[STOCKPHOTO] Stock photography business opportunity I'm considering... Advice?
newhampshirefarms
photography business opportunity or point me to where I can get more
information on wildlife stock photography. If I may, allow me to
explain. I am 29 and am, like many starting photographers, trying to
develop my skills and portfolio and become a full time photographer.
I really enjoy nature/wildlife photography and have recently had an
interesting opportunity fall into my lap that I am considering and
trying to research to compliment my own photography.
There is a photographer that has been full time into stock
photography for 20 years, who retired 2 years ago and wants to sell
his archive of over 100,000 fuji 35mm slides (organized and stored
properly). His work has appeared on covers of many national outdoors-
type of magazines, including several covers on Field and Stream, as
well as calendars, etc. He suggested to me that this collection
would really help me get started in stock photography because it
would give me a resource to dig into when needed (if a magazine is
looking for a shot of a deer or fishing shot for example). He use to
work primarily with a handful of wildlife magazines and if he didn't
have the shot in his file, he would go and shoot it for the magazine
editor. I think that I would enjoy this type of shooting, and my
novice brain thinks this might make sense to purchase such a large
collection and have it to supplement my own work as I build my own
collection. He told me that only about 5% of all the slides have
ever been shown to publishers, the rest have not been sent out
anywhere. He also said he would help mentor me in this business
area, even though he is no longer in it. For all this, he said he
would help me out by giving me a "deal" at $10k down, with a
gentlemens agreement to pay an additional $1k/year (without any
interest charges) for 10 more years (for a total of $20,000). I
would own (and possess) all the slides (5 file cabinets full...4
drawers each cabinet) and the full ownership rights to own and
publish without comissions or royalties or any other payments or
consideration. He also said he would help me with learning some of
the ins and outs of stock photography and provide me with some
contacts, etc...
My question is, does this sound reasonable? Do you know anyone who I
could talk with about this? I thought this forum might be a good
source that could help steer me in the right direction. I have no
idea who to talk with about this because it is such a unique
opportunity that none of my reference books address... Is there
anyone I can talk with to help me evaluate it? Any suggestions or
advice? It is a lot of money though, so I want to look before I
leap.
Any helpful suggestions or ideas are appreciated. Thanks!
Matt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Brian Seed
You need to consider this offer very, very carefully. Retiring photographers
find it hard, if not impossible to place their image collections: the
market for image collections is virtually non-existent. Further to this, if
you are not an experienced and fully professional photographer it is very
likely you will not know what your are looking at when you look at this guys
images.
The clincher, for me, is that when buyers are now asking for images to be
supplied in digitsl form, what use will 100,000 slides be to you? Editing
and scanning these is darned nearly going to be a lifetime job. If you want
to pay someone to scan them for you the cost will be horrendous.
The more I write about the offer you have received the more I think you
should turn it down. Now, if the owner of these images is prepared to pass
them over to you for a percentage of the sales you make and no cash payment,
that could be a better proposition.
At the end of the day, it will be much better for you to put your time into
shooting, using the best digital equipment you can afford. The new Nikon 200
camera is very competent and reasonable in price.
If you decide to go ahead with this man's offer--a mistake in my view--do
get an expert to review a good cross-section of the images.
Brian Seed
Stock Photography Consultant.
David Kilpatrick
>
>There is a photographer that has been full time into stock
>photography for 20 years, who retired 2 years ago and wants to sell
>his archive of over 100,000 fuji 35mm slides (organized and stored
>properly)....
>
snip
>For all this, he said he
>would help me out by giving me a "deal" at $10k down, with a
>gentlemens agreement to pay an additional $1k/year (without any
>interest charges) for 10 more years (for a total of $20,000). I
>would own (and possess) all the slides (5 file cabinets full...4
>drawers each cabinet) and the full ownership rights to own and
>publish without comissions or royalties or any other payments or
>consideration. He also said he would help me with learning some of
>the ins and outs of stock photography and provide me with some
>contacts, etc...
>
>
>
The short answer is that this is very cheap for copyright purchase if
the slides are all within the era of E6 or Kodachrome 25/64, and have
been archived, catalogued and captioned correctly. The dilemma is that
just viewing 100,000 slides and finding those which might be of value
would take you all your time for a year, and putting these into scanned
form, as Brian Seed has commented, a lifetime.
The answer is that this all depends entirely on content. Wildlife and
nature mean very different things to different people, and a few covers
of field sport magazines are small beer. Film is both unfashionable, and
an increasing rarity. Too much original filmstock is being destroyed or
neglected once scanned. Such an archive might, in 50 years time if not
broken up, be important.
I would say that putting $10k plus 10 years at $1k into this was
actually a no-brainer unless the images are rubbish, commonplace, dated
and overused. It's 20 cents a slide, and if you went straight to the
market offering groups of 100 slides for outright purchase at just $100
- all rights - that would be a bargain - and a fivefold profit margin.
Compare it to putting $20k into buying amenity or marginal commercial
woodland, the sort you can not build on or live in, but you can harvest
wood. Plenty of people do that, own a chunk of forest, and earn very
little from it but the pleasure of having a wood. Or compare it with a car.
If this work is of any quality, a single publishing deal could pay back
the $20k. If it is not of quality, then it doesn't matter what you pay
for it, it's worth nothing. 2 million unsaleable slides are worth no
more than one unsaleable slide.
In the end it is down to your judgement.
David
ta...@sympatico.ca
100,000 slides. Pretty impressive, except you will be hard pressed to find anyone who accepts a slide nowadays for a submission.
So, your first task is to edit and scan ($$$$$$$$$$$), or send them out for scanning ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).
Good luck, call us back in 5 or 10 years when you are finished and ready to start submitting.
Paul Aparycki
> I was wondering if someone might help me evaluate a stock
> photography business opportunity or point me to where I can get more
> information on wildlife stock photography. If I may, allow me to
> explain. I am 29 and am, like many starting photographers, trying to
> develop my skills and portfolio and become a full time photographer.
Stockphoto Seller
You would be well advised to have a consultant in stock photography look over this deal, including an appraisal of the quality and salability of the transparencies, themselves. Beyond the cautionary statements you have received about the costs and time involved in going digital, such elementary matters as the organization of the collection, the detailed subject matter, identifications of individual images, and so on have a great deal to do with whether or not you can potentially make a profit. At $20,000, the cost of the images will be the least of your major expense categories over ten years.You can still do some profitable business with transparencies rather than digital images, but it will take you years to figure out where this business lies and to make the necessary contacts in a world swamped with both photo sources and photo buyers ga-ga over digital. A good consultant knows all the considerations.
Do you know of the organization NANPA, made up of both amateur and professional "nature" photographers? Lots of talks at their regional and annual Summit meetings about selling nature photography, and some of these are available as videos on the NANPA website. Still, they won't be able to pull your particular situation together the way a consultant can.
Carl May/BPS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rubens Abboud
> There is a photographer that has been full time into stock
> photography for 20 years, who retired 2 years ago and wants to
sell
> his archive of over 100,000 fuji 35mm slides (organized and stored
> properly). His work has appeared on covers of many national
outdoors-
> type of magazines, including several covers on Field and Stream,
as
> well as calendars, etc.
[snip]
> He told me that only about 5% of all the slides have
> ever been shown to publishers, the rest have not been sent out
> anywhere.
[snip]
>For all this, he said he
> would help me out by giving me a "deal" at $10k down, with a
> gentlemens agreement to pay an additional $1k/year (without any
> interest charges) for 10 more years (for a total of $20,000).
[snip]
> My question is, does this sound reasonable?
To summarize:
Full-time professional wildlife photographer who has accumulated
100,000 slides after 20 years of living off only 5% of this
collection licensing to a limited number of clients is financing his
retirement by selling his only revenue stream to you for a lump-sum
of $10K and yearly payments of $1K while tutoring you on his stock
strategies.
Matt,
There are many things wrong with this scenario, but let's analyze it
very simplistically just for fun:
Your fulltime pro valued his collection at $0.20/image today. Since
he only ever licensed 5% of his collection over 20 years, that means
he licensed an average of 250 images / year.
Since he's been in retirement for only 2 years, one has to assume
that in his last year working as a full-time pro, he licensed at
least 250 images for $0.20 each or a total of $50 for the entire
year.
Let's say that three years ago each of his images was worth much
more, say $4 each (20 times more than today). That means on his
last year as a working full-time pro, he made a total of (250 images
x $4) $1000 total for the year.
My advice to you: forget the images. Give him $20K to teach you how
to make a living on $1000/year.
PS: For much less than $20K, I would be willing to sell you some
gorgeous bridges. :-)
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
Ei Katsumata
<newhampshirefarms@...> wrote:
> There is a photographer that has been full time into stock
> photography for 20 years, who retired 2 years ago and wants to sell
> his archive of over 100,000 fuji 35mm slides (organized and stored
> properly).
> He told me that only about 5% of all the slides have
> ever been shown to publishers, the rest have not been sent out
> anywhere.
Matt,
If only 5% of the 100,000 images were ever seen by clients, then this
photographer obviously doesn't think very highly of the other 95%.
So the question really should be, "Is 5,000 marketable images worth
$20K?"
Well, it depends how marketable these images are. You can probably
get through 5,000 scans in a year or so. Add to that the time it
will take to recover $4 per image. At the very least, it might be
worth taking a look at a selection of those 5,000 images the
photographer actually sent out.
Ei Katsumata
Bob Croxford
This touches on something I have been considering recently. I am
obviously not explaining my idea of RM on other forums very well and
have been trying to see it as virgin, non-published images v. proven
sellers.
You are obviously taking the line that the 5,000 images which have
sold are of greater value than the 95,000 that haven't. I agree.
Now if you were an agent working in a unique territory, USA for
instance, would you prefer to have the chance to sell images which
have already sold in Europe with all RM information or would you
prefer virgin images which have never been seen. Does your attitude
change if you are an agent compared to a photographer?
Suppose you knew that some of those images had sold six times or ten
times. Would you assume that an agency would prefer those images to
other images which have never sold?
Bob Croxford
On 23 Apr 2006, at 10:37, Ei Katsumata wrote:
>> He told me that only about 5% of all the slides have
>> ever been shown to publishers, the rest have not been sent out
>> anywhere.
>
> Matt,
>
> If only 5% of the 100,000 images were ever seen by clients, then this
> photographer obviously doesn't think very highly of the other 95%.
> So the question really should be, "Is 5,000 marketable images worth
> $20K?"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Molon
>
> Too much original filmstock is being destroyed or
> neglected once scanned. Such an archive might, in 50 years time if not
> broken up, be important.
But doesn't colour slide film degrade over time? I would assume that
in 50 years not much image content is left of colour slides. Black and
white negative film lasts long, but colour slides should not last that
long.
Alfred Molon
www.molon.de
Ei Katsumata
wrote:
>
> Dear Ei
>
> This touches on something I have been considering recently. I am
> obviously not explaining my idea of RM on other forums very well
and
> have been trying to see it as virgin, non-published images v.
proven
> sellers.
>
> You are obviously taking the line that the 5,000 images which have
> sold are of greater value than the 95,000 that haven't. I agree.
Dear Bob,
Actually, 5,000 images were seen by buyers (not necessarily
licensed). 95,000 were never sent out for review, which implies that
the photographer who shot them thought that they weren't good
enough. Some photographers might have tossed those in the garbage.
Others don't like to throw anything away.
> Now if you were an agent working in a unique territory, USA for
> instance, would you prefer to have the chance to sell images which
> have already sold in Europe with all RM information or would you
> prefer virgin images which have never been seen. Does your
attitude
> change if you are an agent compared to a photographer?
When you use the term "virgin," are you referring to images that have
been sent out for review and never sold, or images that have never
been seen by buyers? If the former, then I would say that those
images which have sold and have a proven track record are of more
value. However, if the images have never been seen by any buyers
(e.g. never had the opportunity to be sold), and they are of equal
quality, then I would probably choose the virgin ones.
> Suppose you knew that some of those images had sold six times or
ten
> times. Would you assume that an agency would prefer those images
to
> other images which have never sold?
I guess that's why some agencies gobble up other ones -- because they
want to represent collections with a proven track record. However,
many agencies seem to want exclusive material from individual
contributors, as it gives them something unique. It probably also
reduces the administrative expenses involved in managing rights
outside of their own office. But I'm not an agent, so what do I
know...
Ei Katsumata
David Kilpatrick
>--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@...> wrote:
>
>
>>Too much original filmstock is being destroyed or
>>neglected once scanned. Such an archive might, in 50 years time if not
>>broken up, be important.
>>
>>
>
>But doesn't colour slide film degrade over time? I would assume that
>in 50 years not much image content is left of colour slides. Black and
>white negative film lasts long, but colour slides should not last that
>long.
>
>Alfred Molon
>www.molon.de
>
>
I've got boxes of slides given to me which are from the 1950s - they are
fine as long as they are not Gevacolor, Ilfochrome, or Anscochrome.
Kodak, Agfa, lasted OK.
See the research by the University of Basle. This led to ROC - the
software provided with scanners which can restore the colours in these
faded oldies.
David
ta...@sympatico.ca
Virtually any method we use for imaging today can be saved for an extremely long time, as long as the storage conditions, and your budget, are up to it. Sadly (maybe not???), most of us can't afford the cryogenics needed to save our snaps.
By the way, the film industry as a whole (who have resources far outstripping the photo industry), are far from convinced that dvd storage is a stable medium. There are vaults full of very, very cold negatives, as it has been shown to be quite reliable thank you.
Paul Aparycki
> But doesn't colour slide film degrade over time? I would assume that
> in 50 years not much image content is left of colour slides. Black and
> white negative film lasts long, but colour slides should not last that
> long.
>
> Alfred Molon
> www.molon.de
Jeff Greenberg
> photography for 20 years, who retired 2 years ago and wants to sell
> his archive of over 100,000 fuji 35mm slides
=====
Something's funky monkey: successful stock photographers never retire,
they just slow down.
Offer to market his photos, with his advice, & split profit 50/50. You
learn how to market, he gets 50%, which he WON'T like if he already
knows he's not going to get much! If you do sell a lot in first year
or two, THEN consider buyout.
My impression: good shooter, limited business skills.
jeffgreenberg
selectskills
>> But doesn't colour slide film degrade over time?
Hello, Alfred:
I have heard that Kodachrome can be expected to survive in good
condition for 75 years, with the right storage. Three-color
separations of color images, using black and white film, would last
much longer, one might assume.
Somebody joked about using phonograph records today, as an analog for
unchanging, out-dated hard drive technology.
In fact, those vinyl records are a fine storage media; they are
chemically inert. Digital images should be recorded to such a
long-lasting media (and simple systems) as this, if we want our
distant descendants to enjoy, and even re-license our works. RM we
would hope!
The ultimate archival storage is apparently acid-free paper with
visible digital signals, patterns in black ink. This is commercially
available.
David Austen
Stockphoto Seller
Carl May/BPS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
newhampshirefarms
considering, I appreciate your feedback. I am in the process of
researching the idea, and posting my question was part of my
research because I am trying to seek someone to help advise me and
would love to talk to someone on the phone for a few minutes one on
one if possible (please email me and I can send my phone number, or
visa versa). I love photography and am exploring opportunities that
might help me turn my interest into a career, so I was excited when
I came across this, but I always look before I leap. I understand
the need for research, and I have been reading several books I
bought as I try to understand more about Stock Photography. I value
your feedback as well.
The person who is selling the collection was making most of his
living off the images, and said he was averaging around $30,000
gross/year by focusing on working primarily with certain magazine
clients and he would travel to get the pictures they needed, and
then would take other pictures just for his image library. The
images are all slides, but my books indicate that many magazines
still accept slides, if not prefer them over digital so I'm not sure
how necessary it is to try to scan them all. Maybe if anything, I
could just scan the ones that I submit?
If I spent a year trying to capture images, I know I'd spend well
over $20k on travel, etc... Please help me understand the reason
that many people seem to be advising me away from this opportunity.
