Author Topic: Are buyers shopping around for best value? (Read 9526 times)

gostwyck · « **on:** January 27, 2010, 10:31 »

Today someone bought one of my landscape images on Istock at XS size netting me 22c commission. It was the first sale of that image in the 4 months it had been on-line. The subject was a coastal geological feature, images of which tend to be relatively high in supply and low in demand.

Less than an hour later the same image was bought on Fotolia at maximum XXL size which generated about $4 for me.

If the buyer had bought the XXL image on IS it would have cost them 20 credits or about $30. Over on FT the sale cost the buyer about $12, a worthwhile saving for the few seconds it would have taken them to find it if they first spotted it on IS.

Normally I would put such things down to coincidence but in this case, because of the low-selling nature of the image, the timing of the two sales and the sizes bought from each agency it does make me think otherwise. It appears that the buyer may be doing the initial searches on IS, to get the best selection, then buying XS images for comping purposes and, when they've made their choices, purchasing the full-size images from the most cost-effective source.

It would actually have been slightly cheaper for them to have bought it at DT, where the image has never sold, and a bit more expensive at StockXpert.

From the contributor's point of view as I've said I got $4 from the sale at FT but if they'd bought it at IS (as a non-exclusive) I'd have got about $6. Of course if I had been exclusive then I'd have made about $15 for that sale. Makes you think doesn't it?

Any thoughts?

donding · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2010, 10:39 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 27, 2010, 10:31

Today someone bought one of my landscape images on Istock at XS size netting me 22c commission. It was the first sale of that image in the 4 months it had been on-line. The subject was a coastal geological feature, images of which tend to be relatively high in supply and low in demand.

Less than an hour later the same image was bought on Fotolia at maximum XXL size which generated about $4 for me.

If the buyer had bought the XXL image on IS it would have cost them 20 credits or about $30. Over on FT the sale cost the buyer about $12, a worthwhile saving for the few seconds it would have taken them to find it if they first spotted it on IS.

Normally I would put such things down to coincidence but in this case, because of the low-selling nature of the image, the timing of the two sales and the sizes bought from each agency it does make me think otherwise. It appears that the buyer may be doing the initial searches on IS, to get the best selection, then buying XS images for comping purposes and, when they've made their choices, purchasing the full-size images from the most cost-effective source.

It would actually have been slightly cheaper for them to have bought it at DT, where the image has never sold, and a bit more expensive at StockXpert.

From the contributor's point of view as I've said I got $4 from the sale at FT but if they'd bought it at IS (as a non-exclusive) I'd have got about $6. Of course if I had been exclusive then I'd have made about $15 for that sale. Makes you think doesn't it?

Any thoughts?

I think they do. Most photographers upload the same images to all the stock sites and alot of the buyers know this. I've had similiar things happen. It's always one that hardly sales and suddenly sells on iStock then on one of the other Big 6. I do think they are shopping around especially on a low earner that hardly ever sales

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2010, 10:41 »

Quote from: donding on January 27, 2010, 10:39

I think they do. Most photographers upload the same images to all the stock sites and alot of the buyers know this. I've had similiar things happen. It's always one that hardly sales and suddenly sells on iStock then on one of the other Big 6. I do think they are shopping around especially on a low earner that hardly ever sales

I think most times we wouldn't be aware of it unless it was both a relatively obscure image and was also first bought at comping size on IS.

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2010, 10:57 »

This could still be coincidence. Would be funny if you get a large download on istock now, stranger things have happened. I think we all like to believe things that are very unlikely to happen can't but they do every day.

red · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2010, 11:06 »

I don't know how many buyers are aware yet of sites such as Spiderpic which is a search and price comparison port.
http://www.spiderpic.com/
As more do become aware of this site I suspect it might change some pricing strategies. If you haven't already read this on Fast Media, it's worth a look.
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3471

lisafx · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2010, 11:25 »

Quote from: Red on January 27, 2010, 11:06

I don't know how many buyers are aware yet of sites such as Spiderpic which is a search and price comparison port.
http://www.spiderpic.com/
As more do become aware of this site I suspect it might change some pricing strategies. If you haven't already read this on Fast Media, it's worth a look.
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3471

I do think you are right, Red, that Spiderpic may end up changing things for buyers. I hope it doesn't spark a race back to the bottom among the agencies.

My question is where, as contributors, do we want to be if Spiderpic takes off - on the cheapest sites that get the traffic from Spiderpic, or exclusive on Istock? Where do we stand to make them most money ITLR?

gostwyck · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2010, 11:39 »

I doubt that Spiderpic will be a significant factor. I'm sure that regular buyers are more than savvy enough to work out the rough prices for different image sizes at the various agencies and what each agency can offer. The size of credit packages purchased can also make a big difference to prices and it wouldn't be practical to pay for credits at many different agencies.

If I were a buyer wanting to save money I'd look at IS first and then buy any non-exclusive content from one or two other agencies __ probably FT and/or StockXpert. I suspect that prices at DT, with all the level increments, are too unpredictable to be attractive to price-sensitive buyers.

sharply_done · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2010, 12:22 »

Doesn't make much sense to me - why would someone buy both an XS and an XXL when (s)he could just buy the largest size needed and (almost effortlessly) downsize it? And who would buy an image for use in a comp. layout when the watermarked version is available free of charge?

vonkara · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2010, 12:36 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 27, 2010, 12:22

Doesn't make much sense to me - why would someone buy both an XS and an XXL when (s)he could just buy the largest size needed and (almost effortlessly) downsize it? And who would buy an image for use in a comp. layout when the watermarked version is available free of charge?

Yea it look like it, comps are free. I also think it was one of those coincidence, or a not really experienced designer. I will always think that the majority of designers want to browse the best collection and find the right images quick. There is probably some random people who just look for printing images at the best value. But again like Sharply said, comps are free

gostwyck · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2010, 12:53 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 27, 2010, 12:22

Doesn't make much sense to me - why would someone buy both an XS and an XXL when (s)he could just buy the largest size needed and (almost effortlessly) downsize it? And who would buy an image for use in a comp. layout when the watermarked version is available free of charge?

Well comps may be free but they are watermarked and smaller than XS size. A lot of designers say that they don't like using watermarked images for use as comps when presenting work to clients.

Like I said the image had been on-line for 4 months and had registered just one sale at FT and no sales at all with IS, DT, StockXpert & BigStock. Then it sold twice in one hour as described. For me anyway it is too much of a coincidence, especially the pattern of the two sales.

travelstock · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2010, 13:56 »

Was speaking to a designer recently who works in an office where they have both a SS subscription and can buy additional images on DT when they can't find what they're looking for on SS.

Basically if its on both it will be a subs download in SS, if not its a credit download on DT.

I suspect that designers may sign up to a small number of different options, but I doubt many would bother maintaining accounts at a whole array of sites. To keep track of this would just become a nightmare.

You have to remember that there is more to keep track of than just prices - each site has its own license conditions etc that need to be recorded.

alias · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2010, 14:07 »

Maybe two designers were submitting ideas pitching for a similar or the same brief and chose the same subject. Or maybe the subject matter happened to be current for some reason you have not thought of.

Or maybe it was just a coincidence.

The designers I speak to only use one site for RF stock. And they all use the same one.

ap · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2010, 14:27 »

i would support your thesis, gostwyk, just by the # of private lightboxes i have with my portfolio at is that do not have sales, but are purchased through subscription sales at other agencies. it's rare to get a private lightbox for a photo that isn't purchased elsewhere at some point.

flashon · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2010, 14:38 »

It's not coincidence.
I once received a message from a buyer asking me for a specific image. He noted that the image was in several sites other than FT (for whatever reason I didn't have it there). I uploaded it to FT at his request. He patiently waited for few days and bought a XL version of that image.
There will also be someone cross shopping but I tend to think they are small fish. Those who are in big house won't care and will always go where ever their boss said to go.

vonkara · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2010, 14:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 27, 2010, 12:53

Quote from: sharply_done on January 27, 2010, 12:22
Doesn't make much sense to me - why would someone buy both an XS and an XXL when (s)he could just buy the largest size needed and (almost effortlessly) downsize it? And who would buy an image for use in a comp. layout when the watermarked version is available free of charge?

Well comps may be free but they are watermarked and smaller than XS size. A lot of designers say that they don't like using watermarked images for use as comps when presenting work to clients.

That's true. I just did the test and it seem to be a version saved at approximatively quality 6 in photoshop, plus watemarked. I can't understand any designer using a comp instead of right clicking and saving the thumbnail as it is

madelaide · « **Reply #15 on:** January 27, 2010, 15:08 »

I don't know buyers, but I don't think the majority would do that price hunting. Images are already so cheap....

loop · « **Reply #16 on:** January 27, 2010, 15:15 »

I think going exclusive or, at least, deleting folders in the sites where photos are way cheaper and way less profitable is the logical move.

louoates · « **Reply #17 on:** January 27, 2010, 16:27 »

Loop,
You'd be right if buyers had perfect knowledge of the market. And the time to calculate their true cost of each item. Never happen -- especially when images aren't that much money to start with. That coupled with wildly varying search engines make it impossible to always find the same images across multiple sites in a timely cost-effective way. I'm sticking with uploading to all the top sites and not worrying about the bean counters.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #18 on:** January 27, 2010, 16:58 »

Quote from: louoates on January 27, 2010, 16:27

Loop,
You'd be right if buyers had perfect knowledge of the market. And the time to calculate their true cost of each item. Never happen -- especially when images aren't that much money to start with. That coupled with wildly varying search engines make it impossible to always find the same images across multiple sites in a timely cost-effective way. I'm sticking with uploading to all the top sites and not worrying about the bean counters.

Yep. Cutting right to the chase Louates, as always.

I guess I'm missing the point of this entire thread. Is it suggesting going exclusive?

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** January 27, 2010, 17:27 »

I am pretty sure that some buyers DO search on one site and buy on another.

At Dreamstime, where we can see what words or phrases were searched I have often seen my images searched for by the exact image title (and I don't mean something obvious like "apple isolated").

red · « **Reply #20 on:** January 27, 2010, 18:37 »

I think a site like spiderpic might become a force if buyers use it as a universal stock image search tool. It is clean and simple and finds pics first and then compares prices. I acknowledge that some buyers are loyal to one site or the other, perhaps because that is where they have an account or they like the interface, but new buyers might like to go to one site to search for an image. Could save time. Those kinds of buyers might be influenced by the prices they see on a spiderpic type site after they find the image they want to buy. It is in beta so it could be a force in the future. Or not, but it is something that should be watched.

If it does become a factor, then those stockers with images on multiple sites will have to make their own decisions based on their sales results. No one is saying become exclusive. Yet.

loop · « **Reply #21 on:** January 27, 2010, 19:24 »

Quote from: louoates on January 27, 2010, 16:27

Loop,
You'd be right if buyers had perfect knowledge of the market. And the time to calculate their true cost of each item. Never happen -- especially when images aren't that much money to start with. That coupled with wildly varying search engines make it impossible to always find the same images across multiple sites in a timely cost-effective way. I'm sticking with uploading to all the top sites and not worrying about the bean counters.

I said "if". That's something that we just will know in the future.

Danicek · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2010, 05:16 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 27, 2010, 17:27

I am pretty sure that some buyers DO search on one site and buy on another.

At Dreamstime, where we can see what words or phrases were searched I have often seen my images searched for by the exact image title (and I don't mean something obvious like "apple isolated").

That's very interesting info and kind of firm proof that some indeed do...

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** January 29, 2010, 03:14 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 27, 2010, 10:31

Today someone bought one of my landscape images on Istock at XS size netting me 22c commission. It was the first sale of that image in the 4 months it had been on-line. The subject was a coastal geological feature, images of which tend to be relatively high in supply and low in demand.

Less than an hour later the same image was bought on Fotolia at maximum XXL size which generated about $4 for me.

If the buyer had bought the XXL image on IS it would have cost them 20 credits or about $30. Over on FT the sale cost the buyer about $12, a worthwhile saving for the few seconds it would have taken them to find it if they first spotted it on IS.

Normally I would put such things down to coincidence but in this case, because of the low-selling nature of the image, the timing of the two sales and the sizes bought from each agency it does make me think otherwise. It appears that the buyer may be doing the initial searches on IS, to get the best selection, then buying XS images for comping purposes and, when they've made their choices, purchasing the full-size images from the most cost-effective source.

Any thoughts?

Not quite the same, but yesterday I had two 'medium' sales (for different amounts) on iStock, for a photo which has been 'up' for two years with only 14 previous sales, and isn't seasonal or topical. Don't rule out sheer coincidence.

gaja · « **Reply #24 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 27, 2010, 17:27

I am pretty sure that some buyers DO search on one site and buy on another.

At Dreamstime, where we can see what words or phrases were searched I have often seen my images searched for by the exact image title (and I don't mean something obvious like "apple isolated").

I've seen the same with some of my exclusive pictures. So it could just be someone who didn't put it in a lightbox, but instead made a note of the name.

vonkara · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:12 »

Quote from: Danicek on January 28, 2010, 05:16

Quote from: lisafx on January 27, 2010, 17:27
I am pretty sure that some buyers DO search on one site and buy on another.

At Dreamstime, where we can see what words or phrases were searched I have often seen my images searched for by the exact image title (and I don't mean something obvious like "apple isolated").

That's very interesting info and kind of firm proof that some indeed do...

Just to let you all know that the DT search engine favor title as the more relevent keywords also. It might not only be because of a specific search

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are buyers shopping around for best value? (Read 9526 times)

gostwyck

donding

gostwyck

sharpshot

red

lisafx

gostwyck

sharply_done

vonkara

gostwyck

travelstock

alias

ap

flashon

vonkara

madelaide

loop

louoates

WarrenPrice

lisafx

red

loop

Danicek

ShadySue

gaja

vonkara

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors