Just bumping it up again. 

Just curious...are you happy getting $6 for an image license?

I'm just wondering because that's pretty low compared to what DT, iStock, Bigstock, etc. charges customers for their images.

so we are better having a 2.3$ share for a XL 10 credits than selling it for 6$ and get 5.1$ ??

so we are better having a 2.3$ share for a XL 10 credits than selling it for 6$ and get 5.1$ ??

Obviously, $5.10 at the higher percentage is better, but undercutting on price is always a little disappointing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. If you are going to sell a lower volume of images, shouldn't you charge more or at least the same (or close to the same) as the higher volume sites? That way you make up for the lower volume with much higher commissions.

I guess in a way that kind of is my strategy cthoman, but perhaps from a slightly different slant.

I am not comparing Superhug with the likes of IS, SS, DT as they aren't likely to compete in the same range as them for years, if ever.

In my thinking (not saying it's right, it's just my thinking) I guess I am comparing more to Depositphotos (large = 4 credits) , 123rf (large = 5 credits), PhotoDune (7 credits XL) and the list goes on. I would rather someone buy my similarly priced image from Superhug (which gives me $5.10) than from these and many other libraries which will give me far, far less.

So I consider the pricing to be the same, not undercutting really. As for volume, well again I can't compare them with SS or the like, or each image would have to sell for a couple of hundred to make up for the lack in volume on Superhug!

Hope that makes sense!

I guess my point was more about trying to get the most out of any agency. Especially if they let you set your prices or influence their development.

Let's say you get on average $.50 per download at SS. You'd need 1000 downloads to make $500.
Let's say you get on average $1 per download at IS. You'd need 500 downloads to make $500.

Then you add in a new player like Superhug, but you get $10 per download. You'd only need 50 downloads (less than two a day per month) to make the same, and you'd only need a hundred downloads a day to make twice as much. But since you get paid a higher royalty rate the files aren't really any more expensive (even though you get paid 10 to 20 times as much).

Then, there is thinking of the future. If you wanted to double your income to make $1000 at each of those agencies, you'd need 2000 downloads at SS, 1000 at IS, but only 100 at SH (as previously stated).

Obviously, this is all hypothetical (well, some of it is based on personal experiences), but it does show that the "elite" bar is not all that high for some of these smaller agencies to reach if they have the right plan.

Quote

Sales are infrequent at the moment

How infrequent are they?  I uploaded 1 image but it took time and I don't see the point in wasting time for little money.  The upload procedure wasn't straightforward, if they made it easy, like some of the other small sites have done, I might consider uploading my portfolio.

I'm also not convinced that a site can thrive with such a high commission.  FP cut theirs eventually, Zymmetrical closed and I can't think of any others that have done well paying over 70% commission.

Really? The upload for me seemed as straightforward as it gets. I just FTP'd, and the rest happened automatically. Perhaps Jen or Ian at their end was assisting with my upload. If so, a quick email would get them helping you I am sure. They do need to fix their categories, as they are automatically assigned assuming you have a keyword that fits one of their categories, but it's too narrow at the moment. Eg: Animal wouldn't be recognised in the category "Animals".

I also have the same reservation about the high commission and the long term viability of it. I mentioned it to Ian (from Superhug) and he seems to think it wont be a problem. In the short term at least I am happy to give it a go.

As for how infrequent, I would put it at about AYCS or so. Seems maybe 1 a month for me at a guess (too early to tell exactly) but I notice a few other guys who have sold 4 or so images in a month or two it seems. As with Photodune, it seems their market is more geared toward computer/internet concepts so the guys with those seem to have made a few sales in a short space of time.

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 23, 2012, 20:33

so we are better having a 2.3$ share for a XL 10 credits than selling it for 6$ and get 5.1$ ??

Obviously, $5.10 at the higher percentage is better, but undercutting on price is always a little disappointing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. If you are going to sell a lower volume of images, shouldn't you charge more or at least the same (or close to the same) as the higher volume sites? That way you make up for the lower volume with much higher commissions.

I agree with you, basically we need need those agencies to increase prices once IS or other will never increase our share.. myself have done that in a few new agencies..