MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: wds on March 18, 2019, 16:58
-
Wouldn't it make sense for agencies to boost prices of images with strong sales? Or maybe to give the option to the contributor to do so?
-
Theoretically, yes. Higher demand means more value.
Not that prices should radically change overnight, that would maybe confuse or turn away customers.
-
Dreamstime tried it and I don't think it worked well for them. It's always hard to tell which of many changes might have turned the former #3 agency into a footnote, but complex and confusing pricing certainly played a part, IMO
Fotolia had a worse model in that it allowed top selling artists to increase prices on their entire portfolio, including stuff that didn't sell. After a while they introduced a new rule that if it didn't sell over a certain period its price was set back to the basic level.
The problem with all of this is buyer confusion or alienation - for example, lightboxing images which then aren't the same price when they later come back to buy it. As a seller, if your high price image stops selling as buyers find alternatives, then you're not any better off either.
Microstock is a volume business. If you have something really unusual, it probably should be on microstock sites in the first place.
-
Wouldn't it make sense for agencies to boost prices of images with strong sales? Or maybe to give the option to the contributor to do so?
Only if all agencies jumped on board with the same pricing. Why would a buyer pay $2.00 at Shutterstock when they can get the same image at 123RF for $0.17? At least we, as contributors, can decide if we want to work with an agency that pays a "teenie bit" or another agency that'll pay you a "teenie bit more". ::)
-
You used to be able to do that manually on FT. I doubled the credit cost of all my best sellers.
I don't know what happened to that feature on AS.
-
Recipe for confusion and arguments. Buyers like simple I think.
-
Microstock is a volume business. If you have something really unusual, it probably should be on microstock sites in the first place.
You mean the opposite, right?
Anyway, pricing could stay the same - the agencies could just increase the commission to the artist. That would motivate the artist to create more assets with such high value, while also not alienating customers with "weird" pricing schemes. Just an idea.
-
Microstock is a volume business. If you have something really unusual, it probably should be on microstock sites in the first place.
You mean the opposite, right?
Anyway, pricing could stay the same - the agencies could just increase the commission to the artist. That would motivate the artist to create more assets with such high value, while also not alienating customers with "weird" pricing schemes. Just an idea.
Dreamtimes do this.
-
I understand the "buyer confusion" argument. But maybe if the scheme was a simple one with maybe two tiers of pricing.
Currently, some sites have "premium" collections (or the entire site is premium). This premium content is judged/dictated by the agency whether the actual content is in fact desirable or not (I would guess the majority of premium content never sells...just like any other content).
If you have content that sells nearly every day, it could earn more money with appropriate pricing.....it can be frustrating when it is priced at the same point as content which never or rarely sells. Content which has demonstrated strong salability should be appropriately valued/rewarded! And of course this would be best as a contributor opt-in.