Indeed. Most of those who might seem to be eminently successful in this game do in fact make the majority of their livelihood in some other manner, whether teaching, commercial photography, consulting, or something completely unrelated. That "starving artist" lifestyle never appealed to me.
The low end of the print sales business has been very much affected by the availability of (frequently stolen) images off the 'net; just like McDonalds and Burger King put most mom & pop roadside diners out of business. Unfortunately, I am personally very much at the lower end of print sales, and I suspect most of us are in the same situation. In fact, that Costco 'free photos' thing probably has quite a few of my images, for which I'm most certainly not getting any royalties (my best images from about '95-00 were stolen by a local lab running a stock photo agency out the back end).Originally Posted by Kodachrome25
The high end print sales business has changed also, but I don't move in those circles any more so I can't comment on the changes in those markets. From personal experience, I have worked for quite a few multimillionaires; only one of them had photographs on the wall and that was only because his daughter is a photographer. They were collecting antiques, vases, figurines, watches, horses, pedigree bulls, antique British cars & silver, and other tangible objects that were more certain to appreciate with time. The art business, certainly where it comes to photography, was too risky for them. Plus, outside of certain 'old money' circles, most business-type 'nouveau-riche' multimillionaires are not readily conversant in photography; besides a few names like St-Ansel, they can't name-drop and brag to their friends about the famous photographers they have hanging on their walls. BTW, McDonalds and the 'family' chain restaurants did put a dent in higher-end restaurants also, because dining at one of these is now almost purely a social event or done for bragging rights; very few people, average rich people included, dine at a 4- or 5-star restaurant simply because they're hungry and want some lunch. Although you'll never catch one admitting he had lunch at Trader Joe's.
As for high-end decorators, now we're talking. Most of the ones I know work with kickbacks based on a percentage of what they buy, not to mention they're paid with another cut off what they buy; it's a lot easier to get kickbacks from a local photographer/gallery than from an auction house selling off estate pieces (no I'm not accusing anyone here of paying out kickbacks to decorators to buy their prints; I'm speaking of personal experience with decorators doing the homes of multimillionaires and some higher end clothing stores where I happened to be in contact with them). In this instance, there is absolutely no incentive for the decorator to try and knock down your price, unless it is to give them a portion in cash; even then, they're just as likely to insist you raise your price because it looks better on their proposal and they personally stand to profit. So this is still a far cry from market forces pricing artwork (or maybe that's how most 'free markets' work now).
That is my experience also. Perhaps we are just not fortunate enough to have become acquainted with the lucky few that make a good living from their print sales!
In any event, in my own work it definitely takes a lot more effort, time and use of materials to make a really nice 16X20" or 20X24 " or larger print that an 8X10". I am somewhat perplexed that anyone would argue the contrary.
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
As per 4 or 5 star restaurants.......my wife is a professional chef with an emeritus certification from the American Culinary Federation for years of service to the industry.
Lots of people go to 5 star restaurants because they simply love food and are willing to pay a premium for it. We are certainly not rich and neither are any of our close friends yet we have on occasion dropped over $1000 for 4 at restaurants like Charlie Trotters or the French laundry. These are some of the most memorable culinary experiences of my life (which also include some meals my wife has prepared at home and dishes I grew up with and cherished that my mom made). They were not memorable because of the cost. They were memorable because of the creativity and craft of the chef, the service and the atmosphere and the company-worth every penny.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
If I were you I would ask my wife to get out of the box in the kitchen, augment the event with a $50 bottle of wine and put the $1,000 in your retirement account. In this day and age entering our golden years with necessary financial horsepower you will need is not an option. It is a requirement.
A BIG amen to that, I had no idea of what food could be like until I moved to where I live now, 55 restaurants in a town of 6,500 people. But when I did three ad campaigns for Patrick Oconnell's Inn at Little Washington and dined on 7 course meals he did "specifically" for the crew...that was simply beyond food....I still remember exactly where I was seated. My wife and I are devout food & winers, there are times we really should have taken notes on some of our own concoctions but did not.
I don't think either of us are trying to add to any possible perceived snobbery by being enthusiastic about the world or arts and cuisine, but it is a fun and memorable exploration of all the senses when one is in treat mode...
Around here both high-end gourmet and relatively affordable yet very creative restaurants outnumber the fast food ones about ten to one, though we do have a
representation of all those too. You can lose a lot of money on a gourmet restaurant, or make a lot of money. It has less to do with the food than with your ability
to realistically manage a business, and what kind of distinct niche you carve out. But obviously, the food and service have gotta be good. Same with art, except running a gallery is much riskier as a business model than even a restaurant, and for that reason is often a rich person's hobby or tax writeoff, much like botique wineries. You've got your slikered-up tourist galleries too, with the short-skirt high-heeled salesladies, just like in the timeshare scams, etc, predictably adjacent to overpriced not-so-special Fisherman's Wharf restaurants, etc. Different marketing models. Even if you just sell out of your own living room you still need some kind of strategy, and whether you're just trying to bring in a little income to help your hobby along, are are attempting to not only recover overhead, but turn a bit of profit. Making a living at it takes a lot of courage - more than I've got. I just can't afford to sell prints cheap, though I've been known to discount them for people
who really really wanted a particular image but weren't technically able to afford that kind of thing. But just add up all your paper and supplies over a year, and it
can be a significant factor, not to mention your own labor, if you value that. Then amortize the value of your equipment investment and travel expenses. And that's just overhead. You still aren't actually making money.
So, there are two main financial concepts that have inter weaved in the posts of this thread and its recently closed predecessor: Costing and Pricing.
Having been with my current company for almost fifteen years, I have spent the first ten years in finance and the last five in sales & marketing. I can tell you that Costing is very close to a science. There are various approaches and different philosophies but, in general, it's a well defined, repeatable, standard set of methodologies.
Pricing on the other hand is an Art (no pun intended). All of our service-based solutions are custom and we consume many resources trying to present the right price.
Of course, when your net margins are in the 3-6% range, understanding your costs is critical.
In photography, where your margins are likely to be huge, I guess it's not as critical to be that precise.
FWIW, I can print up to 20x24 in my darkroom. I can contact print most LF sizes up to 8x10. I can enlarge from 35mm to 8x10 negatives.
Honestly, sometimes I can spend more time/materials printing an 8x10 than I do a much larger print. It all depends on the negative and how determined I am to realize my "vision."
With regards to setting up your dark room: Measure twice, cut once.
Anyone that builds a darkroom that limits their output is short sighted. Agreed?
Yes, many don't get the difference between price and cost.
But I get Jody's point than few of us really know the market well enough to price appropriately. Art is a luxury good in one sense, and a higher price might actually improve sales because part of how people perceive value is the price.
The presumption for most things, though, is that the higher the price, the smaller the market. For those with limited production, the trick is finding those willing to pay the highest price for those, not the marginal price that would be paid for the next print. That's why artists court better galleries, etc. That's where those willing to pay the most hang out.
There--that's two different models of price vs. supply. It would be damned hard to know which is the correct model, or how to describe the curve in each.
I suspect most look for the flinch point--that price where people flinch but still buy. The key to higher prices with that approach is finding customers with a higher flinch point. And that brings us back to courting good galleries, etc.
By the way, my darkroom was limited by the house I could afford, not the size print I thought I could sell. It is a hobby. I already have a job.
Rick "rejecting print sales as a productive income supplement strategy" Denney
Great thread.
I like the term "flinch point"
The other complication in pricing art is you have at least two types of buyers: Speculators and Afficianados.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks