|
|
Posted by Bob Ford on 04/17/06 02:18
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:58:24 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<NoneOfYourBusiness@All.com> wrote:
>"Krazy Kanuck" <limbery@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
>news:4437dd4f$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
>> Hi I'm offering to cover a dance show (which I had done a couple of years
>> ago) and I'm wondering what to charge that would be
>> reasonable....previously, I did the show for $150 and edited, and produced
>> burnt DVDs that I charged an additional $10 for including the cases,
>> lables, and inserts.....
>> This time, I offered to do either
>> 1. taping and editing and doing the DVDs for $200 plus $15 for each DVD
>> (they sell between 25 and 50 copies)
>> or
>> 2. $500 for taping and editing and producing one copy of a burnt DVD and
>> they can do all their own copying, and packaging themselves....
>>
>> ....I thought that the first time, I wasn't making much considering the
>> work and I think that since they were very pleased with the job I did that
>> time, I wouldn't be out of line raising my prices a bit....(I've also got
>> a better camera now, as well as two camera editing capablitities)
>> Any comments or other suggestions?
>> Len
>
>
>You are underpricing your services by a huge amount. This is not a "small"
>production. Unless, of course, you approach it as a "small" production.
>Then, of course, it will have a "small" production look to it. That may be
>exactly what the client wants. But...
>
>Figure...pre-production costs: How much time did you spend on-site doing a
>site check? Surely you did this. That's an hour, minimum. Any time spent
>planning the shots? An hour? More? Did you attend any of the rehearsals
>to rehearse your shots, and to check out the best camera angles for the
>various different things happening on stage? This should all be included in
>your costs that you pass on to the client.
>
>Figure...production costs: How long was the show? 2 hours? If, so you
>gotta figure about six hours of production cost. Most pros charge a "day
>rate." It should be based on the amount of equipment you're making
>available. One camera? Two? Three? Were there other shooters involved?
>Their hourly rates should be built into what you charge? What about
>lighting? Sound? All of this adds up; you can't just give it away. Factor
>in the setup and breakdown time. You don't just wiggle your nose and have
>all the cameras, lights and sound equipment magically show up on cue.
>
>Figure...post-production costs: With a 2-hour show, how much time will it
>take to edit the thing into usable form? Surely you're not just dubbing the
>raw, unedited footage shot from 1, 2 or 3 cameras to tape (or hard drive)
>and expecting anyone to want to watch it in its unedited state, so you're
>likely going to edit it in some way. If you shot with just one camera, on a
>2-hour show, that's at least 2-hours of logging and/or digitizing the
>footage (bringing it into your computer). Multiply that time spent
>digitizing by the number of cameras you shot with. 2 hours of footage
>recorded on each of 3 cameras will take a minumum of six hours to log and/or
>digitize. How long to edit? The rule of thumb (not an exact science, mind
>you) is to figure about an hour of editing time per finished minute of video
>if you're doing your job properly. Any schmuck can leave shots on the
>screen for 30-seconds or a minute at a time, but if you're actually editing
>this into a form that adheres to modern acceptable editing techniques,
>there'll be plenty of edits (fast cuts, never leaving any shot on screen for
>more than a few seconds). Are you creating any graphics for use in the
>final production? Animating any of those graphics? That stuff takes time.
>If the show ends up being 60 minutes in finished, edited form, you may have
>spent somewhere in the area of 50-60 hours (give or take) on EDITING
>ALONE!!! Maybe more. And finally, there is the step that includes
>exporting the final edited sequence and authoring a nice looking DVD,
>something that could easily take half a day (or more) once you factor in the
>building of graphics for motion menus, etc.
>
>You see where I'm going with this?
>
>This project could easily take a total of 70 or 80 "man hours." Or more.
>And you're going to charge $500 for that? Let's assume it takes 75 hours.
>You charge $500 for the project. Congratulations, you've just paid yourself
>a whopping $6.67 per hour, barely more than the federal minimum wage. Do
>you really believe that the skills you bring to a project like this are no
>more valuable than that of the guy in the funny paper hat who asks you, "You
>want seasoned or curly fries with that?" for a living? Gimme a break.
>
>Look, I hate to come off sounding condescending. I really do. I want you
>to be successful. I want us ALL to be successful. But with all the video
>producer wannabes (anybody with a camera an video editing software who
>thinks they're now equipped to do video production for a living)
>short-changing themselves like you're proposing to do, it drives down the
>cost of this stuff, and in the process, it hurts everyone in the video
>business.
>
>Stop and think about what it is you're doing. If every Tom, Dick and Harry
>with a camcorder knew how to do this on their own, they would. But
>customers hire people like us to do this stuff because WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE
>DOING. There's VALUE in that!!! NEVER FORGET THAT!!! Customers EXPECT to
>pay for our expertise. Otherwise, they'd turn to their good ol' Uncle
>Charlie to do it for them.
>
>The job you described is a $5,000 job, minimum. I probably wouldn't
>consider doing it for less than $7,000. And if they wanted 3 cameras (which
>I would strongly urge them to do), it's probably a $10,000 job.
>
>Can they get it done for less than that? Obviously, yes.
>
>Make mine curly fries.
Do you want an apple pie wit dat?
Congratulations for speaking up Randy!
I love these people who want to work for these el cheapo prices and in
the process destroy a business that is already hard to make money at
:-(
>
>Randy
Bob Ford
Images In Motion
www.imagesinmotion.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|