| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Question on what to charge a client?
Jason Heffran, Photographer
 |
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 11:10 AM on 02.15.10 |
->> What should one charge to travel with a team for one week and cover their tournament games. Assume that the team is at least Division I (Ohio State, Texas, etc.) and that it would be a tournament similar to that of the SEC basketball tournament.
Assume that there would be no expense incurred (travel, lodging, food).
Just wanted to get a feel for what is fair going forward. I am putting several bids together and am stuck at this point.
I cover a lot of local sports, but this would be the first time that an assignment would take me out of town for a week or so.
Thanks in advance for the guidance. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:42 AM on 02.15.10 |
->> What's their budget?
A national magazine (Time, Newsweek) would pay you $400-500 per day plus expenses but your university probably wants more (or all) rights to the material.
More details please. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 12:32 PM on 02.15.10 |
->> I'm assuming that they would, in fact, want full rights for promotional use. All travel expense would be paid, meals covered, etc.
It would more than likely (most events) be a 7-day trip. Do you normally charge for everyday, or just the days you shoot?
I would assume, since it is probably going to be a women's tournament (not sure yet), the budget would be slightly less. I do know that they normally pay a rate of $300-$350 per football game played at home.
Other sports, I would assume slightly less based on the revenue they generate. Would $200-$250 per day be unreasonable, considering the situation?
By the way, I really appreciate you taking the time to answer this question. I've noticed that a lot of "newbies" on the message board have a hard time getting someone like yourself (editor, seasoned photog, etc) to take the time to give sound advice, so "Thank you." |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 1:44 PM on 02.15.10 |
->> $200-250 is on the dirt, dirt cheap side once you factor in all the costs of doing business - you'd probably be just past even. You have to consider simple things like: How much time are you spending on this now? What kind of investment has it taken for you to get to this point?
It turns out that $250/day is a pretty cheap hourly rate when you factor in *all* your time spent on the project - before, during, after. Might be around $12/hour it turns out. Then add gear and business expenditures which they aren't reimbursing you for and it turns out that you're not really breaking even.
Remember - none of this was free for you, so it shouldn't be for them. |
|
Mike Last, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 2:16 PM on 02.15.10 |
| ->> Don't forget the time it will take you to process those photos either. If you were only working for the few hours of the game that would be nice, but you'll have a nice selection of images to cull through, sort, edit, caption and export after the game is over. |
|
PJ Heller, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 2:16 PM on 02.15.10 |
->> >It would more than likely (most events) be a 7-day trip. Do you normally charge for everyday, or just the days you shoot?
I would charge for every day, whether you’re shooting or not. On the days that you’re not shooting, you’re not able to be shooting or earning $$ elsewhere, so they have essentially booked you for those days as well.
Try one of the online/downloadable cost-of-doing-business calculators to see what kind of fee you should be charging. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 2:40 PM on 02.15.10 |
->> Thanks a lot for the feedback. I'll definitely take the "whole picture" into account when bidding this out.
I agree with the "gear and business expense" aspect. Where I normally separate myself is pointing out that my camera and gear are not from Wal-mart. Plus, I am not living under the misconception that I am a great shooter... just that I am pretty confident I can produce images that they are happy with and are better than the GWC and the amateurs who will WFF.
I hear how people don't want to pay for photography anymore. I see that trend, but selling yourself has a good bit to do with it I think. Granted, I think it is moving to a more "do more, charge less" model - as with anything that is based on technology (eventually the "everyman" tries to play the game).
I asked the question because I refuse to do anything consciously to hurt this already fragile industry. So, I truly appreciate the guidance I have received thus far. Too many people don't say "Thanks". Even I give a little advice here and there and would appreciate some gratitude now and then.
I see a parallel in this industry to one I was in during the mid-90's. I owned a web hosting and design firm. This is back when NO ONE knew the slightest thing about getting their business on the Internet. It was gravy! You could charge a premium and there was really no other choice for the client. All you had to do was prove the value of your service.
Then, it quickly became a commodity since everyone's nephew told them that they could build them a website. They got what they paid for and, for some reason, were happy with the crap that was produced.
I saw the end of the design aspect and focused on the hosting side of the equation. Still to this day, a person rarely hosts their own website - even with the FREE services out there. So, I guess my point is this... where is that "niche" that is still here that can really never be reproduced my the GWC we run into? In my opinion, it has to be the fact that mom & dad can rarely get sideline access.
Am I being naive? |
|
Robert Catto, Photographer
|
Wellington | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 2:51 PM on 02.15.10 |
->> Um, yeah, I know I'm in New Zealand and all, but I'd consider $200-$250 a pretty good HOURLY rate...seriously, though, looking at it purely from a gear standpoint, does that even cover the cost of hiring your camera(s) for a week?
If they were to go to a rental house and try to get a pair of 1-series Canon bodies and three fast zooms, plus memory cards, flashes, a laptop, and anything else you'll be using for a week on their job, what would that cost?
From checking the rentals page at Samys (since they're a sponsor of SS), a 1DMkIII body would be $175/day (x2); each of your usual zooms would be ~$30/day (x3); flashes $20/day (x2) etc. So a pretty basic kit with backup body & three lenses would already be $480/day, before you've even started to cover your tax obligations, public liability insurance, mobile phone, laptop, external hard drive(s), memory cards, meals while on the road, transport, accommodation, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something else.
Oh, right, the camera OPERATOR...so which is worth more, your camera - or your eye? Could just anyone do what you do, if they hired the right gear - or do you bring something to the table as well? What's that worth - well, hopefully it's worth more than nothing...or more than something being subtracted from the cost of your gear!
And did I forget profit? Oh yeah, that thing we're in business for...or was that the love, I forget now. Anyway, food for thought. You've gotta be worth at least as much as a bag of cameras from a rental house, though...don't you?
R! |
|
Robert Catto, Photographer
|
Wellington | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 3:02 PM on 02.15.10 |
->> Ah - looks like we were writing at the same time! You've got the idea.
I find every once in a while that clients get lured by the promise of 'more for less' - ie. 'this great photographer has offered to shoot our gig for free, so we don't need you this time...' That happens exactly once, because what they discover is that suddenly the other photographer can't work to deadlines (or doesn't deliver the images at all), completely misses the brief they asked for because they were so excited to be there, or gives the client all rights to photos that are so lame they don't want to use them. Clients love having copyright / all rights, sure - but what's the point, if you hate the photographs?
The niche is in the service delivery, the quality of the results, the dealing with a professional who is working for YOU (the client), creating work that will represent you in the public eye for years to come. Is it worth taking a risk with the company's public face, really?
If all photographers were created equal, or if the cameras did the work (rather than the decision-makers behind them), we'd be on an even playing field with the GWC. But hopefully, we're not. Even if they have access to the sideline, do they have experience, expertise, knowledge of their equipment, a backup on hand if something fails, etc?
R! |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 3:55 PM on 02.15.10 |
->> EXACTLY my thoughts.
Another main reason I don't get hammered too bad by the GWC is precisely that. The client has been down that road before or doesn't want to try.
For example, it is my policy to have images to the client (in sports) that night, fully edited. I've had them respond with, "I see you work late nights, too!" when they get notification that their images are waiting for them by 3am.
Now, I don't go that overboard for every client, but for the ones I like working for - sure. The relationship building goes a long way, too.
Lastly, I agree 100% that selling the value of the "professional" pressing the shutter is a key in the GWC-infested marketplace. With my targeted client base, they are used to hiring a "pro" and "paying" for the service.
Thanks Robert for responding. All the guidance I can gather surely helps. At least I feel I am going down the right path a little. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:35 PM on 02.15.10 |
| ->> You're probably going to be working every day so charge for all of them. You should also bill for "post production" work (i.e. converting files, editing, burning CDs). They don't have to pay for processing anymore... |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 02.15.10 |
| ->> Thanks Jim! I appreciate you taking time to respond. I'll be sure to take that route. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 11:15 PM on 03.08.10 |
| ->> So what is the update Jason? |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 03.09.10 |
->> I wanted to thank everyone for their input. It really helped me get the point across to the client. Although I did not receive the rate I initially asked for (gotta shoot high, right?), I did receive a fair rate and further solidified my relationship. A win/win in the long term.
It was refreshing to have a department realize the value of having some degree of professionalism behind the camera. They got the point that you get what you pay for.
I actually had some bad examples of imagery from what can only be called hobbyists. Now, my images are not the best in the business but they are definitely discernable from the GWC or AWC (alummi with camera) folks. When showing them what they could easily end up with by taking that route, they had an "ah-ha" moment and I knew that those people would be instantly dismissed by them in the future.
Also, through some good advice I received here, I took great pains to make it easy for them to use my images. Being easy to work with is probably the most important part to getting paid for your work that I have seen. If I take great photos, but am difficult to work with or make their jobs more difficult - it just doesn't work.
So, I guess that the final conclusion (especially being a less-experienced photographer) is to make your client's job easier, not more difficult... ask if there are any "specific" shots they would like (went a long way with them, they liked the attention to detail) and to walk them through the comparison of a professional's work compared to the GWC. I was able to do this and actually change their thinking about the role of photography in their scheme.
After doing this, I think I (or anyone else) can expect to receive a fair rate for your services. A win/win relationship is one that leads to much more work on a much more frequent basis.
Again, this is my specific experience and just my two cents on the whole process I went through. Thanks to everyone on this, and other threads, who gave me quality advice and guidance. Appreciated as always. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|