|
|
I was strolling through Target the other day, and I stumbled upon "Barbie i can be...a baby photographer" play set, both in caucasian and African-American versions. I thought it funny, at first, then I thought that I hoped that Anne Geddes was getting a piece of this, then I realized that Mattel probably wasn't being that magnanimous. If you're looking for a gag-gift for that female photographer friend of yours, or if you're looking to inspire your daughter to become a photographer, (mine are playing with these, as I type, since the shoot is over), this is a great idea! Who'da thunk it?  (Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Back in October, I was at PhotoPlus Expo, and tucked away in a corner was a very small booth. So small that I didn't notice it during my first pass-thru of the show floor. On a second walk-around, I noticed the printers spinning, showing off the CD's, and I was pleasantly surprised at how nice they looked - they were printed on a DYMO CD/DVD Color Printer . I grabbed a brochure, and asked when it would be available, and they said November, so I put it on my back burner until it popped into my mind on a flight back from LA last night, when an in-flight magazine had an ad for Dymo, and I thought to myself that I wanted to check to see if it was available now. And it is. I plan on migrating from my silk-screen printed discs to a more customized output using this device. Far too often, I burn a disc that cost $1.50 (CD + silkscreening costs) and it fails, and I'd rather not print the CD until it's been tested as good. I use the following CD for client deliverables: (Continued after the Jump)
 I am looking forward to replicating that layout and design with my new Dymo. It expect it to look very very close to a silk-screened disk, and I am excited about that.
Quite often, after we deliver a CD, and encourage the client to make copies, they instead come back to us to burn a second disc, which we do for 50% of the original. So, if our CD output charge was $75, the second CD is $37.50. For the CD's that are $175 to output (which is about 80% of what we do), our second CD charge is $87.50, plus shipping/couriers. The clients like that it looks professional, and consistent with the other CD they received.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 There appears to be news on the copyright infringement front. Back in July, I reported, in Louis vs. Apple (July 5, 2007) that respected photographer Louis Psihoyos was suing Apple over copyright infringement over the photo on the right. Check the previous article I wrote for the alleged infringing image that Apple used. As I quoted Apple Insider back then: According to the complaint, both Apple and the photographer had been negotiating a license for the image in advance of the Apple TV ad campaign. Apple backed out of any such deal, but promptly began using the imagery anyway, Psihoyos' attorney Richard Kaudy wrote. In doing so, he added, Apple knowingly tossed aside the "rights and feelings" of the plaintiff and deprived him of potential profits. Now, Information Week is reporting: A Colorado photographer who sued Apple over images used in commercials to promote the iPhone and Apple TV has dropped the complaint, raising the possibility that he's reached a settlement with the digital media company. (Continued after the Jump) Court records show that Louis Psihoyos withdrew his copyright lawsuit against Apple in early October and that the case has since been dismissed "with prejudice" -- a legal term meaning the lawsuit can't be re-filed.
Attorneys often agree to withdraw a case with prejudice following a settlement. Psihoyos said in an e-mail Monday that he wouldn't comment on the case. As someone who may or may not have signed a settlement agreement in the past, which would preclude me, or the other party from discussing the settlement terms, or that there even was a settlement, Information Week probably has got it right here.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 Babel was a city like no other. A city where people were unified and spoke the same language, in ancient times, a city with a tower. The Tower of Babel. The story goes that the city's occupants were cast to the wind, forced to use a fabled 72 languages, confusing all who tried to communicate with one another. Since then, series like Star Trek have had devices like the Universal translator, and in fact, in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it was the Babel Fish that provided universal translation. The US has standardized our currency, so that we all deal in dollars, to avoid possible unknown, or illegal alternative currencies. One well known foreign currency was that issued during the civil war, called Confederate States of America Currency, as shown here.  Private industry too has standardized. How, for example, do you describe pink? Is it pink skin, pink like a pig, pink like bubble gum? Is what you see as pink on your monitor and approve to have 10,000,000 widgets made the same pink that I see on my monitor? If not, who's going to cover the costs to remake the widgets when you're not happy? Pantone provided a solution, and now every designer, print shop, ink maker, and so on all operate based upon a specific Pantone #. The Pantone # I was thinking of when I said "Pink", by the way, was Pantone 1767. (adding the "C" means that the color is one coated with a finish.) How about us photographers? Can we standardize what we do? (Continued after the Jump)
Yes, but wait a minute, this next one's really good.
 In order to save your life, the American Medical Association has created what are called CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) and HCPCS (Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System), so that when a doctor orders a Platelet Count or a Hemoglobin count, they use a series of numbers. The HCPCS codes are standardized by the US Department of Health & Human Services here, and the CPT codes are standardized by the AMA here. When your doctor places a check in the box next to "005249", the nurse knows what test to order, the lab knows what test to perform, doctor's billing department knows how much to bill, and the insurance company knows that they are paying for a Platelet count, and not a Hemoglobin test (which would be 005041 by the way).
Thus, no more mistaken tests, re-drawn blood (ouch!) because of an error, or a positive returned for high cholesterol which is seen as a positive for low white cell count. This is real life here.
 So, where am I going with all this? Yes, there is safety in numbers, and a standardized system for licensing your creative works, it's called the PLUS System, and it's FREE. I interviewed the CEO of PLUS, Jeff Sedlik in a a video here at this past year's PhotoPlus Expo, and there's a great example I wrote about in Detailing Understandable Rights Packages - Editorial Covers back in August. I even wrote more about them back in April - PLUS + You + Client = Clarity and Understanding.
Check out PLUS's description of these terms and the accompanying PGID number: Collateral; or the variety of clarity needed for packaging; the ambiguity of the word advertising; and the misnomer that is advertorial.
What about the client who demands "all rights"? How can you placate that request? Try granting them (with the appropriate fees):
PLUS (Rights Ready) Packs
All Commercial Use (PRCU)
Use in any medium intended for advertising and other commercial or promotional purposes.
Be sure to specify: Duration, Region, Region Constraints, PLUS Industry, End User, Product or Service Name, License Start Date Back in the magazine sample, I have a sample license written out with the PLUS language in it.
While using PLUS codes may not be as life-saving as HCPCS codes, they will save you (and your client) a world of misunderstandings when it comes to who can do what with your photographs.
Thus, there is safety in numbers (and standardization).
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 This one's worth it's own speedlink - Now go! Check 'it out, and when you're ready to buy, click THIS LINK to get one from Adorama, or maybe you want to get a D3 from them? Click HERE to get a D3, and support the blog, it won't cost you any more! (Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 If you told me that George Bush was becoming a Democrat, or that Joe Gibbs was becoming the Coach of the Dallas Cowboys, or that Bill Gates secretly used a Mac in his office, I would be less surprised than the recent news that Nikon Professional Services genius Scott Andrews is leaving Nikon to work for Canon. (For those of you who know Scott, I know that that thud was the sound of your jaw hitting the floor.)What could Nikon possibly do to fail to keep Scott on-board? For decades Scott has been Nikon's go-to guy in Washington, and, to be honest, around the nation for high profile events. From the OJ Simpson trial, where Scott got remote cameras working to get images out of the court room, to countless NASA shuttle flights where Scott's images documented, and facilitated the documentation by every other news outlet, to every inauguration I've covered, Scott's technical know-how has been the driving (and supportive) force behind many a major news event. below is Scott's handi-work ensuring that over 100 cameras all are pointed towards the podium to capture the swearing in of the President. All are rigged to a single box, all are set according to the photographer's lens and camera choice, and this wouldn't be possible without Scott's know-how.  When the news made it to me today that Scott, as of last week, was no longer with Nikon, I thought for sure he'd gone out on his own, or gone to work in the technical section of the photo department of National Geographic. When I heard he was to begin working for Canon, I didn't know what to think. (Continued after the Jump)
I have been critical of Nikon's leadership in the past, to be sure. The failures of the D2x and the inaccuracies about that camera's noise was what caused me to shelve my Nikons, and purchase a Canon system. Recently, I was excited about the D3's impending arrival (Nikon D3 Spotted in the Wild, 10/31/07), because I had purchased one (They've Been Ordered, 9/3/07) and I looked forward to dusting off my trusty Nikon lenses. Then that excitement was dimmed by Nikon's promotion of an extremely poor business practice - shooting on spec, in their magazine. (Even When Nikon Gets It Right, They Figure Out a Way to Get it Wrong, 11/27/07).
Now, again, I can't imagine what Nikon did, or didn't do, to cause this cataclysmic shift in the photo world. I can't think that Canon finally decided to throw an ungodly sum of money at Scott, because, aside from the likelihood that they can't do that, Scott's not for sale. Scott has always been 100% truthful and straightforward with photographers about cameras - brands of all types - and their strengths and weaknesses. I am certain that Scott will bring back lost glory of Canon's days-gone-by to Washington, but what the hell is Nikon thinking (or doing) that created this situation? How can they get one more thing wrong when they are on the verge of getting a camera right for a change?
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 When does the creative/usage fees a photographer recieves of $4,130 not equal a creative fee of $1,650 + and a licensing fee of $2,480? You might say, "John, I remember second grade math, and they're the same." There is a debate that rages over this subject. There are valuable points to be made about the risks that accompany separating out the creative fee from your licensing fee, and there are many cases where doing so is a bad idea. That said, there are many cases where having them combined is the right solution. What's that you say? Can't you just make one size fit all? (Continued after the Jump)
Nope. Doesn't work that way.
Even when I say "banish the day rate", I say that in reference to editorial and corporate/commercial work. It just is a bad bad approach. However, if you're a photographer shooting on-camera flash at an all day symposium, billing out at $150 an hour, where that rate is with a minimum of X hours, is appropriate, and also includes not just your actual on-site time, as well as your creativity, but also the client's usage fee for those images. Some people might get $200/hr, some $250/hr, and I know more than enough that only charge $75/hr. All of these are plus expenses/post production, and so forth.
When you're doing a highly stylized production shoot, where, while it was just one day of principle photography, it was a lot of other time spent tech scouting, pre-production scouting, conference calls, and client meetings, wrapping all the fees together is appropriate.
When you're doing a product shot on white seamless, where you're applying your creative vision to making it more than "just a product on white seamless", this is one case where separating them out makes more sense. You list your creative fee at, say, $1,800 for the shoot, where the final deliverable is one licensed image, and then $12,000 for a licensing package that extends over two years. Why? Because if the fee is wrapped up all together, the end client will look at your paperwork and say "I'm not paying $13,800 for a photographer to take one photo for me...", and you may well lose the assignment. However,
when you break it apart, and it says "$1,800 creative fee" and "$12,000 licensing package, as outlined below for two years", the end client can look at that and see the breakdown. This can help them understand what they're paying for, and that you're not a $13,800 "a day" photographer, for one days' work, but rather, you're an $1,800 "a day" for the photographer and a $12,000 "for two years" licensor.
I encounter clients all the time that need explanations about the difference. Further, I know of many photographers - top tier as well as mid-level, who go through this. Often, it's the end client who needs the explanation more than the middle-person (whether firm, or agency), and their having to explain it to their client is not as good as it's being done already.
Wish it were not the case, but photographers/reps/etc find ourselves an inordinate amount of the time having to explain rights to clients, more than we'd like. We appreciate when clients don't need that explanation, that someone else has done the hard work already.
When you're dealing with an agency that licenses music, footage, high profile talent, and so forth, you almost never have to explain it. In fact, if you're not careful, and you do begin to explain it, the prospective client will be thinking "what am I, stupid?" and you're off on the wrong foot.
When you have an ongoing relationship with a client, and you know how they prefer to receive estimates, you follow their protocol (in other words, meet their needs as well as meeting your own), but that is based upon an ongoing relationship. In fact, in once instance for example, where I was estimating a job for a major agency, that was in excess of $10k, I had put the creative and licensing fees together, as one, and the art buyer called and asked for a break-out of the two. I was happy to provide that to her, and it resulted not only in my being awarded the job, but I've done 11 other comparable jobs for them over the last 2 1/2 years for the campaign to date, and I am scheduled to do four more before June. So far, 12 assignments for a major agency have netted me in excess of $120k, because I did it the way the AB asked me to, and it is a wonderful, ongoing relationship.
