Digital Only?

[Flores]

anyone thought of building a good customer facing 'blurb' on the value of digital custom image creation?

I'm trying to come up with something that has all the 'digital file = $x,xxx BECAUSE 1,2,3,4,5'

while _I_ see the value of professional printing, it is also getting way way too easy for people to get access to it on their own. I've got things so far like:

1) multiple personal uses (facebook, family website, smart tv, wireless picture frame)
2) unlimited personal prints up to ZxY size (perfect for hanging on the wall, mailing to grandma)
3) easy to archive (keep copies 'in the cloud', as well as at home)

Obviously, this would be for images only the people invested in them would be interested in. (family portraits, and the like).

I guess the 'marketing spin' here is :

Your going to spend XXXX dollars on family portraits. Traditionally, the photographer charges 'low' for his time, because of the markup on prints, which is where he expects to make money. On the other hand, pricing only digital output in such a way that the photographer makes his money SEEMS like the files are very expensive, when in truth, they aren't.

Such a model could also allow you to sell them prints, if they want them and don't want to be bothered with smugmug/snapfish, et. al, but now the prints seem ridiculously cheap, because the actual content has already been paid for, the presentation materials can now be sold on a low margin...

Ideas? Consequences?

[kayumangi]

But why should the price of a digital file be any different from a very large print?

You can't base your pricing solely on cost of goods alone. Sure you charge low for the sitting fee to lower the barrier of entry but that doesn't mean that you can't factor in your time, expertise, and other expenses on your product's prices, be it for a print or file. Because if you didn't you'd be running a charity.

Actually, even if the cost of sales for prints is much higher than digital files, the reason why a lot of portrait togs still push for it, is because prints carry a lot of emotional weight compared to any hires digital file displayed on screen. People buy for emotional reasons after all.

[ttruelove]

Originally Posted by kayumangi

Actually, even if the cost of sales for prints is much higher than digital files, the reason why a lot of portrait togs still push for it, is because prints carry a lot of emotional weight compared to any hires digital file displayed on screen. People buy for emotional reasons after all.

I have to agree with this statement. I've tackled the print vs. digital debate several times in the past and it all leads me to the same outcome; the value of the image, whether digital or print, is what you believe it is. If the images are your art, price them as pieces of art that cannot be recreated. Digital is just another medium that is not better or worse than print; just different for different reasons.

I like to think about it this way. If my camera delivers a 16"x24" digital photograph natively, then price that photograph the same as your existing 16"x24" print. It's the same photo delivered through different mediums. Hypothetically, if my 16" x 24" print retails for ~$200, I better get that for the digital high-res version too. This places soooo much more value in a 'disc of images' with 200 16"x24" digital prints.

I have to admit, there is not an easy answer to digital vs. print. It all depends on what your clients are willing to buy. If your existing clients do not value your services and art, it may be time to seek a different client market who will.

Just my $.02
Good luck.

[Flores]

Originally Posted by kayumangi

But why should the price of a digital file be any different from a very large print?

You can't base your pricing solely on cost of goods alone. Sure you charge low for the sitting fee to lower the barrier of entry but that doesn't mean that you can't factor in your time, expertise, and other expenses on your product's prices, be it for a print or file. Because if you didn't you'd be running a charity.

Actually, even if the cost of sales for prints is much higher than digital files, the reason why a lot of portrait togs still push for it, is because prints carry a lot of emotional weight compared to any hires digital file displayed on screen. People buy for emotional reasons after all.

I'm confused by this. No where did I say anything about 'cost of goods'. I guess I need to be more clear: I'm saying Photographer needs to make $1,000 on a portrait shoot to make it worth his while to create the images. Period. End of Story.

Since the business model I see most folks use trys to break that out into a bunch of smaller line items (sitting fee, package of prints, price for dvd, etc), why not simply pull the song and dance out of it, and give people the ability to do whatever they want with the finished product.

Maybe I want to charge you $1000 for the act of creating 5 family portraits for you, and my choice for delivery is to hand you the hi-res images so you can choose where/how they get viewed, be it prints, facebook, whatever. By removing the 'you need to buy prints from me' aspect of the transaction, there is now, no longer any question about what the customer is buying.

It also removes the financial risk involved in 'what if they don't buy anything'...

Dunno. Just thinking out loud, as it were. I don't _mind_ selling prints. But I also like things to be simple. too many savvy customers know they can get 'good' prints for almost nothing 50 different places online. It just seems like an inevitable shift in the business where your going to either have to justify why the customer can only buy prints from you, or the higher 'perceived' price of an all digital product.

[Flores]

Originally Posted by ttruelove

I have to agree with this statement. I've tackled the print vs. digital debate several times in the past and it all leads me to the same outcome; the value of the image, whether digital or print, is what you believe it is. If the images are your art, price them as pieces of art that cannot be recreated. Digital is just another medium that is not better or worse than print; just different for different reasons.

I like to think about it this way. If my camera delivers a 16"x24" digital photograph natively, then price that photograph the same as your existing 16"x24" print. It's the same photo delivered through different mediums. Hypothetically, if my 16" x 24" print retails for ~$200, I better get that for the digital high-res version too. This places soooo much more value in a 'disc of images' with 200 16"x24" digital prints.

I have to admit, there is not an easy answer to digital vs. print. It all depends on what your clients are willing to buy. If your existing clients do not value your services and art, it may be time to seek a different client market who will.

Just my $.02
Good luck.

thats a good start to how to look at it, I think.

[kayumangi]

But you're still missing the point though. Digital files have much higher value because you can make products out of them from one session alone, thus you have residual income even if you don't get new clients. Why would you sell the cow when you can profit more from it's milk?

Now, if your clients claim that they can print similar products from cheaper sources then don't offer similar products so that they don't have anything to compare it with. As for justifying your prices to your clients, if this happens a lot, then as Tim said maybe you need to market to a different group, where they appreciate your talent more than just the medium.

Also, put yourself on a prospective client's shoes. Why should I pay you a one time $1000 to take my photos? even if the hires files are included that's a very huge risk on my part. What if I don't like the images? will you return all my money?

[mercphoto]

Originally Posted by kayumangi

Also, put yourself on a prospective client's shoes. Why should I pay you a one time $1000 to take my photos? even if the hires files are included that's a very huge risk on my part. What if I don't like the images? will you return all my money?

Keep the existing business model of a low sitting fee plus print packages, and then add the grand daddy digital package that gives the CD with the hi-res files. Throw in a set of professional printed 4x6's so the customer has a golden standard to judge their Wal Mart prints by (this way if their prints look like crap they cannot blame your files). End of story. :)

[Flores]

Originally Posted by kayumangi

But you're still missing the point though. Digital files have much higher value because you can make products out of them from one session alone, thus you have residual income even if you don't get new clients. Why would you sell the cow when you can profit more from it's milk?

Now, if your clients claim that they can print similar products from cheaper sources then don't offer similar products so that they don't have anything to compare it with. As for justifying your prices to your clients, if this happens a lot, then as Tim said maybe you need to market to a different group, where they appreciate your talent more than just the medium.

Also, put yourself on a prospective client's shoes. Why should I pay you a one time $1000 to take my photos? even if the hires files are included that's a very huge risk on my part. What if I don't like the images? will you return all my money?

to your first point : The proviso here is that the client isn't going to be buying a lot of different copies of the image over the years. It's not 'commercial' but for personal consumption, so not a lot of residual? maybe? I don't know. :D I'm the newb here! LOL

I don't know about selling the cow. More like cloning the cow, and letting someone else worry about taking care of _their_ cow.

I _am_ trying to be in the client's shoes. Thats why I'm trying to come up with a list of why they should do it this way.

You should pay $1000 for me to create your images because: (and that's not a real number, just a filler. I would expect that to change based on what the intended use of the content is)

1) they are that good
2) you can reformat that image for personal use any way you want when your done vs having to pay inch by inch for what I'm willing to sell you from my print shop.

Maybe you end up at the old 'print credit' model, where you 'refund' some of the charge back in their choice of product, but again, does that give the customer the perception that they can spend less for images?

The risk is the same regardless of WHEN you pay the money, don't you think. Unhappy client = no sale + bad reviews. happy client = sale + good reviews.
why would I go with a photographer that was so unsure of their skill, that they weren't willing to stand behind their product enough to make me happy, I don't want to get stuck with a non-refundable 'sitting fee', even if it was only $100. (see, it works both ways!)

I think there are pros and cons here, and certainly no 'wrong' way to do it. But I have always thought, in business, you need to take a good look at the landscape on a regular basis, consider burning down your old house, and think about either 'building' the same house as everyone else, or designing a new house that stands out from everyone else.


so consider this a thought exercise, not an attack on your current business practices nor a need to justify why selling prints makes more money.

[kayumangi]

Yes in business its always nice to standout and try out new things but isn't it wiser to try out the old ways first, as in do it properly and see if the old ways still hold true even in the digital age?

The reason I say so, is because you yourself are unsure about residual income. You think that it's only for commercial purposes. When in fact, its quite the opposite. Commercial work usually require digital files that's why they are priced higher. Compared to personal images where you can use them to create several products that you can sell, like albums, calendars, wallets and post cards. If you clone the cow, why would a buyer come to you for more milk?

What you're proposing is not new, in fact most wedding togs are doing it already (shoot and burn). Right now, I can't name one studio who is earning a lot with shoot and burn alone. But maybe they're not disclosing it, who knows.

Anyhow, I'm just offering an opinion.

[Flores]

thanks Marius, excellent points.

[HotHolly]

Originally Posted by Flores

Traditionally, the photographer charges 'low' for his time, because of the markup on prints, which is where he expects to make money.

This part is the 'front loading' sales vs 'back loading' sales debate. You can charge enough for the sitting fee so you dont need residual sales on the back end.

And in terms of digital files = the price of a print...are you sure that's a good way to go? Once the file is sold, there are typically no print sales of that print to anyone. Its dead. So if you didnt sell files and that one shot grossed $1K in sales, the file price should have been a min of $1K. Their value isnt the same in the long run. Just something to consider.

OP, looking at how to gross $1K per session as a whole is a good way to try to figure out how to shape your business so that it can meet those goals. There are many ways you can hit that amount. It makes good business sense to pull everything apart, consider all the pieces, and try to figure out how to give people what they want WHILE simplifying things.

And I'm all for whatever works. Ive done some crazy-ass stuff and it worked great. Other stuff, not so much. You have to do what makes sense to you. And the good part is, you own the business. If it doesnt work - change it and try again. :)

[Coelus]

Couple points from my odd point of view.

1. A digital file is a collection of 1's and 0's. They're buying the time and expertise of the photographer who arranged them. Dan Winters could charge a fortune for a shot that takes him ten minutes and a P&S. You bought Dan Winters experience and talent for ten minutes. The cost of the medium the image is delivered on is irrelevant to the cost of the action itself.

2. You're spacing that cost of talent and experience over X amount of delivered products, plus the cost of the medium itself. You're also gambling on how little amount of product it takes to pay you a fair price for your work. $50+cost of goods means you're not selling a lot of 4x6, but the large prints fly. It takes math, guesswork, and paying attention to what the market will allow you to do. Sometimes you win, sometime you lose. It's not the ideal model but it's the reality of the situation.

3. What you set your personal value at, and how you apply that to your product, will determine how you price things. How you price is also determined by your selling style. If you don't like face to face sales then digital products and online sales are for you. If that's not you then it's prints all the way. I don't think this is an issue really, because customers have different buying styles that will gravitate to one model or the other.

4. If you're not making enough and your prices are competitive for your market; you may have an overhead problem, a personal spending habit problem, or a target client base problem. It isn't always price or delivery.

5. If you need $10k a month in revenue to live off your business, you can have 1 job that pays $10k or 1000 jobs that pay $10. Figuring out the best way to reach your revenue goal consistently is more important than figuring out how to squeeze every last penny from each client. When you reach the goal all the time, raise the goal higher. Taking this approach let's you see the whole picture and not just get fixated on one thing. A very old, very rich, neighbor told me when I was a kid to make sure I was never walking over dollars while I was looking for dimes. He told me this right before he gave me a ride in his helicopter. The lesson stuck.


The whole point of this over long post? Who cares how your competitor does it as long as what you're doing works for you.

[Arcusmedia]

I sell Digital Prints for about 99 cents just like I-tunes... I make about $30.00 for each client and about 600 bucks per month on digital downloads alone...

[mercphoto]

Originally Posted by Arcusmedia

I sell Digital Prints for about 99 cents just like I-tunes... I make about $30.00 for each client and about 600 bucks per month on digital downloads alone...

I'm trying to figure out the point of your post. Is it to show how little income you're getting or the sheer volume of files sold?

[Arcusmedia]

Showing that I can sell digital prints for a lower price and also being able to use that as bait to get them to buy prints and packages. Plus its free marketing!