pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The wave is breaking  (Read 5802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 27, 2012, 16:50 »
0
It looks to mee, just subjective, that the wave is breaking. Any big agency what is at the market had downsized the midiocrazy Constributors in the last two years ... what allmost means Freelance- Grafikers, Designers, Fotographers and high talented Hobbyists...(what, as i think, are the exceptions).
Most of us who are "inside" of the advertising business know, that this is a personal business with a high grade of networking. Somebody had this
mentioied some month befor.
I do Pictures and i bought pictures, i also recommend Pictureagencys in personal contact, with big clients without getting any earnings from that.
It is kind of service in my kind of business. I also often be recommended for a tip about a good pictureagency. I can't send them to a link waht gives me a profit from my recommendation. This is Service, not business! If i would earn for recommendation i would lost my reputation!!! This is what most agencys don't understand.
But the numbers show it up!
Any agency what abused constributors lost a lot of traffic,  lost earnings or stayed at the level they're choosed for constributor abuse. Gaining more from constributors work for a short time, not by more marketing or better prices for custumers. Because best marketing was, is, will be, refferal!!!
Prices? Do anyone think the Price is relevant for a picture you have to search for a half Hour or one or more? For a project what should spend your client a gain of 2-20% of its exchange? Are clients of Pictureagencys earn less than 0.30 $ at the hour? Or do they can't aritmetic? Any price what is lower than 50$ never interested any of my clients.
All of this thought were allready written down.

But current, they all have it through. IST, FT, DT and 123. In my case, they all lost and loose permanent. I also.
SS did not and SS is permanent  going from one bme to the next for me.
But i don't think that this is a reason for beeing blissfull. We all could earn more ... even SS.

And, at the end...i see a light at the horizon... when all big agencys have come to their position by support of constributors...and all what abuse them fall. How many times will it take until someone catches the coherence?
123 will tell them by falling faster than a stone. No agency was faster to kill the rising by abuse constributors.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 17:06 by bad to the bone »


wut

« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2012, 17:17 »
0
123 will tell them by falling faster than a stone. No agency was faster to kill the rising by abuse constributors.

I sure hope so.

And yes, it's obvious SS will come out of this as big winners, they're already on the way there, in a year or 2 they'll definitely be there.

Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so. They're not competition they're totally insignificant to the big agencies, not really affecting any of them or more importantly their policies of cutting royalties etc. No big agency is scared of loosing their contributors and feeding the competition. If they're doing anything, is that they're leading the way to the bottom with their absurdly low prices, free subs etc. If they'd just stop doing business, customers would go to one of the top 4 agencies and spend their money there and we'd earn the same or even more (yes royalties are lower, but prices on average make up the difference and sometimes more) and have more time to produce new content. Or have a beer or two.

« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2012, 17:30 »
0
as i tried to say...it looks so easy to know it better. Anything in life behave like waves. Pictureagencymanagers don't look at the conclusion between constributors and profit...
but the conclusion is so near someone will find out.
Then the wave will break.
We saw People who gained more than a workerincome by shooting freshfruits on white. People on TV-Shows who told us about shooting without no equipment and no experiences hat makes this a living.
Now...at 0,09 cent for an image what needs to shoot, needs Equipment and light, needs a model, needs experience, needs to be attend to, needs to be keywordet...
Best selling picts at all agencys are not done by hobbyists...
And the Bestperformers all over the world don't fill a agencysdatabase. It's the middleones, by the way also a problem of all politics worldwide.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 17:45 by bad to the bone »

wut

« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2012, 17:43 »
0
The problem is how business is done nowadays. All that managers care for is short term good results, an upward trend measured quarterly. So they can get their big time, multi million bonuses at the end of ever year. On top of their seven figure (yearly) salaries. Speculators or investors such as H&F are even worse, just looking to milk the cow almost dry and then sell it to the highest bidder, making a double profit.

helix7

« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2012, 17:45 »
0
...Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so. They're not competition they're totally insignificant to the big agencies...

So who's top 4 should remain open? Because from where I'm standing, the "top 4" don't include istock or fotolia. I've got 2 low earners that bring in more per month than istock and fotolia.

« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2012, 17:46 »
0
Not in this business, the idea was there, but the investors are still lost.

« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2012, 17:49 »
0
helix7: This is not the average.

wut

« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2012, 18:12 »
0
...Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so. They're not competition they're totally insignificant to the big agencies...

So who's top 4 should remain open? Because from where I'm standing, the "top 4" don't include istock or fotolia. I've got 2 low earners that bring in more per month than istock and fotolia.

According to the poll. It might be different for illustrators. Or peanut earning contributors (which I know you're not), no matter the content they submit (I gather that from monthly earning and similar threads)

« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2012, 18:35 »
0
Unable to read beyond the first couple of lines of your thesis. Please correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and capitalisation and once it is intelligible I may respond.

Thank you

(PS: Maybe you think I am just being snarky; I am not. I am very tolerant of non-native-English speakers having problems with English but you seem to be familiar with the language but think it is clever to avoid using it properly. If English is your second or third language, I apologise for not spending more time on your post)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 18:39 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2012, 20:17 »
0
Same here, I couldn't make sense out if it, and didn't want to struggle with trying to decipher it, so I quit reading.


Unable to read beyond the first couple of lines of your thesis. Please correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and capitalisation and once it is intelligible I may respond.

Thank you

(PS: Maybe you think I am just being snarky; I am not. I am very tolerant of non-native-English speakers having problems with English but you seem to be familiar with the language but think it is clever to avoid using it properly. If English is your second or third language, I apologise for not spending more time on your post)

helix7

« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2012, 00:22 »
0
According to the poll. It might be different for illustrators. Or peanut earning contributors (which I know you're not), no matter the content they submit (I gather that from monthly earning and similar threads)

The poll is just an average. Even among photographers, people have differing results with different agencies. Hardly seems fair to suggest that only the top 4 of the poll should exist when lots of people do very well with middle and lower tier agencies.

lagereek

« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2012, 01:47 »
0
He uses words from a gone by era, such as picture-agencies, etc, used by the old trad film agencies so I presume he has been in the game for some time. I think what he is trying to say is: the game is falling apart, its been so much skimming off the top, the business has been destroyed?
Well is some cases he could be right,  certainly with dozens of agencies housing the same, almost identical shots and some of them with close to 20 million images, hell! we have to presume buyers are born imbeciles. :)

michealo

« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2012, 05:18 »
0
Unable to read beyond the first couple of lines of your thesis. Please correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and capitalisation and once it is intelligible I may respond.

Thank you

(PS: Maybe you think I am just being snarky; I am not. I am very tolerant of non-native-English speakers having problems with English but you seem to be familiar with the language but think it is clever to avoid using it properly. If English is your second or third language, I apologise for not spending more time on your post)

my guess is it was google translated ...

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2012, 05:32 »
0
Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so.
No-one is forcing you to upload to a dozen or more sites to get your extra 5%.
You either feel it's worth it, or it's not.
If it's not, you don't upload to whichever sites aren't worth the effort for you.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2012, 08:20 »
0
Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so.
No-one is forcing you to upload to a dozen or more sites to get your extra 5%.
You either feel it's worth it, or it's not.
If it's not, you don't upload to whichever sites aren't worth the effort for you.

Yeah that's the real flaw in the argument isn't it? He seems to be arguing that because an agency exists he is somehow forced to contribute to it and things would be easier if they just shut their doors so he wouldn't have to. New agencies pop up like any other business. Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

He should remember that Google was a brand new search engine once. Before google came along we had Excite, Lycos, Infoseek etc. etc. Google thought they had a better way of doing things and now they're kinda well known. Any new and small agency has the potential to be the next Shutterstock if they can find a way to do it better. I'd rather let them try than say they should just give up because the status quo is just so great.

helix7

« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2012, 09:28 »
0
...Before google came along we had Excite, Lycos, Infoseek etc. etc. Google thought they had a better way of doing things and now they're kinda well known. Any new and small agency has the potential to be the next Shutterstock if they can find a way to do it better. I'd rather let them try than say they should just give up because the status quo is just so great.

Great point. If all we have is the top 4, innovation disappears from this business. Because let's face it, none of those four companies are innovating.

wut

« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2012, 09:51 »
0
...Before google came along we had Excite, Lycos, Infoseek etc. etc. Google thought they had a better way of doing things and now they're kinda well known. Any new and small agency has the potential to be the next Shutterstock if they can find a way to do it better. I'd rather let them try than say they should just give up because the status quo is just so great.

Great point. If all we have is the top 4, innovation disappears from this business. Because let's face it, none of those four companies are innovating.

Innovation to do what, drive royalties down even further? Because let's face it there has been no innovation whatsoever in years. To take this even further, since the introduction of micro RF, IS and SS with their sub model, there was absolutely no innovation. In almost 10 years time, which is an eternity in the internet based business. So I really can't see where are you getting your optimism from, how can you hope for a change. What do you expect to change, really?


wut

« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2012, 09:55 »
0
Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

That argument makes no sense, there's no logic behind it. BTW we, Europeans, don't treat those junk food joints as restaurants, not even close. Just artificial, artery clogging garbage, most try to avoid.

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2012, 10:12 »
0
Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

That argument makes no sense, there's no logic behind it. BTW we, Europeans, don't treat those junk food joints as restaurants, not even close. Just artificial, artery clogging garbage, most try to avoid.

That's a non-sequitur and you know it. You no more have to eat there than you have to submit to smaller agencies, if you don't want to.
Some like to support new starts, in the hope that they may usurp the stranglehold of the larger agencies. Sadly the history of these new starts, no matter how well intentioned, hasn't been good; but things always change, and someone will usurp the big two one day.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2012, 10:17 »
0
Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

That argument makes no sense, there's no logic behind it. BTW we, Europeans, don't treat those junk food joints as restaurants, not even close. Just artificial, artery clogging garbage, most try to avoid.

The argument makes perfect sense, if you have the imagination to see beyond the literal. Anyone who doesn't see the potential of new business because old business hasn't innovated in 10 years, is lacking in imagination.

How's this for an example: Yuri Arcurs, Andres Rodrigues, Monkeybusinessimages, Sean Locke et al have the market cornered on stock photography, There's no point in anyone else even trying to take stock photos because the top players are all we need. So why don't you and I just stop trying? Do you get the connection in that example?

BTW  I don't really care if you consider McDonalds a restaurant, that's not the point.

wut

« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2012, 10:27 »
0
How's this for an example: Yuri Arcurs, Andres Rodrigues, Monkeybusinessimages, Sean Locke et al have the market cornered on stock photography, There's no point in anyone else even trying to take stock photos because the top players are all we need. So why don't you and I just stop trying? Do you get the connection in that example?

I can see logic in that and I'm sure some ppl think like that. But! I'm more than happy to compete against those guys and hope to earn 5% of their average. It's realistic. And still more than enough to live off of it. And just as well it makes sense for new agencies to start business, with similar plans in mind (eg 5% of SS or IS earnings). My point was different however, I was just pointing out that we have to do more to get the same amount of money at best and that those agencies are just worsening the situation for us, just bringing down prices. We'd be better off without them, in a way, especially looking at them historically or at the present situation. The point is also they're not keeping big agencies in check. They're insignificant, just as every single contributor, save for the top 5 or so are to the agencies.

helix7

« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2012, 10:38 »
0
Innovation to do what, drive royalties down even further? Because let's face it there has been no innovation whatsoever in years. To take this even further, since the introduction of micro RF, IS and SS with their sub model, there was absolutely no innovation. In almost 10 years time, which is an eternity in the internet based business. So I really can't see where are you getting your optimism from, how can you hope for a change. What do you expect to change, really?

This business is far from perfect and the door is still wide open for someone to do it better than anyone currently is. Look at any agency and you can find plenty of flaws.

And the idea that new companies only come along to drive down royalties is completely false. In fact, most new companies that gain any traction usually introduce higher royalty rates to generate contributor interest. Superhug uses an innovative rotating royalty scheme that varies between 75% and 100% royalties (that's right, 100%). I'd call that unique and innovative. Whether they can be successful long-term with a plan like that is uncertain, but it's certainly innovative and it's cool to see them trying something different.

StockFresh came around a few years ago and went against the grain of the industry with a 50% royalty and a dirt simple pricing plan. No credit shenanigans, $1 credits, simple per-size pricing. Not new, but in this day and age, certainly unique.

GraphicLeftovers offers 52%. Definitely unique and certainly not driving down royalties. GraphicRiver/PhotoDune are part of a unique marketplace that allows you to use a single account across multiple sites to purchase photos, illustrations, web templates, video, motion graphics, audio, web code, 3D models, etc. Who else is doing that? Getty has hinted at a system that allows single account usage across multiple sites, but have yet to really do it.

Not sure what business you're looking at, but to say that microstock has seen no innovation is ridiculous. And to further suggest that small, new companies only drive down royalties is equally silly.

wut

« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2012, 10:45 »
0
Innovation to do what, drive royalties down even further? Because let's face it there has been no innovation whatsoever in years. To take this even further, since the introduction of micro RF, IS and SS with their sub model, there was absolutely no innovation. In almost 10 years time, which is an eternity in the internet based business. So I really can't see where are you getting your optimism from, how can you hope for a change. What do you expect to change, really?

This business is far from perfect and the door is still wide open for someone to do it better than anyone currently is. Look at any agency and you can find plenty of flaws.

And the idea that new companies only come along to drive down royalties is completely false. In fact, most new companies that gain any traction usually introduce higher royalty rates to generate contributor interest. Superhug uses an innovative rotating royalty scheme that varies between 75% and 100% royalties (that's right, 100%). I'd call that unique and innovative. Whether they can be successful long-term with a plan like that is uncertain, but it's certainly innovative and it's cool to see them trying something different.

StockFresh came around a few years ago and went against the grain of the industry with a 50% royalty and a dirt simple pricing plan. No credit shenanigans, $1 credits, simple per-size pricing. Not new, but in this day and age, certainly unique.

GraphicLeftovers offers 52%. Definitely unique and certainly not driving down royalties. GraphicRiver/PhotoDune are part of a unique marketplace that allows you to use a single account across multiple sites to purchase photos, illustrations, web templates, video, motion graphics, audio, web code, 3D models, etc. Who else is doing that? Getty has hinted at a system that allows single account usage across multiple sites, but have yet to really do it.

Not sure what business you're looking at, but to say that microstock has seen no innovation is ridiculous. And to further suggest that small, new companies only drive down royalties is equally silly.

I meant prices not royalties, my bad. And you're right it is silly to suggest that (but I did it by mistake). But to touch that subject, all of them start cutting it once the become big. And before they become big they don't really bring us any money, so it doesn't really matter, make a difference until they start bringing in serious cash. Just look at 123RF and their utterly, utterly appalling moves.

Superhug etc, it sounds great, it's nice someone is trying something new, but who does it affect? Who's even going to come to a site with such a silly name ;D ?

Innovations, yes you've made a few, but none of them has really affected us, or better said the 95% of our earnings. So they don't really matter, at least IMO. And it really is all about opinions here in the forum, right?

« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2012, 10:57 »
0
there is room for everybody but one thing I am sure we are all taking a "slice" of each other, even if it is 0.01%, I have a picture that is close to 1000 sales in 1 year in SS (something like 500$), that might not sound much but I am sure it took sales from Yuri, Andres or other top contributor, and thats me, imagine other having the double/triple/etc and also on thousands of pictures/contributors

will see how far agencies will keep approving more and more pictures, if there is a limit

helix7

« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2012, 11:29 »
0
I meant prices not royalties, my bad. And you're right it is silly to suggest that (but I did it by mistake). But to touch that subject, all of them start cutting it once the become big. And before they become big they don't really bring us any money, so it doesn't really matter, make a difference until they start bringing in serious cash. Just look at 123RF and their utterly, utterly appalling moves...

Which small agencies became big and cut rates? And how can you say "all of them"? I'm sorry, but you're just completely making things up now. I'm with 21 agencies and the only ones that have cut my rate are istock, fotolia, and 123RF. And istock and fotolia haven't been small for a very long time. They were big for a long time before they cut their pay rates.

There is no precedent to suggest that any small company will cut their rates if/when they become big. The majority of these companies keep rates the same. Rarely, some even raise them. SS used to give regular raises. Envato raised their rate from 25% to 33%. And if we're talking about prices, most companies raise prices as they grow.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 11:38 by helix7 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Google Wave

Started by digiology Off Topic

7 Replies
1906 Views
Last post May 30, 2009, 22:23
by null
52 Replies
9769 Views
Last post September 25, 2009, 14:53
by lisafx
7 Replies
1903 Views
Last post December 09, 2009, 02:35
by alfonsodetomas
16 Replies
1625 Views
Last post June 30, 2012, 22:44
by stockmarketer
5 Replies
659 Views
Last post April 18, 2013, 15:31
by Sean Locke Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors