Posted by David Prichard on January 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Getty Images has been put on the auction block. One of the reasons stated was due to the availability of low cost, low quality images, though such images are usually news related.
Posted by Eric Peterson on January 24, 2008 at 1:07 PM
This doesn't come as a huge surprise I think. It seems that with the easy of digital, markets have been flooded with lower quality/lower priced images. When I go to a new location I always try and look at the postcards and calenders to get a feel for whats there and they seem to be getting just horrible. A lot of that comes from the ability to publish your own work but I see no reason for a publishing company to go the extra step when they see less quality products selling. Just my $0.02.
Posted by Mark Windom on January 24, 2008 at 1:22 PM
If they are selling because of declining income they are, IMO, largely responsible for their own situation. Getty has been one of the "leaders" in the development and advancement of the royalty free form of stock which has to have hurt RM sales and, therefore, net income.
Not that I wish Getty TOO much pain, it would be nice to see them bleed a little more for the effects of the RF fiasco on photographers. A good friend just paid the price. He was negotiating for all-rights purchase of one of his prime images by a major corp for their id and labels- very large bux, looking like the price would settle between $30k and $40k. The corp called yesterday to tell him they'd found one of his "culls" from the same shoot he'd listed on an RF site. It was good enough for their needs. Thanks very much. Fun to talk to you. See you later, alligator.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on January 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Not that I wish Getty TOO much pain, it would be nice to see them bleed a little more for the effects of the RF fiasco on photographers.
Ditto. I feel as much sympathy for Getty as I do for the banks and brokers stung by their own bad lending practices.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM
That is a great quote Cliff! I feel the same.
Although, without willing photographers, Getty wouldn't have been able to destroy the marketplace. Hank's friend for example really has no one to blame but himself. I'm willing to bet he hasn't made $30 - $40k on his RF images.
My friend's only solace is looking at the big picture. As bad as it hurt him, he likes to imagine the RF genius's at Getty's and elsewhere watching RF sales result in hundreds or thousands lost from each sale that would otherwise have been a stock sale. That puts a smile on his face!
We both wonder how much Getty and others have lost in conventional income due to their own RF sales?
Where can subprime loan officers find new jobs?
Manage RF galleries!
Posted by Richard Wong on January 24, 2008 at 5:44 PM
ouch! that smashes the theory that there is a "high end" and "low end" market for images. photographers created the market.
I think that photographers already charge way too much for their work. Its time they stepped down from the high pedestal they have been standing on and took a good hard look at the real world. I cannot help but feel sad for the folks who keep insisting that the market is being destroyed by low cost low quality work, when instead it is actually being altered by low cost high quality work.
Sounds to me like the opinion of a photo dilettante not making his living at it. And with that attitude he never will.
Carry on pricing as you wish, but don't criticize those who make their living in the medium.
Many people own a hammer and saw, but that doesn't mean carpenters charge too much and therefore the prices of house should be lowered.
Posted by Mark Windom on January 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Anil, how much is too much??
What does it cost to own and operate professional grade camera gear? What does it cost to travel to get the images you need to put food on the table?? What does it cost to acquire and maintain the computer and software needed to process the image and run the business?? What does it cost to cover your business and personal insurance?? Many professionals who travel extensively also need office personnel to keep the daily workings of the business going when they are on the road...what does it cost to pay those employees??
To the list of professional costs, also add a mortgage on business property, liability and E&O insurance, advertizing and promotions, professional fees (as in most parks charge them), model fees, tech fees, utilitilities and services, maintenance costs for property and vehicles, and......
But wait!!!!!
We still haven't got around to salaries, and god forbid we forget a retirement program (after all, we're professional aren't we and this is a career!).
Anil----- Our fixed costs, whether we sell a photo or not, run just shy of $8,000 a month. We have to generate that much in sales before we can begin to pay any bills at home or undertake a speculative trip to take more photos.
Hmmm, that shouldn't be a problem. At $2.50 each, we only need to sell 3000 RF images a month to break even. That's okay isn't it?
Our day rates are no higher than other professionals, but you think we're charging too much? Take it up with the other professions before deciding that photographers charge too much.
Yeah, we have variations of this discussion all the time in client meetings, but we usually come away with a contract once the client knows what is involved in "making a living" at photography. But the hardest people to educate are other photographers who are satisfied to make enough to cover their gear, and maybe a vacation or two, while making their enterprise tax deductible.
I've got a hammer and a saw, but that doesn't empower me criticize the carpenters working on my house for charging too much.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 24, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Hi Hank - I know that this conversation has been had on here before, and I'm probably not adding anything too new, but I'll throw another comment in (from someone who has never sold anything). You mentioned educating those that "are satisfied to make enough to cover their gear, and maybe a vacation or two, while making their enterprise tax deductible". I think maybe that's the kind of person Anil was mentioning.
There seems to be a proliferation of those that do good work and are happy to sell just a few things. Since they aren't trying to cover the costs that you mentioned, perhaps they don't need educating? I realize that their existence hurts the market for real pros, but I don't know that those people are going away ever, either.
I certainly don't think that anyone is charging too much - you should charge whatever you can get; It's the nature of capitalism. But if someone wants to sell, and all they can get is low prices due to a proliferation of good stock images from those that aren't trying to recoup large costs - well, that's the nature of capitalism too. Something only has as much monetary value as people are willing to pay...
Mark, I will recomend that you visit a small sample of the hundreds (or thousands) of photographer web-sites one can find on the internet. Look at their work and also check the prices they are asking for prints. Then ask yourself if you'd buy their prints for that much. I think you'll get your answer rightaway. I don't need to say any more.
> Sounds to me like the opinion of a photo dilettante not making his living at it. And with that
> attitude he never will.
Well put, Hank. Its always a pleasure to read your writing.
Also, for what its worth, starting this year, I will be offering (some) prints for nearly $0. Given that its low priced and low quality work, the "professionals" shoudn't have anything to worry about.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 24, 2008 at 9:13 PM
The cost of doing business, the quality and price of other photography are all valid points - but in addition, we manage to make enough sales and obtain enough assignments to pay our bills - so what makes you think we charge too much? If buyers are willing to pay the price, then the price isn't too high - economics 101.
I think a lot of people don't understand the business side of photography, particularly the cost of doing business, and that includes Getty; that is exactly why Getty is where it is today - along with many other photographers.
I have know idea who Anil is, but I'm going to make a bold prediction that you don't make your living from photography - or you wouldn't make such a statement. When you have another source of income, it is easy to make bold statements like yours, but if anyone is sitting on a pedestal and out of touch with reality it is you Anil.
> If buyers are willing to pay the price, then the price isn't too high - economics 101.
Ron, you couldn't have put it more correctly. If the customer is willing to pay for it, then the price isn't too high.
However, the problem here is that customers aren't willing to pay that much, may be because they are getting images they are satisfied with for a lot less. Why should the folks running a photo business complain when things are not going according to the prices they desire? Why the complaint that lower priced work is necessarily of lower quality? If buyers aren't finding the quality they desire they will come after the better work.
Regarding who I am - lets just say that I am customer who doesn't want to spend more than what is necessary to get the quality I am after. As long as I can find the desired quality in a lower price range I don't want to end up paying more (to support someone else's business or livelihood).
I'd like to know what kind of customer are you?
Posted by Mark Windom on January 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM
"...starting this year, I will be offering (some) prints for nearly $0. Given that its low priced and low quality work, the "professionals" shouldn't have anything to worry about."
Actually, Anil, I visited your web site (BTW, very nice work) and compared your print prices to those of Ron's....they are very similar. I don't know why you plan on offering some prints later this year for close to zero but my prediction is, that once you start doing so, sales of your regularly priced prints will take a big drop.
Nothing on your site or your description of what you are providing suggests low quality work. Do you plan on intentionally offering low quality work in the future? Or do you just have a low opinion of your own work (if so, it's misguided, IMO).
Posted by Anil Rao on January 24, 2008 at 10:19 PM
> I don't know why you plan on offering some prints later this year for close to zero but my
> prediction is, that once you start doing so, sales of your regularly priced prints will take a big
> drop.
Mark, in addition to offering some prints close to zero, I also plan to reduce the prices on all prints across the board. I think they are a little too high at the moment.
> Nothing on your site or your description of what you are providing suggests low quality work.
> Do you plan on intentionally offering low quality work in the future? Or do you just have a low
> opinion of your own work (if so, it's misguided, IMO).
It was meant to be a joke. Too often, I had heard it said (and here on NPN too) that lower price equates to lower quality. Somehow, I cannot bring myself to accept that as the truth.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 24, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Anil, since photography is so personal, lets look at another example. Take a service station for example.
