Sure!
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, Terri Keller <tkpbug@...> wrote:
>
> Angie,
> I'd like to connect with you outside of this blog. Can I contact you
> directly by email?
>
> Terri K.
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM, angiephotographer <
> angieknostphoto@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Terri
> Be sure to check out my website! http://pixbytlk.smugmug.com/
> and remember:
> Life is short! Bend the rules, forgive quickly, kiss slowly, love truly,
> laugh uncontrollably, & NEVER regret anything that made your smile!
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment