Author Topic: Is this stupid idea? (Read 3372 times)

melastmohican · « **on:** October 13, 2009, 17:55 »

I was just thinking about new pricing shema for agencies. Let's say they are accepting all images that are technically acceptable. Then image is listed on a site for minimal price, e.g 5 cents. With every download price will be bumped by 1 cent. This way the best pictures will be more valuable than bad ones. Users can search not only for specific keywords but also price ranges. There will be no need for subscriptions cause you can always get cheap ones on demand if you want.

ap · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:00 »

i guess this will discourage all the newbies who only get one download per pic. is this your devious plan?

melastmohican · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:06 »

If you got great photo it will not last at low price point for ever. Excellent photos will be sold for their true value established by marketplace. It is pathetic that great photos are sold for 30 cents.

ap · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:10 »

"great" is obviously subjective. i've seen loads of "great" photos with few to zero downloads. i would buy them except i don't have a need for them. so, perhaps, it's more about "needed" photos and that's subject to a variety of factors, like hitting the jackpot.

melastmohican · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:11 »

Yes it's subjective so why not let market decide what is good and what is bad.

ap · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:12 »

sorry, i'm not a capitalist.

the market is already deciding which photos are "needed" by the sheer # of downloads, so why make it even more extreme? you're just rewarding the yuri acurs of the world. is that your devious plan?

Vonkara · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:14 »

Wuut ?? Sooo after 95 downloads I will start to get 1$ for my image

Should better working on getting images accepted instead of wanting a trash agency. LOL I can't even imagine how crazy it would be to browse a database like that... Bad idea

melastmohican · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:21 »

Starting point and increment is just an example of idea. Maybe price should grow exponentially :-) I am just saying that price should reflect demand for an image. I bet Yuri's images would cost $100 very quickly ;-)

ap · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2009, 18:27 »

have you calculated whether this pricing point will benefit your personal portfolio?

actually, if popular photos' prices increase exponentially, it will put off sales very quickly. remember, quantity and price are in inverse relationship.

so, maybe it won't help the yuri acurs of the world.

Pixart · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2009, 21:08 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 13, 2009, 18:06

If you got great photo it will not last at low price point for ever. Excellent photos will be sold for their true value established by marketplace. It is pathetic that great photos are sold for 30 cents.

No one is buying photos for 30 cents, they are paying $200-$250 for a subscription.

RT · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:57 »

Too risky for a photographer from a business point of view, don't forget you have the agencies search algorithms to contend with!

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:59 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 13, 2009, 17:55

I was just thinking about new pricing shema for agencies. Let's say they are accepting all images that are technically acceptable. Then image is listed on a site for minimal price, e.g 5 cents. With every download price will be bumped by 1 cent. This way the best pictures will be more valuable than bad ones. Users can search not only for specific keywords but also price ranges. There will be no need for subscriptions cause you can always get cheap ones on demand if you want.

This is essentially exactly what Dreamstime does... which is why I think their system is one of the best. Except, they start at a decent price and go up by a lot more than 1cent.

bobbigmac · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2009, 10:30 »

I was thinking about this the other day too, I think it's a good idea in theory (as evidenced by dreamstime), and had a few more agencies followed this model in 2003/2004 then it would be working well.

Sadly now it's probably too late for a new agency to really earn like this as people would buy the images there whilst they were cheap, but then increasingly leave to purchase at the traditional price-point once the price rose.

I think a more feasible approach now would be systems similar to cutcaster's (auto) price-model, where the demand/supply across topics causes the price to change appropriatly. But again, unless the dominant agencies all applied some kind of system, it would leave the new adopters at a disadvantage.

Rival · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2009, 05:11 »

I'm totally agree with leaf, Dreamstime do it... but I'm really confused about this... It's not good idea (my opinion)...

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2009, 19:47 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 13, 2009, 17:55

Then image is listed on a site for minimal price, e.g 5 cents.

What is that, nanostock?

The way DT implemented this is great. If only we could get rid of subs, or at least opt out...

qwerty · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2009, 21:44 »

I really like the Dreamstime system rewards individual photos, imagine trying to get highest canister level at Fotolia now.
5c way too low and 1c increments.

Should canisters be replaced with CF cards holders ?

holgs · « **Reply #16 on:** October 17, 2009, 00:49 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 13, 2009, 17:55

I was just thinking about new pricing shema for agencies. Let's say they are accepting all images that are technically acceptable. Then image is listed on a site for minimal price, e.g 5 cents. With every download price will be bumped by 1 cent. This way the best pictures will be more valuable than bad ones. Users can search not only for specific keywords but also price ranges. There will be no need for subscriptions cause you can always get cheap ones on demand if you want.

Well often the photos that will only sell once or twice on RF will also sell once or twice on Alamy - with starting prices well above 5c.

Supply and demand isn't just about volume, and its not just how often a file will sell that should determine its price.

melastmohican · « **Reply #17 on:** October 17, 2009, 12:16 »

Quote from: holgs on October 17, 2009, 00:49

Supply and demand isn't just about volume, and its not just how often a file will sell that should determine its price.

That's actually good point, Maybe price should go up if certain numbers is sold in give period of time. If image is not sold for specific period of time price should start falling down automatically until it reaches minimum or start selling again.

holgs · « **Reply #18 on:** October 17, 2009, 20:28 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 17, 2009, 12:16

Quote from: holgs on October 17, 2009, 00:49
Supply and demand isn't just about volume, and its not just how often a file will sell that should determine its price.
That's actually good point, Maybe price should go up if certain numbers is sold in give period of time. If image is not sold for specific period of time price should start falling down automatically until it reaches minimum or start selling again.

My point was that if I have a file which is in demand to a certain market due to its scarcity (but would never be in demand in volume), I sell it on Alamy RM for $300 (for example) not 0.25c on microstock. The problem we have in microstock isn't that prices are too low, but rather the opposite. The sites that are doing well are the ones that are looking at ways of increasing their prices, rather than discounting.

Reducing the price of specialised content isn't going to increase the volume its demanded in, and conversely increasing the price isn't really going to decrease the demand either. Its only going to make people less likely to want to supply it.

If someone needs an image of a particular location that isn't on any of the microstocks, then paying slightly more for it isn't going to be a deal-breaker either.