Your minimum hourly rate

[Xenedis]

One last message from the organiser

"last year we paid $600, we are looking to choose based primarily on price"

does this change anything ?

It changes my response to "good luck".

If the company is budget-conscious and places price before quality, the quality it gets will generally reflect the price it's willing to pay. As long as it is prepared to accept that, no problem.

I wonder what other expenses the company must bear for things like the band, the catering, the venue, etc. None of it would be cheap.

[zollo]

One last message from the organiser

"last year we paid $600, we are looking to choose based primarily on price"

does this change anything ?

yep... the photographer he gets

[zollo]

Even after taking into considerations $3000 is a ridiculous price. Standing around with a camera is not hard work. Having the ability to control a few variables on a camera is not skilled work. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but its really not.

i'd be interested for comparison knowing what say a plumber from 5pm to 1am on a saturday night would charge? If its not in the vicinity of $150 an hour i would be surprised. hard work or not doesnt come into play. he's being paid to do what he does. in saying that i agree that 3 gorillas is a bit over estimating

[DAdeGroot]

Caveat: I've read through the whole thread before replying.

Based on prior experience, and on the limited information we've been supplied, $1,500 - $2,000 is not unreasonable. These are big events to shoot and do take a fair amount of skill and the right kit to pull them off successfully. The fact that there's posed studio-like shots as well as candids means more mucking around on the night, possibly an assistant, etc.

Realistically though, you'll find most companies will opt for someone in the $500-$800 range and hope for the best.

[bigdazzler]

Id do it for $1000 ..... just because I can, and Im not greedy.

I can tell you one thing though, price doesnt always dictate "what you get" .. Ive seen wedding photos from a $750 shoot-and-burn-enthusiast-photographer that will rival anything Ive seen in the $5K end of the market, and thats a fact. They were my sister-in-laws photos.

[kiwi]

Ok, well I suppose to complete the story, which is mainly real. The market price for a ft pro business to do this job, for one photographer, was at minimum about $1500.

For "us guys" I think 100 or so an hour is probably the right mark

The problem is as you can see is that someone lowballed last year and has set the price expectation for thus year, and you can also see that some here would do an adequate job and would be happy to charge 500

That's life in the lane I guess

[Longshots]

Even though someone suggested recently I should diversify, my past professional life has been highly diversified. For approx five years, I worked as a marketing manager and sponsorship consultant. At no point did I ever choose a supplier based on the cheapest possible price. How I, and the organisations I worked for, never had a system of cheapest price wins attitude.

There will always be someone/something cheaper. And many consider that approach as the way into the industry, and those that stick with that tend to eventually find that they havent done their sums and in the end, no matter how busy they are, the figures do not add up, and surprise, surprise, they're making a loss and cannot continue.

I posted a link some time ago on my facebook page - have a view at this spoof, and you'll get the message.

http://www.vendorclientvideo.com/



In the past, when I've jumped into these arguments - and I've stopped myself three times on this one before I did eventually give into the urge - I've come up with an experience which made me think differently, and an analogy which I use all of the time.

The experience resulted me coming to the conclusion of what is the job worth, and what value do I place on myself ?

That experience was not based on just one. I have a Queenslander (aka money pit), and although I enjoy a certain amount of DIY, I dont always have time for every job and some are simply beyond me in terms of experience or qualifications (ie electrical). When I asked people for quotes, while how long something would take would be a factor, I wouldnt want to be walking around watching each tradie to see how much they were working, or wether they were talking or working. All of them had given me a price to get the job done. Did I give the job to the cheapest ? Or to the person/company that I had a degree of trust in; that I'd possibly seen examples of their work; or were a recommendation that I based my choice on ? Did I also demand a breakdown in cost to the finest details - how much wood, how many metres of electrical cord, how much paint etc ? The answer was always - never.
Then one day I needed a fairly simple job done, but I had no time, and have never been keen on plumbing. My kitchen mixer tap needed to be replaced. I could buy the replacement tap from Bunnings, and it would have cost me $120. There was also a bit of replacement pipe work involved. I employed a good plumber who did the job for $250. It took him 10 mins from the moment he arrived to the time he left. There was no mess, and no fuss. It was also one of the tidiest jobs I've seen with not even a drop of water anywhere but the sink. I initially thought, phew that was an expensive ten mins, and then I remembered the idiot who I'd got to plumb in the replacement laundry sink that took 2 days and was an absolute mess, and the taps on that still drip.

Then followed a new approach by myself to how I charge.

Now on the difference in values

I've read this type of request from prospective clients before and most of the time they're not worth addressing IMHO. In short, this client needs some educating.

I ask them if they chose the clothes their wearing based on the cheapest price ? Did they get their job based on the cheapest price they would work for ?

Funnily enough, the reaction is always "taken back" And I then ask them if they're "taken back", why they would think a supplier such as myself wouldnt also be taken back.



The analogy

I want to buy a car - four wheels, four doors, able to get me from A to B.

Cheapest price ?

Or do I want one with a bit of class, something that is going to represent who "I am", one that has a certain degree of quality, and something I can have some trust in ?

Most people do not choose the cheapest possible price.


Sure some people buy themselves a Lada, whereas others want a Holden - but do they always buy the very cheapest, base level versions ? No they dont.

I then change this type of approach, by asking if they want to consider what level of car maker would they be thinking of - Lada, Holden, or maybe BMW ?

Now that doesnt mean that there isnt a market for the cheapest possible price. Plenty of real world examples of that happening - but cheapest isnt always cheapest - I looked at buying an air ticket to Melbourne recently - Tiger were apparently the cheapest. But a quick check on the fine print meant my luggage would be severely limited, and then there was the issue of countless stories, and my viewing experience of the Tiger airline documentary, and I came to the conclusion that it would be nice to go with an airline that had more faith in getting me there and in a manner which would be in more comfort.

So the very opening question would after so many years of learning that this type of opening question would be an invitation to trouble and would not be seriously worth answering. $600 for 8 hours on site work would translate into at least 10 hours total work, would using my business model not be worth pursuing, because it simply would not make financial sense. I would certainly have quoted (if not given the "last year etc etc " info, in the region of $2000 plus to produce a quality product.

And all of this goes to prove that despite someone coming in with a cheap price the previous year, (after all, I cant see the $600 price of being sensible) that the client is still price driven to the point, where they will eventually place zero value on the photography and be offering the opportunity to someone to produce the images for free on the basis that they will be given a chance to show off their photography.

[Steve Axford]

I agree with what you say William. I'll just add that in this case the photographer might be employed because it is expected that a photographer will be there (they've always had a photographer). The employer may not really care if the photographer is good or not (they all take photographs, don't they?). So, the price may be the only consideration.

[rowdy23]

x2 on all points

[Longshots]

I agree with what you say William. I'll just add that in this case the photographer might be employed because it is expected that a photographer will be there (they've always had a photographer). The employer may not really care if the photographer is good or not (they all take photographs, don't they?). So, the price may be the only consideration.

Actually I know the source of this, and no the photographer is not employed.

[Steve Axford]

Not employed??

[Redgum]

Horses for courses. Williams theory may work at the small end of the market (one on one) but has little relevance with government, corporate bodies or multi-nationals. This includes councils and NGO's.
The larger end of the scale is driven by a budget or funding (grant). In other words the organisation simply needs the job done and has little interest in the nuts and bolts. For example I recently quoted on thirteen corporate videos for the government. My competitors put in thirteen different quotes hoping to snag at least one job. We put in a single quote for all the work and won it hands down simple because the vendor didn't want to stuff around and we made an effort to find out what the budget was. So it was price driven.
The same is applicable for National Geographic. They want a set number of photos on a particular theme. You shoot and they choose. If they don't get what they want you don't get paid.
There's always a risk in chasing business and people not prepared to look outside the square will always miss out. So sometimes you will get the short straw price wise and other times a windfall. The whole idea of doing good business is to look for continuity. Offer the client a three year deal and discount your price by say 10%, whatever your price may be. Just make sure it covers costs and pays a wage or dividend.
And, as to anyone doing the job for free, you'll gain nothing by the experience and certainly not future paid work. You're simply being used.

[Longshots]

Horses for courses. Williams theory may work at the small end of the market (one on one) but has little relevance with government, corporate bodies or multi-nationals. This includes councils and NGO's.
The larger end of the scale is driven by a budget or funding (grant). In other words the organisation simply needs the job done and has little interest in the nuts and bolts. For example I recently quoted on thirteen corporate videos for the government. My competitors put in thirteen different quotes hoping to snag at least one job. We put in a single quote for all the work and won it hands down simple because the vendor didn't want to stuff around and we made an effort to find out what the budget was. So it was price driven.
The same is applicable for National Geographic. They want a set number of photos on a particular theme. You shoot and they choose. If they don't get what they want you don't get paid.
There's always a risk in chasing business and people not prepared to look outside the square will always miss out. So sometimes you will get the short straw price wise and other times a windfall. The whole idea of doing good business is to look for continuity. Offer the client a three year deal and discount your price by say 10%, whatever your price may be. Just make sure it covers costs and pays a wage or dividend.
And, as to anyone doing the job for free, you'll gain nothing by the experience and certainly not future paid work. You're simply being used.

So, you're saying that you got the job on your price alone ? - not what you're capable of, not your experience, not your previous work ? Because if you're not saying that, then we agree completely and I think you may have missed my point.

And just for the record, my main work is with government, corporate bodies and multinationals.

[zollo]

And, as to anyone doing the job for free, you'll gain nothing by the experience and certainly not future paid work. You're simply being used.

This quote should be a sticky.

[Longshots]

And, as to anyone doing the job for free, you'll gain nothing by the experience and certainly not future paid work. You're simply being used.

Just wanted to repeat Zollo's comment that this is 1000% right and repeating it so that the message is remembered. Its hitting the nail right on the head, and I agree completely with Redgum.

[Dan Cripps]

I think the question was somewhat loaded by the initial hourly rate terminology.

I don't generally consider photography assignments to be primarily time-based. The linear time element in any assignment doesn't really have a significant impact or bearing on how I price my service.

Every assignment I shoot has effectively taken my whole professional life to complete. Every time I pick up a camera I learn something. Angles, light and environment is constantly changing. Relationships are constantly evolving. My past experience dictates my approach to and results from my work with a camera.

Just because an assignment takes me one hour to complete does not mean it is subsequently worth some arbitrary round figure, imo.

[Redgum]

Supply and demand, Zeke. That's true.
My newspaper work might pay $1k per week and be continuous when Nat Geo pays $150k per shoot over a couple of months but only comes up on an irregular basis. The hourly rates can't be compared but essentially both jobs need the same skill levels.
Getting this work is a "business" skill, not a technical skill.
Opportunity plays a big role too!

[Steve Axford]

You keep mentioning the Nat Geo link Redgum, but I have read that even they don't pay very well anymore. I did read an article by an old Nat Geo photographer that the golden days were gone. They used to spend days getting that perfect shot, now it is in, get what you can, and out again. There's not enough money to spend much time on it.

[Redgum]

I guess they have to some extent. I don't do as much as I use to (six weeks in Africa last year and a couple of weeks in Indonesia, Borneo and the Philippines this year). It's a good ploy to keep the riff-raff out. My connection is through film and documentary work for the NG Channel. It's much more economical to shoot when you're already on location.
The first doco we ever shot for Channel 7 in 1988 was CentrePoint (central Australia) and we tagged a NG tog on that expedition. He got paid more for his two weeks than I earned from the doco sale. That started the ball rolling for me.

[Steve Axford]

Ah - Nat Geo TV has more money than Nat Geo magazine. I think doco tv generates good money for quite a few people, but it's really still photography that is the subject here, and that doesn't support many people.