On 19/02/2013 12:09, David Whistance wrote: > I was going to reply before but held off, however if you look through your > analysis I think you will find that you have the maths wrong - you seem to > be allowing $5 per print whilst his actual print prices are considerably > higher than that, from 4 to 20 times from memory. Depending on the ratio > of large to small prints sold that will make a significant difference to > his bottom line. Hi David, That's me making a silly mistake then. I did assume a median price of $50 per print, but somehow lost a zero. 30,000 * $50 is of course $1,500,000. Not $150,000 as I wrote. T/o of $125,000 year then, and overheads would likely be less than the 40% I assumed, with that kind of volume. So I am impressed, and fascinated that this is (still) possible. That's a probable profit ~GBP 60k, which would be firmly in the top few percentile for income among UK pro's. http://www.british-photographic-council.org/survey/2010 My apologies to all for the misdirection. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Re: Photography That Doesn't Suck
2013-02-19 by Tony Sleep
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.