Repeat sellers?

[John Mitchell]

Certainly in the past most of my sales came from a reliable group of repeat sellers, but I'm noticing it less now.

Having said that, there are a couple that keep selling regularly but I'm finding the trend to be more towards recent images.

That may just be due to a change in the way I work, doing more news and everyday people in the street stuff rather than studio work.

 

Not surprisingly the images that do keep selling tend to be in areas that aren't covered so well on Alamy - and I get sales from similar pics of the same subject I took in the same shoot.

 

This is my experience as well. The images that hold their value over the years (i.e. repeat sellers) are the ones that remain relatively scarce. It has nothing to do with their technical or aesthetic qualities. In fact, the images that I think might be praiseworthy almost never sell. A sign of the times, no doubt.

[Robert Brook]

 

Certainly in the past most of my sales came from a reliable group of repeat sellers, but I'm noticing it less now.

Having said that, there are a couple that keep selling regularly but I'm finding the trend to be more towards recent images.

That may just be due to a change in the way I work, doing more news and everyday people in the street stuff rather than studio work.

 

Not surprisingly the images that do keep selling tend to be in areas that aren't covered so well on Alamy - and I get sales from similar pics of the same subject I took in the same shoot.

 

This is my experience as well. The images that hold their value over the years (i.e. repeat sellers) are the ones that remain relatively scarce. It has nothing to do with their technical or aesthetic qualities. In fact, the images that I think might be praiseworthy almost never sell. A sign of the times, no doubt.

 

 

My experience is that if you produce sets of images involving scarce or sought after content, the aesthetics do matter a lot, and that the more graphic, iconic, better composed (etc) images from a set will do the best.  As I pointed out, I have quite a lot that have been selling for many years.  Other factors may come into play, such as a need to bleed text over an image, how an image fits onto a page etc, how the colours of an image complement other images or visual elements on a page.  But photography wins out in the end.

 

However, aesthetics is highly subjective, and I often find that images that others think are dire I really like and vice versa (most photo magazine stuff I usually find pretty grim, so there is a clue).

 

But never assume that buyers are visually stupid and only interested in the specifics.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

Certainly in the past most of my sales came from a reliable group of repeat sellers, but I'm noticing it less now.

Having said that, there are a couple that keep selling regularly but I'm finding the trend to be more towards recent images.

That may just be due to a change in the way I work, doing more news and everyday people in the street stuff rather than studio work.

 

Not surprisingly the images that do keep selling tend to be in areas that aren't covered so well on Alamy - and I get sales from similar pics of the same subject I took in the same shoot.

 

This is my experience as well. The images that hold their value over the years (i.e. repeat sellers) are the ones that remain relatively scarce. It has nothing to do with their technical or aesthetic qualities. In fact, the images that I think might be praiseworthy almost never sell. A sign of the times, no doubt.

 

 

My experience is that if you produce sets of images involving scarce or sought after content, the aesthetics do matter a lot, and that the more graphic, iconic, better composed (etc) images from a set will do the best.  As I pointed out, I have quite a lot that have been selling for many years.  Other factors may come into play, such as a need to bleed text over an image, how an image fits onto a page etc, how the colours of an image complement other images or visual elements on a page.  But photography wins out in the end.

 

However, aesthetics is highly subjective, and I often find that images that others think are dire I really like and vice versa (most photo magazine stuff I usually find pretty grim, so there is a clue).

 

But never assume that buyers are visually stupid and only interested in the specifics.

 

 

My post was badly worded. Aesthetics and technical quality are obviously very important, but they may not be the deciding factors when it comes to "scarce" subjects. I wasn't implying that photo buyers are visually stupid. If they were, then they would probably be another business.

[Michael Ventura]

I knew what you meant John. My repeat sellers are, by far, not my best photographs, technically or aesthetically, but they have content that is scarce and needed and therefore valuable. When I can, I try and go back redo these shots to make them better.

[Robert Brook]

My post was badly worded. Aesthetics and technical quality are obviously very important, but they may not be the deciding factors when it comes to "scarce" subjects. I wasn't implying that photo buyers are visually stupid. If they were, then they would probably be another business.

 

 

I hope I wasn't implying that you were implying that, John.  I'm just making a general point.  A lot of factors might go into choosing one image over, say, a dozen others, and it is easy to assume, when mediocre images are used, that buyers just don't care. 

 

Also, making aesthetic judgements about standalone images is pretty useless, unless we consider the possible context in which they might be used. Go into any bookshop and look at covers of novels, lots of novels.  Nearly all these images will have been very carefully sourced.  I imagine that many here, if they had accidently produced some types of cover image, would have very quickly deleted them.  But these are high end sales often handled by design companies, and it is for this trade that some of the very best photographers provide their stock output.

[John Mitchell]

 

My post was badly worded. Aesthetics and technical quality are obviously very important, but they may not be the deciding factors when it comes to "scarce" subjects. I wasn't implying that photo buyers are visually stupid. If they were, then they would probably be another business.

 

 

I hope I wasn't implying that you were implying that, John.  I'm just making a general point.  A lot of factors might go into choosing one image over, say, a dozen others, and it is easy to assume, when mediocre images are used, that buyers just don't care. 

 

Also, making aesthetics judgements about standalone images is pretty useless, unless we consider the possible context in which they might be used. Go into any bookshop and look at covers of novels, lots of novels.  Nearly all these images will have been very carefully sourced.  I imagine that many here, if they had accidently produced some types of cover image, would have very quickly deleted them.  But these are high end sales often handled by design companies, and it is for this trade that some of the very best photographers provide their stock output.

 

 

I get your point, Robert. Context can sometimes turn even a "mediocre" image into a work of art.

 

In my experience, which is no doubt more limited than yours, photo buyers come in all shapes and sizes. There are those who care (probably the majority), those who don't, and those who care too much.

[Michael Ventura]

One thing that helps make a repeat seller, a repeat seller, is the fact that it sold more than once. The more an image sells, the higher up in rank it will get with similar search words. My repeat sellers tend to show right at the top of the first page when using obvious search words. So that will help with even more sales.

[John Mitchell]

One thing that helps make a repeat seller, a repeat seller, is the fact that it sold more than once. The more an image sells, the higher up in rank it will get with similar search words. My repeat sellers tend to show right at the top of the first page when using obvious search words. So that will help with even more sales.

 

Hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. A self-reinforcing loop that drives the image up the page must be set up once an image licenses more than once.

[giphotostock]

Almost by definition, a repeat seller meets the needs of several clients, ie it is something that is generally often needed out there. When shooting, the mentality should be NOT "is there a client that would want that image?" but "do I see a lot of people needing this image?"

 

GI

[Robert Brook]

Almost by definition, a repeat seller meets the needs of several clients, ie it is something that is generally often needed out there. When shooting, the mentality should be NOT "is there a client that would want that image?" but "do I see a lot of people needing this image?"

 

GI

 

That's true.  Another definition: one that will, in the future, meet the needs of clients.  Ten years ago that might be CGI imagery of DNA, twenty years ago, GM issues, thirty years ago, environmental science.  Do any of these now and the work has to be exceptionally good and/or original. 

[giphotostock]

 

Almost by definition, a repeat seller meets the needs of several clients, ie it is something that is generally often needed out there. When shooting, the mentality should be NOT "is there a client that would want that image?" but "do I see a lot of people needing this image?"

 

GI

 

That's true.  Another definition: one that will, in the future, meet the needs of clients.  Ten years ago that might be CGI imagery of DNA, twenty years ago, GM issues, thirty years ago, environmental science.  Do any of these now and the work has to be exceptionally good and/or original. 

 

It is very difficult to make right predictions, particularly about the future. )

GI

[Bryan]

In my experience, which is no doubt more limited than yours, photo buyers come in all shapes and sizes. There are those who care (probably the majority), those who don't, and those who care too much.

Looking regularly at photos used in the papers, or more particularly their web presence, there are those who clearly care a great deal ( e.g the Times, where they continue to employ staff photographers) and those who don't even appear to take the time to consider alternatives.

 

Time and time again I find what I consider to be far better alternatives available here than the shot used. I suspect that some of the redtops don't use a photo editor for their web editions and leave photo choice to a hard pressed journalist, who often picks the first shot that appears in a search, or selects by (recent) date.