The last two editions of Capture Magazine

[zollo]

I too would rather compete with someone on quality rather than price.

[Kym]

If you read their arguments it went along the route (IMO) of price fixing. They were asking the newer upcoming photographers et al to charge more in line with what they are charging. Thus they wouldn't have to continuously 1. Explain why their pricing seemed so outrageously high compared to the cheaper photographers and 2. They would stop losing customers.

Price fixing is illegal, Trade practices act etc. They could be in big trouble if someone complains and quotes the article!!

One pro complained that he charged on average a client $2800 for a portrait shoot and down the road a "shoot & burn" was advertising portrait shoots for $250 including the files.

Competition! supply and demand. And if the $250 deal provides the customer a result that they are happy with? Good on them.

[Bear Dale]

As as a suggestion to you Jim, I dont really see why you think that something that is recognised by the industry as something to adapt with and to, as tiresome ? Its a fact that most people understand has been around for 30 odd years and longer.

I said it was tiresome to repeatedly read, yet an interesting insight.

I've read the articles and I think its an interesting position to claim every pro is elitist, and charging exorbitant prices.

Not sure if that's aimed at me, but if it is, you're way off the mark there.

I think that more of the problem with the industry is that in all honesty, the majority of photographic buyers, simply do not know the difference between a good shot and a bad shot.

It could easily be said that some people who call themselves pros could also wear that hat.

[Bear Dale]

Price fixing is illegal, Trade practices act etc. They could be in big trouble if someone complains and quotes the article!!

Absolutely agree and as I said it's only my opinion, but it would be difficult to read the articles and not form an opinion that the interviewed photographers were not asking for public collusion from other photographers.

[Longshots]

Thank you Jim - but I have read their arguments.

Doesnt mean I agree with them.

What I'm asking is that you treat me as professional without the generalisation and malice.

Once you can understand that there are many views out there, and that is just one. I can probably give you a quick explanation if you like - person who wants to charge $2800 probably has nice s####y studio with staff - other pro down the road, may have a completely different business model that doesnt rely on few clients, prestige market, has a much higher portrait shoot per week ratio, and far less salubrious premises.

I dont have to go far to see many similar industries appealing to different markets - Best and Less vs Myers - T-shirt (a good one) in Best and Less less than $10 - similar T -shirt from Myers probably as much as $100.

In business its not just about the product, its all about many other things.

So that person down the road may be shooting 20 $250 jobs per week - aiming for a completely different market to the person who is charging $2800 for one a week.

Tell me who is making more money ?

I regularly present lectures to other pros (and enthusiasts) on the business of photography. Complaining about the person down the street is frankly a waste of effort by those charging that amount. To me its like BMW complaining about Hyundai selling cars much cheaper then they can - utterly pointless.

[Kym]

I too would rather compete with someone on quality rather than price.

And that is often the best way to do it.

But if the guy down the road provide a similar quality product for a much better price? Then you need to find some other differentiator or compete on price.

[Longshots]

Price fixing is illegal, Trade practices act etc. They could be in big trouble if someone complains and quotes the article!!


Competition! supply and demand. And if the $250 deal provides the customer a result that they are happy with? Good on them.

Have you read the article ? Suggesting that someone quotes the article that they could be in big trouble is slightly over the top.

[Bear Dale]

What I'm asking is that you treat me as professional without the generalisation and malice.

I don't think I've treated you with malice and quite frankly I'm astounded at the accusation.

[Kym]

To me its like BMW complaining about Hyundai selling cars much cheaper then they can - utterly pointless.

To a point. But I can differentiate a $25k vehicle from a $100k vehicle.
I may elect to go for the $25k for utilitarian and budgetary reasons, still desiring the BMW.

But when the product differentiation is less discernible then it becomes much more difficult to justify the price.

[Kym]

...slightly over the top.

Note: *could* and the smiley face.
I'm not seriously suggesting based on a magazine article that the TPA would be invoked, just that price fixing (and I'm not even saying that is what is happening) is illegal.
But as the issue was raised it's worth noting that it is not allowed.

[Longshots]

I don't think I've treated you with malice and quite frankly I'm astounded at the accusation.

Maybe its the way I type/speak. Apologies to you - please disregard malice, as I've used the word badlu. I mean to stress the point of please dont treat every pro with the manner in which you've described in your first post - which was to overgeneralise.

There are clear reasons, as I've offered, between pricing differences.

And just because someone charges less doesnt mean to say that they're better or worse, or less professional or more amateur.

[zollo]

And that is often the best way to do it.

But if the guy down the road provide a similar quality product for a much better price? Then you need to find some other differentiator or compete on price.

yes but it's a surprise to know how many customers, when shown a portfolio of expensive work, will see the difference and opt to pay a little more (this is where its important that your work is a notch or two above in quality)

the guy down the road wont have an expensive portfolio - he is too busy backing himself into a restrictive (but popular) cheaper market. thats my win

[Longshots]

To a point. But I can differentiate a $25k vehicle from a $100k vehicle.
I may elect to go for the $25k for utilitarian and budgetary reasons, still desiring the BMW.

But when the product differentiation is less discernible then it becomes much more difficult to justify the price.

Sigh - I thought this would be a bit pointless responding to offer a position from a pros point of view.

Look Kym its not just about the cost of the final print, that equates to the material cost. Its not just about the end product.

I have tried to offer a position of explanation of different business models, but it seems to me that you're quite happy to accept differences in quality between a BMW and Hyundai, but you think that its difficult to see the difference between two differently priced photographers, where there may - yes may - be a difference in quality and the overall experience ? Go back to my comment about people not being able to "see" that difference.

Considering that you havent read the article (which I have in front of me), reminding people that price fixing is illegal is obvious and any professional industry is well aware of business rules from the ACCC.

[bigdazzler]

the guy down the road wont have an expensive portfolio - he is too busy backing himself into a restrictive (but popular) cheaper market. thats my win

not necessarily mate .. Ive seen plenty of part timers with OUTSTANDING portfolios Some people are just happy to make what they make.

[Longshots]

not necessarily mate .. Ive seen plenty of part timers with OUTSTANDING portfolios Some people are just happy to make what they make.

Thank you. Exactly my point.

No ones answered the question about who may be making more profit - the guy down the road, or the one charging much more ?

[zollo]

not necessarily mate .. Ive seen plenty of part timers with OUTSTANDING portfolios Some people are just happy to make what they make.

which is why this debate will never be won by either side. I agree about the part timer but in all honesty by high end portfolio I mean stuff a part timer wont be able to achieve. recently I did a 3 week across australia photoshoot for a german carmaker launching a new 4x4 product in Oz. i had 2 fulltime assistants with me in a convoy of 7 vehicles in total. now i get to say to prospective clients, look at this, its what you could have for a little extra.

[Longshots]

I know plenty of photographers - full time and part time - who will and can shoot a house for less then $100, inside and outside, with views. Some are quite good, and some are quite dreadful. And they will have to do it within a remarkable short time - they would need to do that if they want to stay in business, otherwise they may as well go and earn more being on a till at Big W.

And I know plenty who will spend two to three days shooting the same house, and carefully processing the images from the shoot, with plenty of pedantic care and attention to the small details.

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

Come on take the challenge you know you all want to ?

Its business. There are different prices out there. The market will and always has worked out who wins and who loses. And its not always the one that go for the cheaper end that will be the loser.

So from a pros point of view, a few people commenting on the woes of the industry should not automatically label everyone with the same view.

[zollo]

I know plenty of photographers - full time and part time - who will and can shoot a house for less then $100, inside and outside, with views. Some are quite good, and some are quite dreadful. And they will have to do it within a remarkable short time - they would need to do that if they want to stay in business, otherwise they may as well go and earn more being on a till at Big W.

And I know plenty who will spend two to three days shooting the same house, and carefully processing the images from the shoot, with plenty of pedantic care and attention to the small details.

$100 shooter can probably get through 20 houses in the same time someone like me would spend 2-3 days over.

So $100 x 20 = $2,000

or

1 house at $2,000

who's making the most profit ? - the person who charges more for 1 or the one who shoots 20 ?

Come on take the challenge you know you all want to ?

I'd like to answer, but because I'd be providing business advice, I'd have to charge you $50.


Its business. There are different prices out there. The market will and always has worked out who wins and who loses. And its not always the one that go for the cheaper end that will be the loser.

So from a pros point of view, a few people commenting on the woes of the industry should not automatically label everyone with the same view.

agreed
I'd like to answer, but because I'd be providing business advice, I'd have to charge you $50

[Bear Dale]

Maybe its the way I type/speak. Apologies to you - please disregard malice, as I've used the word badlu. I mean to stress the point of please dont treat every pro with the manner in which you've described in your first post - which was to overgeneralise.

Can you please re-read my first post again, then maybe re-read it again. I didn't overgeneralise at all about professional photographers.

If you're going to accuse me of something, can you please ensure that I'm guilty of said offence first. Otherwise you're just casting incorrect aspersions against me.

[Longshots]

OK Jim as requested I've read and reread your first post.

I just read the last two editions of Capture Magazine. Some prominent Australian Portraiture Photographers were interviewed at length about the industry. Without fail all of these professional photographers took the opportunity to derogatory put the boot into "shoot & burn photographers", "Shopping Mall photographers", "Weekend Warriors", "Newbies with cameras" etc etc etc ad naseum.

It became to me extremely tiresome, yet an interesting insight to a group or genre of professional photographers desperate to be able to keep charging, what to me, seemed like exorbitant fees for their work.

The bemoaning of them being undercut by the cheek of "mere amateurs" (anyone who charged less than them) having the audacity to charge less was repeated often.

It was as I have mentioned very interesting reading and an insight into the psyche of at least these professional portrait photographers who were interviewed for the magazine article.

There were lots of examples of their work. To be honest there was nothing absolutely extraordinarily above what I have seen posted by "amateurs" on this Aussie forum and others.

It all just really smacked of elitism and a justification of their pricing structure.

Interested to hear anyones views who may have read the articles or just in general about pro's versus "weekend warriors" et al.

And I've done what you say, and like you I have an opinion. And in that opinion when you include say this:

I just read the last two editions of Capture Magazine.............


Some prominent Australian Portraiture Photographers were interviewed at length about the industry.

Without fail all of these professional photographers

took the opportunity to derogatory put the boot into "shoot & burn photographers", "Shopping Mall photographers", "Weekend Warriors", "Newbies with cameras" etc etc etc ad naseum.

Then its my opinion that you are over generalising. Having read the last issue and the one before, I cant agree with that.

As your'e commenting on the last two issues, I was one of the people interviewed, you're also including me in that sweeping statemnt. As you state "Without fail all of these professional photographers" etc.


So while I respect your opinion, I too have one. And that is why I think that you're over generalising.


I'm making no apology for having that view, as its clear to me what you're saying.