Author Topic: future microstock (Read 26372 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #25 on:** July 17, 2012, 04:13 »

Quote from: antistock on July 17, 2012, 02:34

....after all they already don't accept sunsets and other boring stuff.

Isn't that a myth? I just looked on SS and there's a few new really drab sunsets. DT only seem to accept boring stuff that doesn't sell well, as long as it isn't "similar". In theory, they've raised the bar but I think in reality the bar is all over the place, because reviewing is subjective. Every reviewer sees things differently, a lot on SS wont accept any image that has areas out of focus but others don't seem to care about that at all.

This is the reason why I believe the sites should all accept more and then delete images that don't sell after a year. It will reduce the influence of the poorly paid reviewers that are given the impossible task of deciding what buyers want. It will give buyers the chance to see more new images that might be just what they're looking for. There will be a ton of crap but if the search is any good, that shouldn't be a problem. There's already a ton of crap from the images that were uploaded in the early years, why not delete all those that haven't sold? And looking through the new images, some reviewers are letting a lot of crap in anyway and they have a good record of rejecting images that sell well on the other sites.

Sion · « **Reply #26 on:** July 17, 2012, 05:25 »

Quote from: antistock on July 16, 2012, 12:20

exactly, as if the wedding industry wasn't already in deep sh-it due to the hordes of newbie photographers with their Canon Rebel shooting for a pittance.

i could add the music/concerts/gigs photo business is even in a worse situation, a friend of mine is on the verge to give up and move on to .. weddings !

I like to congratulate your friend for his foresight, wisdom and the courage to change.

Microbius · « **Reply #27 on:** July 17, 2012, 05:38 »

Quote from: antistock on July 17, 2012, 02:42

Quote from: Microbius on July 17, 2012, 01:59
but a lot of it covers the same ground without lot of actual variety.

once again blame the micro agencies and their idiotic policy of not accepting many similar images.

i can shoot a statue of buddha in 20-30 different and interesting point of view, but agencies will never pick
up more than 4-5 of these and guess what then buyers like the photo but can't find what they need (ie : full buddha
with head and feet, or a close up of the eyes, etc).

That is a large part of it, two of the photos I needed were pretty well covered subject wise, but nothing from the angles I required.

cthoman · « **Reply #28 on:** July 17, 2012, 09:22 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 17, 2012, 04:13

This is the reason why I believe the sites should all accept more and then delete images that don't sell after a year.

That would be a great way to eliminate portfolios like mine from the catalog.

EmberMike · « **Reply #29 on:** July 17, 2012, 09:46 »

Quote from: pixol on July 14, 2012, 04:43

I wounder what the future will bring?...

I heard a rumor (emphasis on "rumor") that istock will cut royalty rates again before the end of this year. I believe it's entirely possible. The source of the rumor is a sort of "I know a guy who knows a guy inside istock" sort of thing, so I'm not sure I'd give the source a whole lot of credibility, but I do believe that it's very possible that another cut will happen soon. Back during the first cut I predicted that they'd do it again within 3 years. I still believe that prediction is very likely to come true.

Quote from: pixol on July 14, 2012, 04:43

...And will vectors sell the better then now?...

I think the vector market is finally leveling off. There were a few years where vector sales seemed to keep increasing after photo sales had started to level off beyond those initial rapid growth years. I think we're hitting that same leveling off part of the vector timeline as well. I think it just took a little longer for the vector market to hit the same saturation point that photos hit a few years back. Both in terms of content saturation and talented artist saturation in the market.

Someone at SS told me that their latest stats show vectors outselling photos on average 2-to-1. I think that ratio used to be much different. Probably more like 5-to-1 or maybe more at one point. The rate of sales for vectors is becoming more on par with photos.

Microbius · « **Reply #30 on:** July 17, 2012, 10:16 »

I thought that big sales graphic SS did a while ago said vector sales were actually much less than photos, like 30% the year it was produced

ETA: anyone got the link to that graphic, can't track it down, you know the one that said what there most popular image ever was and all that stuff. It was posted on this forum at the time

EmberMike · « **Reply #31 on:** July 17, 2012, 10:33 »

Quote from: Microbius on July 17, 2012, 10:16

I thought that big sales graphic SS did a while ago said vector sales were actually much less than photos, like 30% the year it was produced

ETA: anyone got the link to that graphic, can't track it down, you know the one that said what there most popular image ever was and all that stuff. It was posted on this forum at the time

I think that's accurate. The stat I heard was more about the frequency of sales, vector vs. photo. There are many more photos on the site, and thus many more photo sales overall. But vectors outpace photos roughly 2-to-1 even though the total quantity of sales may be fewer.

Microbius · « **Reply #32 on:** July 17, 2012, 10:36 »

Quote from: EmberMike on July 17, 2012, 10:33

Quote from: Microbius on July 17, 2012, 10:16
I thought that big sales graphic SS did a while ago said vector sales were actually much less than photos, like 30% the year it was produced

ETA: anyone got the link to that graphic, can't track it down, you know the one that said what there most popular image ever was and all that stuff. It was posted on this forum at the time

I think that's accurate. The stat I heard was more about the frequency of sales, vector vs. photo. There are many more photos on the site, and thus many more photo sales overall. But vectors outpace photos roughly 2-to-1 even though the total quantity of sales may be fewer.

Ahhh okay got ya, need to get my brain screwed in

lisafx · « **Reply #33 on:** July 17, 2012, 12:59 »

Quote from: EmberMike on July 17, 2012, 09:46

I heard a rumor (emphasis on "rumor") that istock will cut royalty rates again before the end of this year. I believe it's entirely possible. The source of the rumor is a sort of "I know a guy who knows a guy inside istock" sort of thing, so I'm not sure I'd give the source a whole lot of credibility, but I do believe that it's very possible that another cut will happen soon. Back during the first cut I predicted that they'd do it again within 3 years. I still believe that prediction is very likely to come true.

The mechanism for lowering royalties is already in place. The RC system, combined with steeply declining sales numbers, will do the dirty work. The first year of the RC system, I had good sales, and easily achieved the 19% level. The following year, sales were way down and I barely hung on to 19%. This year, with sales in absolute free fall, it is quite likely I will drop down to 18%.

Reading the end of month threads, it seems that most diamonds and black diamonds (the most expensive contributors) have been reporting similar plunges in sales numbers. Unless RC targets are revised steeply downwards, many will see their royalty levels drop. There you have it - Istock can lower royalties without doing anything at all. Voila!

sharpshot · « **Reply #34 on:** July 17, 2012, 13:16 »

It wouldn't be a huge shock to me if istock accelerated their commission cuts. People seem willing to put up with almost anything, aren't they likely to test how much the average microstocker can take? Then FT and DT will follow them. Until they guarantee no more commission cuts, I can't get enthusiastic about microstock again. And as they break their promises about as easily as politicians, it's going to take a lot to rebuild my confidence.

cthoman · « **Reply #35 on:** July 17, 2012, 14:01 »

Commission cuts... hmm... I'm not sure how I feel about that. It could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing. I guess I don't have a lot of confidence in contributors either, so it would probably be a bad thing.

EmberMike · « **Reply #36 on:** July 17, 2012, 14:21 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 17, 2012, 13:16

It wouldn't be a huge shock to me if istock accelerated their commission cuts. People seem willing to put up with almost anything, aren't they likely to test how much the average microstocker can take?...

That's exactly why I believe the rumor. I think the first round of cuts probably left istock thinking that they could get away with anything. Some people left, some stopped uploading, but mostly people just kept on keeping on with them.

This time around I think exclusives will be hurt the most, though. We all know how Getty feels about paying anyone more than 20%. They hit the independents hardest last time, and now they know what they can get away with. If these cuts do happen, I'd expect exclusives to be taking the biggest hit.

Lagereek · « **Reply #37 on:** July 17, 2012, 14:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 17, 2012, 12:59

Quote from: EmberMike on July 17, 2012, 09:46

I heard a rumor (emphasis on "rumor") that istock will cut royalty rates again before the end of this year. I believe it's entirely possible. The source of the rumor is a sort of "I know a guy who knows a guy inside istock" sort of thing, so I'm not sure I'd give the source a whole lot of credibility, but I do believe that it's very possible that another cut will happen soon. Back during the first cut I predicted that they'd do it again within 3 years. I still believe that prediction is very likely to come true.

The mechanism for lowering royalties is already in place. The RC system, combined with steeply declining sales numbers, will do the dirty work. The first year of the RC system, I had good sales, and easily achieved the 19% level. The following year, sales were way down and I barely hung on to 19%. This year, with sales in absolute free fall, it is quite likely I will drop down to 18%.

Reading the end of month threads, it seems that most diamonds and black diamonds (the most expensive contributors) have been reporting similar plunges in sales numbers. Unless RC targets are revised steeply downwards, many will see their royalty levels drop. There you have it - Istock can lower royalties without doing anything at all. Voila!

Think they care? theyre 9-5, ers, as long as they get their pay slip in the end of the month, the place could burn up as far as they are concerned.

bobbigmac · « **Reply #38 on:** July 20, 2012, 23:51 »

Quote from: Microbius on July 15, 2012, 08:58

Thanks Bob, really interesting. One thing, where does the specific 606 top photographers figure come from?
And I would also like to know why Pixmac has a good future.
Thanks again!

The figure is brought out of the data of number of sales vs number of photographers sourced directly from iStock (the earlier videos in the series cover it in a bit more depth).

This was recorded almost a year ago now, at which point Pixmac was roaring for me and they were the only ones around doing all the technical stuff right (SEO/design/convenience etc). Since then a couple of the established agencies have upped their game on that side of things, and with Deposit Photos arrival they've also dug in too. Whilst I'm still optimistic about Pixmac (my referral earnings there are still solid for both photographers and buyers) due to their good traffic figures, I'm not as blown away as I was with their performance a year ago

Lagereek · « **Reply #39 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:00 »

Not what I heard, I seem to remember some write up or something, about six months back, where it was stipulated that photos outsold vectors, etc by about, 50% and that the vector artists were going through a rough time. as if everyone isnt!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #40 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:16 »

I feel kind of odd answering someone who left the building?

Add sports and just about every area of specialized shooting. Personally I don't have the stomach for weddings. Some people do very well and it's just like microstock. Work hard, promotion, manager skills are more important (for eventual success) than photo skills. There are a hundred very talented, fine photographers for every 900 hacks. What makes the top, the reliable earners? How they work, market and interact with customers.

To answer the OP. Microstock will always have a place, just like trads do, what will save it as a business model for some in weeding out the price cutters and Fly By Night "I'm new, I'm New, I cost less..." type of garage entries that people feed in hope of some magical success.

Stay with the top five and maybe the top two, hope that all the rest perish, so the top agencies can stop competing based on price alone, with all the same images, from all the same people. Dilution is a weak marketing point. Unless of course you think dollar stores are the best place to buy everything for your family. Because in effect, that's what microstock has become. Photo Dollar Stores with the same plastic crap, shelf after shelf.

There are a few exceptions, like IS exclusives and people who find SS brings the volume for a viable return, but then the next 100 agencies are nothing but cookie cutter sites, stepping on each other, trying to climb up the slippery slope. Photo dollar stores...

The future is like the software industry. Consolidation and retraction and the best will be strong and deliver the best goods to the consumers.

Quote from: antistock on July 16, 2012, 12:20

Quote from: sjlocke on July 16, 2012, 10:37
Quote from: Sion on July 16, 2012, 07:57
A photographer friend moved out of microstock into wedding photography and improved his earnings from photography hundred times.

Microstock is like a bad joke to him.

Doesn't sound like he was very good at it.

exactly, as if the wedding industry wasn't already in deep sh-it due to the hordes of newbie photographers with their Canon Rebel shooting for a pittance.

i could add the music/concerts/gigs photo business is even in a worse situation, a friend of mine is on the verge to give up and move on to .. weddings !

Microbius · « **Reply #41 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:22 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on July 20, 2012, 23:51

Quote from: Microbius on July 15, 2012, 08:58
Thanks Bob, really interesting. One thing, where does the specific 606 top photographers figure come from?
And I would also like to know why Pixmac has a good future.
Thanks again!

The figure is brought out of the data of number of sales vs number of photographers sourced directly from iStock (the earlier videos in the series cover it in a bit more depth).

This was recorded almost a year ago now, at which point Pixmac was roaring for me and they were the only ones around doing all the technical stuff right (SEO/design/convenience etc). Since then a couple of the established agencies have upped their game on that side of things, and with Deposit Photos arrival they've also dug in too. Whilst I'm still optimistic about Pixmac (my referral earnings there are still solid for both photographers and buyers) due to their good traffic figures, I'm not as blown away as I was with their performance a year ago

Interesting, thanks for clearing that up

wut · « **Reply #42 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:54 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 17, 2012, 09:22

Quote from: sharpshot on July 17, 2012, 04:13
This is the reason why I believe the sites should all accept more and then delete images that don't sell after a year.

That would be a great way to eliminate portfolios like mine from the catalog.

This would be a catastrophe, I mean it already is, why would we want to make something that's plaguing MS even worse?

I'd say they should hire better, more qualified reviewers, they certainly could afford it with all the cuts

Phil · « **Reply #43 on:** July 21, 2012, 17:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 17, 2012, 04:13

Quote from: antistock on July 17, 2012, 02:34
....after all they already don't accept sunsets and other boring stuff.
Isn't that a myth? I just looked on SS and there's a few new really drab sunsets. DT only seem to accept boring stuff that doesn't sell well, as long as it isn't "similar". In theory, they've raised the bar but I think in reality the bar is all over the place, because reviewing is subjective. Every reviewer sees things differently, a lot on SS wont accept any image that has areas out of focus but others don't seem to care about that at all.

This is the reason why I believe the sites should all accept more and then delete images that don't sell after a year. It will reduce the influence of the poorly paid reviewers that are given the impossible task of deciding what buyers want. It will give buyers the chance to see more new images that might be just what they're looking for. There will be a ton of crap but if the search is any good, that shouldn't be a problem. There's already a ton of crap from the images that were uploaded in the early years, why not delete all those that haven't sold? And looking through the new images, some reviewers are letting a lot of crap in anyway and they have a good record of rejecting images that sell well on the other sites.

I'm surprised that none have done it. Reviewing must be one of their major costs.
Do like Mostphotos everything accepted and then like you said 1-2 years no sale its gone.

Lagereek · « **Reply #44 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:07 »

Quote from: Phil on July 21, 2012, 17:03

Quote from: sharpshot on July 17, 2012, 04:13
Quote from: antistock on July 17, 2012, 02:34
....after all they already don't accept sunsets and other boring stuff.
Isn't that a myth? I just looked on SS and there's a few new really drab sunsets. DT only seem to accept boring stuff that doesn't sell well, as long as it isn't "similar". In theory, they've raised the bar but I think in reality the bar is all over the place, because reviewing is subjective. Every reviewer sees things differently, a lot on SS wont accept any image that has areas out of focus but others don't seem to care about that at all.

This is the reason why I believe the sites should all accept more and then delete images that don't sell after a year. It will reduce the influence of the poorly paid reviewers that are given the impossible task of deciding what buyers want. It will give buyers the chance to see more new images that might be just what they're looking for. There will be a ton of crap but if the search is any good, that shouldn't be a problem. There's already a ton of crap from the images that were uploaded in the early years, why not delete all those that haven't sold? And looking through the new images, some reviewers are letting a lot of crap in anyway and they have a good record of rejecting images that sell well on the other sites.

I'm surprised that none have done it. Reviewing must be one of their major costs.
Do like Mostphotos everything accepted and then like you said 1-2 years no sale its gone.

Really? and what about the buyers? are they gonna wade through same pile of sh#t, every time they search. You must be joking, this is the dilema thats given micro a crappy name.

sharpshot · « **Reply #45 on:** July 23, 2012, 03:33 »

^^^No, the search sinks images that don't appeal to buyers, so they don't have to wade through them every time they search. The sites that only accept what reviewers think is great quality, like Image Vortex, sell very little.

Lagereek · « **Reply #46 on:** July 23, 2012, 03:56 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 03:33

^^^No, the search sinks images that don't appeal to buyers, so they don't have to wade through them every time they search. The sites that only accept what reviewers think is great quality, like Image Vortex, sell very little.

Oh well then, lets pile up more rubbish and trash, gives a good image I suppose.

louoates · « **Reply #47 on:** July 23, 2012, 10:03 »

I'll side with sharpshot on this one. One man's trash...etc. But I would certainly vote to delete any image that hasn't sold after one year on a top tier site, and two years on a middle or low earner site.

Lagereek · « **Reply #48 on:** July 23, 2012, 10:43 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 03:33

^^^No, the search sinks images that don't appeal to buyers, so they don't have to wade through them every time they search. The sites that only accept what reviewers think is great quality, like Image Vortex, sell very little.

So buddy, what you are saying is that all our reviewers are doing a fantastic job? oh well, thats great, didnt know that until now.

cthoman · « **Reply #49 on:** July 23, 2012, 10:57 »

Quote from: louoates on July 23, 2012, 10:03

I'll side with sharpshot on this one. One man's trash...etc. But I would certainly vote to delete any image that hasn't sold after one year on a top tier site, and two years on a middle or low earner site.

I think you would seriously have to worry that some contributors would stop uploading if those were the rules. I probably would because I have never made the home run images that sell immediately. Also, I think you would ruin the diversity of the catalog. You would eliminate a lot of subjects that are unique, but not necessarily popular. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I just picture a homogenous collection of older images that cover all the same subjects.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: future microstock (Read 26372 times)

sharpshot

Sion

Microbius

cthoman

EmberMike

Microbius

EmberMike

Microbius

lisafx

sharpshot

cthoman

EmberMike

Lagereek

bobbigmac

Lagereek

RacePhoto

Microbius

wut

Phil

Lagereek

sharpshot

Lagereek

louoates

Lagereek

cthoman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors