The market value of photography
Many years ago I took a small business class and even though I didn’t go into business, there were a number of valuable lessons that I learned. One section was pricing and value. The trick was to find the right price point where you could sell your product continuously, provide a good value for the public, and make a profit at the same time. If you price the item too high, you could make a large profit, assuming that anyone would buy it, too low, and you’d sell a lot of product, but not make enough money to cover expenses. Either way, you’d be out of business.
I was reading Joe McNally’s blog and this paragraph caught my eye:
I attempt to be coherent, and thoughtful, though it’s hard. When you hear about a recent cover of Time magazine being bought off Istock for $30, it’s easy to just think about reaching for the sawed off and giving them sumbitches what for. But this whole numbing process has been going on for so long it would be difficult to sort out the most deserving sumbitches, and truth be told, some of them be us.
Before I continue, you have to understand that Joe has a great sense of humor and his posts are often informative, but certainly always have a touch or more of humor in them. That’s one of the reasons that I read it. I usually get a laugh and who couldn’t use one of those every day! 
So, back to business, markets, and such. I did a quick Google to find out about Time’s $30 purchase and found that it was true. They purchased the photo from IStock for $30. Now, the irony of this purchase was not lost on me. The label that was added to the jar of coins says: The New Frugality. The article featured on the cover was about how the recession has changed what we value and what we expect–even after the economy recovers.
When the photographer, Robert Lam, mentioned that he had gotten one of his photos on the cover of Time, most people where supportive … that is, until someone asked how much he got paid. When he mentioned that Time had paid only $30, then the support seemed to dwindle. Some thought that he got ‘screwed’, others thought that it was ‘terribly depressing’ that Time, a multi-billion dollar company only paid $30. In general, it seemed that some thought that he should get paid in the $10,000 range, just because of Time’s ability to pay. For most other things, the market doesn’t work like this, only taxes work like this … the more you make, the more they take! I pay the same amount for an automobile whether I make $5,000/year, $200,000/year, or $1,000,000/year. I may be able to purchase a more expensive automobile, but no one asks to see my income before I see the price!
I’ve seen this sentiment in numerous places about how photographers shouldn’t sell their work for such cheap prices and about how businesses like IStock are hurting photographers’ ability to make a living, etc. Perhaps photography books should cost several hundred dollars each because they hurt the teaching/workshop market! 
I remember similar stories from the post office about how the Internet was hurting their business; however, they still survive, though postal rates are climbing more frequently. They had to make changes, streamline, and compete with the Internet, UPS, and FedEx. They aren’t the only game in town anymore. They had to find new ideas and new ways to earn money.
Pricing needn’t be emotional. Sure, we may think that our photos are worth more, but that’s only because of our own attachment, ego, and desires. In the end, a photo, or anything is worth what the market will pay. No more. No less.
What do you think?
Well, now I don’t feel so bad. I was recently paid $50 for the use of an image by a Maine tourism website. It wasn’t much money, but I figured what the heck, it was the first time anyone had paid me anything for the use of a photograph. You gotta start somewhere, right? So if Time is only paying $30 for a cover image, I did pretty well!
Like anything else…a photo’s only worth what someone will pay for it. If you thinks it’s worth more then you need to find another you and sell it to them.
@Paul M: Congratulations on the 50 bux!
You made out a lot better than the other guy!
@Earl: Yep! Sell it to yourself! Not much profit in that, but … LOL!
I guess I can only come up with a vague “it depends” answer here. I mean, if the photographer was willing to sell it for 30$, why not? Just because it’s Time shouldn’t mean they have to pay more than any other customer.
But the truly interesting bit is that Time is actually purchasing stock photos from a mainstream / low budget site. Does that mean that the mainstream quality of photos is nowadays good enough for a titlepage of Time? Guess so… At least when it comes to the technical quality.
Which means, technicalities and expensive gear won’t help anybody any more to stand out from the crowd. Which perhaps is a good thing.
I’d like to have authored the following but I didn’t and I can’t remember the name of the man who did. I once had dinner with a professional paint artist and her agent (They were doing well, living/working in Australia and selling in NY while affording to commute between the two). During the conversation I pressed hard for them to reveal the price of their paintings and in so doing define a reasonable price.
They stuck to this answer.
If a professional works diligently and the market values their work, then they should be paid a reasonable livelihood.
Then, my experience. What is often viewed as a free market is in many cases a manipulated market. I kind of like the idea that a free market will establish a fair price but… “You ain’t gone get no free market sucker”.
Re: “Perhaps photography books should cost several hundred dollars each because they hurt the teaching/workshop market”: A Strobist posting a few years ago talked about a similar topic. It’s a long essay — read it here — but a brief extract:
“The gist of these conversations [with a local photographer] were pretty much him noting that he liked the Strobist site, but didn’t agree with the idea of my giving the information away for free. … He was concerned that I was giving away something of value. And by doing so, I was devaluing the photo profession.”
In addition to your points, I think it’s fascinating to read messages from photographers who, while complaining about low prices devaluing their product, nevertheless look for free music to accompany their slide shows or seek ways around paying for software like Photoshop that they don’t want to pay for.
@Bob: Well,the market is the market and we get what people think its worth. You have the ‘right’ to ask for any price that you want, but the market has the same right to go to someone who is less expensive.
@Gary: Those are excellent points about the free music and Photoshop!
It’s always been a balance between availability and demand. This in combination with bad times gets it even more evident. Even big companies have to find new ways to cut cost. And seriously, if the photo was bought from a stock agency, they simply wanted a picture, not THE picture. It was probably not worth the effort calling around to see if anyone could come up with a photo of a duck, or whatever.
I concur with your position. Value is set by the buyer. Otherwise, one has a tendency to not be in touch with the real world of economics.
Great topic, as usual. This has become a habit with you. And terrific responses.
Reality is harsh. The market is both harsh and capricious. People will pay what they are willing to pay or any type of goods or services, and all the wishing in the world won’t change that. However, I shudder to think about some bureaucrat being given the authority to establish a “fair” price. I think we either accept the rules of the marketplace, or stay out of the game. It’s not a place for folks who bruise easily. Joe McNally is an excellent example. He continues to evolve as the market does.
Hey Paul, changing the subject . . . tell me about this image. Is it film? Sometimes I can tell, but this time I can’t.
@Chris: Yep! It’s film. Ilford FP4 Plus. I took it on the way back from one of my son’s basketball games. The games were in Augusta, GA. This is somewhere between Augusta, GA and Charleston, SC. I know that it is in SC, and much closer to Augusta, but I don’t remember the little town, but I think that it was Pelion, SC. Had I used my digital and GPS, I could have told you where it was within 50 ft.
The times have changed, and quite simply I think photographers are going to have to diversify. I don’t particularly agree that $30 seems like a fair rate for a cover, but then I am not the photo editor purchasing it either. Obviously they felt they found something that fit their needs for that issue. I don’t think every cover is going to be obtained for that rate.
Look at musicians – and think about how much effort, creativity, etc they put into a song – and they get what – less than $0.50? Of course the economies of scale are different here, but perhaps that type of thing is evolving for photographs as well. Pictures are everywhere now – on our phones, the net, print, etc, etc. There are many other places to sell them than magazine covers. And if you don’t like the price they are paying, no one says you have to supply the photo to them.
I can only wonder if the photographer has raised his prices now that one of his images made it big on Time Magazine?
Times are changing and with so many photographers out there the prices were bound to react to the saturation in the market.
Times are also tough…I mean I’ve read that Annie Leibovitz may be forced into bankruptcy…and may lose rights to her photos.