Am I so far out of touch with reality?

[tirediron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[pixmedic]

the first image was pretty underexposed.