrated.
Amen! You're preaching to the choir here. What you've said is rarely acknowledged. I've stated several times in previous discussions that I don't feel the crappy shooters are the real threat to pros, no matter how great their numbers. I used the word "hack" because that is invariably the description given when someone complains of being under-cut. The photographer Jeff quoted in the opening post implied the same with the whole "the mindset that one's work is good enough straight out of the camera if one only adds a couple Instagram filters" comment. That's pretty much the definition of hack.

My point is that I've never heard or read anyone say, "I just lost a client to a photographer charging pennies, but DAMN he does great work". Typically the description is as disparaging as can be.
Houston

Offline Jeff Behm

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.behmphoto.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #34 on: April 14, 2016, 03:46:00 PM »
Generally, if one charges too little, there are inherent traps; no insurance, no backup gear, insufficient tools, automobile problems...the list of troubles is nearly endless and extends to hearth and home, too.  It doesn't make one a hack, but it does make such a business unhealthy.   These frequently come about because too little is being charged and the business is unsustainable as a result, even if the talent exists.

I may have posted something like this in the forum before, but it's germane to this conversation, too.  It's a distillation of a conversation I had with a new photographer on another forum.

Question:
What is the hourly rate to pay ourselves for establishing pricing? $30/hr, more?

Response:
Part of the trouble with pricing in this business is fear; fear of over-valuing ourselves and asking too much. As a direct result of ignorance about this business, about billable hours and ourselves, most photographers (especially in their first years) ask way too little. Your mention of $30 is way too little. 

Thinking about $30/hr seems like a lot if you’re thinking about it as a regular work week, one in which you report every day, you work your set hours and go home.  Tomorrow you return and work again, getting paid for every hour you’re scheduled. 

In this business, billable hours means hours with a paying client in front of a camera.  Yes, there can be billing for retouching, for prints, etc., but the real money is made when we’re behind a camera.  Therefore, if we work 20-25 billable hours a week, we’re busy.  If we’ve structured our fees properly, that’s a recipe for success.  The behind-the-scenes fact, however, is that every hour of paying camera time requires at least an hour (probably 2) of support in digital processing, in answering phones emails and texts, in making presentations, in dealing with uncertain clients, driving to and from assignments and sales meetings, sweeping your floors, doing your books and all the rest of what happens in business.  If you pay someone to do these things for you, you add taxes and payroll, you need even more volume to keep ahead.

Bad things happen if we fail to recognize these facts.  We go out of business, we limit the ability to charge more because we've developed a reputation as cheap which is hard to change, we drag down the public perception of what's acceptable because the client got it cheap one time, and has been forever tainted. Buy John Harringtons' "Best Business Practices for Photographers" and see how to determine rates that benefit both yourself and your peers.

Question:
$30/hr was the number used in (famous photographer) workshop several years back. She said it was the national average at that time. I was just wondering what the rate nowadays is for our area.

Response:
I was taught a completely different formula back in the 80's, although I understand your point. It was a spreadsheet worth of info on fixed costs, variable costs, cost of goods sold, labor, my salary and everything else. Then adding on profit for the business, return on investment, etc. I'm not sure I'd risk answering your question specifically without that kind of information about you; not for myself or you or anyone else. Since $30 was the only number you mentioned, it was the only one to which I could respond; there was no intent to offend

Someone else’s opinion:
Some people shoot for free some shoot for $8000 and the deciding factor is them and client value combo matching up

To which I said:
That's the mushy feel-good, bad thinking that destroys budding businesses of all types, not just photographers.

Basically, if we use a formula such as I was taught, but we aren't good enough to support the pricing, we go out of business. If we try to gauge what clients "feel" we are worth, we go out of business. But if we treat this as a business, and have the skills to back it up, we create our own value by offering our work at a price we know makes our business sustainable.  We also must deal with the percentage of people who like what we do, while learning to sell to them, so we don't have to devalue ourselves.

Solid formulas in business will tell us what we need to know to establish price. It will not tell us client acceptance. Developing a client perception of value is not the same thing as establishing a price, but these two are often confused. We establish a price that will sustain ourselves, our families and the business, then go about developing clients' acceptance of the price point we've established. With great acceptance, we might be able to raise prices. With poor acceptance, we lower them. Even though we market ourselves as artists, we must always base price on real, measurable criteria, plus demand for our service.

With resources like John Harrington's book, “Best Business Practices for Photographers” or workshops based on business practices, we don't have to provide soft answers. There are specific answers that work in business, which we must encourage new photographers to use.

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #35 on: April 14, 2016, 09:02:51 PM »
Using myself as an example...

How I price my service is fundamentally different from someone who has a studio and/or other types of overhead.

I have two main camera bodies that have long since been paid for. I simply have some business debt I am paying off. So pricing is easy.

1) What do I need to make to pull me away from my free time. How much is that time worth?
2) Is it enough to pay towards the business debt minus taxes.

If 1 minus 2 = "enough" then I'm happy with what I'm charging. Could I get more? Perhaps. But I'm only part time and I'd rather have something to shoot than nothing at all while I wait for a bigger sale. If I had a studio and regular bills to pay and this was my only source of income, I would have to factor in my required income and all my other costs of doing business in order to come up with an hourly rate.

But I simply don't need to do that.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach as far as I am concerned. I don't need to price up just so Joe Professional can work full time at this profession and still own a nice car and take 2-3 weeks vacation a year (or whatever - you get the point). I'm doing this for me. Not for the industry or for anyone else. The only time I worry about what others are charging is if I feel I can get more for my sessions based on that market assessment. If I can, I'll raise rates. I certainly don't desire to leave good money on the table for no good reason. Nor does any sensible person, I think.

Regarding the OP, $500 for 100 digital images of a newborn seems perfectly fine. That's without albums or prints, of course. I'd be happy to collect that and call it a day myself. I'd never even bother trying to collect $2,000 nor would I personally ever consider paying that amount. I'm obviously not that photographer's target market because I would never see the value in it and I love and respect good portraiture. I would love an artful, expert portrait of myself taken one day but I'll never pay $2,000 for it. Just not worth it to me.

So the question the $2,000 photographer needs to ask herself is WHY did the prospective client perceive value in the $500 photographer and not the $2000 photographer? What value is the expensive photographer providing that the client wasn't seeing?

It's rather unproductive to simply complain she was undercut. If she wants to continue to charge $2,000 then she should better understand how to market that value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Offline Jeff Behm

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.behmphoto.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2016, 09:01:22 AM »
Both photographers came to the client through a referral on another forum (not a referral service).  The one thing that's been missed constantly throughout this thread is that the $2000 photographer had all but signed the client (who could legitimately afford $2000) when the $500 photographer came on board.  This was meant as a cautionary tale about what we do to the marketplace when we undercharge.  In no way would I consider $5 an image a legitimate market position for anyone interested in the health of the industry.

Offline Houston George

  • Resident Cheapskate
  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
    • View Profile
    • http://www.houstons-photography.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2016, 09:52:06 AM »
Quote
Generally, if one charges too little, there are inherent traps; no insurance, no backup gear, insufficient tools, automobile problems...the list of troubles is nearly endless and extends to hearth and home, too.  It doesn't make one a hack, but it does make such a business unhealthy.   These frequently come about because too little is being charged and the business is unsustainable as a result, even if the talent exists.

Basically, if we use a formula such as I was taught, but we aren't good enough to support the pricing, we go out of business. If we try to gauge what clients "feel" we are worth, we go out of business. But if we treat this as a business, and have the skills to back it up, we create our own value by offering our work at a price we know makes our business sustainable.  We also must deal with the percentage of people who like what we do, while learning to sell to them, so we don't have to devalue ourselves.

Solid formulas in business will tell us what we need to know to establish price. It will not tell us client acceptance. Developing a client perception of value is not the same thing as establishing a price, but these two are often confused. We establish a price that will sustain ourselves, our families and the business, then go about developing clients' acceptance of the price point we've established. With great acceptance, we might be able to raise prices. With poor acceptance, we lower them. Even though we market ourselves as artists, we must always base price on real, measurable criteria, plus demand for our service.

With resources like John Harrington's book, “Best Business Practices for Photographers” or workshops based on business practices, we don't have to provide soft answers. There are specific answers that work in business, which we must encourage new photographers to use.
Great points and advice that should be heeded by anyone trying to make a full time living behind a camera.

Quote
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach as far as I am concerned. I don't need to price up just so Joe Professional can work full time at this profession and still own a nice car and take 2-3 weeks vacation a year (or whatever - you get the point). I'm doing this for me. Not for the industry or for anyone else. The only time I worry about what others are charging is if I feel I can get more for my sessions based on that market assessment. If I can, I'll raise rates. I certainly don't desire to leave good money on the table for no good reason. Nor does any sensible person, I think.
Well stated and I couldn't agree more. There is undeniably an arrogance and sense of entitlement from some in the upper crust of this industry, as evidenced by all the disparaging comments and finger wagging that abounds. As a part timer, my requirements for sustainability are worlds apart from someone who is full time and/or owns a studio. I have zero business debt and require zero dollars from my business to pay living expenses. I can charge what I choose without the worries of a full timer. I'm not destroying the industry, I'm a legal tax paying business that's as legitimate as any other. I do this because I have a passion for photography, not a passion for business. I am under no obligation to raise my prices or otherwise step aside and become less competition to those who made the choice to earn a living in this field.

Quote
The one thing that's been missed constantly throughout this thread is that the $2000 photographer had all but signed the client (who could legitimately afford $2000) when the $500 photographer came on board. 
Are you implying an issue of business ethics here? Did the $500 photographer know about the $2000 quote? Is $500 the normal rate charged by that photographer? or did he/she purposely low ball? If $500 is the typical rate for that photographer then I'm not sure where the foul is.

Houston

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2016, 02:34:29 PM »
Are you implying an issue of business ethics here? Did the $500 photographer know about the $2000 quote? Is $500 the normal rate charged by that photographer? or did he/she purposely low ball? If $500 is the typical rate for that photographer then I'm not sure where the foul is.

I am curious as to the answer to those questions as well.

I'm also curious as to whether the $500 offer was apples to apples. As I read the OP, what I see is one photographer offering album/print package and another offering 100 images. There is hard cost associated with the album/prints whereas the $500 offer had very little other than time costs. In reality, the profit difference between the two services perhaps isn't as dramatic as it seems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Offline Jeff Behm

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.behmphoto.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2016, 03:15:40 PM »
Let me reiterate:

This was meant as a cautionary tale about what we do to the marketplace when we undercharge.  In no way would I consider $5 an image a legitimate market position for anyone interested in the health of the industry.

To all who have given up on the idea that the true value of what we do is in the long term emotional content of the imagery: look at the bottom line fact that $5 per delivered image is bottom feeder pricing and destructive to the buying public's perception of what important photography should cost.  It's what the Chinese steel and plastic industries have done to America's steel and plastics manufacturing.  The Chinese government supports their losses in order to drive the US companies out of business by forcing them to constantly lower prices, eventually to the point of unsustainability.  Yes, their long term goal is to drive the competition under, so they can monopolize manufacturing down the road. 

I'm not suggesting that destroying full time pros is the intent of the $500 photographer, but it will be the result if continues for a long enough period of time.  Finally, there will be no sustainable photograph industry.   

Unless someone thinks this is about me, it's not.  I'm nearing the end of my career, but the 32 years that have come before have been the only thing I could have been happy doing and simultaneously support a family and a decent lifestyle.  So this is about fighting for an industry that gave so much to me.  It's rapidly going the way of the dodo - I've watched it - and for similar reasons: loss of the resource through thoughtless misuse.

The $2000 photographer was a comparator, there to demonstrate that with proper selling the money was there.  But like too many nowadays, what I hear here is "I'll pick the low hanging fruit, or even the stuff lying on the ground, and call myself a farmer."  Aspire to better, is all.  It's possible.

Offline Houston George

  • Resident Cheapskate
  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
    • View Profile
    • http://www.houstons-photography.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2016, 12:54:00 AM »
Advancing technology is what changed the landscape of the industry. Numerous cheap photographers are the effect of that change, not the cause. Around 1995 we started seeing home computers become standard household fixtures, quickly followed by high quality digital SLR's, editing software, and photo printers. Every financial and logistical barrier that existed with film seemed to vanish overnight. The result was that people now had the tools within reach to let their creative juices flow. It was, and is an exciting time. And let's not be so hypocritical that we forget that it wasn't just the newbies who took part in this feeding frenzy. Long established pros were just as giddy to dump their film cameras and shut down their dark rooms.

So here we are now, photographers with various levels of expertise whose prices range from free to many thousands of dollars. I believe the largest demographic of people who devalue professional photography are not the people hiring cheap photographers, it's the people who don't hire ANY photographer. Too many just don't see the need since they have a camera in their pocket 24/7. And among the ones that do hire, more and more have little to no desire for prints because the only wall they care about is on FB.

In an earlier post, Jeff speculated that qualified photographers are now outnumbered by part timers/newbies, etc. I have no doubt that's true. If it is true, then who determines the fair market value we keep talking about? Is it the few at the top? or the many at the bottom? an average of the total? 

The whole discussion of the $2000 photographer vs the $500 photographer ignores a very large elephant in the room; the fact that not everyone can afford the $2000 photographer. Why is it unacceptable that a market should exist for those who don't earn six figures? Call it low hanging fruit, but it's a large market. A market that can sustain photographers who aren't burdened with huge overhead. I have no disrespect for those who are successful enough to price at the high end, but don't cry foul if a client occasionally backs out to save 75%.

It's ironic that this topic is so polarizing while we regularly buy and recommend cheap third party gear. We don't have a problem supporting those under-cutters who benefit us.

It's late, and I have a big day of destroying the industry ahead of me tomorrow  ;)



 

 

 
Houston

Offline Todd Muskopf

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6890
    • View Profile
    • http://www.muskopf.org
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2016, 07:35:24 AM »
One thing that I believe has been left out of this discussion is the purpose of the photos.

When we look at the subject matter, it affects the price range for most people. Also, who is paying?

What are people willing to pay for a wedding? When the parents are paying for it?  When the individuals are paying?

What is a business man willing to pay for a headshot, when his company is paying for it?

What is an actor willing to pay for a headshot, when it comes out of her tip money from waiting tables?

How much is a 40 year old woman going to pay for a boudoir shoot when her husband is helping pay for it?

How much is a 40 year old single mother of 3 going to pay for a boudoir shoot when she pays for it herself?



What I find is that people are much more generous when other people are involved--parents paying for wedding, senior, baby photos, husbands paying for wife's photos.

People have a hard time justifying spending "unnecessary" money on themselves.

One of my biggest hurdles for the CBP is to get the women to actually get over the fear and guilt that they put on themselves. They're all filled with "I won't be able to pull that off, I don't look like that" and "even if I did, I couldn't spend that much on me".  Its a hard balance.

Offline Jeff Behm

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.behmphoto.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2016, 09:03:35 AM »
Advancing technology is what changed the landscape of the industry. Numerous cheap photographers are the effect of that change

Good point.  It also opened the door to many good photographers who were intimidated by film and darkrooms, or had no access to same, or were unable to able to imagine the results without the immediate feedback of the digital view screen.  Since we're supposedly pros here, I'm merely trying to encourage the next generation to not pick the low hanging financial fruit because its easier.  Doing that will not give you a long term living wage.  Create and deliver quality impactful images and charge well for them.  Fight for the return of the wall portrait and the album of prints, at least in your own business; ignore all but the 10% of your local populace who will value what you do for the fees you deserve.  Work to grow so you deserve what you charge.  Most of all, don't sell yourselves short.

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2016, 09:59:13 AM »
Jeff -

I would really challenge that $500 is bottom feeder pricing for personal portraiture.

But perhaps we would not be having this discussion at all if the "undercutting" photographer would have delivered only 25 digital images in his/her "package".

EDIT: I would also throw out there that delivering only 25 images at $500 is probably a more cost-effective model for profitability depending on how one runs his/her business than charging $2000 with high overhead for an even less per image price.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 10:02:18 AM by Darren Cassese »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Offline Jeff Behm

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.behmphoto.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2016, 03:20:27 PM »
I know you believe that.

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2016, 06:52:39 PM »
I know you believe that.

Not much to "believe" about it. Just simple math.

$2000 session: 100 images = $20/image minus cost of prints and albums.
$500 session: 25 images = $20/image and zero hard costs.

There's a clear winner in terms of profitability here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer

Offline Houston George

  • Resident Cheapskate
  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
    • View Profile
    • http://www.houstons-photography.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2016, 07:28:19 PM »
There are far too many variables to make a definitive statement on whether $500 clients can sustain a business. Depending on a number of factors, the answer could range from "no way" to "absolutely" and both would be correct. I don't know why it's even a point of contention, or why anyone cares. 
     
Houston

Offline Darren Cassese

  • Authenticated Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7216
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotoglyphics.com
Re: Undercutting the market
« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2016, 07:34:05 PM »
There are far too many variables to make a definitive statement on whether $500 clients can sustain a business. Depending on a number of factors, the answer could range from "no way" to "absolutely" and both would be correct. I don't know why it's even a point of contention, or why anyone cares. 
     

I assume we are discussing in terms of what's hypothetical but in terms of simply per image profitability, one clearly nets more than the other. I only bring it up to make a point, not a basis for a business model.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think happy thoughts.  Think happy thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland Wedding and Portrait Photographer