When we first started designing the e-commerce module in PhotoShelter, we looked at various image-pricing models to understand what was going on in the industry. We found “guidelines” in books, websites and software that aided in the pricing process. But mostly, what we found was a completely nonsensical, illogical landscape.

For example, if a ¼ page ad at a given circulation is $500, then you might expect a ½ page ad to be $1000. But no, we found that it was $750. A junior-high level of analysis would suggest that doubling the size should increase the price by 50% (i.e. $750 is 50% more than $500). Therefore a full-page ad should be $1125 right? Wrong. Try $1000.

What about a ¼ page ad in a magazine with a circulation of 50,000 vs 100,000 vs. 250,000. Again, there doesn’t seem to be any discernible correlation between the number of units and the price. The prices don’t increase linearly, geometrically or exponentially. In fact, if you were to graph the suggested pricing, you’d almost think the pricing was being heavily discounted at various level[s].

No wonder photographers and photo buyers are so confused.

Photo buyers love the big agencies because they use a simple pricing model. If you “subscribe” to the AP or Getty, you know what it will cost you to run a photo in your newspaper. There is no constant re-pricing based on image, and because the top agencies have grown so large, they have extensive coverage of almost every aspect of photography.

How does the “little guy” compete against this? First, a dose of reality: You are not Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon. You cannot expect to take a picture of a landscape and sell it at a price commensurate with “art” photography or celebrity portraiture. One of the benefits of being a dead, famous artist is that the number of images in your archive is fixed. No new images means the value of each image increases over time. You, on the other hand, are alive, so get used to it.

Secondly, I don’t know the solution to this problem. I think the pricing models that photographers use need to be simpler and more logical. Framers usually price by the square inch and the material used. It’s a simple formula to understand. The nice wood with the double matte with the 11x17 print is more expensive than the cheap veneer, machine-cut matte at 5x7.

Why can’t doubling the size always result in a predictable increase in price? Why can’t doubling the circulation do the same? Could the same formula used for calculating a ¼ page ad with a 100,000-issue run therefore be extended for a billboard with a run of 20?

You can argue until you’re blue that pricing a photograph is much more complex than anything else, but doing so misses the real problem. Consumers at all levels have no tolerance for complexity involving something as commoditized as a photograph.

When we figure out how to simplify the pricing of our images, we will lower the “friction” involved in the sale, shortening the time to sale, while increasing the number of sales.