TurboSquid is currently working on a series of initiatives to deal with 3D model pricing issues on the site. Right now, we are dealing specifically with items priced in the $1-$5 range that have defective pricing. To report such items, please see Guide to Reporting Defective Product Pricing.
What does “defective pricing” mean?
A defective price is a price that is far below or above an appropriate range for that product. An appropriate price is a price that customers would expect to pay, and will pay, for such a product. In general, similar products of comparable quality and complexity will be in this price range. A price that is too low gives the impression of poor quality and also undermines the industry by degrading prices. A price that is too high gives customers unhelpful search results by showing products they will never buy.
Why are you asking members to identify these models? Why doesn’t TurboSquid do it?
There are several thousand 3D models on the site in the $1-$5 range. We have reviewed a lot of these already and will continue to go through the catalog. At the same time, we want to give you a way to call our attention to a specific model so we can process it sooner. We also want to give artists with models in this price range a chance to adjust their prices before we push these models to the bottom of search results. When we push a model down like this, it’s a manual process for the one model, and we don’t want to make the change then have to change it back again later when the artist changes the price.
Why are you targeting only models in the $1-$5 range right now? What about models that are priced at $6?
We are tackling the problem of defective pricing for the most seriously underpriced products first. We plan to tackle other price ranges later. The results and findings from the $1-$5 plan will help us more effectively deal with other price ranges later on.
Why don’t you set a minimum price for all models?
The whole point of any change at TurboSquid would be to increase sales and income for our artists, but until we have more information on categories and pricing, we can’t say that a minimum price would do this. Suppose we set it at $15. Then customers that spend in the <$15 range have less choices, and they might go elsewhere, not only for their lower-priced purchases but for purchases of higher-quality items like your models. Until we’re sure this won’t happen, we are not going to risk your sales by setting a minimum price.
Why don’t you set a minimum price per category?
We currently have a few hundred categories, but these are not enough. In the cars category, for example, there are toy cars, wheels, gears, bolts, handles, antennae, and all manner of other car-related models, and there is no place to put many of these models except the “cars” category. This wide range of model types makes it hard to set a useful minimum for this category.
We are currently re-categorizing our entire catalog, and this re-categorization is taking some time. When this process is complete, we will be able to better determine appropriate minimums and pricing for categories.
If you are allowing some models in the $1-$5 price range, how would that work with a minimum price per category? Wouldn’t that make all minimum category prices $1-$5?
The minimum would be on more than category; it will more likely be per category and quality rating and poly count. Very low poly models of good quality are sometimes suitable for the $1-$5 range. However, most of the models in the any category have a higher poly count and quality rating, and thus would have a minimum higher than that.