Ventura photography, Woodseats - does anyone know the prices?

[boyfriday 21]

But they are only doing that to give apparent 'added value' to a poor quality product. You do not tend to give away things that actually have value. And it doesn't change how copyright works and I was explaining that why Venture retaining their copyright was not an evil thing, even if others are daft enough to give their work away.

You're reading more into my posts than they warrant. I'm not reflecting at all on the rights or wrongs of Venture retaining copyright to their product. I work in a business myself where I retain ownership of intellectual property that my clients 'pay for'. Nor was I recommending the business that offered copyright free photographs, I was simply responding to your comment that photographers retain copyright of the pictures they produce, that is not the case in all circumstances and its for the customer to decide whether it's a sufficiently big enough issue for them. Edited July 5, 2010 by boyfriday

[boyfriday 21]

People complaining about Venture's high prices should start a thread about what a rip off Porsche cars are or that houses in Dore are extortionate, as you can get a much cheaper house in Manor Top and both have roofs and front doors, so they must be the same.

It's not quite the same, because there are professional photographers who can provide photographs of original and exceptional quality at a lower price.

 

Venture is a marketing franchise, that's all. The initial franchise fee is £20,000, and then there's a monthly marketing and franchise fee which is a % of turnover, they estimate a new franchise would cost £150k to set up, clearly those costs have to be passed onto customers.

 

You don't have to be a qualified or trained photographer to buy one, although you have to study for their own in house 'diploma', so we're not necessarily talking about the most experienced or well trained people here.

 

They've been extremely clever in developing their brand and corporate identity.

 

I've said previously that I found their photographs of high quality, I'm not disputing that, but from my own experience, the costs of them is high compared to a similar product that could be obtained from a creative, professional photographer-that was my point.

Before anyone starts, I don't drive a Porsche, nor do I have any interest in one and do not live in a Dore mansion either. I would however spend a small fortune on a bike - compared to the average person, as I like and value bikes.

But would you buy your bike from the most expensive outlet you could find or shop around and obtain the best combination of price, service and product-based on sight of the photographers portfolio?

 

As for the £2000 cost for some photos or say a new bike, to give an alternative perspective, that's about how much a packet of fags a day costs for a year. And the photos and bike will last a lot longer than one year.

Why not £5000? Or £10000? If you regard their product as art, then fine, but they're not celebrated photographers-even I might pay £2000 for Terry O'Neill to do some family snaps! Venture stick their necks out to obtain the most they can from the pictures they produce, rather than it being a reflection on their time or costs in producing them.

 

Could I ask you a question jezzyjj? I see your a photographer yourself? Are you an independent photographer that does the pictures for a Venture franchisee?

Edited July 5, 2010 by boyfriday

[Babooshka 10]

Venture are extortionate. I have a photo from them (it was a present from someone). It is one of the biggers ones, but it cost £800. If you need some good professional photos taking, I have a friend who is a fantastic photographer. You would pay a fraction of that to have some amazing photos!

[duckweed 10]

If you can get someone to take loads of pictures on a digital camera, you are sure to get a couple of good shots. There is a company on Ebay that will turn it into a large High Quality print. Lord Litchfield used to say that the secret was taking a lot of shots.

[jezzyjj 10]

You're reading more into my posts than they warrant. I'm not reflecting at all on the rights or wrongs of Venture retaining copyright to their product. I work in a business myself where I retain ownership of intellectual property that my clients 'pay for'. Nor was I recommending the business that offered copyright free photographs, I was simply responding to your comment that photographers retain copyright of the pictures they produce, that is not the case in all circumstances and its for the customer to decide whether it's a sufficiently big enough issue for them.

Or you may have read more into my posts than they warrant!

I was just explaining how basic copyright works and then why some people give it away.

[boyfriday 21]

If you can get someone to take loads of pictures on a digital camera, you are sure to get a couple of good shots.

 

It's not just about the number of pics duckweed, it's also about creating the right environment with props, make up, styling etc. It would also be difficult to obtain the close up results that marks out many pictures of this nature where they use variable focal length lenses and a relatively narrow depth of field.

[boyfriday 21]

Or you may have read more into my posts than they warrant!

Touche!

[jezzyjj 10]

It's not quite the same, because there are professional photographers who can provide photographs of original and exceptional quality at a lower price.

Yet all the alternatives offered or mentioned in this thread are anything like that. Anyone can sell for less and undercut other businesses. But can they maintain that long term. Or match their business? I know people who have tried and failed.

 

Venture is a marketing franchise, that's all. The initial franchise fee is £20,000, and then there's a monthly marketing and franchise fee which is a % of turnover, they estimate a new franchise would cost £150k to set up, clearly those costs have to be passed onto customers.

And this is why people are being naive when criticizing their costs.

 

You don't have to be a qualified or trained photographer to buy one, although you have to study for their own in house 'diploma', so we're not necessarily talking about the most experienced or well trained people here.

Running a franchise well is different job from being a photographer. You can always employ good photographers, but the best franchises will be those run by someone who is a great photographer and a business person too.

 

They've been extremely clever in developing their brand and corporate identity.

Very. They've completely changed boring and staid high street photography into something far more interesting. But I wonder where they go from here as they've changed the old fashioned ways of doing things. The new always becomes the old, so as everyone is aping them, this modern look will have to change for a new modern look.

 

I've said previously that I found their photographs of high quality, I'm not disputing that, but from my own experience, the costs of them is high compared to a similar product that could be obtained from a creative, professional photographer-that was my point.

But would you buy your bike from the most expensive outlet you could find or shop around and obtain the best combination of price, service and product-based on sight of the photographers portfolio?

I've bought plenty of goods from shops that are not the cheapest, as I value the extra service that you get from places that do not cut margins to the bone. I also prefer to buy locally rather than mail order, because when something goes wrong [which happens all too often in our customer paying to beta test products world], it's so much easier to pop into the shop and get things sorted than to post stuff off and deal with the hassle that goes with it.

 

Why not £5000? Or £10000?

You mentioned £2000, that's why I used the figure. Also happens to be the cost of a year's smoking , which many people will happily cough up for.

 

If you regard their product as art, then fine, but they're not celebrated photographers-even I might pay £2000 for Terry O'Neill to do some family snaps! Venture stick their necks out to obtain the most they can from the pictures they produce, rather than it being a reflection on their time or costs in producing them.

Like most businesses do and the time and costs will of course pay a big part in their costings. Venture have more overheads than most of their rivals, if for no other reason than they are a franchise and the extra costs that incurs.

Also some of their displays/framing/mounts etc do cost a lot to purchase even at trade.

 

Could I ask you a question jezzyjj? I see your a photographer yourself? Are you an independent photographer that does the pictures for a Venture franchisee?

Not at all. I'm just offering an informed perspective on how a business such as Venture works. People are on the whole extremely ignorant of how much it costs to do photography or most businesses for that matter. I'm constantly being asked to to work for nothing or for fees that if you tried the same thing with a plumber or electrician, you'd be told exactly where to get off. People also equate digital with free, despite the fact that for photography digital usually costs a lot more than film. A lot more. Though for some very high volume businesses like catalogue or event photography with a very high throughput of images, digital will work out cheaper. Bear in mind you could charge for film and processing and now people expect the same costs and extra time to be borne by the photographer now.

[boyfriday 21]

Or you may have read more into my posts than they warrant!

 

In which case you're preaching to the converted, I'm not disagreeing with any of the points you make/made My only observation is that I know I could obtain photographs of similar/better quality at a lower price than Venture charge. Having read their website their forcasted profit margins (around 15%) are quite fine, it's a worrying reflection on what their overheads must be, so I don't dispute their need to generate as much income as they can.

 

Yet all the alternatives offered or mentioned in this thread are anything like that. Anyone can sell for less and undercut other businesses. But can they maintain that long term. Or match their business? I know people who have tried and failed.

 

And this is why people are being naive when criticizing their costs.

 

Running a franchise well is different job from being a photographer. You can always employ good photographers, but the best franchises will be those run by someone who is a great photographer and a business person too.

 

Very. They've completely changed boring and staid high street photography into something far more interesting. But I wonder where they go from here as they've changed the old fashioned ways of doing things. The new always becomes the old, so as everyone is aping them, this modern look will have to change for a new modern look.

 

I've bought plenty of goods from shops that are not the cheapest, as I value the extra service that you get from places that do not cut margins to the bone. I also prefer to buy locally rather than mail order, because when something goes wrong [which happens all too often in our customer paying to beta test products world], it's so much easier to pop into the shop and get things sorted than to post stuff off and deal with the hassle that goes with it.

 

You mentioned £2000, that's why I used the figure. Also happens to be the cost of a year's smoking , which many people will happily cough up for.

 

Like most businesses do and the time and costs will of course pay a big part in their costings. Venture have more overheads than most of their rivals, if for no other reason than they are a franchise and the extra costs that incurs.

Also some of their displays/framing/mounts etc do cost a lot to purchase even at trade.

 

Not at all. I'm just offering an informed perspective on how a business such as Venture works. People are on the whole extremely ignorant of how much it costs to do photography or most businesses for that matter. I'm constantly being asked to to work for nothing or for fees that if you tried the same thing with a plumber or electrician, you'd be told exactly where to get off. People also equate digital with free, despite the fact that for photography digital usually costs a lot more than film. A lot more. Though for some very high volume businesses like catalogue or event photography with a very high throughput of images, digital will work out cheaper. Bear in mind you could charge for film and processing and now people expect the same costs and extra time to be borne by the photographer now.

[jezzyjj 10]

If you can get someone to take loads of pictures on a digital camera, you are sure to get a couple of good shots.

Such complete nonsense. All you will get is lots more bad photos, if you haven't got good lighting or do not have correct camera settings, taking more photos makes no difference. Though through chance alone, if enough people take a silly amount of photos in lots of conditions, you may get the odd half decent shot.

There are more photographers around than ever before, since the advent of digital photography. Good photographs however are still a rarity.

You only have to look at Facebook where people post huge numbers of images of something they did/attended and although they are great as snapshots, a good photograph amongst them is very, very unusual.

 

There is a company on Ebay that will turn it into a large High Quality print.

The phrases 'garbage in, garbage out' and 'you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear' spring to mind.

And what some people claim is 'high quality' may be anything but.

 

Lord Litchfield used to say that the secret was taking a lot of shots

.Sounds very unlikely he said that in the context you are using, if at all. A skilled photographer taking a lot of shots is also very, very different from someone who hasn't a clue taking photos. It like saying you hit enough rocks with a hammer and one day you'll produce 'The Kiss'

[jezzyjj 10]

In which case you're preaching to the converted, I'm not disagreeing with any of the points you make/made My only observation is that I know I could obtain photographs of similar/better quality at a lower price than Venture charge.

There certainly will be someone who can do as good a job and cheaper, but all the Venture imitators I've seen are a bit rubbish. Particularly the ones recommended as alternatives in this thread

 

Having read their website their forcasted profit margins (around 15%) are quite fine, it's a worrying reflection on what their overheads must be, so I don't dispute their need to generate as much income as they can.

If their profit is only 15% then they are hardly a ripoff and that seems a bit low considering the amount of investment and risk involved.

BTW as a point of reference the lowest markup one should charge for takeaway or restaurant food is 200% and 400% respectively. That's not profit, but a guide to how much extra to charge to start being able to make a profit.

People for some strange seem to think making profit is evil, yet are quite happy to be paid a wage. Profit when one is self employed is just that, a wage and it usually takes more a lot work to get than doing a salaried job.

[boyfriday 21]

There certainly will be others who do as good a job and cheaper, but all the Venture imitators I've seen are a bit rubbish.

I think we're comparing apples with pears jezzy, I wouldn't go near a franchised type portrait business in a thousand years. We had some family shots done a few years ago, the photographer did mainly advertising work but opened his studio at weekends for family/wedding that kind of stuff. We paid about £400 (about 12 years ago), and got a couple of hours of studio time+a selection of unframed prints which were excellent, they even made me look half decent!

If their profit is only 15% then they are hardly a ripoff and that seems a bit low considering the amount of investment and risk involved.

I was surprised myself especially as they're likely to be talking up the profit potential on their website. But nonetheless, their overhead costs are their problem, not mine. If it wasn't so expensive to set up a franchise then obviously those margins would be higher. The help they offer their franchisees wouldn't be required by an experienced, qualified photographer who would own and manage their own business and not have to hire external photographers.

 

People for some strange seem to think making profit is evil, yet are quite happy to be paid a wage. Profit when one is self employed is just that, a wage and it usually takes more a lot work to get than doing a salaried job.

I'm a business owner and very aware of the harsh realities of that life, especially right now, I'm sure a 'luxury product' type business like Venture must really be feeling the pinch during this recession.