A client once insisted my rate for a simple product shot was “too high.” They sold gold-plated Sterling Silver jewellery, each piece costing them around £10 landed. I charged £20 for a clean white-background image, standard commercial pricing. Because they wanted two angles, they felt the photography was “quadrupling” their product cost.
It was an emotional argument, not a strategic one.
Comparing the cost of photography directly to the cost of goods is a classic negotiation move: inflate the ratio so the number sounds outrageous. But product photography isn’t a consumable material. It’s an asset that keeps earning long after it’s created.
The meaningful question isn’t “How much does this photo cost compared to my SKU?” The question is: how much revenue will this image generate over the next 1,000 sales?
If a brand sells 1,000 units of a product, a £20 photo breaks down to £0.02 per sale. Two pence to shape a buying decision. Two pence to make a £10 item look convincingly worth its £50 retail price.
That product brings in roughly £40 in profit per sale. The photo that helps trigger the purchase? It barely dents the margin, yet it does a disproportionate amount of the selling.
When an SKU performs well, the cost per sale becomes microscopic. Your top products may generate tens of thousands in revenue from a single set of images.
This is why strong brands never treat photography as an optional extra or a negotiable add-on. They understand that the first thing a customer sees is the image, and the image determines whether the customer stays, clicks, and converts.
The resistance usually isn’t about £20. It’s about perceiving essential sales assets as “nice to have” rather than foundational.
Brands that grow intentionally invest in the visuals that shape perception. They don’t haggle their way toward success; they build it through clarity, consistency, and high-quality presentation.
Great product photography isn’t a cost centre. It’s a profit multiplier.
Two pence per sale is a tiny price to pay for an image that influences every future transaction. Invest in the asset that sells your product long before your customer reads a word of your description.
By M.O. Studios 01, December, 2025
Most brands compare the price of a photo to the cost of the product instead of the revenue it will help generate. A £20 product image might feel high next to a £10 landed cost, but if that SKU sells 1,000 units, the image only costs £0.02 per sale and directly supports every one of those transactions.
To find the real cost of e-commerce photography, divide the photography fee by the number of units you expect to sell. For example, if a product photo costs £20 and you sell 1,000 units of that SKU, the effective cost is £0.02 per sale. This shows how scalable and efficient high-quality product photography really is.
Yes. Even for lower-priced or mid-range jewellery, strong visuals dramatically increase perceived value and trust. A £20 image that helps a £10 piece convincingly sell at £50 is an extremely efficient investment, especially when your margin is around £40 per sale.
Clear, well-lit, high-quality product photos reduce customer hesitation, answer visual questions and build confidence. This leads to higher click-through rates on product listings, more add-to-cart actions and more completed checkouts, particularly in visually driven categories like jewellery.
Yes. Bestsellers spread the cost of photography across a larger number of sales, lowering the effective cost per image even further. Upgrading visuals for your top-performing SKUs can deliver a significant lift in revenue for a very small investment per sale.
Strong brands recognise that customers see the image before they read the description or compare specifications. They treat photography as a core part of the sales chain, not a decorative extra, and invest intentionally in the visuals that represent both their products and their brand.
Vanessa Carrera2025, 02 December
Enjoyed!
M.O. Studios2025, 02 December
We are glad you enjoyed the article"