The $1500 image in question was sold via a traditional stock agency (not micro), but I was stating that the image was similar to the same "type" of photo that is common to microstock sites. A pretty little girl on a solid background, but nothing so outstanding about it from a photographic standpoint. The same kind of image someone else might have been content to sell on a microstock type site for a low price.
To answer your last question:
I was making a generalization that many photo sellers put a relatively small number of photos (my example was 50) up for sale (they are inexperienced, because 50 images for sale is practically nothing...you can't expect to earn a living or evaluate the market at that level) then 'whine' that macro-traditional stock 'is dead'...and they say this only because that's what they have heard other people say, but they don't really know that for a fact, because they have only tried microstock.
How these two paragraphs relate is that if you follow the advice of the inexperienced, and are content to sell things for 25 cents that have the potential to sell for $1500 in a different type of market place, you never will have a $1500 sale.
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, d d <dtoejam@...> wrote:
>
> Angie are you saying that a micro stock site paid
> you $1500 for an image, or you sold an image for $1500?
> I do understand some photographers make a
> good sale once in a while, but I've never heard of a micro site paying out that
> much. Can you clarify what “more than 50 images†has to do with selling a $1500
> photo?
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: angiephotographer <angieknostphoto@...>
> To: selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:31 AM
> Subject: Selling Stock Photography Re: How can photographers inform stock agencies regarding the VALUE of their images?
>
>
>
> Â
>
> It has nothing to do with ego. As I previously explained, I recently shot a very common image that is similar to many microstock type photos, and sold that image for $1500 (and that was non-exclusive license..I can continue to license it for years) . People with 50 images or less listed with micro agencies often are the 'whiners' that macro-traditional stock 'is dead', when they have no idea...they haven't tried it. So they continue to supply something for a garbage price because they think that's the best that can be done, because others are doing it.
>
> Nothing to do with ego! Has to do with business sense, which owning a camera doesn't give you.
>
> --- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "mikebryner" <brynermike@> wrote:
> >
> > 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