pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Adobe Stock Upfront Royalty Payment Opportunity  (Read 40505 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #325 on: July 04, 2021, 16:12 »
+2

So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.
  possibly, but currently unsupported - images that made < $2 in the last year are less likely to suddenly bring in $5+

Quote
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)
another so far unsupported claim  - we'll see how  much AS commissions decline - they didnt when AS first introduced a limted free section awhile ago.

Also we already compete against each other when we submit images to agencies!

Quote
It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

not really -  the tragedy of the commons concerns individuals exploiting a shared good - here there is no shared good as all artists are seeking to maximise their income while competing directly against other artists


an interesting counter view is https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/18/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-not-a-nash-equilibrium/


« Reply #326 on: July 04, 2021, 17:10 »
0
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.

Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..

1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free

and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??

My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else.
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5).
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)

It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

"Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors "

I produce couple hunderets assets per month and giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time. I dont mind giving away assets that not selling and im constantly working on making better and more saleable assets.
 I think the problem starts when someone expect his old portfolio to sell forever then other contributtors that produce new assets will outpreform them in few months free or not anyway.

If you active and working to make more, customers always will need new and actual photos. If there will be free photo of location that travel agency will use they will need more most likely and wont use one photo forever because it was free. If there is customer that use only free photo he wont be on adobe but pexel, unsplash etc. so someone i dont care about anyway and most likely he never bought photos anyway.
 
Its about real customers that constantly need photos for company etc. If someone come for free photos only most likely he never bought photos anyway.

"We rather shoot each other in the feet"

There is no we in sales, we compete against each other free or not best assets gets more sales and everyone is assessing best that works for them. Would be silly to lose oportunity to earn more because i want someone else to sell their photos better.

Just my point of view.

I understand your point of view.
My experience is different. I have solid assets that sell well over and over again, since many years!
Producing more of the same, will only devalue my best sellers.

Yes, you have to shoot more, indeed, but different themes and subjects. Otherwise, you are really shooting yourself in the foot!

Taking this in consideration, if now AS has in its free collection assets that compete with my best sellers, I will lose, even if my stuff is better, because nothing competes with free.

Of course we are competitors, but as the boys in A Beautiful Mind went home without getting laid, because they all set their eyes on the gorgeous blonde while neglecting the other girls, the same way we will lose because we set our eyes on those $5, without seing the big picture and the science behind this game theory. 😉

I do understend your point of view as well but i disagree being valid to microstock.

 With amount of assets uploaded daily the "Producing more of the same, will only devalue my best sellers" in my experiance isnt valid as it could be years ago.
If you wont shoot planty simlars but fresh photos every few weeks other contributors will replace your themes. Customers like new.

Its propably depends on subject but after finding my niches i notice in one year time i got slowly replaced and my avrage $100 per month per that subject dropped to few $. I went heavy on that subject and i menaged to increse sales just for that subject to $500 per month get to the first search pages with few similar photos and only way i can keep up up there with every subjest is to how you call it "shoot" my foot few times a month.

Problem is that stock is devaluated allrady so strongly that you need go into quantity over quality to stay relevant. Your work need to be as low as the payment is.

I do stock photography for money and i do not put any passion into it as no one pays for it anymore. I leave passion and quality photography to myself and privat clients. I shoot snapshots for stock on walk with dog or in my backyard.

Lets be honest its the matter of time when Adobe goes sub 10c and SS sub 0.1c. The way i counter this is lower my work time on assets/quality. And pick 10 simlars from batch cost me almost no time if i dont focus on edits. Then sprea that similars uploads through month with help of Software like Stock submitter and with press of one button send to every agency i know...

Stock isnt Art what i try to say.

 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2021, 17:21 by MadPhotos »

« Reply #327 on: July 04, 2021, 21:08 »
+6

So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.
  possibly, but currently unsupported - images that made < $2 in the last year are less likely to suddenly bring in $5+

Quote
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)
another so far unsupported claim  - we'll see how  much AS commissions decline - they didnt when AS first introduced a limted free section awhile ago.

Also we already compete against each other when we submit images to agencies!

Quote
It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

not really -  the tragedy of the commons concerns individuals exploiting a shared good - here there is no shared good as all artists are seeking to maximise their income while competing directly against other artists


an interesting counter view is https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/18/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-not-a-nash-equilibrium/

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
I am not talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's not applicable here, because we don't have a pool of common assets. Besides, even your article is stating that the tragedy of commons is NOT a Nash equilibrium.

