pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How to undercut the competition even more?  (Read 3620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 07, 2009, 16:30 »
0
Why customer have to pay whopping 25 cents for an image if they can only specify pixels they need? Would 5 cents per million pixels be right price?


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2009, 16:39 »
0
mela rofl, did you get the idea of this thread after reading Geopappas comment to david of Pixamba?
cute !

« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2009, 16:53 »
0
Why customer have to pay whopping 25 cents for an image if they can only specify pixels they need? Would 5 cents per million pixels be right price?

Would they get 2 1/2 cents change if they only need a half million pixels? ;D

-Larry

« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2009, 16:53 »
0
Why customer have to pay whopping 25 cents for an image if they can only specify pixels they need? Would 5 cents per million pixels be right price?
Customers are not purchasing pixels, but a licence to use your asset, they are paying for the assets content,  the funny thing here is that microstock needs high volumes to trade, most the customers need a volume of small assets, so to maximize profits there is a need for large volumes of small assets to be sold, all the debate about larger assets relates to a very small part of the business.

The customer will take a larger file than they really need if they can get it, but they are not likely to use the larger size, some customers will use all their subscription credits if they are going to expire, and never use the files.

The volume of downloads for small assets are what drives microstock, as artists we should be concentrating and protecting the artists commission on the core of the business small and medium assets, so 5 cents for a small image is a no go, and any new agencies cutting prices for credits and prices for small or medium assets below the mainstream stocksites should also be a no go.

Large assets do not damage the microstock industry, cheaper small and medium assets do the damage.

David    

« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2009, 17:07 »
0
Brilliant.  Buying images by the pixel is like buying a painting by the number of brush strokes or buying dinner according to the number of ingredients used.

If that idea ever gets traction it is really time to get a job at Wal Mart  ::)

« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2009, 18:04 »
0
Reminds me of an old joke.  A guy has a leaky pipe in his house, so he calls a plumber.  The plumber puts his ear to the pipe for a few seconds, then takes a mallet and bangs the pipe a couple of times.  The leak stops.  He presents the homeowner with a bill for $75.

The homeowner is incensed!  "$75!  How can you charge $75?  You were only here for five minutes!  All you did was bang on the pipe!  I want an itemized bill.  I want to see how you justify $75 for five minutes work."

So the plumber writes him an itemized bill:  "Banging on the pipe: $5.  Knowing where to bang: $70."

By the pixels treats those pixels as commodities.  They aren't.  The picture as a whole may or may not be a commodity, but it is more than the sum of its pixels.  Or should all software cost the same, since it's all the same ones and zeroes?

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2009, 18:11 »
0
Reminds me of an old joke.  A guy has a leaky pipe in his house, so he calls a plumber.  The plumber puts his ear to the pipe for a few seconds, then takes a mallet and bangs the pipe a couple of times.  The leak stops.  He presents the homeowner with a bill for $75.

The homeowner is incensed!  "$75!  How can you charge $75?  You were only here for five minutes!  All you did was bang on the pipe!  I want an itemized bill.  I want to see how you justify $75 for five minutes work."

So the plumber writes him an itemized bill:  "Banging on the pipe: $5.  Knowing where to bang: $70."

By the pixels treats those pixels as commodities.  They aren't.  The picture as a whole may or may not be a commodity, but it is more than the sum of its pixels.  Or should all software cost the same, since it's all the same ones and zeroes?

rofl, good one disorderly.
btw are those girls in your new avatar topless? it's too small for me to see !

« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2009, 18:45 »
0
By the pixels treats those pixels as commodities.  They aren't.  The picture as a whole may or may not be a commodity, but it is more than the sum of its pixels.  Or should all software cost the same, since it's all the same ones and zeroes?

This is a very neglected idea and totally right. Size has been over-emphasized too much. The concept of the image and the looks are the "where to bang" and should carry a flat creativity fee. A size fee can then be added as an extra. Looking at the Pixamba size/credits discussion, it boils down to this line of thought. A given good picture is not worth double if the number of pixels is doubled. The relation is non-linear.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2356 Views
Last post March 20, 2013, 16:20
by rubyroo
0 Replies
2010 Views
Last post April 24, 2014, 10:10
by 60D
103 Replies
17235 Views
Last post July 30, 2014, 16:33
by ShadySue
4 Replies
1544 Views
Last post March 11, 2015, 17:06
by ismailciydem
13 Replies
3778 Views
Last post February 28, 2017, 12:45
by JimP

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle