Author Topic: Interesting Article on Stock (Read 1433 times)

cardmaverick · « **on:** May 10, 2012, 12:14 »

One of the best articles I've seen on selling-stock.

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/broken-promises-and-stock-photography

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2012, 12:20 »

He has rehashed the issues, but not suggested any answers.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2012, 12:51 »

Not interesting.

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2012, 12:53 »

Wish you'd said it was by Paul Melcher, that would have saved me the effort of clicking on the link.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2012, 13:28 »

Quote from: RT on May 10, 2012, 12:53

Wish you'd said it was by Paul Melcher, that would have saved me the effort of clicking on the link.

why is that? I do follow his blog and I do find it interesting most of the times, sure many negativism but some well written opinions and facts..

Tabimura · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2012, 13:37 »

Quote from: RT on May 10, 2012, 12:53

Wish you'd said it was by Paul Melcher, that would have saved me the effort of clicking on the link.

+ 1

sjlocke · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2012, 13:54 »

"Take, for example, the absurdity of trying to sue over every copyright infringement. It borders on complete insanity. If people steal your images it is because they like them. For some reason, they either can’t pay for them (too expensive) or cannot find who to pay (poor accessibility). Rather than find a way to accommodate this huge opportunity with a creative licensing solution, the industry reacts with lawsuits or despair."

Well, that's certainly a load. How is people who can't pay a huge opportunity? And with 4 minutes, you can pretty much find where an image came from.

Also, "creative commons" is not a tool. It's just saying "sure, use my stuff, but give me credit". Or a variation thereof.

gostwyck · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2012, 14:39 »

Quote from: Tabimura on May 10, 2012, 13:37

Quote from: RT on May 10, 2012, 12:53
Wish you'd said it was by Paul Melcher, that would have saved me the effort of clicking on the link.
+ 1

+2

rubyroo · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2012, 14:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2012, 13:54

" If people steal your images it is because they like them."

Oh, that's all right then. How selfish of me to hope to get paid for my work. Let them enjoy them and I'll just live in a bucket.

(Note that is not SJ Locke talking... just extracted from the quote he quoted)

cthoman · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2012, 14:56 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 10, 2012, 14:53

Oh, that's all right then. How selfish of me to hope to get paid for my work. Let them enjoy them and I'll just live in a bucket.

Too late! I've stolen your bucket and claim squatter's rights.

rubyroo · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2012, 14:57 »

Dammit! Where's that matchbox....

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2012, 17:57 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2012, 13:54

"Take, for example, the absurdity of trying to sue over every copyright infringement. It borders on complete insanity. If people steal your images it is because they like them. For some reason, they either can’t pay for them (too expensive) or cannot find who to pay (poor accessibility). Rather than find a way to accommodate this huge opportunity with a creative licensing solution, the industry reacts with lawsuits or despair."

Well, that's certainly a load. How is people who can't pay a huge opportunity? And with 4 minutes, you can pretty much find where an image came from.

Also, "creative commons" is not a tool. It's just saying "sure, use my stuff, but give me credit". Or a variation thereof.

Agreed.

"People do not steal images because they are evil; they steal because there are no practical alternatives if they want to use an image they like."

Microstock IS the alternative. They can get a web-sized image for around $1, still on most micro sites, and $2-$3 on most of the rest. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not paying $1-$3 to use an image legally. It may not be "evil" but it is certainly unethical to steal images.

And I agree the article is incomplete without listing some possible solutions to the problems he's identified.

antistock · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2012, 02:34 »

i disagree with this article.

he claims people dont buy because it's too cumbersome.
that's the same thing they were saying about pirated music, then Apple launched iTunes and guess what, the ones who were already buying elsewhere switched to iTunes and the pirates kept pirating more than before !

if it's a pain in the as-s to pay online i would rather blame the banks, first of all nobody give you an anonymous way to pay online, you need to be tracked in every move even if you just need a rechargeable Mastercard with 20$ on it, secondly to shop online you're once again tracked and forced to fill forms with all your personal data, to be afterwords hammered with spam newsletters and promotions, so yes it's indeed cumbersome but stock agencies cannot be blamed for this mess as buying a stock photo is not more cumbersome than buying a song on iTunes !

the problem is that banks want to kill cash and government want to kill cash and anonymity and privacy, but the obvious effect of this is people buy less than before and rightfully so.

so, yet another useless rant by Melchier.

Microbius · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2012, 03:10 »

More fuzzy logic. Another person incapable of clear thinking.
Can't even be bothered to write a full response, but to put it succinctly, he contradicts himself several times and doesn't understand what a marketplace is and how it functions.

ETA: one more thing, if you want a clear pointer to how incapable of self examination Melcher is read his latest blog entry side by side with the article here. Less than two weeks apart, one about how well the market leading stock agency is doing, one about how terribly badly the market leading stock agencies are doing http://blog.melchersystem.com/2012/05/01/to-sum-it-all/

helix7 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2012, 06:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2012, 13:54

Well, that's certainly a load. How is people who can't pay a huge opportunity? And with 4 minutes, you can pretty much find where an image came from.

Also, "creative commons" is not a tool. It's just saying "sure, use my stuff, but give me credit". Or a variation thereof.

Wasn't that the very problem with the recording industry not all that long ago? People were not always willing to fork over $15 for a whole album and turned to piracy to download just the songs they wanted, but they were willing to turn back to legitimate sources when the business model changed to suit their demands and buying preferences. Lawsuits also fueled the fear, but the easy access to quality, legal sources (namely iTunes) was the primary catalyst. People who couldn't pay or refused to pay the high prices were the opportunity there.

Sounds like you would have been the guy in the room in Cupertino telling Steve Jobs that the iTunes Store was a horrible idea.

Melcher is right. Our own "infantile stubbornness" will be our undoing if we're not willing to adapt to the changing market. Isn't that what everyone was saying years ago when we talked about those dinosaurs of the traditional RF business? Refusing to change, adapt to what was happening (ie microstock), etc? And now here we are, dinosaurs ourselves, unwilling to figure out a way to adapt to what's going on around us and instead just complaining about it. Wow do we sound like a bunch of old hypocrites.

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:00 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 11, 2012, 06:46

Melcher is right. Our own "infantile stubbornness" will be our undoing if we're not willing to adapt to the changing market. Isn't that what everyone was saying years ago when we talked about those dinosaurs of the traditional RF business? Refusing to change, adapt to what was happening (ie microstock), etc? And now here we are, dinosaurs ourselves, unwilling to figure out a way to adapt to what's going on around us and instead just complaining about it. Wow do we sound like a bunch of old hypocrites.

So what are your suggestions/solutions? since Melcher didn't offer any. Anyone can outline the problems: I can do that perfectly well myself.

sjlocke · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:00 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 11, 2012, 06:46

Sounds like you would have been the guy in the room in Cupertino telling Steve Jobs that the iTunes Store was a horrible idea.

Melcher is right. Our own "infantile stubbornness" will be our undoing if we're not willing to adapt to the changing market. Isn't that what everyone was saying years ago when we talked about those dinosaurs of the traditional RF business? Refusing to change, adapt to what was happening (ie microstock), etc? And now here we are, dinosaurs ourselves, unwilling to figure out a way to adapt to what's going on around us and instead just complaining about it. Wow do we sound like a bunch of old hypocrites.

I'm not sure what the "problem" is that we need to adapt to. iTunes is great. Cutting it down to the smallest unit for sale, a single song for personal use. Making it as easy as a click to buy. Micro is already there. Have an account, you can click and get what you need for a dollar. If you're in business (and that's our market) and you can't handle that, then I'm not going to adapt to you.

cclapper · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2012, 07:00

Quote from: helix7 on May 11, 2012, 06:46
Sounds like you would have been the guy in the room in Cupertino telling Steve Jobs that the iTunes Store was a horrible idea.

Melcher is right. Our own "infantile stubbornness" will be our undoing if we're not willing to adapt to the changing market. Isn't that what everyone was saying years ago when we talked about those dinosaurs of the traditional RF business? Refusing to change, adapt to what was happening (ie microstock), etc? And now here we are, dinosaurs ourselves, unwilling to figure out a way to adapt to what's going on around us and instead just complaining about it. Wow do we sound like a bunch of old hypocrites.

I'm not sure what the "problem" is that we need to adapt to. iTunes is great. Cutting it down to the smallest unit for sale, a single song for personal use. Making it as easy as a click to buy. Micro is already there. Have an account, you can click and get what you need for a dollar. If you're in business (and that's our market) and you can't handle that, then I'm not going to adapt to you.

I agree. We're there. We adapted. And yet people can still find justifications for stealing.

So basically what helix7 is saying is that if we don't find a way to give our images away for free then we can just forget it? We're dinosaurs? What a crock. If people can't forgo their morning cup of Starbucks to buy images for what they need, not my problem. You STILL don't get to steal them from me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2012, 07:00

I'm not sure what the "problem" is that we need to adapt to. iTunes is great. Cutting it down to the smallest unit for sale, a single song for personal use. Making it as easy as a click to buy. Micro is already there. Have an account, you can click and get what you need for a dollar.

Not quite.
If you only want one pic from iStock, it's $1.67 per credit, which is 67% more than a dollar. Of course, if you're a huge buyer or buy on a sub site, it's cheaper, even much cheaper than $1, but it's not as easy as "want a tiny pic? It's $1".
I won't compare with iTunes. I used it once and bought three tunes. Two of them were wrong. i.e. the prehear was what I wanted, on my HD the title and artist are what I wanted, but the tunes are something else completely. I use Amazon now. Always. The only annoying thing about that is that if something's available on amazon.com but not amazon.co.uk, I can't download it. (Happened more at the beginning, I guess they try out things on the dot com site before disseminating it.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2012, 08:09 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2012, 07:00

Quote from: helix7 on May 11, 2012, 06:46
Melcher is right. Our own "infantile stubbornness" will be our undoing if we're not willing to adapt to the changing market. Isn't that what everyone was saying years ago when we talked about those dinosaurs of the traditional RF business? Refusing to change, adapt to what was happening (ie microstock), etc? And now here we are, dinosaurs ourselves, unwilling to figure out a way to adapt to what's going on around us and instead just complaining about it. Wow do we sound like a bunch of old hypocrites.

I'm not sure what the "problem" is that we need to adapt to.

Quite. That's what I didn't get about his whole article. He didn't in any way hint at what he thought was the problem, and neither does Helix, which no doubt is why, without a defined 'problem', there can't be a 'solution'.

Microbius · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2012, 08:41 »

The problem is about understanding what a market is and how it functions. People saying the problem is producers not giving customers what they want don't understand that the buyer seller relationship is basically adversarial. They don't understand that "the market" is not the same thing as "the producer". It is the relationship between producer and consumer.

Of course producers don't give the buyer what they want, the buyer wants everything for free, the producer wants maximum return. The are antagonistic to each other. That's why consumers stealing IP is 100% understandable and predictable, it's when producers start falling for for the BS that it all gets a bit twilight zone.

That's the first bit of context that makes a lot of the arguments sound, well, silly.

Read this line from the article with that in mind:
"If people steal your images it is because they like them. For some reason, they either can’t pay for them (too expensive) or cannot find who to pay (poor accessibility)."

Now, think about what he is saying here. A customer would choose to pay for something over having it for free, if only it was cheaper or more accessible irrespective of social judgement or fear of prosecution. Well, only if the buyer is completely irrational or clinically insane. If the choice is between free or paid, 99.99% are going to go for free. Experience has taught us this with the micro sites, people even go the trouble of buying images with stolen credit cards to avoid paying for them, even though they are many hundreds of times cheaper than they were only a few years ago on traditional sites and easily accessible (already been found by the image thief).

The first part of the statement also falls foul of another piece of freetard idiocy: producers should be grateful that people like their work and are prepared to download it. It's the idiotic belief that producers want buyers to download the maximum amount of product regardless of financial benefit to them. Well here's a little secret, producers couldn't give a cr*p if a billion people download an image or song. If they don't pay f*ck 'em, and frankly if your main motivation is to feel loved by the masses who download your work for free you have self esteem issues. It's the same as people in employment who accept verbal praise over a pay rise.

This second idea ties into the old "I wouldn't download all this stuff if I had to pay for it anyway". Again, it's a basic lack of knowledge of how price effects consumption, of course the amount people will download if they have to pay is negligible compared to what they download if it's free. That's basic supply and demand theory, but you can bet that for every 1000 songs someone steals they would have downloaded 1 even if they had to pay for it, and that one lost sale is of infinitely more value (literally) than the 999 extra worthless downloads.

The basic thing to bear in mind, again, is that all other things being equal consumers don't just go for an affordable price, or a fair price, but for the best price available, in this case free.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2012, 08:56 »

^^^ Your argument is good, but over-thinking.
""If people steal your images it is because they like them. For some reason, they either can’t pay for them (too expensive) or cannot find who to pay (poor accessibility)."
So I like some expensive item in the shops, and like it but can't afford it. So I can steal it, and it's up to the shopkeeper to sell it more cheaply?
(Yeah, I know it's not an exact parallel, because with image theft the image is still there, and can be sold again, but the principle is the same.)

helix7 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 11, 2012, 14:05 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 11, 2012, 07:22

So basically what helix7 is saying is that if we don't find a way to give our images away for free then we can just forget it? We're dinosaurs? What a crock...

What? When did I say "free"?