pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

If you had to pick one stock photo site to send buyers to, who would it be? (Please also post why)

Shutterstock
Dreamstime
Fotolia
iStock
123RoyaltyFree
Bigstockphoto
Veer
Canstockphoto
DepositPhotos
GraphicLeftovers
Cutcaster
FeaturePics
Stockfresh
YayMicro
The3dStudio
Crestock
Alamy
ClusterShot
Personal Site/Portfolio Tool
Other (Explain Below)

Author Topic: Where do YOU think we should send buyers and why?  (Read 29020 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 10, 2010, 14:06 »
0
For me the point of this thread/poll was for us contributors to "think" about what we want and where that is.  If we have a good list of sites we "recommend" for buyers, we can make some educated decisions when issues like this arise.


« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2010, 14:45 »
0
Also I think this poll shows what we stand for and what we are looking to get out of our time.  It shows how "unified" we are and what we want.  If we are all looking for something different, we will probably not be able to agree on anything.

If "we" have been reamed over and over again by a specific site but you still back them because you get the best money from them, it shows what you care about.  Maybe percentages dont matter if you still get paid more than other sites.  Maybe 10% is ok because you still make the most there.  Is that wrong?  Maybe not.  Its a personal choice.

Some sites provide more money, some more trust/honesty, some better percentages.

For me, some will NEVER get my referral because they have been too dishonest in the past.  I will hold back these names, but we all know who these are.  Some just can't get their act together (make payments, reply to emails, approve images, ).  Others just do not do their job which is to sell our images.  Why refer buyers to an agency that does not even do its core function; which is to sell our images.  If I want to sell them all myself, then I will keep all the commission.

Dreamstime and Shutterstock will both get my referrals.  Each in their own way.

If I had to pick only one, Dreamstime would be it.  They pretty much offer any type of payment/packages, they also allow editorial, they offer image exclusivity, they offer the best % of any major site, they have a great level model for contributors, .  This could go on forever.  And although they are not the highest earner on the list, they are in the Big 4.  If you look at what you get for the % you give to them, they are on top.

Remember, this content is your intellectual property, not theirs.  They do not pay you; you pay them.

Luckily we independents have multiple sites to choose from.  I am not looking for iStock to burn in the pits of h*ll, but they have stated loud and clear where they stand and who they care about (or sort of care about).

« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2010, 14:55 »
0
Wery well put.....

But You've got to add Alamy. Because Alamy offers you freedom to shoot and upload what you find important.

What makes Alamy unique, is that every special stuff you ever could think of is there. If you cant find it else where, it will be on Alamy. A lot of crap too, but hey - the crap also sells - again and again...

It continue to amaze me what sells at Alamy - never the ones you would thin would sell (well somtimes those too) but often the - ok I'll upload that one just in case photo - sells and sells again.

Alamy allows you to diversify - RF - RM - special interest arears - general stock etc.

On top of that - the give you one of the best deals in royalty.

To make regular monthly  payouts there, one does need a portfolio of about 2 - 3500 pics, depending of your subjects and shooting style.

« Reply #53 on: September 10, 2010, 22:31 »
0
Anyone want to change their vote to iStock?

« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2010, 05:34 »
0
I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2.  pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.

« Reply #55 on: September 11, 2010, 05:44 »
0
I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2.  pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.

How much?? How much is the start-up? How much is the advertising?

I guess it isn't that much once there are agencies like Graphicleftovers owned by a 40's and a 20's person, maybe have a lot of money don't know.. it is a very interesting idea, I guess that money for creating this agency should be equal between investors or I guess will bring a lot of problems..

« Reply #56 on: September 11, 2010, 06:19 »
0
I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2.  pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.


How much?? How much is the start-up? How much is the advertising?

I guess it isn't that much once there are agencies like Graphicleftovers owned by a 40's and a 20's person, maybe have a lot of money don't know.. it is a very interesting idea, I guess that money for creating this agency should be equal between investors or I guess will bring a lot of problems..


MichaelDB's post in the union thread is the one that keeps resonating in my head: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/we-need-a-union!/50/ basically a $1000 investment from half of the top 2% of contributors would be a pretty decent start. To me $1000 is about the price of a half-decent new lens. Its significant enough that you'd want to make it work, but not so much that it would break the bank. For most of the top 2000 contributors it should be significantly less than a months photo income.

Depending on how you count the numbers this gives you somewhere between $500,000 to $2 mil. The main benefit though is that you would start with a community and wouldn't have an entity that could be easily bought out by a corporate.

I think a key would be that any new agency could have a large proportion of exclusive content, but that contributors do not need to be exclusive there.

« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2010, 07:02 »
0
I make more at Fotolia but voted for Dreamstime as I trust them a lot more than Fotolia.  Fotolia have proved themselves to be untrustworthy in the past.

« Reply #58 on: September 11, 2010, 11:06 »
0
I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2.  pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.


How much?? How much is the start-up? How much is the advertising?

I guess it isn't that much once there are agencies like Graphicleftovers owned by a 40's and a 20's person, maybe have a lot of money don't know.. it is a very interesting idea, I guess that money for creating this agency should be equal between investors or I guess will bring a lot of problems..


MichaelDB's post in the union thread is the one that keeps resonating in my head: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/we-need-a-union!/50/ basically a $1000 investment from half of the top 2% of contributors would be a pretty decent start. To me $1000 is about the price of a half-decent new lens. Its significant enough that you'd want to make it work, but not so much that it would break the bank. For most of the top 2000 contributors it should be significantly less than a months photo income.

Depending on how you count the numbers this gives you somewhere between $500,000 to $2 mil. The main benefit though is that you would start with a community and wouldn't have an entity that could be easily bought out by a corporate.

I think a key would be that any new agency could have a large proportion of exclusive content, but that contributors do not need to be exclusive there.


Has anyone considered that we already have the foundation for a great microstock site right here on this website, microstockgroup.com? Think about it for a while.  Say, Leaf, are you busy?.......

« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2010, 11:17 »
0
Has anyone considered that we already have the foundation for a great microstock site right here on this website, microstockgroup.com? Think about it for a while.  Say, Leaf, are you busy?.......

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/we-need-a-union!/

« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2010, 11:19 »
0
Probably DT, but if it's a huge buyer I don't want him buying images cheap at subs prices. Therefore I voted FP, just because I like them, the commission is fair and their subs is only for small images. If there is one site I would like to see growing, that's FP.

« Reply #61 on: September 11, 2010, 11:23 »
0
My vote is for Cutcaster. I removed my port from there long ago, but it will be the first site I return to if it becomes more profitable (and directing buyers there will make it)

« Reply #62 on: September 11, 2010, 11:36 »
0
Alamy. That's where much of my strongest work is, and I've heard and read the same from others time and again.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 11:45 by ann »

« Reply #63 on: September 11, 2010, 13:14 »
0
i vote for DT just because i think they have a nice system for the prices, and if they would have more traffic it could be my best seller site, so tahts why i would sent buyer there.

« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2010, 13:45 »
0
I still think you guys have this whole thing completely wrong. Trying to send buyers elsewhere will have little or no effect. The right to change the way business is done is not in your hands. Jump up and down scream all you want nothing will change. This is hardly Getty's first time through this. The expertise is there. They sell stuff. Remove the stuff and there is nothing to sell. Then you say we'd like X for our stuff, then you can negotiate. Ain't no other way. This is of course impossible so nothing will change, except of course the length of time between payouts.

lisafx

« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2010, 13:57 »
0

If "we" have been reamed over and over again by a specific site but you still back them because you get the best money from them, it shows what you care about

Well Brandon, I thought this poll was looking for honest answers.  If you are going to get all judgmental at people for voting for a different site than you chose it isn't really a very objective poll, is it? 

Besides, you only allowed us one option each.  Surely most of us will be referring to multiple sites (other than istock), won't we?  I already stated I will be referring to both DT and Fotolia.  And FWIW if someone wants a subscription model I would add SS to that list I would recommend.

Lets remember that if we are referring buyers, we want to consider not only what we get paid by the sites, which yes, is a primary consideration, but also the variety of content and pricing for the buyer we are referring.  I think that is why smaller or newer agencies aren't getting more votes.  They may give us a great %, but they probably don't have a big selection of the best content for the buyer, unlike the bigger sites. 

« Reply #66 on: September 11, 2010, 18:47 »
0

If "we" have been reamed over and over again by a specific site but you still back them because you get the best money from them, it shows what you care about

Well Brandon, I thought this poll was looking for honest answers.  If you are going to get all judgmental at people for voting for a different site than you chose it isn't really a very objective poll, is it? 

Besides, you only allowed us one option each.  Surely most of us will be referring to multiple sites (other than istock), won't we?  I already stated I will be referring to both DT and Fotolia.  And FWIW if someone wants a subscription model I would add SS to that list I would recommend.

Lets remember that if we are referring buyers, we want to consider not only what we get paid by the sites, which yes, is a primary consideration, but also the variety of content and pricing for the buyer we are referring.  I think that is why smaller or newer agencies aren't getting more votes.  They may give us a great %, but they probably don't have a big selection of the best content for the buyer, unlike the bigger sites. 

Hmm, I see you took personal offense to that comment.  It was not directed at you specifically; but your site choices do relate to that comment so I can see why you got defensive.  I am not looking for others to agree with me, I just want to know where we stand.  If you look at the poll, you are not the only person that says they would support a site that has pulled a fast one on contributors.  The post was about unity and agreement.

Also I think this poll shows what we stand for and what we are looking to get out of our time.  It shows how "unified" we are and what we want.  If we are all looking for something different, we will probably not be able to agree on anything.

Every time a site pulls a fast one on its contributors there is mass calling for unions, coops, support for other sites, and for major players to stand up for the little guys.  We all grab our torches and pitch forks then go running to the gates.  The gates stay closed and we slowly put out the fires and go home.  Then some walk right back in once the gates reopen.

There is a reason there is no union or coop for microstock, and we know what it is.  No one can agree nor take a stand and stick with it.

So, to your point; yes I was looking for honest answers and yes my comment was judgmental.  Again, I am not looking for everyone or anyone to agree with me; I just wanted open discussion so I could figure out where we stand as a whole (or not as a whole).  Everyone wants the mighty iStock and Getty to fall today, but what about tomorrow.  If I offended you, sorry.  But not sorry as in I take that back, sorry as in this is a discussion board and many will disagree.  I am not looking to troll or offend anyone, its just a discussion.

I think one major reason we do not see (most of) the big guns in on these issues is because they take a moment and really look at the situation.  If someone like Yuri came in and supported the riot, then a week later went back to work with the site that was of issue, the mob would start running his direction.

We all have different reason to do what we do; some for the enjoyment and extra money, some for pretty much just the money.  Either way, we need to be honest with our goals.  If not to others, at least with ourselves.

The single option was on purpose; to pick a site we all feel we could back and know why we would.  If we feel we would like to answer multiple sites, I can add that.  I just felt that would dilute the answer.


traveler1116

« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2010, 18:49 »
0
Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS.  Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

lisafx

« Reply #68 on: September 11, 2010, 18:56 »
0
Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS.  Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

Alamy is not a realistic choice for most buyers looking for microstock images at microstock prices. 

Brandon - I am not deeply offended.  Just think it's better if the originator of a poll lets people respond openly without posting personal judgments about them based on their choices.  Obviously you disagree.  It's your poll so you can run the thread how you like.

BTW, if anyone knows of a successful microstock agency that hasn't lowered rates, or changed terms, or sells mainly subs, but still has a vast and appealing collection good enough to compete with IS for buyers, I will be happy to change my vote and direct buyers there :)

« Reply #69 on: September 11, 2010, 19:05 »
0
Very well; noted.  I will leave the judgment to all the other threads.

As for the sites, I think it goes: Successful, Trustworthy, Low Agency Commissions.  Pick 2.

traveler1116

« Reply #70 on: September 11, 2010, 19:06 »
0
Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS.  Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

Alamy is not a realistic choice for most buyers looking for microstock images at microstock prices. 

Brandon - I am not deeply offended.  Just think it's better if the originator of a poll lets people respond openly without posting personal judgments about them based on their choices.  Obviously you disagree.  It's your poll so you can run the thread how you like.

BTW, if anyone knows of a successful microstock agency that hasn't lowered rates, or changed terms, or sells mainly subs, but still has a vast and appealing collection good enough to compete with IS for buyers, I will be happy to change my vote and direct buyers there :)

I'm hopeful that my images aren't microstock then, the next three months will be devoted to building a 1000 image plus library on Alamy.  I hope it works but I can't send anymore travel photos to IS knowing that they are not there to support me in the long run.  I feel like I can add value to IS by putting images from remote and very under represented places on the site but the changes there have caused me to reevaluate my position.

« Reply #71 on: September 11, 2010, 19:25 »
0
Dont send to DT or FT they will both do the same as IS.  Send to Alamy , better % and a company that so far won't screw you..

Alamy is not a realistic choice for most buyers looking for microstock images at microstock prices. 

Brandon - I am not deeply offended.  Just think it's better if the originator of a poll lets people respond openly without posting personal judgments about them based on their choices.  Obviously you disagree.  It's your poll so you can run the thread how you like.

BTW, if anyone knows of a successful microstock agency that hasn't lowered rates, or changed terms, or sells mainly subs, but still has a vast and appealing collection good enough to compete with IS for buyers, I will be happy to change my vote and direct buyers there :)

I'm hopeful that my images aren't microstock then, the next three months will be devoted to building a 1000 image plus library on Alamy.  I hope it works but I can't send anymore travel photos to IS knowing that they are not there to support me in the long run.  I feel like I can add value to IS by putting images from remote and very under represented places on the site but the changes there have caused me to reevaluate my position.

As I heard from a lot of Alamy contibutors sales there take time to happen, year or so but then a few nice ones might bring some value!

« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2010, 11:36 »
0
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there. - Lewis Carroll

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2010, 13:02 »
0

I'm hopeful that my images aren't microstock then, the next three months will be devoted to building a 1000 image plus library on Alamy.  I hope it works but I can't send anymore travel photos to IS knowing that they are not there to support me in the long run.  I feel like I can add value to IS by putting images from remote and very under represented places on the site but the changes there have caused me to reevaluate my position.
One thing I've learned is that unusual locations and subjects seldom do well on iStock (low supply, but low demand). That was the first type of image I started to send to Alamy, then broadened out.

« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2010, 06:44 »
0
...iStock have and will screw us and it will get worse, you just need to make the decision as to how that fits into your business module and adjust accordingly.
My decision is 20% is as low as I will go and I wasn't going to put up with that forever.  I have no confidence in istock now, how low will commissions be in the future? There's just too much uncertainty.
Ask yourself this question in response to your comment
 "there are several that pay a decent commission and have prices that are fair for buyers and contributors.  If we could persuade more buyers to use those sites, wouldn't we all be better off?"
Why aren't the buyers using these sites now?
I don't think its a coincidence that the oldest site is No.1 and the newer sites aren't doing well but the internet can change.  Istock seem very complacent and I don't think its impossible for one of their rivals to leapfrog them.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
8896 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 04:44
by litifeta
5 Replies
4607 Views
Last post February 08, 2009, 16:14
by icefront
18 Replies
5817 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
4 Replies
2778 Views
Last post October 01, 2012, 13:04
by leaf
29 Replies
25627 Views
Last post January 25, 2013, 17:15
by gillian vann

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors