Posts Tagged ‘photographers’

New Media Photographer Podcast 72

Monday, October 26th, 2009

This week Rosh shares comments and multiple interviews from the October 2009  Photo Plus Expo.

Jack Hollingsworth panel and speakers at Photo Plus Expo.

  1. Lan Bui
  2. Jim Goldstein
  3. Seshu
  4. Taylor Davidson
  5. Zarias
  6. isyndica.com
  7. ScottKelby
  8. Rick Sammon
  9. Jeremy Cowart
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Testing the future of commercial photography

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

Marketing and advertising are changing. Successful assignment photographers will need to adjust by adding value. To know the future of commercial photography is to understand how advertisers are and will be creating their campaigns. 

There is a huge demand for imagery. There is more space on the Web for photographers’ work. Budgets are smaller than ever. There is a glut of photographers in the world to fill that need. 

Micro-stock is here; it’s a standard and it’s filling the void. I’ve said it before: I will not sell my photography for a dollar. But I won’t knock those who do. It’s a wasted effort.

Marketers need more imagery because campaigns cycle faster than in the past. Imagery needs to be updated faster. Advertisers have the ability and need to test concepts cheaper and more efficiently. Stock photography lends itself very well to this scenario. If marketers can test a lot of inexpensive generic stock images and ultimately use the one that works best, they can score big for their client.

Offering clients custom photography ideas, concepts and packaging will create a greater chance of connecting with unique consumer niches. Generic images, such as men and women sitting at their desks chatting on cell phones, are not always effective. Generic photography often produces generic results.

Assignment photographers aren’t accommodating the new marketing needs in the custom photography arena. I think it will be important for photographers in the future to offer multiple options in their package rates so advertisers can test results.

We have to remember when it comes to selling a product or service, our opinion ultimately doesn’t count. Your client’s favorite photograph isn’t necessarily the winner. The art director’s vision many not pique the customer’s interest.

Don’t get me wrong: The art director’s concept and the photographer’s vision do play a major role in the creation of strong images. But sometimes even a minor shift in an image series will produce more favorable results. In the past, testing was expensive and the decision-maker’s opinion — right or wrong — was the bottom line. The Internet allows for inexpensive testing. This often makes the difference between average results and hitting a home run.

What can be tested? Everything. Expressions, colors, composition, models, lighting and set adjustments might make for a stronger result. How often has one of your clients used an image that you felt wasn’t the strongest in the set? Who was to blame when it didn’t perform?

Offering packages of multiple images can create a unique modern option for advertisers.

Even if you are a photographer who gives clients all the images on CD (I don’t recommend this.), the decision maker will, in most cases, still only select and use one image per advertisement.  The testing conversation needs to begin with your  clients.

Photographers should offer advertising packages, such as three images to test and one to use for the full campaign. Maybe three flexible-use licenses or maybe two short-term licenses and one long-term license is the answer. The options are endless. Ultimately, the client should make more money and discover the value of custom photography. When this happens,the creative team wins.

The days of advertisement creation by committee are dying. Marketers need to focus on what captures the consumer’s attention.

Becoming an innovator and allowing for new marketing experimentation will increase your value as a photographer. Developing a climate that allows clients to plan for and test creative concepts will be a major key to the success of commercial photography in the future.

What are you doing to innovate in the new marketing environment?

Rosh

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The case for per-image pricing

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

welder

Cheap photography and lower barriers to entry are two realities of the Internet age. Per-image pricing is the key to survival for the new media photographer. 

Allow me to offer my favorite illustration: A client requests photography for a Web site. The company needs 10 images shot on location. No models or special props needed. They figure it will take a day to shoot; you agree. As a photographer, you have three common options for estimating the project: you can offer a day rate, a per-image rate,  or a per-project rate. Let’s say without consideration for usage of the images, we estimate the job at $2,000 ($1,500 for the day and $500 for expenses).

If you offer a day rate,  the first thing a client will wonder, especially if they have not worked with many photographers, is if the photographer or anyone is really worth $1,500 a day.

Today’s photographers tend to work much faster and are much more efficient than in the days of film. In the era of film photography, day rates may have made sense.

If a photographer is hired for a day shoot and completes the assignment at 2:00 p.m.,  what might a client request? Often it’s a discount, because the value of the assignment is on the photographer’s time. The photographer is penalized for his productivity. If the photographer reminds the client that the $2,000 rate is still in effect because the entire day is reserved for the job, the client may then feel cheated.

What if the photographer spends the entire day on location, works hard and creates 15 wonderful images? Is the client happy? Absolutely; the client received a bonus. What benefit did the photographer receive for his great work and efficiency? Nothing.

You can argue that a happy client is worth the effort. True. But, if you feel like you are being taken advantage of on a regular basis, attitudes tend to change. This erodes good relationships over time.

If the photographer offers a per-image price of $200 for each of the 10 photographs, it is much easier for the client to see the value of each photo.

If the photographer is efficient and completes the project at 2:00 p.m., does the client look for a discount? No, the photographer is a hero because everyone can go home early.

If the photographer spends the entire day on location and creates 15 wonderful images, what might the result be? Often the client will purchase the additional images if  it’s in the budget. The photographer is rewarded for doing a good job. The client is often happy to purchase the additional images. They are not mad about the purchase because they understand the value of each image and have no obligation to purchase.

Depending on the production requirements of the assignment, it is generally better not to require a minimum purchase. Although a minimum purchase requirement may be necessary if production expenses are high. But, if a client is expected to purchase additional images they like, should they have to pay for images they don’t like?

I present myself as the high-value, low-risk photographer. I’m not cheap. I’m a good photographer. But, I don’t want clients feeling bad because they have to purchase images they don’t like. I understand having a client pay for unwanted images is a greater cost than the rate charged for the images. When clients know they have choices, they will be more flexible. Often they will grant another opportunity, when available, to create another image.

When shoots involve more production, they may require a project rate. Projects that take multiple days or require a specific amount of time may also require such rates.

Pricing options are endless. Sometimes, when presenting a per-image system, the first image is at a higher rate than the additional images. For example, the first image’s rate could be $500. Each additional image could be purchased for $375. Models, props and location fees can be separate, line-item charges. Usage and licensing fees also may be added on a separate line. Whether the usage is listed separately or not, the license always should be listed in the quote and contract.

The need for custom photography is greater than ever. As high-end Web sites are becoming standard for businesses, the quality of a company’s Internet presence is more important then ever before. Poor photography delivers poor results. Average photography offers average results. Generic stock images do not reflect a company’s unique professional image.

The print world is finite. The world of the Web is practically infinite. When a client needs images for a brochure, the amount of room available for additional photography is limited. However, a client may benefit from every image they want for the company’s Web site.

As digital photography has evolved, photographers have attempted to charge for the additional costs and production time associated with digital imagery. Using a per-image pricing model allows the photographer to incorporate such expenses into the cost.

Sometimes photographers (myself included) do not price their projects correctly. Under-priced projects lend themselves to additional poorly priced opportunities. If a photographer offers to take three individual portraits in one hour for $75, in most cases she has underbid the job. Let’s say she completes the project in 45 minutes and two additional people show up. Of course, the project would take longer, in this case 70 minutes total, and the photographer may not charge for the extra ten minutes. The client receives five images for $75.

If the photographer charges $25 per image, although a very low rate, the photographer will still make $125 for the five images. Most likely, the client won’t blink.

The advantages to both the photographer and client are great. The client’s time and budget are respected. Often the client is eager to use the entire budget when given the opportunity to purchase valuable images. Being respectful of the client’s time is not to the benefit of a day-rate photographer.

The day rate is the old way of doing business. Per-image pricing fits well with the new media photographer model. The value of many types of photography is a commodity. Placing the value on each image rather than on the photographer’s time helps stabilize pricing and allows the new media photographer to make a living in the new media world.

Rosh

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

phlook = interactive images for your blog

Saturday, December 6th, 2008

Phlook.com   is a web site that allows you to create interactive photos and slide shows.  It is an easy-to- use tool for photographers, bloggers, and web site owners looking for feedback on their images.  

Allowing viewers to interact with your web site or blog helps to build a community.  It took me minutes to sign up, upload a photo and embed the image on my blog (displayed below).  

Phlook allows you, as part of the process, to add a description and tags to your images for better search results.  You may also send your images directly to a number of social sites such as facebook, myspace, orkut, live journal among others.  I sent my image to facebook, but found it a little more complicated and confusing than I thought it should be. Once the widget was installed, the process became clearer. 

The system also allows you to sell your photos using your paypal account.  I believe this could be valuable. I’ve not signed up, but it looked like an easy, straightforward process.  Please leave a comment if you have any experience.  I’ll follow up in the future after I’ve tested it.