If a service station opens up on the corner and starts selling gas and all other products for below cost - as a consumer, sure I probably would start buying my gas and pop there. But if I owned a station across the street - I would complain, and I would warn fellow station owners in service station forums (If there is such a thing) about the consequences of selling fuel and store products at below cost. In addition, when they ran into financial problems ( ala Getty and many RF photographers), I wouldn't be surprised.
Now my example may have been a bad one - fuel companies don't seem to have any problems with profitable margins. :)
I totally understand why consumers would be attracted to low cost photos - I don't blame the consumer. Since you asked, yes, I'm the same type of consumer. But as long as I'm making money at my "service station", then I don't believe I'm charging too much. And when someone like yourself who is somewhat of an outside observer comes along and says I don't understand reality, frankly not only do I not buy it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Now if you come back a year from now and explain how you are making a living selling at or below cost, I might listen. But as of right now, your comments makes no - take your pick - sense / cents. :)
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 24, 2008 at 10:48 PM
"It was meant to be a joke. Too often, I had heard it said (and here on NPN too) that lower price equates to lower quality. Somehow, I cannot bring myself to accept that as the truth. "
Spend some time looking at the different collections. Sure there are some very nice RF images, but they are the exception, not the norm. Do you really think Getty's Istock collection is comparable with their Tony Stone? When we get requests, we sometimes check the RF options to see what we are up against, and there is often little of much quality - that is why they are calling. In addition, I have yet to see a big name pro - Magelson / Wofe etc. embrace RF with their best images. The best photos by in large or not RF.
I refuse to shop at Chinamart (aka Walmart), instead paying more to local small businesses to keep my money close to home rather shuttling it into another state and anonymous stock portfolios.
I seek out craftsmen in all trades, paying more for their good work as a matter of course rather than settling for lesser work to "save" money.
I abhore glitz and spin as a "political customer" or any other kind of customer. To me the spin of election season and "party loyalty" are offensive. I'll vote for the idea and individual, but shun the mud slingers, dogmatists and party loyalists. Just as I avoid products that can afford all those glitzy primetime spin ads on TV.
I refuse cable TV, feeling there is no reason I should pay to sit through the ads and infomercials. If they want me to watch them so badly, they can instead pay me for the privilege of bringing their spin into my home. And yes, I watch public TV and listen to public radio, but they're both about 30 seconds per hour shy of my tollerance for "sponsor announcements," aka ads.
I look for rat droppings whenever I see something that's cheap or a "bargain." Too often it's pure jive. Kinda like all the wonderful bargains and money making opportunities appearing in our email each day.
Give me fair price for good quality prepared by an appreciative craftsman. In the long run any extra cost will be paid back manyfold, as meanwhile the "bargain" has long since disappeared into the landfill.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 25, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Hank - I appreciate what you're saying, but your example of Wal-Mart makes the point. They generally carry low quality items, yet people still buy them because they are good enough, and cheaper. That may be a rash decision by some, but people do it anyway.
To build on Ron's example of the service station, pretend that running a service station was fun, and a lot of people just did it as a hobby, even if it cost them a lot of money. Then the analogy would be more apt. The reason, I feel, this is happening to the photo industry and not elsewhere, is that generally there is not enough of a desire to do the work, unless compensation demands it. In the case of photography, it may be possible to find people to do the work with little to no compensation.
That's a real problem for people that do wonderful work and need to be paid since it's a full time effort for them. As you've mentioned a few times, Hank, you really do provide better work and/or higher quality product than a lot of alternatives. That's what keeps you in business. But in certain markets, that really may not be the case.
In Anil's case, which is, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) mainly the "fine art" or decorative market, there are many many people doing good work as a hobby because they enjoy it. It's very difficult to make a living in that case without branching out I would assume - so many don't try.
Posted by Eric Peterson on January 25, 2008 at 1:08 AM
I am one of the ones that don't shoot for a living and it bothers me to think I may take work away from people that do. I was contacted by a real estate company about some stock images they were looking for and recommended they check with the locals we had that I knew did it for a living before I showed them any images. They still chose me but I then made sure to price my shots at the same cost because I hated the thought of under cutting, I actually got into an argument with my wife because I was so stressed out I wanted to call and cancel their order. I work at an architectural firm and I have seen the cost of undercutting. It's not until you do experience it that you realize the effect it has.
Hank, you are not a dinosaur, you are one of the people that kept quality alive until another generation could come up and learn to appreciate it again. Thanks
Posted by Richard Wong on January 25, 2008 at 2:40 AM
you shouldn't feel guilty for selling your images Eric and I doubt anyone would give you a guilt trip. At least you made it worth your time to get market value for your work. From what you said, there didn't seem to be a reason to undercut since your images were the ones they wanted anyway. the photographer is potentially his own worst enemy is most cases.
I have to disagree on the aptness of Chinamart as an example. In small towns the ONLY way small local businesses have survived is by providing great, professional service. They can't compeat on price, but they can sure compeat with corporate merchandizing and minimum-wage staff. And relating that back to Anil's original point, he can charge as little as he wants for photos, but please don't criticize me for charging too much. I'll ignore his low prices and steal all his customers with good service. It works in the face of Chinamart invasions in small towns, and it works in photo businesses.
BTW- To clarify, I'm not picking on China in calling Walmart "Chinamart," rather I'm addressing Walmart's draconian strategies with suppliers and local small businesses. In fact I've worked in China and love the people and the place.
Boy, I'm on a roll!!!!!! How about one more example:
A sincere hiney chapper for me is the US Postal Service and their recent entry into taking photos for passports and imigration documents. What the hey??????? There were already three businesses in Kodiak providing that service. All the USPS did was attempt a money grab by bringing Walmart pricing into the field, meanwhile adding yet another line to the post office lobby. Fortunately for us, their quality STINKS, and we're getting lots of reshoots from their disgruntled customers.
What I stated was my opinion (and just that) and I assume I am free to express that here.
Secondly, like I said in my reply to Ron - if your prices are working for you and your customers are happy with the quality/service they receive, then it isn't too high at all. You are after all running a successful business! However, there are hoards of photographers whose photo businesses are failing or not doing so well (isn't that what this discussion is all about) and those are the photographers, who should, in my opinion, take another look at their prices and what the market is willing to bear, w.r.t. to the quality that is being provided. The answer is rather simple - if you want to compete and be successful, you'll either have to improve the quality/service or lower prices. I somehow think that even you will agree with me on this.
The reason I brought this up is because time and again I hear the same thing - whether it is stock business, art/craft shows , or main-line galleries. The matter of fact is that there are a lot more photographers around - full time or part time - and technology is allowing for both improved quality and cheaper costs. The end result is that supply of pictures has gone up and we all will have to deal with it in one way or the other.
Thanks to all for their respective viewpoints.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Hi Eric,
I can appreciate what you went through - but you don't need to feel guilty. I still battle the same issues myself, and have felt "guilty" over a few deals despite my best intentions.
Ron
Posted by David Bostedo on January 25, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Actually, it sounds like we agree on Wal-Mart Hank. I'm just saying that they make a lot of money and definitely change what smaller business have to do to survive. Much like what photographers might be going through now to figure out how to survive.
And I actually never would have thought to going to a real photographer for a passport photo. In fact, the only places around here (just outside DC) I would know to go would be the post office or Wal-Mart. I guess that's part of living in a more urban area. I'll have to look into other possibilities...
Truth be known David, there's one gold nugget in the Walmart invasion of small towns. Some of the locals they drive out of business deserved to go out of business, in terms of service anyway.
Not Walmart, rather a local grocery store killed off when Safeway came to Kodiak, but here's a good example of good old small town "service." I went in looking for onions, but among the sagging brown heads of lettuce, black spotted tomatoes, limp carrots and yellow-flowered brocolli, they didn't have any. I querried the manager and he led me into the stockroom, where I gaped at crates of beautiful fresh vegetables stacked along one wall.
I naturally asked when those would be put stocked. His straight-faced reply was "Just as soon as the stuff in front sells out."
Posted by Cliff Beittel on January 25, 2008 at 8:06 PM
. . . there are hoards of photographers whose photo businesses are failing or not doing so well (isn't that what this discussion is all about) and those are the photographers, who should, in my opinion, take another look at their prices and what the market is willing to bear . . .
Interesting. The owners of Getty, the apparent leader in "royalty free," see their stock price decline by 45% in one year and announce they want out of the business. And the inference drawn is that other photographers need to "bend it like Getty"--i.e., go royalty free themselves? Wouldn't the more valid conclusion be to follow Getty's owners (1) out of royalty free, if not (2) out of stock photography altogether (assuming you don't know more about the business than one of the two major players in the industry)?
Posted by Mark Windom on January 25, 2008 at 8:12 PM
The stock industry was booming before the introduction of low cost RF. End users were willing to pay for quality work. Look where the industry is today and decide for yourself how much of that is due to the fact that there is alot of "cheap" out there.
Posted by Anil Rao on January 25, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Cliff Biettel wrote:
Interesting. The owners of Getty, the apparent leader in "royalty free," see their stock price decline by 45% in one year and announce they want out of the business. And the inference drawn is that other photographers need to "bend it like Getty"--i.e., go royalty free themselves? Wouldn't the more valid conclusion be to follow Getty's owners (1) out of royalty free, if not (2) out of stock photography altogether (assuming you don't know more about the business than one of the two major players in the industry)?
All I was suggesting is that photographers, specially the ones who are hurting, examine their pricing model based on today's market demands. What is so ridiculous about this proposal? Where did you get the (wild) idea that I was suggesting that other photographers need to go royalty free.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on January 26, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Anil,
By "examine their pricing model," it's clear you mean "lower their prices"--what other inference would I draw when you talk about selling prints for "nearly $0". I'm saying that since Getty's leadership in low-priced imagery doesn't seem to have helped them, perhaps lowering prices (whether through "royalty free" or "nearly $0" pricing) isn't salvation. Just as small farmers got out of farming when farm prices were low (and costs high) for decades, the logical choice now may be to forget about stock photography altogether--find other ways to make money with photography or just enjoy photography for itself.
Wanna take bets on whether the new owners of Getty sustain the RF division and the geniuses that started it? Surely it has worked so well that they will make it the centerpiece of their business model.
Posted by Mark Windom on January 26, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Cliff wrote: "...the logical choice now may be to forget about stock photography altogether..."
That's what I'm in the process of doing....at least the agency aspect of the business. I've been with one of the larger NY based agencies for 15 years and have seen my sales decline 80% over the last couple of years. Perhaps that says something about my photography and/or the subject matter (nature) but in talking to several of my colleagues it's obvious that I am not alone.
While most companies are rebelling against high stock prices today thanks to RF, they think nothing of paying day rates and hourly fees to have custom photos taken that meet their needs exactly. And high dollar, too. Meanwhile, they'll probably buy stock from your collection to round out the project. Beats the stuffings out of agency stock sales for us, as it has for 15 years now, but it's even better today.
Why share your pittance of stock income with agencies that haven't got a clue about the marketing opportunities right at your doorstep?
Posted by Cliff Beittel on January 27, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Just read today that paparazzi shots of Brittany Spears go for between $250 (everyday stuff) and $500,000 (probably the one you think). Good to know the market still pays for value.
Posted by Richard Wong on January 27, 2008 at 11:35 PM
oh man. last week as I was driving into downtown LA I heard that Britney Spears was around the corner for her custody hearing. and to think I didn't try getting a photo.
Discussion
37 replieshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/business/media/21deal.html
Anybody got 1.5 billion dollars?
Not that I wish Getty TOO much pain, it would be nice to see them bleed a little more for the effects of the RF fiasco on photographers. A good friend just paid the price. He was negotiating for all-rights purchase of one of his prime images by a major corp for their id and labels- very large bux, looking like the price would settle between $30k and $40k. The corp called yesterday to tell him they'd found one of his "culls" from the same shoot he'd listed on an RF site. It was good enough for their needs. Thanks very much. Fun to talk to you. See you later, alligator.
Ditto. I feel as much sympathy for Getty as I do for the banks and brokers stung by their own bad lending practices.
Although, without willing photographers, Getty wouldn't have been able to destroy the marketplace. Hank's friend for example really has no one to blame but himself. I'm willing to bet he hasn't made $30 - $40k on his RF images.
We both wonder how much Getty and others have lost in conventional income due to their own RF sales?
Where can subprime loan officers find new jobs?
Manage RF galleries!
Sounds to me like the opinion of a photo dilettante not making his living at it. And with that attitude he never will.
Carry on pricing as you wish, but don't criticize those who make their living in the medium.
Many people own a hammer and saw, but that doesn't mean carpenters charge too much and therefore the prices of house should be lowered.
What does it cost to own and operate professional grade camera gear? What does it cost to travel to get the images you need to put food on the table?? What does it cost to acquire and maintain the computer and software needed to process the image and run the business?? What does it cost to cover your business and personal insurance?? Many professionals who travel extensively also need office personnel to keep the daily workings of the business going when they are on the road...what does it cost to pay those employees??
I could go on....
Want to rethink your position??
But wait!!!!!
We still haven't got around to salaries, and god forbid we forget a retirement program (after all, we're professional aren't we and this is a career!).
Anil----- Our fixed costs, whether we sell a photo or not, run just shy of $8,000 a month. We have to generate that much in sales before we can begin to pay any bills at home or undertake a speculative trip to take more photos.
Hmmm, that shouldn't be a problem. At $2.50 each, we only need to sell 3000 RF images a month to break even. That's okay isn't it?
Our day rates are no higher than other professionals, but you think we're charging too much? Take it up with the other professions before deciding that photographers charge too much.
Yeah, we have variations of this discussion all the time in client meetings, but we usually come away with a contract once the client knows what is involved in "making a living" at photography. But the hardest people to educate are other photographers who are satisfied to make enough to cover their gear, and maybe a vacation or two, while making their enterprise tax deductible.
I've got a hammer and a saw, but that doesn't empower me criticize the carpenters working on my house for charging too much.
There seems to be a proliferation of those that do good work and are happy to sell just a few things. Since they aren't trying to cover the costs that you mentioned, perhaps they don't need educating? I realize that their existence hurts the market for real pros, but I don't know that those people are going away ever, either.
I certainly don't think that anyone is charging too much - you should charge whatever you can get; It's the nature of capitalism. But if someone wants to sell, and all they can get is low prices due to a proliferation of good stock images from those that aren't trying to recoup large costs - well, that's the nature of capitalism too. Something only has as much monetary value as people are willing to pay...
Mark, I will recomend that you visit a small sample of the hundreds (or thousands) of photographer web-sites one can find on the internet. Look at their work and also check the prices they are asking for prints. Then ask yourself if you'd buy their prints for that much. I think you'll get your answer rightaway. I don't need to say any more.
> Sounds to me like the opinion of a photo dilettante not making his living at it. And with that
> attitude he never will.
Well put, Hank. Its always a pleasure to read your writing.
Also, for what its worth, starting this year, I will be offering (some) prints for nearly $0. Given that its low priced and low quality work, the "professionals" shoudn't have anything to worry about.
I think a lot of people don't understand the business side of photography, particularly the cost of doing business, and that includes Getty; that is exactly why Getty is where it is today - along with many other photographers.
I have know idea who Anil is, but I'm going to make a bold prediction that you don't make your living from photography - or you wouldn't make such a statement. When you have another source of income, it is easy to make bold statements like yours, but if anyone is sitting on a pedestal and out of touch with reality it is you Anil.
Ron, you couldn't have put it more correctly. If the customer is willing to pay for it, then the price isn't too high.
However, the problem here is that customers aren't willing to pay that much, may be because they are getting images they are satisfied with for a lot less. Why should the folks running a photo business complain when things are not going according to the prices they desire? Why the complaint that lower priced work is necessarily of lower quality? If buyers aren't finding the quality they desire they will come after the better work.
Regarding who I am - lets just say that I am customer who doesn't want to spend more than what is necessary to get the quality I am after. As long as I can find the desired quality in a lower price range I don't want to end up paying more (to support someone else's business or livelihood).
I'd like to know what kind of customer are you?
Actually, Anil, I visited your web site (BTW, very nice work) and compared your print prices to those of Ron's....they are very similar. I don't know why you plan on offering some prints later this year for close to zero but my prediction is, that once you start doing so, sales of your regularly priced prints will take a big drop.
Nothing on your site or your description of what you are providing suggests low quality work. Do you plan on intentionally offering low quality work in the future? Or do you just have a low opinion of your own work (if so, it's misguided, IMO).
> prediction is, that once you start doing so, sales of your regularly priced prints will take a big
> drop.
Mark, in addition to offering some prints close to zero, I also plan to reduce the prices on all prints across the board. I think they are a little too high at the moment.
> Nothing on your site or your description of what you are providing suggests low quality work.
> Do you plan on intentionally offering low quality work in the future? Or do you just have a low
> opinion of your own work (if so, it's misguided, IMO).
