Author Topic: Image Pricing? (Read 10319 times)

klsbear · « **Reply #25 on:** August 17, 2013, 22:23 »

I left my images at the default setting to begin with while I worked my way through the set up process. My reasoning being that they are at several micro sites but also that most of them were shot with my older Canon 30D so the large size is not all that large by today's standards. I'm shooting with a 5d MkIII now. I may keep some of these exclusive to my site and will be more selective about which sites get them if I upload elsewhere. I do like Crackerclips reasoning for two bands of pricing, lower end for blog and small, higher priced for medium and large. I plan to review my pricing and most likely will bump up the pricing in the near future.

marthamarks · « **Reply #26 on:** August 17, 2013, 23:11 »

I also agree with Redneck and Cracker Clips. One of the reasons we're all going through this process is to be able to control the prices we charge for our products and the revenue we get from them. If we were thrilled to be giving them away for peanuts on SS, FT, etc, we would just stick with that system.

Right now, I'm mostly going with the default prices, but I have already upped slightly (to $25) what I charge for a large with a few "special" images. I may well go much higher, even up to $50, for "special" images in the future. Hard to do it right now when they're all already on SS, FT, etc.

Add me to the list of those requesting some way to bulk-adjust prices without having to do them all at the same level.

Please keep this conversation going. It's important to understand all the ramifications of different price points.

cascoly · « **Reply #27 on:** August 18, 2013, 00:09 »

these comments are not addressed to/at anyone here... but I've often noted that there are many photographers who haven't kept pace with the modern world -- many pictures that sold for $100 or $1000 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago did not sell because of their intrinsic value, but because of the market. today, there are many sources of free images, so for many of us, our images are just not going to sell at those higher price levels - and they shouldn't! as buyers become smarter and features like google Images become more powerful, stock images will be much more a commodity than a fine art market. More power to those who can sell their images at $100 or more from a sym site, but I don't think that's going to be the norm

meanwhile, even at low prices of $5 - $10 with symbiostrock we are going to be getting 10x to 50x what the agencies pay. and that's ignoring those subscriptions that give away XL sized images for 1 credit.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #28 on:** August 18, 2013, 04:56 »

Recently, on FAA forums there were several threads re: pricing, and surprisingly, the general consensus by the successful sellers based on their selling experience was that raising the prices (in reasonable range) usually resulted in more sales.
On the other hand, lowering the prices connotated lower product quality, and seldom led to sales.

On Shutterstock, if you buy on-demand 2 images at $29, that would work out to $14.50 per image and it could be a 4-6MP size (admittedly, it could be also a 40MP panoramic image). So, pricing a level-3 SYS exclusive image that is not available anywhere else at $15-$20 is really not out of the range.

Ron · « **Reply #29 on:** August 18, 2013, 05:32 »

From SS

All JPEG sizes and vectors

€179 EUR
25 downloads

€39 EUR
5 downloads

Small and med JPEG sizes only

€39 EUR
12 downloads

€179 EUR
60 downloads

Redneck · « **Reply #30 on:** August 18, 2013, 09:11 »

Quote from: cascoly on August 18, 2013, 00:09

these comments are not addressed to/at anyone here... but I've often noted that there are many photographers who haven't kept pace with the modern world -- many pictures that sold for $100 or $1000 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago did not sell because of their intrinsic value, but because of the market. today, there are many sources of free images, so for many of us, our images are just not going to sell at those higher price levels - and they shouldn't! as buyers become smarter and features like google Images become more powerful, stock images will be much more a commodity than a fine art market. More power to those who can sell their images at $100 or more from a sym site, but I don't think that's going to be the norm

meanwhile, even at low prices of $5 - $10 with symbiostrock we are going to be getting 10x to 50x what the agencies pay. and that's ignoring those subscriptions that give away XL sized images for 1 credit.

The fact that people WANT cheap images does not mean that photographers have to deliver them. I think we need to break free from the "I can only sell something if I'm as cheap as possible" thinking because it will only go downwards from there. Cut yourself lose from competing over pricing only. Images are as unique as their buyers. I would not buy an image just because because it's cheap. I'd buy it because I think it works for my purpose. And it has been said before, print campaigns requiring full size images have a certain budget. Why not use it?

LesPalenik · « **Reply #31 on:** August 18, 2013, 09:30 »

cthoman · « **Reply #32 on:** August 18, 2013, 10:02 »

Quote from: Redneck on August 18, 2013, 09:11

The fact that people WANT cheap images does not mean that photographers have to deliver them. I think we need to break free from the "I can only sell something if I'm as cheap as possible" thinking because it will only go downwards from there. Cut yourself lose from competing over pricing only. Images are as unique as their buyers. I would not buy an image just because because it's cheap. I'd buy it because I think it works for my purpose. And it has been said before, print campaigns requiring full size images have a certain budget. Why not use it?

So, what is appropriately priced?

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #33 on:** August 18, 2013, 10:06 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 18, 2013, 10:02

So, what is appropriately priced?

Buyer - £ free
Seller - £ as much as possible

PhilD · « **Reply #34 on:** August 18, 2013, 10:20 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 18, 2013, 10:02

So, what is appropriately priced?

I based my pricing on 2 factors - my past Alamy sales history and image size/resolution.

CrackerClips · « **Reply #35 on:** August 18, 2013, 11:44 »

Quote from: cascoly on August 18, 2013, 00:09

these comments are not addressed to/at anyone here... but I've often noted that there are many photographers who haven't kept pace with the modern world -- many pictures that sold for $100 or $1000 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago did not sell because of their intrinsic value, but because of the market.

That is very true. The market for stock pictures has changed dramatically over the last 10 years. Years ago I was often surprised by how much a simple, non-unique image could command. Having said that, I'm still surprised to see on my macro agency sales reports good license fees for the type of images that are much more cheaply available via microstock. I still regularly receive sales reports with both RF and RM fees of $500 or more for a single license. The problem, of course, is that the volume of sales is no longer there. I also receive many (way too many) macro fees for images that are the same or actually worse than micro fees. Buyers of course are happy to pay as little as possible but price in my experience is not the most important factor.

Agencies are figuring out ways to to profit by selling images by the pound. Unfortunately, photographers are not benefiting from this model. I admit that initially it seems like common sense for us to sell directly for cheaper than the micro agencies where we have work BUT we do not have (and probably won't have anytime soon, if ever) the volume of licenses that the agencies have. So for me, anyway, that is a losing proposition. In addition, the symbiostock default pricing has just been dramatically undercut (independent pricing) by a certain well known micro agency. Should the symbio default pricing be lowered now? As an individual, I can't compete with that and provide a sustainable living for me and my family. I don't feel compelled to try and compete with the micros.

Stock industry pricing is all over the board these days. I've got images at different outlets selling at a wide spectrum of prices. The cheapest priced outlets have never been my biggest earners. Buyers buy at different places and different price points for many reasons. I don't think we can control that to any great degree with our individual pricing. I'm simply looking to provide a place (my symbio site) for a segment of the market that is happy shopping there because it meets their overall needs. If that segment of the market is big enough, I will prosper and will continue to be able to make images that meet their needs in the future.

Ron · « **Reply #36 on:** August 18, 2013, 12:10 »

I have a hard time believing statements of 500 dollar for an image licence on regular bases, because on the Alamy forum, the die hard RM shooters keep saying they hardly get those sales these days.

chromaco · « **Reply #37 on:** August 18, 2013, 12:19 »

I think it might be important to add that symbio site owners need to keep in mind who their customers are likely to be when setting up pricing. A customer who is willing to pay a hundred dollar fee for an image is probably not browsing google for the appropriate image. On the other hand the customer who finds you via the search engines may not have ever used an agency. I try to ask myself what I would pay for this image and set my pricing accordingly. If you have the type of images that will appeal to professional buyers and you feel like you can reach them direct then charge for it. But if you are more likely to get the 2nd category of buyers you should adjust your pricing for that market.

easybuyphotos.com · « **Reply #38 on:** August 18, 2013, 12:28 »

Quote from: chromaco on August 18, 2013, 12:19

I think it might be important to add that symbio site owners need to keep in mind who their customers are likely to be when setting up pricing. A customer who is willing to pay a hundred dollar fee for an image is probably not browsing google for the appropriate image. On the other hand the customer who finds you via the search engines may not have ever used an agency. I try to ask myself what I would pay for this image and set my pricing accordingly. If you have the type of images that will appeal to professional buyers and you feel like you can reach them direct then charge for it. But if you are more likely to get the 2nd category of buyers you should adjust your pricing for that market.

I agree

Also through the eight years I have been doing this the biggest market for my images has been web usage. I have only had one large print deal (bus shelter advert), most are web pages or 1/4 magazine or newspapers pages. The market has moved from the traditionally high fees and is continuing to evolve and we can't change that. Between free images from Google for Google drive and magazines that should know better going after free Flickr images for the thrill of a credit line, I'm happy with my price points, I'm attempting to give buyers good quality images at fair prices and hold onto 100% of the image licenece fee.

Ron · « **Reply #39 on:** August 18, 2013, 12:48 »

Quote from: chromaco on August 18, 2013, 12:19

I think it might be important to add that symbio site owners need to keep in mind who their customers are likely to be when setting up pricing. A customer who is willing to pay a hundred dollar fee for an image is probably not browsing google for the appropriate image. On the other hand the customer who finds you via the search engines may not have ever used an agency. I try to ask myself what I would pay for this image and set my pricing accordingly. If you have the type of images that will appeal to professional buyers and you feel like you can reach them direct then charge for it. But if you are more likely to get the 2nd category of buyers you should adjust your pricing for that market.

That ^^

CrackerClips · « **Reply #40 on:** August 18, 2013, 13:30 »

Quote from: Ron on August 18, 2013, 12:10

I have a hard time believing statements of 500 dollar for an image licence on regular bases, because on the Alamy forum, the die hard RM shooters keep saying they hardly get those sales these days.

I haven't had a license anywhere near $500 on Alamy in many years. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere tho

Edited to add the word "elsewhere"

Travelling-light · « **Reply #41 on:** August 18, 2013, 13:45 »

There are people cruising the web for more expensive images. We have sold several privately. Hopefully in future we will make more of those sales through Sym.
I think there is some sense in making files more expensive for large sizes, and cheaper for blogs, and we'll probably make some changes when bulk editing comes along.

cascoly · « **Reply #42 on:** August 18, 2013, 15:13 »

Quote from: Redneck on August 18, 2013, 09:11

Quote from: cascoly on August 18, 2013, 00:09
these comments are not addressed to/at anyone here... but I've often noted that there are many photographers who haven't kept pace with the modern world -- many pictures that sold for $100 or $1000 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago did not sell because of their intrinsic value, but because of the market. today, there are many sources of free images, so for many of us, our images are just not going to sell at those higher price levels - and they shouldn't! as buyers become smarter and features like google Images become more powerful, stock images will be much more a commodity than a fine art market. More power to those who can sell their images at $100 or more from a sym site, but I don't think that's going to be the norm

meanwhile, even at low prices of $5 - $10 with symbiostrock we are going to be getting 10x to 50x what the agencies pay. and that's ignoring those subscriptions that give away XL sized images for 1 credit.

The fact that people WANT cheap images does not mean that photographers have to deliver them. I think we need to break free from the "I can only sell something if I'm as cheap as possible" thinking because it will only go downwards from there. Cut yourself lose from competing over pricing only. Images are as unique as their buyers. I would not buy an image just because because it's cheap. I'd buy it because I think it works for my purpose. And it has been said before, print campaigns requiring full size images have a certain budget. Why not use it?

I have no argument with that -- I was addressing the broader issue of 'creative destruction' that many photographers seem to miss -- as technology changes, old market patterns change too -- family farms cannot compete with agribusiness unless they find a new niche such as organic food. photos that used to bring $100 now may only bring $10. the photo hasn't changed, but basic economic conditions have

for photography, higher pricing (over $50) makes sense if youre buyers have a big budget -- but an alternate strategy might be to target small businesses that just need a few images. in the old days buyers had no choice but to deal with the big stock agencies - now everyone's a photographer and it's getting easier to have a website for selling images, so the mindset needs to change too

cascoly · « **Reply #43 on:** August 18, 2013, 15:19 »

Quote from: CrackerClips on August 18, 2013, 11:44

Quote from: cascoly on August 18, 2013, 00:09
these comments are not addressed to/at anyone here... but I've often noted that there are many photographers who haven't kept pace with the modern world -- many pictures that sold for $100 or $1000 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago did not sell because of their intrinsic value, but because of the market.

That is very true. The market for stock pictures has changed dramatically over the last 10 years. Years ago I was often surprised by how much a simple, non-unique image could command. Having said that, I'm still surprised to see on my macro agency sales reports good license fees for the type of images that are much more cheaply available via microstock. I still regularly receive sales reports with both RF and RM fees of $500 or more for a single license. The problem, of course, is that the volume of sales is no longer there. I also receive many (way too many) macro fees for images that are the same or actually worse than micro fees. Buyers of course are happy to pay as little as possible but price in my experience is not the most important factor.

..................

right, that's the effect of a dramatic change in market conditions - it's not an efficient market - heavy users know about microstock agencies, but the average person looking for images may not even know what stock photography is! while this situation lasts there's room for many strategies

DonLand · « **Reply #44 on:** August 18, 2013, 16:41 »

Well, I'm hoping, maybe a bit naively that Sym takes off at least a little. If we can sell enough images a month from say $6 for a blog to say $50 for a large then it would not take many to replace selling hundreds for .25¢. At that point I could see people going Sym exclusive as they would be undercutting themselves by offering their images all over the place. For that to happen we need clients to use a centralized Sym search. This would be a snowball effect. As more photographers come on board Sym gets larger. As more photographers make their images Sym exclusive the the less places the images are available the more clients will come. Granted this may never happen or it may take years but if it starts working and other photographers come on board you basically have a large stock photo site owned by each individual photographer without having to pay any commissions.

Always nice to dream....

CrackerClips · « **Reply #45 on:** August 18, 2013, 16:46 »

Quote from: DonLand on August 18, 2013, 16:41

Well, I'm hoping, maybe a bit naively that Sym takes off at least a little. If we can sell enough images a month from say $6 for a blog to say $50 for a large then it would not take many to replace selling hundreds for .25¢. At that point I could see people going Sym exclusive as they would be undercutting themselves by offering their images all over the place. For that to happen we need clients to use a centralized Sym search. This would be a snowball effect. As more photographers come on board Sym gets larger. As more photographers make their images Sym exclusive the the less places the images are available the more clients will come. Granted this may never happen or it may take years but if it starts working and other photographers come on board you basically have a large stock photo site owned by each individual photographer without having to pay any commissions.

Always nice to dream....

That's what I'm talking about! Nicely put.

Anita Potter · « **Reply #46 on:** August 18, 2013, 17:01 »

Aside from doing the SEO on the sites, we need to find ways to bring the buyers to us aside from the micros.

But this should probably be asked in the marketing sub-forum.

marthamarks · « **Reply #47 on:** August 18, 2013, 17:06 »

Quote from: DonLand on August 18, 2013, 16:41

For that to happen we need clients to use a centralized Sym search. T

Agree with everything you said, Don. And I believe... it will happen.

In the FWIW category, I've included a link to Steve's Global SYS Search Engine in the footer of my site, grouped with the "What is SYS?" and a link to the SYS directory.

No reason why we can't all promote that global search engine on our individual sites, is there?

Anita Potter · « **Reply #48 on:** August 18, 2013, 17:18 »

Thanks for reminding me. I knew I was forgetting some links in my footer.

CrackerClips · « **Reply #49 on:** August 18, 2013, 17:24 »

Quote from: marthamarks on August 18, 2013, 17:06

No reason why we can't all promote that global search engine on our individual sites, is there?

Good idea Martha, I will be adding a link.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Image Pricing? (Read 10319 times)

klsbear

marthamarks

cascoly

LesPalenik

Ron

Redneck

LesPalenik

cthoman

Kerioak~Christine

PhilD

CrackerClips

Ron

chromaco

easybuyphotos.com

Ron

CrackerClips

Travelling-light

cascoly

cascoly

DonLand

CrackerClips

Anita Potter

marthamarks

Anita Potter

CrackerClips

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors