Selling the whole portfolio rights/collection

Iriz

« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2009, 06:34 »

#link

Let's be honest here, there are very very few players prepared to shell out big bucks for another portfolia not of their own making. The majority of microstockers haven't a bean for starters and secondly they're too busy ripping off each others best sellers in a desperate attempt to bolster their earnings. Any discussion of this nature is just pie in the sky and wishful thinking so enough already.


	Ignore \| Logged

Brentw

New Member

« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2009, 07:36 »

#link

guys i have another thing to ask, how much would you put in price (per image) if you're gonna produce a new image to sell to other contributor (ofcourse please also give estimations if you shoot plain photo, digitally composited photo, and graphic illustrations), let's assume we dont have to pay models or travelling across the country

recently i found this kind of service offer on some forum with various prices.


	Ignore \| Logged

Microbius

Premium Member

« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2009, 07:44 »

#link

I alluded to this in my in my PM to you. If I was producing an image for with an exclusive unlimited license or selling on the rights to an individual image in their entirety to a designer the charge would be a hell of a lot more than 2-3 dollars. In fact 100x that at a minimum.
Which is why this is all so tricky, the price you can expect to sell the business for is somehow less than that of its component parts (?)


« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 07:46 by Microbius »	Ignore \| Logged

Brentw

New Member

« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2009, 09:24 »

#link

oops, sorry i missed that point on your last pm Microbius, i was a bit confused about being exclusive on certain microstock site.

so, any suggestion about the pricing thing? (for new images to be produced)


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2009, 20:46 »

#link

Quote from: Brentw on January 14, 2009, 07:36

You mean hired gun? Cheesy

People pay you to shoot images for their collection? Interesting concept.

I suppose the good side is the shooter gets paid up front and the buyer takes the risk, but if there is potential for long term rewards, across multiple sites, then everyone wins.

My question would be, do the photos come with any guarantee? If someone is good enough to shoot for hire, why don't they just upload them on their own and take it too the bank. If the buyer puts it online and it never sells, then the seller really has a good deal.

I'd think that there needs to be some proof of the product, and exclusive content, to insure that the buyer doesn't just get cast offs and variations.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2009, 21:03 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 14, 2009, 20:46

If someone is good enough to shoot for hire, why don't they just upload them on their own and take it too the bank. If the buyer puts it online and it never sells, then the seller really has a good deal.

Isn't that a question for any shooter who works for a stock "factory" ? I wonder too...


	Ignore \| Logged

avava

« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2009, 01:58 »

#link

Hi RacePhoto,

Say someone came to you and offers $500 dollars an image for 1000 images of a certain quality and style that you could produce in a reasonably short amount of time for a low cost. 500K that would finance your company for the next couple of years. You might consider that making sense if you had no working capital. Don't get me wrong I am not a big work for hire guy but I think sometimes life presents situations or opportunities where you need the payoff right away. Just one example.

Best,
AVAVA


	Logged

mantonino

« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2009, 02:52 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on January 14, 2009, 05:05

Sorry, mantonino, but *yes way*. Like ^^^^Freezingpictures said, there are a lot of people here who's portfolio earns much, much more than $3-8 per image in one year, let alone three.

Yeah, there are definitely contributors that's true for, I suppose. Obviously people are interested in selling their collections as this comes up from time to time. The reason remains the same - buyer expectations for what they'd pay and seller expectations for what they'd take are obviously *not* on the same page.


	Ignore \| Logged

Brentw

New Member

« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2009, 07:31 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 14, 2009, 20:46

...My question would be, do the photos come with any guarantee? If someone is good enough to shoot for hire, why don't they just upload them on their own and take it too the bank. If the buyer puts it online and it never sells, then the seller really has a good deal.

Perhaps one of the guarantees should be given is minimum rate of approval on certain ms site, but surely it can't be used as earning guarantee..

I guess some contributors would do this for fast money or urgent reasons (like me), one might sell the ports/service on half market price if he/she needs money for family medication, etc..

btw, is this 'hired gun' method comply with ms terms??


	Ignore \| Logged

Brentw

New Member

« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2009, 07:48 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on January 14, 2009, 21:03

Isn't that a question for any shooter who works for a stock "factory" ? I wonder too...

i think it's about the "risk averse" vs "risk taker" type of guy sjlocke, some photographers might feel safe working as employee so they get paid regularly to support their living cost, meanwhile others willing to take some risks for higher income opportunity (and freedom)

and surely it's also about entrepreneurship things.. i have a friend with master degree that swore that he'll never work to any company as employee Cheesy

(and currently he's running a successful spa for men)


« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 07:54 by Brentw »	Ignore \| Logged

avava

« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2009, 16:14 »

#link

I agree BrentW,

Ryan Mcvay has been a staff photographer for Getty for about 12 years now, look his name up on Getty. His name is attached to the images but they belong completely to Getty he holds no copyright and receives no commission. He gets a salary not even a percentage. Ryan used to be a student in one of my classes years ago before he went to work for Getty always a great guy and very talented. I have asked him since. Getty has 23,000 images on their site shot by you doesn't it bother you to give up all that commission for just a salary. He just likes to go to work shoot and tend to his personal life he doesn't want to run a business. The world is full of all kinds. Ryan is a great guy and a great shooter just check out his diversity on Getty but for him the no headache is the part he likes the most I think. Everyone is wired a bit differently.

Best,
AVAVA


	Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2009, 17:16 »

#link

Quote from: avava on January 15, 2009, 01:58

Yes you are dreaming. $500 an image for 1000 images. Someone who has $500,000 wants to make money on Micro? Doesn't matter that they could make more just putting the money in a low interest account of some sort. If I got this offer as a photographer, I'm be leaping out of my jeans and renting the equipment and studio space.

Lets try something more realistic. Someone says, I'll pay you $500 for 100 images, which will take at least two years to pay back the original investment and start making a profit. A realistic RPI for 100 images is going to be under 50c a month.

When people come up with these ideas, they need to look at both sides. What if you were the buyer, making the investment? How much would you really be willing to pay. How long would it take to amortize that investment and what additional expenses are involved before get your money back. How risky is the market? What kind of guarantee is there that the photos will be accepted? I'd specify that all 100 photos must be accepted at, at least one site and an average of 95% acceptance across the top seven sites.

A good selling point for a seller might be, name a price and write a contract that says the buyer will get back the original investment in two years, or the seller will refund the difference. Now everyone is happy.

Heck, I'll give you 100 RF stock photos for $100, tomorrow. Limited only by the guarantee that all have at one time been accepted on a MicroStock site in the past two years. Want to buy them? Buck a photo, that must be a good deal?

Back to the real reason for writing this. Any time you get into dealing, you need to look at both sides.

You walk into a coin shop and say to the owner: "What's a 1909 S-VDB worth?" He says, "Are you buying or selling?" Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

avava

« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2009, 19:22 »

#link

Hi RacePhoto,

I thought you were asking about buy outs for stock in general not just Micro buy outs, sorry. No you won't get that in Micro but I have done deals for higher prices than that in Macro RF. They aren't around anymore but just two years ago I did a contract buyout that was well over $700 an image and took a few months to do. We only made it to 750 images but these sales do happen if you can produce the right content. Not at all trying to brag just trying to share information from personal experience, these deals have taken place on numerous occasions for many Macro shooters.

Best,
AVAVA


« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 19:31 by avava »	Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2009, 22:03 »

#link

Quote from: avava on January 17, 2009, 19:22

Sounds like a good deal. I think you are correct, that in the past, these may have been favorable deals. We both recognize that with the market changing and the world economy uncertain, we won't be seeing deals like this for a few years. Yes, it was about a micro collection, unless I was the one who was wrong. Whole different ball game.

OP says this: (perhaps including your all ms accounts) which led me to believe he was talking Micro on this site.


« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 22:06 by RacePhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

avava

« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2009, 22:34 »

#link

Hi Race,

I don't know if anyone is buying Micro work yet but I imagine wholly owned buy out work will become a large part of the playing field over the future of Micro. That would be my geusstimate but I imagine it would be for quality imagery that can be produced cheap and sold cheap, and I mean cheap. Then they move it to the top of their search engines and buy buy sales returns for the regular image providers. Greed is often the killer of a great idea. But no one would ever think of doing that to it's photographers. Grin

Best,
AVAVA


	Logged

litifeta

« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2009, 17:39 »

#link

The value of the portfolio is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. There are lots of formulas you might use for say, insurance. But the reality is finding someone who wants to buy it, and how much they are willing to pay.


	Ignore \| Logged

ironarrow

« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2009, 23:18 »

#link

Quote from: mantonino on January 13, 2009, 18:12

I'd pay $1-$3 per image for every image someone had or $3-8 per image if I got to select them. There's *no way* EVERY single image of someone's is going to make more than that in the next 3 years. The difference between buyer expectations and seller expectations is why it never happens.

Those numbers may be ok for you.. My best selling image made me $2000 for the first 6 months and still counting.. What do you say for that? Shall I count it as 1 single image and sell it for $10? Grin

That isn't even what it makes in a day..


« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 23:21 by ironarrow »	Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

RacePhoto

« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2009, 14:53 »

#link

Quote from: ironarrow on January 18, 2009, 23:18

Quote from: mantonino on January 13, 2009, 18:12

That isn't even what it makes in a day..

And I'll guess you have photos that have never sold and never will. That's why an average price is used.

You can't pick one good photo and sell the whole collection based on that. I sold one photo for $500+ last year, was used in at least four publications and a website. I had some $20 shots that were used in magazines. I have 1000 more that have never sold.

The buyer and seller would need to find a meeting point where both feel they are getting a fair deal, for the entire collection. The seller needs a good chunk of change, the buyer needs to have enough value to recover his expenses.

Back to what I said before. When it comes to a question of price and value... Are you buying or selling? Grin