Former Art Buyers and current photography consultants Amanda Sosa Stone and Suzanne Sease have agreed to take anonymous questions from photographers and not only give their expert advice but put it out to a wide range of photographers, reps and art buyers to gather a variety of opinions. The goal with this column is to solicit honest questions and answers through anonymity.
QUESTION:
I’ve been following your blog closely for some time now, and I’ve found it very helpful in seeing what others charge for advertising shoots, but I have had virtually no luck in applying the same sort of rates (scaled down) to my business. One of the requests I get most often from business owners and lawyers is for headshots, full-length portraits, environmental portraits, retouching either on-location or in-studio.I’m finding that almost everyone who contacts me is confused by the idea that they must pay to actually use the images and that they don’t own them, so it’s this constant uphill battle to educate potential clients. I’d love to get a sense from you whether I’m going about this the right way, if I’m charging too much or too little, if I should be rolling the usage fees for specific number of images into the Photographer’s Fee instead of giving Usage it its own line-item… I need help here.
I’m in [redacted], TX and my work tends to be directly for the clients and not for ad agencies who understand how things work. For your reference, I’ve attached an estimate I sent out just today. When I was talking on the phone with the client, as soon as I mentioned that a ‘full buyout’ of the selected images would be more expensive than specific usage, I was told ‘Oh, well we may not be able to use you then’ – I sent the estimate and the response was simply ‘No thanks.’
Job Description
Fee for [redacted] to produce portraits of two lawyers on-location at a law firm in [redacted] in one half-day shoot and for the
following licensing to be conveyed to Clients: Unlimited Time Usage, Unlimited use of up to 2 photos, across all communication
vehicles/mediums/media, forever.Fees
1 Photographers Fee @ 750.00 ea. (Half-Day): 750.00
2 Usage Fees @ 900.00 ea. (Unlimited Usage – Full Buyout): 1,800.00
2 Retouching Hours @ 125.00 ea. (Editing and Clipping Mask for Final Image): 250.00
Fees total: 2,800.00Crew
1 First Assistant @ 100.00 ea. (Half-Day): 100.00
Crew total: 100.00Sub Total: 2,900.00
TX TAX (8.125%) 8.125%: 235.63
Total (USD): 3,135.63
Amanda and Suzanne:
Advertising and Local Consumer (even professional type imagery) speak 2 different languages. It’s not that they do not understand the terms, but the different client types need usage terms to be addressed differently (less of a blow to put it mildly).
ANSWERS:
MARKETING DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL LAW FIRM:
The price really varies depending on the market, but an average would be about $125 – $150 per headshot. The rights that we negotiate are: unlimited rights for electronic use, but prints and reprints must be ordered from photographer.
ESTABLISHED PHOTOGRAPHER 1:
You are certainly not alone. I know of many photographers who have gone through this same “song and dance” with clients (me included). Recently I have found that many non-advertising/editorial clients (lawyers, business owners, etc…) are beginning to understand, or accept, the way photographers price their work. This might be due to the way we are organizing our estimates or explaining our pricing structure during the initial conversation.
The numbers in your estimate are certainly within the norm, but as you stated the client balked at the usage fees. As you probably know, photographers are now combining the usage and creative fee into one line item – which I think is a good idea. This doesn’t always alleviate the problem, but it’s a start. In the initial phone conversation I ask many questions – what type of portraits, studio or on location, etc… I also bring up the subject of usage by asking how long they would like to use the images and for what purpose. Their response usually is “forever and don’t I own them?.” Here is where I educate them on how photographers price their work. I explain that “my pricing for portraits is structured by how many people need to be photographed, how the images will be used and not based on how long it takes (1/2 day or full day). If they continue to be confused, I calmly explain to them that photographers price their work very similarly to how cell phone companies structure their phone usage – you can own the phone, but you have to pay to use it. You are charged based on how many minutes per month you want and how many texts you send, and even more if you want to use it internationally. Since most have cell phone, I always hear “oh, okay I get it.” If they then say it is too expensive, then I ask what their budget is and try to work within that. It’s all about creating a win-win situation. I will usually send two or three estimate with different usage rights and pricing – one year usage, three year usage and unlimited, with the option to re-license the images. This way they can see the breakdown. Most go with the three year estimate.
ESTABLISHED PHOTOGRAPHER 2:
In my experience, when you are dealing with a small client like this one, it is best to combine the usage fee and the photographer’s fee into one, especially when dealing with a “buyout” situation. Most clients like this (and it is sad to say) do not want to understand or learn about usage. They just want to know if you can get in, do the job, deliver the images quickly and on time and on budget. Why complicate it by adding an additional usage fee? They are not an agency, they don’t pretend to be an agency, it’s not like there’s going to be a relicensing fee here ,because of the full buyout and to be perfectly honest, why should there be? What is the resale value on these images? They are not going to be put into stock, correct? Most likely they will be out of date in 2-3 years and the law firm will call again when they hire more lawyers or when the shots need to be updated. So, why risk alienating them by making your estimates more complicated than they need to be?
Secondly, why did the photographer not handle these questions and explain the fee structure before the estimate was sent and address the client’s concerns? As part of the sales process (and let’s face it, unless you have an agent, photographers are sales people) all of this should have been covered in the initial conversation and follow up conversations. An estimate should be a confirmation of the what was discussed and verbally agreed upon as to prevent a situation like the one that happened. Collaboration and mutual respect.
ESTABLISHED PHOTOGRAPHER 3:
Unless a client has commissioned media on a regular basis, it doesn’t make sense to do an itemized bid like this. A high powered law office is still on the consumer side of things, and they won’t be used to terminology or typical photo bidding practices. This isn’t good sales practice to itemize like this, because it draws undue attention to usage, mysterious line items such as assistants etc. Treat this sort of client like a wedding/portrait client: give one fee for the job. Explain separately what the usage rights are, but don’t break them out as line items. A headshot client is going to assume, much like any other consumer-level client, that they own the images (makes sense to them, they paid for them!). Better to state the usage without hitting them over the head with it, so the client doesn’t freak out.
And that’s a lot for a couple of headshots!
To Summarize:
Often it’s all in the wording, but it’s also what a specific market is used to paying. Often quantity can make a small fee multiply quickly. Ask the right questions and decide how to best approach this type of client. An estimate is a visual/verbal communication – make it as simple and clean to read as possible. Some need it very simple – while other’s need every detail spelled out – but it should all be kept to the point and clean.
Call To Action:
Use this scenario and create a plan for future estimates. Have your estimate template together/ready, along with your questions, so when that that job comes in you are prepared.
If you want more insight from Amanda and Suzanne you can contact them directly (here and here) or tune in once a week or so for more of “Ask Anything.”
40 Comments
I’ve shot a couple of law firm portraits in the past and have to agree with what Photographer #2 said. Combine the usage & photographer’s fee into one item, but in my experience, explain the usage terms in the contract’s T&C section then explain how that works in simple terms (okay to use for PR, firm’s website, annual report, etc – not okay for paid placements). Line items are typically okay if they’re common things like assistants, stylists, etc, as long as those things were discussed and verbally approved.
I think when dealing with consumer clients the photographer has a responsibility to educate the client not just about usage but also about what kind of usage makes sense in that particular situation. Why should this client (law firm) need a ”full buyout”? Are they going to resell the images? Will they still be using them in 5 years? What they mean when they say ”unlimited usage” is that they haven’t yet thought about all the places they’re going to put the picture. But even if one was to include every possible usage that might reasonably occur, it probably still wouldn’t amount to ”full buyout”.
Let’s look about this from the client’s perspective. They see on the bill that they’re paying $750 for the photographer but $1800 for usage. For someone who hears about usage for the first time it’s hard to grasp why that item on the bill should be more than twice the photographer’s fee. To them that seems like they’re buying a cheap tv but they’re getting hustled on the extended warranty. Combining the two makes much more sense.
I just wanted to say that I’m not sure comparing usage fees to cell phone usage (est. photog 1) is such a good idea. Most people I know hate their cell phone companies and feel like they’re getting ripped off by them.
@Jim Newberry, hear hear! Any other examples that might be better?
@Jesse Dittmar, Car rental?
When shooting a child’s portrait do you explain, to the parent, that if they want to hang the picture on the wall for more than one year that there will be additional usage fees? Of course you don’t, because if you ran a portrait business that way you wouldn’t stay around long!
What is the difference between family portraits and head shots to be used by a professional?
For doctors, lawyers, real estate agents, etc just charge a flat fee for use on their web site, their business card, public relations handouts, yellow pages ad (do people still advertise in the yellow page?), etc. Why go out of your way to antagonize someone who could be a repeat customer. BTW the flat fee can be anything you want, within reason.
@c.d.embrey,
“For doctors, lawyers, real estate agents, etc just charge a flat fee for use on their web site, their business card, public relations handouts, yellow pages ad (do people still advertise in the yellow page?), etc. Why go out of your way to antagonize someone…”
Well of course you shouldn’t antagonize them, but you should explain at least a little about usage. What if you shoot a doc’s portrait, and he ends up writing a book and uses your pic on the cover? It’s not that common, but these things do happen.
I agree for these types of situations that you shouldn’t make too big a deal about the usage, but there should be some mention of it, and it there should be terms listed on the invoice specifying the usage granted. You never know what might come up down the line–look at the recent Vampire Weekend album cover.
@Jim Newberry, The doc will want you to shoot a new portrait for the book cover, if you have treated him right in the past.
This is lowest common denominator photography, not art. The winner will be the photographer who sells the most at the price he wants. While you are screwing around with usage rights for a photo to be used on a business card, your user friendly competition will have shot 4 head shots at equal to/better than prices.
@c.d.embrey, “The doc will want you to shoot a new portrait for the book cover, if you have treated him right in the past.”
What if he loves the existing shots? If he has pics he likes, and no usage limitations, why would he pay for another shoot?
“While you are screwing around with usage rights for a photo to be used on a business card, your user friendly competition will have shot 4 head shots at equal to/better than prices.”
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Regardless of usage rights, my competition can charge more or less than I do.
@Jim Newberry, What I’m getting at is that while you obsess on usage rights for low-end commodity photos, you competitor who is obsessed with sales will be eating your lunch, even if they charge a lot more than you do and have a lot less talent than you do.
@c.d.embrey,
Is this a serious analogy?
Portrait photographers make money from prints.
Commercial photographers make money from usage.
Commercial clients use images to market a business and drum up business/sales.
Portrait clients don;t make money off your photography.
Come on now…
@Greg, What is so hard to understand? In the OP’s case the flat fee would be $2,900.00 plus tax.
Nowhere have I said anything about Craig’s List pricing. What I’ve said is when dealing with the local small time head shot customers don’t drive them away with itemized BS they don’t understand. All this talk about usage just convinces them that you are trying to screw them.
While photographer A is explaining usage fees photographer B has shot the photo and his client is out the door. Photographer B’s client is a happy camper, because time is money. Both A and B charge the same amount, but B gets a lot more referrals because he is easier to work with.
I’m just glad I’m not the only one who struggles with this. Being in the south I get this attitude of “Heck, your only taking a picture.”
For local clients I have started giving only two line items. One for photography fee and one for post processing. The only other items are expenses (models, rentals, travel, etc.)
I simply divide usage and place it in the photography and post processing fee as lump sums. Usage is included in the contract, if the client wants more or longer usage then that is given a separate line price.
For my local clients it has worked real well.
Thanks Amanda & Suzanne for answering these (unfortunately) age old pricing questions. I think the cell phone is a great analogy!
@Jim- Of course we’re getting ripped off my our cell phone companies. But they are profiting big time, while we creatives are constantly fighting for every dollar we make. Perhaps we could learn from their structure.
@Nicole Morgenthau, maybe we can learn from cell phone companies. My point though, is that many clients are unpleasantly surprised to hear that there are usage limitations. Explaining them by comparing photo usage to cell phone service is likely not going to help our argument.
Great topic.
I have to agree with Photographer #3 on all points.
While it’s always best to verify and not make presumptions, it would seem that the intended use for this sort of client to be strictly proprietary, the law firm’s intention to merely put a name with a face in their various collateral. Parsing the rights for a client such as this on the estimate is only going to cause confusion, delay and probably the loss of an otherwise slam-dunk assignment.
One strategy that has worked for me when estimating for clients like this is to simply offer them generous usage rights up front and then pad the fee a little extra. I know thats heresy in some business-saavy circles, but what really is the concern? That their going to resell the images? Or use them on billboards in Times Square? Obviously the photographer has to use some street smarts–get a clear idea of the intended use–prior to offering up such rights.
In short, save the complex rights discussion for the appropriate client, where use issues are a pragmatic concern and you stand to gain $$.
One option that you might consider in explaining image usage to clients is to compare it to hiring an employee to do a job. You don’t own the employee, but you do pay them for their time, and the amount depends on the task to be completed. Some jobs may be worth minimum wage (dentist’s portrait for small brochure), while others require a higher amount for heavy lifting or specialized skills (international advertising across multiple media).
I think that it makes sense that a consumer-job estimate would include a single line “photographer’s fee” that accounts for both creative and licensing together. Provided that the usage is spelled out in terms that your grandmother could understand, that’s about the best solution that I can think of.
As stated above, this is clearly a situation where we must develop and apply our skills to clearly explain copyright and usage to a client. Clients should not be expected to know this information when they call so it’s our job to provide it.
Great post! Thanks.
I think the glory days of usage fees for non advertising clients are coming to an end here. It’s obvious that with the influx of new photographers due to the increased availability of technology, that we will now have to make fees simpler and easier for our clients.
I’ve increasingly encountered more and more clients requesting total copyright buyout. These are people who fall somewhere between the high-end clients who understand about usage and are willing to license as needed, and the clients who don’t understand why they can’t just use the photos how they want for as long as they want. These are clients who have presumably been burned by hiring a photographer and not understanding they had limited usage rights to the photos, so now they require a copyright buyout on everything. Consequently, I don’t get the job because they’re not actually willing to PAY for that copyright transfer. It’s a real problem. No fun choosing between not getting paid fairly and not getting paid at all. And the hungrier you get, the more difficult the decision becomes. It’s definitely a buyer’s market.
The best luck I have in these instances is when I can explain that their usage term is so long as to be practically unlimited, or in fact to make it unlimited. Keep in mind that a headshot is useless anyway after 10 years. Price it as if it were a ten-year term and call it unlimited: both you and your client will be happy. (Of course, I don’t line-item those usage fees. I give one price for the photo shoot and stipulate “up to” x amount of time and x amount of finished files to be delivered, etc.)
Found this on Seth Godin’s blog http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/10/the-business-of-software.html
“There isn’t a supply issue–it’s about demand. The business of software is now marketing (which includes design).”
Substitute Photography for Software.
I’m curious about how most of us, or the photographer’s polled for this question would handle a slightly different scenario where you are asked for a bid from a freelance designer who is handling art buying for their uneducated client. The designer certainly understands usage but is trying to produce the work on budget as well. (no doubt needs to keep a tidy profit for his own business-and deservedly so). I tend to just bundle it all in regardless since mostly my clients fall under the uneducated route but is that still the best path when dealing with a situation like this?
When we’re dealing with corporate clients we’re also (usually) dealing with a formulaic approach to photography in terms of technique and aesthetic. It makes sense to price likewise, which means a set price per image, and a simple, broad usage license. As others have pointed out, corporate portraiture has an in-built finite commercial life… The subjects age and so does the visual style we work with. For example, 100% white backgrounding was prevelent when companies started getting serious about Websites in the late 90’s. Now that’s associatedwith cheap online shopping site catalogues.
No matter how you word and/or structure your estimate, always CYA by registering your © and explicitly delineating usage terms in your contract. Which means at some point usage will have to be discussed. Nobody likes surprises. At least not ones that cost money.
When the “I’m just a small time client” willfully fails to differentiate between PR and paid placements by claiming naivete–after choosing to use your image for any and all advertising purposes they can think of–you will have some heavyweight recourse on your side if you registered your ©.
Almost as often as clients truly do not understand ©, clients do understand © and simply choose to not give a shit.
Business is business and nobody worth hiring works for free. There is nothing wrong with tactfully discussing usage with clients. Over the phone or in person is always better than through an estimate.
Being an experienced photographer based in Sydney, I always charge a set fee for portraits of staff in a legal firm or covering a corporate event for example.
I also add on my post production fee depending on what is involved.
If I started to specify useage fees to clients then they would simply book another photographer as it would all be too complicated for such clients. The images will only be used for internal purposes anyway, we are not talking about world syndication useage. Why make things complicated and confuse your potential client.
The secret to all this is to charge a set fee which reflects your professional experience and is also realistic with the current economic climate. I always charge a minimum fee of 2 hours for my time even though the shoot itself may only take 1 hour. By the time you get to the location, park and set up 2 hours of your time has already gone. Lastly if a client says they do not have the budget for your set fee and post production costs then tell them to hire someone else. Never drop your standards and undermine your own professional experience.
Paul Lovelace
Good post.
It’s very relevant to discussions happening today when many of us balance back and forth from local direct business work to National/Regional work.
Just because we’ve assigned and learned to call out “USAGE” in our estimating process does not mean we need to share that explicitly outside of the terms portion of our estimates. We should factor it in and of course we should discuss the time/placement and factor that into our fees. Not all jobs need it itemized though.