EVERY SINGLE TIME I have an opportunity to explain to a prospective client how things work vis-a-vis licensing and fees, I welcome it, because as I explain it, I become a resource/knowledge-base for them, and they often then become an ongoing client. In fact, my studio manager and post production manager listen intently as I explain these things to folks who call, and when I get off the phone, I usually can tell if I'm getting the assignment, or not. They like to hear that I still have to do it, and they sometimes will listen on another extension in the office because I want them to become as adept as explaining it as they can, so they can help me in a pinch, and will be better positioned to do it themselves when they leave to go out on their own.
Further, and most importantly, you must be prepared to work through the numbers above the Total line so that they work for the client and the client's client. If you're not, you're risking losing the entire job because you won't shuffle the numbers around. I've had clients who have said "you can't line-item an assistant's airfare, but you can roll that into excess baggage charges...", or "I need you to break out hair, makeup and stylist. I know they're all the same person for this shoot, but I can explain it easier to the client if they don't see a $2,600 hair/makeup/stylist charge for a one day shoot for one person.
If you break it up, as hair - $350, Makeup - $350, Stylist Shop/Present/On Set/Returns - $1,900, I can better explain that to the client". Lastly, When a prospective client says they want a $15,000 figure broken into creative fees and licensing fees, I'm going to do that. It may call for some further explanation, and I may break it into other fees that previously weren't separately listed - like Pre-Production/Location Scout/Tech Scout/Permitting Services/Set Build/Set Strike, but I'm not going to lose a job with a bottom line I am comfortable with because I wouldn't re-work the above-the-line numbers.
A mechanic's tool chest has many drawers. a 13mm socket also works (sort of) on a 1/2" nut. A crescent wrench isn't as good a plumbers' monkey wrench, which then again may be better accomplished using a fixed-size wrench. Knowing which tool is the right one for the job is why there's a difference between a journeyman mechanic and a master mechanic. In the end, the repair work done, but it's having the right tools at your disposal to get from start to finish in the best way possible.
Knowing which methodology you prefer, and how you can work to accommodate client requests is a matter of experience. Knowing that you should do what you can to accommodate client requests is a no brainer. Asking the client questions - like "is this a bid or an estimate", and "is this assignment going to be awarded on price, or are there other factors like style and approach that are more important" will be helpful.
In the end, send along the estimate, and follow up to confirm they've received it. Ensure them that if they have any questions, or require further explanation about an item, that you are more than happy to explain it to them. When you're dealing with someone experienced, and who can explain it to their clients, you won't get any calls. When you're dealing with someone who's never hired a photographer before, you'll get calls. Take that as an opportunity to help this client so that they feel you are helpful and willing to be of assistance. I know of far to many cubicle-jockeys with creative talent that did not understand the need to be responsive to client needs and deliver first rate customer service.
If as a photographer you remain rock-solid in your insistence on keeping the figures together when the bottom line figures do not change, and you will just never separate them, that's somewhat problematic, from my perspective, especially if, as a result, clients just opt not to call you/your photographers. Just as we negotiate things like terms (net 30, 50/50, 2/10 net 30, and so forth) as well as credit line placement (or lack thereof), exclusivity, and the many other myriad of issues that are a part of a negotiation, so too do we negotiate other issues as well, and that can include things like separate/together for the fees.
A step in the wrong direction would be to lose the job because you didn't know what to do, or were inflexible/unresponsive. There are many steps in the right direction, there isn't just one right direction.
Note: This post is a compilation and slight edit (for continuity) of two messages I made on an ASMP listserv. Since the content above is mine alone (i.e. it's what I wrote, and not someone elses' writings), I am presenting it here as well.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
|
|
2 ... 2 ...