Photography and Design with the same terms?

[waple]

I'm a web/graphic designer and semi-pro photographer and I'm having some trouble with how to charge for each.

When I have a client that wants me to design, let's say, a brochure, I'll charge an hourly rate based on how much I think it'll cost (then adjust as needed). But I don't charge them a fee on top of that to let them use the piece, and they pay a printer whatever the print cost is. Or if it's a web site, they just pay my design fee and that's it.

However, what most photographers say should be done is charge an hourly rate or sitting fee that covers the time worked, but then they charge an additional fee for the finished product, both for prints (plus a sometimes large markup, ie. $50 for an 8x10) and/or a fee to use a photo for an ad or brochure.

Are these two types of industries different in the way that that work, or should I be doing the same thing for both types of work I do, ie. charging an hourly rate plus usage fee?

Thanks

[edleg]

You have asked a very good question....

Twenty years ago when a photographer owned & controlled a limited number of film negatives, or even worse, a more limited number of original slides (like kodachrome), then there was a natural market which dictated, via supply & demand, the prices for creative fees, licensing and royalties. Today we live in a different art world. Many parts of that old pricing structure have crumbled (think of micro stock images). I personally would like to keep the high prices and licensing. But I think that only certain niche photographers will keep that big $$$ rolling in.

The problem is compounded because too many art directors & graphics departments at companies don't require (maybe they don't know better) unique images that no one else has... It also is a financial thing where because of the digital revolution management just won't budget big bucks for a lot of photo image work because they believe it is too easy to "make' an image they want. Limited budgets and a much larger supply means much lower prices.

I try to get my fees up front and not rely on residuals... but then I was never part of that market 20 years ago.

[UnivModels]

Web, advertising, or photography our approach is cost + materials.

Most difficult part of that formula is determining your shooting rate for photography - since if it's a local piece to run a part of newspaper ad, say in a small town, $50/hr might be fine, but then they want to run it in the New York Times - you art should should command more money.

An answer is when you sell the work, you keep the copyright, and specify that it is Single Publications Right.

[d2creative]

I'm a professional graphic designer and you are doing it correctly.
We charge based on an hourly fee. If we think the project will take 20 hours and our fee is $150/hr then we charge $3000. Printing costs are marked up a little if we are managing that part, otherwise the client can work directly with the printer and we just hand off the files. The client now owns the files and can do with them what they please.

Just as you, I have noticed that photography is completely different. But I also think it depends on what kind of photography you are doing and what you are shooting and who you are shooting it for.

[heartseye]

Commercial photography is, in my experience, always a combination of fees. There is an amount charged for the production of the image, and then there is a separate usage fee for its use. The usage fee depends on a multitude of factors, and is very often time-limited as well.

[waple]

Originally Posted by heartseye

Commercial photography is, in my experience, always a combination of fees. There is an amount charged for the production of the image, and then there is a separate usage fee for its use. The usage fee depends on a multitude of factors, and is very often time-limited as well.

That's why I was wondering if I should be charging my design work the same way. Design a brochure or logo and have them pay the design fee and a separate usage fee.

[heartseye]

Such design work which I have ever purchased was always charged for the work, and no restrictions on how I used it. I never really thought much about that 'till now.....

[Inspired Graphix]

I do alot of design work also, many of our clients use a combination of our services.

For regular clients who push alot of work through (boring commercial products for catalogues etc), i often work on a "per item" rate (with clause for better compensation when more is required).

For non-regular work, i charge an hourly rate based on whatever the job requires.

This goes on top of any design work. Say if it was a business card, if i would normally charge $XXX for a run of business cards, i would add $XXX to the bill for the custom imagery.

Where i do relax things a little however is with usage for commercial imagery. I don't try and sweat royalties and usage rights. Most people will just use it for whatever they want anyway, and i am not going to go chasing them down the road to get my share of the profits. I just make sure i am properly compensated for the images, and they can do whatever they want with them (within limitations that it does not defame my company blah blah blah).

Rob

[waple]

My biggest obsticle still is having a customer pay the useage rights/licensing fee for a shot of something they own.

For example, I was hired to shoot about 200 items a customer makes. I charged a straight hourly fee for both the shoot and the post. I felt really odd about telling him he also had to pay for the rights to use the photos of his stuff.

I can understand if I took photos of some items I owned, let's say flowers, and someone wanted to use the photo for his catalog. But if I went to a florist and took a picture of his flowers, to me it's odd to ask him to pay a usage fee to use the photo of his flowers on his catalog.

Is there some other real-world analogy that can maybe help beat this into my head?

[Inspired Graphix]

See for commercial work, i don't charge the customer usage rights.

It is a one off fee, and they can do whatever they like.

Customers these days don't want to pay royalties, and most photographers won't enforce it.

I price myself to make money from the shoot, not from the images.

Maybe when i am well known by reputation in the fashion industry or something that would change, but for the market i am currently servicing, it just won't happen. They would simply go next door to the next photographer and use them.

Rob

[heartseye]

I think you have to consiously decide where you want to fit into the market you are after. As Rob says, many will just go on to the "next photographer".
So, if you want to just be the "next photographer" in a line of more of them, then cut costs.....discount everything......give stuff for nothing. And after a while, that's what your work will be worth.
Or.....make sacrifices to be the very best photographer in your market base. Charge accordingly, and higher end clients will come to trust your work and pay the rates. Exxcelence, dependability, trustworthness are all vital to your CLIENTS success too.......
Somebody has to be at the top. So, why not you?

[heartseye]

Is there some other real-world analogy that can maybe help beat this into my head?

How about this.....Hillary Clinton wants a straight forward head shot of herself. No prints. Just put it on a CD. How much do you charge her?

She then puts this image on every billboard across the nation. How much SHOULD you have charged? And why?

[waple]

Originally Posted by heartseye

...make sacrifices to be the very best photographer in your market base. Charge accordingly, and higher end clients will come to trust your work and pay the rates. Exxcelence, dependability, trustworthness are all vital to your CLIENTS success too.......

This is a valid point as to why raise my hourly rates, but not why to charge a useage fee.

Originally Posted by heartseye

Is there some other real-world analogy that can maybe help beat this into my head?

How about this.....Hillary Clinton wants a straight forward head shot of herself. No prints. Just put it on a CD. How much do you charge her?

She then puts this image on every billboard across the nation. How much SHOULD you have charged? And why?

Can't she do the same thing if she paid a usage fee? Or... hmm... maybe at this point I would have had a contract with her to show that I have the right to be paid more if she used it more often? Okay, I can see that. However, it's still the point that someone has to pay to use their own picture that get's me.

Maybe it's not the fact that I don't quite understand it, but rather I wouldn't really know how to explain why it's the case if a customer asked why they have to pay extra money to use a photo of them or thier product.

Have you ever had to explain this to someone? If so, how did you? If I were your client and I just paid $700 to have you take my headshot for billboards, how would you explain to me that I have to pay another $1500 (or whatever) to actually display the shot you just took of me?

[edleg]

It seems like in the case of a photographer charging usage rights for a person (or company) to use the image of that same person (or the person/company's property), then that the person could arguably charge the photographer for royalties for using their image.... kind of a big circle... After all the photographer is making money from the person's image or property.... (wow, makes my head hurt!).

[heartseye]

Originally Posted by edleg

It seems like in the case of a photographer charging usage rights for a person (or company) to use the image of that same person (or the person/company's property), then that the person could arguably charge the photographer for royalties for using their image.... kind of a big circle... After all the photographer is making money from the person's image or property.... (wow, makes my head hurt!).

The details are all arranged before the actual shoot and a contract is signed.....no confusion, usually.....Bob

[heartseye]

OK, Waple....normally, when a client commissions a comercial photographer to do something for them, it is understood that there are 2 parts to the agreement.

1. The fee for the production of the image(s) required and...
2. The fee for usage of these images in various venues....a licensing agreement really.

If you buy a music CD....it becomes your property.....but you cannot then use that music to be a theme on your website, or as an accompanyment to a Wedding Slide Show without permission and royalty being assesed and paid....

Is that a better example? cheers...Bob

[sonshine_rae]

Maybe it would help to realize..... unless you choose to sell 'all rights' to the photo....... you are NOT selling them your image.. your selling them the license to use your image. They pay you for your 'time' to take the image.. then pay you for a 'license' to use it.