Possibly a new way to make money on your existing photo shoots.

[NickArt]

What if someone, somewhere around the world is looking for a photo that's very similar to what you are about to shoot. Between your particular style and specialty, your subject matter, locations, gear, setup and the timing of your shoot, you might be in a unique position to take those photos for someone who desperately needs it for their creative project.

If it was possible for that client to discover your photo shoot, they can work directly with you to get the photos they need. You can make minor adjustments to your existing shoot and deliver the exact photos that they are looking for.

The best part about it is that it’s not going to take too much of your time and effort because you already have the resources and were going to do the photo shoot regardless. But if their request does require extra time and resources, than you charge them accordingly.

Of course, this won’t work for all photo shoots, for instance, if another client is already paying you for it.

This is something I’ve been working on. If you’re interested I can tell you more about it. But I would love to get your thoughts on the concept.

 

[robbins.photo]

This is something I’ve been working on. If you’re interested I can tell you more about it. But I would love to get your thoughts on the concept.

Umm... wow.. ok. Well, do you want the brutally honest answer here that will contain nothing but the truth despite the fact that it is far from charitable? Or would you rather I just wish you well on your project without any of that information?

 

[NickArt]

This is something I’ve been working on. If you’re interested I can tell you more about it. But I would love to get your thoughts on the concept.

Umm... wow.. ok. Well, do you want the brutally honest answer here that will contain nothing but the truth despite the fact that it is far from charitable? Or would you rather I just wish you well on your project without any of that information?

Please be brutally honest.

 

[robbins.photo]

Please be brutally honest.

Ok, brutal honesty. What your describing sounds like more or less a modified version of stock photography, which frankly is pretty much the photographic equivalent of a sweat shop.

I'm not a pro photographer mind you, and I get the fact that your thinking, well, if your out getting paid to shoot A and you get a couple of shots of B while your there maybe I can help you sell B and we can both make a bit of money.

But first of course the big question, who's going to buy B? You are already competing with hundreds of stock photography sites that sell B or something similar enough to B at prices that frankly would make it almost impossible to compete with them because your photographer is going to expect to actually be paid in something other than peanuts. Granted they won't be expecting top dollar, but they will be wanting more than a dollar, which honestly when you add in your overhead for server space, maintenance, web design, marketing, etc, etc.. is going to be more than you'll be able to pay and make a profit.

This of course is just the tip of the iceberg, but hopefully enough to illustrate just a few of the stumbling blocks you're bound to run into with a project like this one.

 

[NickArt]

Thank you so much for your feedback.

Let me address the issue you're pointing out. I've spent the last decade in advertising/marketing and the issue that art directors come across constantly is that stock is okay if what they're looking for is generic, but as soon as they look for something specific, it becomes extremely hard to find. The only other option for them is to do a photo shoot. But unless they are Coca Cola or Nike, they don't have the budget to do a photo shoot for every photo they need.

Don't get me wrong, stock photos and photo shoots are extremely useful for some situations. But between generic stock photos and expensive photo shoots, there is a pain point for clients and a missed opportunity for photographers.

Talking to many clients what I heard often was that they're willing to pay 5 or 6 times what they would pay for a stock photo from a reputable stock agency (~$600) to get the custom photo they need originally taken for their project.

Doe's this explain my thinking behind the concept or I'm missing something?

 

[Overread]

If a client is going to pay that much for the shot they want then they won't want to be getting a modification of another shoot. They will want their own shoot doing exactly what they are paying for. At which point your model is basically just a middleman between freelance photographers and clients.

That isn't anything bad; but it means that you're basically doing nothing that isn't out there already beyond possibly knowing one or two market areas that are not currently well tapped into (depending upon how many you've spoken to and how broad that influence is as well as how genuine those people are to actually paying).

 

[robbins.photo]

Thank you so much for your feedback.

Let me address the issue you're pointing out. I've spent the last decade in advertising/marketing and the issue that art directors come across constantly is that stock is okay if what they're looking for is generic, but as soon as they look for something specific, it becomes extremely hard to find. The only other option for them is to do a photo shoot. But unless they are Coca Cola or Nike, they don't have the budget to do a photo shoot for every photo they need.

Don't get me wrong, stock photos and photo shoots are extremely useful for some situations. But between generic stock photos and expensive photo shoots, there is a pain point for clients and a missed opportunity for photographers.

Talking to many clients what I heard often was that they're willing to pay 5 or 6 times what they would pay for a stock photo from a reputable stock agency (~$600) to get the custom photo they need originally taken for their project.

Doe's this explain my thinking behind the concept or I'm missing something?

I guess what you'd be missing would be a way to get these art directors to your website in this massive, vast sea of imagery that bombards them daily. The marketing on a thing like that would not be cheap, or easy.

Then you'd of course need to get photographs that are "specific" enough that the art directors would want but not so specific that it ticks off the people actually paying the pro for the actual shoot. This is a very real danger to the photographer in all this because frankly if I am an art director paying a guy for a shoot and I find out he's signed up with your service and selling shots he was taking on my dime to others for pennies on the dollar compared to what I paid? I never work with that guy again.

 

[Designer]

The best part about it is that it’s not going to take too much of your time and effort because you already have the resources and were going to do the photo shoot regardless.

It sounds to me as if you're going to advertise, and then sort of wait for happenstance to drop an extra couple hundred in your lap. About how often does that need to happen in order to make wages?

I'm all for optimistically expecting a serendipitous windfall, but I'm certainly not going to plan for it, nor am I willing to pay money to advertise for it.

 

[NickArt]

Thanks for your input.

If a client is going to pay that much for the shot they want then they won't want to be getting a modification of another shoot. They will want their own shoot doing exactly what they are paying for.

Shoots cost a lot more than that because besides paying for the photographers full rate, they also have to get a location, model, props, gear, travel costs, and many other resources just to set up the shoot. As I said before, that's a viable option in some cases but not all. This way the clients pay less than what would a full photo shoot cost because they, they pay for the unused resources that the photographer has available at the time.

At which point your model is basically just a middleman between freelance photographers and clients.

If by middleman, you mean I'm providing the platform where all this would be possible, than you're right. But all the communication, collaboration, licensing, transactions, etc. happens between the photographer and the client.

you're basically doing nothing that isn't out there already

Can you please name few services like this that already exists?

 

[NickArt]

I guess what you'd be missing would be a way to get these art directors to your website in this massive, vast sea of imagery that bombards them daily. The marketing on a thing like that would not be cheap, or easy.

I would be naive if I thought it would be easy to get art directors on my site but it's not impossible. I've personally seen them go through every single stock site to find what they need literally spending days on it. I know that the pain point exists I just need to make them aware of my service and provide real value.

Then you'd of course need to get photographs that are "specific" enough that the art directors would want but not so specific that it ticks off the people actually paying the pro for the actual shoot.

I think photographers will benefit from this because I know many shoot all types of photos either for stock, or have their gear while traveling, or shooting for their portfolio. If it's going to take them 2 minutes to post their photo shoot for the possibility of a client discovering and requesting, what do they have to lose?

This is a very real danger to the photographer in all this because frankly if I am an art director paying a guy for a shoot and I find out he's signed up with your service and selling shots he was taking on my dime to others for pennies on the dollar compared to what I paid? I never work with that guy again.

100% agree, but as I said before it's not for photo shoots that the photographer is getting paid by a client. There are so many ways that the photographer or the client can cheat or steal from each other. For example, I could take a photo for a client, then turn around and sell it on stock agencies, does that mean stock agencies are bad ideas? Unfortunately, there are going to be bad players no matter what service is out there, I just need to make sure I do everything to protect the good players.

 

[NickArt]

It sounds to me as if you're going to advertise, and then sort of wait for happenstance to drop an extra couple hundred in your lap. About how often does that need to happen in order to make wages?

I'm all for optimistically expecting a serendipitous windfall, but I'm certainly not going to plan for it, nor am I willing to pay money to advertise for it.

Let me clarify, In order for this to work, I have to make sure that it's easy for photographers to post every time they have a photo shoot coming up. That's why the process is effortless, only takes a minute to post and it's FREE.

My business plan is to take a small cut once the client pays for the request they made. So if the photographer doesn't get paid, I don't get paid.

 

[jake337]

So you're pretty much trying to develop a high end stock photo service.

It seems cool bit I don't think clients dropping that kind of cash on a photoshoot will be calling back when you turn around and sell the images to someone else for a quarter, or third, of the price.

Maybe if there was something in the contract that stayed the images couldn't be resold for a certain period of time.

Also, could a photographer even do this? Wouldn't there be clauses in the contract or licensing to not allow this?

 

[KmH]

What if someone, somewhere around the world is looking for a photo that's very similar to what you are about to shoot.

The trick is finding and connecting with that someone somewhere around the world in a timely manner, if at all.
Pipe dream - it's just not practical.

 

[NickArt]

The trick is finding and connecting with that someone somewhere around the world in a timely manner, if at all.
Pipe dream - it's just not practical.

Because of the internet, many other industries are successfully doing precisely this. In the case of photography, this should be even easier to accomplish because we're dealing with a digital product.

 

[NickArt]

So you're pretty much trying to develop a high end stock photo service.

It seems cool bit I don't think clients dropping that kind of cash on a photoshoot will be calling back when you turn around and sell the images to someone else for a quarter, or third, of the price.

Maybe if there was something in the contract that stayed the images couldn't be resold for a certain period of time.

Also, could a photographer even do this? Wouldn't there be clauses in the contract or licensing to not allow this?

Thanks for your feedback.

I don't know what you mean by high-end stock photo service, but to me stock photos are photos that already exist, but that's not the case with what I'm doing.

Whether or not the photographer can resell the photos, that's up to the licensing that was agreed between the client and the photographer. If they decided that it should be exclusive than the photographer can't turn around and sell the image to someone. But if it's royalty free, then the photographer can do that. Of course, the type of licensing would also reflect the cost of the photo.