Author Topic: Size Matters (Read 4505 times)

Pixart · « **on:** January 25, 2011, 22:11 »

Paul Melcher has an interesting post today - found here http://blog.melchersystem.com/2011/01/24/size-matters-2/ about size and how the current pricing model may be all wrong. Really got me thinking....

Quote

Since Royalty Free ( microstock included) has made the wrong assumption that smaller image files were always going to be a marginal market, they are entering this new market totally under priced. They are practicality giving away the small file sizes in order to attract visitors.

If they were smart, they should reverse their pricing scheme. Make the large files the cheapest. But, for various reasons, that would never work. One of the most obvious reason would be that no one would understand why bigger is cheaper ( or smaller is more expensive). That is just not the way we think.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2011, 22:34 »

I don't know about reversing - but charging same price for all sizes would definitely make sense.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2011, 22:46 »

That's stupid. You can't charge less for a large size. You'd just buy large and downsize it. You can't do the reverse.

What needs to happen is to slide slowly towards a usage based component. Maybe start with a personal use license for up to M size at lower price, to cover students, prints, scrappers, etc. See if they can handle watching for inappropriate use.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2011, 22:50 »

I think that the blogger is mistaken in the basic assumption that there will be no market soon/in the future for very large images. It may be akin to those assumptions about the paperless office (which still hasn't happened and doesn't look likely to) where projecting the future from the very beginning of some trend can result in huge errors (small angle error = huge delta at the right end of the graph).

I think value based pricing is probably the right approach, and for the moment the notion that you get more value from the editable vector than the JPEG and more from a larger pile of pixels than a smaller is a reasonable proxy for measuring value to the end user.

When I look at my sales, even though I don't know where all those big files end up, I know that there are a very substantial number of Large and higher sales in the mix.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2011, 22:54 »

I'd agree with the usage license.

Something that's like RM but more simple for buyers and sets prices fairly based on newer digital advertising methods.

I think we'll be seeing a lot more buyers getting smaller sizes but hopefully new larger digital advertising will compensate somewhat until a new licensing model is made. I've been seeing a lot more digital road billboards and large flat panel displays at airports.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2011, 23:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2011, 22:46

That's stupid. You can't charge less for a large size. You'd just buy large and downsize it. You can't do the reverse.

What needs to happen is to slide slowly towards a usage based component. Maybe start with a personal use license for up to M size at lower price, to cover students, prints, scrappers, etc. See if they can handle watching for inappropriate use.

I think the industry needs to get back to what it was really selling originally: quality services and convenience. I personally believe a "usage rights" based model isn't the way to go for various reasons, too many to discuss here. I also think the price per image really needs to be determined by the actual production value of the shoot. It makes no sense at all to sell images from a $5,000 shoot for the same price as images from a $1,000 shoot.

Imagine what kind of images would be produced for microstock if the royalty rates actually reflected the shoots initial investment...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2011, 02:44 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on January 25, 2011, 23:15

I also think the price per image really needs to be determined by the actual production value of the shoot. It makes no sense at all to sell images from a $5,000 shoot for the same price as images from a $1,000 shoot.

Imagine what kind of images would be produced for microstock if the royalty rates actually reflected the shoots initial investment...

That is in the photographer's hands. You can up the price for a $5,000 shoot by placing it on Getty instead of on the micros. There's no bar, if you have spent that much on the shoot and believe in the results you can use photographer's choice to place it.

The micros should be selling isolated objects and holiday snaps, not stuff from huge production shoots.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2011, 03:36 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 26, 2011, 02:44

Quote from: cardmaverick on January 25, 2011, 23:15
I also think the price per image really needs to be determined by the actual production value of the shoot. It makes no sense at all to sell images from a $5,000 shoot for the same price as images from a $1,000 shoot.

Imagine what kind of images would be produced for microstock if the royalty rates actually reflected the shoots initial investment...

That is in the photographer's hands. You can up the price for a $5,000 shoot by placing it on Getty instead of on the micros. There's no bar, if you have spent that much on the shoot and believe in the results you can use photographer's choice to place it.

The micros should be selling isolated objects and holiday snaps, not stuff from huge production shoots.

It's not entirely in the photographers hands when dealing with agencies. All you get to do is pay to have your work on their site (and I don't think photographer's choice is open to just any old shooter, you still have to apply). As far as I know, Getty still determines what a buyer must pay, if you got to choose that, I'm sure they'd make that feature know in their recruitment materials:

http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/collections.asp

Selling at your own private store would be an option, but then you loose all the benefits that come with regular agency representation.