Author Topic: GL News (Read 64623 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #175 on:** August 17, 2016, 15:26 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on August 17, 2016, 12:44

Justanotherphotographer, perception of value, its what the buyer thinks the image is worth, they dont care about your cost.

It's no different than with any other product. Producers find a market, set a price, buyers accept or decline. Adjustments are made over time. At least that's how it's supposed to work in a free, open market - not one totally controlled by a couple of middlemen adding little value but keeping the lions share of the money.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #176 on:** August 17, 2016, 15:45 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 17, 2016, 15:26

Quote from: Microstockphoto on August 17, 2016, 12:44
Justanotherphotographer, perception of value, its what the buyer thinks the image is worth, they dont care about your cost.

It's no different than with any other product. Producers find a market, set a price, buyers accept or decline. Adjustments are made over time. At least that's how it's supposed to work in a free, open market - not one totally controlled by a couple of middlemen adding little value but keeping the lions share of the money.

photography, is no different from merchandising of fashion, or music.
90% are lemmings and support the monopoly because they feel it's the way they were weaned...
but that does not mean there are nobody who is confident enough with his/her clothes/music/photography/art,etc..
to set the price and then say...like Miles Davis.."shhhh, listen...
and if you don't like it, there's always the door ... go attend another concert".
miles, coltrane, bird, monk,etc... set the price..
and their audience follow suit.
same thing for the business, if there is some agency dare to be different,
they can seize a corner of the market..
because at this moment in time, a section of contributors are also getting tired of
dancing to the mass "how much lower can we go" when the buyers say "go lower"

sharpshot · « **Reply #177 on:** August 17, 2016, 16:49 »

Don't most microstock sites have higher prices than they did 10 years ago? Never understood why so many people here insist that prices are going down when they have generally gone up, sometimes by a significant amount. I'm averaging almost $1.40 per image sold with SS this month, 10 years ago I averaged $0.76. Was it just $0.25 when they started?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #178 on:** August 17, 2016, 16:50 »

stocktastic, how do you price fair for all sizes using only one price? why even offer the option of a small size download if the price for the full res is the same?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #179 on:** August 17, 2016, 16:51 »

sharpshot., 20 cent

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #180 on:** August 26, 2016, 12:20 »

Well, I just made $13 from a $25 download, so hooray for that. One of those a day will make me happy with GL.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #181 on:** August 26, 2016, 13:42 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 26, 2016, 12:20

Well, I just made $13 from a $25 download, so hooray for that. One of those a day will make me happy with GL.

Glad to hear it. Have you seen any increase in sales volume since the pricing change?

I was feeling positive about new owners until they went for the one-price model. I thought I'd just see what happened with sales -haven't had any recently. If I see any sales at all, I might start uploading again (I haven't for a very long time at GL Stock), but otherwise, it seems there's no point.

My previous sales were more small and medium than large, and those just effectively went up in price (I've just left pricing alone, meaning any size is $10). Lowering prices to accommodate bloggers means giving away bus-wrap size for a pittance, which I don't want to do. I think (for photographers anyway) one price makes no sense for a general purpose site.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #182 on:** August 26, 2016, 13:56 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 26, 2016, 12:20

Well, I just made $13 from a $25 download, so hooray for that. One of those a day will make me happy with GL.

Here is to 2 a day!!!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #183 on:** August 26, 2016, 15:02 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 26, 2016, 13:42

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 26, 2016, 12:20
Well, I just made $13 from a $25 download, so hooray for that. One of those a day will make me happy with GL.

Glad to hear it. Have you seen any increase in sales volume since the pricing change?

I was feeling positive about new owners until they went for the one-price model. I thought I'd just see what happened with sales -haven't had any recently. If I see any sales at all, I might start uploading again (I haven't for a very long time at GL Stock), but otherwise, it seems there's no point.

My previous sales were more small and medium than large, and those just effectively went up in price (I've just left pricing alone, meaning any size is $10). Lowering prices to accommodate bloggers means giving away bus-wrap size for a pittance, which I don't want to do. I think (for photographers anyway) one price makes no sense for a general purpose site.

This is the first sale at the new price for me.

jcpjr · « **Reply #184 on:** August 26, 2016, 21:21 »

Nothing yet

Pauws99 · « **Reply #185 on:** August 27, 2016, 01:30 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on August 17, 2016, 12:44

Justanotherphotographer, perception of value, its what the buyer thinks the image is worth, they dont care about your cost. photographers are not renowned for their business acumen.

Microstock is probably more about business acumen than being any more than a reasonably competent phtographer.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #186 on:** August 27, 2016, 03:13 »

sorry, no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean

if you are saying that micro stock is more about business than being a photographer, i respectfully disagree because you have no influence over the business whatsoever other than adding or deleting images from a portfolio entirely promoted (or not) and being sold by (or not) an agency. in micro stock you are the photographer, and other people do the rest

if you run your own photographic business and control 100% of how and where your images are sold, then yes, its is as much about business than it is about being a photographer

still photographers are not renowned for their business acumen bar a few exceptions such as Gurksy and Lik

Pauws99 · « **Reply #187 on:** August 27, 2016, 04:45 »

What you choose to upload where to and how you manage your time and costs is entirely within your control. Its certainly true that by using Microstock you are largely "outsourcing" the Marketing/selling aspects of your "business" which is why I do it because I'm crap at self promotion.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: GL News (Read 64623 times)

stockastic

etudiante_rapide

sharpshot

Microstockphoto

Microstockphoto

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

Rose Tinted Glasses

Sean Locke Photography

jcpjr

Pauws99

Microstockphoto

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors