£3000 portraits....Can only be one place!

onona said:
You kinda had me until your last paragraph, when you randomly decided to, rather hypocritically, suggest that while photography has value, paintings do not. A photograph doesn't have a value because of the equipment used; the value lies in the skill of the person operating it. Put an unskilled person into Venture's state of the art facilities and you're likely to end up with uninspired, bland results, because art is not about the tool, but the skill of the one who wields the tool. I'm not suggesting all art is worthwhile, hell I can rant all day about people like Emin and Hirst, but those of that ilk aside, the value of art lies in the rarity of the high level of skill required to produce the work. If drawing, painting and sculpture were easy, art would have no value. But they're not. True excellence in artistic pursuits requires years of dedication.

It's a shame that a photographer fails to realise the value of their own creativity and focuses instead solely on the tools.
Click to expand...


I only used that approach as I felt the nature of the thread was that as a photo costs 'little' to take/print then it shouldn't cost much to buy either - hence looking purely at the fiscal element an oil painting costs far less to produce than a Studio photo

But I agree with you that the value is in what we produce and what it means to those we produce it for :)

Dave
 
meonshore said:
There is no such thing as a fair price for a photograph. It is worth as much as the individual person purchasing it is prepared to pay. You could put someone into debt with a £50 sale, a £3000 sale to others is a weeks disposable income.
Click to expand...

This

If I could command that sort of price I'd charge it in a heart beat , if people are willing to lay out £3k for a photo then thats their perogative - i'd be happy to take their cash
 
onona said:
You kinda had me until your last paragraph, when you randomly decided to, rather hypocritically, suggest that while photography has value, paintings do not. A photograph doesn't have a value because of the equipment used; the value lies in the skill of the person operating it. Put an unskilled person into Venture's state of the art facilities and you're likely to end up with uninspired, bland results, because art is not about the tool, but the skill of the one who wields the tool. I'm not suggesting all art is worthwhile, hell I can rant all day about people like Emin and Hirst, but those of that ilk aside, the value of art lies in the rarity of the high level of skill required to produce the work. If drawing, painting and sculpture were easy, art would have no value. But they're not. True excellence in artistic pursuits requires years of dedication.

It's a shame that a photographer fails to realise the value of their own creativity and focuses instead solely on the tools.
Click to expand...

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
 
There is a theory if you pay more then quality will be better. Some people will always buy Heinz beans over NAAFI white label. It's down to public perception.
 
big soft moose said:
This

If I could command that sort of price I'd charge it in a heart beat , if people are willing to lay out £3k for a photo then thats their perogative - i'd be happy to take their cash
Click to expand...

I think the difference is, would you lure them in on a £25 'cheap photo' and then prey on people's general dissuasion to confrontation and high pressure them into £3K?

If people knew your prices up front, and where willing to pay £3K having made their own independant decision from a 'menu', then absolutely..

However, I suspect that if £3K was spectacularly bad VFM (i.e. there where plenty of equivalent but much cheaper local togs around) then you'd have to employ some pretty high pressure tactics to get people to be 'happy' to pay that amount, or rely on people not having a clue to offer them poor VFM products, either way is morally not to my liking..

:)

I get the whole 'making money is not evil' thing, but I've seen enough of rogue traders to know there is making money offering something people want without severe co-ersion and there is making money by co-ersing people into things they wouldn't normally buy, especially when those things are poor VFM.

I know people that have used Venture with the intention of spending £125, but where persuaded to spend just shy of £1500, having seen the photography standard (quite normal), I have not told them about several local studios that I've used that would have done that exact set (based on their current price lists) for £500, because I'm sure their 'happiness' would fly out the window when they realised they where 'happily coersed' into a poor VFM product.

And that's the key, they have these overheads, so can't be competitive, and hence their whole business model is based on high pressure and co-ersive techniques to get people to 'overspend'..

Well, that's my opinion, I'm not bothered about Venture really, I obviously just wouldn't use them. I do however have friends and family that would fall for the tactics used..
 
phil-t said:
I know people that have used Venture with the intention of spending £125, but where persuaded to spend just shy of £1500, having seen the photography standard (quite normal), I have not told them about several local studios that I've used that would have done that exact set (based on their current price lists) for £500, because I'm sure their 'happiness' would fly out the window when they realised they where 'happily coersed' into a poor VFM product.
..
Click to expand...

thats what sales people do though, and its just life... and more fool a client who goes intending to spend 125 and winds up spending 12 times as much

its true of cars, camera, photos whatever the salesman always wants you to spend more , but its down to the individual to be firm.

It'd be a cold day in hell before i used venture, but if I did if i went intending to spend £125 then thats all they'd get out of me.
 
I went to Venture on one of those "free" things where you get a small photo free. This was years ago back in about 2005 maybe. Big mistake. Sat us down in a room after the session and played soft music showing us all the pics. Girlfriend cried and wanted to order them all. It's their tactic. They know they have you on a string. I had stern words with her about the pricing yet we still ordered a couple. The problem is it was our first ever photo shoot at a "pro" level and to be fair, the shots were very good. Not suggesting any decent photographer could not get those same shots, but at the time you don't care. You see it more as, I got this session free and I'm walking away from those shots of my loved ones. Again, difficult to talk yourself into doing the right thing and walking away.

I would never recommend Venture because they are simply way overpriced. I would never wish anyone to go there and have the awkwardness of being told the prices. Nowadays, I am much more outspoken/confident and not naive about the modern day world. When a company charges silly prices or tries to, I will tell them straight up how it is. In fact, I quite would enjoy another photoshoot with Venture just to play dumb until told the prices (they typically hide them right until the end when you want to order them and will go out of their way to do this and not provide them up front) just so I can laugh and walk out.
 
big soft moose said:
thats what sales people do though, and its just life... and more fool a client who goes intending to spend 125 and winds up spending 12 times as much

its true of cars, camera, photos whatever the salesman always wants you to spend more , but its down to the individual to be firm.

It'd be a cold day in hell before i used venture, but if I did if i went intending to spend £125 then thats all they'd get out of me.
Click to expand...

I think blaming the client for being foolish is inappropriate, the mere fact you admit (like myself) that you wouldn't touch venture with a bargepole means you understand how poor they are, Look at rogue traders and how well received some firms are that offer spectacularly bad VFM and oversell to the extreme.... By your reckoning, these firms don't deserve to be on rogue traders, it's the old peoples fault for being gullible?

The difference with main stream consumer items is that the consumer is very much limited in their exposure to succumbing to this situation (Exceedingly poor VFM), for example, consumer products have RRPs, and natural prevalence in the market ensuring competitive pricing is maintained.. All you have going on is the standard up-sell tactics.. Any company enticing you in with an extraordinary deal and doing 1 to 1 co-ersion to upsell is a million miles away IMO.

And that's my moral boundary, I think any business that deliberately targets a "specific audience" and uses proven immoral techniques, combined with offering exceedingly poor VFM should be addressed..
 
Last edited:
phil-t said:
I think blaming the client for being foolish is inappropriate
Click to expand...
I think that the level of understanding that the public have about most purchasing decisions is very low, and declining. The concept of "value for money" is alien.. "never mind the quality, feel the width".

High pricing strategies work because right next to the price is the Visa/Amex logo and the client is going to put it on the never-never. Tug the emotional heart-strings and make sure that credit is available.
 
Alastair said:
I think that the level of understanding that the public have about most purchasing decisions is very low, and declining. The concept of "value for money" is alien.. "never mind the quality, feel the width".

High pricing strategies work because right next to the price is the Visa/Amex logo and the client is going to put it on the never-never. Tug the emotional heart-strings and make sure that credit is available.
Click to expand...

Is it not also a case that the depth of understanding of purchasing decision has increased massively over the years?

I absolutely agree that spending has been made so easy that it relies on a level of understanding and self control that rightly or wrongly a large chunk of society do not possess..

And such is life, a lot of businesses seek out weaknesses in human traits and exploit them to make more money.. the only real debate is what level of exploitation is 'appropriate'..
 
phil-t said:
Is it not also a case that the depth of understanding of purchasing decision has increased massively over the years?
Click to expand...

Not really. It apparently has if you consider Googling a review depth of understanding, but the relationship between need and want has gone completely. They might understand more about what they're purchasing but they understand less about why.

Probably a moot point though, as selling photography to the public is 99% about want and 1% about need. It's pretty clear Venture understand this.
 
Boich said:
Apparently Clivedon advertise themselves as the most expensive place for afternoon tea £500 for 2, in a nice room with some fancy cakes, makes the wall art for £3k look really good value!
Click to expand...

Of course most people would go for the standard £25.00 tea and I doubt that there would be high pressure up-selling.
 
Alastair said:
Not really. It apparently has if you consider Googling a review depth of understanding, but the relationship between need and want has gone completely. They might understand more about what they're purchasing but they understand less about why.

Probably a moot point though, as selling photography to the public is 99% about want and 1% about need. It's pretty clear Venture understand this.
Click to expand...

It may shock you to know that there are still a lot of people out there who's useful interaction with the internet is still very low indeed.. :D

People tend to think forums are really prevalent and represent a large chunk of society, but they are very much the minority (often a very vocal minority)..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top