Commercial photography is based on usage. Usage makes it fair for all buyers since smaller companies don't use photographs in the same way as a national one would. Joes barber shop will pay $50 in usage for an image in his brochure since its only distributed in a few local towns. Vogue magazine will pay $3,000 or more for a cover image because it will be distributed to hundreds of thousands. It doesn't matter if the image took the photographer 5 minutes to shoot, or 3 days. The usage is the same. The photographers day rate will cover the labor and expenses.
When I shoot for commercial clients, it is indeed a sliding scale based on the company size. Smaller companies pay a lot less, and deep pocket companies pay 20 times more. The reason isn't the size of their pocket book, but how they will use the images. Larger companies use images in much broader ways than a smaller company, and thus pay more for it.
If you produce a killer shot for Nike, they use it in all their advertising, in store displays, duratrans, web advertising, etc, and its going to help them sell millions of dollars in shoe sales, it's worth the $30K they pay in usage to the photographer. If the same photographer produces a similar piece for a local clothing retailer, and it's catchy enough to help drive customers to their store, and make an additional $10K in sales over the year, its worth every penny of the $800 they would pay in usage as well. Its not how deep their pockets are, but how the images are used, and the value it will bring to the client.
Musicians get more money playing to a stadium filled with 100K people than they do when they do a performance in front of 1,000 at a smaller venue. The songs are the same, it takes the same effort on their part, but the 'usage' is different. Same with advertising and commercial photography.
One more point I'd like to make. The employee that shot the same image for their company is being paid a salary, their computer was provided by the company, their desk, floor space, electric, phone, utilities, all paid for by the company. Health insurance, matching retirement funds, all covered. They don't need liability insurance, nor do they need to hire a lawyer, accountant, or business advisor as its all covered by their employer. They don't need to pay marketing, hire consultants to design web sites, etc.
They probably occupy a 10'x10' floor footprint, where a commercial photographer needs to recoup the costs of a 3,000sq ft footprint. The employee doesn't have to pay or maintain $50K in equipment, and replace it every 3 years when clients demand the latest and greatest.
And don't forget a photographer can't shoot 5 days a week. So they need to recoup all their costs in a 2-3 work week window. The other 2 or 3 days is for running the business, administration, maintaining the digital image archives, writing quotes for new jobs, creating marketing materials to keep work coming in, sending out invoices, paying the bills, taxes, collection agent, and sweeping the floor and putting a new coat of paint on the cyc wall. So when they quote $2,000 per day, its not $10K a week, but more like $4K. Makes a huge difference at the end of the year
So yea, $1,000 probably seems way to much for the employee. But for a commercial photographer running a studio, its not nearly enough.
Just some food for thought.
Stephen
Commercial Website,
Blog