I couldn't make this up...

[BenE]

All the talk about customers wanting digital files, and this happened about 2 minutes ago.

A high school senior I photographed back in July of last year has made a couple of appointments to view previews and place an order. She never showed up. She just now called and said, "I know photographers sell DVDs with all the images on them. Will you do that, and if so, can I print whatever I want from the DVD?"

After I said, "No", she said, "Well, we just want is a way to print them ourselves."

Please no talk about Walmart customers.

[Jusselin]

lol awesome....i made it available in our smugmug to where they can download all the digital files in an album for like $500 i say if she wants the dvd sell it....at a cost she will reject, maybe 2 grand?

[MSooner]

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting the digital files, though I chose photographers that offered them in packages whenever I had photos done. Your prerogative if you don't want to give them, but perhaps you could price the disc at what you think you might have made from the prints and avoid having to deal with the customer all together?

[LadyShutterBug]

i believe everything is available for a price. if they want to pay the price i set, fabulous.

[crbeveri]

I send people a digital .jpeg file but I would never send a raw image. When I raced motorcycles the track photographer would sell digital .jpeg files for like $35 for the ones you were in. This could range from 1 to 20 images. His file sizes were limited through to like 800-600 and only like 72dpi or (100-900kb)

[SCone]

What are the images worth to anyone else? I mean really, how much are you going to make if you keep the files?

[S-Man]

^That depends on if they get a lot of prints from you or not. I've run into this a lot, and figured either I'm not selling prints right, or my clients don't value prints enough to purchase very many from me.
I usually only offer a disc of images if they persistently ask for it, and then it's really expensive.
But then again that goes back into how you've structured your prices- are they paying a large sitting fee or a small sitting fee with the intent of purchasing prints afterward?

[texxter]

I am not a professional portrait photographer and my opinions here are those of an armchair businessman. But for whatever they are worth....

Digital delivery of images or video is what customers expect today. They will want prints too, as long as the prints are amazing, but just about everything today has a digital delivery option. Those adapting their business model to this trend, like magazines including fancy digital delivery with embedded videos, or photographers offering licenses for dgital versions of their work profitably, will ride the digital wave.

Those who insist that the only way to get images is via paper may end up being forced to change their business models as the competition offers them. Or become obsolete.

Bills, bank statements, insurance policies, medical check-up results, airfare tickets, party invitations, etc, etc, are all being delivered digitally. Consumers want their images delivered digitally. Find a way to do it in a profitable manner.

[T. Adam Martin]

Paco's points are well taken and I'll add to what he said from a business perspective.

We need to define clearly what business we're in: are we in the business of taking pictures, creating art, producing heirlooms, etc.? It can be a combination of these; however, your pricing model will signal the market what you really think you are.

As customers continue to pay sitting fees, there will continue to be a tug-of-war over what belongs to whom. This is not a matter of just deciding how you're going to price, or what segment you are going to target: you have to be aware of what your competition is doing. For example, many business people who charge a sitting fee are recognizing that the expectation for much of the market is that digital files should be included. The majority of customers are beginning to expect this when it comes to portrait sessions.

So what are the options if we don't want to provide digital files? We can continue to try and position ourselves into a niche market where customers exist that do not expect them (which is quickly shrinking), or we can change the pricing model.

Consider changing the pricing model where there is no sitting fee, or the fee is nominal to cover variable costs of the shoot. This also drives some alignment of incentives: you can explain that you retain the copyright along with full digital rights, and they only have to purchase what really resonates with them. This also forces you to relentlessly work on your craft (because you're only able to make money AFTER the client has judged the images).

In summary, there's a lot more business model innovation available to photographers than most recognize. The notion that "asking for digital files" is a slap in the face is being challenged by many professional photographers, and is not so readily accepted as a customer "no-no."

[kayumangi]

I think the main issue about prints is that the photographer has more control of the distribution thus control of the photographic "fix" thus more profits and "perpetual" income.

Once its delivered digitally the photographer cannot profit from the photographic "fix" because the client has access to the photographs he love anywhere anytime.

Most of my income still come from prints, but I've had clients who insist on having digital files so I just give them my happy price, win-win for both of us.

Some of my photographer friends offer digital albums via iPad but so far most clients still prefer an actual album.

[rhoffart]

Originally Posted by texxter

I am not a professional portrait photographer and my opinions here are those of an armchair businessman. But for whatever they are worth....

Digital delivery of images or video is what customers expect today. They will want prints too, as long as the prints are amazing, but just about everything today has a digital delivery option. Those adapting their business model to this trend, like magazines including fancy digital delivery with embedded videos, or photographers offering licenses for dgital versions of their work profitably, will ride the digital wave.

Those who insist that the only way to get images is via paper may end up being forced to change their business models as the competition offers them. Or become obsolete.

Bills, bank statements, insurance policies, medical check-up results, airfare tickets, party invitations, etc, etc, are all being delivered digitally. Consumers want their images delivered digitally. Find a way to do it in a profitable manner.

Very well said, come on, there will be no photo albumn on the end table ... it will be and iPad. It's funny my wife already asks "Can you put them on my iPad, so I can show Mom?"

[kayumangi]

Just to comment on Tyler's post about the correlation of sitting fees and image ownership and the ensuing tug-of-war.

The problem is that a lot of photographers don't have the confidence to charge what they're worth thus they try to justify a high amount sitting fee by bundle-ing print credits. Which inadvertently gives the impression that for $$$ amount the paying clients has some claim to ownership to the photos made, which is not.

The sitting fee should be for the photographers time and skill alone. But that's for another thread.

[T. Adam Martin]

Originally Posted by kayumangi

The problem is that a lot of photographers don't have the confidence to charge what they're worth thus they try to justify a high amount sitting fee by bundle-ing print credits. Which inadvertently gives the impression that for $$$ amount the paying clients has some claim to ownership to the photos made, which is not.

The sitting fee should be for the photographers time and skill alone. But that's for another thread.

I think it's still appropriate for this thread.

I agree with what you said about photographer not having the requisite confidence, so they make a poor pricing decision that signals the wrong things to the customer.

The problem is there is not a strong, understood rationale for the sitting fee in the industry. It has been the norm, and many practitioners don't understand why it is used. The problem now is that the sitting fee, by and large, is used as a primary revenue stream bundled with products - as you pointed out. So the meaning of "sitting fee" has been completely redefined and now has a popular meaning.

Described as a fee for the photographer's time and skill, it is more closely related to a commission fee, and even then it is not a direct correlary. Because when you pay a commission to an artist, for a unique piece, you retain ownership: you pay for the skills and time and you pay the appropriate rate for them. I'm paying for the produce of your time and skills. For many customers, this equates to the digital files if you charge a sitting fee.

The question becomes how you want to make money: clearly define where you are going to make your profits and structure your model accordingly. If your profits rely on print sales, don't try to gouge with sitting fees. If you're going to recognize the value you deliver up front with a sitting fee, charge what you're really worth.

Mixing the two confuses your customer.

[texxter]

As I said, I don't do photography as a profession, but every once in a while somebody really really wants me to make their portrait. I dont enjoy doing this for several reasons, but sometimes I do do it. Here is how I handled most most recent request for a set of portraits for a sweet-sixteen party at a hotel.

The parent that hired me had to pay a creative fee to me just for showing up with all the equipment, set up a studio at the hotel, and spend a few hours there. That was hundreds of dollars and included no images, zero - but it did include digital proofs for all parents to see. Digital proofs were watermarked and delivered as a low rez PDF file.

Pricing for each image was based on whether it was delivered digitally or as a print, or both. It was cheaper to get a print with the digital file than without it. Digital files were much cheaper if they were low rez. Full resolution digital files cost much more. Parents had to pay for each image separately - no packages - they picked what they wanted, and I fullfilled the orders, most with a combination of digital files and prints.

Because I dont have a retail portraiture business I can't really tell you if my revenue from this commission was profitable or not - it felt like it paid for my time and it was fair to other photographers in business. I could have made more money if I had had some packages and worked hard on calling parents and such.

This is an example of how digital sales can be incorporated into an existing pricing scheme that supports prints too.

[T. Adam Martin]

Thank you for posting the example Paco. It's a great look into rationalizing a pricing approach.

Originally Posted by texxter

As I said, I don't do photography as a profession, but every once in a while somebody really really wants me to make their portrait. I dont enjoy doing this for several reasons, but sometimes I do do it. Here is how I handled most most recent request for a set of portraits for a sweet-sixteen party at a hotel.

The parent that hired me had to pay a creative fee to me just for showing up with all the equipment, set up a studio at the hotel, and spend a few hours there. That was hundreds of dollars and included no images, zero - but it did include digital proofs for all parents to see. Digital proofs were watermarked and delivered as a low rez PDF file.

Pricing for each image was based on whether it was delivered digitally or as a print, or both. It was cheaper to get a print with the digital file than without it. Digital files were much cheaper if they were low rez. Full resolution digital files cost much more. Parents had to pay for each image separately - no packages - they picked what they wanted, and I fullfilled the orders, most with a combination of digital files and prints.

Because I dont have a retail portraiture business I can't really tell you if my revenue from this commission was profitable or not - it felt like it paid for my time and it was fair to other photographers in business. I could have made more money if I had had some packages and worked hard on calling parents and such.

This is an example of how digital sales can be incorporated into an existing pricing scheme that supports prints too.