> Markets evolve. Sometimes one wins from that evolution, sometimes not. What
> you are seeing is a result of disruptive technology. Just ask a musician how
> much he earns from Spotify, the preferred way to listen to music among my
> children’s generation.
The winners are those who have been able to monetize the distribution
of assets with no cost of acquisition. The stock agencies are selling
images this inexpensively because their own imbedded costs are near
zero. It used to be that the stock agencies had to charge more because
of the staffing, storage, mailing, billing and so forth. Now, it's all
automated and they have minimal sunk costs. All the sunk costs, with
the exception of the server farm, which is leased cloud storage from
Amazon, is assumed by the photographers.
I got royally pi**ed when I had some images sell for under a dollar.
Because of the way the images were sold, my per-image take was 25
cents. However, that then was negated due to other fees, so I got
zero. Nada.
I don't bother spending too much time uploading new images. It just
isn't worth the time or effort. However, I do use the agencies for the
pricing models.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|