GREAT post. Thanks for the reminder...back to crunching those numbers!

Hi Dan,

I hope you are still around on the forum. I don't know how I missed your initial post but I did.

Your post speaks to a subject I have tried to speak on but have been unable to verbalize. In particular I am talking making a living at the "value-end" of the market. I have been one of those who besides learning about photography from great photographers like those on this forum, have also worked in the "value-end" of the market for some of the mass market national studios. I know many photographers publicly sneer at providing services to the lower end of the market but I am not one of them. I have often said, mostly to myself, that "value-end" customers deserve excellent affordable photography and there has to be a way for an individual photographer to make a living providing affordable top-notch photography to the "value-end" of the market. Unfortunately, I've not found the formula that will allow me to compete in this market segment. Especially trying to do business as a very modest (prop and equipment wise) and part-time home and location studio.

If you are still around I would be interested in hearing more about your ideas on how an individual with limited resources as compared to the likes of Lifetouch, Nationwide and other such chains can compete in the "value-end" of the market.

Sincerely,
George

ggivensjr:
I have often said, mostly to myself, that "value-end" customers deserve excellent affordable photography and there has to be a way for an individual photographer to make a living providing affordable top-notch photography to the "value-end" of the market.

Unfortunately, I've not found the formula that will allow me to compete in this market segment. Especially trying to do business as a very modest (prop and equipment wise) and part-time home and location studio.



I'm not Dan, but perhaps I can respond.

If the amount of work involved is the same (8 hours of shooting, prep, meetings, PP to proofs, etc) and you charge the client less than me you will make less profit per wedding. Your cost structure has to be different to allow this to happen. But you clients expect less (or perhaps, the high end expect more).

You can shoot a low end wedding with a rebel, kit lens and direct flash (with backups, gear cost is under $2000). A high end bride is comparing high end photogs, so to compete in that market i'll need 1D/5D bodies and L glass, probably strobes and an assistant as well - $15,000 is what I bring to a wedding now and don't have the 1D bodies yet...so my gear costs 10 times as much as what a low end photog can get away with. At $200./wedding the rebel can be paid off in 10 weddings. I'd need 100 weddings to pay off mine. There is a reason taxi drivers don't drive BMWs and Lexus' even though the patrons would like it more.

Sure, you can use 20k in gear to shoot a low end wedding if you truly believe the low end client 'deserves' the best. I deserve a mercedes and a 6,000 square foot house but I'm not getting those things for the same price as a 1200 sf house and a Ford. Life doesn't work that way.

You also need to lower your labor costs per wedding, but you'll get lesser photogs and more unreliable people. Lifetouch and the like pay as cheap as possible - school photos don't require a lot of artistic interpretation. Most anyone can be taught to put the camera on M 1/125, ISO 200, F8 and place at X, lights at 4' from X on setting 7 and fillout the form as each child sits in front of you. A wedding is a lot more work, tiring, more people and posing oriented.

Your model will require more weddings to be shot, perhaps 100 of them -and your overhead will go up - more images means PP work which means more hours, more computers, more hard disks for backup. More management to handle the extra number of clients, the larger number of photogs, etc. I'm not saying it can't be done as it is being done, but you're not gonna deliver buissink quality at $1300 a pop. I'm not sure you can deliver consistency either - each photog will have their own theory on how to shoot, pose, etc and have their own style. Bella is trying to do this nationwide and while they claim to pay up to $900/wedding, their average (from the mouth of the owner) is $275/wedding. And go look at their prices - it's not 'value' my friend, at least not in my market.

I think the flaw in your theory is that "value end" people deserve the best photography. It's been my experience in photography as well as in life that if its important to them they will spend money on it. If they don't appreciate it then they will not spend money on it. I like starbucks coffee and will spend $4 on it. My best friend will go to McD's and spend $1.50 as he places less value on coffee than me. I know people that do without some things so that they can afford the things the appreciate. The value end of the market is more interested in meeting their basic needs of food, shelter,clothing, entertainment and healthcare than in photography. To them a kodak P&S is just as good as what a pro does and at 1/20 the cost. They don't have time to appreciate the finer things in life - be that art, music, etc.

I started out with your mindset - there are a LOT of brides out there that can't afford $3500/wedding so I'll go get that market and be rich! You'll spend just as much in marketing to reach them (it's harder to get them to spend ANY money on photography) as you will mid market, you'll work just as hard, and they'll appreciate you less and do very few referrals.

But that's my experience, yours may be different.

Hi CP,

Thanks for the response. First off I have no intention of my primary work being as a wedding shooter. As you elude to it takes way too much time, money and energy. Oh I may do a wedding here and there but not as a steady diet. I want to concentrate primarily on portrait work.

To a point I agree with you. I feel I give the client 100% of what I have to give at every session and at times I have felt the client doesn't appreciate the effort or understand the difference in what they get from me and what they get from the photo factory. Where I differ with you is that I still feel low end consumers deserve excellent photography. I also disagree that excellent photography requires expensive equipment. As Howard Lipin of Photo Talk Radio is fond of saying, "it's the nut behind the camera" that makes the photo. Photographers have been making excellent pictures for decades. Long before the fancy equipment of today came along. Then maybe I'm being too philosophical about the whole thing.

Regards,
George

Gear vs photographer: All the top photogs use the best gear money can buy. I've never heard of anyone selling L glass or 1D bodies to get Tamron lenses and a Rebel body.
The photographer needs to have the idea/vision and know how/skills to turn that vision into an image, but any photographer that can do that will benefit from better gear. Give Buissink or Hanson Fong a rebel and kit lens and sure he can beautiful images, but not the images they're known for - there are just some things you need a 85 1.2 or 70-200 2.8 IS for.

You say that low end clients deserve the best photography. No problem there, we agree - all clients deserve your best all the time. If you choose to do less for a client you perceive as a budget-restricted client, then you're giving them less than the deserve. But on the other hand, it's not unusual to go above and beyond for the higher end, more well connected type of client - so one is obvisously a form of economic discrimination, but the other is economic favoritism. Both happen all the time in every business.

Go to a car dealer and pull up in a 10 year old ratty car, dressed in jeans and a cheap coat vs arrive in a 2 year old well kept car and a suit - how quickly you are approached, how you are treated and what you are shown will be different for each scenario. Same if you are a woman or a man, black or white, young or old. I've noticed it myself - I'm 46 and am not in any way treated the same in stores as I was when I was 25. I see how my assistant is treated compared to me (he's 24) and I see it too - by cops when they pull you over for a ticket. My wife gets off, I get warned and he gets the ticket!

One studio I looked into buying quit doing weddings when his senior business picked up. He can do 5 seniors on a saturday and not have to travel or work 9 hours, no album to do, and he'll make more on the seniors than he can on a wedding in his market.

So much depends on your perspective - As a former blue collar worker (mechanic and electrician) you charge by the hour, materials have a small markup (relatively speaking). You NEVER give away materials, but giving away time is not uncommon.
In photography I can give away prints all day and the cost is practically nothing, whereas my time is very limited so that I don't want to give away or even discount.

Some folks would rather take a $400 wedding than do nothing on a friday night, others are willing to starve if they can't get their full price every sale.

There is no right answer, just one that's right for you, right now.

CPPhoto,

Are you saying the photographers you mention couldn't make the same images with less expensive lenses, all other things being equal? I wonder, what is the intrinsic value of an image?

Regards,
George