|
Forums >
General Industry >
a digital manifesto
For those of you who feel compelled to give you photography away for free. http://www.editorialphoto.com/outreache … ifesto.asp Dec 28 06 09:55 pm Link I've read these asking, begging, threatening diatribes for years and other than provide pricing guidance where there is budget, demand, and perception of value on the client's part, they don't alter anyone's dominant financial reality and related business model. When photographers who have the requisite capabilities and skills for serving fiscally conservative markets start dropping out, then, maybe, assignment editors will ask for more money to keep valued talent on deck. Best deal I ever got: $1,000 to use a scan from a medium format transparency in on-screen, pre-feature theater advertising for one year. That "gig" scarcely cost me anything. Worst deal: working on six month book project without a royalty agreement that turned into a six-year-long (and still going) nightmare without a royalty agreement. I've asked the writer who pitched the book for a significant licensing payment (no payment--no delivery from me). When fiefdoms do it, it's called "tribute", but I'll settle for the true meanings of "troll" and "toll" on that deal (and proud of it and never again). Next to worse: a woman who want to run one of my pictures on a "rack brochure" run of 50,000 copies. Her budget for photography: nothing. (I withheld the picture). Dec 28 06 10:31 pm Link markEdwardPhoto wrote: The rates on the manifesto are off base! Dec 28 06 10:38 pm Link Technology changes things. The internet has changed lots of things. Whole business models (brick-and-mortar bookstores) are getting toppled by online systems. That's for starters. Don't even think about what the movie and recording industries will look like in 10 years. The internet and new technology is going to continue to fundamentally change photographers' business models. Evolve or die. That's nothing new. That guy's throwing rates around that might make sense for him, if he can get 'em. It's what the market will bear. On the flip side, I'm perfectly happy to shoot stock for a catalog (been there, done that) or an adult site (that too) for less than he's charging to duplicate a CD. Oops. Was that someone's business model I just stepped on? So sorry. Bottom line: if your stuff is worth it and you market it well, you'll make your money. If you're not worth it, or someone can accomplish 80% of what you can, for 20% of the cost, you're gonna need a new job in a couple years. mjr. Dec 28 06 10:44 pm Link Ridiculous. Charge for your time and your non-amortized expenses. When your personal choice of technology or the industry mode of communication change, change your hourly fee to compensate. Either way, the number at the bottom of your invoice is the same. It's not like your client will look at some "Digital Production Fee" and say to himself, "I thought it was too expensive, but since it's DIGITAL, well, that's a whole other story." If you just raise your fee, your clients are paying for your quality, same as always, and don't give a rat's booty how many doo-dads you needed to buy to get the shot. But if you nickel and dime them as if to "punish" them because you had to get a new digital back or you were being forced to upgrade to the new version of Photoshop, you just look like an old fart who is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. This reminds me of the engineering and law firms that still bill their clients per hour for their desktop computers and per page for faxes... Dec 28 06 10:46 pm Link |
