How cheap will you go? (!)

[tricky]

Often, threads pop up from some of us about the way the industry is going. I myself have commented in the past on how our rates have been undercut massively by other CGI companies. However, we just found out we have lost out on a small job as we were undercut, but also, the winning company have said they will only invoice when the properties they are visualisaing are actually sold!!!!

I can't quite believe a company would offer this. It screams of desperation and to me seems a crazy way to offer archvis services. Not only are some of the quotes we hear about lower than ever, but they are now offering to only invoice if the estate agent is good enough at selling the property! These aren't cheap properties either - some of them are £800K - £1.6M houses!

I am considering giving a bunch of grapes and an hour with a lap dancer to all our future clients - what do you reckon?

[joconnell]

I'll need to see the lap dancer up front.

[crazy homeless guy]

It would be interesting to see how they structured the contract.

....Maybe it was a percentage of the sale price and not a flat fee?
....Maybe it amounted to more than hey would charge if they were doing flat fee based rendering.

They might be banking that they can charge a bit more by taking a risk on the sale and assuming that it will be easier to get paid if the client has money in the bank from the sale and is happy.

[glorybound]

It's probably work for a developer, which is usually, "we'll pay you when we get paid". I still think that the percentage of people who'll pay for quality equals the percentage of people who only care about price.

[zeronove]

two points:
- following that way of pricing there will always be someone else that will charge less then you, so today I'm out but probably tomorrow you will be the next one
- I've never accepted a work for someone saying "we'll pay you when we get paid", for me it's a no way (only exception are works done for friends or relatives)

[Morbid Angel]

For this reason I have two jobs, one is at night, on the corner of the east side...

[glorybound]

I'll be in Vancouver, Canada in September; I'll stop by your corner

For this reason I have two jobs, one is at night, on the corner of the east side...

[MoonDoggie]

I'll need to see the lap dancer up front.

Lol, this is hilarious.

[mikeh]

We joke but years ago, a local architect that worked for "Vegas" people had very little to show a client on his progress for their project, so he brought in two topless dancers to present the "little" he had. The presentation was a success. You just have to know your audience. Its not something you'd do if your clients were the "Little Sisters of Mercy".
mh

[Morne]

Hi Tricky

I don't think lowering prices is a good idea, even more so if you trying to be cheaper than the next person. One thing I found from personal experience in my own work and also very closely watching some other people, YOU CANT BE THE BEST AND THE CHEAPEST AT THE SAME TIME.

I know what you're asking isn't leaning towards being the cheapest, maybe just a little cheaper than currently. It may work for a couple of projects, but it certainly is not sustainable. Soon you'll find you loose track of your end goals and the number 1 goal will be to be cheaper just to get the job. Following will be to do the job in 1/5th of the time. Sooner than later your work will look crap, your health will suffer, and you can't pay your bills, salary, expensive hardware and software etc.

Just remember, when people look at your work, the number one thing you will be judged on by most, is how it looks. People very quickly forget that you did something in record time or for a good price. But for a long time they will remember how it looked. If it starts looking crap, you'll start loosing clients because of that, and you'll end up raising prices to produce better quality work. And round and round we go.

[glorybound]

This months, "American Artist Drawing" magazine, has an article that pertains to this thread. In an article, they talked about how printing making hurt the creators of original work, and they never recovered. I guess the 19th century artist could relate