It is very simple. Every agency has a different pricing policy. Every agency has a different royalty rate structure, that is how much of what the customer pays actually goes to the artists pocket. Every agency has the exact same version of my files available for sale.
This is how it works. At istockphoto you pay $146 I get $23, shutterstock you pay $79 artists get $23, revostock you pay $65 I get $29, finally pond5 you pay $59 I get $30.
I think you know by know which is the agency I recommend licensing my stock footage at
The example is based on full HD one file purchase. No subscription plan beats what I can offer at Pond5. For other resolution use revostock. On some agencies there are different rates for different artists. With the last two agencies the artist decides the price. What you see in the example is a flat rate for all of my full HD files.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
ive been a graphic designer and video producer for about 20 years now. and i use stock far less than id like because the prices have been historically much too high. i have far more $1000 projects come across my desk than $10,000 projects. so more often than not, i simply cannot justify 20% of a projects budget for a single photo. generally i buy maybe $500 in stock content in a year
ReplyDeletebut with sites like pond5 where the user sets the price - and that price is (due im assuming to the competitive free market nature of the site) typically half or less than it would typically be. with that pricing, i find myself spending a lot more OVERALL, but getting more mileage out of what i buy. in a couple months of being aware of pond5, ive already spent half of what i usually spend in a year.
and i know for a fact there are many other designers who have done the same.
with that said, the reason for my comment is to ask a seasoned stock provider like yourself: what are your feelings on the volume model? i mean if one $200 photo sits for a year and gets 2 purchases. would you feel any less happy if you priced it at $20 and got 20 purchases? what if that number were more like 40 purchases.
ive heard some contributors say that you wont see that kind of volume. but i think if word got around that the price of content was dramatically more affordable, that might change...
or would it?
just curious to hear other thoughts.
I am not sure whether you are referring to pictures or footage. I’ll base my answer on the second, since that’s what I do.
DeleteI do not think lowering the price, at a fair agency offering 50% commission, will do any good. Imagine every file on the web cost about $60, and everyone drops the price to $30. Would this draw twice that much customers to the microstock market as a whole? No.
With your example, even if you would see such volume, it probably would mean 18 sales less for other contributors.
The solution to pricy footage is, as I believe, what I did. If a customer chooses to purchase my files at a pricy location for $149 or even $320 he can. If he wants to buy footage the smart way, my entire portfolio is dramatically more affordable at at pond5 for $59. I have designed my pricing, so the place with 50% commission is the best value location for my files, and where I make the most.
The more reasonably priced files are available online, the more customers will be drawn to our market. Lowering the footage price to $20 which is far below reasonable, would definitely hurt our market. On the other hand offering footage for $200 at pond5 probably hurts somebody’s sales. It helps my sales though.
In my opinion balance is crucial.
Hope this helps.
Is it true the following information:
ReplyDelete- Exclusive artist's fee for selling HD1080, on iStotskphoto is 25%-45% ($37-$66)
- Artist's fee, per sale HD1080, from Vetta collection is 32%-40% ($93-$116)
- Artist's fee, per sale HD1080, from the Vetta collection in the Gettyimages is 25% ($130)
Your royalty depends a lot on the credit price that applies to the customer. I wouldn't get so excited with the numbers. HD1080p sales were quite rare at istockphoto in my experience. Back in the day I got about 30$ of such sale. going to higher rates 30% or more was and still would be beyond the reach of my portfolio. I had no files in vetta collection. I had one significant sale with getty and it was 80$ for one file, once. Your experience may of course vary : )
Delete