Is it because:
A. The price is too high
B. I could shoot 100,000 quality images on my own for cheaper
C. Because the images aren't digital, but are fuji slides
D. There is no market for wildlife photos (deer,fish,bears,etc)
E. The market is too competitive to recoup the investment
F. If the collection were really that good he wouldn't be selling it.
G. Your $20k would be better spent buying better lenses, gear, etc.
H. Other reasons...
I really am trying my best to do research on this. I am ready to
commit my financial resources to get started, but $20k is a LOT for
me as I'm only 29 so I am very nervous and don't want to waste
it...but then again, the reason I saved the $20k (I've been saving
over the last several years) was so I could do something like this
someday. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks again,
Matt
Rubens Abboud
> bought as I try to understand more about Stock Photography. I
[snip]
> The person who is selling the collection was making most of his
> living off the images, and said he was averaging around $30,000
> gross/year by focusing on working primarily with certain magazine
[snip]
> If I spent a year trying to capture images, I know I'd spend well
> over $20k on travel, etc... Please help me understand the reason
> that many people seem to be advising me away from this
opportunity.
> Is it because:
>
> A. The price is too high
> B. I could shoot 100,000 quality images on my own for cheaper
I. You're reading the wrong kind of books.
investment
Definition 1
In finance, the purchase of a financial product or other item of
value with an expectation of favorable future returns. In general
terms, investment means the use money in the hope of making more
money.
Definition 2
In business, the purchase by a producer of a physical good, such as
durable equipment or inventory, in the hope of improving future
business.
You are asking the wrong questions.
If he was earning $30K per year from the images he is selling you,
then:
1. Why is he accepting a measly $20K spread over 11 years ($10K the
first and $1K for ten years after) for an asset that can generate a
total of $330K in the same period of time?
2. If he was mostly living off his images, and he needed $30K/year
to survive up until now, what type of cardboard box and under what
bridge will he be living under for the next 11 years on $1K/annum?
3. Do you really want to be mentored and tutored by someone whose
business acumen engineers a deal that will see him retiring on
$1K/year?
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kilpatrick
A: not the case - it's reasonable. The value of a self-run business for
purchase is normally taken to be between 2.5X and 3X its annual net
profit to the owner (net of any operating costs etc) so an asset
yielding a revenue of $30,000 would be estimated at around $80,000. This
takes into account goodwill, decline in likely sales if neglected. It's
a much lower multiplier than for investment assets like property or any
business which makes a profit after having premises, staff etc, but the
usual basis for valuing a self-employed or freelance selling up.
B: in which case do that as well.
C: it all depends on the quality.
D: there's a massive amount of low cost, amateur, free or sponsored
material - TV series spin-offs with highly skilled crews shooting
unrepeatable stills alongside footage. Watching/photographing deer/bears
is a leisure activity. Therefore you will always get enthusiast
photographers (more so when shooting with guns is banned).
E: see above, but good marketing can make up for all this. The amateur
who shows pictures to friends or posts them on a non-commercial website
and never offers them for sale is not competing with the library owner
who actively markets images.
F: he might just be bored or want to do something else.
G: it's not a lot of money either way.
David
Steve Smith
--- newhampshirefarms <newhamps...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A. The price is too high
>>Tough one but if you judge price based on potential
return rather than sweat equity value of the owner the
answer is yes. While I am sure the owner put in a lot
of hard work building this collection, unless marketed
extremely well I think it would be hard to recoup that
investment.
B. I could shoot 100,000 quality images on my own for
cheaper
>> Unlikely if the shots are good, because great
wildlife photographs are very hard to get.
C. Because the images aren't digital, but are fuji
slides
>> These days, this is a big problem. The cost and/or
time to do high quality scans will be significant,
especially if the slides are getting on in age.
D. There is no market for wildlife photos
(deer,fish,bears,etc)
>> Like most types of stock, there is a market,
however there is also a ton of supply and its a
situation where only a few at the very tip of the
pyramid will actually ever do well. I once talked to a
guy who specialized in animal related gift products
and prints. He told me some photographers will supply
prints for free to his store just to get there name
out there. That's what you are up against...
E. The market is too competitive to recoup the
investment
>> Agree. See above
F. If the collection were really that good he wouldn't
be selling it.
>> Not neccesarily. It could be great. Does he have a
well known name in that field? Does he continue to
sell prints or stock on a regular basis? If so there
may be a chance, but it will be a tough slog. Don't
forget marketing. More and more thats what this
business is all about.
G. Your $20k would be better spent buying better
lenses, gear, etc.
>> What about all the travel to the locations where
you will need to go to get those kind of shots? While
we all dream about being able to fund our travel by
selling the images, very few actually can.
H. Other reasons...
>> Are you sure the previously established client
contacts would come over if the owner sold his
collection? If not you are forced with sourcing new
demamd and that will be really tough in a highly
competitive market.
Best of Luck,
Steve
Steve Smith
World of Stock
http://www.worldofstock.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Pete Jenkins
What is your background in photography.
You are asking questions which suggest (to me) that you are inexperienced
in these matters. Becoming a good well selling photographer takes years of
experience and is a huge learning curve.
Why is your guy giving up? It sounds (to me) like he is selling you his
pension, as that is what our stock photography is to many of us (in the UK
anyway).
Kind regards
Pete J
Pete Jenkins
http://www.petejenkins.co.uk/
biggiesnows
The price is definitely not too high if you can develop the business
to sell the images. The business model of the seller who says he'll
mentor you may be viable in which case you may be way ahead. Be
aware, however, that the photography business is changing fast and
constantly. You need to evaluate if his business model is still good
in 2006. Also, much of business is about person to person contacts
between photographers and editors. If he's been out of the business
for 2 years his contacts may already have moved on. There's a lot of
turnover in the buying end of the business. Also, his contacts may
not want to work with you. They may have trusted him but you are an
unknown.
>B. I could shoot 100,000 quality images on my own for cheaper
Definitely not. You could shoot 100,000 images for the money but
definitely not quality. He probably spent vastly more than $20,000
to get those 100,000.
>C. Because the images aren't digital, but are fuji slides
You mentioned that your reading indicated that magazines are still
accepting slides. Yes they are but how long is that going to last?
As more and more digital images are produced there may be a point in
the near future when it becomes unnecessary for buyers to have to
deal with slides. Any books you are reading are probably a year or
two old in which case some of the info is already dated. In any case
you have to scan those images. A digital image is more valuable
because it can be marketed simultaneously in multiple venues which
you have to do to have a healthy business.
>E. The market is too competitive to recoup the investment
The market is hyper-competitive but great marketing can overcome
this.
>H. Other reasons...
If you spend the $20,000 are you going to have the resources to
develop the business and run it for the (perhaps) years that it's
going to take to become your full-time income? 100,000 slides are
worthless if you can't sell them and it's going to take a lot of
time and money to do that.
Bill Stevenson
Alfred Molon
> A: not the case - it's reasonable. The value of a self-run business for
> purchase is normally taken to be between 2.5X and 3X its annual net
> profit to the owner (net of any operating costs etc) so an asset
> yielding a revenue of $30,000 would be estimated at around $80,000.
If the total revenue is 30000, the profit will be lower, maybe as
little as 10000 (or even less). So it would be 10000 x 2.5 or 3 =
25000-30000.
Alfred Molon
www.molon.de
David Kilpatrick
>--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>>A: not the case - it's reasonable. The value of a self-run business for
>>purchase is normally taken to be between 2.5X and 3X its annual net
>>profit to the owner (net of any operating costs etc) so an asset
>>yielding a revenue of $30,000 would be estimated at around $80,000.
>>
>>
>
>If the total revenue is 30000, the profit will be lower, maybe as
>little as 10000 (or even less). So it would be 10000 x 2.5 or 3 =
>25000-30000.
>
>
>
Why should there be $20,000 in costs associated with $30,000 revenue? I
used the term net revenue or net profit anyway, which is after deducting
costs. You can not value any business on its turnover, and I sure when
someone says 'I earn $30,000 from x' they do not mean turnover, they
mean earnings.
David