MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Selling the Same Stock Photos at Different Prices  (Read 28446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

helix7

« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2009, 01:29 »
0
Just did a little quick math. Some interesting numbers here:

I took my highest sale at Alamy ($189.26) and compared that to my highest EL sale at istock:
$189.26  --> 125 istock credits or around $165.
Or 1.14 times more at Alamy.

Then I compared that top sale at Alamy to my highest priced images at istock on a regular license (15 credit vectors) :
$189.26 --> 15 credits or around $21.93
Or 8.63 times more at Alamy.

Lastly, I compared the comparable value of an SS image sale (commission times 5, assuming an approximate 20% "commission", although it's probably really much less) of $1.90 next to the same istock regular license sale:
$.38 (*5 to reach aprox full value of image) =$1.90 --> $21.93 from above 15 credit sale
Or 11.54 times more at istock over shutterstock.

And remember that $1.90 is a generous estimate. You could also look at sites like vectorstock that sell 1-credit vector images (credits cost $1) and compare that to istock where some of the exact same images are sold for anywhere from 5 to 25 credits. A 15 credit istock file (roughly $21.93) sells for (you guessed it) 21.93 times more there than on vectorstock. Are istock vector buyers getting screwed over when they can get the files so much cheaper at vectorstock? Are istock sellers taking advantage of buyers?

So go ahead and keep bashing the Alamy price differnce, but keep in mind that the percentage difference between Alamy and micros is often less than the percentage differnce between SS and istock, as well as other micros. So where really is the "grossly different price"?

« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 01:35 by helix7 »


« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2009, 02:00 »
0
A quote from the Alamy forum:

"I have noticed over the past few months that the average sale at Alamy has, for me, been getting lower. No great concern but never the less a fact. However, yesterday I made two sales for use on a Calendar for sale worldwide. This was an Alamy sale not through a distributor and the "on line" pricing module on Alamy priced each image at 325 or around $433. Each of my images was sold for only $10 each! By my reckoning this works out at around a 97.5% discount."

It turn out that this person was not the only one. There are numerous others with the same experience.

« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2009, 10:15 »
0
Quote
So go ahead and keep bashing the Alamy price differnce, but keep in mind that the percentage difference between Alamy and micros is often less than the percentage differnce between SS and istock, as well as other micros. So where really is the "grossly different price"?

Helix, your point is one I hadn't considered, and a very good one at that, thank you.

Alamy doesn't care, so why should you? Also, there is a difference in the particulars of the RF licensing agreement with Alamy and micros. It may be a minor difference but Alamy's is more encompasing by a degree.

« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2009, 10:39 »
0
I think it is stretching the point to the extreme to compare the minimum price achieved at one agency with the maximum at another.

Microstock has never been about individual sales but always about high volumes. Surely the only realistic way to compare is the average price achieved per sale at each agency or $ per image per month?

So far this month my own figures are as follows (about 3500 sales in total);

SS - 0.49

IS - 1.19

DT - 1.29

FT - 1.05

SX - 0.58

BS - 0.90

I don't submit to Alamy or anywhere else.

tbmpvideo

« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2011, 00:08 »
0
A very interesting discussion, which is mirrored over on the video side of things where I come from - round and round forever. Seems to reach deep into lots of vendors sense of what is moral, ethical, etc. I just put that aside awhile back and re-priced my non-performing video clips on the two agencies which allowed me to do it - Pond5 & Revostock. Sales jumped by about a 33 percent on Pond5 and somewhat on Revostock (which had never been a performer as a site) and these coming from perviously non-performing clips. They had no sales and few views either. After re-pricing, sales and views jumped up. So by actively re-pricing I was able to maximize the sales on at least one site leading a significant boost in yearly income. My conclusion from this is that lots of buyers, at least in video, are initially shopping/searching by price and subject. Unless you recognize the competitive nature of these different sites, you're not even in the game. The point after all, is to sell these images and make a living. "To Sell or Not to Sell, that is the question?"

« Reply #55 on: April 15, 2011, 00:57 »
0
^^^Would be interesting to know your price range on Pond5.  I price most of my clips at $39 now but my time lapses don't sell much, so I price them a bit cheaper.  They sell more than the other sites for me.

This is an old thread, I eventually gave in and started putting some of my microstock portfolio on alamy.  There didn't seem to be much point in not uploading there because they already have lots of microstock content now.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: April 15, 2011, 04:22 »
0
Another point is, do not forget that the agencies, and not the photographers, are selling the same photo and same license at different prices, even within the same agency.

Photographers merely make their photos available and do not set the prices. The prices are set through the negotiation between a agency and a buyer.
Exactly. If anyone is 'guilty' then it can only be the agency who over-prices for their goods or services.
Conversely, the guilty party could be the agency who undercharges for their goods to the extent that it's unsustainable for them or their suppliers. This can be seen in businesses other than stock agencies too. A company comes along which, by vicious price slashing, knocks competitors out of business then either goes bust themselves when the initial huge investment to achieve a near-monopoly runs out or they are forced to raise their prices beyond what the market will bear to try to claw back their initial losses.

« Reply #57 on: April 15, 2011, 07:26 »
0
OLD THREAD ALERT

« Reply #58 on: April 15, 2011, 09:25 »
0
Sorry Sean. Edited.

Didn't realize this was such an old thread.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 09:28 by click_click »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
13951 Views
Last post November 10, 2008, 08:21
by Imagine
54 Replies
21649 Views
Last post June 26, 2009, 16:29
by madelaide
5 Replies
6629 Views
Last post October 02, 2012, 13:36
by pyrst
24 Replies
8644 Views
Last post July 03, 2013, 11:16
by Jonathan Ross
4 Replies
2614 Views
Last post January 15, 2023, 16:22
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors