She recently had her marketing company shoot a new clubhouse that they had just finished. They used the photographer they have used before, in order to keep things consistent in advertising. That makes sense.
The problem came about when she described the photographer's process. The story got worse the longer it went on.
Apparently, this guy won't move cords, replace bulbs, and move furniture to get the shot he needs. It is up to the employees to do all of this before he gets there, or while he's there. Hey, if that's the way he wants to do it, so be it. He was scheduled to come out last Friday to shoot, so the complex had someone from the staff there to help him. He canceled because he said he was "overbooked". He rescheduled for Saturday, and so did gal who worked at the complex. You guessed it. He called Saturday, canceled, and rescheduled for Sunday. On Sunday, he called and wanted to reschedule again. The gal told him if he didn't come then, don't bother. Last Sunday was Mother's Day, and she is a mother of two. That makes three days of inconvenience for that lady, and the complex in general. This is ridiculous. Its people like that who give commercial photographers a bad name.
It got me thinking about another photographer's website I once saw. She had a list of things that the clients need to do in order to make the shoot go smooth. Some of the things were good ideas (cleaning, fresh flowers, etc.). Some of them were ridiculous (moving cords, changing light bulbs to lower wattage, etc.).
The main thing going through my mind during these two instances was, "What are they paying the photographer to do?".
Obviously, expertise it the main reason for hiring a professional photographer. Both of the shooters in question are what I'd call competent. I've seen worse. But where does their professionalism go when they're on a shoot?
It is our job to do everything in our power to make the shoot a success. Moving cords, changing out light bulbs, and moving furniture, are all things that should be part of the job. We carry a case with about 45 different wattage light bulbs. We tape up cords in order for them not to be part of the shot. We move furniture constantly to make the shot. I don't understand why some others don't. Granted, the shooters in question are both lower cost shooters, but come on.
Remember, cheaper isn't better. Photography needs to be looked at as an investment in your company. Value must overrule cost. Spending $400 +/- (which is what the shooter in the first scenario charges) for a day of photography may look cheap, but what is the value? Spending about 3 times as much (close to my rate for apartments) may look expensive, but what is that value?
People these days look on the web for apartments or homes before they go physically to the property. What is going to drive them? The photography! Bad images will chase away perspective residents. By saving the $800 on this property, the client had to inconvenience the employee for three days, and will end up with competent photography (maybe).
Also, will those images drive people to come look at your property? If saving the $800 on the photography costs you even one resident, how does the value of that savings sound now?
My friend is going to contact the account manager of their marketing company to let her know what went on, and her dissatisfaction of the entire process.
I wonder if I'm going to pick up a client out of this? Hopefully.
Take a look at the photos in this post. Mine are the second set. Which do you think will draw the most visitors to the properties?
~V~
