My primary income is as an engineer. After years as a designer, dealing with manufacturing and customers and suppliers, I have to add this to the thread:
When you look for customers, you have to put your ego aside and remember you are in a business. It is up to you to satisfy the market or create a new one. It is not up to the market to satisfy you.
Value is determined by the customer. No matter how much it costs you to supply your product, ultimately you have to convince the customer that it has enough value to the customer to justify your price or you will lose the sale. If you put too much time and money into it, you may well price yourself out of the market.
Not happy? Quit whining about "fairness" and work together to redefine the industry. If everyone is getting short changed by an agency, everyone should quit supplying that agency. If everyone else seems happy, maybe you're spending too much effort on ego and not enough on work.
MikeB
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "teri_pi" <terri@...> 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