From my own anecdotal viewpoint, it seems that smaller companies often have bigger budgets for corporate photography than do larger companies. For examples:
• Last month, the world’s second largest car manufacturer asked about covering its Toronto press conference. It was apparently budgeting $250 for two hours of shooting, a couple hours of editing, and a disc of images to be used internally and for media handouts.
By comparison, a small publisher in Toronto, with a handful of employees, budgeted $650 to cover its 30-minute press conference with one picture for media handout and a handful of other photos for internal use.
• An international business conference in Toronto, hosted by one of the world’s largest mining companies, budgeted about $1,000 for two 12-hour days of photography, two days of editing and ownership of all copyrights.
A multi-national pharmaceutical company budgeted $500 for two half-days of photography at a Toronto trade show including pictures of its display areas, its representatives interacting with customers and coverage of its CEO’s keynote speech. The company expected several dozen pictures to be delivered.
By contrast, a small, business travel company, with a dozen employees, budgeted $750 for coverage of its president speaking at a Toronto travel conference. It wanted three or four pictures for press releases and its web site.
• A large Toronto hospital budgeted under $500 for a series of pictures of its newly built extension and other renovated buildings.
By contrast, a nine-person design company budgeted $1000 for a single picture of its small, three-storey office location.
I can only guess why smaller companies seem to have larger budgets:
• Smaller companies are more aware of the true cost of doing business and they budget accordingly. But employees at large companies are so far removed from the business itself, they have no idea what things cost.
• Larger companies can afford the employee time to contact photographer after photographer after photographer until they find one who will work cheap enough.
• Larger companies use photography so frequently, it no longer seems important and they take it for granted. But a smaller company, which hires a photographer only occasionally, needs it to be a big deal so they budget higher.
• Smaller companies have a stronger entrepreneurial spirit and will spend when necessary. Larger companies fear risk and will be extremely conservative with their money.
But having said all that, when dealing with an intermediary such as an advertising agency, public relations company, a communications agency, etc., it’s the other way around. Larger agencies seem to have bigger budgets than smaller ones. Go figure.