We’ve recently had that discussion here internally as well…trying to decide whether to simplify the estimate to something easier to understand. A recent Pricing Aerobics we had here at the ASMP Ohio Valley chapter flushed some of these concerns out as well. Since then our studio decided to wrap it all into one, even for advertising jobs, unless the client states they want it broken out.
I agree about the Cell Phone analogy. A bit tongue in cheek though :)
How many times have you looked at your cell bill and said “WTF! I can’t make heads or tails out of this thing!” Mostly due to itemization and “passing the buck” on administrative cost recovery fees, 911 fees, USF Monthly Service Fees, Tax, etc…
Not that different than our photography estimates are they?
Think of how frustrated you are in looking at a cell phone bill and imagine getting that from someone who you want to work with!
Just because BlinkBid (insert your estimating software name here) allows us to charge for Fees, Casting, Crew, Insurance, Location, etc and call it out on separate lines making it easy to see all the costs…does not mean that Joe Lawyer or John Smith CFO understands or WANTS to know about it. You should still have a clear T&C or Estimate terms section that lines out what you’re estimate includes, but let’s not blast people with tons of numbers.
If I get an advertising job, YES, all the line items are appropriate and necessary…but for smaller local work…NO WAY!
You’re going to scare the $#!% out of your client making them think you’re way overcomplicating the job.
Rick
When I’m talking with clients who are “small time commercial” clients – i.e. business people who need something for their website etc – I give a pretty simple response to the “how much” question.
First I ask them how they want to use it. Invariably the answer is “well we need new images for our website, and we want to do something nicer than the pictures we’re using now, which are from last year’s company picnic.”
I tell them a single fee, NO add-ons/assistants/usage/extended warranties. And I tell them “the images can be used for website and online promotion, printed material and internal usage, but no license to third parties”. I’ll spell out the usage terms more fully in the estimate, but that’s enough to be up front about. Note there’s no time limit – who cares, they’re headshots! Note I don’t get my knickers in a bunch over the client using the images in an ad – the likelihood of a local client using a headshot for advertising is not zero percent, but it’s close enough that I don’t worry about it.
For local-market headshots, just let the client have unlimited use but not the right to transfer it. If you make the transaction easy and reasonable for them, they’ll come back with more money later on. If you piss ’em off, you won’t even get the first shot.
The OP should really get to know his/her market. I don’t know about Texas, but here in LA those rates just won’t fly.
I think they are confused about rates. Headshots aren’t that much, $150-200 range normally, and they are charging a half-day/full day rate as the headshots.
As someone who is just starting out with pro photography, (I know a lot about photography but not as much about photog business) I would like to know if there are any guidelines for setting creative and usage fees in the first place, and how to scale them for different levels of clients.
All the info I’ve found on this has been sort of abstract and not extremely helpful…
@David, here are some resources:
editorialphoto.com
ASMP/APA
books:
“Best Business Practices for Photographers”
“Licensing Photography” (by commenter #21)
Fotoquote software
http://johnharrington.com/dc-photographer/site/pricing/
http://www.useplus.com/
Since retiring from my position as executive director of ASMP in 2002, I have been leading the slow life of a semi-retired professional photographer whose client base is local (within 50 miles). Gone are the days of big production shoots and nation as usage. Here are the days of simple assignments that allow for some creativity and provide little stress. To the OP I say this. Never breakdown you price. Give a turnkey price that includes shooting, usage, expenses, permits, etc. The local business person as a photo buyer only gets confused when you provide to much detail. They just want to know what it will cost.
On the rare occasion when someone asks me to break down a price. I say (I really do) “Why? When you buy a car do you care what the bumper and steering wheel cost. Compare my price with anyone’s and you will it is very competitive so it shouldn’t matter how I arrived at it.”
Breaking a price into component parts provides the prospect with a negotiating advantage. They can pick a the details. I don’t ever set myself up to be worn down by attrition. And if they insist on a breakdown, I will not do it. That is the advantage of being semi-retired, that is, a retired guy who want to work some.
Chalk it up to inexperience, kick yourself in the head and move on. Nothing is easy and sometimes the best way to learn is to fail. Be thankful there are so many voices out there to offer advice.
I am on Bill’s team. For small corporate clients I started putting 10 years, non transferable, not exclusive in the buyout clause a while back and honestly no one has blinked. It’s pretty much standard procedure.
It’s pretty much a given that client-direct quoting is much easier when one goes in with a limited number of line items. I’ve been involved in quoting situations where, as I start to break down my pricing structure to a client, I heard ‘Just give me a number.’.
Photographers should know going in that client-direct marketing/quoting = a lot more client education. You must be prepared to ‘sell’ the client on your pricing model of which usage and licensing must play a part, whether the license price is grouped with the creative fee or not. The value of the image to the client is in the usage.
I’m with Bill and Cameron, offer an extended usage, non-transferable license.
If a client ‘must have’ a buyout, find out what the client’s concerns are and address them. Negotiate. Retain the copyright in your images if at all possible. If you’re shooting portraits, the person in the portrait may not be of newsworthy/social consequence at the time of the shoot, who are they going to be in 5 years? Case in point; a photographer makes a portrait of Obama when he first became a senator. Years later Obama is the first African-American President of the US. Think the value of that portrait jumped? Understand what you’re giving up when you’re giving away the farm.
Photographers have to understand the value of their images and be able to sell the client on that value.
The one issue I have with grouping creative fee & image license is in the case of copyright infringement. How do you prove what the image is worth? But that’s a whole other cup of coffee…
Hope you’re enjoying your day!
@Dan, Based upon my five years of experience as an expert witness in copyright infringement claims, I can reliably say that combining license and creative fees will not impair the value of an infringement. In the case of actual damages (vs. statutory damages) the basis for value is what is the going market price for use similar to the infringement, or what the reasonable buyer would pay the reasonable seller. What the infringed party would have charged is often not an important factor.
@Richard Weisgrau, this is info I’ve received from intellectual property lawyers, I’d figure that’s pretty reliable.
Good lord they are just simple corporate head shots. Keep it simple. Just like if you hire a law firm you want things to be understood but simple and cost effective so do they.
Corporate portraits at the local level is pretty much retail photography. There’s not much value after the initial sale. As long as they understand that you might use the image for portfolio use later give them unlimited rights. What value does this type of work carry in the long run? None, but if they like the work and everyone is happen in the end they’ll most likely call you again in the future.
This is where knowing your cost of doing business works great.
This is interesting. I thought I’d comment, because this seems like the kind of thing I would encounter here in Minnesota. In fact, the gig may even be a done deal (shot and handed over) if you don’t get a hold of the paticulars until the next day.
c.d.embrey kind of marks what I think is occurring in most of the middle section of the country (mostly outside of New York and LA) when companies contact local photographers for work. You have some good local portrait photographers who are willing to sell commercial headshots that don’t know a thing about usage and are willing to work for fairly cheap rates and turn over a dvd or digital files without stipulations (and without even a discussion about what they can and can’t do). The same trends — toward more newbies — that have loosened up the posing have opened up the pricing schemes to a variety of interpretations. It seems suprising that a law firm doesn’t know to negotiate rights (assuming that wasn’t part of their negotiating tactics), but they are not photography lawyers is my guess.
The other comments are good at approaching it as a line item. I like this advice. If they have worked with a photographer that charges a flat rate for portraits on a dvd, you may have to massage in the idea that usage is included in your pricing structure and then take advantage of the opportunity to explain why you are different, more professional, more effecient and better than what they may have experienced with other (perhaps, more family-oriented) portrait operations.
Just came back to this after seeing it a week ago and see a lot of great comments. Stepping away from the focus on corporate headshots, there are good reasons to simplify the estimate when going client-direct in small to medium markets whether it is portrait or advertising.
I’ve just gone through a similar process this month starting with a creative fee/usage blinkbid estimate for a small business (but multi-state shoot) ad campaign for print and web, sills and motion. My contact is the VP Marketing and our first meeting with the early estimate / treatment on the table was spent gently educating about usage rights (which were still blank tbds on the estimate until we understood the whole campaign.) This was a bit foreign to him and although he appreciated that this is how things are done at agencies I did not push but realized I needed to keep it simple regardless of how complex the shoot may be.
So the estimate is a single fee for the shoot (stills, motion, audio) which includes bundled non-transferable usage rights that they need for 3 years. Another line item for extended shooting fees per shoot day if we need to shoot longer. The video fee is x$ per finished minute. And production charges of rentals, assistant(s) and travel.
Verizon FIOS Phone…
A Photo Editor – Ask Anything – No Luck Applying Standard … Verizon FIOS Phone Thursday…
Comments are closed for this article!