I've yet to deliver a wedding in Blu-Ray quite frankly because hardly anyone has asked. But with players flying off the shelf this holiday due to the price drop, I'm thinking there will be more of demand this year. For those of you who are delivering BR, what are you all charging in terms of a premium. From a cost standpoint I know I can expect to incur higher media costs, more render time, cost of a burner, software. Any other hidden costs or time consuming tasks I need to consider?

Make sure you have a computer powerful enough to edit multiple hd/v timelines, and any other editing techniques like colour correction, mb looks etc.

As for costs, I have looked around and seen such a fluctuation, that I have no idea how it will turn out once/if it becomes the norm. Prices here have ranged from £1000 extra for the privelage, to companies throwing it in with their standard packages at no, or little extra cost!

I guess time will tell, but one thing for sure, it will add to your time and workflow....

Cheers.

I'm not sure if Netflix users are representative of the market as a whole - but they stock 100,000 titles in DVD, 1,000 in blu-ray. Many times more people are using instant download than blu-ray. Netflix CEO sees their business migrating away from physical discs, with the phase-out of discs predicted to gather significant momentum in 3-4 years.

True that ! time to upgrade to i7 with 2 TB memory and a 1GB video card...i think we are gonna start charging for BluRay requests... right now we shoot in HD and downconvert to 720x480 for editing...others in my area charge an extra $200-$300 for an HD package...

Kren
____________________________
Vertical Video Works | Official Site (http://www.verticalvideoworks.com)

Heres the article on Blu-Ray player sales in the US that caught my attention

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/technology/14bluray.html

Our policy depends if people want Blu-ray and DVD or just Blu-ray.

We shoot, edit and archive in HDV, so if they want one then there's no extra because there's no extra work. If they want both then we charge £100 extra because we have to re-author the HD output for Blu-ray because we edit in Avid and author DVDs in DVD-Studio. I understand that people who edit with Premiere simply change the output/burn characteristics of the different disks.

In my view there's little or no justification for any additional charge - it's another way the men/women can stay ahead of the boys/girls.

"I understand that people who edit with Premiere simply change the output/burn characteristics of the different disks."

If they do that, they take a mediocre SD video as output. Premiere does a bad job in downconverting. There are more reliable solutions like Mainconcept (the Premiere plugin or the stand-alone Reference) that give much better results. Off-topic all the above, but since it was mentioned, I thought I should make a comment.

I was obviously misled by a Premiere enthusiast.

Philip, truth is that CS4 does a much better job, if you select "maximum render quality" (it takes ages to render though). But it doesn't do the best job yet, at least when compared to exporting from an advanved encoder like Mainconcept. Premiere is my prefered NLE but although I love the interface, it has some problems to solve.

I wouldn't say misled. I downconvert direct from the timeline in Premiere and get near-HD quality DVDs, even on a 65" screen. I can tell the difference but no one else can.

Then, after the required DVDs are burned, I just go back to the timeline and tell it to burn Blu-Rays and it comes out perfectly. And then I really CAN tell the difference. They come out brilliant on a 42" Plasma as well as my 65" RP.

For me, the simplest way results in the best quality and best reliability. Every other workflow I've tried has been unnecessarily complicated and created great system instability as well as questionable quality gains.

But, as they say, your mileage may vary.

So far the only client that wanted HD footage wanted it on a hard drive (which they dropped off).

Been watching this issue as well. Hopefully BD burners willdrop as well. I really wish I could find a standalone Blueray player/burner that was web able, with memory card slots and could be hooked up to a computer via USB so I could burn BD's from the computer.

That would take care of most of my blueray needs in one box.

You know, it's funny, we sometimes get hired specifically because we have HD camera's, only to have the client ask for the finished product on DVD. So odd.

I've had the ability to deliver Blu-ray since April 2008, but just delivered my first Blu-ray project a couple weeks ago.

I shoot and edit in HD anyway, so delivering on Blu-ray only incurs the additional cost of the media and authoring time - so it's a nominal "upgrade" for the client.

You know, it's funny, we sometimes get hired specifically because we have HD camera's, only to have the client ask for the finished product on DVD. So odd.

Same here. I've had corporate clients specify in the RFP that all footage must be shot in HD - yet delivered on DVD. I used to explain that DVDs are SD only, but I've since given up and just do what they ask.

I think we will see an increase in Blu-Ray requests next year.

This year, I had 5 or 6 people ask for Blu-Ray, and 2 who asked for a HD digital copy that I just transferred to their Hard Drive.

I think alot of it has to do with your market, geography etc...

We had nearly zero interest in Blu-Ray in 2009, but I have a feeling 2010 will change that a bit. Pricing on players has dropped a lot so I expect more and more people to jump into the new technology. We currently price a BR upgrade at $500. I think that studios that just include it and don't alter their pricing at all are hurting themselves. People 'should' pay more for a better product that requires more time and expertise to create. Just my opinion. d;-)

Interesting. I've got almost exactly the opposite philosophy. I think it's nearly impossible to get people to pay extra for something they don't understand -- and no matter how you explain it to them, they don't understand it until they see it. And even then many are convinced regular DVD is "good enough."

I see a parallel here to the cable companies' effort to get people to adopt Digital Set-top boxes a few years back. No matter how much they extolled the virtues of the digital boxes, no one was interested. Finally the cablecos just gave up and started shipping only digital boxes no matter what you ordered in an effort to simply increase penetration. Now, of course, you have to have one or you can't get cable -- the ultimate blackmail.

As it requires virtually no extra effort or cost on my part, now that BD blanks are so cheap, I'm going to make 2010 the year I simply send all projects out in a double DVD case, with both DVD and BD versions. I do all my chaptering right in Premiere anyway, so it's just another "Export to Encore" while I have dinner.

Others may have different needs, of course.

Any other hidden costs or time consuming tasks I need to consider?

My first concideration just like it was with my first DVD, is 100% compatability.
I will be making "burned" disks THEY will be watching "Glass Mastered" movies from massive quantity duplications. They (as usual) will not have the $200 blu-ray, they will have the $100 black friday special. Different calibrations and problems and cheap lazer lensing, and poor diode cooling and all that STUFF that can happen on thier side, will effect the Differences between My "Dye change" and the movies "Real Holes".

I will want 100% of my Blue-rays to play on 99% of the players without error, and just like DVD that will be my higher costs, time consuming tasks and issues.
Send out 100-500 Bwu-rays that fail on 10% of the players and I will end up with calls i dont need, and mabey even something i cant easily fix.

Great Thread, Blu-Ray has slipped down to affordability, opening up the market for blu-ray distribution wide, and it'll make a good present for those who had everything But one.
If they forked over bucks for a big LCD with "HD" capability, the only thing keeping them from a blu-ray was the 6times price over a normal dvd player. I really think more people will move on it now.

Adam says, 'And even then many are convinced regular DVD is "good enough."
And so it is if ubiquity is important to you, your clients, their friends and relations. They may all have 1080 TVs and lots may also have Blu-ray players and if so, you can sleep easy in the thought that modern upscaling players are doing an amazing job for those with the kit. The client can then take the disc round to their aunt and know it will play letterboxed into her ancient CRT and play in her son's laptop.

My first concideration just like it was with my first DVD, is 100% compatability.
I will be making "burned" disks THEY will be watching "Glass Mastered" movies from massive quantity duplications. They (as usual) will not have the $200 blu-ray, they will have the $100 black friday special.

This is a concern I have as well. I might consider purchasing one of those $79 Wallmart specials so I can test on both a high and low end player before shipping out my product.

I remember when the $50 apex DVD player (circa 2001) could play burnt DVD's that high end sony's etc could not.

BR players are still quite expensive here so I don't expect many people running to stores to get one in 2010. Lcd, plasma and now led tv's are becoming a must have in every livingroom. Think that about 60% of my wedding clients had a new lcd tv in 2009 and none did owe a br player.
The tv and cable companies do push hd recorders that can show hd content and we can hire hd movies that can be streamed right from their servers, price is still 50% more expensive to order a HD or a SD movie. We have a few standard HD channels but for most you have to pay extra.
As been mentioned here a dvdplayer with upscale technologie can make a visual difference if looked at from a distance, even up to the point were it's hard to tell if you are looking at HD or SD footage, I only use Tmpgenc to transcode HD footage to SD dvd and it looks great on an upscale dvd player and lcd screen. We as videographer will see the difference but most clients won't.
Therefore since this year I have been delivering the HD footage as well as seperate mpeg2 1080p files to my clients at no extra charge so they can use then as back up and as a source to transfer to BR when they are ready for it.
In the meantime they can look at their wedding in HD on their laptop, which most have now, and they are happy with it. And happy clients give good comments to others about you:)

Also one thing I would fear when going to BR is compatibilty, I also noticed more problems on high end dvd players compared to the very cheap ones, I have a real cheap player here with a name I never heared of and it plays everything I trow at it. if that would be an issue on BR players it would be a very expensive problem if you have to re-burn a BR disk to get it to play right.

Tom, your point is very well-taken. I don't see a time (at least not soon, if ever) when we'd send out only BD and not DVD as well. Even in our household, and I'm a BD whore, not every TV set is HDTV or has a BD player attached, so a dual-disc package would make sense for us. As much as I'd love to have the BD version of every movie I buy (which really actually isn't that many) I always have to think, okay, who'll be watching this and on what player/TV?

People 'should' pay more for a better product that requires more time and expertise to create.But that product does not require more time and expertise. The blank disks cost more and that's about it. I upgraded to HD equipment because it was a natural evolution (i.e. when I needed a new camera, I bought HD and when I needed a new computer I bought one with a blu-ray burner.) Unless the client wants SD for compatibility reasons, I always shoot and edit in HD.

"Quality" isn't an upgrade for me. I believe a good business person should always deliver the best quality they can.

Chris, we can agree to disagree if you'd like, but I personally think it's naive business practice to upgrade your equipment, techniques, knowledge, software, etc. and not factor those costs into a creating additional profit. As you get better at what you do you SHOULD make more money. This is how it generally works in other businesses, so I don't understand why videographers tend to sell themselves short and just give new technology and better quality away for free. Actually, I do understand. Many videographers run their business like you would run a hobby, probably because many of them started off doing it as a hobby.

I also disagree with the idea that a 'good' business person will always just deliver the best quality they can. Wal-Mart could sell products that were much higher quality, but they have chosen to serve a target market that prefers lower prices and will accept lower quality to get those lower prices. Wal-Mart isn't a bad business for doing this. If anything they're a good business because they're supplying products priced where some people want them.

We always strive to deliver the best product we can, but that doesn't mean we're going to do it for free. It's admirable to just deliver the best quality for the good of your client and not make more money doing so, but it doesn't make good business sense in my opinion. Charge what you're worth.

The Wal-Mart analogy doesn't work because they are selling different products, so I'll ignore that.

You and I have different viewpoints because you view SD as the baseline, and HD is an upgrade. I consider HD as the baseline - if the client wants delivery on DVD that's fine, but I'm still shooting and editing in HD. So if it helps you understand my business model better - everybody pays for HD.

I don't know how you got the idea that I don't factor my equipment and technology upgrades into my price.

Sorry, my intention for the Wal-Mart analogy was based on the fact that they have chosen to not provide the best quality and instead try to provide the best price. In the wedding video industry there are companies that want to offer the best product and those that want to offer the best price. Your comment that a "good business person should always deliver the best quality" is why I brought up the Wal-Mart example. I was showing that being a "good business person" doesn't hinge on them providing the best quality. I hope that makes better sense now.

I would disagree that HD is the proper baseline for delivery. The percentage of people out there with BluRay players is still very small. The percentage of people out there with standard DVD players is huge. Like it or not, they ARE the baseline still. Now if you want to consider HD as the baseline for YOUR studio, then I have no argument with that. More power to you. d;-)

I don't know anything about your pricing and your method for determining it other than what you've posted here. I apologize if I've gotten the wrong idea, but it very much sounds to me like you upgraded your studio to HD and just substituted it in for SD because that is your new baseline. You made no mention of raising your prices to compensate for the upgrade investment, and in fact, you seemed against the idea of charging more because newer technology was involved. You stated that upgrading to HD was a "natural evolution" for you and that "quality isn't an upgrade" for you. So that's where I'm getting this. If I'm wrong, and you did raise your package prices when you upgraded to HD, then by all means let me know. I would applaud you. d;-)

I just see so many examples of studios that run their business like a hobby. They buy new toys, upgrade software, etc. and never take those costs into consideration. It hurts those businesses .. and in the long run, it also hurts our industry because you have all of these studios with sub-par pricing because they're running an expensive hobby and not a business.

JUST JOKING about the wall-mart analogy, anyone ever send thier camera masters to china to have them edited for way less money per hour, then have them make the dvds and blu-rays that dont work and break in 30 days .
Now there is a business model that would pull a tidy profit :-)

I just see so many examples of studios that run their business like a hobby. They buy new toys, upgrade software, etc. and never take those costs into consideration. It hurts those businesses .. and in the long run, it also hurts our industry because you have all of these studios with sub-par pricing because they're running an expensive hobby and not a business.

Travis, I have to disagree with you on this, I do run my studio as an expensive hobby, but I will never under-price my work just because it is a hobby, it is the other way around, most studios in my area that makes a living of videography charges a lot less then I do because they have to feed their family and even some of them don't have the money to upgrade to HD. where on the other hand I don't take the job if the price is not right I can afford to be picky and I always ran my business that way.

Travis, I've never understood the economic logic in waiting to upgrade, with the single, occasional situation when first is worst.

Otherwise, the early adopters get best prices for their "old" equipment and a head start in the new marketplace.

Although we all know the quality isn't the same, most consumers are buying cameras which claim to be "full HD". In my view it's simply Luddite to argue that because adequate DVDs can be shot with SD, there's no sense in upgrading.

Michael, I do agree with not buying the latest upgrade or software package or gizmo which is why I still edit with Liquid but anyone who runs their business as a hobby must have a very benign bank manager.

Travis, I have to disagree with you on this, I do run my studio as an expensive hobby, but I will never under-price my work just because it is a hobby, it is the other way around, most studios in my area that makes a living of videography charges a lot less then I do because they have to feed their family and even some of them don't have the money to upgrade to HD. where on the other hand I don't take the job if the price is not right I can afford to be picky and I always ran my business that way.

I'd say you were the exception then. Most of the time when someone is running their business like it's a hobby, they aren't factoring all of their time and costs and charging appropriately. Be proud that you're an exception. d;-)

As for the other studios not charging enough because they need to feed their families .. I guess I don't get that. If I need to feed my family, it's even more important to charge what I'm worth .. at least that's my thinking.

Well, I have a wedding due out to BR and now I have to find a solution and a cheep one for Mac. The prices here in Australia are over the top, both for players and burners. We wont see a drop here in price for some time. From now on it's SD all the way but shot in HD.

Merry Xmas

Travis, I've never understood the economic logic in waiting to upgrade, with the single, occasional situation when first is worst.

Otherwise, the early adopters get best prices for their "old" equipment and a head start in the new marketplace.

Although we all know the quality isn't the same, most consumers are buying cameras which claim to be "full HD". In my view it's simply Luddite to argue that because adequate DVDs can be shot with SD, there's no sense in upgrading.

Michael, I do agree with not buying the latest upgrade or software package or gizmo which is why I still edit with Liquid but anyone who runs their business as a hobby must have a very benign bank manager.

Well, there are a number of reasons why upgrading right away can be a disadvantage:

First, there can be unknown issues with the equipment that make it problematic .. or issues with workflows that are involved. The people that jumped on HDV right away had all sorts of headaches working with the footage in their NLE's. Same for those that jumped on BluRay authoring right away.

Second, when you buy a piece of equipment it's like buying a car. The second you open the box it loses value, and there is a certain timing for getting the most value out of that piece of equipment before you sell it. If you're constantly buying the next best thing that comes out, you're likely losing out on some of that 'use value'.

Third, upgrading to the next best thing won't always mean an increase in profit for your business. This is a big issue for videographers and photographers alike. The emotional allure of getting that new piece of equipment often overpowers the logical common sense that it's not going to actually benefit the studio in terms of dollars earned. It's possible that your clients won't purchase the end product (such as when BluRay first hit the market .. and even now to some extent). It's also possible that your new piece of equipment won't change your product in a way that your clients will notice. So it becomes a piece of equipment that makes a difference in the way YOU see your product.

I'm not against upgrading, or even upgrading right when new technology breaks. I just think it's important to examine your purchases from a business standpoint, and recognize that sometimes it makes more business sense to use what you have.

-CASE IN POINT-
I know of a videographer that has gone through 4 complete upgrades on cameras in less than a year; first upgraded to a new HDV setup from an older HDV setup, then to 5D's, and just recently to 7D's. That's a lot of money out the door, and for what? Sure, the 'old' equipment was sold, but there is definitely some loss there because of the 'new car' factor. Now the 7D has proven problematic because of the overheating issue, and it's possible they might have to change out their equipment again (back to 5D's).

I look at that and it's just poor business management to me; not because they upgraded, but because of their rationale for upgrading. They upgraded because something 'newer and better' came along. It didn't matter that the equipment they had would work just fine for what they needed.

But hey, each to their own. I'm just trying to get people to think about their BUSINESS in BUSINESS terms. Too many people don't, and they just make emotional business decisions.

I would disagree that HD is the proper baseline for delivery. The percentage of people out there with BluRay players is still very small. The percentage of people out there with standard DVD players is huge. Like it or not, they ARE the baseline still. Now if you want to consider HD as the baseline for YOUR studio, then I have no argument with that. More power to you. d;-)

HD is my baseline not because of what my clients want (90% of my work is still delivered on DVD or electronically) but rather HD is my baseline because my equipment and workflow are HD.

Let me give you an example of why I don't like the $500 "up-charge" for HD:

Video Company owns a couple HD cameras and an HD-capable edit suite. Clients A, B and C call and want projects shot and delivered on DVD - the price is $2000 each. Client D calls and wants a project shot on HD and delivered on Blu-ray - the price is $2,500.

Video Company shot all those projects with the same cameras and edited them in the same edit suite with the only real cost difference being the delivery medium (blank DVDs are $0.30 while blank Blu-ray are $5.00.)

Video Company thinks they got a $500 bonus from Client D, when in actuality, they gave a discount to Clients A, B and C. Video Company just gave up $1,500!

Now are a lot more economic and market forces in play - perhaps Video Company has to give an "SD Discount" to remain competitive, but it is what it is - a discount for SD.

i think something about that included everything being shot and edited in hd, when it didnt have to be :-) lots of this HD stuff will still do SD from one end to the other.

If they are cheapskates and want SD , then give them SD from one end to the other?

If they want to pay Extra for HD , even if its delivered in SD then they should pay extra. with the idea that they can get a HD version any time they are ready.

if you were charging 2000 to shoot and edit in SD , then it should be at least 3000 for HD, and if your going to use HD like it or not, then you are still on the high side, they still get the advantage of HD originals right?

its not like people will charge $500 for a upconverted Pos blue-ray from the SD, so if it is all done in HD then it is still HD, if the customer wont fork over $100 for a player when they forked over $3000 for services, then charge them $3100 and Include the player :-)

even on the distribution side (other than movies) the DVDs are going for $45-50 out to customers, look what were paying for simple copies of training DVDs. so even the furthest end of the client has already forked over so much money. . . If your also forking over all the money and time, equiptment and problems, and increased difficulty (like focus) to do HD, then let them eat cake.

We take the view that the extra costs are negligible (and we charge a premium rate anyway); so BD is a "no-cost-option". Rather than trying to earn extra income from BD, we hope to secure (premium) clients from our lower-cost competition who don't/can't offer BD at all.

But I'm not actually bothered whether clients take the BD option or not: all our output is produced to the same HD standards: I'm looking for the promotional caché that comes from offering BD, whether taken up or not.

i think something about that included everything being shot and edited in hd, when it didnt have to be :-) lots of this HD stuff will still do SD from one end to the other.

Here's an imaginary meeting with a client:

Client: "What equipment do you use if I choose the HD package?"
Video Pro: "We use a pair of JVC HD200 high definition cameras and edit on our 8-core Mac Pro with Final Cut Pro 7."
Client: "Wow. So what if I choose the SD package?"
Video Pro: "Same equipment, but I flip this little switch from HD to SD."

Now I don't know about your typical wedding client, but corporate clients do ask questions like that, and as a business owner for many years, I ask questions like that myself. So then what do you do? Lie? Try to BS them?

As for my business - everybody pays based on our experience, talent and quality. No fake upgrades and no fake discounts.

I'm looking for the promotional caché that comes from offering BD, whether taken up or not.Well said.

I would tell them pay up or i will break out my old SD cameras :-)

I certannly wouldnt present HD as a switch on the camera, without lying i could point out Many thing, 4 times the resolution, 4 times the data , or 4 times the compression that has to be dealt with proper.
heck that is worth 4 times already :-) cause i have to work with 4 times the pixels. 4 times the computer needed to edit it.

4 TIMES not switch , that is easy to sell, 5 even on some things.

when i shoot your work in SD it will look like dirtbag stuff from the 80's , Your project wont have any Future, as it will be obsolete in a few years when some form of HD distribution will be as world wide as DVD is today.

Client: but i hear all you have to do is flip a switch
Video Pro : Ya right.

i flipped a switch and it cost me $35,000 , i do believe somone is going to pay more for that, or not get it.

There is another plus for the newest Blu-Ray players being sold currently, they make our DV widescreen video look a lot better.

Im noticing more than ever that NTSC DV material looks and sounds a lot better on one of the latest good Blu-Ray players. I have had several Blu-Ray players and 2 HD-DVD players (and one combo player) since they have been available. But the latest one actually makes a significant difference.

1. The overscan coming out of the player is much more controlled so the titling is always actually on the screen.

2. The compression MPG-2 noise is less visible and the picture just visibly looks better, maybe due to better upscaling.

3. The sound output is better, even on a cheap HDTV. This is what got me experimenting just yesterday. My main test playback set had a cracking on the audio like levels were too high (they were high) and distorting. It turned out it was the SD-DVD player not handling the audio well. And the sound quality was better off the newer player.

i flipped a switch and it cost me $35,000 , i do believe somone is going to pay more for that, or not get it.You still don't get it. You already bought and paid for the "camera with a switch". You're not getting more to flip that switch to HD - you're getting paid less to flip that switch to SD.

I agree, i get less, and give MORE? if i turn off that switch lots of things go away.
i dont have to have a Nano to keep the compression right. Far less expencive Chips to have on hand for that job. i dont need a "memory technition"
i dont have to use some crasy codec junk to do simple color processing and still have signal after. i can use a cheap Firewire as a backup, DV file formats have less data issues. focus isnt as critical as HD not that i will work any less over it, i wont have to fret as much about it.
I dont have to process 4 times as many pixels in every display, It is unlikly that i am making broadcast or a film, so the client isnt as pickey.

The customers choice condems them to DV, there is no Return or regrets they chose the lesser package. so they cant decide they want YOU (of course) to set it up for broadcast to. (or something like that)

There will be no need for proxies and the flaws that can occur with that.
the Encoder doesnt have to go through 4 times as many pixels so it goes much faster.
no interpolation encoding to DVD from DV or related issues, shot in same res as it goes out.

there is much less to deal with by far, less is easy fast cheaper and less critical.
especially now with the ratio of edit time to shot time.

I am not going to get Less by shooting the lesser things in SD, it will be relative to the time and money spent. Less data to store if your using the same compression ratios, to store the data for the customer. Less high priced "coasters" AKA final output test items.

i am getting both customers, the ones who can afford for me to use 4times as much data, and the ones who would be happy to hire the guy who just bought my old stuff for 10% what i paid for it.

i get both the customer whos project can be whipped out in SD, and the person who asked for HD and expects it at every turn and takes 2 times as long to deliver it.

Or i can spend 30% of everything i make or 30% of my time doing Sales and handing money to people to advertise me, because when forced to pay for the HD they went elsewhere. how much does that cost? not less :-)

Almost everyone has different service levels in Service industries, get the cheap anything and you get a lot less, but they dont do the same services. Same equiptment same personell often. less resolution of services .

(dang these clients are a hard sell :-) What was it? "you have Quality, Speed, Price and you cant have all 3 so pick two, who said that .

You still don't get it. You already bought and paid for the "camera with a switch". You're not getting more to flip that switch to HD - you're getting paid less to flip that switch to SD.

Like many things in life, it's all how you look at it. Chris, what Marty is saying is that he invested money in new technology and wants to get a return on that investment. It makes no sense for him to spend $35,000 to give people better quality and charge them the same prices, right?

As an example, let's say Marty charges $1,000 for a commercial when he has SD equipment/workflow. Then he spends $35,000 to upgrade to HD equipment/workflow and he still charges $1,000 for a commercial. Sure, the work looks better, but he's not getting a proper ROI on that $35,000 he spent. If he makes the upgrade and starts charging $1500 or $2000 for commercials, then maybe he's achieving a proper ROI.

Make sense?

i was just trying to find anything to justify my price increase and still keep my SD customers, Chris makes it all sound so easy, and is there already.
i hope someone comes up with more than i got so far :-)

When i raise my price 150% some customers wont pay, so i will somehow have to give them the SD option too and try to sell HD. Or toss out customers that i have worked for, for 20 years.

If they were all bugging me For HD and Blue ray, then i just say sure 150% but i dont think half of them know what it is even.

Thanks Chris.

As an example, let's say Marty charges $1,000 for a commercial when he has SD equipment/workflow. Then he spends $35,000 to upgrade to HD equipment/workflow and he still charges $1,000 for a commercial. Sure, the work looks better, but he's not getting a proper ROI on that $35,000 he spent. If he makes the upgrade and starts charging $1500 or $2000 for commercials, then maybe he's achieving a proper ROI.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Marty spent $35k to upgrade to HD. His baseline is now HD - and new his baseline rate is $1500 - $2000. If somebody wants SD and he wants to give them a discount and charge only $1000, that's great, but it's a discount. I won't do that - everybody pays the new $1500-$2000 rate, even if the deliverable is SD.

It seems like most in this thread think if you do 90% SD work and 10% HD work you're getting paid the regular rate from 90% of your clients and 10% are paying an "upgrade fee". I say 10% are paying the regular rate and 90% are getting a discount. Instead of asking "Are you charging more for HD?" the question should be "Are you giving a discount for SD?"

Chris, did you increase your pricing when you upgraded to HD or no?

if 90% is SD, then i should rent HD for the 10% , then when its more like 30-70 i could buy.

Because renting HD for the 10% who actually asked for it and wanted and are willing to pay for it. Just like renting my own HD at its higher costs, instead of old SD stuff i could get for cheap, would be more expencive by far, i am giving HD people a discount at that price.

If i was renting Either SD or HD to do a job, i would still be giving a discount to HD, because comperable SD rents and sells for way less than HD. and with HD i would have to rent Chips and all kinds of stuff that could fail completly. with Tape DV a failure is a minor dropout.


ahh that trick never works.

Well, there are a number of reasons why upgrading right away can be a disadvantage:

Third, upgrading to the next best thing won't always mean an increase in profit for your business. This is a big issue for videographers and photographers alike. The emotional allure of getting that new piece of equipment often overpowers the logical common sense that it's not going to actually benefit the studio in terms of dollars earned. It's possible that your clients won't purchase the end product (such as when BluRay first hit the market .. and even now to some extent).
I just think it's important to examine your purchases from a business standpoint, and recognize that sometimes it makes more business sense to use what you have.

I look at that and it's just poor business management to me; not because they upgraded, but because of their rationale for upgrading. They upgraded because something 'newer and better' came along. It didn't matter that the equipment they had would work just fine for what they needed.

But hey, each to their own. I'm just trying to get people to think about their BUSINESS in BUSINESS terms. Too many people don't, and they just make emotional business decisions.

Word. This is why I haven't bought my EX-1 yet, even though I REALLLLLLY WANT one!
It would be a STUPID business decision. I'd be spending money on something
that would not bring me IN anymore money. So it'd be a purchase because I
'wanted' something new to 'play' with. I have to fight this all the time, because I am
too much of a 'gadget tech geek' and I always want to buy the new fun stuff. And when
I look at my market, I see a few things. First, I teach tech and business classes for
the local SBDC. I routinely ask questions such as 'how many people here own a
Blu Ray player?' I have not yet had ONE SINGLE person raise their hand. I guess
my part of the world is just behind the times.

Second, I have tried to offer Blu Ray or HD production.....totally depending on the fact
that I would probably be able to rent gear from a station that I freelance for occasionally.
(They have the Sony 350 XDcam cameras). Not a single client has went for it.

Third, I look at the other people who have attempted to do video production in my
area....and have offered HD production. They are now out of business and as far as
I know, I am the only one left offering full time, independent video production in my
market (meaning I don't do it 'on the side' when I have free time from my regular
job, and I don't work for a TV station). The reason for this, is that I have figured out
that I need to limit my costs and 'run lean' especially in these economic times.
Spending a bunch of money on new HD gear, when the SD gear I have right now,
(which is all paid for), will do the job for my client base, would NOT be a smart business
decision, for my market....which is what those 'now out of business other companies' figured out too late.

In other places, the situation is probably much different. Thats why it helps to know
what competitors are doing, what clients and potential clients are doing, what
the economic situation in your area is, what perceived value marketing in general,
and video in particular is given by a potential client base.....and a whole variety
of other things.

I'm just trying to get people to think about their BUSINESS in BUSINESS terms. Too many people don't, and they just make emotional business decisions.

Travis, I don't think you and I are very far apart - perhaps I didn't start by stating that I'm not an equipment geek gave the wrong impression - when I refer to upgrading early, it's business-driven upgrades, not equipment caprices. I accept your points but frankly they're all covered by my single broad exception, first with the worst. Businesswise, knowing when to sell without losing too much yet not too early in the development cycle is key.

I totally agree, Phillip. I definitely wasn't advocating being the last to upgrade. I even think being the first to upgrade CAN be the right choice at times. As long as you're making your business decisions based on what it logical for the success of your business ... you're on the right path. d;-)