You make a good point -- in fact,
my point. If I could sell it for $1, I would in a heartbeat. I can't because the cost of production and distribution prevents me from doing so and I don't want to go broke. But, let's extend the discussion just a bit for the education it might afford.
Because the costs have escalated, we must raise our price. Just for the mental exercise, let's say we raised it to $50 per issue. What the hell, let's say $100 per issue. How long do you think it would be before some enterprising person would realize that there is too wide of a gap between the costs and the selling price and begin a competing magazine for less? What if they began publishing one for, say, $50. Enter a third individual who figures out that there is room for an even lower priced publication at, say, $15. What would happen to my publication at $100 or even the second publication at $50? This is precisely how the free market works. People produce products (in my case a magazine) and sell it for as much as they can, but the market imposes restraints on what they can charge via the built-in pressure of competition and market forces. Of course I'd sell
LensWork for $100 per issue, but the market won't let me. Of course I'd sell
LensWork for $1 per issue if I were independently wealthy and could afford to subsidize it -- which I can't, because I'm not.
(In fact, this is essentially what other magazines do with all their advertising; the advertising revenue subsidizes your subscription because the amount you pay for the subscription doesn't cover the costs of production and distribution.) The balance between consumer demand and cost of production is what ultimately sets the price.
What if the price is too high? Of course, try as a producer might, sometimes costs rise and there is not a thing anyone can do about it. So, they raise the price. What will the market reaction be? It's anyone's guess. If costs rise too much and the marketplace balks and folks stop buying, the message to the producer is clear. Production ceases and the product dies. Simply said, the product is not worth the price. Conversely, if costs are reduced and the seller doesn't reduce their price, an opening appears and a competitor can slip in and succeed. This is how the free market works and always has.
Of critical importance here is that
you -- the consumers -- determine whether or not the product is worth it based on the price you must pay. If it is, the product thrives. If it is not, the product does not. Simple as that. And how does the producer know what the consumer is thinking? That, too, is as simple as can be -- we watch and see if people buy. If they do not, we are being told by the marketplace that consumers are making judgments that the product is not worth the price.
So, the question I've asked for years now is - -
How is this any different for artwork than it is for everything else in the market place?
I simply propose that if you find you are not selling your artwork as you'd like, it is the marketplace telling you something that may be useful for you to hear.
Does this make sense?
Brooks