I noticed that several of the comments on my post about standardizing usage prices asked questions about enforcement. Issues of penalties for those who don’t use the system (whatever it ended up being) seem to be important to some of you. I, however, think that is wasted energy. There is no way to enforce and there is no need to anyway–people will follow if it makes sense, and if they choose not to, that’s up to them. So what?
I think people are afraid that if the system says that Usage X = $X some photographer will price it at $X-20% and thus get the gig, but I think that will be a rare occurrence. If we work with buyers (adv., corporate, whatever) to develop the system (like PLUS did for the usage language), then they will understand how it works and they will know that those who underprice like that are not ethical photographers and thus untrustworthy. Would you hire someone (plumber, designer, whatever) who you knew was underpricing just to get the gig? I wouldn’t. And I don’t think clients would either–especially when they need to know that whomever they use will get the images they need, and that requires trust.
When you have a systematic pricing system in place, then the choices become not about the money anymore. It opens buyers up to being able to choose photographers based on other issues like creative vision/style, production values and abilities, and a host of intangibles–all of which are better reasons to use a photographer than her/his price.
“It opens buyers up to being able to choose photographers based on other issues like creative vision/style, production values and abilities, and a host of intangibles–all of which are better reasons to use a photographer than her/his price.”
Nicely put. Incredible things happen and are created when the focus is on the art-form.
Actually – forcing the issue isn’t the right thing to do. I think a copyright price guide would be a better approach. Young photographers, uninformed clients and the like would benefit from a better understanding of the business model and a place to start regarding price ranges for usage.
The use rights pricing must be a combination of innate mage value + the copyright license. i.e. a photo of the queen by A.L. would cost more than a photo of Me used in an identical fashion. Also – any photo by Irving Penn would be worth more that any photo by Bruce DeBoer.
As was pointed out by an industry expert to me yesterday – we want to avoid any pricing guidelines being perceived as restraining trade and/or being industry gospel.
Bruce wrote:
The use rights pricing must be a combination of innate mage value + the copyright license. i.e. a photo of the queen by A.L. would cost more than a photo of Me used in an identical fashion. Also – any photo by Irving Penn would be worth more that any photo by Bruce DeBoer.
____
NO! That is exactly NOT my point! This frustrates me so very much!!
The usage is identical and the value of that usage is identical regardless of the actual image used. The creativity, photog-star-status, etc., would be a function of the CREATIVE fee–it has nothing to do with usage.
Here’s why. If a business buys a one page ad in Time magazine, they pay $200K (I forget exactly how much it is, but I know it’s in that ballpark) for that page. That is just the price for the space in the magazine–and it costs the same whether they run that page blank or put in an image by (ugh) me or (oooh!) Penn or just run text. The usage is that one page and the same number of eyeballs will see that page regardless of what is on it. The value of that page’s content is arguable a function of its (the page’s) price. Therefore, it doesn’t matter at all about the creativity, etc., for that use–it is just the price to use the image, any image, in that medium.
This is why a system can work for USAGE and only usage. Once you bring creativity into it, there is no static referent for value (it’s a question of taste, integration with the concept, etc.) and that number by its very nature must vary from photographer to photographer.
If we tried to standardize prices based on both usage AND creativity, well, fuggidaboudit. WAY too many friggin’ variables.
-L
Well then I heartily disagree with your point.
The problem with assuming all images are created equal is that they aren’t. If I charge a creative fee + Usage for an assignment it may work to exclude “creativity” from the usage equation, but if later the company comes back to me and says, “we want 3 more years of national use” the price must be higher than the “package deal” they got for the assignment.
By making it standard you are assuming that all photos are created equal and that’s just plain wrong.
I don’t get your logic at all on that. Let’s put it in hypothetical terms. A client buys a 1 year unlimited US print advertising license for $X dollar for the Usage fee; $Y in Creative fee is also charged, along with whatever production charges needed for the shoot. Near the end of the license term, the client says “we want 3 years more of the same use”–the price is 3 times $X (the original one year usage fee).
