How to beat the pizza photographer?

[unpopular]

$300??!!! Jesus... I think you'd have better luck lifting your prices and people will take it more seriously.

Got to love photo forum economics.

From a business perspective and based on experience that was actually very good advice.
Like Ken said - Don't compete on price. Acquire some salesmanship skills, and sell quality and service instead.

Sure. But that's not the advise that was given. Simply increasing your rates won't make people take you more seriously. If your competition is equally as good and charging less most people will see through your charade.

I mean, yeah, you'll fool some folks - but if you're charging more than what your product is actually worth your clients will figure that out pretty quick.

And what your product is worth has nothing to do with what your time is worth. So if you're going to make a profit your product better be worth more than your time.

 

[Vtec44]

Let your work speaks for itself. If they still go for the $300 person after seeing your work, then you'll need to greatly improve. Even after you have improved, you can't book everyone and you don't want to book everyone. There are some people who just don't make good clients, especially if they're just looking for the cheapest possible. That's my humble opinion.

 

[smoke665]

Nothing to worry about they will put themselves out of business real soon.

All fine and dandy. But they are like drug dealers..... as soon as one goes away (for whatever reason), there's a dozen more that merrily will take their place.

True, but this is where marketing comes in. Let's face it, who wants a $300 wedding client? That's going to be more trouble than it's worth. Almost invariably, the less people pay for a luxury service (and let's face it, that's what we are, no one NEEDS wedding photographs), the more demanding they are. By focusing on your target market and establishing a reputation at that level, you won't have to worry about the bottom feeders. Whether or not there's enough work at your desired level is the question, but in the GTA, I would think there has to be.

Sadly this phenomenon is not exclusively limited to photography. Took me awhile but I learned to turn my back on cheap work. In the end it would invariably cost more than the revenue it brought in, and delay the start of more profitable business.

 

[unpopular]

Let your work speaks for itself. If they still go for the $300 person after seeing your work, then you'll need to greatly improve.

But it shouldn't be stressed enough that the price someone charges reflects only what they feel their work is worth and not what people are willing to pay for it. OP even states that the pizza photographer is talented.

So yes, all this advise about competing with quality is all fine and good in writing, but it's total idealistic bull. Photography products are like every other, consumers weigh out quality and price and determine what is the best value. You can't expect to compete with quality alone.

 

[480sparky]

For all we know, the $300 package is a 'loss-leader' item and the pizza shooter ends up selling a $2500 job on average.

 

[EIngerson]

How did the guys pics look? Were they good?

 

[Vtec44]

But it shouldn't be stressed enough that the price someone charges reflects only what they feel their work is worth and not what people are willing to pay for it. OP even states that the pizza photographer is talented.

So yes, all this advise about competing with quality is all fine and good in writing, but it's total idealistic bull. Photography products are like every other, consumers weigh out quality and price and determine what is the best value. You can't expect to compete with quality alone.

You're not competing with just quality alone but at the much better perceived value and status. Perceived value is everything about your business, including the quality of your work, your portfolio, the way you talk/dress/email, etc. Ferrari's are unreliable compare to Lexus, but people buy them for status not reliability. People in my area can charge 15k per wedding. They are not competing for the same clients as I am, and I'm not competing for the $1500 clients. When I first started, $800 was my ceiling.. then $1500, then $2000, then $3000, then $4000. I'm not stopping there. The Walmart business model works well, low price high volume, but it's not the only business model.

 

[unpopular]

Like I said, you'll fool some people - the rich are tremendously gullible if you can cater to their ego (and no, I'm not backing off that claim. It's true). Even still, that market is pretty limited and is geographically bound to only a few locations.

 

[Vtec44]

Like I said, you'll fool some people - the rich are tremendously gullible if you can cater to their ego (and no, I'm not backing off that claim. It's true). Even still, that market is pretty limited and is geographically bound to only a few locations.

Why am I fooling anyone? My work is completely open for people to compare. My portfolio is from the beginning to the end for each wedding. I'm featured in 10+ respectable online publications. I teach proven photography and business processes. Some people don't see the value in it, great! Some people do see the value in it, great! Also, t's a common misconception that only the rich would be able to afford certain price range. My clients are young yuppies who love the outdoors. If people want something, they'll save for it. Do they see the value in your work? Do YOU see the value in your work? If you don't even see the value in your work, then people won't see it. BTW, I don't believe people who are rich got there because they're gullible.

 

[480sparky]

...... Some people don't see the value in it, great! Some people do see the value in it, great! ...........

And the trick is to identify who is which.................. and quickly. That way, one doesn't spend all their time spinning their wheels on someone who isn't going to sign up anyway.

 

[tirediron]

Like I said, you'll fool some people - the rich are tremendously gullible if you can cater to their ego (and no, I'm not backing off that claim. It's true). Even still, that market is pretty limited and is geographically bound to only a few locations.

Why am I fooling anyone? My work is completely open for people to compare. My portfolio is from the beginning to the end for each wedding. I'm featured in 10+ respectable online publications. I teach proven photography and business processes. Some people don't see the value in it, great! Some people do see the value in it, great! Also, t's a common misconception that only the rich would be able to afford certain price range. My clients are young yuppies who love the outdoors. If people want something, they'll save for it. Do they see the value in your work? Do YOU see the value in your work? If you don't even see the value in your work, then people won't see it. BTW, I don't believe people who are rich got there because they're gullible.

Different people assign value to different things. I deliver a certain quality of product at a certain price. If people don't like it, feel it's too expensive, or not a good value for the price, fair enough, that's their choice and I have no issue with that. On the other hand there are some who like it and are happy to pay what I'm asking.

 

[unpopular]

Like I said, you'll fool some people - the rich are tremendously gullible if you can cater to their ego (and no, I'm not backing off that claim. It's true). Even still, that market is pretty limited and is geographically bound to only a few locations.

Why am I fooling anyone? My work is completely open for people to compare. My portfolio is from the beginning to the end for each wedding. I'm featured in 10+ respectable online publications. I teach proven photography and business processes. Some people don't see the value in it, great! Some people do see the value in it, great! Also, t's a common misconception that only the rich would be able to afford certain price range. My clients are young yuppies who love the outdoors. If people want something, they'll save for it. Do they see the value in your work? Do YOU see the value in your work? If you don't even see the value in your work, then people won't see it. BTW, I don't believe people who are rich got there because they're gullible.

Anyone who pays $15K for photography on grounds of status alone is gullible. There are plenty of photographers out there who can offer an equal product for 1/3 that, and maybe even a few that can offer the same quality product for 1/10 that. They may not have gotten to where they are from being gullible, but the very wealthy can absolutely *afford* to be gullible.

If you don't think you're fooling people, that just says to me you're arrogant. I don't care how good you are, your level of success is a reflection on your clients and your skill as an entrepreneur, not your skill as a photographer. I'm not saying that you are arrogant or that you lack skill (that certainly isn't up for debate) only that you don't quite realize what I mean when I say you're "fooling" people.

I know that this sounds inflammatory, like I'm accusing you of being dishonest. I'm not, at least no more than anyone else. Only that you're able to market to a group of people that are willing to pay a lot for a product that truly can be found for less, you've tapped into perceived value and rely on that. There is *nothing* wrong with this, until you start suggesting that to other photographers that your material product (the photographs in them self) is worth more because of who your clients are. That's something I'll wholly reject.

This goes back to the notion that you can not compete on quality alone, it's much more complex than that.

 

[Vtec44]

Anyone who pays $15K for photography on grounds of status alone is gullible. There are plenty of photographers out there who can offer an equal product for 1/3 that, and maybe even a few that can offer the same quality product for 1/10 that. They may not have gotten to where they are from being gullible, but the very wealthy can absolutely *afford* to be gullible.

Anyone who pays $80k for a Lexus is gullible, since it's just a Toyota with a different badge. To each their own.

If you don't think you're fooling people, that just says to me you're arrogant. I don't care how good you are, your level of success is a reflection on your clients and your skill as an entrepreneur, not your skill as a photographer. I'm not saying that you are arrogant or that you lack skill (that certainly isn't up for debate) only that you don't quite realize what I mean when I say you're "fooling" people.

My work is valuable. My time is valuable. This is how much I want to charge for my work and time. This is what others are charging for their work and time. Some clients decide to go with me, some decide to go with others. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

I know that this sounds inflammatory, like I'm accusing you of being dishonest. I'm not, at least no more than anyone else. Only that you're able to market to a group of people that are willing to pay a lot for a product that truly can be found for less, you've tapped into perceived value and rely on that. There is *nothing* wrong with this, until you start suggesting that to other photographers that your material product (the photographs in them self) is worth more because of who your clients are. That's something I'll wholly reject.

You're not the first photographer who feels this way. It sad, whiny, and biter to be honest. LOL This is why I don't shoot for other photographers but this year alone half of my clients just happen to be in the creative field. I shoot for myself and if the clients like it, they will pay for it. If they don't, they don't. I move on and continue to do what I love to do. My work is worth more because I value it more. It's unfortunate that you don't see that in your own work, and try to tell others the same about their own work.

This goes back to the notion that you can not compete on quality alone, it's much more complex than that.

This we can agree. You're selling art and there is no defined standards of "quality". It's subjective. Like I said, it's all in your perceived value and status.

 

[Vtec44]

Different people assign value to different things.

Yep, and just because some people don't see it doesn't mean that there's no value to it.

 

[robbins.photo]

Anyone who pays $15K for photography on grounds of status alone is gullible. There are plenty of photographers out there who can offer an equal product for 1/3 that, and maybe even a few that can offer the same quality product for 1/10 that. They may not have gotten to where they are from being gullible, but the very wealthy can absolutely *afford* to be gullible.

So the assumption here is that whoever offers work of comparable quality to Vtec at the lowest price should set the pricing standard? I guess my question would be, why? Also, who judges what is equal quality work in this model? You? Some sort of panel? A government committee?

Plus, what happens if I meet the $300 wedding guy, and discover he's a complete and total ahole? Somebody I wouldn't want to work with in a million years? Then I meet Vtec and think, wow.. this guy is da bomb.. isn't it really up to me to decide how much extra it's worth paying Vtec? Or do I need to consult you first to make sure I'm not being gullible?

Do you think it might just be possible here that the arrogance here is in assuming that people hiring a wedding photographer are complete and total idiots who are totally incapable of making rational decisions on their own and they need your protection to prevent them from being taken to the cleaners?

As to the Lexus vrs Toyota analogy, do you think maybe there might be more factors involved than just simply status? Maybe the guy buying the Lexus thought about things like resale value, or features and options that you may not have considered. So maybe we can give the clients a little credit here and let them make up there own mind how much they are willing to pay for wedding photos, and let them decide which things are important to them and how much they are willing to pay.

If not I guess we'll need a Ministry of Photography to dictate such things...