The distributed wealth Conundrum

shadowraven · 01-13-2009, 08:55 AM

Hello,
I was wondering about the general cost of photography. The reason is because I am considering writing a book about the wealthy getting involved with activities and as a result the cost for everyone goes up due to corporate greed.

So;
Is any workshop really worth more than $300?

Is any Camera worth more than $500...I wonder how much they cost to make and market. Take the Sony, Lower cost Nikons, and Olympus cameras, they feel cheap and don't feel worth half the cost. Even my old PZ-1P felt cheap.

Same question on Lenses, especially the cheap feeling lenses.
Other equipment like Lowepro bags, yeah they are nice, but the $100+ price tag?

The same things apply to horseback riding, flying, boating, cars, even motorcycling.

jsherman999 · 01-13-2009, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by shadowraven

Hello,
I was wondering about the general cost of photography. The reason is because I am considering writing a book about the wealthy getting involved with activities and as a result the cost for everyone goes up due to corporate greed.

So;
Is any workshop really worth more than $300?

Is any Camera worth more than $500...I wonder how much they cost to make and market. Take the Sony, Lower cost Nikons, and Olympus cameras, they feel cheap and don't feel worth half the cost. Even my old PZ-1P felt cheap.

Same question on Lenses, especially the cheap feeling lenses.
Other equipment like Lowepro bags, yeah they are nice, but the $100+ price tag?

The same things apply to horseback riding, flying, boating, cars, even motorcycling.

Does the market gets 'skewed' by rich folks entering it? Undoubtably. Interesting idea. I'm sure there are countless master's-thesis on this subject, but probably no consumer-level books that address it directly like that.

I'm often amazed by something - walk into a Home Depot, or any large consumer-oriented hardware/lumber chain, and look at how inexpensive good stuff really is - really well-made tools, hardware, even lumber, really - all pretty affordable for the quality you're getting. Maybe that's because rich folks don't walk into a Home Depot to browse/shop often, and the costs are set accordingly - at a reasonable cost/profit ratio based on actual mass-production and marketing costs, not inflated value.

Sounds like you'll have to do a lot of research, though, and present a lot of hard facts to be taken seriously...

As far as camera bodies go, R&D costs a lot of money and needs to be made up by distributing those costs into each body sold. After a varying amount of time, those costs have been covered and then each body sold shows more profit - but by that time, the market value of the bodies have dropped anyway due to new models arriving. It's all on a curve.

Camera bags, however, like Gucci purses, are a rip-off.

.

RoxnDox · 01-13-2009, 09:42 AM

Ah, but the value of a thing is defined as whatever the buyer is willing to give for it. So, since there do seem to be buyers for workshops, the answer would seem to be "yes, they're worth that much"

To the folks who want a workshop enough to hand over $300 (or however much), anyway. To others, obviously, the answer would be "no, I cannot afford to spend that much on a hobby".

I don't think the "wealthy" getting into a hobby really does much to change pricing, if I understand your question correctly. I think it's a dynamic balance between the costs of making and marketing the tools, the supply, the demand by hobbyists and pro users wanting the same items for non-hobbyist use, and the vagaries of "fashion" for lack of a better term. By "fashion" I mean all the cultural stuff - is it "cool" and trendy and 'hip', or is it gone stale and boring like last week's hairdo or those awful clothes the old people wore last fall, that kind of junk...

Constant technological change, constant cultural shifting of what's "fashionable", constant changes in economies. It's just an ever-changing balance.

Jim

navcom · 01-13-2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by shadowraven

Hello,
I was wondering about the general cost of photography. The reason is because I am considering writing a book about the wealthy getting involved with activities and as a result the cost for everyone goes up due to corporate greed.

So;
Is any workshop really worth more than $300?

Is any Camera worth more than $500...I wonder how much they cost to make and market. Take the Sony, Lower cost Nikons, and Olympus cameras, they feel cheap and don't feel worth half the cost. Even my old PZ-1P felt cheap.

Same question on Lenses, especially the cheap feeling lenses.
Other equipment like Lowepro bags, yeah they are nice, but the $100+ price tag?

The same things apply to horseback riding, flying, boating, cars, even motorcycling.

In a free market, products are based on two things...how much they cost (R&D, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, etc.) and how much people are willing to pay for the product. The difference between the two is your profit margin. Both are open to huge variations depending on the product, the process needed to create it, the demographic and price-point it is being marketed to, and on and on.

The questions you are asking seem pretty vague and open to huge interpretation. To say a camera costs "X" to make cannot be done. Nikon might be able to make an AF system for $50 with their process where Canon can't make it for less than $60 because their process is different and has different steps...and they can't use Nikon's process because it's proprietary.

Add in the demand you think your product will have (how many you have to make). If you need to make a million, that camera is cheaper per unit. If you only need to make 1000, it's going to be more expensive for the same camera.

Now add in the different features, materials, functionality, etc. between camera brands and it becomes almost impossible to nail down a price for a "camera". You see where this can go.

Now the second part of the equation...what are we willing to pay. The market controls this and it should. As long as the market is truly free, prices/features/quality will fluctuate to what the market can sustain. If the price starts going up because "the rich" are buying it, someone will find that the cheaper market is not being satisfied and produce a product for that market.

The alternative to "the rich" buying a product and driving up the cost is a controlled market (which is where the USA has been heading for many years). Instead of the market deciding which products are good and which are too pricy, an outside entity (government, etc.) would decide how much a camera should cost. This will limit the company on what they can make thus making the product worse in the long run. And ultimately you have someone who probably knows zilch about a camera telling the entire economy what you are going to get....and that person is probably rich as well.

No system is perfect, but if you have freedom, you have choice...much more than in a controlled environment.

And don't fall for the stereotype class warfare thing. Many of those "rich" are the ones who worked their butts off developing the companies that make the equipment we so cherish.

jsherman999 · 01-13-2009, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by navcom

...
And don't fall for the stereotype class warfare thing. Many of those "rich" are the ones who worked their butts off developing the companies that make the equipment we so cherish.

I wouldn't say many, I'd say some - the "rich" who worked their butts off to get there usually know the value of the Dollar/Euro/Kronos/Ruble/Lira/etc and don't enjoy spending $350 for a coated-canvas camera bag any more than anyone else

Trust-fund babies, Pyramid-scheme-get-out-in-timers... they're probably the real market-skewers.

.

navcom · 01-13-2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by jsherman999

Trust-fund babies, Pyramid-scheme-get-out-in-timers... they're probably the real market-skewers.

Actually, they are the minority of the "rich" I believe. They exist, of course, but most of the "rich" are not evil-doers who's only goal in life is to screw the poor out of every dime they have.

Actually, if what some say is true and these "rich" have all the money, then why are they looking for more money amongst the poor and middle class. Makes more sense to hit up the other rich, right? That's where the money is at. And if they do and the rich are bad, why should we care? They are just hurting each other.

I can smell a cage match in the future!

Seriously, as a businessman, I know several millionaires and there is not a "gold-brick" among them. Someday I hope to be among them, though it's not my most pressing goal in life. I'm having too much fun in life where I'm at! I just hope we all continue to have the freedom to legally pursue the level of prosperity we want if we wish.

And those trust-fund babies? Ain't much you and I can do about them, even if the government was empowered to tax them 100%. They would just move as they could live wherever they want whenever they want. Most of their money is secure in some Swiss bank account and with that kind of money, anyone will welcome them. Besides, many of them don't own businesses that matter...they don't have to. And if they do have businesses, they will take them with when they go.

BTW, you have got to be freezing up there in northern MN! It was damn cold down south of the metro this morning (-10F) and only colder to come the rest of the week.

Florida weather....who needs it when you got all this!

*reeftool* · 01-13-2009, 10:57 AM

I think certain activities and hobbies are considered "rich peoples " but in reality you don't have to be rich to do them. A good photo can be taken on an inexpensive camera. There are lots of people in the forum who have accumulated lots of top notch camera gear at very cheap prices by smart shopping and spending the time to look for used deals.
My youngest daughter took up the sport of rowing in high school. It is perceived by many as a rich kids sport but it didn't cost any more for her to participate than a season of the soccer league did. It also got her into a good college. There are a lot of "rich kids" and their families in the sport but most are not. As far as driving costs up, I think at least around here, the "rich parents" have lowered the costs because they have made donations to the association that built the boathouse and bought the boats and made it possible for just about any kid who wants to row to be able to.
While people who are and able to pay high prices may drive the prices of products up for a while, its a bubble that will break. Read the news.

*graphicgr8s* · 01-13-2009, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by jsherman999

I'm often amazed by something - walk into a Home Depot, or any large consumer-oriented hardware/lumber chain, and look at how inexpensive good stuff really is - really well-made tools, hardware, even lumber, really - all pretty affordable for the quality you're getting.

.

"Good stuff, really well made tools"? I must be at another H-D. Met a guy at a trade show that sold to H-D. Said they had to reduce the thread count on rugs they sold to them to get the price point at what H-D wanted. Rug carried same numbers as what was in a higher end shop just didn't have as high a count. Some of the power tools are in the same situation.
Try finding a straight piece of lumber. And I'm talking oak here.

It's kinda like oats. If you want good fresh oats you pay for it. Now however if you want them after it's been throught the horse, well we can negotiate.

*Ratmagiclady* · 01-13-2009, 12:38 PM

Eh, in photography, I don't real see rich people as a problem, too much. It's a little silly when they have thousands of dollars more of camera than you do and can barely turn it on, but some day some rich person is going to get bored with the thing and I'll have one, too. Only bothers me if they get obnoxious about it. (ie, 'You're 'still shooting film? Look at that old thing, you must be just starting out.' Doesn't actually happen out there a lot, to be honest. )

Rich people tend to have their ideas about status, 'If you were any good/tried harder, you'd be rich, too,' The attitude comes about cause they don't tend to be the folks for whom anything's ever gone really *wrong.* They think everything works out in a moneymaking way in the end, cause, that's their experience.

Doesn't mean they don't necessarily love photography, I suppose. And the fact is, I've got this rich friend (Who I should actually say hi to, it's been a while. He had kids and got all absorbed in that.) But if he were asking me about digital cameras, I'd probably be, 'Well, how much do you want to lug around? Wouldn't necessarily be worth his time to fuss around with less than 'the best' for his hypothetical purposes: the only negative effect for the rest of us may be that a lot of the better gear comes loaded down with toys like video and other compromises... But it means more of the 'higher end' units get sold. And the prices come down on some stuff compared to where they might be.

With workshops, well, to be honest, those kinds of things are rarely strictly supply and demand: the more the merrier, in fact. It takes most of the effort and resources on the part of those putting them on, to prepare the workshop, rent the venue, market it, etc. For someone putting on a workshop of any kind, the price has to go up when they *don't* fill as many seats as they might. (It's actually a not-good cycle for those putting on such a thing: the fewer that come, the higher the price has to be to make any money: which in turn can depress participation, etc. If someone can be sure to be making enough, then they can reduce prices to try and make *more:* past a certain point, it's all gravy, cause essentially, the expenses stay the same. )

*khardur* · 01-13-2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by jsherman999

Camera bags, however, like Gucci purses, are a rip-off.

.

Amen to that.

This is why I bought an $18 backpack in the camping section of wal-mart and built custom innards to fit my camera, made of cardboard walls wrapped in bubble wrap, covered in velvety black cloth I bought at a craft store. All in all it probably cost me $25 in material to make a backpack similar to one that costs $75+. And it is custom fitted to my gear. Not that most of them don't come with repositionable inserts, but still. Point is I saved at least $50 and the thing is still holding up fairly well, after 7 years.

(I must say though I probably have to make a new insert soon)

*Blue* · 01-13-2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by graphicgr8s

"Good stuff, really well made tools"? I must be at another H-D. Met a guy at a trade show that sold to H-D. Said they had to reduce the thread count on rugs they sold to them to get the price point at what H-D wanted. Rug carried same numbers as what was in a higher end shop just didn't have as high a count. Some of the power tools are in the same situation.
Try finding a straight piece of lumber. And I'm talking oak here.

It's kinda like oats. If you want good fresh oats you pay for it. Now however if you want them after it's been throught the horse, well we can negotiate.

When I here the word good stuff in the same sentence as tools, I'm thinking Snap-On, Mac, Matco or Cornwell. I can get by with some of the craftsman. Some of the Cobalt line at Lowes is decent. Husky sold out long ago and their hand tools are forged chi-crap.

**Damn Brit** · 01-13-2009, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by shadowraven

Hello,
I was wondering about the general cost of photography. The reason is because I am considering writing a book about the wealthy getting involved with activities and as a result the cost for everyone goes up due to corporate greed.

So;
Is any workshop really worth more than $300?

Is any Camera worth more than $500...I wonder how much they cost to make and market. Take the Sony, Lower cost Nikons, and Olympus cameras, they feel cheap and don't feel worth half the cost. Even my old PZ-1P felt cheap.

Same question on Lenses, especially the cheap feeling lenses.
Other equipment like Lowepro bags, yeah they are nice, but the $100+ price tag?

The same things apply to horseback riding, flying, boating, cars, even motorcycling.

I think if all the camera manufacturers were closer together from a market share point of view then cameras might be cheaper. On the other hand they all might just as easily be in cahoots with each other to keep prices artificially high.

Workshops are useful especially for beginners. If you are gonna spend $500 plus on a camera kit, it's worth paying for a workshop to enable you to get the most out of that investment. Your figure of $300 seems a bit high, I went to one of the Digital Days workshops (through Popular Photography) when I first got my camera and that was $130 for two days. I thought it was good value for money because I paid attention and I got a lot out of it. There would have been two possible reasons why I didn't get VFM; 1) If I hadn't paid attention (that would have been my fault. 2)The workshop was crap, in which case it wouldn't last long, it's still going.

With regards to corporate greed, if you have stocks and shares, you are a party to supporter of that greed. It's something we have to live with.

*Ratmagiclady* · 01-13-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Damn Brit

With regards to corporate greed, if you have stocks and shares, you are a party to supporter of that greed. It's something we have to live with.

Actually, if you're a stockholder, you get to say a certain amount about how the company goes about making money.

If you *don't* say anything, they presume you want them to make you as much money as possible whoever it hurts.

It's *possible* to buy *in* in order to have a voice. Or so they say.

*raz-0* · 01-13-2009, 08:38 PM

To the OP, I'm sure every hobby would be cheap and affordable if not for those darn rich people.

Seriously, get a clue. IF you took a certain income level out of a given hobby, you'd just wind up with a new category of people being "rich" and "skewing" prices.

I desperately wanted a DSLR for probably close to a decade. It was the price coming down to reasonable levels that permitted me to finally get one. If the rich folks getting involved in a hobby cuts the price of a good high-resolution DSLR from several thousand dollars to less than $850, I hope they keep "skewing" the price of things even more.

As for the other poster who suggested home depot has good tools, all I have to say is holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, home depot and lowes have made it virtually impossible to finde a square that has it's two ends 90 degrees to each other, and even more unbelievabley, they have actually started setting the bar so low, lots of thier measuring devices that are supposed to have straight edges don't.

Dimensioned, planed, and sanded lumber that has an inch of warp in less than 2 feet is perfectly acceptable there. 4" tiles that are 1/32" scant on each side.

Heck, last time I was there I needed to replace a folding allen key set. Theirs was bigger than my fist and practicly falling apart by design. HArbor freight has better tools these days, and that's scary.

jsherman999 · 01-13-2009, 09:13 PM

Well, I had no idea we had.... tool snobs?

Anyway, you seem to be missing my point... My statement about Home Depot wasn't meant to illustrate how great their tools are, it was to show how this category of goods (tools, lumber, plumbing supplies) has not been affected by what the OP is talking about - you don't have 'designer' tools, for example, that are the same quality as Snap-On but cost 5 times as much. You just have tools, and they're priced according to actual quality.

Compare that to said Gucci handbag - probably $150 worth of material = $1200 retail value. Part of the reason for that may be because the rich shop at Gucci, and they don't (generally) shop at Home Depot. That market has not been skewed.

And raz-O, I don't get the following:

I desperately wanted a DSLR for probably close to a decade. It was the price coming down to reasonable levels that permitted me to finally get one. If the rich folks getting involved in a hobby cuts the price of a good high-resolution DSLR from several thousand dollars to less than $850, I hope they keep "skewing" the price of things even more.

The OP's implication was that the market is skewed the other direction when the extremely wealthy enter it - goods become more expensive, not less.

.