login
59$ Really? But I dont want that... (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-08-13 9:02 PM in reply to: #2347172 |
Champion  7821     Brooklyn, NY |  Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that...What if the RD built, say, a $5 charge into every race fee, paid all of it to the photographer and allowed every athlete to choose a single low-res image from the images that the photographer took of them? The photographer would be making $5 for every athlete who registered, even the ones who DNS'd or DNF'd and would be providing only one low-res image per athlete in return. Surely that would more than cover their costs. Athletes would still have the option of buying additional or high-res prints if they wanted. Is there a reason that this wouldn't work? |
| 2009-08-13 9:34 PM in reply to: #2347409 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... bananatoes - 2009-08-12 7:26 PM snip I see this as similar to the music industry- let me decide how to use the product and dont make me buy more than I want. The distribution costs are zero. ITunes offers albums and singles. They dont make you buy the whole album if you just want a song. Offer a low rez smaller digital file and a high rez and package deals and people will self select and you can capture all elements. snip Really? You viewed the pictures online I assume? That bandwidth ain't free. That web design ain't free The labor to screen the photos ain't free. (even if it's done by software.... that ain't free) The labor to take the photos ain't free. The labor to take your order ain't free. The labor to send your order (and postage if it's a print) ain't free. $10 for low-res? They'd be losing money. It would very likely be CHEAPER for them to give you your whole gallery at full-rez than it would be for them to take the time to shrink the picture you wanted. That 4x6 they're selling for $20 is very likely a loss-leader to get you looking at pics and ordering something. |
| 2009-08-13 9:46 PM in reply to: #2347172 |
Regular 75 Bishop, CA | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... I don't know who does these photos, but if the ones that Brightroom is offering are anything as good as the pictures in this album: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=32583697&id=41800339 (don't know if everyone will be able to see it) I would willingly pay $59 dollars for a package of photos like that. Photographers are artists. I would expect to may much more for a beautiful painting or a sculpture that spoke to me. However, I wouldn't pay anything close to that if the photos are low-quality. Edited by yosly 2009-08-13 9:47 PM |
| 2009-08-13 10:06 PM in reply to: #2347172 |
| New user 14 | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... I was at the same race as the OP and I have to admit, as a back of the pack guy the photos they got of me were, well, not great. Not a single bike shot, and the race start shots didn't even have me in them all the way zoomed out. They took a 6 shot burts of me crossing the finish line that were ok. I am a amature photographer so I was checking out the glass being used, nothing overly impressive to say the least. The photo's they sent me weren't that great. And in this case, they aren't doing any individual photo touch up before they sell them, they basically say as much on the site. Sure, they may run them through lightstudio real quick, but this isn't like a wedding where they have to touch up every photo before they show the clients. In this case they say "brightroom prints have far superior resolution and image quality than what appears on screen". My wife took better photos of me with my run of the mill Nikon D90. |
| 2009-08-13 10:22 PM in reply to: #2347250 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... strostertag - 2009-08-13 5:41 PM $59 for one digital image is a steal? I hope you forgot your sarcastic font because that's just crazy. I agree. I'm having my 13yr old daughter come to my tri with our Nikon D40. It takes as good of a picture as I hope for and I certainly wouldn't pay $59 for a pic. Customers determine worth via what they are willing to pay. If someone is willing to pay $59 for a pic, it's worth it to them. I'm sure many are not because it's not worth it. As for being a steal? I can't see that. |
| 2009-08-13 10:23 PM in reply to: #2347694 |
| New user 14 | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... moondawg14 - 2009-08-13 10:34 PM bananatoes - 2009-08-12 7:26 PM snip I see this as similar to the music industry- let me decide how to use the product and dont make me buy more than I want. The distribution costs are zero. ITunes offers albums and singles. They dont make you buy the whole album if you just want a song. Offer a low rez smaller digital file and a high rez and package deals and people will self select and you can capture all elements. snip Really? You viewed the pictures online I assume? That bandwidth ain't free. The thumbnails are around 5k, not much there. Bandwidth is cheap, it only gets up there if you start hosting huge videos that lots of people are downloading. I get something like 1000 GB a month from one of my hosting services for like $100/month. You can view and download a lot of 5k photos with 1000GB. Besides, after the first time you view the page your are just pulling the photos from the cache on your computer. That web design ain't free True, it's not free. But the product they are selling has been done thousands of times. I doubt they paid for a custom built solution. They most likely (if they were smart) just bought a canned application that maybe cost a couple of grand to customize and implement. I do this for a living. The labor to screen the photos ain't free. (even if it's done by software.... that ain't free) They have copies of lightbox or something of the sort that can bulk process thousands of photos with the touch of a button. The labor to take the photos ain't free. True. I saw on photographer on the finish line that laid down one 6 shot burst. I was at this same event. The labor to take your order ain't free. It is online. So yes, it basically is free. They need a merchant account which is like $50/month to process credit cards. Again, e-commerce is common, this isn't rocket science and doesn't cost much to do anymore. The labor to send your order (and postage if it's a print) ain't free. I'm pretty sure they charge for shipping and handling. |
| 2009-08-13 10:30 PM in reply to: #2347641 |
Master 2665 The Whites, New Hampshire | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... jmk-brooklyn - 2009-08-13 10:02 PM What if the RD built, say, a $5 charge into every race fee, paid all of it to the photographer and allowed every athlete to choose a single low-res image from the images that the photographer took of them? The photographer would be making $5 for every athlete who registered, even the ones who DNS'd or DNF'd and would be providing only one low-res image per athlete in return. Surely that would more than cover their costs. Athletes would still have the option of buying additional or high-res prints if they wanted. Is there a reason that this wouldn't work? Seems like that would work nicely...if they fix the alleged problem stated here of not getting good shots MOP/BOP. If you are gonna charge everyone the same, you oughta spend the time on everyone the same. I was good friends with the main photog for area horse shows. We talked a lot about his costs, his pricing, etc. Basically, if you bought a few photos here and there (and he had several cheap options), he'd be happy to throw in a low-res image if you asked nicely (and possibly bought him a brownie...  ). We showed him we appreciated his work and his costs by making purchases - which he had priced affordably, he showed us he appreciated our business by offering something he knew we would like.Though a little OT here, we also talked about how he wouldn't do certain types of shows because he didn't get enough sales to warrant his time. Snap snap snap a zillion pics and maybe one or two purchases. I'm sure photogs take that into account, too - I don't think there was a pro at my first tri. |
| 2009-08-14 1:18 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
Expert 697 Northern CA | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... lisac957 - 2009-08-13 2:36 PMI agree that they could possibly make a ton more money if they opened options to purchase individual electronic images. As someone who used to be an event photographer, I say it's unlikely. I actually did sell individual digital images but for a lot more than $10. It was actually more profitable for me to sell all the images of the athlete for one set price than to sell onsies and twosies. And the low res images required more labor than selling the full res images. Which is why I charged so much for it.... I wanted people to buy the whole CD. It's very hard to make money in photography and part of it is that most people don't value the service. The other part is that it's very labor intensive and there are a lot of fixed costs to do an event. I would get people saying "my kid didn't do the beam event so can I have the CD for half price" (I did skating and gymnastics mostly). But what they didn't understand was that I had to pay the photographer the same amount whether their kid did all the events or half of them. So half off meant I wouldn't make a profit. jmk-brooklyn - 2009-08-13 7:02 PMWhat if the RD built, say, a $5 charge into every race fee, paid all of it to the photographer and allowed every athlete to choose a single low-res image from the images that the photographer took of them? The photographer would be making $5 for every athlete who registered, even the ones who DNS'd or DNF'd and would be providing only one low-res image per athlete in return. Surely that would more than cover their costs. Athletes would still have the option of buying additional or high-res prints if they wanted. Is there a reason that this wouldn't work? Well, I thought it was a great idea when I floated it to the clubs whose events I was doing. But they were horrified at the idea of having to raise entry fees and wouldn't bite. A friend of mine was able to do it for one event that he did regularly, though. It took a year of negotiations to get them to go for it, but he was able to do it. |
| 2009-08-14 1:39 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
| New user 327 | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... just pay a friend a few beers to come out and take photos of you. odds are they will get as good if not better photos. I often think that the price that professional photographers charge for event photos is a little absurd. Is it a lot of work? Sure, but I think they would sell more at a lower price resulting in more money for them. And let's be honest most of the work is grunt work, not artistic work. It's much harder to go through and match photos to bib numbers than it is to take the photos and apply auto levels to them. |
| 2009-08-14 7:28 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... It is simple supply and demand...if enough people are willing to pay it, they will sell it for that price. Don't like the product or the price? Don't buy it. |
| 2009-08-14 7:49 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
| Member 33 | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... All the pricing decisions are based on the margin. What is the cost of their time? If they have to take the time to make the image low res..what's that worth? I think people don't value the photographer's time enough. My brother-in-law is a photographer and people expect him to show up for free and then want to purchase ten of the images for $5 a piece. Not worth his time... Someone has to be buying the images or the photographer would be out of business or wouldn't be taking pics at tris. |
| 2009-08-14 7:52 AM in reply to: #2347341 |
Champion 6539 South Jersey | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... I hear you. My favorite race photos ever were from Brightroom. I wanted to buy a few digital images, but they just weren't worth the price to me. |
| 2009-08-14 9:34 AM in reply to: #2347888 |
Alpharetta, Georgia Bronze member | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... MacMadame - 2009-08-14 1:18 AM As someone who used to be an event photographer, I say it's unlikely. I actually did sell individual digital images but for a lot more than $10. It was actually more profitable for me to sell all the images of the athlete for one set price than to sell onsies and twosies. And the low res images required more labor than selling the full res images. Which is why I charged so much for it.... I wanted people to buy the whole CD. It's very hard to make money in photography and part of it is that most people don't value the service. I guess it's just hard for me to understand, since I see it as the photographer already has the image on his computer. He's already in the "sunk cost" of all of the equipment, labor, and time sorting, web site costs, etc. He is not out any more cost or time by letting me buy the one photo I want. It is just sitting there on his computer, not making any money. |
| 2009-08-14 9:44 AM in reply to: #2348322 |
| Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... lisac957 - 2009-08-14 10:34 AM As for low-res labor, I know what it takes to bump down the resolution and re-save an image (a few seconds - 30 at the most - per image). The photographer doesn't have to re-size every single image in the library... how about they just re-size the ones that were ordered? 30 seconds of additional labor for a sale?  Wouldn't even have to do that, just have it scripted to create the low-res image when it's purchased, put it into a temporary directory and have that available for a limited time for download then delete the directory after the time runs out. Yeah, I'm a computer guy, everything's scripted. You only have to write the script once then it just works and does not take up any additional time at all. Even creating the script wouldn't take but maybe 20-45 minutes. |
| 2009-08-14 9:53 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
Master 2158 | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... WOW, This is a touchy subject. I too have found that I don't want to pay for the professional photo's. However, that is usually becuase they are of poor quality since I am BOP/MOP. Suggestions: 1. Pay for it if you like it 2. Start your own business doing race photos 3. Spend 20 dollars bribing a friend to bring a camera and take as many shots of you as they can. You might get luck and get the perfect shot. Personally, I like #3. Mostly becuase then someone can drive me home and I don't have to worry about my leg cramping when I press down on the clutch. I hate that! |
| 2009-08-14 10:09 AM in reply to: #2348322 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... lisac957 - 2009-08-14 10:34 AM I guess it's just hard for me to understand, since I see it as the photographer already has the image on his computer. He's already in the "sunk cost" of all of the equipment, labor, and time sorting, web site costs, etc. He is not out any more cost or time by letting me buy the one photo I want. It is just sitting there on his computer, not making any money. And it's hard for me to understand why people are ignoring the fact that selling that 'one' image that "isn't making any money" at a fraction of the price they sell their 'package' for has an impact on their ENTIRE business model. If 90% of the competitors paid for this image, it might work out OK. But if only 10% do and half of them would have paid full freight without the discounted option, the photogopher loses. Personally, I would rarely ever buy such an image. And I would prefer NOT to pay for one as part of my race fees. |
| 2009-08-14 10:11 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
Expert 769 Alpharetta (until we find a home) | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... I didnt realize there were such ardent fixtures on both sides. I like your number 3# option but the wake up call at at 4 AM will shrink my pool of friends dramatically. The invisible hand of capitalism strikes again. |
| 2009-08-14 10:20 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... It's basically the same business model that a lot of Satellite and Cable TV providers have. You'd like to get the History Channel on your TV sir? Sure no problem, we'll just sign you up for package B that includes that and you'll also get all these other fabulous channels that go with it. You don't want to pay for all of those too? Too bad... I have a friend that has a photography business that takes pictures at dog sporting events (flyball, agility etc.) and he seems to do fine selling individual photos. Now he doesn't offer a low resolution option and the more pictures you buy, the cheaper they get but if you want to get just one picture, no problem - and it's not $30 or anything foolish like that. More like $10... |
| 2009-08-14 10:25 AM in reply to: #2348422 |
| Alpharetta, Georgia Bronze member | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... JohnnyKay - 2009-08-14 10:09 AM lisac957 - 2009-08-14 10:34 AM I guess it's just hard for me to understand, since I see it as the photographer already has the image on his computer. He's already in the "sunk cost" of all of the equipment, labor, and time sorting, web site costs, etc. He is not out any more cost or time by letting me buy the one photo I want. It is just sitting there on his computer, not making any money. And it's hard for me to understand why people are ignoring the fact that selling that 'one' image that "isn't making any money" at a fraction of the price they sell their 'package' for has an impact on their ENTIRE business model. If 90% of the competitors paid for this image, it might work out OK. But if only 10% do and half of them would have paid full freight without the discounted option, the photogopher loses. Personally, I would rarely ever buy such an image. And I would prefer NOT to pay for one as part of my race fees. But there is NO additional cost involved to sell a digital file... none. Besides opening up a new email, attaching the file, and hitting "send." If I were a photographer, I'd rather make an extra 5 bucks for sending an email than none at all. But, apparently, they have it all figured out with their flawless business models? Dunno, maybe they do and are all rolling int he dough... |
| 2009-08-14 10:27 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... I don't value the service because I married into a family of artists and photographers that don't do it for a living anymore. My wife, mother-in-law, and father-in-law (who published a book in India), can all take better photo's with comparable equipment at home for free. Why would I pay? |
| 2009-08-14 10:43 AM in reply to: #2347172 |
Elite 3315 Miami | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... this is a great topic, personally from a customer stand point i never understood it. i actually recruited my friend to take some photos of me, and maybe out of 200 there were 2 decent ones. unfortunately none on the bike. problem is the nice bike photos were in a package for $60-70. I DON"T WANT A PACKAGE, I want 1 photo for $10. god it pisses me off to no end. |
| 2009-08-14 10:59 AM in reply to: #2348468 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... lisac957 - 2009-08-14 11:25 AM JohnnyKay - 2009-08-14 10:09 AM lisac957 - 2009-08-14 10:34 AM I guess it's just hard for me to understand, since I see it as the photographer already has the image on his computer. He's already in the "sunk cost" of all of the equipment, labor, and time sorting, web site costs, etc. He is not out any more cost or time by letting me buy the one photo I want. It is just sitting there on his computer, not making any money. And it's hard for me to understand why people are ignoring the fact that selling that 'one' image that "isn't making any money" at a fraction of the price they sell their 'package' for has an impact on their ENTIRE business model. If 90% of the competitors paid for this image, it might work out OK. But if only 10% do and half of them would have paid full freight without the discounted option, the photogopher loses. Personally, I would rarely ever buy such an image. And I would prefer NOT to pay for one as part of my race fees. But there is NO additional cost involved to sell a digital file... none. Besides opening up a new email, attaching the file, and hitting "send." If I were a photographer, I'd rather make an extra 5 bucks for sending an email than none at all. But, apparently, they have it all figured out with their flawless business models? Dunno, maybe they do and are all rolling int he dough... It's NOT about the additional cost or lack thereof. The photographer makes an extra $5 (or whatever) off of you. Person X, who was going to buy the $50 package, decides they'd be better off with the $5 one. Now, the photog is "out" $40. So they need 8 more people to buy the new $5 option (and not have any of those 8 be ones that would have paid $50). If the business model is so "flawed", I'm sure someone will realize this and capitalize on it. If you're so sure, you should get going on it before somebody else does. |
| 2009-08-14 10:59 AM in reply to: #2348468 |
| New user 14 | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... lisac957 - 2009-08-14 11:25 AM JohnnyKay - 2009-08-14 10:09 AM lisac957 - 2009-08-14 10:34 AM I guess it's just hard for me to understand, since I see it as the photographer already has the image on his computer. He's already in the "sunk cost" of all of the equipment, labor, and time sorting, web site costs, etc. He is not out any more cost or time by letting me buy the one photo I want. It is just sitting there on his computer, not making any money. And it's hard for me to understand why people are ignoring the fact that selling that 'one' image that "isn't making any money" at a fraction of the price they sell their 'package' for has an impact on their ENTIRE business model. If 90% of the competitors paid for this image, it might work out OK. But if only 10% do and half of them would have paid full freight without the discounted option, the photogopher loses. Personally, I would rarely ever buy such an image. And I would prefer NOT to pay for one as part of my race fees. But there is NO additional cost involved to sell a digital file... none. Besides opening up a new email, attaching the file, and hitting "send." If I were a photographer, I'd rather make an extra 5 bucks for sending an email than none at all. But, apparently, they have it all figured out with their flawless business models? Dunno, maybe they do and are all rolling int he dough... Why would they even have to open up an email and send it. E-commerce is such an easy thing to do. The customer selects the photo to buy, pays via credit card, paypal, or one of another 100 ways to pay online, and the system AUTOMATICALLY sends the picture to their email account along with providing a download link. The photographer NEVER has to get involved. It is very easy to automate the process of creating thumbnails and low res photos. It is one of the more common tasks for web developers such as myself. It is almost like free money to the photographer. They get a credit in their merchant account and the system took care of the rest for them. |
| 2009-08-14 11:02 AM in reply to: #2348521 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... trix - 2009-08-14 11:43 AM this is a great topic, personally from a customer stand point i never understood it. i actually recruited my friend to take some photos of me, and maybe out of 200 there were 2 decent ones. unfortunately none on the bike. problem is the nice bike photos were in a package for $60-70. I DON"T WANT A PACKAGE, I want 1 photo for $10. god it pisses me off to no end. FWIW, I just got a brightroom e-mail about a race earlier this year. You can buy a simple 5x7 print for $15. |
| 2009-08-14 11:17 AM in reply to: #2347641 |
Champion 6627 Rochester Hills, Michigan Gold member | Subject: RE: 59$ Really? But I dont want that... jmk-brooklyn - 2009-08-13 10:02 PM What if the RD built, say, a $5 charge into every race fee, paid all of it to the photographer and allowed every athlete to choose a single low-res image from the images that the photographer took of them? The photographer would be making $5 for every athlete who registered, even the ones who DNS'd or DNF'd and would be providing only one low-res image per athlete in return. Surely that would more than cover their costs. Athletes would still have the option of buying additional or high-res prints if they wanted. Is there a reason that this wouldn't work? It'd be a rediculously hard sell. When you add a surcharge (or up the price), you create an expectation. If you pay an extra $5, you want a photo of you, eyes open, exiting the water, on the bike, run, or finish line, unobscured. Each person, I'm sure wants something a little different. Problem is...photogs can't meet that expectation all the time...due to timing, luck, whatever. Think of the uproar in a 2000 person race if 300 didn't have a great bike pic, 400 were obscured at the finish line, 200 were not able to be identified (no number, lost photos), and some number just didn't like their shots. Now these people have paid for something that didn't meet their expectations, no matter how unachievable they were. The RD would be fielding inquiries for months about this. They're in the racing business, not the picture business, and they won't like the idea fielding complaints and requests for $5 refunds well into the next year. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK