The usual way for a commercial photographer to quote a job is to provide the client with a price for the requested photo assignment. But another method is to provide the potential client with a few variations of their proposed assignment along with the corresponding price for each variation.
Wedding photographers have always done this. For example, a wedding photographer might quote: $6,500 for full-day coverage plus a large album and a DVD; $3,500 for half-day coverage and one album; $1,500 for two hours coverage and an album of small prints.
This strategy of multiple price options is also used by other types of business:
• Ice cream shops offer customers their choice of a triple-scoop, double-scoop or single-scoop cone, each with a different price.
• Car rental companies have sub-compact cars to luxury vehicles and each class of vehicle has a different price.
• Shoe stores sell running shoes from $250 (for trendy, celebrity-endorsed, leather shoes) down to $20 (for a no-name brand made from plastic or cloth).
• Concert and sports events sell expensive front-row seats, mid-priced average seats and low-priced seats way in the back.
Multiple pricing usually reflects a “good-better-best” strategy where the customer pays more to get more (or vice versa). Commercial and corporate photographers can sometimes use this same technique.
It’s important to note that this is not about quoting different prices for the same job but rather different prices for different variations of the job.
The purpose of offering multiple pricing to a potential client is that it helps keep the customer “in the store”:
• It gives the client options. A single quote is often seen by the customer as a one-shot, take-it-or-leave-it offer.
• It defines the price range in which the photographer is willing to work which can reduce any price haggling.
• The higher-priced option can help sell a lower-priced option. A lower-priced option may look like a real bargain when seen next to a more expensive choice.
Examples:
(i) An organization wants a photographer to cover its five-day convention:
The photographer might send a quote for $3,500 to cover the full event. This will often be seen by the event organizer as a take-it-or-leave-it offer. If the $3,500 price is too high for them, they will look for another photographer.
A better way for the photographer to quote might be: $3,500 for the five-day event OR $1,600 for just the weekend OR $900 for just one day. (Note that the photographer’s per-day price is higher as the job gets shorter.)
(ii) A company wants business portraits of eight of its marketing staff:
The photographer could send a quote for, say, $1,400 to photograph the eight people.
Another way to quote might be: $1,400 for “magazine quality” portraits (studio lighting and background) OR $900 for “newspaper quality” pictures (off-camera, battery-powered speedlights and ambient background) OR $500 for “web quality” portraits (ambient light and ambient background). As the price goes down, so does the production value.
Another version of this pricing strategy is for the photographer to quote pricing for various uses of the pictures. For example:
A company wants pictures of its new factory for use on its web site:
The photographer might quote $1,400 for photography and three years use.
A better way to quote might be: $1,400 including three years use OR $2,000 for five years use OR $2,800 for perpetual use.
This should get the customer thinking about longer-term use. The pricing shows that the client can save money by choosing a longer usage term.
This method of multiple pricing may not always be applicable to the assignment at hand. But the point is that, right from the get-go, the photographer takes the initiative and defines their working price range by offering an “all-bells-and whistles” option with a higher price, a mid-range package with mid-range price, and a low-featured option with a lower price.
Don’t be surprised if (when) clients pick the mid-range option more often. This is due to human behaviour.
Few clients will choose the lowest-priced option because it’s seen as being cheap or bottom-end. People don’t like to feel cheap.
Some people will always choose the highest-priced option simply because it’s their nature to always buy the best.
But most people will avoid the high-priced option to minimize risk and save money. For these folks, just like the children’s fairy tale, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, the middle option is often just right.
