Selling Same Photos At Different Prices

Posted on 2/6/2009 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (3)

Leading traditional and microstock photographers and agency owners share their views on selling the same images at different prices.

Get the Full Article (2 Credits)

Have an Account?

Access to this site is an exclusive benefit for you. Enter your username and password in the form above. If you don't remember your password you can reset it at any time.

Keep me logged in

Forgot your password?

New to Selling Stock?

Selling Stock is an on-line newsletter that reports on developing trends in the stock photo industry. It is updated at least twice a month. On-line subscribers receive e-mail notification whenever new stories are posted. Archives containing stories going back to late 1995 are fully available to subscribers.

Buy Credits

Copyright © 2009 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-461-7627, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.

Comments

Bill Brooks Posted Feb 6, 2009
Jim you are right on all counts. Buying decisions are mainly about the image, sometimes about the price, and hardly ever about exclusivity. As you indicate, portal image exclusivity seems to be mainly about one portal trying to tie up images in order to gain an advantage over another portal. In the case of photographer interests, it is interesting that the microstock portals provide their photographers with more pertinent transparent business information than the exclusive rights managed portals. Alamy is probably the only exception on the non microstock side. It is a real eye opener to look at the statistics of client reactions to your images, for each Alamy search in which your images appeared.

Serban Enache Posted Feb 9, 2009
Jim, with all due respect, especially as I know your perspective on this, we believe it's wrong to ask a customer to pay more just because he affords a higher price. That is because the cost of creating an image should dictate its initial price AND the demand over the time on that image (which makes it more or less special). Ideally, the agency and/or the photographer could say if the image is special, but history tells us they're not objective, they will always be biased (and that's self-critique too).

While each perspective on this subject has its own pros and cons, your last paragraph ("Most portal operators do not like this, because it benefits image suppliers, not portal operators. Portal operators tend to look after their own self-interest, not the interests of the creators they represent.") is completely biased.

Because a percentage based royalty is in place, the agency will make the same money as the photographers (with us it's 50-60%) no matter the price. The only difference could be that the revenue would be divided between more parties (the content providers). Delivering the revenue to several individuals instead of one, is one of the best attributes of microstock. Time shows that competition is good for content delivery, at least for our business model. While it is correct that it puts a pressure on pricing, history shows that our prices continue to go up while contributors continue to improve their skills and content.

Leslie Hughes Posted Feb 9, 2009
Pricing is determined in the end by how the market value's an image. The challenge in this business has been and will always be that the client values images differently than the photographer or creator would. The value of the image itself is subjective and therefore the client more often will value the image based to a degree on how they intend to "use" the image rather than how it was created. This has not changed. What has changed is the mix of images and the media. Assuming, of course, that they all will want good quality. The more important their usage, the more value they will place on things like information. The more important speed or refresh rate is, the more importance they will place on renewal and ease of access. The more important budget is, the more importance they will place on price. The balance of each of these things changes a bit with each use. As internet use has grown so dramatically and is taking share of marketing budgets, it should be no surprise that ease of access and licensing models like microstock and subscriptions have grown. That does not diminish the value of the licensing models that offer information and data around images for use in the smaller number that are still used for brand image and iconic marketing. As to relating price to production, sales teams have long tried (and still should with RM) to relate production value with pricing and in some cases can but the driver for clients will be use. If the image is truly unreplaceable and the production value can drive the price up, then a good sales person can drive the price up and should know how to do this but we have all seen clouds and grass go for a lot of money and highly produced images go for a little... The drivers of microstock and RF are ease of access and frequency. The use is predominantly internet driven and where refresh rate is higher. Then access and price will be the primary drivers for purchase.

Post Comment