Traditional Commercial Photographers vs. "Here, Take It All" Photographers

I've been getting more involved in commercial and editorial

photography. I wanted to open up some conversation based on some

things that I've been experiencing. More clients are simply stating

that they will not pay typical commercial rates with intended use

charges because there are plenty of capable photographers who will

provide unlimited use of the images in their original shoot fee.

I've seen the work some of these photographers do, and it can be

quite impressive.

 

Do you think the face of commercial photography is changing? I'm

not talking about the big national commercial accounts. I'm talking

about regional commerical clients that don't do national advertising

outside of their web promotions. I am finding it very hard to

charge traditional commercial rates that I'm seeing discussed on EP

and ASMP and even here on photo.net.

 

I've also noticed that art directors and advertising account reps

that have been in the industry for a while are willing to pay

customary commercial rates, but those that are newer/younger tend to

demand an all inclusive release for use of the images, with no

additonal fees for national advertising runs, etc.

 

Questions:

 

Do you think that the explosion of new photographers using digital

is increasing the likelihood that commercial billing practices are

changing? Is this a regional variation, or are you seeing it in

your area as well?

 

Besides the quality of your past work and reputation, how do you

ensure you are getting the accounts and that your clients are paying

you a fair rate for your images, and additional fees for additooanl

use of the images?

 

And do you stick to your guns on your fee structure? I recently

quoted a job to a local company, and I was too much for

their "small" budget of $2K, so I was declined. Yet another very

well known local photographer who traditionally charges substantial

money for commercial work ended up doing the job. Through an inside

contact, I found out he did the job for a very low fee, and gave the

company what they wanted for image use rights.

 

How exactly to you establish yourself in the commercial market if

the competition is practically taking a loss on the jobs they're

doing?

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

Note: please keep your responses professional. I'm looking to learn

here, not start a flame war. Thanks for your help!

<blockquote>Do you think that the explosion of new photographers using digital is

increasing the likelihood that commercial billing practices are changing? Is this a regional

variation, or are you seeing it in your area as well?</blockquote><P>What is happening is

that the middle is quickly eroding leaving the top and "bottom feeders."<P>Greg Heisler's

agent has a ready response to client's who request buyouts: "Buyouts? Great! We love to do

buyouts!"

would you like an international, national, regional or local buyout? And for how long would

you like it?" The point is; there are "buyouts" and there are "buyouts". Most clients (and

photographers) really don't know what they want they just want or are being told that the

term buyout has to be in the invoice. "Buyout" by itself doesn't have any real meaning, as

opposed to "work for hire", which does.<P>You also have to look at the specific job you

are

quoting on. For some jobs the images made are going to be so specific that no one else

can ever use that photo. what they really want is an indefinite usage license so if they

decide to use an image in several ways they won't have to come back to you and negotiate

further usage fees. This is different from an exclusive usage license, etc.

<p> I tend to agree with Ellis that the market is dividing into high end and low end. I would add that many buyers look first to low end and go to high end only after they cannot get what they need in the low end. I think that a lot of what you see from the "newer" entrants reflects a lack of sophistication and experience about the value of quality and rights. There are photographers and agencies who are willing to sell at low prices. The problem with this business model for individual photographers or agencies with relatively small libraries is that the pool of paying customers is insufficient to sustain the kind of volume required to support a photography business founded on low-priced images. So you need to look at pricing from a business plan perspective. Low prices do not equate to huge volume and if you price yourself to a breakeven point, you are basically renting your equipment out to others and volunteering your time and skill.

 

<p> One aspect of digital is that it is making images easier to transfer, especially over the Internet. Many users now search the Internet and pirate images either for their direct use or to convert into various derivative works. Likewise, digital makes it more likely that a customer will upload an image on the Web where it can be pirated by another person. Therefore, the other thing you can do to protect your business is to be diligent about protecting your copyrights. Prompt registration is easy to do in this age of Photoshop and greatly enhances your ability to enforce copyrights. This is important because third-party infringers not only take advantage of the photographer, they also weaken the value of the images to the paying customers who commissioned them.

I don't know about image use licencing because I've never charged for usage, at least not here in Britain. I once worked in NYC and my employer certainly charged it, with everything very carefully covered in an all-encompassing contract. Whether this is common or not throughout The States I don't know. Certainly a fellow PN pro commercial photographer who works in a provincial city told me that he never charges for usage.

 

But that issue aside, I think that commercial photography is definately changing. There are a lot of wannabes grubbing around at the bottom end, eating into the work and profit margins of experienced, quality practioners and maybe this is causing some desperation. These people, not the top end of the market but competent non the less, are finding business more and more difficult, and I'm sure that some of them are suffering as full-time pro wedding photographers are reportedly suffering.

 

But the serious clients, big and small, still want to deal with real pros and will still pay for quality.

 

I'm very lucky. This time of year should be dead but it isn't, and my diary always seems to fill, although often at short notice. I've spent today shooting niche products with a small manufacturer from Southern Ireland who travelled to this country because they couldn't find a suitable commercial photographer in their own country. My prices are competetive but certainly not cheap, and they are non-negotiable.

 

My feeling, right or wrong, is that we need to charge what we feel is fair and reasonable. Some will survive the glut of cheap pricing largely caused by the glut of plastic DSLR fix-it-in-PS 'professionals' and some won't, but the market will eventually settle down. I feel that those who survive and prosper will be those who produce decent quality, provide outstanding service and who take the trouble to get their computer skills up to scratch.

<i>. Some will survive the glut of cheap pricing largely caused by the glut of plastic DSLR fix-it-in-PS 'professionals'</i><p>

 

I'd like to see some evidence of the photos being produced this way and being successfully sold. I hear this a lot on photo.net, but among the people I deal with, nobody has yet to show me a lousy photo sold because they did this. If they are capable of fixing it in a way that meets the client needs, then that alone is evidence that it is a valid way of working. Many clients buy photographs, not photographer skills. But I still haven't seen any evidence that this is what is being successfully sold.

Another thing we should talk about is the trend towards stock purchases verses hiring for a fresh campaign. So many advertisers are now simply buying stock. And we all know how stock is going/gone.