It was meant to be a joke. Too often, I had heard it said (and here on NPN too) that lower price equates to lower quality. Somehow, I cannot bring myself to accept that as the truth.
If a service station opens up on the corner and starts selling gas and all other products for below cost - as a consumer, sure I probably would start buying my gas and pop there. But if I owned a station across the street - I would complain, and I would warn fellow station owners in service station forums (If there is such a thing) about the consequences of selling fuel and store products at below cost. In addition, when they ran into financial problems ( ala Getty and many RF photographers), I wouldn't be surprised.
Now my example may have been a bad one - fuel companies don't seem to have any problems with profitable margins. :)
I totally understand why consumers would be attracted to low cost photos - I don't blame the consumer. Since you asked, yes, I'm the same type of consumer. But as long as I'm making money at my "service station", then I don't believe I'm charging too much. And when someone like yourself who is somewhat of an outside observer comes along and says I don't understand reality, frankly not only do I not buy it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Now if you come back a year from now and explain how you are making a living selling at or below cost, I might listen. But as of right now, your comments makes no - take your pick - sense / cents. :)
Spend some time looking at the different collections. Sure there are some very nice RF images, but they are the exception, not the norm. Do you really think Getty's Istock collection is comparable with their Tony Stone? When we get requests, we sometimes check the RF options to see what we are up against, and there is often little of much quality - that is why they are calling. In addition, I have yet to see a big name pro - Magelson / Wofe etc. embrace RF with their best images. The best photos by in large or not RF.
I'm a dinosaur.
I refuse to shop at Chinamart (aka Walmart), instead paying more to local small businesses to keep my money close to home rather shuttling it into another state and anonymous stock portfolios.
I seek out craftsmen in all trades, paying more for their good work as a matter of course rather than settling for lesser work to "save" money.
I abhore glitz and spin as a "political customer" or any other kind of customer. To me the spin of election season and "party loyalty" are offensive. I'll vote for the idea and individual, but shun the mud slingers, dogmatists and party loyalists. Just as I avoid products that can afford all those glitzy primetime spin ads on TV.
I refuse cable TV, feeling there is no reason I should pay to sit through the ads and infomercials. If they want me to watch them so badly, they can instead pay me for the privilege of bringing their spin into my home. And yes, I watch public TV and listen to public radio, but they're both about 30 seconds per hour shy of my tollerance for "sponsor announcements," aka ads.
I look for rat droppings whenever I see something that's cheap or a "bargain." Too often it's pure jive. Kinda like all the wonderful bargains and money making opportunities appearing in our email each day.
Give me fair price for good quality prepared by an appreciative craftsman. In the long run any extra cost will be paid back manyfold, as meanwhile the "bargain" has long since disappeared into the landfill.
To build on Ron's example of the service station, pretend that running a service station was fun, and a lot of people just did it as a hobby, even if it cost them a lot of money. Then the analogy would be more apt. The reason, I feel, this is happening to the photo industry and not elsewhere, is that generally there is not enough of a desire to do the work, unless compensation demands it. In the case of photography, it may be possible to find people to do the work with little to no compensation.
That's a real problem for people that do wonderful work and need to be paid since it's a full time effort for them. As you've mentioned a few times, Hank, you really do provide better work and/or higher quality product than a lot of alternatives. That's what keeps you in business. But in certain markets, that really may not be the case.
In Anil's case, which is, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) mainly the "fine art" or decorative market, there are many many people doing good work as a hobby because they enjoy it. It's very difficult to make a living in that case without branching out I would assume - so many don't try.
Hank, you are not a dinosaur, you are one of the people that kept quality alive until another generation could come up and learn to appreciate it again. Thanks
I have to disagree on the aptness of Chinamart as an example. In small towns the ONLY way small local businesses have survived is by providing great, professional service. They can't compeat on price, but they can sure compeat with corporate merchandizing and minimum-wage staff. And relating that back to Anil's original point, he can charge as little as he wants for photos, but please don't criticize me for charging too much. I'll ignore his low prices and steal all his customers with good service. It works in the face of Chinamart invasions in small towns, and it works in photo businesses.
BTW- To clarify, I'm not picking on China in calling Walmart "Chinamart," rather I'm addressing Walmart's draconian strategies with suppliers and local small businesses. In fact I've worked in China and love the people and the place.
Boy, I'm on a roll!!!!!! How about one more example:
A sincere hiney chapper for me is the US Postal Service and their recent entry into taking photos for passports and imigration documents. What the hey??????? There were already three businesses in Kodiak providing that service. All the USPS did was attempt a money grab by bringing Walmart pricing into the field, meanwhile adding yet another line to the post office lobby. Fortunately for us, their quality STINKS, and we're getting lots of reshoots from their disgruntled customers.
What I stated was my opinion (and just that) and I assume I am free to express that here.
Secondly, like I said in my reply to Ron - if your prices are working for you and your customers are happy with the quality/service they receive, then it isn't too high at all. You are after all running a successful business! However, there are hoards of photographers whose photo businesses are failing or not doing so well (isn't that what this discussion is all about) and those are the photographers, who should, in my opinion, take another look at their prices and what the market is willing to bear, w.r.t. to the quality that is being provided. The answer is rather simple - if you want to compete and be successful, you'll either have to improve the quality/service or lower prices. I somehow think that even you will agree with me on this.
The reason I brought this up is because time and again I hear the same thing - whether it is stock business, art/craft shows , or main-line galleries. The matter of fact is that there are a lot more photographers around - full time or part time - and technology is allowing for both improved quality and cheaper costs. The end result is that supply of pictures has gone up and we all will have to deal with it in one way or the other.
Thanks to all for their respective viewpoints.
I can appreciate what you went through - but you don't need to feel guilty. I still battle the same issues myself, and have felt "guilty" over a few deals despite my best intentions.
Ron
And I actually never would have thought to going to a real photographer for a passport photo. In fact, the only places around here (just outside DC) I would know to go would be the post office or Wal-Mart.
Not Walmart, rather a local grocery store killed off when Safeway came to Kodiak, but here's a good example of good old small town "service." I went in looking for onions, but among the sagging brown heads of lettuce, black spotted tomatoes, limp carrots and yellow-flowered brocolli, they didn't have any. I querried the manager and he led me into the stockroom, where I gaped at crates of beautiful fresh vegetables stacked along one wall.
I naturally asked when those would be put stocked. His straight-faced reply was "Just as soon as the stuff in front sells out."
Interesting. The owners of Getty, the apparent leader in "royalty free," see their stock price decline by 45% in one year and announce they want out of the business. And the inference drawn is that other photographers need to "bend it like Getty"--i.e., go royalty free themselves? Wouldn't the more valid conclusion be to follow Getty's owners (1) out of royalty free, if not (2) out of stock photography altogether (assuming you don't know more about the business than one of the two major players in the industry)?
Interesting. The owners of Getty, the apparent leader in "royalty free," see their stock price decline by 45% in one year and announce they want out of the business. And the inference drawn is that other photographers need to "bend it like Getty"--i.e., go royalty free themselves? Wouldn't the more valid conclusion be to follow Getty's owners (1) out of royalty free, if not (2) out of stock photography altogether (assuming you don't know more about the business than one of the two major players in the industry)?
All I was suggesting is that photographers, specially the ones who are hurting, examine their pricing model based on today's market demands. What is so ridiculous about this proposal? Where did you get the (wild) idea that I was suggesting that other photographers need to go royalty free.
By "examine their pricing model," it's clear you mean "lower their prices"--what other inference would I draw when you talk about selling prints for "nearly $0". I'm saying that since Getty's leadership in low-priced imagery doesn't seem to have helped them, perhaps lowering prices (whether through "royalty free" or "nearly $0" pricing) isn't salvation. Just as small farmers got out of farming when farm prices were low (and costs high) for decades, the logical choice now may be to forget about stock photography altogether--find other ways to make money with photography or just enjoy photography for itself.
That's what I'm in the process of doing....at least the agency aspect of the business. I've been with one of the larger NY based agencies for 15 years and have seen my sales decline 80% over the last couple of years. Perhaps that says something about my photography and/or the subject matter (nature) but in talking to several of my colleagues it's obvious that I am not alone.
While most companies are rebelling against high stock prices today thanks to RF, they think nothing of paying day rates and hourly fees to have custom photos taken that meet their needs exactly. And high dollar, too. Meanwhile, they'll probably buy stock from your collection to round out the project. Beats the stuffings out of agency stock sales for us, as it has for 15 years now, but it's even better today.
Why share your pittance of stock income with agencies that haven't got a clue about the marketing opportunities right at your doorstep?