man & nature # 4 ~ you get exactly what you pay for

Evening rain • click to embiggenFine Art photographers and commercial photographers have a number of things in common, not the least of which could be labeled their individual visual "style".

In the Art world, most could immediately recognize an "Adams", a "Burtynski, or a "Hobson" (the Cinemascape Hobson, not the ku Hobson). The same is true in the commercial photography world. In my commercial heyday, most everyone in the biz could immediately recognize a "Marco", a "Meisel", or an "Avedon". In either field, individual photographers have/had developed individual visual "styles" that set them apart from the crowd. By "setting themselves apart from the crowd", photo-practitioners from either persuasion are able to command high fees (aka rewards) for their work. The reason for this is simple, especially in the commercial field.

In the field of advertising, the best way to sell a product is to establish an identity for that product that sets it apart from the crowd. An identity that is immediately recognizable and, of course, favorably viewed by its potential customers. This is part and parcel of establishing a "brand" and one of the more important elements in establishing a brand is creating a consistent and attention getting visual look and style in your advertising.

One of the most memorable examples of this was from a European liqueur. They started an ad campaign with a simple photograph of a hand holding a glass of the liqueur and their logo. Each successive ad had a new picture of a hand holding a glass of their liqueur - different hand, different glass, but both in approximately the same configuration as the very first ad. Eventually, the logo was dropped and the ads featured only a photograph of a hand holding a glass of their liqueur. The logo-less ads ran very successfully for years.

Obviously, the visually consist photography in the aforementioned ad campaign played a big part in establishing an immediately recognizable visual identity for the client and their product. There is absolutely nothing rocket-science like about this. You don't have to be amongst the best and the brightest to understand this. It is advertising /branding 101.

And, most certainly, you can bet your bottom dollar on the fact that nothing about the liqueur campaign was done on the cheap. But, to certain extent, that's somewhat irrelevant to creating successful branding. What is relevant is that a photographer who could deliver a consistent and consistently identifiable visual look was hired to do so.

Now, TourPro, in his response to my scumbag entry of yesterday, states that "Everyone I know will tell you I hate to see resources wasted. Especially cash. In other words, I’m cheap ..." and ... "I’ll bet you’re tired of paying huge professional photographer fees and expenses only to get a dozen usable photos."

From this "reasoning", TourPro deduces that the only solution to "paying huge professional photographer fees" is to search out photography for free. This is specious reasoning at best, downright dumb at worst.

First and foremost, if anyone thinks that they can assemble of collection of photographs of vastly different quality and visual styles - paid for or not - and from that develop really effective visual identity, they are far out on an advertising limb.

Second, if anyone thinks that "going cheap" is the only solution to high-priced photography fees, they are obviously lacking in the professional skills of identifying, fostering and cultivating the professional resources they need to get the job done right.

There are plenty of photographers who can deliver the goods and who will provide services for fees that are well below "huge". They are willing to negotiate hard-cash fees that are palatable to all concerned in exchange for a whole host of other "rewards". Just to name a few - consistent and dependable work, working with a product they love, community service, pride and recognition, a challenge, and, just for the heck of it, let's throw in - because the account is "fun" to work on.

It seems that TourPro, in his "new business model" zest for "free", has lost sight (assuming that TourPro ever had it) of the value of developing ongoing relationships with the resources that it takes to create really effective advertising and branding. If the only resource TourPro values is "cash" and that spending that cash on photography that helps to establish a highly effective brand for his product is a "waste", then maybe he really does need to lose his job and beg on street corners, because he's dispensing really bad advice.

Or, maybe TourPro might want to buy me a beer and listen to the story of how an ad agency lost one of their most valued tourism clients not once, but twice by adopting that same "going cheap" way of doing business.

Comments

[others]

Maybe tour pro is from the school of thought where you save big on creative costs, and keep your money for what really matters - personnel and overhead. A business can't succeed when it cares more about its own crown jewels than it cares about delivering to a client what the client can't get on their own.
Clients can get amatuer photos and testimonials on their own, thats not why they hire agencies.

[mwg]

I think those lost tourism clients are worth a blog post myself.