Posted by Josh Anderson on February 26, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I searched some of the websites of our 'professionals' here at NPN to find out the price at which they were selling their prints. I found quite the variety of prices. For example lets use the dimensions of 12" x 18" (or there about) for only the print. The range of prices that I cam across were from $20 (which I found to be extremely cheap) to around $200.
It would sure be interesting to get an independent comparison of sales volumes, wouldn't it?
Lots of factors at play ranging from "what the market will bear" to individual reputation, lack of confidence in pricing, and the fact that prices too low can actually depress sales volume (as in, people being reluctant to buy because price seems too low for quality).
We don't sell on the web, instead selling from our studio where our portraits in that size sell for well above that range- over and above the sitting fee clients also have to pay. In that "environment" we also get the same price for our art prints, but probably wouln't get the same prices in a gallery.
Like I said, lots of factors at work and a comparison of sales volume would tell more of the story.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 26, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Part of it too seems to depend on the region where you are marketing. When I was looking at prices what other photographers were charging, larger metropolitan areas (Southern California, the city of Boston/New York/Phillidelphia/Baltimore (yeah, I know, they are different cities separated by a couple of hundred miles ) seemed to be a step up on prices I was seeing here in the Midwest. Primary format also seemed to make a bit of a difference as well, with LF primarily shooters charging a bit more than small format shooters.
At least until I can get a better handle on what of my work people are mostly likely to buy, I am trying to stay around midmarket on the prices. It is still a bit of guesswork, though.
Posted by dan elster on February 26, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Having done art shows in Florida, Illinois and Oregon, I have found that region plays a big role. Some photographers in FL almost seemed to be charging garage sale type prices. After a couple of shows there, I reluctantly lowered my prices a bit. Now in Oregon, I've raised them back up a little and have decided I will no longer worry about competitive pricing.
Posted by Kim Kaiser on February 26, 2007 at 1:20 PM
go somewhere like jackson hole, WY and check the photo prices from some of the notables,,,you will see 200 as a bargain for that size
Posted by Anil Rao on February 26, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Josh,
I am not surprised by this at all. If you look at the prices of other things (food, clothes, cars, houses, etc.) there is always a variance. Why do you think the same shouldn't apply to photographic prints?
Posted by Anil Rao on February 26, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Darren, that is the problem I find with print pricing. Photographers tend to price their prints based on size (as Josh is trying to do by looking at 12x18 print prices). Instead we ought to be looking at the quality of the work. I remember being told to look at Galen Rowell's print prices in order to get a fair idea of what I should be charging. I think that is a ridiculous methodology! That would be the same as suggesting that Kia to look at Porche prices when determining the MSRP for their SUVs.
I know people can charge whatever they want for thier prints - its their own art after all. However, if you really want to sell your prints then you need to let go of some ego and be more practical. My recommendation is to price your prints at a level that the market will bear. Start anywhere but adjust prices as the sales will indicate. Every other vendor does this - it isn't rocket science. As I have said before I'd much rather sell 10 prints at $50 than have a $200 print sitting in a gallery collecting dust. But then that's just me.
I'm happy to sell 10 prints this year at 20/print. I got 200 Euro which is not bad. If the price was 100/print then selling 2 prints this year would have been difficult.
You also have to remember that marketing plays an important role here. Photography is a hobby for me, I have not time for marketing.
Have of you ever considered asking a friend, family member or another artist to review your work and the market, then set your print prices for you? Most artists I know working in other mediums do so, simply because they have such a difficult time assigning an objective price to their own work. In almost every case they tend to undervalue and underprice their own work.
The most successful I know (a painter) couldn't tell you what his prints sell for, much less an original. It's simply beyond his realm of thinking. About the only place he will quote a price is for commission work, and that's based on a formula he and his "pricer" worked out a formula based on size and the painter's estimate of hours. In his case the pricer, (actually a full-fledged business manager) gets a % of sales and actively markets the painter. It started out as a simple favor between friends many years ago, but has grown to a full time and well-paying job.
Discussion
8 repliesI just thought it was interesting!
Lots of factors at play ranging from "what the market will bear" to individual reputation, lack of confidence in pricing, and the fact that prices too low can actually depress sales volume (as in, people being reluctant to buy because price seems too low for quality).
We don't sell on the web, instead selling from our studio where our portraits in that size sell for well above that range- over and above the sitting fee clients also have to pay. In that "environment" we also get the same price for our art prints, but probably wouln't get the same prices in a gallery.
Like I said, lots of factors at work and a comparison of sales volume would tell more of the story.
At least until I can get a better handle on what of my work people are mostly likely to buy, I am trying to stay around midmarket on the prices. It is still a bit of guesswork, though.
I am not surprised by this at all. If you look at the prices of other things (food, clothes, cars, houses, etc.) there is always a variance. Why do you think the same shouldn't apply to photographic prints?
I know people can charge whatever they want for thier prints - its their own art after all. However, if you really want to sell your prints then you need to let go of some ego and be more practical. My recommendation is to price your prints at a level that the market will bear. Start anywhere but adjust prices as the sales will indicate. Every other vendor does this - it isn't rocket science. As I have said before I'd much rather sell 10 prints at $50 than have a $200 print sitting in a gallery collecting dust. But then that's just me.
You also have to remember that marketing plays an important role here. Photography is a hobby for me, I have not time for marketing.
The most successful I know (a painter) couldn't tell you what his prints sell for, much less an original. It's simply beyond his realm of thinking. About the only place he will quote a price is for commission work, and that's based on a formula he and his "pricer" worked out a formula based on size and the painter's estimate of hours. In his case the pricer, (actually a full-fledged business manager) gets a % of sales and actively markets the painter. It started out as a simple favor between friends many years ago, but has grown to a full time and well-paying job.