Overall I think it’s a fine option.  Due to the fact that many of the tools are available elsewhere and it doesn’t interact with flickr, other reviews have been average to negative. Another downer is the fact that your viewers have to sign into Phlook to comment.  That is a major barrier a social application doesn’t need.

Depending how this site develops you might find this tool in use in the New media photographer toolbox in the future.

 

The photo is one of my favorites from last summer, tell me what you think?

Epitaph: Here lies 30 percent profit

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008

Friday I visited with reporters, editors and co-workers from the daily newspaper where I photographed for ten years.  We met at a local bar next door to the newspaper building now about to close.

I’ve been out of the newspaper business since the company closed its photography department eighteen months earlier.  The publisher called me by phone while I was in the middle of one of my first podcasts for Prosperousartists.com. I had been a newspaper photographer for about twenty years. 

I felt the closing of the department was heartless.  Not because of my loss. But due to the fact we were about to celebrate, five months later, the chief photographer’s retirement. He would have served the community and newspaper as a photographer for 50 years.  Sadly, month’s later, editors, reports, photographers, co-workers, friends, family and members of the community gathered in a standing-room-only funeral home to pay final respects.

When our chief photographer started in the newspaper business, the company was owned by a prominent local family.   The daily newspaper was a centerpiece of the community; it was how community information was distributed. 

Eventually the newspaper was sold. It was no longer a point of civic pride for its owners or a cohesive center point of happenings, involvement and community. It was now an investment.

Along with the other media outlets bought and sold through the years a thirty percent profit was a common mandate.  As other sources for information became more popular the circulation began to decline and cuts were made.

The more cuts and consolidations made by the owners,  the more the circulation dropped. New owners would offer false hope for their investments, but ultimately shareholders demanded the mandated profits. Reinvestment, other than the occasional redesign, was rare.

Local columns, features and news would be scaled back and replaced with homogenized, syndicated columns, features and entertainment.  Circulation continued to drop. 

Eventually, the printing press was dismantled and the printing of the newspaper was outsourced to another property.  Circulation continued to decrease. The newspaper community outreach, involvement and advertising budgets were cut. The sense of loyalty to the local newspaper continued to decrease, but the thirty plus profit remained intact. 

Over time the pressure of new media sources started taking a heavy toll on the investment profits of the all newspapers papers within the chain.  The cuts continued. 

As the Internet matured, the company experimented with new revenue sources on the Internet.  The same Internet publishers, managers and sales associates declared to advertisers to be of little value over the previous years. Needless to say, Internet banner ads have been a hard sell.  Attempts to redesign and upgrade have also been failures.

After hearing that the company spent time and effort to relaunch their online properties I checked in and found myself extremely disappointed. Actually the words WTF came from my mouth.  The design reminded me of cutting edge web design of the late 1990s.  The content was mostly generic information easily found on the front page of many national media web sites.  What little original local content found on the site was buried two screen pages below the headlines.  Ultimately, it was slapped together with not much thought.

As I sat in the bar with my old co-workers sharing memories and our thoughts on the future of media it became very clear why traditional media, newspapers of my chef photographers era, have taken such a hard and fast fall.

Today, the new and social media conversation is about building communities.  “It’s about them” and offering unique and valuable content. 

Unfortunately, in the name of profit the managers of the traditional media investments dismantled their communities.  They replaced local voices with names far-removed from the community.  They cut resources rather than invest in attracting loyal readers and building the brand.  Often the attitude was “just slap something between the ads.”

Now it is too late to rebuild.  The community has moved on to other sources. Today the name of the newspaper has little value.  Even when I worked at the newspaper many of my neighbors had no idea it existed. 

We are in the last days of newspapers as we know them.  But, we can take the industry example as confirmation of what not to do.

During my last minutes in the old offices I observed the desks with boxes piled high. I made note of the familiar smell of newsprint heavy in the air.  A friend pointed to a photography press award with my name on it that once hung in the hallway — and now laid half buried on a desk — suggesting I should take it home.

Another old friend from the sales department handed me a Monopoly-sized token of a 4×5 press camera made of brass.  She had found it in the old photography department and had kept it on her desk.  It was a souvenir from my chief photographer’s desk. I thanked her as memories of its exact location formed in my mind.

The little brass camera now sites on my desk. It will serve as a reminder of an industry I love, the people I have worked with and that change is constant.

Rosh

Thank you to my wife Shirley for the headline.