I have never purchased pictures in the past after a 70.3 or 140.6 race, knowing that the prices are fairly high, but at Vineman 70.3 my fiance and I had the unique opportunity to cross the finish line within a minute of each other two weeks ago. Since we were in the finish area at the same time, it was an opportunity to get our official pictures taken together in front of the little backdrop. I was just looking to see how much it would cost to just download that one picture, and for a cool $25.99 I can purchase the soft copy. I am not a photo pricing analyst, but I think this feels way out of whack. I know they have to cover themselves and make a living, and my guess is they do this through selling packages, but I can’t think they sell many of these $26 photos. I could be wrong of course.
I would probably pay $10-$15 for the picture I think, but it is tough to spend more out of principle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
. 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.
.
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’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 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 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).
