The most common search filter customers use when searching for commercial imagery on the major web sites: “unclicking” RM.
It’s getting more difficult. Customers are now going to microstock first not just because it’s the cheapest but because they find what they need, it’s hassle free and fast.
What’s an industry to do? Retreat to RM? Make their photographer roster even more exclusive? Offer huge discounts off regular prices? Proactively reach out to every customer with a sales pitch?
…Or find new ways to work with customers that makes their experience better.
Eliminating RM for all but a small % of imagery is the right first step.

I have had a number of one-on-one pricing discussions with customers in a variety of retail environments over the past 40 years, many thousands of them in fact. My experience is that pricing is only one of the criteria used, and usually it is not the most important one. Sure some customers are entirely driven by price and they are off at the free sites and microstock sites comparing images to save 50¢ here, a $1 there. Why do so many people buy their coffee everyday at Starbucks? Is it the best coffee or the best price? Probably not, but it is consistent and convenient, apparently two things that are more important to those customers than price or quality. I don’t believe that any image has an intrinsic value, even if available in large quantities that does not automatically make it worth only a low price. It is not because my image of an American flag is so special, it is only because a customer thinks it is. Those customers who don’t care about the image (nearly any American flag image will do) or those ultra-price sensitive customers will have an easy time finding what they need. Strangely, those customers wanting a unique American flag image will have a much harder time finding theirs because they have to look at so many to find the one they want. What I am saying is that not all American flag images are automatically worth $5. On the other side, even a very rare image will not be worth a high price to all customers. What if you had the very first image ever taken of an American flag? Or what about the very last photograph taken of the American flag on top of the Twin Towers just as they fell? Those would be very rare, yet unless your customer has a need for those particular images, they are worth nothing to them. If all customers were only interested in price, then all customers would go first to the free sites and then to microstock sites. That is not the case. Some customers even specify “No royalty-free or no microstock images” in their requests.

Why do customers shop with any particular business then? Think about how you shop. Don’t you go to some stores because they are convenient? Or you like the people you interact with? Or you like their website or what their business stands for? Or their perceived quality, reliability, and honesty. Sure price enters into it, but it is not even the most important thing for many or most customers. Pricing is a very complicated issue with many psychological factors to be considered. Trying to simplify it is a noble goal and one we should pursue, but those who are only familiar with technology and not customers, photography, or negotiation who try to simplify pricing too much will end up leaving money on the table. It seems in those cases that it is usually the photographer who loses out in the end and not the stock distributor.

John G. Blair
Chairman, Picade, LLC, a photographer-owned stock and assignment agency
John G. Blair studio

The problem comes in when you don’t do those three things. You end-up delivering to customers (whether on-line or through a sales rep) uncontrolled, arbitrary and disparate pricing.
I take it for granted that the major stock agencies will never have adequate training for sales reps and will continue to apply RM pricing to way too many images – unless they adopt a new model.

4Corners has great imagery and, it sounds like, a level of volume that allows them to provide a high level of service. The 4Corners model works and they no doubt have a satisfied and loyal customer base. The rest of industry can’t say the same thing.

…However, I wonder if 4Corners could extend the life of some of their imagery and perhaps expand their library by providing simple, upfront prices for some of their imagery.
Steve, perhaps you should ask a few of your customers? That may help you understand their comfort with you current pricing model.
(by the way, that’s really the only way to ask a customer about pricing – give them alternatives and trade-offs)

This post was mentioned on Twitter by photofeeds2: Another view on Hybrid Pricing models.In a recent article you proposed a hybrid pricing model based on a set o.. http://bit.ly/aVQoQN...

Because our work is high quality, exclusive and all RM I think it makes it much easier for us to work to this RM price model – clients expect to have to speak to us, to negotiate, to check rights availability in order to obtain the kind of images we produce. No doubt you’re right, Glen, to say that the majority of non-editorial clients looking for standard stock images do prefer to keep everything quick, simple and online. That’s not really a market we sell into.

It’s interesting that you put the blame for ‘uncontrolled, arbitrary and disparate pricing’ on the pricing model rather than the people using it so badly. It’s not RM’s fault that libraries don’t see fit to train their staff properly any more.

This goes to the heart of a previous discussion on this board – bringing sales staff in from outside the industry. There has been so much emphasis on sales in recent years that people have forgotten (a) that they are selling a creative product, not washing machines and (b) that you need to have an understanding of the people you are selling to.

It’s not just people from outside the industry, there are plenty of clueless insiders too. But the trend has been to import sales strategies that are totally inappropriate to this very unique industry. We have lost the connection with the clients (certainly within editorial) and that’s at the root of the problem.

There used to be a constant stream of people leaving picture libraries to work on newspaper and magazine picture desks (and a few coming back the other way). Picture libraries were seen as breeding grounds for the desks. The great advantage of this was that, apart from ensuring a vibrant job market, the people buying the pictures understood how the people selling them worked and vice versa.

I sense that this is happening less and less. And part of the reason must be that picture libraries are bringing in sales people who want to do just that – sell. They have no desire to work with the actual images on the client side and therefore have no interest in or understanding of how their clients work.