> As mentioned, the "value" you assign to something and the "value" a buyer is
> willing to compensate you for are two different things. If a buyer wants to pay
> you $5 for usage rights, and you accept it, that's the value.
> It's easy to base price on size because it is a concrete fact that X size or Y
> size is available, and there is some usefulness to having access to a larger
> pixel dimension. "Value" is inherently debatable, per image/product.
Sean:
I have never heard of a business where the value of a product is set by the needs of vendors,
the prices of everything from oil to fine art are set by what people are paying. (Indeed, both
items I mentioned use auction prices to determine value.)
Over the years, photographers have told me - although not in these words - that they are
exempt from market forces and I could never figure out how they came to that conclusion.
Face it; the value of something you produce isn't what you want to charge, it's what people
are regularly paying.
And in a separate, but related question; I always thought that the value of a stock photo was
measured by how many dollars per year it earned in the long haul, not by random individual
transactions.
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
0 comments:
Post a Comment