Rates? 1 camera vs 2?

If you want to know if your rates are in the right place, compare your rates to the national crew services. Crew Connection, Crews Control and the like.

Half days are to be avoided if at all possible for reasons above except in certain cases. For example, something like a long term client needs you for a multi-day job and shoots comprise of you and just a camera to "hose" down a setting and walk away. Or, say, one simple "couple lights" type interview and walk away for a regular client. You could say to the client, "My half day rate is the same as my full day rate, I just don't work as long", but that doesn't fit every situation like certain situations of a long term client. (Had to throw that in there 'cause I've always thought it was a funny line.) One off, out of the blue clients calling at 5pm for a job the next day & you are available as one man band, easy 2 hour local shoot? Sure. It is a win-win. One off client calling for something next week/next month and a half day, probably a "no". Hourly? No way. You get the idea.

Half days are to be billed at 75% of full day rate and they are 5 hours portal to portal or the job goes to full day rate - this is all discussed before the job.

I've been free-lancing for over 25 years and I see folks out there I know charge far less than is being charged by the national crew services for proper gear and services and it is only barely sustainable if you are willing to live a bohemian lifestyle and / or work multiple times the hours/days you should be working - nights and "weekend type" events. I see folks driving hundreds of miles destroying their cars and not being fully compensated and you wonder if they are netting minimum wage after expenses/depreciation???

Save the max you can afford each year in a tax deductible IRA - showing less income tax time/paying less taxes. Better yet add a Roth contribution each year and never pay taxes on that money again. Become an S-Corp or the like and save more on taxes and reduce liability exposure. Carry General Liability insurance (cheap) and insure your gear (cheap). Don't buy any depreciating asset (gear) that doesn't directly contribute to your net income. I digress.
 
gkantziper said:
I've been free-lancing for over 25 years and I see folks out there I know charge far less than is being charged by the national crew services for proper gear and services and it is only barely sustainable if you are willing to live a bohemian lifestyle and / or work multiple times the hours/days you should be working - nights and "weekend type" events. I see folks driving hundreds of miles destroying their cars and not being fully compensated and you wonder if they are netting minimum wage after expenses/depreciation???
Click to expand...

There was a "discussion" in a thread in a sub-forum a few weeks ago where a poster was going into excruciating detail defending their position on doing just that. When you break down your "hourly rate" of what you should be making vs. what you actually made when you (in their own example)travelled 12 hours each way off the clock with no mileage and you slept in your car in a Wal-Mart parking lot and (maybe) showered in a truck stop instead of staying in a hotel... Well, it's not as great as you think.
 
I dont know if comparing rates to those used for Crews Control etc. quite works...cause wouldnt they put a markup on everything? E.G Crews control charges $1200 for cam op/gear, pays the guy $700 or whatever.
 
I don't have a ton of experience with crewing agencies, but they don't seem to have "set rates" from what I've seen. Most of them will take whatever work comes through the door and then try to find a crew. Sometimes going back to the client for more money or negotiating back and forth to try to find a compromise. I've weighed it out on individual calls and played ball before and done shoots for less than my "going rate" and if you own all of your own gear and it's paid for, you have some room to negotiate. And if you have multiple gear packages, you can always farm it out and just pay someone $600 bucks to shoot and you keep the rest for the gear without lifting a finger.
 
I have well over a decade of experience with the major crew services (and nearly that with a few smaller ones). Usually you get close enough to "book" rates that the difference is insignificant. After all, they are bringing the work to you! Occasionally the rate is as much as 20% less than ideal, but it has made sense for me to take the "bad" to get the "good", which is easily more than 85% of the time. In the long run it is definitely a win-win. As an example, for my business, I attribute crew service work for getting me through the great recession as a lot of my corporate work was greatly diminished.
 
gkantziper said:
I have well over a decade of experience with the major crew services (and nearly that with a few smaller ones). Usually you get close enough to "book" rates that the difference is insignificant. After all, they are bringing the work to you! Occasionally the rate is as much as 20% less than ideal, but it has made sense for me to take the "bad" to get the "good", which is easily more than 85% of the time. In the long run it is definitely a win-win. As an example, for my business, I attribute crew service work for getting me through the great recession as a lot of my corporate work was greatly diminished.
Click to expand...

What are the major crewing services? I've only really worked through ManWithACam. Crews Control won't give me the time of day since I've been in business only 9 years. I'm not familiar with the others on the east coast.
 
I recently got accepted by CrewsControl but found their rates too low for me to accept work from them. They wanted $2400 for a two person crew with camera, lenses, lighting, audio, then they take out 15% of that, so $2040 for a two person crew. Now, pay the audio guy $800 and you get $1240 take home. That's $1240 taking into account that you also had to take additional time to find an audio guy, hire them, schedule them, pay them, 1099 them, etc., so for the actual shoot day you're making perhaps $1100. My rates start at $1500 and that's just me, a C300, lenses, and tripod (no lighting). My average rate lately is around $2200 (since most book me with lights, and I charge $500 for a second C300 Mark II which perhaps 30% book me with), and they go up to about $4,000 when booked with my Arri, cinema zooms, lights, O'Connor tripod, Steadicam, etc.

When I said I had an Arri camera, CrewsControl's response was something to the effect of, "Our clients don't need that high end of a camera and we use FS7 (and sometimes C300)." Here I thought CrewsControl was big time but instead they're just doing smaller jobs, apparently, and pretty much seemed to ignore Arri as an option. I was quite surprised by their set rates, set camera gear, and lack of flexibility. I would have thought they'd have a variety of clients wanting different DPs with different gear and different budgets. Their website sure indicates their crews use a variety of cameras, but that's not what they indicated to me via e-mail when they said their rates were set at $2400 (minus 15%) for a two-person crew.

I recently hit over 10 years of experience so became qualified to apply for CrewsControl, which I'd been wanting to do for awhile, but I was disappointed by their lack of flexibility when booking crews.
 
Last edited:
$2300-$2400 is about the going rate for a typical two-man crew, single camera, shooting ENG camera, C300, F5/55, etc. So what they're charging their client is right. The problem is, they have to get their cut and they can't charge the client more, because the client isn't gonna pay more. 15% is too damn high in my opinion. If they were giving me regular work(at least several times a month) and the shoots were easy enough, I could possibly live with ~8-10%. I'm also not paying my audio guys $800. I own several audio packages and most everyone I hire works with my gear, so I'm only paying ~$500 for audio(labor).
 
Yeah, where are you finding these audio guys willing to work for labor only? I'd imagine it'd mostly be younger and less experienced guys, which is fine for simple shoots (sit down interviews (where I'm always like, why the heck do you even need an audio guy for this?)), but for more complex shoots, I'd imagine you'd want an experienced professional who is very familiar with the gear they're using.

A lot of my shoots are not local so I'm hiring audio guys local to where I'm filming who I've never worked with before, so I'm not sure investing in my own gear for them to use and get familiar with on the day of would make any sense.

Going back to sit-down interview shoots, since I own quality mics and get consistently good results on my own when recording audio for sit downs, when a client insists on an audio guy for them, it's almost tempting to just hire a PA to "do audio," as in, oh my gosh, like, setup the boom mic over the interviewee (super hard work), pay them $175, and pocket the rest of whatever you charged the client for the audio guy (say in CrewsControl's case, you'd then get $1865 of the $2040, which for me would be worth it, compared to getting $1240 which is a typically too low for me). However, something just wouldn't feel right about doing that, so I always stick with a pro audio guy when that's what's asked for, even if I don't feel it's needed.

I just remember this one time I hired a pro audio guy, paid him $800, and he showed up with his cheap ME66 mic for an indoor interview with some off-brand wireless (not Lectro), while I had my much better Schoeps mic sitting in my car which would have gotten significantly better results.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
Yeah, where are you finding these audio guys willing to work for labor only? I'd imagine it'd mostly be younger and less experienced guys, which is fine for simple shoots (sit down interviews (where I'm always like, why the heck do you even need an audio guy for this?)), but for more complex shoots, I'd imagine you'd want an experienced professional who is very familiar with the gear they're using.

A lot of my shoots are not local so I'm hiring audio guys local to where I'm filming who I've never worked with before, so I'm not sure investing in my own gear for them to use and get familiar with on the day of would make any sense.

Going back to sit-down interview shoots, since I own quality mics and get consistently good results on my own when recording audio for sit downs, when a client insists on an audio guy for them, it's almost tempting to just hire a PA to "do audio," as in, oh my gosh, like, setup the boom mic over the interviewee (super hard work), pay them $175, and pocket the rest of whatever you charged the client for the audio guy (say in CrewsControl's case, you'd then get $1865 of the $2040, which for me would be worth it, compared to getting $1240 which is a typically too low for me). However, something just wouldn't feel right about doing that, so I always stick with a pro audio guy when that's what's asked for, even if I don't feel it's needed.

I just remember this one time I hired a pro audio guy, paid him $800, and he showed up with his cheap ME66 mic for an indoor interview with some off-brand wireless (not Lectro), while I had my much better Schoeps mic sitting in my car which would have gotten significantly better results.
Click to expand...

I agree re doing your own sound for sit down interviews in most situations.

Although if the stakes are high enough and the interviewee is that "important" then the dynamic changes, and it's somewhat expected to have dedicated roles to move through any issues. At that point the results are nearly unimportant anyway, as it becomes more about babysitting a fully grown person during the shoot.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Yeah, where are you finding these audio guys willing to work for labor only? I'd imagine it'd mostly be younger and less experienced guys, which is fine for simple shoots (sit down interviews (where I'm always like, why the heck do you even need an audio guy for this?)), but for more complex shoots, I'd imagine you'd want an experienced professional who is very familiar with the gear they're using.

A lot of my shoots are not local so I'm hiring audio guys local to where I'm filming who I've never worked with before, so I'm not sure investing in my own gear for them to use and get familiar with on the day of would make any sense.

Going back to sit-down interview shoots, since I own quality mics and get consistently good results on my own when recording audio for sit downs, when a client insists on an audio guy for them, it's almost tempting to just hire a PA to "do audio," as in, oh my gosh, like, setup the boom mic over the interviewee (super hard work), pay them $175, and pocket the rest of whatever you charged the client for the audio guy (say in CrewsControl's case, you'd then get $1865 of the $2040, which for me would be worth it, compared to getting $1240 which is a typically too low for me). However, something just wouldn't feel right about doing that, so I always stick with a pro audio guy when that's what's asked for, even if I don't feel it's needed.

I just remember this one time I hired a pro audio guy, paid him $800, and he showed up with his cheap ME66 mic for an indoor interview with some off-brand wireless (not Lectro), while I had my much better Schoeps mic sitting in my car which would have gotten significantly better results.
Click to expand...

That's some down right funny s*%t, right there. My "A" guys have actually been doing this longer than me and I'm over 20 years in. Out of most of the guys that I work with(camera and audio), I'm usually the youngest(not that any of us are "young", anymore). I have a great relationship with my crew and I have top notch gear, so they know they're not being handed a pile of garbage to work with(all SD mixers/recorders, Lectro wireless, Sanken booms & lavs, you get the idea). I actually own more audio gear than a lot of my guys. Atlanta is a much different market. One of my friends down there has actually tried to talk at least one of my guys into coming down there, because it's almost all op w/gear and higher rates than here. I actually went to bat and fought for higher rates with gear for ALL audio guys with one of our net clients and won. Also, no network is paying $800 for an audio guy and package(which is the bulk of our work). Commercials, yeah. High-end corporate, possibly. But it also depends on how you're pricing the package and then paying out to individual departments.

Dude, I don't get you. You say on one shoot you throw a boom up over someones head and call it a day to save some coin, and then you say you pay $800 for an audio guy and anyone else paying less is getting inexperienced guys. When you're sleeping in your car in the Wal-Mart parking lot so you don't have to stay in a hotel out of town, are you leaving it running and some of the exhaust is leaking in?
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Another thing to consider for those of you who produce as well as shoot. Payroll service, workers comp and insurance. I just did a proposal yesterday, sending it today. In Southern California at least, there have been some recent rulings in the state about independent contractors versus employees. Basically, if you don't want to get sued or be dragged before the state franchise tax board and or IRS, you HAVE to now hire all crew via a payroll service that covers workers comp, FICA SS, FICA Medicare, FUTA, and SUTA. No more hiring a PA for cash. No more hiring anyone to do anything without making them an employee. There have been several recent prosecutions with huge fines and jail time handed out. If you hire someone and they work a day, then file an unemployment claim, guess who the State is now coming after because they have no record of you paying into unemployment? Basically, you now need to add 32%, give or take, to your bottom line expenses for labor. Period. The exceptions to this are true independent contractors who meet the criteria, which basically no crew do. They must be a corporation and perform all work on their equipment, at their time discretion, at their place of work. Might be okay for editors/motion graphics/audio post people, if they are incorporated. But as far as crew, you MUST do this. Not sure about other states, but here in California, being the center of the filmmaking universe in the U.S., this has become a big deal and the spotlight from the IRS amd State Franchise Tax board is on all producers to hire a employees only with payroll. Theyve been pushing this for decades but it is has finally come to fruition.

What this made me realize bidding this job, which has a crew of five and six actors, is that the payroll fees, which would have used to have been mostly profit, have reduced my overall profit on a project like this considerably. I make the payroll charges a pass through, I am not making any profit even for the hassle of administering and auditing it all. This puts my overall profit structure way down from where it would have been a few years ago. If you are large enough to pay the $15k to $20k insurance policy to have in-house workers comp and insurance for employees, yay! But most of us are not big enough to maintain that. I know this client and I produced a job similar to this five years ago. This project is smaller in scope than that one was and they are giving me hints that we "have to do this inexpensively" so I don't even know if they will go for this proposal, which is a third of the larger one I produced for them five years ago. Even if they do go for this, it won't be a very profitable project for me because my profit is mostly being eaten by the payroll services.

There is something to be said about joining the union and crewing on larger projects versus being a small time producer on your own, having to pay out all of this. I know exactly what this client will be able to budget for this project and having to hit that number, with the required parameters, means that the job just cannot be very profitable. There are no more corners to cut or editing days to trim to hit the number, it will take what it takes to do the job. I almost hope they don't approve it, even though I need the work. Even as a producer, not just as a DP or operator, it is a tough business.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up! I hire people in California from time to time and didn't know about the rule changes.

I can understand wanting to keep a few bad actors from bending the rules to permanently treat full time employees like they're contractors or vice versa. Microsoft got caught doing that almost 20 years ago and from what I understand ithere are settled federal standards that make it clear that you can't treat contractors like employees. California seems to be intent on crafting rules that doesn't fit with the gig economy, and it's sure to have unintended consequences.

For those that are interested I found short article that summarizes the changes.

Thanks again for the heads up!


https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-supreme-court-changes-test-61396/
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Yeah, where are you finding these audio guys willing to work for labor only? I'd imagine it'd mostly be younger and less experienced guys, which is fine for simple shoots (sit down interviews (where I'm always like, why the heck do you even need an audio guy for this?)), but for more complex shoots, I'd imagine you'd want an experienced professional who is very familiar with the gear they're using.

A lot of my shoots are not local so I'm hiring audio guys local to where I'm filming who I've never worked with before, so I'm not sure investing in my own gear for them to use and get familiar with on the day of would make any sense.

Going back to sit-down interview shoots, since I own quality mics and get consistently good results on my own when recording audio for sit downs, when a client insists on an audio guy for them, it's almost tempting to just hire a PA to "do audio," as in, oh my gosh, like, setup the boom mic over the interviewee (super hard work), pay them $175, and pocket the rest of whatever you charged the client for the audio guy (say in CrewsControl's case, you'd then get $1865 of the $2040, which for me would be worth it, compared to getting $1240 which is a typically too low for me). However, something just wouldn't feel right about doing that, so I always stick with a pro audio guy when that's what's asked for, even if I don't feel it's needed.
Click to expand...

Maybe rather than using a random PA, pay perhaps double that for someone who is keen and focused on the audio path for their career (but isn't yet an established pro with decades of experience), that way you get a feel for testing out the local talent who might be worthwhile to use in future years to come.


Eric Coughlin said:
I just remember this one time I hired a pro audio guy, paid him $800, and he showed up with his cheap ME66 mic for an indoor interview with some off-brand wireless (not Lectro), while I had my much better Schoeps mic sitting in my car which would have gotten significantly better results.
Click to expand...

Oh god.

rob norton said:
I agree re doing your own sound for sit down interviews in most situations.

Although if the stakes are high enough and the interviewee is that "important" then the dynamic changes, and it's somewhat expected to have dedicated roles to move through any issues. At that point the results are nearly unimportant anyway, as it becomes more about babysitting a fully grown person during the shoot.
Click to expand...


Yes when the stakes are higher on a bigger shoot, it might still be a "simple" job but you wan't someone 100% focused on just getting the best sound so they can catch an surprise issues asap because they're only listing to the audio and take out any of that risk element for you which you might overlook while juggling everything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top