What the image is of and how it was produced is irrelevant to additional usage.
Creativity is not excluded from the original bill. It is, however, from the reuse because the creativity (the creation of the image itself) has already been paid for in the original bill.
Perfect? No, of course not, but it is the only logical answer I can fathom at this point.
-L
Excuse me, but you’re fooling yourself with the idea of a system that will replace negotiation and wildly swinging fees for usage.
I mean really I can’t be the only one who regularly turns down work because the client isn’t serious.
Why aren’t photographers independent-minded enough to say no? Why is it that top-notch talent should feel intimidated by Mr. Weekend? Why can’t photographers convince art buyers and photo editors they’re really worth it? And what really makes it worth it?
Is this an effort to reduce fees (usage and creative) to the lowest common denominator?
Mr. and Mrs. Art Buyer: Please, go find Mr. Weekend. It’s just not worth the trouble.
The idea of a systematic approach to usage is arbitrary. If we were all really worth our salt, it would be one fee and it would encompass creativity, usage and residuals.
Doesn’t one big round number work better than a set of six or seven different numbers on a bid? Wouldn’t it be worth more in the long run, to you and to the buyer? Wouldn’t the buyer understand it better? And wouldn’t the buyer ultimately have fewer stumbling blocks to consider?
Isn’t it time to reconsider this business of creativity + usage? “One big round number.” I like the sound of that. And if you’re good enough, the buyer just might like that too.
Remember, they can always say no.
“What the image is of and how it was produced is irrelevant to additional usage.”
No … it’s not.
I separate the two – creative fee and use fee – because I find it easier to educate those mid level clients exactly HOW I sell my work. If they hire me to product a shot I separate creative fee from use to help us discuss scalability. However, after the shot is done It is stilll an x+y+ z image. It’s still worth ALL of the above not just one of the three components. Don’t think so? try shooting it again.
i.e. Sean – I’ve been told that many top photographers bill combining both creative fee and use fee into one lump. I have a harder time talking through that negotiantion but if I hire a rep. and they prefer one sum I’ll agree with it …. whatever he’s comfortable with.
I think the helpful part of price guides is with the younger photographers early in their career. Think of them as “best practices” – they are starting points not gospel. Try wording them as: “the lowest price ranges, the middle price ranges, the higher price range and the top price range: 20k and up.
Sean is exactly right – no one will ever completely avoid negotiation. we need to massage our prices until they fit, adjust the job until it’s doable for the cash available. Ultimately, we all want to work on good stuff and there is a range in which we can wiggle jobs into by making the money hole larger or the job size smaller.
Ultimately – Sean and I will be so well known and in such high demand that it won’t matter how we throw numbers around; we’ll hand them a contract with a figure at the bottom and they’ll sign in.
When I read your first post about setting up standardized pricing, I had the exact same thought: “Like PLUS, only for pricing.”
I’m not sure of the legal parameters, but couldn’t a system like PLUS be developed by a coalition of orgs like the ASMP and their counterparts on the other side of the negotiating table?
Hey Bruce,
I assume you break your estimates into creative/photographers fee (X), usage fee (Y), and productions fee (Z).
So you’re saying that you quote the sum of X+Y+Z for an additional year of usage?
Just curious (and I’m NOT trying to be a smart ass) — have you actually pulled this off with an ad agency, and if so, how many times?
My creative fees; Copyright + Photography are combined as one Creative Fee on my invoice. By doing this it helps creative the structure to include “creativity” in the resale or additional use negotiations. IMHO – at NO time should the image be treated like a commodity. Many think the creative work is done after the assignment, well, it is done but it’s now embedded in the image so we need to be compensated. The photo IS the result of our creativity – it is unique because of our efforts; it isn’t an bushel of corn or a pork belly.