MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What should be the ideal image prices?  (Read 16920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 22, 2011, 15:20 »
0
Which price would you consider a reasonable one? 
Does bigger file size worth more? 
Which agencies fill your price criteria?
Are you selling your files too high or too low?

What keep another cheaper kind of SS from competing at half their price in a few years?  and other ones thereafter..
How low will contributors go to sell their pictures?


« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2011, 15:35 »
0
If history proves anything, agencies that price too low and/or undercut contributors eventually wither away and die. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2011, 15:52 »
0
As a buyer, free.

As a seller, $1 million per download.

Hard to say what's reasonable. The problem isn't the price. It's the license model that hasn't been adapted to newer media. Right now image buyers have it made and can get a Mercedes for the cost of a Chevy. We need a new license model that is reasonable for everybody, not just buyers. I feel micro could have (and should have) started at a much higher price point when it began.

Which price would you consider a reasonable one?
Does bigger file size worth more? Yes
Which agencies fill your price criteria? Getty
Are you selling your files too high or too low? Either depending on the image
What keep another cheaper kind of SS from competing at half their price in a few years?  and other ones thereafter.. Good question. Nothing, especially if contributors promote them and accelerate the downward spiral
How low will contributors go to sell their pictures?As low as it takes before the majority of people realize they're spending their life savings to work for $1 per hour and haven't been profitable for years

 





 

« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2011, 16:29 »
0
It's not just about the price that the customer pays, it's also about the cut that the agency takes.

What I don't understand about our industry is why the agencies get to keep so much. App stores typically pay 70% to their content suppliers. Amazon and the like probably earn about the same (or less) despite them having to store inventory, package it, deliver it, etc.

There is more than enough money being generated from our content for both contributors and the agencies to make a very good living. I don't understand why a few agencies get to keep almost all of it.

helix7

« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2011, 16:59 »
0
Which price would you consider a reasonable one?

$10 large photos, $10 vectors. Always liked that $10 price point and it fits well both as a buyer and seller. As a seller I'm also comfortable with less for vectors if the percentage is better, such as at GL.

Does bigger file size worth more?

Yes.

Which agencies fill your price criteria?

SS (on-demand anyway), SF, GL (see above note), BigStock

Are you selling your files too high or too low?

Probably mostly too low. At least on average. Too low at places like Vectorstock. Too high at istock, DT.

What keep another cheaper kind of SS from competing at half their price in a few years?  and other ones thereafter..

They already exist. DepositPhotos offers 1-month subs for $99 (10 a day) and $180 (25 a day). SF subs are $99 per month. Crestock does $199 monthly subs (not half the SS price, but still cheaper). The list goes on. And yet SS still not only stays alive but prospers.

How low will contributors go to sell their pictures?

It doesn't matter. The real question is how soon will these cheaper subscription collections match SS in collection size and quality. And then will price alone persuade buyers to leave SS.

My best guess answers to those questions are "soon" and "no." And to use the most unlikely example to illustrate why, look at istock. Despite the prices, despite the site bugs, despite everything that's wrong with istock, many buyers stick around. They're creatures of habit. istock gives them what they need, and if price isn't a problem, they keep buying there. The same will hold true at SS. Buyers get used to dealing with a particular agency. They're comfortable. They know SS, they like the site, and they get what they need.

Agencies have been undercutting each other for years, and people have predicted this "race to the bottom" for just as long. And yet here we are...
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 17:02 by helix7 »

rinderart

« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2011, 17:33 »
0
"I feel micro could have (and should have) started at a much higher price point when it began."

CORRECT.

« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2011, 19:00 »
0
I think one of the big issues with microstock is the disconnect between prices paid and amount of money spent on the productions. This is a problem that needs to be solved.

I don't believe in "use" based pricing, that's a total racket... imagine paying $20 for a shirt, then suddenly one day you appear on national news wearing that shirt and suddenly you get a bill for $4,000. Anything involving "rights" that don't actually exist anyways won't be viable and already isn't. When we sell our images, we need to assume right off the bat that they will be used in every way imaginable, big or small because that's already what's going on! That means the prices need to be higher. It's that simple.

I like what shutterstock is doing with individual image purchasing. This should have been implemented from day one YEARS ago. Imagine how much money could have been made if they had done that in the first place.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 19:06 by cardmaverick »

« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2011, 19:10 »
0
I would also add that photographer skill is another factor that should be reflected in prices. Just because something doesn't cost much money doesn't mean the skill required isn't worth a lot of money. Anything high speed should automatically cost more - it's simply harder to shoot and not many photographers can shoot high speed well.

« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2011, 20:37 »
0
It's not just about the price that the customer pays, it's also about the cut that the agency takes.

What I don't understand about our industry is why the agencies get to keep so much. App stores typically pay 70% to their content suppliers. Amazon and the like probably earn about the same (or less) despite them having to store inventory, package it, deliver it, etc.

There is more than enough money being generated from our content for both contributors and the agencies to make a very good living. I don't understand why a few agencies get to keep almost all of it.

Because contributors, me included, allow it. 

« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2011, 21:10 »
0
It's not just about the price that the customer pays, it's also about the cut that the agency takes.

What I don't understand about our industry is why the agencies get to keep so much. App stores typically pay 70% to their content suppliers. Amazon and the like probably earn about the same (or less) despite them having to store inventory, package it, deliver it, etc.

There is more than enough money being generated from our content for both contributors and the agencies to make a very good living. I don't understand why a few agencies get to keep almost all of it.

Because contributors, me included, allow it. 

I think part of the problem is on the supply side - contributors allowing it as you put it - but the other part is on the agency side.

Getty is too close to a monopoly having bought up many other agencies over the years. There needs to be some real and strong competition for them - and Corbis has never managed that; SS for all its success is only in one part of the businesses Getty is in. With Getty in a too strong position, they start throwing their weight around and cutting commissions to artists (and this isn't just iStock; they've done this with many other of their acquisitions and even recently with their own editorial shooters). Then photographers try to make up the lost income somewhere and feed the various lower price agencies that bubble up all over the place.

If there were several decent, competitive, viable agencies where photographers felt they were getting a reasonable deal and could trust their agency, they'd not be running around supplying the wannabes and also-rans.

Right now it's like a massively dysfunctional family or business, with H&F's wretched short-term profit focus making things even worse than they were with just Getty. I don't think it's right to lay all the blame at the feet of contributors.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2011, 21:15 »
0

I don't believe in "use" based pricing, that's a total racket...

And unlimited usage and time is even more ridiculous.

I'm not sure who came up with RF but they didn't get much right including the name. Free? Plus we can't even track which image is legit or pirated. Way to go RF inventor.

A new license should be single-use, time-limited, and be tracked. This way we could actually get some recurring revenue from renewals and easily nail image thiefs.

The way things are going now with questionable demand, massive supply increases, and all you can eat licensing ain't a real good mix for our future.

« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2011, 22:36 »
0

I don't believe in "use" based pricing, that's a total racket...

And unlimited usage and time is even more ridiculous.

I'm not sure who came up with RF but they didn't get much right including the name. Free? Plus we can't even track which image is legit or pirated. Way to go RF inventor.

A new license should be single-use, time-limited, and be tracked. This way we could actually get some recurring revenue from renewals and easily nail image thiefs.

The way things are going now with questionable demand, massive supply increases, and all you can eat licensing ain't a real good mix for our future.

As nice as the usage model appears, you'll never be able to enforce what you want. That's why I think it's silly for us to go down that road. Like it or not, you have to build a business model that address's market place reality, and our reality is that:

1.) IP laws are clearly useless (and cause photographers problems to boot!) - Hell, SOPA, the latest draconian IP law proposal will cripple the whole freaking internet. Can only imagine how great that'll be for selling pictures to bloggers....

2.) Tracking usage for several hundred million image purchases is ridiculous, not to mention unprofitable at our current micro prices.

"RF" exists because people don't like rights managed. Imagine Wal-Mart charging you more money for the oven your buying because you plan to use it at your business to turn a profit, and even have it on display too. Now imagine that they demand $X for every product you sell made in the oven. That's how image buyers feel. Why should I pay more than the next guy? Why should I put up with such a PITA? It's the same product others purchased for less money and harassment. Whine and cry all you like, but hey, that's reality, it pissed people off and they didn't like it.

A studio owner out here told me a about a photographer here in Salt Lake City who used to shoot the symphony. He charged them license fees to use the images. Guess what. They don't use him anymore. Why? The recurring license fee model pissed them off.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 22:43 by cardmaverick »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2011, 22:57 »
0

I don't believe in "use" based pricing, that's a total racket...

And unlimited usage and time is even more ridiculous.

I'm not sure who came up with RF but they didn't get much right including the name. Free? Plus we can't even track which image is legit or pirated. Way to go RF inventor.

A new license should be single-use, time-limited, and be tracked. This way we could actually get some recurring revenue from renewals and easily nail image thiefs.

The way things are going now with questionable demand, massive supply increases, and all you can eat licensing ain't a real good mix for our future.

As nice as the usage model appears, you'll never be able to enforce what you want. That's why I think it's silly for us to go down that road. Like it or not, you have to build a business model that address's market place reality, and our reality is that:

1.) IP laws are clearly useless (and cause photographers problems to boot!) - Hell, SOPA, the latest draconian IP law proposal will cripple the whole freaking internet. Can only imagine how great that'll be for selling pictures to bloggers....

2.) Tracking usage for several hundred million image purchases is ridiculous, not to mention unprofitable at our current micro prices.

"RF" exists because people don't like rights managed. Imagine Wal-Mart charging you more money for the oven your buying because you plan to use it at your business to turn a profit, and even have it on display too. Now imagine that they demand $X for every product you sell made in the oven. That's how image buyers feel. Why should I pay more than the next guy? Why should I put up with such a PITA? It's the same product others purchased for less money and harassment. Whine and cry all you like, but hey, that's reality, it pissed people off and they didn't like it.

A studio owner out here told me a about a photographer here in Salt Lake City who used to shoot the symphony. He charged them license fees to use the images. Guess what. They don't use him anymore. Why? The recurring license fee model pissed them off.

Your oven example is off. Try a DVD rental. You get one use and the more time you have it the more you pay. You can't copy it and if you want to use it again in the future you need to pay for it. That's how to make money. If every rental was $1 at Redbox and had unlimited time and copies they would have went out of business ages ago.

We as contributors are leaving a ridiculous amount of money on the table.

Want to know why we have RF and people like your studio owner? Because we as contributors take whatever $hIt deal is offered to us (RF, unlimited licensing, subscriptions, etc), don't negotiate, and never say "no".

« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2011, 00:35 »
0
licencing is all rubbish. We do not know who buys them for what and when. I did a google image search and found one of my images used as an high selling album cover. Great but did they buy an EL? Probably not. Now they use the same image for stickers and tee shirts. Did they buy usage again ,no way. So who is ripping who off. Unfortunately it is often the designers . The end customer would probably pay. Why do some designers feel they need to rip off the photographer? Why don't we get EL when they are applicable? Do the salespeople at the agencies ever check or ask what it will be used for (how many times).

The right price? Sell micro for nothing less than $1 per image . Give us 50%. What really gets to me is IS putting up prices and downgrading our royalty rates at the same time. I also believe that there could be grounds for specials for education institutions etc but $1 per image is special. Any discounts given to customers for poor service from an agency should come off the agency's cut not ours.

« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2011, 01:05 »
0
Your oven example is off. Try a DVD rental. You get one use and the more time you have it the more you pay. You can't copy it....

Sure you can copy it. Load a linux OS on your PC and get a free DVD ripper, and yes people already do this.

and if you want to use it again in the future you need to pay for it.

No they don't. They already copied it.

That's how to make money. If every rental was $1 at Redbox and had unlimited time and copies they would have went out of business ages ago.

They haven't gone out of business because its so freaking cheap and convenient. If you keep the DVD, they just keep on billing your credit/debit card until you've paid for the cost of the DVD.

We as contributors are leaving a ridiculous amount of money on the table.

We sure are, but it's not because of license models, we just aren't charging enough to begin with. Plenty of people will line up to buy our images at $10 a pop. I sold plenty of $10 images at cluster shot before it became a giant cluster f%^$ and that was all on my own without much effort.

Want to know why we have RF and people like your studio owner? Because we as contributors take whatever $hIt deal is offered to us (RF, unlimited licensing, subscriptions, etc), don't negotiate, and never say "no".

I'm not trying to "assail" you, I'm just illustrating something I learned a long time ago about business in general:

If you can't reliably control it, you can't reliably sell it.

We can't reliably control intellectual properties, despite all the laws in the universe, and therefore should be prepared to deal with the realities that comes with.

This why I advocate some major changes to how the stock photo business works.

antistock

« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2011, 03:06 »
0
"RF" exists because people don't like rights managed. Imagine Wal-Mart charging you more money for the oven your buying because you plan to use it at your business to turn a profit, and even have it on display too. Now imagine that they demand $X for every product you sell made in the oven. That's how image buyers feel. Why should I pay more than the next guy? Why should I put up with such a PITA? It's the same product others purchased for less money and harassment. Whine and cry all you like, but hey, that's reality, it pissed people off and they didn't like it. 

oh well then they're free to go out and shoot the images themselves with their iPhones or pay a few grands for a photographer on assignment.
which one you prefer ?

antistock

« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2011, 03:22 »
0
licencing is all rubbish. We do not know who buys them for what and when. I did a google image search and found one of my images used as an high selling album cover. Great but did they buy an EL? Probably not.

EXACTLY !

and that's precisely why RF sucks and will finally kill the industry !

there's no good pricing and no good agencies, RM is still the only fair trade.

and talking about pricing, well 50$ should be the bare minimum for a photo, no matter if web-sized for the simple reason my production costs are still the same, if web sites need only 300px images that's their * problem, not mine.


antistock

« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2011, 03:32 »
0
This why I advocate some major changes to how the stock photo business works.

too late.
it made sense when there was scarcity and the only good photos were sold as RM on the major libraries.

nowadays there are zillions of "good enough" images around for 0.5$ and they're here to stay, and if buyers had a bit more time in their hands they would also find very very good images for free on Flickr etc

if a client asked me to make a travel guide with hundreds of images i could do it with a photo budget of 0$, fully legal,  and still make a good product.
this is the reality and it's getting worse.

the only ones getting rich with photography are Canon and Nikon ... hahaha

helix7

« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2011, 09:09 »
0
...and that's precisely why RF sucks and will finally kill the industry...

These end-of-the-industry predictions have been around for years, and yet I don't feel like we're ever any closer to it actually happening. Can you at least give us some sort of timeline for when to expect to be out of business?

::)

...50$ should be the bare minimum for a photo, no matter if web-sized for the simple reason my production costs are still the same, if web sites need only 300px images that's their  problem, not mine.

Sounds like the istock business model, the "we'll tell you what you want, and not respond to what you're asking for" mentality. And obviously it's working so well for istock, it should work well for the rest of the business...

;D
« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 09:11 by helix7 »

« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2011, 09:25 »
0
licencing is all rubbish. We do not know who buys them for what and when. I did a google image search and found one of my images used as an high selling album cover. Great but did they buy an EL? Probably not.

EXACTLY !

You don't need an EL for an album cover.

« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2011, 13:44 »
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.

There are way to many other variables like convenience, and yes, even resolution. There are markets where resolution alone is the reason our images can't be so easily taken for free. One reason why I love video so much has to do with the fact that it's so hard to "steal" a clip and use it! Thank you advent of 4K video.... :)

« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2011, 14:34 »
0
It's funny how people put the blame easily on agencies.

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

« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2011, 14:41 »
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

« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2011, 21:59 »
0
$1,000,000, if there's a buyer

« Reply #24 on: December 25, 2011, 08:12 »
0
"I feel micro could have (and should have) started at a much higher price point when it began."

CORRECT.

So true, when I first got involved with microstock as a buyer I couldn't believe the prices.
I'd just download the high resolutions images for comps and if they got the green light it was just one less step in
the production process. Even today when I need a special image for a project I end up downloading more than I need.
The return on the picture that I use will easily cover the costs of the others.
 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
16124 Views
Last post January 15, 2010, 10:17
by leaf
2 Replies
4604 Views
Last post June 08, 2012, 06:48
by Paulo M. F. Pires
2 Replies
3964 Views
Last post November 15, 2012, 04:53
by bokehgal
6 Replies
4647 Views
Last post September 10, 2014, 04:45
by 3Stock
8 Replies
4493 Views
Last post October 04, 2018, 04:14
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors