pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What should be the ideal image prices?  (Read 9814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2011, 08:55 »
0
"You don't need an EL for an album cover."-sjlocke


So you are saying they can sell 100,000 albums, no El? Then use the same image for teeshirts and stickers. Hmm I will check. I get a few EL at SS but at IS they are rare. I should be glad it was not a TS sale?


antistock

« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2011, 23:22 »
0
It's funny how people put the blame easily on agencies.

If you were in their places, what would you do?

i would probably shamefully inflate our sales predictions, make a lot of smoke and mirros, find gullible investors, and sell the whole crap, then escape in a third world country... hahaha ...  i mean look at Groupon, one of the biggest scams of the last years ... they're almost blocking its IPO as their numbers were so obviously faked and absolutely unreal !

last i heard was Facebook being valued 100 billion $ ... let's see ... and i will laugh ... in the meantime their net earnings were barely 1 billion/year or SO THEY SAY as there's no way to know if it's BS or not.

so for what we're allowed to know, iStock could be a cash cow or maybe not really so .. the company is still private, and probably for very good reasons.

there are so many ways to lose money by mismanaging and screwing things up even if you keep 85% of the profits from photographers.

one thing is obvious at least .. if the former CEO was fired they were not happy of his performance !

second thing .. now they're pushing hard to get new web affiliates ..another sign they realized buyers are going elsewhere to shop !

third thing .. less and less IS forum activity .. another bad sign ...

fourth .. Alexa's istock ranking falling down ...

fifth .. now the lowered the bar about redeemed credits ...

sixth .. only two jobs listed in their Careers page, with one being VP for web marketing .. unsurprisingly ! they're obviously acknowledged their web marketing strategy has been a fiasco.



so, nothing happens by mistake, behind every move they do there's been probably many internal meetings and rolling heads...

antistock

« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2011, 23:26 »
0
"You don't need an EL for an album cover."-sjlocke


So you are saying they can sell 100,000 albums, no El? Then use the same image for teeshirts and stickers. Hmm I will check. I get a few EL at SS but at IS they are rare. I should be glad it was not a TS sale?

actually it's surprising EL licences still exist, buyers love RF exactly to stay . out of RM limitations.

i prophetize sooner or later EL will disappear.

besides, how many buyers really know about it and understand the concept ?

and if you sue a buyer for not buying the EL, how much are you gonna recoup considering the damage is what, a 100$ ?

antistock

« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2011, 23:30 »
0
Despite my "ultra realist" opinion of IP laws and the whole concept of owning ideas as all rubbish - I do NOT think this business will vanish.

yeah, it will just  move to photographers living in third world countries that are more than happy earning less than 1000$/month.

actually, if they're not in the game already is just because of their bad english but give them some time...

« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2011, 08:26 »
0
"You don't need an EL for an album cover."-sjlocke
So you are saying they can sell 100,000 albums, no El?

In most places, yes.

Quote
Then use the same image for teeshirts and stickers. Hmm I will check. I get a few EL at SS but at IS they are rare. I should be glad it was not a TS sale?

Only if they give away the shirts and stickers for promotional use.

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2011, 09:00 »
0
"You don't need an EL for an album cover."-sjlocke
So you are saying they can sell 100,000 albums, no El?
499,999 if from iStock.
249,999 if from Shutterstock.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 09:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2011, 14:49 »
0
"You don't need an EL for an album cover."-sjlocke
So you are saying they can sell 100,000 albums, no El?
499,999 if from iStock.
249,999 if from Shutterstock.

I always thought the 500,000 / 250,000 was refering to a press run were as something like an album cover is more like a product.
But when does a buyer actually need to buy an EL?

wut

« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2011, 15:47 »
0
At least quadruple, across the board. The way the prices are, it's a steal, broad daylight robbery. Vetta like and SS subs for a grand ;)

rinderart

« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2011, 20:34 »
0
"You don't need an EL for an album cover."-sjlocke


So you are saying they can sell 100,000 albums, no El? Then use the same image for teeshirts and stickers. Hmm I will check. I get a few EL at SS but at IS they are rare. I should be glad it was not a TS sale?

actually it's surprising EL licences still exist, buyers love RF exactly to stay . out of RM limitations.

i prophetize sooner or later EL will disappear.

besides, how many buyers really know about it and understand the concept ?

and if you sue a buyer for not buying the EL, how much are you gonna recoup considering the damage is what, a 100$ ?

I AGREE.

rinderart

« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2011, 20:36 »
0
Despite my "ultra realist" opinion of IP laws and the whole concept of owning ideas as all rubbish - I do NOT think this business will vanish.

yeah, it will just  move to photographers living in third world countries that are more than happy earning less than 1000$/month.

actually, if they're not in the game already is just because of their bad english but give them some time...

Also agree. were not saving babies or doing rocket science Guys.

« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2011, 12:04 »
0
Frankly, I'm surprised so many people here think our photos are being sold for too little (royalties are another can of worms, I'm talking only about retail price).  This conversation always makes me think about music.  We are all happy to buy an mp3 for a dollar, and those songs take more work from the artist than do my photos, in my opinion.  And the royalties are probably even worse.

graficallyminded

« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2011, 21:17 »
0
Don't think buyers aren't using your images just as if they bought an EL license.  Not all of them fear the circumstances... if by some rare occurrence, someone catches them in the act of whoring out the image they paid 39 cents an image for ($59 dollar, 5 per day subscription license from DP).  That license is only there for those buyers that fear getting in trouble, or in fear of losing their job from the company they're employed by.  The ones that know the laws of the digital world.  They are a rarity.  Don't expect anything less when you sell a digital good anywhere, at anytime.  Once it's out there, it's out there - and there's no getting it back.  Control, there's no control with digital goods.  There's only fear of prosecution, and having a good lawyer when needed.

« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2011, 23:26 »
0
It's funny how people put the blame easily on agencies.

If you were in their places, what would you do?

I havent seen your answer here :D

The agencies all divide to conquer...
We would probably all do the same things, if we were in their places.
Our main problem is ourself... we are not consistent at all...
  
We need a "Photographer's Code", something that would look like a line of conduct..

antistock

« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2012, 09:54 »
0
Frankly, I'm surprised so many people here think our photos are being sold for too little (royalties are another can of worms, I'm talking only about retail price).  This conversation always makes me think about music.  We are all happy to buy an mp3 for a dollar, and those songs take more work from the artist than do my photos, in my opinion.  And the royalties are probably even worse.

it depends.
if we talk about dance music i know friends with a studio and a label and they can make easily 1 song per week, sell it online, and make a living.

« Reply #39 on: January 02, 2012, 10:04 »
0
Frankly, I'm surprised so many people here think our photos are being sold for too little (royalties are another can of worms, I'm talking only about retail price).  This conversation always makes me think about music.  We are all happy to buy an mp3 for a dollar, and those songs take more work from the artist than do my photos, in my opinion.  And the royalties are probably even worse.

When we license music for $1, we are not buying the rights to use them commercially, but for personal use only.  So, you can't compare.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #40 on: January 02, 2012, 11:01 »
0
Frankly, I'm surprised so many people here think our photos are being sold for too little (royalties are another can of worms, I'm talking only about retail price).  This conversation always makes me think about music.  We are all happy to buy an mp3 for a dollar, and those songs take more work from the artist than do my photos, in my opinion.  And the royalties are probably even worse.

The price hasn't changed much for music. Only the method for how it's purchased. A CD used to cost $10 - $15 for 10-15 songs. So around $1 a song. Now you can just buy one song.

Plus you can't legally freely copy and use the song for advertising such as a TV commercial. Artists get paid a separate and higher royalty for this usage where RF images can get used for just about anything for an unlimited period of time.

Image producers are leaving a lot of money on the table with low prices and unlimited licenses. Buyers can get a $1 image and make millions from it in TV commercials, advertisements, etc.

antistock

« Reply #41 on: January 02, 2012, 11:04 »
0
When we license music for $1, we are not buying the rights to use them commercially, but for personal use only.  So, you can't compare.

yes and no, DJs buying on Beatport can play your mp3s in discoteques, radio, pubs, etc

of course they can't use your song for the next hollywood movie or for commercial TV ads etc.


antistock

« Reply #42 on: January 02, 2012, 11:14 »
0
Image producers are leaving a lot of money on the table with low prices and unlimited licenses. Buyers can get a $1 image and make millions from it in TV commercials, advertisements, etc.

exactly, and i see no solution actually, RM is simply going down slowly but steadly, how long will it stay afloat ? 3yrs ? 5yrs ?
and licence apart, i've had RM sales for as low as 5$ gross, this was unthinkable just 3-4 yrs ago.

and this is nothing, one day photographers living in third world countries will enter the market in droves, now it's still not happening but one day they will.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #43 on: January 02, 2012, 13:20 »
0
Image producers are leaving a lot of money on the table with low prices and unlimited licenses. Buyers can get a $1 image and make millions from it in TV commercials, advertisements, etc.

exactly, and i see no solution actually, RM is simply going down slowly but steadly, how long will it stay afloat ? 3yrs ? 5yrs ?
and licence apart, i've had RM sales for as low as 5$ gross, this was unthinkable just 3-4 yrs ago.

and this is nothing, one day photographers living in third world countries will enter the market in droves, now it's still not happening but one day they will.

Yes, RM prices are falling and I wonder why. If you can get a $5 RF license for almost unlimited use and time why would you pay more for an RM license. At least with the RM license it has defined usage, duration, possible renewal, and can be tracked.

Whoever came up with RF went way too far on loosening up rights. They could have very easily just simplified the usage model a bit to make it easier on buyers, left everything else intact, and image producers wouldn't have taken such a hit. Just like with micro pricing. They could have went reduced the $500 macro image to $100 instead of $1 micro and would still have been doing well.

We now face an uphill battle of near-unlimited licensing, plateaued demand, massive supply increase, and rock bottom pricing. Most industries would have collapsed already under these conditions.

« Reply #44 on: January 02, 2012, 13:36 »
0
We now face an uphill battle of near-unlimited licensing, plateaued demand, massive supply increase, and rock bottom pricing. Most industries would have collapsed already under these conditions.

Supply and demand; supply and demand; supply and demand. The three rules that determine market prices.

Our problem is not so much the prices our images are sold at but how little of that money we actually receive. Can you imagine how much money we'd be making if Istock had chosen to pay 70% commission for exclusive sales (i.e. the same rate that app developers receive)? Both Istock and their contributors would be laughing all the way to the bank by now.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #45 on: January 02, 2012, 14:08 »
0
We now face an uphill battle of near-unlimited licensing, plateaued demand, massive supply increase, and rock bottom pricing. Most industries would have collapsed already under these conditions.

Supply and demand; supply and demand; supply and demand. The three rules that determine market prices.

Our problem is not so much the prices our images are sold at but how little of that money we actually receive. Can you imagine how much money we'd be making if Istock had chosen to pay 70% commission for exclusive sales (i.e. the same rate that app developers receive)? Both Istock and their contributors would be laughing all the way to the bank by now.

At 70% commission I would be making twice as much as I am now but would not even be close to laughing to the bank. Not too many micro people seem to be laughing about much of anything these days.

If I could
- Get 50%-75% commission
- Limit usage and get paid more for more usage
- Limit duration and get renewal revenue
- Have more images
- Have less competition/supply
- Have access to huge buyer demand
- Price images at $100 - several thousands of dollars

Then I would be laughing all the way to the bank like all of the old school macro contributors used to.

I'm now a Getty house contributor and plan on testing that out for 2012 to see if there's still some life left in macro.

« Reply #46 on: January 02, 2012, 14:48 »
0
Price images at $100 - several thousands of dollars

I think you would limit your market pretty severely at those prices. I have trouble getting people to agree to freelance prices at those rates.  ;D

That's kind of what I like about the micro prices. It allows me to capture the market of all those clients that can't afford custom prices. That said, I don't think somewhere between $10-$30 is unreasonable to ask for most buyers. I really don't think anything should be priced at a buck or two anymore. I'd like to see my average RPD be at around $5 rather than $1.

« Reply #47 on: January 02, 2012, 14:59 »
0
I'd like to see my average RPD be at around $5 rather than $1.

Your gross RPD is probably a lot closer to $5 than $1. Don't forget that macro shooters generally refer to the prices that their images were sold for rather than the commission they received. Like I said, the real problem we have is low commissions rather than low prices.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #48 on: January 02, 2012, 15:01 »
0
Price images at $100 - several thousands of dollars

I think you would limit your market pretty severely at those prices. I have trouble getting people to agree to freelance prices at those rates.  ;D

That's kind of what I like about the micro prices. It allows me to capture the market of all those clients that can't afford custom prices. That said, I don't think somewhere between $10-$30 is unreasonable to ask for most buyers. I really don't think anything should be priced at a buck or two anymore. I'd like to see my average RPD be at around $5 rather than $1.

This is my dreamworld scenario and higher prices are part of it. Some stuff will still sell at those prices but most won't under the current conditions.

Yep that's nice you can get new buyers at micro prices. But you're getting two new kinds of buyers. New people who couldn't afford images before. And people who used to, and still can, pay custom/macro prices but instead buy micro and load their pockets with exponential profits because they're still charging their clients full price or slightly reduced price because of the economy. The end result is lower perceived value. And once price and perceived value go down they rarely go back up.

« Reply #49 on: January 02, 2012, 15:03 »
0
Price images at $100 - several thousands of dollars

I think you would limit your market pretty severely at those prices. I have trouble getting people to agree to freelance prices at those rates.  ;D

That's kind of what I like about the micro prices. It allows me to capture the market of all those clients that can't afford custom prices. That said, I don't think somewhere between $10-$30 is unreasonable to ask for most buyers. I really don't think anything should be priced at a buck or two anymore. I'd like to see my average RPD be at around $5 rather than $1.

So that makes the price up to $33 at IS and $10 at the 50% places


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
10568 Views
Last post January 15, 2010, 10:17
by leaf
2 Replies
2667 Views
Last post June 08, 2012, 06:48
by Paulo M. F. Pires
2 Replies
2260 Views
Last post November 15, 2012, 04:53
by bokehgal
6 Replies
1797 Views
Last post September 10, 2014, 04:45
by 3Stock
8 Replies
1085 Views
Last post October 04, 2018, 04:14
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors