The Cultural Divide
As a parent you can find yourself in all sorts of situations you never imagined (or desired). Mixing with the crowd of moms (I was the only dad) who are parents of my daughter’s classmates at the ballet school she attends was just such a situation. I’m sure they’re all lovely people, but it’s just not how I prefer to spend my time. And since yesterday was picture day I found it particularly burdensome. Every little girl is perfectly coiffed, arranged, etc. I always feel unequipped to give our eldest daughter the same support and infrastructure that every other girl is clearly getting (especially in the hair department).
Maybe that’s why I was particularly annoyed when the photography studio hired by the ballet school told me that there was no digital option among the suite of photo packages they were offering. I suppose I can’t say I was surprised, but I was incensed. I explained that I didn’t want any of the prints they were offering, I just wanted the digital version of the picture being taken. The photographer was summoned over to discuss my plight. I explained what I wanted and he asserted that I wanted to digital version so I could make extra prints. I explained that I didn’t want any extra prints, and I didn’t even want the original print. I just wanted the JPEG. He looked at me suspiciously. It probably didn’t help when I told him that if I wanted additional prints I wouldn’t order them from him anyway, I would just scan the print I got and make more.
By this point despite his obvious annoyance with me he agreed to quote me a price for a digital only “package” — i.e. e-mailing me the jpegs from the photo shoot. When he told me that there was no way he would charge me less than the printed package I asked him why it made sense to charge me the same given that his COGs had gone down to zero? I know it didn’t help when I pointed out that the business model of holding negatives (or digital originals) hostage to squeeze money out of customers for extra prints was bankrupt and over. I know this because at this point he just looked at me in disgust and told me that I could have the analog prints or nothing.
OK. I realize, not super effective in terms of getting the digital versions. Point taken. But I wasn’t really too worried as I prefer the candid shots I’ll take at the performance anyway. But I had to wonder, why was I so bothered by this guy not offering the digital versions. I know why he was annoyed, you can see it on the net. But I wondered why I was so annoyed. It wasn’t just the fact that the guy didn’t have what I wanted. It was the fact that he was clearly hanging on desparately and defiantly to the old way of doing things. And it made me especially annoyed given that the new way was not necessarily a threat to his business if done properly (hey, how about in the digital version I get many more variations of pictures), and was (from my perspective) an easy transition to make.
Before I left I asked the nice lady who runs the ballet school if next year when considering photographers she could ask them to offer a digital package along with the menu of print offerings. She said, “oh, that’s a great idea.”
Join the discussion 9 Comments
Ben
June 4, 2007 at 8:43 am
I with with you Hillel. Consumers want to pay photographers for their time, and photographers want to be paid per print. Most people ignore this conflict, but it frustrates me every time I run into it.
Even the photographers who do digital sometimes only send JPG, and won’t give you RAW. If you want RAW they will print it for you.
That link you sent me is hilarious. Welcome to the invisible hand.
Pingback:
June 4, 2007 at 9:17 am
Brave Tech World
Walter
June 4, 2007 at 9:46 am
Further insanity: remember not to take pictures that are too good or you may not be able to get them printed!
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/05pogues-posts-2/
Speed
June 4, 2007 at 12:58 pm
The lady who runs the school is giving the photographer an exclusive “license” to photograph the class and sell pictures to the proud parents. I hope you mention to her that the photographer should be paying her for this opportunity.
Andrew
June 4, 2007 at 3:43 pm
First of all, scanning a print of a professionally taken photograph and making copies is illegal. The photographer owns the copyright and you cannot make legal copies without permission. Quite frankly I’d get annoyed if you openly said to my face that you would copy my company’s software without permission. I’m sure you’ll feel the same about your eventual products.
The basic principle of portrait photography that most people don’t get is that it is essentially an intellectual property business. When you buy an image you are really buying the photographer’s time and know how. The cost of the print is minimal compared to the other overheads of the business.
Unfortunately, like most intellectual property transactions consumers don’t really want to pay for something they perceive as being free (“all he did was press the button on his camera and send a file to the printer, how hard can it be?”). Receiving a physical print makes the cost of the image seem more legitimate in the eyes of the consumer. Photographers rely on customers ordering multiple prints to make a profit in the same way as grocery stores rely on their customers buying more than the weekly “door buster”.
Is your photographer stuck in the past? Sure but let me ask you this, how much would you pay for a single jpg? I’m not a professional photographer but I’ll bet that he’ll need to charge something like 3 times the price he charges for a single physical print to make a profit. Also, how would you feel if he charged you more for higher resolution, for instance $50 for a 4×6 resolution image or $100 for jpg that can be printed as an 8×10 without noticeable pixellation?
Ultimately, of course, the market will decide whether independent portrait photographers stay in business. If there is profit to be made then somebody will figure out how to capture it. The key part is whether the addressable market is large enough to support anything other than the Sears/Kiddie Kandid/WalMart type portrait factories that rely on a few standard poses to minimize costs. I don’t know the answer to that for sure but I’m glad photography is a hobby for me and not my livelihood.
Hillel
June 4, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Speed:
You know, I only assumed she was getting a cut. I didn’t ask. I did make it clear to her that in next year’s negotiations she had all the leverage since she was basically granting a right to print cash.
Hillel
June 4, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Andrew:
I agree that for generic stock photography, the licensing model makes sense.
For portrait photography of my child the licensing model makes zero sense. The corollary in the software world is not mass market software, but custom software written on commission.
And finally, even if the licensing model is for custom portraiture is the way it’s always been, my main point is that the guy should embrace the technological shift, evolve his business model, and ultimately make me a happy customer. Clearly this was not his priority.
Paul Gross
June 7, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Hey Hillel, I agree that not offering a digital option misses the boat. But I’m curious what you think the right economics are for a digital image relative to the print equivalents? The photographer that Marcelo referenced offers all the digital images in low resolution for the customer that buys some package of prints and then sells the high res images for a premium that is x times the price of an 8×10.
Hillel
June 11, 2007 at 7:56 am
I understand that the COGs are a relatively minor part of how cost is calculated. That said, I was really more interested in the discussion. There’s so much opportunity for giving me additional value that I felt like the photographer could have made a reasonable case for a higher price. It’s like iTunes plus. You pay extra to get it without DRM. But in addition to paying for the “privilege” of being treated like an honest person, you get higher quality downloads. There’s a psychology of pricing and it’s important to articulate the value in a way that a consumer can relate to even if the costs of said value are only a small component of the pricing formula.