3 ms·

The sentiment on this thread would be really different if instead of an unnamed calendar, the client was Coke running a $3MM international campaign and offering

The sentiment on this thread would be really different if instead of an unnamed calendar, the client was Coke running a $3MM international campaign and offering the author $100. Why is that?

mirkules 15y ago
The discussion is about two different things: 1. The amount of money offered for the author's work 2. Imploring others to not take "lowball" offers in order to preserve a certain pricing/business model. Regarding #1: Everyone is allowed to make any kind of offer, and the author is free to refuse them, just as he did. Photography is a business, and everyone is trying to make a deal to make a buck. If Coke offered $100, that's their prerogative, and it's up to the author to either haggle up higher, or refuse them flatly. Personally, I see no reason why the author was so offended -- the emails weren't rude, they weren't demanding, and the email person "L" was almost apologetic for having only $100 to spend. Since I don't know what company this is, we cannot make assumption on why the author thinks they will sell the calendars for $12.99 (although, there are religious undertones, and my suspicion and speculation is that they will not sell these at a huge profit as the author believes) Regarding #2, that's been covered well. If I want to sell my software at $0.99 per app and it undercuts the competition, great. We saw iOS developers complain that the $0.99 games are undercutting their profits, but it turned out to be a sustainable model. It's not my problem if I give my photos (or product) away for free and undercuts his model.
MartinCron 15y ago
Probably because humans have a sense of perspective and fairness that isn't always in sync with what a purely rational economic actor would do. Just a guess. Something similar did happen to me. An ad agency found a photo* I had taken and wanted to use it in a campaign. I usually give things away to non-profits, but this was going to be a large-scale thing for a major drug company. I asked what price the person thought was fair and we settled on a reasonable price. Maybe I was lowballed? I don't know and don't really care. It was more than $100, though. I didn't set a nonzero price just because I wanted to protect other artists ability to make money off of their work, I set a price because I thought it would be cool to have some extra money to buy some new camera gear. * The picture in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72157603762050058 http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72...

The sentiment on this thread would be really different if instead of an unnamed calendar, the client was Coke running a $3MM international campaign and offering the author $100. Why is that?

mirkules 15y ago

The discussion is about two different things: 1. The amount of money offered for the author's work 2. Imploring others to not take "lowball" offers in order to preserve a certain pricing/business model. Regarding #1: Everyone is allowed to make any kind of offer, and the author is free to refuse them, just as he did. Photography is a business, and everyone is trying to make a deal to make a buck. If Coke offered $100, that's their prerogative, and it's up to the author to either haggle up higher, or refuse them flatly. Personally, I see no reason why the author was so offended -- the emails weren't rude, they weren't demanding, and the email person "L" was almost apologetic for having only $100 to spend. Since I don't know what company this is, we cannot make assumption on why the author thinks they will sell the calendars for $12.99 (although, there are religious undertones, and my suspicion and speculation is that they will not sell these at a huge profit as the author believes) Regarding #2, that's been covered well. If I want to sell my software at $0.99 per app and it undercuts the competition, great. We saw iOS developers complain that the $0.99 games are undercutting their profits, but it turned out to be a sustainable model. It's not my problem if I give my photos (or product) away for free and undercuts his model.

MartinCron 15y ago

Probably because humans have a sense of perspective and fairness that isn't always in sync with what a purely rational economic actor would do. Just a guess. Something similar did happen to me. An ad agency found a photo* I had taken and wanted to use it in a campaign. I usually give things away to non-profits, but this was going to be a large-scale thing for a major drug company. I asked what price the person thought was fair and we settled on a reasonable price. Maybe I was lowballed? I don't know and don't really care. It was more than $100, though. I didn't set a nonzero price just because I wanted to protect other artists ability to make money off of their work, I set a price because I thought it would be cool to have some extra money to buy some new camera gear. * The picture in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72157603762050058 http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincron/2208026093/in/set-72...