Maybe the picture is copper-infused to enhance muscle stimulation and reduce bacteria growth?

Anybody else getting sick of those ads during the TDF?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

Its a tough market. You can either do race photography on the side and low-ball the pros, or you can do it as a full-time job, and charge what it costs to cover your salary, expenses, equipment, royalties to race, etc.
I have been there and done that, and I prefer not to because even at those prices, it can be tough market. That being said, those prices do seem a little high, but I bet you that WTC is either taking a flat rate or a per-picture fee from the photographer.

FYI, FinisherPix is a WTC company who contracts local photographers. They pay them a flat fee to shoot the photos. For a 140.6, if it's your first time shooting for them, they pay you 500 dollars. Not really too bad only that you're working from 6AM to midnight.

---

I'm a tri ricer. I can't ride fast. And swimming and running are necessary evils to owning a cool looking bike.

Not just that, but photographing age groupers in a 17 hour race over the weekend is almost no one's idea of a good time. Especially when you consider each photographer may be carrying a $4,000 camera/lens combo and it may rain 20% of the time and not all cameras are waterproof. Especially over extended periods of time.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

Did not know that they owned them. That is interesting. Not bad pay but as mentioned below, it is pretty miserable work.

I have yet to experience "pro" level photography at a WTC / FinisherPix covered event. Just some guys randomly on the course (usually in poor locations) snapping pics with some SLR camera.

Now, when I did Challenge Roth, the photos were legit. Super high-quality, big flash "stations," specifically set up to get amazing backdrops, etc.

Pricing for both is similar.

In my view, $25 for the former is a rip-off. For the latter, I gladly shelled out the $.

FYI if you don't mind waiting, generally FinisherPix will have "sales" for races you did earlier in the year. So keep an eye on your inbox for such promotions.

I have a photography business on the side. At $26 a photo they're losing money. Photographers who make a living doing this have to charge upwards of $100 a digital file to survive. Photographers make most of their money selling you product such as canvases, albums, prints. Yes, they mark them up from lab, but it's all a part of the cost of doing business. Photographers aren't getting rich, trust me. On the Racine course all I saw were pro-level dslr's, not the rebels everyone buys for Christmas. Those cost money and after a few hundred thousand clicks need to have the shutters replaced. All I saw were pro f/2.8 zooms which also cost a few thousand. When you add taxes, retirement, post processing software, post processing training, training, travel, legal, marketing, accounting, etc. it gets really expensive. Heck, think of all the manpower they had to put in to get all the photos tagged in 36 hours.

Finisherpix sold all of the photos for Racine for $60. I thought this was an absolute steal and jumped on it. It's the best bang for your buck. The best part? The photos were actually pretty damn good and worth every cent. The list of things you spent money on for that race that cost you less than what you paid for that photo is probably very very short.

It's better than what MarathonFoto will pay you. But if you factor in wear and tear on your equipment (you'll be shooting about 20K photos throughout the day) and sitting out in 90+ degree heat at IMTexas, that 27 dollars an hour doesn't seem to be worth it. I don't think I'll ever do a race that long again. They asked me if I was interested in shooting IMTX this year. I'm glad I declined because the race had a huge downpour.

---

I'm a tri ricer. I can't ride fast. And swimming and running are necessary evils to owning a cool looking bike.

Totally agree.

Speaking from personal experience over the years, my follow-through rate on event photographs is a big-fat 0%; there have been quite a few occasions I can recall where I would have likely bought one if they were half the price.

I'm not a business analyst but I presume they've run some numbers and set the price at a point that will bring in the most revenue. At any given event, a significant proportion of the field won't be serial racers and they'll be more willing to shell out on an over-priced photograph as a memento of the day. Unfortunately for most of the field, that makes them unreasonably expensive.

Just out of curiosity, do you know if any of these companies vary pricing based on event? People are probably more willing to pay $30 for an iconic photo at a bucket-list event (e.g. hammering the cobbles in Paris-Roubaix or running across Tower Bridge in the London Marathon), but are probably significantly less likely to do so at a local 10k.

Don't forget to wash down a pickle juice to make your socks feel even better....gross.

I thought the photos from Racine were pretty schitt. Only one shot of me on the bike, one burst of photos from me cresting the second hill near the beginning of the run loop and a burst of pictures from me crossing the line.

Pass.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Based on what you wrote, outside of shutters it feels like most of the costs associated with this are fixed. I could be way off base with that assumption. So it tells me the incremental cost of photo #100 vs photo #101 are very slim. If most of your costs are fixed, then you have to figure out the best way to price the photo from a supply/demand perspective. Is it easier to sell four photos for $25/per, or ten photos for $10? My hunch, again with no real perspective into the industry is that it would be easier to sell 10 for $10/per.

I don't deny the costs associated with being in that business (time and money), it seems like a challenging line of work. That being said, it sounds like maybe there is an opportunity to improve how the industry assigns costs, and thus a price to each photo.

I guess I got lucky: http://www.finisherpix.com/...-2016/pbib/1730.html



And I think that's why they're willing to sell you all of your photos for a fixed price. But if you only want one photo, then they have to charge a high enough price to try to cover their cost.

The photographers probably weren't tired and worn yet out at this time. :p

---

I'm a tri ricer. I can't ride fast. And swimming and running are necessary evils to owning a cool looking bike.

Agreed.

Haven't bought a photo yet this year, because they were priced out for us, a s principle of not paying 25-35 for an untouched digital file.

Were they 10 bucks, probably would have bought at least 1 each of the wife and I, per race, this season. Seems like most of the sites these days are so automated it's not any work for the photog once the pocs are uploaded. The server takes your cash and sends you the file.

I think many of the one and done types will shell out the clams for when the finished that first race they trained so hard for, but for people who race a lot... meh.

I pay $30 for a digital print of my son's school photo so 25 bucks really doesn't seem that bad to me for a digital copy you can use multiple times.

Ben

Indeed, see my post above.

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of those with experience of the industry on the pricing strategy of these businesses.

It would seem that some of the comments above (e.g. profit from canvasses >> profit from digital downloads) would align with the fact that more follow through = more revenue.

At the end of the day, it doesn't seem to make sense that a huge proportion of your market is completely disengaged.

I think that is usually what happens unless the photo is exceptional. I see the a lot of the same athletes at the races. As an athlete, after a while, you'll look at the photos but not really purchase them. That's how it's been for me. And as a business, you have to consider that into your pricing. Some events have been including the prices of the photos in their entry fees. Charge a little more for the entry but the athletes get all the photos for free (technically).

---

I'm a tri ricer. I can't ride fast. And swimming and running are necessary evils to owning a cool looking bike.

What makes things worse are mountain bike pictures. They sell the digital download for $4.99 to $7.99. Then I do big event and it jumps to either $12.99 or $24.99 for download (low res).

Some of the mountain bike picture guys have been told to downgrade their photo stations. I went though one technical area and they had flashes attached to trees, etc. I thought I was riding through the paparazzi. Damn near fell.

Grand Rapids Triathlon had free pictures this year. I'm guessing a flat fee to photographers. I only had a finish line, but free is free. :)

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

I completed my first 70.3 earlier this year (Grand Rapids), crossing the finish line with my daughter, and was incredibly disappointed by the pictures available (or lack thereof). I would have gladly paid $25 for a professional photograph of that moment, instead, they seemed to put a bunch of people on the course with DSLR's and then consolidate the various pictures into a Google account. Sure, the pictures are free, but you get what you pay for. I don't believe there was a single picture of me on the bike and the picture crossing the line was terrible.

Pleasant Prairie Tri in PP, Wisconsin also had free downloads this year. Some decent shots, too.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

You also have to remember that pricing is a mind game.Why pay $52 for two photos when you can pay $60 for all of them? The higher price for the single photo also works as an incentive for the all inclusive package. If they sold you photos at $10, then they probably wouldn't be charging enough to cover their costs at the projected attach rate, and it would be less compelling for you to go with the all inclusive package which is probably priced much better for them.

I only really loved 4 photos from all the ones they took of me at Racine. 4 @ $10 would have netted them $40, but they got me to spend $60. Then again, Ironman got me to spend $40 on the name tshirt that probably cost them $6 (maybe closer to $8 with overhead).

Oh, and a photo of me from my first ever triathlon is going to cost me $60, and they want an extra $5 archival fee because it's been 5 years. /shrug

I've never been impressed. Even at high profile events like Kona, a couple shots were good, but the finish line shots were pretty mediocre considering how long, established, and well planned the event is. Seems like they could do a lot better. Seems like you could get some near magazine quality shots for such a major event.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com