MicrostockGroup

Howdy Y'all,

I'm sure this has come up many times in the past here so I apologize if it's a redundant thread.

As some of you know, 99% of my stock images are exclusive to Fotolia.  This works out for me personally for several reasons.  I realize that I am in a very small minority in the general Microstock world because of this.  I am curious if most of you simply upload all of your images to as many sites as possible (or at least the big 6) to get as much exposure as possible to your photo's or if you spread your portfolio around a bit with a few exclusives here, a couple more over there.  Or if you upload a certain type of image at one site but not another. 

The reason I ask is that while I became instantly frustrated with I-stock the first and only time I tried to upload to them a long while back and I've read on numerous threads how frustrated people are in general with them, I can't help but think their plan to force exclusivity on photographers if it caught on with the other sites would ultimately benefit photographers.

The primary complaint from serious photographers regarding Microstock is dominantly that the photo's are too cheap.  The problem I see with this is that all of the agencies are in competition with each other not only for the same type of images, but for exactly the same images. 

If I'm a buyer and have the option of the same photo at multiple sites I am going to buy it where it is the cheapest.  Why wouldn't I?  If I am an agency, I see this and want to attract the most buyers so I'm going to sell my stuff the cheapest.

Continuing to saturate the market with the same photo's everywhere seems to be counterproductive to progress in the industry though not doing so is a potential sacrifice to personal finances.  As mentioned, I submit exclusively to Fotolia for multiple reasons and it pays off for me.  I make low 4 figures every month with the higher commission rate and I frankly don't have the time to be uploading to other sites (not to mention the fact that Shutterstock closed my account because I am a moderator at FT  )

So what do most of you do?  Upload all images to all sites, some images to some sites, exclusive to some sites?

Mat

That is an excellent point and that thought haunts me a bit I have to admit.  I've had around 1,500 images rejected at FT and never did anything with them.  If I were more organized I could have kept a folder of rejects to attempt at other sites.  Hmmm

Since different sites have their own preference for style or topic of pictures even if you upload the same pictures to different sites you end up with some accepted in one but not the other, so it kind of work itself out.

I also upload to several sites, though currently reducing this activity - and FT is one I stopped uploading to due to insane presence of subscriptions that I am not allowed to avoid (I am even considering deleting some of my best-sellers because I hate to see them being sold so cheap there while they sell at reasonable prices elsewhere).

I have a couple of images exclusively at DT because they were selling almost only there, so I took advantage of the high commission.  I thought of doing that in FT with two other images that sell so well there, with the extra advantage of being able to opt them out of subs.  I don't think I would upload an image exclusively at a site from the start, I would only make it exclusive after I see it has a differential performance in a site.

My sales are too spread among the main sites to see any advantage in going exclusive anywhere. 

Regards,
Adelaide

I think that is probably the only real possibility to any positive change in the future though it seems very unlikely.  If everyone raised the base price, customers would have no choice.  If all but one or two raise their prices, those sites will be the most successful.  It isn't realistic to expect photographers to offer an image for sale at only one site.  It works for me because I can sell my photo's for more money and receive a higher commission.  Again, I know I am in the minority.  I've just been watching people react to the I-stock thing and wonder if there isn't something to it that will ultimately benefit all photographers.  If only I-stock does it though, I think they are going to be in for a bumpy ride with so much killer competition out there.

I think the big six need to get together and have a "sitdown" lol

I think that is the main problem with the microstock industry as a whole.  I am 100% positive that microstock and macrostock are going to be around for a long time to come but as the years go by I predict it will be more and more difficult to differentiate between the two.  Obviously, everyone has the same goal...to make as much money as possible.  Agencies and photographers alike.  My opinion is that the agencies need to make it more appealing to the photographers to submit their images exclusively and attract buyers based on their portfolio's rather than their price point.  If all the sites were offering different images they would have more flexibility to charge more which I am sure they would ultimately like to do. 

The Infinite collection on Fotolia is a good example of that.  The photo's are exclusive, have not ever been sold for less and classify as a good mid-stock price and as far as I know they are pretty successful because buyers can't purchase them anywhere else. 

If the status quo remains the same at all these sites and photogs keep submitting the same exact images to them all, I'm afraid the prices are going to be driven down even further and there won't be any choice for photographers but to shrug and take it. 

Again, I'm not rooting for I-stock here.  I have no images with them and no desire to add any.  I do admire the risk they are taking by possibly alienating the majority of micro-stock photographers.  I see the upside from their point of view more though.  Instead of attracting buyers with the cheapest pics, they potentially will be attracting buyers with the most unique collection of images not available anywhere else.  As it stands with the rest, they might as well all be the same exact site considering the databases are probably at least 75% identical. 

I'm just babbling on here, but it is something that's been on my mind a lot lately.

I had high hopes for the Infinite Collection at first too.  But apparently none of my stuff that I submitted was good enough for them.  Not sure what they were seeing that I wasn't.  But for me, at least, it was a waste of time submitting to Infinite, as they just don't like my work...


In microstock "unique" is a relative term, IMHO.  There seems very little that is unique in this industry.  For example istock has some really successful exclusive artists (Their Black Diamond exclusives, for example) but with everyone and their cousin copying their concepts and styles, how unique is istock's exclusive collection? 

BTW, not trying to pick on istock or their top artists - just that I know these artists are widely copied.  I am sure it happens to Fotolia and DT exclusives as well.

In microstock "unique" is a relative term, IMHO.  There seems very little that is unique in this industry.  For example istock has some really successful exclusive artists (Their Black Diamond exclusives, for example) but with everyone and their cousin copying their concepts and styles, how unique is istock's exclusive collection? 

BTW, not trying to pick on istock or their top artists - just that I know these artists are widely copied.  I am sure it happens to Fotolia and DT exclusives as well.



[/quote]

This is a point I had been thinking about.  Matt had mentioned increasing the price of microstock thru being unique.  If I were a buyer, where would the cutoff point be?  At what point would I hire an in-house photographer to simply copy the images I need.  How much could I pay him and still beat microstock prices?