MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Mo money  (Read 4096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 05, 2009, 14:17 »
0
 What if all sites agrees to rise their prices to double or tripple amount at the same time. More money to everyone, (except buyers...)  But its still super cheap.   Do you think a buyer care if the image he wants cost 1$ or 3$.   

Sub sites could give a way 250 images/month instead of 750

This would probably just start another price war back to zero,  but if we dont feed the ones that go below it should be ok. 

What would happen???   



Moonb007

  • Architect, Photographer, Dreamer
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2009, 14:20 »
0
The same thing will happen as it does with the airlines.  Everyone raises their prices and then all it takes is one to say...I am dropping to get the edge.  Next thing you know...everyone is back at the same old pricing.

« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2009, 14:46 »
0
Here is an interesting article by Dan Heller http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html if you haven't already read it. It's quite lengthy but interesting, certainly worth debating.

« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2009, 14:54 »
0
Here is an interesting article by Dan Heller http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html if you haven't already read it. It's quite lengthy but interesting, certainly worth debating.


 I will read it, Thanks:)

This seems simple, but is complicated :-[       Is that what they call "cartel".  if every one does it at the same time? (rise prices)

What I mean is it would still be micro, but a couple of $ more per image.  Thats all... cmon ;)
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 14:59 by Magnum »

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2009, 15:23 »
0
Here is an interesting article by Dan Heller http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html if you haven't already read it. It's quite lengthy but interesting, certainly worth debating.


Dan writes well but it's blah, blah, blah, and based on a false premise. What, you say? Tell me how many agencies are selling $1 photos? That's his whole soap box for 99c and prices ending in 9 which is about 40 year old marketing. Anyone notice that Wallmart uses the 7 for close-out items? Why's that? Maybe because they leaked the 7 to entice buyers to believe it was a much lower price. When was the last time you had a photo sell for a dollar on iStock?

He's right about the perceived value and you can take common products, put them in a fancy package and tell people it's premium quality, when it comes from the same bin as the regular stuff. But that's buyers who don't care about investigating what they buy and will buy designer jeans, because of the label on them, when they can go to a farm supply store and get some durable, functional jeans, for less.

Is Dan proposing that buyers can't look at a photo and tell if it's good or bad? Unlike chocolates, which are a perishable food, photos are an item that can be held and used and re-used. It's not a box of chocolates, where "you'll never know what you are going to get".  ;D The buyer decides ahead of time, what they are getting and for what purpose.

Meanwhile, we are the product of a price war between agencies, it's not like a store, people travel on the Information Highway, without leaving their desk. (or phone?) The crux of the whole microstock success and why we are paid a relatively low price, compared to five years ago, is information, distribution and supply! The price of information (or photos) has dropped. The photos that meet the needs are easy to find through many competing distribution channels. The supply of photos is no longer limited or exclusive, there are tens of thousands of photographers with digital cameras, around the world, willing to work for a pittance.

It's not like and airline where there's a whole staff and equipment, marketing and advertising, and all kinds of other complications. It's one person with a camera, who uploads to an agency, who handles everything. People work hours and days and weeks and months, for some small sales. Most don't make a payout for agencies every month. Even more never make a payout and realize that we are expendable labor and provide unlimited supplies, because the supply far exceeds the demands. I'm sure the agencies won't be releasing the figures for how many photographers never reach payout and quit, which means 100% profit for the Microstock site.

The perception of a good photo may have some price connections, but only if a buyer is blind and doesn't see that Microstock is the best deal going right now. Fierce price competition, excess supply, same images at most of the sites. It's a buyers market.

And to answer the original question, what if... it would create a firestorm of price fixing and anti-trust suits if the agencies colluded to set prices higher with some kind of industry agreement. All you would need is one agency to disagree and stay low, and the whole house of cards blows over.

As long as photographers are supplying 20 agencies who are involved in the price war, and flocking to every new agency that pops up like a weed, the prices will always be as low as they can go. The only way to stop the undervalued photos is stop supplying start-ups, stop feeding the dormant sites, stop competing with yourself and driving the prices down.

The root cause of the low price problem is the photographers who are willing to take pennies for their work. If everyone on this forum quit tomorrow and removed all their photos from every site, in a week, a new batch of photographers would fill all the sites with new images.

The prices are low because there's no bargaining power on the supply side, the photographers provide the labor and materials and get paid slave wages. The agencies sell for low prices, because they get them cheap and can make a profit turning over the stock at a high volume. The buyers are happy because they get good quality images, for a low price.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 15:36 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2009, 15:55 »
0
I agree that images are so cheap that rising prices would not put buyers away.  Not that doubling prices would double sales, as some buyers may be purchasing more images than they need because a couple of dollars more won't hurt.  We've seen price increases before and they seem to have had little impact in sales.  Of course however there would be a lot of complaints, but we're talking in theory anyway. 

However, I don't believe it is possible that sites make this move because they compete against each other.  And have you noticed that subs packages don't change prices, unlike credit prices?

« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2009, 16:35 »
0
each time istock put up prices, there is a flood of complaints and people leaving, when you look into though it is probably 20-30 people complaining. So at a guess they lose maybe a few hundred customers ?? considering that they have put their prices up many times, the loss of these customers is obviously less than what is earnt by higher prices. Lots of complaints about vetta, but then there seems plenty of sales too, so not everyone has an issue with it.

Dreamstime scale price based on sales of images, I have images that are 5x the price, still selling amongst the thousands of cheaper ones.

FT allow you to increase price at a certain point.  Havent seen a thread on it for a while but last time I saw everyone who has done it said less sales but higher profit overall.

imo higher prices will affect sales but overall increase profit.  also imo we need some of the midstock players to get bigger (its happening), and then people would be more enticed to say this is midstock, or I only shoot midstock


HerrMursilgo

  • achdulibertzeit eine Ratte mit Flgeln
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2009, 16:42 »
0


As long as photographers are supplying 20 agencies who are involved in the price war, and flocking to every new agency that pops up like a weed, the prices will always be as low as they can go. The only way to stop the undervalued photos is stop supplying start-ups, stop feeding the dormant sites, stop competing with yourself and driving the prices down.

The root cause of the low price problem is the photographers who are willing to take pennies for their work. If everyone on this forum quit tomorrow and removed all their photos from every site, in a week, a new batch of photographers would fill all the sites with new images.

The prices are low because there's no bargaining power on the supply side, the photographers provide the labor and materials and get paid slave wages. The agencies sell for low prices, because they get them cheap and can make a profit turning over the stock at a high volume. The buyers are happy because they get good quality images, for a low price.


You say all I wanted to say, and you say it better than I can.
So I will just copy paste the most wise words of you below>>>

===========The root cause of the low price problem is the photographers who are willing to take pennies for their work. If everyone on this forum quit tomorrow and removed all their photos from every site, in a week, a new batch of photographers would fill all the sites with new images. ============

AND THE BIG 6 KNOW THAT. Even if a large number with the biggest portfolios quits and withdraw their zillion images , the Big 6 will not miss them. Not even blink one eyelid.

Oh well, maybe if Yuri and others like him quit, but for the rest below the top layer,
I don't think it matter.    ie. like Racephoto say, the layer that never reach payout.
Why? because they wait for a miracle to happen. Maybe the next new site will make us money, they think.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2764 Views
Last post November 28, 2007, 23:24
by Peiling
15 Replies
5539 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 14:35
by hali
9 Replies
2928 Views
Last post September 18, 2009, 21:23
by click_click
21 Replies
6132 Views
Last post December 20, 2009, 12:40
by biedy
3 Replies
3447 Views
Last post April 20, 2010, 23:11
by RH

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results