I am talking about us, being those boys in the bar all instinctively competing for the gorgeous blonde, instead of paying attention to the other girls, thus smartly aiming for a win-win situation.

In my opinion, we should let all our photos earn their fair competitive share (even if it's less than $5), because this way, we are protecting the rest of our more valuable assets against the kiss of death coming from free alternatives.
If we do that, we are obviously continuing to compete, but, at the end of the day, each one of us is earning more.

Competition is great for progress, but there is no winner in a nuclear war. With this new "free" weapon, we obliterate each other, instead of competing.

The bigger the free collection becomes the worse it will be for each one of us.
I'm happy to see that only a negligible amount has been selected. Hopefully AS will realize the mistake and stop the experiment, before it's too late.


Stock isnt Art what i try to say.


I agree with this: microstock is not art.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2021, 21:29 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #328 on: July 05, 2021, 08:32 »
+4
...giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time...

Weird, I havent found this at all.

I see these sorts of collections as promotion/ marketing for the agency, to increase traffic to them over a competing agency.

I have never seen any significant uptick from an agency putting my work front and centre, even when I have been photographer of the month/ week or whatever with my work / portfolio on the front page of a site.

Mileage may vary I guess.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2021, 04:26 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #329 on: July 05, 2021, 12:24 »
+3
...giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time...

Weird, I havent found this at all.

I see these sorts of collections as promotion/ marketing for the agency, to increase traffic to them over a competing agency.

I have never seen any significant untick from an agency putting my work front and centre, even when I have been photographer of the month/ week or whatever with my work / portfolio on the front page of a site.

Mileage may vary I guess.
Same here, I was featured by Alamy, by Dreamstime, by Shutterstock... with no visible change in my sales pattern.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 17:03 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #330 on: July 05, 2021, 20:01 »
0

another so far unsupported claim  - we'll see how  much AS commissions decline - they didnt when AS first introduced a limted free section awhile ago.

Also we already compete against each other when we submit images to agencies!

Quote
It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

not really -  the tragedy of the commons concerns individuals exploiting a shared good - here there is no shared good as all artists are seeking to maximise their income while competing directly against other artists


an interesting counter view is https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/18/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-not-a-nash-equilibrium/

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
I am not talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's not applicable here, because we don't have a pool of common assets. Besides, even your article is stating that the tragedy of commons is NOT a Nash equilibrium.
 ...

you were clear - you said this was Nash game theory and what you described is the tragedy of the commons which is based on his game theory.  (i only included the  link to offer another POV - if it's correct, then your claim to nash's theory is still incorrect)

if you still disagree please show some evidence backing up your claim that this is based on Nash

if you were really referring to prisoner's dilemma, that is not from nash AND also doesn't apply

basically your claim that that individuals who take the $5 hurt the group just doesn't make sense

« Reply #331 on: July 05, 2021, 21:21 »
+2

another so far unsupported claim  - we'll see how  much AS commissions decline - they didnt when AS first introduced a limted free section awhile ago.

Also we already compete against each other when we submit images to agencies!

Quote
It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

not really -  the tragedy of the commons concerns individuals exploiting a shared good - here there is no shared good as all artists are seeking to maximise their income while competing directly against other artists


an interesting counter view is https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/18/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-not-a-nash-equilibrium/

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
I am not talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's not applicable here, because we don't have a pool of common assets. Besides, even your article is stating that the tragedy of commons is NOT a Nash equilibrium.
 ...

you were clear - you said this was Nash game theory and what you described is the tragedy of the commons which is based on his game theory.  (i only included the  link to offer another POV - if it's correct, then your claim to nash's theory is still incorrect)

if you still disagree please show some evidence backing up your claim that this is based on Nash

if you were really referring to prisoner's dilemma, that is not from nash AND also doesn't apply

basically your claim that that individuals who take the $5 hurt the group just doesn't make sense

No, you are wrong. I didn't describe the tragedy of commons. That's what you assumed.

"In the Nash equilibrium, each player's strategy is optimal when considering the decisions of other players. "
Even more, "the prisoners' dilemma is a common game theory example and one that adequately showcases the effect of the Nash equilibrium."

So yes, you fail to consider that others are also getting those $5 and making their assets free to compete against your non-free assets, maybe even against your best sellers.
So your strategy is not optimal, but narrow-sighted. And you'll lose more than the little gain you make with those $5.

Just think about how the game can evolve: the more free assets will exist, the less our best sellers will earn because of the increased competition from free assets. We will be incentivized to make even more of our assets free because we will be happy to get those $5, instead of nothing (or almost nothing).
The game ends when all assets are free and our lifetime earnings for each photo will stop growing, being limited by the last $5 we get when we make it free.

When we accept the $5, we are not in a Nash equilibrium, therefore our strategy is not optimal.

So yes, I am claiming that the individuals who take the $5 do hurt the group (and indirectly will end hurting themselves)
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 22:36 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #332 on: July 06, 2021, 01:27 »
+3
At the end of the day, this is not a good deal for us.

Many of my proposed photos gathered much more than $5 elsewhere, while AS didn't do a good job in promoting them..,..

1. so, adding them to AS makes sense as you'll get more than they've earned
2. buyers at other sites are unlikely to find same images among AS free

and have those images made $5 on other sites in the last year??

My point is that many "buyers" will just be satisfied with free, instead of paying for something else.
So instead of driving additional sales (as this new business model is expecting), it will rather prevent regular sales to be made.

Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors with a similar subject. The losses will exceed $5, because nothing beats free.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot, indeed (because we get $5).
We rather shoot each other in the feet (because we will both lose more than $5, when we compete against each other with free vs paid)

It looks to me like John Nash's game theory, described in A Beautiful Mind: what is the best outcome for the individuals is not always the best outcome for the group.

"Yes, we get $5, for a photo, but that will kill sales and the earnings for other contributors "

I produce couple hunderets assets per month and giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time. I dont mind giving away assets that not selling and im constantly working on making better and more saleable assets.
 I think the problem starts when someone expect his old portfolio to sell forever then other contributtors that produce new assets will outpreform them in few months free or not anyway.

If you active and working to make more, customers always will need new and actual photos. If there will be free photo of location that travel agency will use they will need more most likely and wont use one photo forever because it was free. If there is customer that use only free photo he wont be on adobe but pexel, unsplash etc. so someone i dont care about anyway and most likely he never bought photos anyway.
 
Its about real customers that constantly need photos for company etc. If someone come for free photos only most likely he never bought photos anyway.

"We rather shoot each other in the feet"

There is no we in sales, we compete against each other free or not best assets gets more sales and everyone is assessing best that works for them. Would be silly to lose oportunity to earn more because i want someone else to sell their photos better.

Just my point of view.

I understand your point of view.
My experience is different. I have solid assets that sell well over and over again, since many years!
Producing more of the same, will only devalue my best sellers.

Yes, you have to shoot more, indeed, but different themes and subjects. Otherwise, you are really shooting yourself in the foot!

Taking this in consideration, if now AS has in its free collection assets that compete with my best sellers, I will lose, even if my stuff is better, because nothing competes with free.

Of course we are competitors, but as the boys in A Beautiful Mind went home without getting laid, because they all set their eyes on the gorgeous blonde while neglecting the other girls, the same way we will lose because we set our eyes on those $5, without seing the big picture and the science behind this game theory. 😉
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.

« Reply #333 on: July 06, 2021, 01:43 »
+1
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.

Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
 ;D

« Reply #334 on: July 06, 2021, 03:02 »
+1
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.

Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
 ;D
Indeed.....there have been a few cases of companies bottling municipal tap water and selling at a premium......

« Reply #335 on: July 06, 2021, 08:05 »
+3
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.

Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
 ;D
Indeed.....there have been a few cases of companies bottling municipal tap water and selling at a premium......

Then the conclusion is that buyers can be fooled and made belive that something is better, but only for limited time.

Isn't it the same for the photos "perceived" to be better, you gave as an example?

It's just a matter of time before the buyers realize that the free alternative is equally good, or simply good enough for the purpose.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2021, 08:09 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #336 on: July 06, 2021, 13:15 »
+8
It doesn't matter how it's packaged, giving our work away for free devalues us all, as if we haven't already been devalued enough. When I see an image in the Free section of any agency, I assume it wasn't good enough to be accepted. I then look at the name of the creator and assume that person isn't very good at what he does. And that is what the buyers - I mean takers in this instance - will think too.  Anyone participating in this travesty should be ashamed. Stop the madness.

« Reply #337 on: July 06, 2021, 13:23 »
+4
I say by all means let AS give your images away for free.  AS think it's cheap advertising, and I can't argue.  If it brings in more paying customers for the rest of us.... hooray!
But as for me, I will not give away my images, either here or at SS.

« Reply #338 on: July 06, 2021, 13:27 »
0
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.

Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
 ;D
Indeed.....there have been a few cases of companies bottling municipal tap water and selling at a premium......

Then the conclusion is that buyers can be fooled and made belive that something is better, but only for limited time.

Isn't it the same for the photos "perceived" to be better, you gave as an example?

It's just a matter of time before the buyers realize that the free alternative is equally good, or simply good enough for the purpose.  ;)

Metaphore have zero sense here. Customers have eyes, if free photos are better for their purpose they will pick free. Company's have budget for that reason and if paid are better they will pick better. Don't know what is your customer base but my for sure isn't ppl without money. Many times before I was contacted by potential buyers and offered them one free photo and they coming back to buy more of my fresh photos mostly for advertising and tourism. I would be exclusive to Pexel sites if my customer base was broke. You guys get over dramatic and it turns into comedy. Going back to water, you don't know which is better unless you have mobile laboratory with you and carry a test of your drinks. You don't need science to see what photo suits your needs.

« Reply #339 on: July 06, 2021, 13:36 »
0
It doesn't matter how it's packaged, giving our work away for free devalues us all, as if we haven't already been devalued enough. When I see an image in the Free section of any agency, I assume it wasn't good enough to be accepted. I then look at the name of the creator and assume that person isn't very good at what he does. And that is what the buyers - I mean takers in this instance - will think too.  Anyone participating in this travesty should be ashamed. Stop the madness.
When I see it I assume someone want to promote his photos like I do. And I don't assume what customer assume especially when my sales go up. Nothing to assume if I have my own statistics.

« Reply #340 on: July 06, 2021, 13:48 »
+2
Whether you accepted this deal or not, it will hurt us all.
Don't fool yourself, buyers will always take the free image, if it represents their needs, no matter the quality.I hope I am wrong.
I am already seeing the results (one free image), I had just six small downloads this month, none today, I haven't seen this for a long time.

« Reply #341 on: July 06, 2021, 13:55 »
0
...giving away free images is marketing and promoting for me (still not free as they pay) always did it and it worked for me every time...

Weird, I havent found this at all.

I see these sorts of collections as promotion/ marketing for the agency, to increase traffic to them over a competing agency.

I have never seen any significant uptick from an agency putting my work front and centre, even when I have been photographer of the month/ week or whatever with my work / portfolio on the front page of a site.

Mileage may vary I guess.

After being featured in Editors pics my sales jumped instantly even 50%, after giving away some photos in time limit of one month for free showing my main subjects i picked up some slight spikes in sales through next few months of that theme. Getting on the first page of search is like striking the gold and free photos can get you there fastest.

Like you said Mileage may vary.
If i would promote themes that arent searched for, it would not change the traffic to my port.

Main thing is to studdy statistics through Apps like Microstockr or follow statistics on sites like Creative market that show you exacly when who and why come to buy.
And dont assume


« Reply #342 on: July 06, 2021, 14:05 »
0
Whether you accepted this deal or not, it will hurt us all.
Don't fool yourself, buyers will always take the free image, if it represents their needs, no matter the quality.I hope I am wrong.
I am already seeing the results (one free image), I had just six small downloads this month, none today, I haven't seen this for a long time.

Sounds like you dont upload much and that would be the main reason. Some upload hundreds assets a week or even day.
Your old photos will be burried with time if you wont be fighting for your posittion in that competition.
Its way to soon to say what is the impact of free collection, it will take months to see results. First batch last year brought some new customers and i saw it in my sales.
BTW This month for me is normal no change in sales... so yes too soon and i got aproved 50 free photos

« Reply #343 on: July 06, 2021, 14:18 »
+1
. Nothing to assume if I have my own statistics.

Your own statistics are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Besides, you, like many others, changed your strategy when you began to offer your stuff for free.

Therefore your past performance is not a predictor of your future performance, anymore.

Too bad you fail to understand how bad this model is for all of us!


« Reply #344 on: July 06, 2021, 14:35 »
0
. Nothing to assume if I have my own statistics.

Your own statistics are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Besides, you, like many others, changed your strategy when you began to offer your stuff for free.

Therefore your past performance is not a predictor of your future performance, anymore.

Too bad you fail to understand how bad this model is for all of us!
Your personal opinion, you have right to have one.
Disagree as since 4 years I see only growth that slows down when my performance slows down. I don't live in past and present won't stay same forever im aware of that. If you won't adopt you stay behind. And complaining changes nothing.

« Reply #345 on: July 06, 2021, 14:49 »
+2
Whether you accepted this deal or not, it will hurt us all.
Don't fool yourself, buyers will always take the free image, if it represents their needs, no matter the quality.I hope I am wrong.
I am already seeing the results (one free image), I had just six small downloads this month, none today, I haven't seen this for a long time.

Sounds like you dont upload much and that would be the main reason. Some upload hundreds assets a week or even day.
Your old photos will be burried with time if you wont be fighting for your posittion in that competition.
Its way to soon to say what is the impact of free collection, it will take months to see results. First batch last year brought some new customers and i saw it in my sales.
BTW This month for me is normal no change in sales... so yes too soon and i got aproved 50 free photos
You are right, I don't upload a lot, still it's 10 years now that I am playing this game.
During these years I've seen portfolios with only a few hundred images earning more than those with 10-20k assets but I agree, its probably too soon to say what is the impact of free collection.

« Reply #346 on: July 06, 2021, 15:17 »
+1
. Nothing to assume if I have my own statistics.

Your own statistics are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Besides, you, like many others, changed your strategy when you began to offer your stuff for free.

Therefore your past performance is not a predictor of your future performance, anymore.

Too bad you fail to understand how bad this model is for all of us!
Your personal opinion, you have right to have one.
Disagree as since 4 years I see only growth that slows down when my performance slows down. I don't live in past and present won't stay same forever im aware of that. If you won't adopt you stay behind. And complaining changes nothing.

I am not complaining. I am explaining. Obviously, not everybody is ready to admit when they made a bad call and explanations are futile, in such cases.
Good luck, and while you are joyfully sawing off the branch you are sitting on, remember that you shouldn't complain when you'll break your legs  ;D

« Reply #347 on: July 06, 2021, 15:36 »
0
. Nothing to assume if I have my own statistics.

Your own statistics are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Besides, you, like many others, changed your strategy when you began to offer your stuff for free.

Therefore your past performance is not a predictor of your future performance, anymore.

Too bad you fail to understand how bad this model is for all of us!
Your personal opinion, you have right to have one.
Disagree as since 4 years I see only growth that slows down when my performance slows down. I don't live in past and present won't stay same forever im aware of that. If you won't adopt you stay behind. And complaining changes nothing.

I am not complaining. I am explaining. Obviously, not everybody is ready to admit when they made a bad call and explanations are futile, in such cases.
Good luck, and while you are joyfully sawing off the branch you are sitting on, remember that you shouldn't complain when you'll break your legs  ;D

Thanks for that clich wishes 👌. Remember life is much more than stock photos. Don't act like all will end with it it's not healthy. Good luck as well.

« Reply #348 on: July 06, 2021, 20:05 »
0
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.

Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
 ;D
Indeed.....there have been a few cases of companies bottling municipal tap water and selling at a premium......

more than a few - major brands like Aquafina (Pepsi) & Dasani (CocaCola) & Nestles use tap water (plus some hand waving magic advertising)

https://waterpurificationguide.com/brands-of-bottled-water-that-are-actually-tap-water/
« Last Edit: July 06, 2021, 20:07 by cascoly »

« Reply #349 on: July 07, 2021, 00:23 »
0
If something is perceived as better than free then it can compete...hence people pay for mineral water in restaurants rather than free tap water. Price is rarely the only factor in purchasing decisions.

Do you mean like this: https://youtu.be/EL5O_9HnN4E?
 ;D
Indeed.....there have been a few cases of companies bottling municipal tap water and selling at a premium......

Then the conclusion is that buyers can be fooled and made belive that something is better, but only for limited time.

Isn't it the same for the photos "perceived" to be better, you gave as an example?

It's just a matter of time before the buyers realize that the free alternative is equally good, or simply good enough for the purpose.  ;)
Indeed though I wouldn't necessarily say "fooled" or time is limited. People pay more for many branded products which often in blind comparisons are no better than cheaper generic products. Thats largely what marketing is about. I would imagine SS get most of their income from busineses where convenience and trust are probably key. Once a corporate has bought a package or negotiated a contract  then they are unlikely to allow buyers to go outside it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1849 Views
Last post June 13, 2008, 15:15
by News Feed
10 Replies
5222 Views
Last post March 09, 2020, 15:23
by res
13 Replies
5273 Views
Last post December 05, 2019, 15:54
by chescopar
93 Replies
10342 Views
Last post August 26, 2021, 10:50
by Uncle Pete
46 Replies
7399 Views
Last post October 25, 2021, 15:54
by pancaketom

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle