Author Topic: The Decline of the print media - should the image sizes/pricing be revised? (Read 5654 times)

Perry · « **on:** May 13, 2012, 15:24 »

You all know that print media has been in decline in the last years, and it will be declining also in future.

I see the average size of images sold is getting smaller and smaller. more xsmall and small sizes, less large and xlarge.

I think microstock sites should revise their pricing. Small sizes up and big sizes down. What do you think?

cthoman · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2012, 15:40 »

Quote from: Perry on May 13, 2012, 15:24

You all know that print media has been in decline in the last years, and it will be declining also in future.

I see the average size of images sold is getting smaller and smaller. more xsmall and small sizes, less large and xlarge.

I think microstock sites should revise their pricing. Small sizes up and big sizes down. What do you think?

I've always been a fan of the one size approach.

Karimala · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2012, 16:25 »

Nothing would stop buyers from buying the large, cheaper size and shrinking it down.

Perry · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2012, 16:29 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 13, 2012, 16:25

Nothing would stop buyers from buying the large, cheaper size and shrinking it down.

Oh, I didn't mean the big sizes would be cheaper than the little ones! They just should be cheaper than they are (and the small sizes more expensive than they are currently)

qwerty · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2012, 16:29 »

I don't think he meant that larger sizes should be cheaper

Perry · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2012, 16:29 »

Graphic Leftovers tried the "one price" system, but they don't use it anymore.

cascoly · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2012, 17:05 »

Quote from: Perry on May 13, 2012, 16:29

Graphic Leftovers tried the "one price" system, but they don't use it anymore.

but given their general lack of any sales, that really doesn't tell us much - what might be more successful would be reducing the sizes tio 2 or 3 types - perhaps, web, regular and supersized, and reflect this in subsxriptions by charging 1,2 or 3 credits for each

cthoman · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2012, 17:14 »

Quote from: Perry on May 13, 2012, 16:29

Graphic Leftovers tried the "one price" system, but they don't use it anymore.

iStock was fairly successful at selling vectors at one size (they had complexity tiers).

grp_photo · « **Reply #8 on:** May 14, 2012, 01:53 »

Quote from: Perry on May 13, 2012, 15:24

You all know that print media has been in decline in the last years, and it will be declining also in future.

I see the average size of images sold is getting smaller and smaller. more xsmall and small sizes, less large and xlarge.

I think microstock sites should revise their pricing. Small sizes up and big sizes down. What do you think?

+1

sharpshot · « **Reply #9 on:** May 14, 2012, 02:18 »

It might be a good idea if the subscription prices were higher. I don't like it when sites raise their prices for pay per download but leave their subscription prices the same. Some buyers switch and I end up selling more subs. The problem is, when the sites do raise subs prices, we will probably get another commission percentage cut. It's hard to be optimistic having seen how we have been treated the past few years.

Microbius · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2012, 03:04 »

I have always liked the idea of one price, I bet a site with everything $10 and not having to buy credit packs would make a killing, because of the simplicity if nothing else.
Alternatively, one price per photo independent of resolution, but let the contributor set it, like GraphicLeftovers does.
Makes a lot more sense to me to let the contributor price the image for what they think it's worth based on time taken and cost of the shoot rather than pricing by resolution which has nothing to do with production costs. It would also let people shooting in highly competitive fields price down.
Crazy to me that a tabletop isolation with very little retouching retails the same as a location shoot with multiple models and lots of lighting costs.

jm · « **Reply #11 on:** May 14, 2012, 04:55 »

Quote from: Perry on May 13, 2012, 15:24

You all know that print media has been in decline in the last years, and it will be declining also in future.

I see the average size of images sold is getting smaller and smaller. more xsmall and small sizes, less large and xlarge.

I think microstock sites should revise their pricing. Small sizes up and big sizes down. What do you think?

+ 1. One of the reasons is that theft of image on web is much more probable that in print media. Also images on web are visible / searchable few months or years, in some cases forever, their lifetime in print media is max. few weeks. I think that pricing must change in few years as IMO the future of print media will be even shorter and less bright than future of microstock.

wut · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:30 »

Quote from: Perry on May 13, 2012, 15:24

You all know that print media has been in decline in the last years, and it will be declining also in future.

I see the average size of images sold is getting smaller and smaller. more xsmall and small sizes, less large and xlarge.

I think microstock sites should revise their pricing. Small sizes up and big sizes down. What do you think?

I completely agree. Although I just got quite a few L+ DLs yesterday at IS, but that is a rare occurrence anyway. Triple prices for web resolutions and a 25% price increase for the 6 mpix+ resolutions. Better yet no cut for larger sizes

. IS tried it with a sale last year. It didn't make much of a difference to my sales though.

wut · « **Reply #13 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:34 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 13, 2012, 17:05

what might be more successful would be reducing the sizes tio 2 or 3 types - perhaps, web, regular and supersized, and reflect this in subsxriptions by charging 1,2 or 3 credits for each

IMO, that's the best idea in the whole thread so far

It's really disgusting to see buyers getting all the sizes for the same price while buying subs. And 90% of the buyers DL the largest or at least second largest resolution. And this sucks as well because some of them upload full res photos on their web sites (I've just seen one of mine a few days ago), just perfect for thieves that can use it in print etc (and no one will ever know if he bought it or not)

JPSDK · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2012, 08:49 »

Maybe they should diversify after what media the pictures are used in.

Some media are more valuable than others, some media earn a lot of money from having a picture there. Its not related to picture size anymore.

Eg a book printed or not, is an end product, it produces money according to the number of copies sold.
A promotion webpage, generates sales according to the clicks.
A social media can generate a lot more than sales. Both direct sales and deep links.
A background for MS windows or a template for photoshop is probably the ultimate usage of a picture.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The Decline of the print media - should the image sizes/pricing be revised? (Read 5654 times)

Perry

cthoman

Karimala

Perry

qwerty

Perry

cascoly

cthoman

grp_photo

sharpshot

Microbius

jm

wut

wut

JPSDK

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors