Do lower priced prints sell better ?

[coops]

5. My prints were poorly mounted. My prints were taped mounted and showed wrinkles. Some visitors commented about this and left.

6. My prices were priced considerable less then the others. I priced a framed 16x20 print at $275. The same print is price at $400 at the gallery. I sold $850 of prints which was more than anybody else except one. Most photographers had zero sales. Many visitors commented about how reasonable my prices were.

Not sure I understand this. Are you saying that because you reduced your prices to $275 from $400, you did a poor job mounting and presenting your work?

[Jim Jones]

Anyone just starting to sell art photographs directly to buyers might best set prices low. Then, if they succeed, gradually raising prices will show clients that the photographs are an investment as well as art. When selling through galleries, the gallery has a right to determine prices.

This will be the 27th year for me to sell at the local annual arts and crafts fair. 10x14 photos matted and framed to 16x20 will sell for $40. This seems appropriate in the rural midwestern USA. It is more gratifying to sell to ordinary people like myself who appreciate the photos than to investors or snobs who evaluate art mostly by its price.

Someone who is a more agressive salesman might well aim at a more sophisticated market. There are always people with more money than taste who can be pursuaded to buy.

[vinny]

Anyone just starting to sell art photographs directly to buyers might best set prices low. Then, if they succeed, gradually raising prices will show clients that the photographs are an investment as well as art. When selling through galleries, the gallery has a right to determine prices.

This will be the 27th year for me to sell at the local annual arts and crafts fair. 10x14 photos matted and framed to 16x20 will sell for $40. This seems appropriate in the rural midwestern USA. It is more gratifying to sell to ordinary people like myself who appreciate the photos than to investors or snobs who evaluate art mostly by its price.

Someone who is a more agressive salesman might well aim at a more sophisticated market. There are always people with more money than taste who can be pursuaded to buy.

I don't know the quality of materials you are using but what kind of profit are you making on these? Any?

[Brian C. Miller]

5. My prints were poorly mounted. My prints were taped mounted and showed wrinkles. Some visitors commented about this and left.

6. My prices were priced considerable less then the others. I priced a framed 16x20 print at $275. The same print is price at $400 at the gallery. I sold $850 of prints which was more than anybody else except one. Most photographers had zero sales. Many visitors commented about how reasonable my prices were.

Not sure I understand this. Are you saying that because you reduced your prices to $275 from $400, you did a poor job mounting and presenting your work?

The thread is from 2005, and I'm not certain that Stephen is active on the board.

Anyways, the pricing and mounting don't seem to follow one another; they are separate. The way that I read it is that despite his prints being poorly mounted he was #2 for sales. If his prints were mounted well, then he would have had more sales.

There is a price point where the customer won't part with their money. Stephen was under that point, and despite having poor print mounting, he did well. A coworker's wife, who is known on the gallery scene, exhibited a series of prints at a show for $2000 each. No sales. (I heard my coworker on the phone with the gallery owner, insisting on the price.)

Consider this: you are at the nautilus gallery. There is an Edward Weston print, Nautilus, 1927, for $1.1 million (link). There are also a range of other photographs of a nautilus shell, and it may be the same shell. The prices range from $20 to $50,000, and the print quality is as good as Weston's. Which would you buy? Why?

For Jim to equal Stephen's sales, he would need to sell 22 prints, while Stephen sold three. That's about three per hour for Jim. In a well-trafficked location like a fair, that's a reasonable sales rate. (The honey booth has faster business, though.)

[Donald Miller]

I've found a lot of good information about pricing and sales on Brooks Jensen's DVD on "Finding an audience for your work".

[Jim Jones]

I don't know the quality of materials you are using but what kind of profit are you making on these? Any?

In a good year profits are modest. In the economy of the past few years there was no profit. However, in a farming community people are accustomed to occasional profitless years. People keep on eating, so we keep on producing. I am retired, and photography is only a hobby. The professional photographers in this area struggle for survival.

By buying supplies in quantity, and printing and doing almost all other work myself, it costs maybe $33 to produce an archivally matted photo in a 16x20 aluminum frame.

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE]By buying supplies in quantity, and printing and doing almost all other work myself, it costs maybe $33 to produce an archivally matted photo in a 16x20 aluminum frame./QUOTE]

What is your time worth? If you are not factoring the value of your time you are not being realistic. Create as an artist-market as a business.

[vinny]

I give away a couple prints every year as well.

[Drew Wiley]

I looked at a few eBay prints today and almost howled with laughter at the audacity
of a few alleged fine art dealers. It was like they wanted a thousand bucks for a
Big Mac sandwich without even the fries. A lot of art sales are run on a bluff, but how many of these actually suceed is a different thing. A sucker might be born every day, but there are a lot of different interests trolling for that same sucker's money or vote or whatever. That aside, if one were selling primarily at art fairs and so forth it might be wise to tempt passerbys with something affordable. A dentist might pick up a couple of small prints for his office for two hundred apiece, for
example. Mount and mat is nicely, shrink wrap it to a fomecore backing, but skip the frame. Keep your overhead down. Galleries are a whole different game. They'll take a minimum of 50%, maybe a lot more, and you might be responsible for all the framing, opening expenses, and even insurance. Not hard to actually lose money,
even if you sell some prints. So if you play that game you'd better be getting very good prices or figure out how to bypass the retail gallery game. They do have serious overhead, and the odd of staying in business with a storefront gallery has
always been poor. Most have to run a frame shop on the side. Location is everything
in that game.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - the expression, "starving artist", is certainly relevant. A few of the better known local "successful" fine art photographers were exactly that for quite a while.
I preferred to keep my day job, eat real food, and print whatever I pleased. Always factored in my own wage and equipment depreciation, however, when pricing prints. The tide might turn in my favor once I retire. I'll be able to fiddle around more with really stupid things like dye transfer printing, which might fetch a high price per print, but per hour are probably below min wage. Geezerhood has its advantages.