Selling your photo.net images online?

[bobatkins]

<em>Don't worry about the ratings and competition thing. To solve that problem, somebody already suggested this, which I believe to be the right thing.: "Having an 'for-print-only' gallery with no rating ability would obviate much of the jostling for visibility previosly mentioned." </em>

<p>

Fine in theory, but it wouldn't work that way. People will want to maximize their visibility on the TRPs in order to attract people to their "for-print-only" galleries. Obviously they could submit the same images to both and some would do whatever it takes to get that visibility.

<p>

Never underestimate the likelyhood of people screwing with the system, and that goes tenfold if actual money is involved.

<p>

Then, of course, there's the issue of nudes...which are essentially excluded from the TRPs but might be the best selling images.

<p>

To remove the headache quotient, outsourcing the customer relations side of things to India might not be a bad idea.

[cappoldt]

So you folks are suggesting that photos spotted by potential customers in the TRP won't ever ALSO be photos in the "For Sale" gallery...? Maybe I'm confused - but wouldn't TRP heirarchy be among the best advertising for such sales, and wouldn't it be likely that photographers would use their ratings to influence what it was they put up for sale?

[mbb]

Photographers should not be allowed to make prints by themselves. Why? Because many have as much knowledge about printing as they have about photography. Sending poor quality print to customer and PN will get blame for it. Not only blame but also it will reflect on reputation of site and another photographers. Refunds will be demanded.

 

Also people will ask for different sizes and that can create problems with prints done on home printers. Some post here photos from low resolution cameras, they look good as small file on monitor, photographer is sure that can print huge beautiful (7s/7s) posters - but customer may see it different.

 

If PN is ready for this operation (and I believe idea is good) IMHO management should ask photographers to submit ready to print files for evaluation. Accepted images should go to separate gallery in photographer portfolio as low resolution file. Those portfolios can be rotated on front page of For Sale page to avoid unhealthy competition.

 

An interesting note: prints I sold here were usually not highest rated images. Customers are often interested in subject not the rates or position in top pages or whatever you called. In fact, probably house cats (millions of cat's lovers out there) may sell better than many others 'artsy' genres.

[mbb]

And yes, nudes will get the most sales :(:(:(. :)

[guyscrivner]

If I were implementing this idea I would not tie it in with the current PhotoNet system but would instead create a section devoted to the retail sale of photos. A tab at the top, RETAIL GALLERIES, if you will.

 

Can you imagine what a buyer would have to go through on the current site to find a specific type photo? Who would want to plod through all the for sale and not for sale photos looking for something of interest? On the other hand, a section of the site "tabbed" would allow the buyer to go directly to the category of photos they were looking for.

 

The ratings and comments should not be associated with these photos. Low ratings and negative comments would kill a sale in most instances. Photos for sale should be judged only by the potential buyers.

 

By having two seperate sections you would preserve the current benefits of this site for those who want to display, interact and learn without it being complicated by sales.

 

I would also limit the retail side to paying members. Membership should be a high amount like $100 per year. This would probably limit participants to those that are serious.

 

Visibility should be equal among participants. Any other method would generate tons of complaints and would also be inherently unfait. Remember this would be a paid for service. By establishing categoris of prints, i.e. landscape, street, travel, portrait, nude, you would open the door for all photographers.

 

Well, that is my thoughts. Nice idea Brian.

[grinder]

Mark, I agree that most (Not all) home prints IMO especially ink jets are not going to be what the customer expects but some of the pnet patrons are master printers, Alexis Neel for example comes to mind. I consider myself a much more accomplished printer than photographer. I agree with your fears that if left to there own design some may try to maximize cost using some sub par methods and I know 30 people will be dying to chime in how there inkjet is better than any print I can make with an enlarger, ok good for them I am not trying to start a fight, I just have seen to much crap from inkjets to be swayed that as a whole the technology is at a level where it can be sold professionally, not to say some of the pigment and special inks aren?t suitable. Anyway back on subject. We as in pnet patrons or admins will have to ensure a few bad apples don?t spoil the barrel. Quality will have to be assured. I say all these details must be sorted prior to implementation to insure the reputation of pnet is not tarnished.

 

Have a great day, Grinder

[albertdarmali]

Never sold any of my pictures yet. Nobody seems to be interested. :)

 

If Photo.net managed to get one person to buy my pictures, I'd donate the 1st income to Photo.net, how's that?

[mg]

"Photographers should not be allowed to make prints by themselves. Why? Because many have as much knowledge about printing as they have about photography. Sending poor quality print to customer and PN will get blame for it. Not only blame but also it will reflect on reputation of site and another photographers. Refunds will be demanded.

Also people will ask for different sizes and that can create problems with prints done on home printers. Some post here photos from low resolution cameras, they look good as small file on monitor, photographer is sure that can print huge beautiful (7s/7s) posters - but customer may see it different." - Mark B.

 

Mark, I agree with all you wrote here, except for the conclusion. Why should a photographer not print himself ? That's what I disagree with. One thing that should of course be done to prevent buyers from buying crappy prints: photographers would NEED to specify exactly the file size (without interpolation), the various print sizes available, and the printing method and technology (which camera and lens were used, and which paper & printing machine as well).

 

At that point, many people will already offer stuff that you or I and many more folks would never consider buying. Would you by a home print of a 72 dpi file height 8", width 10" printed on a low-end home printer and photostat paper ? I guess not - unless it's 1 $ perhaps. :-)

 

People could lie of course, but then buying on the net always includes a risk to be disappointed anyway. And a member who lies once will get booted, so what would be the point of lying, really ? So many pictures are poorly PSed and would fail miserably if ever printed at a large size anyway: buyers who do not know how to judge what they buy will surely have bad surprises, but that's true everywhere. There should also be some specifications for file size minima and such published by Photo.net to help prevent buyers from disappointment.

 

Finally, if part payment goes to PNet first, and if the photographer gets the cash only after the buyer has confirmed a satisfactory delivery, as I suggested, what's the risk ? None at all. That's precisely the point of having PNet holding a deposit before the print is sent, with the photographer getting paid only once the customer is satisfied. The only risk for the buyer: losing the cost of sending the parcel to him + a couple of buks for PN. Not satisfied ? Send the print back to PN or to the photographer, and you'll get back half of your deposit or such. Where can you buy on the net with no risks at all ? Nowhere, I'd say...

 

As a side-note, I have no objection if other members would want to let PN print their files and if PN wants to print, but I just hope you'll let professionals print on their own. An example: I suppose Emil Schildt would not be interested in all this, but if he were, would you want to take his stuff to an epson printer...? Makes no sense. Printing is almost half of photographic art.

[cappoldt]

Guy, I'd say your thoughts were on the right track. Thing is, if someone is visiting Photo.net, one might assume a high probability of being interested in the site itself as a learning tool. From there, the photographer could be easily referenced in the Directory, and the photo for sale found in the photographer's folders - bringing the potential for those bad apples again. You'd have to be thinking along those lines, perhaps not keeping images in your viewable folders also in the For Sale gallery...that is IF you worry about potential negative feedback influencing the sale.

 

Of course if the photo were removed from the folders, and it had a lot of high numerical rates, then your overall "ranking" on the site diminishes with its deletion.

 

Again, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, I'm just trying to look at all the angles here.

[mg]

I'm certainly not under-estimating what people would do to earna couple of buks, no. But if PNet has a "prints for sale only" gallery somewhere with categories like "landscapes", "portraits", etc, I imagine that people would go there to shop, not to the TRPs. So, people would have their pix for sale on the TRP if they want to, so what ? Let's just not allow them to post a link to the print for sale page and let's not allow advertisements, and most people would anyway go to the shop to do their shoping, and not to the race course... (Well, at least I hope so...:-) And if things still turn bad, then PN could simply prohibit to post in the gallery any image that's proposed for sales in the prints-only section. Convinced ? Not yet ? How did I do...? :-)

 

Anyway, it's nice to see finally something on this site that's about sharing, and not about rating races. The site needs to separate both fields in one way or another, and it should be ok.

[kathywilson]

Nice idea, but logistically it could be a serious burden on PNet time and resources. But. I think you could adapt the eBay seller's system for the purchase plan.

 

Pnet offers drive space to store files for sale

Pnet offers paid membership in Prints for Sale Gallery (no ratings, no critiques, no comments. Simply name and email address)

Pnet For Sale Gallery membership fee should be at *least* $50, possibly more.

Photographer sets up PayPal account

Buyer sees photo with Photographer's email address.

Buyer pays Photographer using PayPal

Pnet takes automatic payment from Photographer's PayPal account (say buyer pays $20, $8 goes to Pnet, Seller sees deposit of $12)

Order goes to Mpix or some other printer (maybe a choice of several?)

Buyer pays printing costs in Printing checkout

Buyer tells printer where to send print

 

I think quality should be pretty good - and a photographer would be motivated to provide the best quality otherwise feedback might indicate he should be avoided. Complaints about printing goes to the printer. (tho some might not know the difference between a bad file and a bad print of a good file - just like some people can't set the color on their tv correctly)

 

Just like eBay, a certain amount of trust has to be there. You have to count on the photographer to privide a decent file (image size best at 5x7, or 8x10, etc), the printer to do a decent job (which is why this should be farmed out - most ppl already have a trust relationship with places like Shutterfly, Mpix, Ofoto etc. ) etc etc. It could work, but do your research first. I think you'd be looking at jumping into this in 6 months to a year.

[mg]

As you see, you beat me to it by 6 minutes, but my previous post is meant to reassure you on these legitimate worries.

 

As a side-note, so what is the problem if we really come to this extend: a very highly rated picture has to be deleted from the viewable folders in order to be considered "saleable". Then it's just up to the photographer to at least accept to have his picture deleted - or just left out of the TRPs -, if he really wants to try to sell it. It would just be his call to chose whether to upload for ratings or for $$. Actually, that would be a very educative decision to make...:-)

[mg]

Forget about trust and all that. Business is business, cash is cash, and the system I proposed gives guarantees, which are needed, and which you do not provide. Photo.net holding the cash till picture is received is the only way to be sure to get paid. I certainly would no longer send a print then wait for payment from an individual - and I would hardly do it for any foreign medium sized company either, in fact: been there, done that, and lost enough money this way - no more, thanks.

[cappoldt]

No need to reassure ME - as I wrote above, I can't see myself trying to sell a pic of the neighbor's dog or a blue jay.

 

I'm just trying to be objective here, without trying to sound like a pill - the minute a facet of business - money - becomes a factor - horrible things happen. Jimmy will write on Joe's new Critique Gallery upload that he's an egomaniac for trying to sell photos in the other gallery, and that'll spawn a revenge attack, and Jimmy and Joe will squabble, and Joe will stay up until 4:00 a.m. making phony accounts to low-rate Joe, then Jeremy Stein will be admitted to the Emergency Room for a heart condition caused by the influx of abuse@photo.net emails- then no one will be available to reply to those notes, because Brian will be too busy trying to update everything else while ordering flowers for Jeremy at FTD.com, then some deranged kook will hack the For Sale gallery and order 500 prints and send them to everybody on Paris Hilton's published cell phone address book, then ...oh man. IT'LL BE ANARCHY .

[keith turrill]

I like the idea of selling images through P/N. There are many new stock agencies that don't have much traffic. P/N has more traffic than commerce and selling images might help fix that.

 

One thing that would be needed would be a search-by-tag function. People by images by subject not critique or rating.

[ilkka_nissila]

How is a photographer to have control over his or her reputation if the print is made by a third party? Generally prints made without the photographer's control are below par and do not match the photographer's intent. I would have zero interest in such a system, for buying or selling. Print making is an essential part of the photography process and commercially made prints are generally way below what I consider a print I would be willing to sell. This does not include certain individual labs but even in the case a high-quality lab is used to make the print, quality verification by the photographer is essential before a sale can be made.

 

Otherwise it will just a snapshot sales company. Yuck.

[wheely]

I'm not sure if a separate "for sale" gallery is as likely to be

popular. How many people are going to come here because they want

to buy something. I think more revenue could be generated by people

who are just wandering around the site and suddenly come across a

shot that they think would look nice on their wall.

<p>

I know I would buy many of the shots I have seen on here but I don't

think I'd be so likely to specifically go looking for something to

buy.

[guyscrivner]

A final thought. There are many photographers who already participate in all aspects of PhotoNet and SELL their photography too!

 

These photographers just use two or more different services. PhotoNet plus SmugMug, their own website, stock photography sites, etc. These photographers sometimes link from PhotoNet to their retail site.

 

So the question is not will it work but how would PhotoNet design the system so it could compete with the other services. After all, the only reason PhotNet would want to do this would be to generate additional revenue and there is no reason why they couldn't. Like any oither business proposition though, any features of the site should benefit the real customers of the site. In this case, the real customers are the buyers not the photographers. For them you want easy access, competitive pricing, quality prints, fast delivery, guarantees, a positive and professional image with no evidence of in-house bickering, etc.

 

For the photographers you need high visibility, reasonable costs, minimum hassels, protection from product theft, fairness, quality presentations, etc.

 

Above all you need to know before anything is implemented what potential users, both photographers and buyers, want from the site. In business it is almost always who can deliver the most for the least cost in the shortest period of time and do it with a smile.

 

Thanks again Brian for asking for our opinion.

[mg]

I fully agree with what you said, but:

 

1) Read Chistopher A. and Bob Atkins's posts, and it would seem that not separating the gallery and the sales gallery would indeed create havoc. So do we really have the choice ?

 

2) Besides that, we may want to assume that photonetters will buy pictures among themselves in the first place, and will probably be curious to check what's for sell - at least if they are used to buy prints. Then, at a later stage, outsiders could hear of PNet becoming a selling platform and serious buyers may drop by to do some print-shopping.

 

3) If I already saw a great picture by Photographer A, one that I would like to own, the first thing I would do personally is to check whether it's in the sales-only gallery. In fact, I already have such pictures on my mind, which I'd love to buy if the photographers are willing to sell them.

 

All this may not make PNet or its photographers "rich" (!), but it may generate a decent volume of sales and revenues for the site imo. Mostly by word of mouth and because PNet as a trustable structure would make it easier for members to buy prints.

[mg]

You are right. Pnet would have to offer something more to be competitive in this market. Here are the things that may work imo:

 

1) Photo.net has a large volume of visitors, many of which would trust PNet more than other companies to send in their payment, especially if PNet holds the money before paying the photographer and till the buyer gets the print he bought - as suggested above.

 

2) Photo.net has a large volume of great pictures - which some of other sites may not have.

 

3) Photonetters have made friends here over the years, and have seen many great pictures, which they'd be glad to buy, if it's easy enough and safe enough, and reasonably priced enough to do so. In short, you'd rather buy a picture, I suppose, from someone you know, under the responsability of the management of a site you know well, rather than buying from unknown photographers on an unknown site.

 

4) I could be wrong, but I believe that many photographers would agree to sell on photo.net - at least under the right conditions -, but would perhaps not want to sell on an unknown site. At least, that's my case. Again, it's a matter of trust in this case.

 

And for info, I am only now, for the first time in my life, building my own web site meant to sell stock photos. I wouldn't bother to do so if I could trust another party to take care of this for me. I am not planning to build my own "prints for sale" site, as I imagine it would get too little traffic and would generate very little income. In that sense, photo.net offers here a great opportunity to make perhaps a small side income without having all the trouble of building a site etc, and without having to worry about unpaid prints. So, if Photo.net helps photographers to sell, incidentally, Photo.net will also have lots of prints for sale that may not be for sale elsewhere on the net.

[vasilis]

I would agree with Bob's idea, if it is for me to just upload the photos in a sufficiently large format and then photo.net to print and dispatch to the customer taking also a part of the payment then I would gladly do it. Each of us will just specify which photos are for sale and which of them are not and also we will set the price (eg. my photo and the photos of Ian Mc Eachern cannot be the same price :-). The thing is that most of us are not commercial photographers so the idea to print post and deal with customers is not exactly attractive (just takes more time than most of us have). If i have nothing to do except wait for a cheque or see the money in my credit card then this would justify to get a considerable amount for each photo (percentage of 25%). In this way photo.net collects and gives to the photograph the comission. Also I think that the idea can be commercially successful because at the same price for a normal poster someone would get a more individual and unique image. Unsatisfied customers I think should be treated with the choice of another print or credit in the site to get another picture.

[mg]

For info, market rates for commissions on sales if the agent (here photo.net) takes care of everything for the photographer is generally 40 to 50% commission. The lowest I ever heard of was 30%.

 

Market rate if the photographer takes care of printing and shipping or other things is 30 to 40% commission to the agent - and sometimes up to 50% as well.

 

For this business to still be worthwhile for PNet, yet to remain competitive, I'd suggest 30% commission - after deduction of courrier charges and fixed printing cost - going to PN if the photographer handles printing and shipping; and 40% to Photo.net if PNet prints.

 

As I said, I feel photographers should print themseves if they have the know-how. Perhaps PNet could print for those who wish so.

[cappoldt]

Marc, I'm not certain to any degree this would create havoc - I just shudder to think of the possibilities if the utmost care isn't taken in regard to preventative measures. The moderators here often state that they are spread very thin - busy bees, they're not spending a lot of time out looking for trouble, but will respond to it when reported. This is REactive, not PROactive. Considering, that's well and fine looking at what the site is, its purpose, its community. BUT, if you put a fee-based, money-earning business spin on things, it'll no longer be just a matter of wounded egos and pride. Disclaimers and regulations will be scrutinized and leveraged for a more proactive solution to bad apples - as with any business, the customer base will then be directly affected by satisfaction.

 

All that said, I'm not trying to be a wet blanket to muffle hopes - rather I'd love to see photogs here earn monetary rewards. I'm ceratin Brian's post is to gather thoughts and see opinions and ideas, and hopefully al these great ideas above will help.

[bennyboy]

Don't forget that this site is mutinational in terms of users, that's a lot of tax, VAT, shipping and handling issues to worry about.

[afs760bf]

The only site that I'm really familiar with that does this requires the photographer to submit a TIFF file to the site. This TIFF file is provided to the purchaser, with an agreement that the purchaser can make a print. That way, if your chromatic special Humpty-Dumpty ink cartridge runs out of ink without you noticing it, you won't lose business, and the quality of the print image is the responsibility of the one buying the image. If each photographer provided his own print, there would be lots of complaints about quality issues.

 

I don't think I have to worry about it, but I did look into it, and that's what I found. Pnet would need a LOT of storage space for all the TIFF files, and folks like Marc probably wouldn't be willing, for good reason, to provide TIFF files of their images. Lots of thought and planning required to get into this business. Cheers.