As they say, don’t get angry, get even. Don’t feed the bears. As long as we stupid photographer keep supplying quality pictures to these stock agencies, they will continue to sell them cheat cheap as they Da*n please without asking anyone. The more you shout at them, the more they sell. The more pictures we give them, the less money we make, the more money they make.
A very small number of agencies do a good job.
I compare the most of them to that poster shop, where you also sell mass produced images, the smaller the cheaper.
I feel an undertone in your post as if the cost should be determining the sales price. I disagree. If you travel from the US to Beijing to take a picture of the guard in front of the Forbidden City, it becomes expensive, but who would buy it. There must be millions of such free pictures.
If John Doe takes a picture with his mobile phone of a well known person being rescued from drowning, it will be worth a lot. No costs.
If we think of what the client is willing and able, note two criteria, to pay we get it right, the best way to get a good price is to say that they can’t have it. More than once I had a good news picture, and the editor wanted it for nearly free, so to give him that virtual black eye by giving it free, to the competitors, and let the lawyer send the paper a nasty threatening pre-emptive letter to the paper's owner that if he copied it, they were waiting for him.
Secondly, we have to stop selling pictures, and start selling a service. For instance, unlike most, I have access to the back-blocks and the Tibet area if China, places where white men never gone. A unique and limited supply service. I accompany a family on a vacation and make a video and photo story of their family life with the kids. It will soon be gone, kids grow up. I travel with newly wed and make another photo story. I let the old parents tell their life story on camera, to make a documentary for the grand children, because when the grand children have grown up, the old people will be gone.
The competitive and price driving edge a skilled photographer has is that he can produce something, not that he has something. When it comes to the stock agency sales, he doesn't eve have something to sell at all, the agency has it.
As you can see, don’t sell pictures, sell a service. Look at a newspaper. Do you think they put all the stories on the web to keep us informed? Of course not, they use the stories to suck Ewen Mee in to make him read the ads, that is how they make money. Your photography skills is the draw card, the stories, the catcher, your money maker is the service that those skills enable.
So – maybe a sort of auction type model which sells a service is something to think of, just show some samples of what the final result will look like.
Once you have it together on the web you have to sell it, find ways to constantly remind the potential buyers that it is there. The times when you could throw up a site and people came flocking there is long gone. Best way is newsletters with a value to the buyer, and give-aways that also have a value, phone calls and letters.
Another 2cents of thought. Now, could everyone put the thinking cap on and do some brain work, I know it is very painful, but still.:-) Then come up with more ideas how to develop this.
On 12-Jan-2012 4:46 PM, teri_pi wrote:
Traditionally, stock agencies tend to price all images as if they have the same value. This is regardless of the creator's cost of production and each image's unique value. Pricing models are normally structured around size or use, not value. This causes enormous frustration for image creators … but how can we get around this?
I have seen umpteen discussions and angry exchanges about how unfair this system is. And we all agree, this is not a 'win-win' situation!
I am formulating my pricing model for our niche picture agency which will specialise in supplying the non profit sector. This is an opportunity for photographers to proactively share their thoughts on how (if at all) contributors may be able to inform their stock agencies regarding the worth they KNOW their images possess – thus adding a `value' dimension to the pricing model.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Please be practical and positive!
Terri
0 comments:
Post a Comment