Scanning is Theft

[Mickwreay]

For the umpteenth time no-one is telling you that togs need to halve their price. But, they do need to do what they can in order to maximise sales. If you can sell all prints and re-prints at full price then great. If you are having people looking to scan and cheat, anything you can do to sell more will result in more turnover with negligible cost, not less.

You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about something.

I think it's a waste of time mate, some people could argue with a mirror

Mick

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

By the way you talk on here mate, I'm surprised you sell anything!

If you are a tog that is :baby:

Mick

Your refusal to address the valid points I've made here speak volumes.

There is a huge difference between the way I deal with clients and customers and the way I deal with people who think and behave like you.

 

[Mickwreay]

Your refusal to address the valid points I've made here speak volumes.

There is a huge difference between the way I deal with clients and customers and the way I deal with people who think and behave like you.

I've spent 25 years serving the country for people like you.

Oh, yes I've got a job & a pension & an opinion.

Sorry you are too stubborn or to understand what is being said to you.

More sales = more money

Mick

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about something.

Yeah, mainly people who are not actually in business (but own one camera and a kit lens) trying to tell me how to run my business, using half baked ideas, spurious assumptions and with little or no understanding of employment law, licensing terms and conditions, contract creation, copyright law, profit and loss, tax, insurance ..

I'm not alone in feeling like that, either.

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I've spent 25 years serving the country for people like you.

Oh, yes I've got a job & a pension & an opinion.

Sorry you are too stubborn or to understand what is being said to you.

More sales = more money

Mick

Oh, ex forces. I know what ticks your lot off, I'll do you a deal.

I promise not to buy fatigues and hat badges at the surplus store then pretend I saw action at Goose Green because I was in "The Regiment" if you promise to stop pretending to know anything about the business of photography

/end

 

[cambsno]

Well I started my 1st business at 21 but not sure if being in business means you know more. I have met loads of business owners who are great at what they do but no idea how to run a business.

 

[Lynton]

My pricing structure is carefully worked out to maximise profit whilst deterring the "can we have the images on disc for a fiver" massive.

I do discounts, I do pro bono, if I see someone struggling with facing paying £60 for 6 prints of their kid I'll do all 6 prints for £20 but don't tell the other parents.

What I don't do is have time for people who don't do what I do telling me that I ought to do it for less.

Is there anything else you think you know about my pricing structure ?

that's all well and good then.......... at the expense of rapidly falling out with a fine gentleman whom I have not yet had the pleasure to meet, I suggest you look up the definition of "pro bono" as it literally translates to for free, not for £20 instead of £60....

 

[TriggerHappy]

The race for the bottom would mean that the 'sensible' level would be set -by the buyer- at about £5 per disc with all the images on it.

The buyer is precisely who decides what price you charge. For someone who keeps banging on about being 'in business' I'd have thought you'd understand that.

If any person in this thread can honestly say that they would gladly go to their boss tomorrow and offer to do the same job they did yesterday for half or quarter of the salary then I'll take back everything I've said.

No one's asking you to take home less money. People are suggesting there are different ways to sell photography as a product and a service and some are more lucrative than others.

Say, drop the at the factory gate product price from £100 per item to a more affordable £20 per item ?

Would you be willing to take a salary hit from £30,00 to £10,000 whilst still putting the same effort in and sustaining the same costs ?

If you sold 20 products at £100 but could sell 105 products by dropping the price to £20 that is precisely what you should do. Again, no one is saying people should take home less money. No one can tell you how to run your business, and nor do I think they have tried, this discussion has been how to overcome the problem of copyright infringement if it's costing a business significantly. All the discussion has been aimed at a structure that maximises people's income.

My pricing structure is carefully worked out to maximise profit whilst deterring the "can we have the images on disc for a fiver" massive.

So you don't need to be touchy about other people making generalised suggestions when your business is already maximising its profits.

What I don't do is have time for people who don't do what I do telling me that I ought to do it for less.

Again, people can't force you to change your business. Or in fact even force you to listen their suggestions. It's pretty easy not to open up a thread if yo don't like the content.

When you go in to work, that's if you have a job, and declare that you're earning too much and wish to do the same work output for less pay, I'll take you seriously.

Wow, you're not getting the point of this are you? And the section in bold was wholeheartedly unnecessary to a form a constructive debate.

Your refusal to address the valid points I've made here speak volumes.

I'm failing to see any valid points there. All you've made is offhand rejections without anything to support your claims. I think we can use something you've said to deal with that:

So, hearsay, inadmissible, disregard.

Yeah, mainly people who are not actually in business (but own one camera and a kit lens) trying to tell me how to run my business, using half baked ideas, spurious assumptions and with little or no understanding of employment law, licensing terms and conditions, contract creation, copyright law, profit and loss, tax, insurance ..

*Sigh*

 

[Mickwreay]

Oh, ex forces. I know what ticks your lot off, I'll do you a deal.

I promise not to buy fatigues and hat badges at the surplus store then pretend I saw action at Goose Green because I was in "The Regiment" if you promise to stop pretending to know anything about the business of photography

/end

No need to pretend at anything mate.

By the pathetic comment “your lot” it really shows what kind of person you are.

YOU don’t have the right to comment on “our lot”

It’s because of “our lot” that little people like you can hide on forums & talk poop.

"Ignore button pressed"

 

[Chaz Photos]

Ever listened to music on youtube? Broke copyright law.

WRONG take a look at this youtube page and you will see why

 

[Kaouthia]

If you sold 20 products at £100 but could sell 105 products by dropping the price to £20 that is precisely what you should do.

Can I change that slightly?

£100 * 20 == £2000
£20 * 105 == £2100

If you sold 20 products at £100 clear profit but could sell 105 products by dropping the price to £20 clear profit that is precisely what you should do.

The costs in time and meterials to make 105 items vs. 20 items is probably more than 100 quid.

 

[nilagin]

So, hearsay, inadmissible, disregard.

Would you like the company you work for to drop their prices to a price which better suited the buyer ?

Say, drop the at the factory gate product price from £100 per item to a more affordable £20 per item ?

Would you be willing to take a salary hit from £30,00 to £10,000 whilst still putting the same effort in and sustaining the same costs ?

My employer overall has to remain competitive, the factory I work in has to remain competitive against other similar factories within the same company. Our wages don't change but work practices and workloads do, so effectively I do take a cut in wages as that work would normally have been done as overtime. It has taken 5 yrs for me to be able to acheive the same wages that I earned with overtime. People all over the country have had to suffer even worse, just to retain their jobs in recent years.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Can I change that slightly?

£100 * 20 == £2000
£20 * 105 == £2100

The costs in time and meterials to make 105 items vs. 20 items is probably more than 100 quid.

That's fine, but I was deliberately avoiding complicating it with costs in the production process because it would draw in all types of factors that would require too much speculation and create inaccuracies in the comparison - e.g. time, materials, economies of scale etc.

 

[dod]

If any person in this thread can honestly say that they would gladly go to their boss tomorrow and offer to do the same job they did yesterday for half or quarter of the salary then I'll take back everything I've said.

Won't happen, will it ?

The problem is you've got the analogy the wrong way round. What's really happening is that the boss is coming to us and saying "You know that job you've done for years. We don't care for it too much any more, we'd like you to change and take a pay cut. You don't have to but you're old job isn't there now, the customers don't like the product"

 

[dod]

oh, and by the way, no more personal insults, anyone

 

[Kaouthia]

You don't have to but you're old job isn't there now, the customers don't like the product"

Or, what happened at the radio station my wife used to work at...

"so and so's left us, and we're not refilling their position, so you'll have to do her job as well as your own, but take the same pay you've been getting for the past 5 years" (multiplied by 6 staff members that left and weren't replaced).

She did eventually quit.

 

[photon]

Bedtime reading

 

[ding76uk]

Tyrone. You have it wrong mate. The business is changing. You need to change. It has happened in music, it has happened in film, it is happening in the magazine industry, and it is happening in photography!

Accept and move on or stick and get bypassed. Only you can make that decision. Simple marketing can solve a lot of problems. This is the problem, in the "GOOD OLE DAYS" people were not able to scan images, they bought the print or you didn't. Now you need to market things differently, figure a way to be unique. There are some simple things that can be done without much hassle.

You shout about how all the amateurs are ruining it for you. Well then you need to make your stuff better than what they can offer. The only way you can is by offering things others can't. Are you doing that?

Photography is changing so fast right now, figure out the problem and address it rather than blame everyone else for it!

 

[ding76uk]

WRONG take a look at this youtube page and you will see why

Only recently Chaz has there been a more legal stance on this. Music for a long time on youtube broke copyright law. There was a huge thing about it. You are telling me every kid who made a vid of their fave pop star with loads of internet pics they took from google had copyright consent for everything? It doesn't.

Education you all keep saying is the key. In school kids are taught to use images of google etc. for schoolwork (I know, I teach them) Schools have a different laws with regards to copyright issues and kids from primary are taught to put pictures in their work off google.

I do try to educate them and in graphics I have a lesson where we talk about why you can't use others work, but it will continue to happen, and people need to think a way around it. What that will be is for those who lose so much income through scanning of images etc. or feel they do.

The thing is with reprints people know how much a print costs from a lab, they all use Photobox or Jessops, so asking silly money for a second copy will lead to people not buying it as the price is too high and many (myself included) think that second prints should be a lot less than the original, especially if it is after the event.

 

[Headless Lois]

Bedtime reading

Great link

A

 

[menthel]

This really did turn into a car crash popcorn thread! I think all those who say that the world is changing are right though. You may have copyright but how the hell do you go around policing it with average joe public? With buisnesses and publications you can but the little man? Not a hope in hell.

 

[Dangleman]

Tyrone. You have it wrong mate. The business is changing. You need to change. It has happened in music, it has happened in film, it is happening in the magazine industry, and it is happening in photography!

Accept and move on or stick and get bypassed. Only you can make that decision. Simple marketing can solve a lot of problems. This is the problem, in the "GOOD OLE DAYS" people were not able to scan images, they bought the print or you didn't. Now you need to market things differently, figure a way to be unique. There are some simple things that can be done without much hassle.

You shout about how all the amateurs are ruining it for you. Well then you need to make your stuff better than what they can offer. The only way you can is by offering things others can't. Are you doing that?

Photography is changing so fast right now, figure out the problem and address it rather than blame everyone else for it!

Whilst I actually agree with Tyrone on many levels here, I think your post is spot on. Things are changing fast in all creative media as you say, and to succeed you need to stay ahead of the game.
The thing is, apart from being more extra extra fabulous then everyone else(which I am naturally ), what's the magic formula?

 

[steve_lyt]

some very vilid points have been raised. if poeple were offered the digital image for a cost. with permission to use it for personal use or not for profit. they would be more happy to get them from you , rather than scan and print there own.

this sort of service would make it more attactive offer than charging the same cost per print.

of course some poeple would scan it even if you had given it for free. this would be one move to used modern methods.

its unfortunate that prints are not a popular as they were of family , most poeple show pictures on ipod ect.

Cheers Steve

 

[The Noir Dude]

Not necessarily. if you are an event photographer prints are your main media to the customer. I sell thousands of prints each year, and we would not have time to offer digital files on the day. We have Facebook sized images on our site for £2 plus VAT and sell a few. 99% of people that we photograph at events by prints.

 

[steve_lyt]

offering alterate image options (eg facebook size) , is a way forward. it sould reduce the need for scaning prints. I don`t think it is possible to stop copyright infringments , but it may be possible to reduce the number of incidents.

even if they buy a facebook sized image what is to stop them distributing them.


Cheers Steve

 

[Dangleman]

offering alterate image options (eg facebook size) , is a way forward. it sould reduce the need for scaning prints. I don`t think it is possible to stop copyright infringments , but it may be possible to reduce the number of incidents.

even if they buy a facebook sized image what is to stop them distributing them.


Cheers Steve

Out of interest, what do you guys consider a 'facebook sized image'?

 

[TriggerHappy]

Something under 800x600 I'd say.

 

[martsharm]

Out of interest, what do you guys consider a 'facebook sized image'?

Longest side 720 pixels.

 

[Kaouthia]

Longest side 720 pixels.

Yup, I have an action that I run when I'm back home to run the images through that sizes them down to 720, sticks on the logo of the location the event is at, along with my copyright notice at the bottom. So, I just batch the whole lot.

If they pay at the event for one (and I only sell them in addition to prints, never as a substitute for them), then I email it to them later in the evening.

 

[steve_lyt]

if you set the jpeg quality to about 6 as well it make it more diifcult to enlarge

Cheers Steve

 

[dod]

480 on longest side.

 

[neil_g]

Out of interest, what do you guys consider a 'facebook sized image'?

i believe facebook images are approx 600 on the longest side.

 

[steve_lyt]

i know in the future i am giong to came across issue like this , i can only hope that i dont spend more time protecting my work , than taking the photos and giving pleasure to the poeple, i am doing them for.

Cheers Steve

 

[a1ex2001]

-------snip random rant ----------

In my line of work I would happily take a pay cut if it meant I kept my job, sadly however we don't get that option we get the 6 monthly round of redundancies as all our work is offshored to India where it is done for practically free. This is the equivalent situation that photography currently faces, at the minute I'm still in a job because I've mooved around and evolved my skill set to stay one step ahead of the offshoring process. If you want to stay one step ahead of the new kid on the block with a cheap dslr then you need to change your business model!

25 years ago everyone shot film the market changed it went digital people wanted and expected more so the market changed and photographers who wanted to stay in business changed with it. The same is happening now the advent of cheap DSLR's and powerful easy to use software is changing the market and to survive in a tough market you need to inovate.

I don't understand how people call themselves photographers yet display an almost wilful lack of respect to working photographers and established practices.

Welcome to the every changing world of the free market economy do try to keep up and just to save you the time I once tried to put a genie back in it's bottle it didn't work and I also tried to turn back the wheels of progress and failed.

PS I'm a photographer who gives images away for free as a rule which I will never break.

 

[POAH]

there are no established practices - this ain't no old boys club.

The nice thing about a free market is that it gives people choice, just ask smith

I don't understand how people call themselves photographers yet display an almost wilful lack of respect to working photographers and established practices.

 

[mike weeks]

That's fine, but I was deliberately avoiding complicating it with costs in the production process because it would draw in all types of factors that would require too much speculation and create inaccuracies in the comparison - e.g. time, materials, economies of scale etc.

The difference between an amateur and a professional is that an amateur sees the money coming in and a professional sees the profit QED your calculations are pointless without factoring in the other elements.

As to Dod's terms and conditions am I the only one that thinks it is naive to give product away? Like all good ladies of the night I give nothing away - if it is worth having, it is worth paying for - if I adopted this policy I would lose many of the repeat sales.

Mike

 

[ding76uk]

It's an unfortunate time Mike, where business models need to evolve constantly. There is no hard and fast anymore. A lot of people do not put the value to pictures they once did. That is the main issue. There are ways and means, but to be a photographer now you need to be a marketing expert too. All sales need to take into account the facebook world. Reprints are something that the price is prohibitive for a lot of people.

How do you justify asking almost the same price for a reprint as the original?

That is a general question, not just to you Mike? I just want to play devils advocate on this.

 

[cambsno]

Agree carl. In the past you had prints and frames. That was it and you had to order reprints. Now there are a multitude of things, canvas, key rings, coasters as well as posting pics on FB. What if mum wants to get dad a keyring for fathers day? Should they really have to spend £50 on the jpg?

Business has to evolve as things do change. That is not to say stuff should be given away but maybe a rethink on products and bundles offered. I for one had not thought about FB prior to this thread. Now I will be adding small jpg files which could be additional revenue.

 

[mike weeks]

I for one had not thought about FB prior to this thread. Now I will be adding small jpg files which could be additional revenue.

If you had to go as far as court and you were allowing people to scan your images for free as Dod does then it would make it far more difficult to prove that those images lifted from your website had a value. If however you offer them as a product at a price then values can be easily calculated - that is what I was thinking of when I used the term naive.

Yes we have to constantly adapt and evolve but that does not mean give the work away or allow it to be stolen.

Mike

 

[mike weeks]

How do you justify asking almost the same price for a reprint as the original?

That is a general question, not just to you Mike? I just want to play devils advocate on this.

OK go to a car dealer and buy 2 cars the same and say I want the second at half price because I already have one - rediculous yes but lets get closer to photography and talk about CDs - got to a music shop and buy 2 copies of the same CD and say you want the second at half price because you already have one (after all they are just reprints from the master) - what would happen is that everybody would partner up.

If granny wants the same photo as mum it is an individual product and therefore the same price. Most event photographers attend for free and the only way to achieve what you are talking about is to charge an attendance fee and then lower the cost per print and for 99% of events that is proven not to work because it would raise ticket/entry prices.

Mike