# Am I so far out of touch with reality?



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2015)

Back in December I was iasked to tender a bid to photograph a very large new car dealership (actually two dealerships Toyota/Lexus on the same property but separate buildings) by the construction company, a major internattional corporation that's started doing a lot of work in my area. 

Their requirements were for a final delivery of six high-resolution .tif files and and one large mounted/framed print.  The job would have required at least a 90 minute site visit before-hand as well as one additional meeting with the management to define the key points they wanted to highlight in the photos.  I estimated that shooting time would be 3-4 hours and I would probably shoot 250-300 frames in order to ensure I met their requirements.

Bear in mind that this is a major international outfit (they build airports, pipelines, defence installations, etc all over the world) and the primary use for the images was as part of their on-line catalogue, and potentially in advertising material.  I submitted a bid of $4,500 which included licensing in perpetuity, for the digital files.  I quite honestly felt that for what they wanted and what I offered, this was a reasonably low bid. 

After not hearing anything at all until long after the project was to have been done, I called the and learned that they had gone with someone MUCH cheaper (their emphasis) because they felt my bid was ridiculous.  Does my bid really seem that crazy?


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

you aren't going to win bids with those prices these days.  You can get work through reputation, ie people willing to pay your premium,  but if you're entering a bid it's going to come down to almost pure price, and somebody is going to bid sub $3000, if not sub $2000.  Lots of people want to play pro photographer and have the disposable income to do so from some other source.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

fjrabon said:
			
		

> you aren't going to win bids with those prices these days.  You can get work through reputation, ie people willing to pay your premium,  but if you're entering a bid it's going to come down to almost pure price, and somebody is going to bid sub $3000, if not sub $2000.  Lots of people want to play pro photographer and have the disposable income to do so from some other source.



I think that's a pretty good assessment of the modern-day realities. Photography has lost a lot of its perceived value among clients that are not image-based (and by that I mean cosmetic, clothing, high-tech,and so on, where "image" is everything) or image-aware. Here on TPF we've seen similar disagreements about the value of photography work vis a vis bids and pricing and usage workups. I really do not want to stereotype, but my feeling is that the vast majority of people in the building trades have no respect for photography, and as such, will not pay very much for it. I think they look at it strictly as a commodity, like bagged cement or fasteners...and except for rare instances, they view how much they will pay for services by applying a commodity-like price/performance type mental construct to services, as well as to products.

So, I think yes, in this case, your bid is out of touch with the reality, inasmuch as there are TONS of low-ballers these days, willing to bid, and to actually do the work, for very little money. In one way of looking at things, a job is worth only as much as the lowest bidder bids it at. Especially to a company that deals with many suppliers of "commodity" products. Concrete, framing, rock, rebar, fasteners, pipe, labor, machinery rentals...all just "numbers" on bid sheets to this kind of industry.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 11, 2015)

in contrast to the Craigslist photographer they probably wound up hiring, yes. your bid was ridiculously priced. 
im sure they wanted someone that would just charge them for 6 images and who wouldn't know/care enough to charge for commercial  licensing. unfortunately, it is a sign of the times. 

just recently I met with a lady that wanted family portraits done. mom, dad, kid. simple stuff. 
They looked over our portfolio, liked our portrait work, and said they probably would not need more than 5 images. 
I quoted her $200 for 5 high res files on disk with print and social media release. She said she had to talk to her husband. 
I got a call a few hours later from the husband saying our prices were way too high, and that they found several family photographers on Craigslist that quoted them +/- $50 for family portraits.  He did say he liked the idea of our lights and backdrops (which, i can only assume, the others didn't have) but we would have to come close to matching the other quotes for them to use us.  I told him nope. 

I would have been interested to know what the actual amount they paid though tirediron...i wonder how much higher your quote really was.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2015)

I understand the whole 'decline of the industry', but to be honest, I really thought, dealing with an outfit this large (These guys if anyone's interested) and their world-wide reach that it was a fair price.  Granted, if it was "Joe's Construction" based in Victoria it would have been a whole different quote.  It never occurred to me that they would have called in a Craig's Lister, but based on the way he said "MUCH" cheaper and "ridiculous" it must have been.  Hards costs would have been $500+ alone.

Oh well... live and learn.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

tirediron said:


> I understand the whole 'decline of the industry', but to be honest, I really thought, dealing with an outfit this large (These guys if anyone's interested) and their world-wide reach that it was a fair price.  Granted, if it was "Joe's Construction" based in Victoria it would have been a whole different quote.  It never occurred to me that they would have called in a Craig's Lister, but based on the way he said "MUCH" cheaper and "ridiculous" it must have been.  Hards costs would have been $500+ alone.
> 
> Oh well... live and learn.


Usually that's what happens when they solicit bids.  If they wanted better, they would have likely come to you (or whoever they specifically wanted) usually if it's a bidding system, unless prices are virtually indistinguishable, they go with the low bid.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

A few months back, we had a thread here about a company that needed a small group of employee portraits done for internal use (office wall prints and newsletter mugshot use, as I recall). the boss wanted an employee, a TPF member and the OP, to shoot the job. The OP asked about how much it was worth. We had one former professional shooter who advocated the idea that the one-year usage licensing fee and the job were together, worth northward of $3,000. Myself, and others, felt that this 1-hour mugshot session was worth about $350.

This is a somewhat similar situation. Commercial photography based on time-limited use licensing has been replaced in many cases with straight work-for-hire at lowball prices. The business isn't what it used to be; there are literally HUNDREDS of people in your area vying for work done with their cameras. My feeling is there were probably at last one or two so-called "landscape photographers" or "architectural shooters" that submitted bids that were very low, and based on being "good enough to do the job", got thrown a one-day or two-day assignment for around two grand.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 11, 2015)

Construction lives by lowest bidder ... after picking the lowest bid then the construction screws the sub by getting them even lower. The larger the construction company ... the more it is about lowest bid over quality.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

tirediron said:
			
		

> SNIP> an outfit this large (These guys if anyone's interested) and their world-wide reach that it was a fair price.



Okay..I stopped by their site and reviewed the images for five different projects they built. It is obvious that high-quality commercial photography is not an emphasis, in any way. Their on-the-job photos are pretty weak. Their _projects we have done_ section has stuff like this, from five different jobs.

Bluegreen_036.jpg.aspx
Lede-Tasting-Room-001_CC.jpg.aspx
Brochure-CliffLede-Tanks_resampled_CC.jpg.aspx
Ad-Hoc-Kitchen-Final-DSC_6534.jpg.aspx
Post-Card-CuvaisonCellar01-(2)_CC.jpg.aspx
PDI_04exterior5x-(2).jpg.aspx

My feeling is that the photos have almost zero importance to the people who want to hire that company to have a building built. The company gets its work by being able to make buildings go up at a good price and with good workmanship, and paying the bills to its suppliers, and dealing with local inspectors and regulators. I personally think the bid might have missed seeing what the company _actually has payed for in the past_, which is very mundane photography. I looked at the whole section of projects they have built, and there are no really high-end shots, not a single "Wow! OMG!" type of photo, just average, workaday shots. My feeling is that you gave the company more credit than it was due, based on what they are showing right now on their own site.


----------



## KmH (Mar 11, 2015)

Check back with them after the low bidder gives them what they paid for, to see if they think they got what they wanted.

You may find out they got what they paid for and aren't all that happy.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

KmH said:
			
		

> Check back with them after the low bidder gives them what they paid for, to see if they think they got what they wanted.
> 
> You may find out they got what they paid for and aren't all that happy.



I find that highly unlikely, based on seeing the company's website, and the overall impact of the photos they are currently using. The photography is significantly lower in quality than what most real estate agents and small custom builders are using on their web sites. This is a big construction company that does not spend much money on higher-quality images.It looks to me that they have given a lot of work to low bid photographers all across the continent. The image is not one of glitz and style; this company ain't Apple or Nike or L'Oreal or Disney...this is a company that earns its business not based on "photos", but on getting buildings built. I think the photos are totally,totally,totally an afterthought. Their marketing is not photo-centric.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I won't be going back; if they call me, they call me (I highly doubt it), but it's going to have to get a lot closer to freezing in Hades before I would go back and "ask" for work.  I agree with your assessment Derrel, but I will say that the imagery used in their printed material and as wall art in their office was of a significantly higher calibre.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> this is a company that earns its business not based on "photos", but on getting buildings built. I think the photos are totally,totally,totally an afterthought. Their marketing is not photo-centric.



The 7th image I saw was of a large building, and it was slightly out of focus (or maybe had fairly major diffraction, couldn't tell).  The one about being LEED certified.


----------



## waday (Mar 11, 2015)

My guess is that they wanted someone that could get 'good-enough' composition with a P&S for around $500-1,000.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 11, 2015)

the first image was pretty underexposed.


----------



## Designer (Mar 11, 2015)

tirediron said:


> ..I called the and learned that they had gone with someone MUCH cheaper (their emphasis) ..


No doubt about it, John, you got MWACed.  I'm guessing that the MWAC was NOWHERE NEAR $2,000.  Much more likely it was in the range of $200 to $300, and that's being generous.

The MWAC probably figured the cost (at Staples) of the one large print, added in his transportation and lunch, and low-balled himself to get the gig.  

Meanwhile, the construction company simply does not care if the photographs are good or not.  They might not even know the difference.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 11, 2015)

Maybe they found out one of their employees owned an iphone6 camera and didn't need to hire out?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

I totally believe that their In-Store or In-Office photos would be of high quality, and that any brochures or hand-out materials they had would be of good quality, which only makes sense. But I looked at the web site...it's probably not how they get their business, it's merely a placeholder, a place to show that they have a place in the industry. I would imagine their executives have a vast network of contacts in business and government (I see they've built a number of fire stations!) all across this continent. But by and large, it's clear that their reputation is not being carried by their photographs. I think the mistake, the out of touch part if you will, might have been in assuming that they see the value in paying for photos of each project to a degree that's even close to being commensurate with what they show when you visit one of their offices, or when they give you a brochure.

Analogy: You got wowed by the guest bathroom and the nice towels and fancy soaps it had...you didn't get to see _the bathroom upstairs_...with the stubble in the sink and the drying pairs of panythose hung over the shower curtain rod...and the towels on the floor...


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> ...Analogy: You got wowed by the guest bathroom and the nice towels and fancy soaps it had...you didn't get to see _the bathroom upstairs_...with the stubble in the sink and the drying pairs of panythose hung over the shower curtain rod...and the towels on the floor...


Ouch!  Mea culpa.  But... in fairness, I was a guest, why would I use the upstairs loo?


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 11, 2015)

They probably got what they paid for, Snapshots and not photography.Cheap bastards.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

DarkShadow said:
			
		

> They probably got what they paid for, Snapshots and not photography.Cheap bastards.



In my replies in this thread I have tried very hard not to make statements like that, and have even not referred to the company by its name on multiple occasions...but what you wrote is exactly what I've been trying to say in a formal English sorta' way...


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Mar 11, 2015)

I'm not a photographer, but I have a few working for me. Many of my clients are mid sized, fast growth companies to Fortune companies, and I can assure you that your quote is out of touch with the prices that firms who scale can provide. The most recent quote that we closed on a bit over your price point was not only for ground based photography, but aerial photography with some 3D modeling and cinematography. With companies that have a global reach, our prices ensure that we are able to retain their business for future work, and since our guys are working every day, we do not need to charge anywhere as much as you do as a solo professional.

More often than not, you are competing against high volume players. From time to time, you're competing against a guy with a camera.

Your ability to adapt to the market will be what determines your sustainability. Don't be salty about it. Learn. Adjust. Compete.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 11, 2015)

Sometimes I speak what comes to mind and probably not always a good thing.I just hate when big company's that have lots of money and pinch pennies or complain about prices or even the minimum wages going up.I am a big believer that you get what you pay for most of the time.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 11, 2015)

Companies, and people, want to pay for what they want - and no more.
If there is no value or no perceived value in a higher price product, a smart buyer won't pay for it.

My last company had no face to face client contact, thus our office furniture was functional at most and our computers were low end machines that could access the Internet and our order recording software.
If we knowingly spent a lot of $ for something that had no return, I'd be angry as hell.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 13, 2015)

These days  I ask them upfront what kind of budget we are working with.  If it's too low I will tell them that I can do it for "x" amount and give them the reason, if they come in at an offer that you can work with, it's all golden.  No one, regardless  if it's a large company  wants to pay what they may have paid 10 years ago, or even 1 year ago.  Quoting what you think it's worth, means nothing to most people now.  Working around their budgets works one way or another, as long as you both can work with the fee.  I don't lose too many jobs working this way, and I usually end up making more than I would have asked for.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 13, 2015)

Yeah, I'm not impressed with their other stuff.  Who knows - maybe the dealership has an Uncle Bob who bid.



Derrel said:


> The photography is significantly lower in quality than what most real estate agents and small custom builders are using on their web sites.


I find this a bit funny since I have seen the exact, same photograph for multiple real estate listings.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 13, 2015)

In my area, there are many many wedding photographers and I never have an issue with charging premium for what I do.   I don't compete on price because it's a race to the bottom that nobody wins at the end.  My starting price is intentionally listed on my site to weed out price shoppers.  You're in the business of selling intangible items and you have to educate your clients on why you're better.   If you don't, unfortunately all they see is the price.  We can sit here and complain that they went with someone else less qualified.  In reality, that unqualified person got the job and we didnt.

On another note.  I recently saw a $500,000 quote from an agency to a hotel chain for 12 days of shooting.


----------



## runnah (Mar 13, 2015)

Yeah the construction industry is woefully behind the times. You should have seen some of the photos my company uses to use in presentations to clients before I started.

I could ***** more but I want to forget about work until Monday.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 13, 2015)

imagemaker46 said:


> These days  I ask them upfront what kind of budget we are working with.  If it's too low I will tell them that I can do it for "x" amount and give them the reason, if they come in at an offer that you can work with, it's all golden.  No one, regardless  if it's a large company  wants to pay what they may have paid 10 years ago, or even 1 year ago.  Quoting what you think it's worth, means nothing to most people now.  Working around their budgets works one way or another, as long as you both can work with the fee.  I don't lose too many jobs working this way, and I usually end up making more than I would have asked for.


Yep...  live and learn.  Oh well...


----------

