Author Topic: Steve Allen's views on shooting for stock with some interesting stats (Read 12235 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** June 05, 2013, 19:43 »

Quote from: OM on June 05, 2013, 19:00

Just had a quick look at Foodpix (not Steve Allen's photo's) and all I can say is that from a quick perusal, clients must be nuts to pay those prices for the outdated and sometimes naff stuff that's on there. Micro's like SS and.......well everyone micro-else....seems to have more attractive and modern stuff than is on there.

You can say that again __ and most of the 'outdated and naff stuff' (painfully accurate description) is actually RM. In their dreams. The world, technology, skills and processing has moved on a long way. Sadly some of these dinosaurs don't realise it and they wonder why they are becoming extinct.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2013, 10:31 »

On behalf of the dinosaurs, I totally agree. It was fun while it lasted, but it's over. But to give stock images of that era a little credit, the pricing came about at a time when you had to shoot film, and there was no photoshop. Everything had to be perfect in the camera, and then you had to hope the lab didn't screw it up. Also, there was a great premium placed on exclusivity- the idea that a competitor could not use the image you were using, and that it hadn't been used before. This justified some of the pricing because that took an image out of circulation for a year or more.
Having said that, it was an exclusive club that was hard to get into. Out of hundreds of submissions, you were often lucky to get 2 or 3 shots in a catalog. And 500 page catalogues weighing 10 lbs each had to be mailed all over the globe, and took 6 months to produce, costing half a million dollars at a time.
So the big change, as was said earlier, was structural. Internet delivery, digital cameras, no film costs, and no interest in exclusivity. Getty was slowly moving in that direction when Istock came out of the blue and hit them over the head. I remember bidding on a job for an AR for an investment company. There were a series of small 1" x 1" shots of simple stuff- stacks of money, gold bars, like that. I think I bid something like $250 each, which was a cheap price at the time. the designer bought them on istock for maybe $10 each. That was the first time I had heard of istock, and believe me, i could see the future. It didn't mean I had to like it, i just had to deal with it.

Xanox · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2013, 10:45 »

well if we talk about the future, it would be time that agencies selling digital products go on par with iTunes that means keeping just 30% for themselves instead of up to 80% as Getty does.

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2013, 11:00 »

Quote from: Xanox on June 07, 2013, 10:45

well if we talk about the future, it would be time that agencies selling digital products go on par with iTunes that means keeping just 30% for themselves instead of up to 80% as Getty does.

Make that "up to 85%", on Getty as well as on iStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1509

cthoman · « **Reply #29 on:** June 07, 2013, 12:20 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on June 07, 2013, 10:31

On behalf of the dinosaurs, I totally agree. It was fun while it lasted, but it's over. But to give stock images of that era a little credit, the pricing came about at a time when you had to shoot film, and there was no photoshop. Everything had to be perfect in the camera, and then you had to hope the lab didn't screw it up. Also, there was a great premium placed on exclusivity- the idea that a competitor could not use the image you were using, and that it hadn't been used before. This justified some of the pricing because that took an image out of circulation for a year or more.
Having said that, it was an exclusive club that was hard to get into. Out of hundreds of submissions, you were often lucky to get 2 or 3 shots in a catalog. And 500 page catalogues weighing 10 lbs each had to be mailed all over the globe, and took 6 months to produce, costing half a million dollars at a time.
So the big change, as was said earlier, was structural. Internet delivery, digital cameras, no film costs, and no interest in exclusivity. Getty was slowly moving in that direction when Istock came out of the blue and hit them over the head. I remember bidding on a job for an AR for an investment company. There were a series of small 1" x 1" shots of simple stuff- stacks of money, gold bars, like that. I think I bid something like $250 each, which was a cheap price at the time. the designer bought them on istock for maybe $10 each. That was the first time I had heard of istock, and believe me, i could see the future. It didn't mean I had to like it, i just had to deal with it.

I would assume the other side of that is graphic design has changed just as much, so the customers are evolving and changing as well.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #30 on:** June 07, 2013, 15:25 »

Quote from: Xanox on June 07, 2013, 10:45

well if we talk about the future, it would be time that agencies selling digital products go on par with iTunes that means keeping just 30% for themselves instead of up to 80% as Getty does.

This is the real problem, the thing that's going to destroy this method of selling images as a viable source of income for professional photographers - the greed of the agency owners. There's no need for these massive percentages when distribution, storage, payment, delivery, analysis and everything else is digital.

The stock photography business could work well for agents who'd get top quality pro images and the shooter themselves if the agencies were prepared to take a long term sustainable view.

leaf · « **Reply #31 on:** June 07, 2013, 15:46 »

I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

gbalex · « **Reply #32 on:** June 07, 2013, 16:03 »

Quote from: leaf on June 07, 2013, 15:46

I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

I agree

Yuri's site could have quickly morphed into a powerful collective if he had started accepting large groups of well known submitters. I think the sites are aware that this could happen and it could have contributed to the deal he & at least his father received.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #33 on:** June 07, 2013, 16:03 »

Quote from: leaf on June 07, 2013, 15:46

I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

Fully agree. Hopefully, Picturengine or Symbiostock (or both) will be that alternative.

leaf · « **Reply #34 on:** June 07, 2013, 16:23 »

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 07, 2013, 16:03

Quote from: leaf on June 07, 2013, 15:46
I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

Fully agree. Hopefully, Picturengine or Symbiostock (or both) will be that alternative.

Yeah, something like symbiostock can be a turning point. Stocksy is also a really ground breaking concept (or at least ambition initiative) but perhaps a bit too boutique to be a photographers primary income source... but time will tell. I'm still hoping for the best

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** June 07, 2013, 16:34 »

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 07, 2013, 16:03

Quote from: leaf on June 07, 2013, 15:46
I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

Fully agree. Hopefully, Picturengine or Symbiostock (or both) will be that alternative.

Hopefully Symbiostock. When will Picturengine launch properly? Weren't we told it would be very soon sometime last year? I have had enough of sites not being straight with me, unfortunately Picturengine will have to do a lot to prove to me that is isn't as bad as istock. Symbiostock is different, no BS just a lot of hard work by Leo. I see some real potential there.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #36 on:** June 07, 2013, 16:41 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 07, 2013, 16:34

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 07, 2013, 16:03
Quote from: leaf on June 07, 2013, 15:46
I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

Fully agree. Hopefully, Picturengine or Symbiostock (or both) will be that alternative.
Hopefully Symbiostock. When will Picturengine launch properly? Weren't we told it would be very soon sometime last year? I have had enough of sites not being straight with me, unfortunately Picturengine will have to do a lot to prove to me that is isn't as bad as istock. Symbiostock is different, no BS just a lot of hard work by Leo. I see some real potential there.

Justin said that Picturengine is very close to full launch. I would rather he did it right than did it fast. Hopefully, both of them will succeed.

sharpshot · « **Reply #37 on:** June 08, 2013, 02:54 »

Quote from: Beach Bum on June 07, 2013, 16:41

Quote from: sharpshot on June 07, 2013, 16:34
Quote from: Beach Bum on June 07, 2013, 16:03
Quote from: leaf on June 07, 2013, 15:46
I think the power is still really with the contributor and when/if a good alternative ever comes along (good commissions, good sales) people will jump ship extremely quickly. It's only a matter of time before it happens.

Fully agree. Hopefully, Picturengine or Symbiostock (or both) will be that alternative.
Hopefully Symbiostock. When will Picturengine launch properly? Weren't we told it would be very soon sometime last year? I have had enough of sites not being straight with me, unfortunately Picturengine will have to do a lot to prove to me that is isn't as bad as istock. Symbiostock is different, no BS just a lot of hard work by Leo. I see some real potential there.

Justin said that Picturengine is very close to full launch. I would rather he did it right than did it fast. Hopefully, both of them will succeed.

The problem is that Justin was implying that Picturengine would be live soon back in November last year. I no longer trust him, especially as the free trial period he offered us was absolutely useless. It's bad enough putting up with nonsense from the sites. Justin shouldn't of implied that Picturengine was almost ready several times last year when it clearly wasn't.

Ron · « **Reply #38 on:** June 08, 2013, 08:48 »

I remember PE would be ready in April, which has also past. Did anyone sink money into a subscription? I hope not. If it works its great, but 480 dollar is steep compared to Leo's network for free. I think the power behind SY is that everyone needs to put in an effort to make their own site and network work and the reward is 100% royalty. If you dont put in the work, your site will just be an image storage.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Steve Allen's views on shooting for stock with some interesting stats (Read 12235 times)

gostwyck

jbarber873

Xanox

ShadySue

cthoman

fotoVoyager

leaf

gbalex

Beach Bum

leaf

sharpshot

Beach Bum

sharpshot

Ron

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors