I recently created some online branded content for a pretty big international company. The content has a focused demographic, and will live on websites that relate to it(ie....content about bikes will only be on bike focused sites), as well as the client's website and social.
The clienthas now come back to me, and would like to cut the content down to 10 second clips, which will be used in airport and train station video billboards for 1 month. I generally only work in online content, so I have no idea what this is worth.
The bulk of work is done...the only time for me would probably be a day of editing the footage I already have. However, to me it seems the license should be worth something quite a bit more, since thousands of people(who may not be thinking about bikes), will randomly see the ads and hopefully start thinking about bikes.
Any suggestions on what this might be worth would be greatly appreciated.
You don't want to seem greedy on this, certainly. Be sure to bill for the time, but you want to name a price that's still cheaper than the client having to go somewhere else to re-do it all from scratch. Also, charge too high and it establishes a lasting resentment so they will be looking for ways to cut you out in the future.
You *might* consider charging just for time and materials this time, with a line on the invoice that says something like "license fee waived for the first instance for one month". To give you more time to work out what's fair for the next time you do this.
You can think of this deal as similar to a stock footage scenario, I think. Look around the stock footage suppliers and get a feel for their rate structure as a starting point for your own.
[Sarah Rimassa] " I generally only work in online content, so I have no idea what this is worth. "
I think this is true for most of us here (it certainly is for us)....
Here it really makes no difference if the content is for web, broadcast, Jumbotron, or any other usage... our rate for our work is our rate, no matter what the client's end usage is.
So in your case, I'd simply charge them whatever your normal editing rate would be for this job, and disregard what the end usage or venue is... that's not a factor.
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
Yeah, where it's showing doesn't really come into play here. You are paid to shoot and edit, so charge what you charge for those services. You can't really start charging more because now the video will be showing somewhere else.
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
And when you think about it... usage in airport and train station billboards for only a month is potentially just a pittance compared to the original online usage, which has a potentially virtually limitless market. This may seem like a bigger job with a bigger potential audience, but is really only a tiny fraction of the total available eyeballs.
It's a little like when we create a broadcast commercial (our usual business), and then after-the-fact the client says "Oh, can I get a file to put online?" We always say "Sure!" but explain that (depending on the track used) we might have to charge more or secure additional music rights. That usually surprises them a little, but what surprises them a lot is that those internet usage rights are a great deal more than broadcast rights... sometimes by several multiples. "Just for my little website?" or "Just for YouTube?" they'll ask. That requires a little education about something that seems obvious... that depending on where you are a single-market TV spot might have a potential audience of only a couple of million people, but on the interwebs the potential audience is billions.
But it's really a moot point. Unless you are talking about content that has managed rights of some kind (music, actors' performances, etc.), then the production rate is the rate and the intended (or future) audience has no bearing on the cost.
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.