That's outrageous! Photographers shouldn't charge that much.....

So why does it cost so much to hire a 'professional photographer'?Are we making loads of money and deliberately thrusting outrageous charges on unsuspecting clients and individuals? Even fellow colleagues, in the creative industries, seem to have little understanding of our costs and out-goings. So I have decided to shed some light a little on our industry and hopefully make potential customers a little more understanding.

The average income in the creative industries (excluding photographers) in 2009 was £30,550.
Average Photography related  income (2009) - £24,150
Average freelance photographer income (2009) - £18,821
29% of freelancers made a profit (before drawings) of between £1-10K
16% of freelancers made no profit (before drawings)

The initial figures for 2011 look even bleaker with the average photographers salary now hovering around £12,500 (source - Salary Tracker).


Now please remember the average salaried wage in the country is £23,244 per year. So why do photographers appear to earn so little yet are charging day rates of between £400 to £2k a day? The simple fact are our costs, which have risen exponentially over the last ten years. A couple of years ago, with a fellow colleague Nick Goode,  we looked at the typical costs of running a photographic business outside of London, both as a studio facility and freelancer working from home and from those figures deduced the day rates that should be charged:

Studio Photographer	Per Year
Rent on 700 sq ft studio and ancillary offices	16,000
Rates	2,400
Electricity	800
Water	400
New Equipment purchase, replacement of old etc	5,000
Stationery and postage	500
Portfolio and advertising	3,500
Insurance – Studio and equipment	1,200
Pension Fund	2,700
Burglar Alarm maintenance	250
Air Conditioner	200
Redecoration of studio	500
Telephone and answering service	2,100
Two staff: assistant and secretary/stylist	24,000
Staff meals, including clients	3,000
Car leasing and insurance	4,800
Petrol and servicing	3,000
Foreign location travel insurances	400
Cabs and messenger service	2,000
Parking tickets	200
Carnets	80
Initial Towel laundry service	240
Account’s fees an other services	1,200
Bank charges on average balance of £20,000 expenses owed by clients	3,000
Total	69,600
Typical Working days per year (2009): 150 Amount needed to be earned per day	464

 

A studio photographer would typical have set-up/equipment costs of £37,750 which would include cameras, lighting, kitchen, sound system, office equipment, software, tools, backgrounds, sundry props, burglar alarm, data storage and phone system.

 

Location Photographer	Per year
Part-time assistant	4,000
Rates	1,000
Electricity	600
New equipment and replacement of old	4,500
Stationery and postage	500
Advertising and portfolio	3,500
Insurance – equipment and public liability etc	750
Telephone & answering service	1,800
Part time secretarial assistance (wife/partner)	6,000
Vehicle Leasing	4,800
Petrol and servicing for 28,000 miles p.a.	3,500
Travel insurance for foreign locations etc	600
Cabs and courier service	900
Parking tickets	250
Carnets. Visas etc,	400
Accountants fees etc	900
Total	34,000
Typical Working days per year (2009): 150 Expenses per day worked	226

A location/freelance photographer would typically have set-up costs of £32,250 which would include cameras, lighting, office equipment, software, tools, sundry props and security systems.


Now we have our base figures of £464 (studio photographer) and £226 (location photographer), we must consider how much they should earn in the way of drawings from their business. Given that the majority of real photographers have undertaken a substantial amount of training prior to their commencement of practicing (3-5 years at college/uni followed by 2/3 years as an assistant), it would not be unreasonable for them to expect to at least earn the average wage.

So lets divide £23,244 by 150 (typical amount of days worked/chargeable in 2009) = £154.96

If we now add this to our existing figures we get:

Studio Photographer - £464 + £154 = £618 (must earn in gross profit per day)
Location Photographer - £226 + £154 = £380 (must earn in gross profit per day)

So as you can see, the photographer is left no real options but to charge a realistic rate to cover his out-goings and also survive. The other thing that should be noted is that the amount of days chargeable, since 2009, has been greatly reduced - and is now around 75 days per year (1.5 days a week).

So when you are berating your photographer and trying to beat his costs down further, please try to be a little more understanding :)


Yours,

Richard
www.emphasis.biz
www.richardsouthall.co.uk

Ps
All figures for photographers' costings were produced in 2009, most costs have risen between 15-75% since this exercise was undertaken. A range of 15 photographers were used to compile this info - from industrial to portrait/social photographers. Industry figures - Skillset 2009

'I can't afford a professional photographer' - are clients lying to themselves?

Over the last few days, I have had some quite interesting and poignant conversations with several fellow professional photographers. These guys are specialists within their own fields whether it be fashion, cars, PR or architectural (me) but we have all been confronted recently by potentially new clients with the same cry 'we can't afford that? or 'it's just a photo - anyone can do that!'

It got thinking about how the industry and how clients perceive us has changed over the last 20 years. Also the ways in which our images are used and utilised by our clients. I think, until about 10 years ago, we were regarded as a vital link in the chain for a client to communicate their new service or product to market but this perception seems to have been somehow eroded by the introduction of digital imaging and web2.0.

I hear the arguments about photography has now become 'easier' with acceptable technical result produced by most compact cameras but nowhere recently do I hear about  the creative input of the photographer. With the growth of the digital economy, I have seen the decline of the traditional areas where my imaging has been used - brochures, ads,  journals, data sheets etc. But this has more compensated for with the growth on-line publishing and advertising. Now it is comparatively easy to distribute and view images of new products and services.

Which leads me to the point I began with, surely since people can easily access your relevant marketing materials (websites etc) or those of your competitors, surely having the best images on-line would give you the edge over your competitor and which will hopefully enable you to win that potential enquiry. Lets face it, we have all done it, once we have 'googled' a specific requirement and looked at a couple of result sites, we have nearly always have decided on a potential supplier before even speaking to them.

So why skimp on decent images that sell your service - what is this going to say to a potential client who is considering spending £2-3million or more on a project with you (either your poor pics will say your products or services are 'crap' or I don't really care how you perceive me as I don't care myself). So when you are considering spending £500/600 on servicing your BMW/Audi etc or installing new plotted plants around the office at £1000, could this money have been better spent on how people perceive you.

As one of my colleagues put it, he had been replaced by the 16yr old daughter of the chairman of major company who had bought her a £600 camera for Xmas. The chairman then couldn't understand the negative reaction of American multi-national who viewed the resulting catalogue/website and their subsequent withdrawl of their  custom.

So please think long and hard about how you want people to perceive you before selecting/commissioning the images you want to use - it could be a very dangerous false economy if you make the wrong choice..............

Richard
www.emphasis.biz
www.richardsouthall.co.uk