Re: [Leica] What should I charge?

["John McLeod" <johnmcleod@worldnet.att.net>]

What I really want to know Larry is would you have paid this photographer
$50,000 if he had been using Leica equipment -- like, for example, an M6
with the new Leica flash?  ;-)

John McLeod
- ----------
>From: Larry Kopitnik <kopitnil@marketingcomm.com>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] What should I charge?
>Date: Wed, Dec 16, 1998, 3:09 PM
>

>>>>>>>>>>>
>So, the costs are costs, but the market is the market and is the
>stronger of the two forces, unless you are an extraordinary talent with
>a unique and highly marketable style.  Also, if you can work nationally
>for larger companies, the fees go up--and so do the expectations and
>responsibilities.  Top level advertising shooters (the highest paid of
>photographers) can regularily command $5,000 to $10,000 a day and a few
>(Herb Ritts) get $20,000.  Plus expenses!  But up in these atmospheres
>the players have tremendous business momentum, lofty talents (directing,
>managing, negotiating, as well as photographic.)
><<<<<<<<<<
>
>I work at an ad agency. Less than a month ago we directed a photo shoot at
>a construction site for a series of magazine ads to run nationally. We
>hired a nationally recognized photographer. It was a 3-day location shoot.
>I don't know how many assistants the photographer brought (a couple is my
>guess). The shoot was on 35 mm and in black-and-white. We paid the
>photographer, including expenses, over $40,000.00.
>
>Why did we pay that? Because the photos in his book displayed the vision
>our creative director sought for the ads. Because that is the rate the
>photographer could demand for his time and talents to meet our needs. And
>because getting the ideal talents to express the image and message the ads
>are designed to convey were worth that to us and to our client.
>
>Larry
>
>