MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The wave is breaking  (Read 17734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wut

« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2012, 11:40 »
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.

Every big agency beside SS has cut royalties (and SS stopped giving us yearly raises). Every single one. We all know that. What was made up by me? Besides 123RF no small agency has become big enough to afford it. And you seem to forget about DT and their level system, we now have to get up to 50%, we were getting it for every DL. Out of the 21 you mention there are 4 big+123RF.

I don't know what to say except for you're being naive if you believe there will be no further cuts from the small agencies, when/if they'll become big. But looking at the market at this moment, none of the small agencies are going to become big anytime soon.


helix7

« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2012, 12:17 »
0
I don't know what to say except for you're being naive if you believe there will be no further cuts from the small agencies, when/if they'll become big. But looking at the market at this moment, none of the small agencies are going to become big anytime soon.

Well then I'll just enjoy my naivet for now and continue to expect that few (if any) small agencies will cut rates. Like I said before, there is no precedent for a small agency becoming big and cutting rates. The top 4 existed pretty much since the beginning of microstock, istock being the start of all this. They were never small, so to use those companies as examples of companies that got big and cut rates is ridiculous.

And there are small companies that are getting big, and not cutting rates. I consider GraphicRiver big (I earn more there every month than I do at Fotolia or istock) and they increased rates. Look at DepositPhotos. They didn't exist a few years ago. Now they're a major player. As a historical reference, look at StockXpert. They always paid 50%, when they were small, when they got big, and even after Jupiter acquired them and became part of a huge company. They only fell apart when Getty acquired Jupiter. GraphicLeftovers is also rapidly growing.

You've got such a negative and shortsighted view of this business. Small companies are becoming big, you just refuse to acknowledge it.  None of these growing companies are cutting rates. I don't get what the benefit is to viewing everything in microstock in terms of what a few loser companies did. There is a lot of good growth happening, lots of companies sticking to their promised pay rates and prices, and very little of what you describe regarding cuts and lack of innovation. It's a wonder you even bother with microstock at all with such a negative outlook on things.

wut

« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2012, 12:40 »
0
I don't know what to say except for you're being naive if you believe there will be no further cuts from the small agencies, when/if they'll become big. But looking at the market at this moment, none of the small agencies are going to become big anytime soon.

Well then I'll just enjoy my naivet for now and continue to expect that few (if any) small agencies will cut rates. Like I said before, there is no precedent for a small agency becoming big and cutting rates. The top 4 existed pretty much since the beginning of microstock, istock being the start of all this. They were never small, so to use those companies as examples of companies that got big and cut rates is ridiculous.

And there are small companies that are getting big, and not cutting rates. I consider GraphicRiver big (I earn more there every month than I do at Fotolia or istock) and they increased rates. Look at DepositPhotos. They didn't exist a few years ago. Now they're a major player. As a historical reference, look at StockXpert. They always paid 50%, when they were small, when they got big, and even after Jupiter acquired them and became part of a huge company. They only fell apart when Getty acquired Jupiter. GraphicLeftovers is also rapidly growing.


You've got such a negative and shortsighted view of this business. Small companies are becoming big, you just refuse to acknowledge it.  None of these growing companies are cutting rates. I don't get what the benefit is to viewing everything in microstock in terms of what a few loser companies did. There is a lot of good growth happening, lots of companies sticking to their promised pay rates and prices, and very little of what you describe regarding cuts and lack of innovation. It's a wonder you even bother with microstock at all with such a negative outlook on things.

Oh man, you're taking things so literally down to the letter (big 4 never being small, so that automatically means smaller won't behave the same way if they became big - a narrow view of things). You figured out yourself IS started all that. Other followed. And since every other that was in the position to follow the policy of cuts, did follow it, we can expect it in the future. It's a pattern. A well established one.

What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

Well I guess it's pretty obvious I don't have to reply to the last paragraph since I've covered everything in my previous paragraph. I bother because the big players bring me more and more almost every single month, my earnings are rising. I'm satisfied with my earnings at SS and IS. FT, DT and 123RF (well the latter will last until the cuts come into effect) also bring decent cash, at least there is a relatively positive outlook with DT and FT. The rest are bad to pathetic for me, of course some months are exceptions. The poll and monthly earning threads confirm that. Sure, contributors earning a few hundred $ at best may experience different results, but that's also because their images are not up to the standards of the big agencies, so their ports at the smaller agencies are a lot bigger, even a few times bigger. Illustrators obviously earn some decent cash at sites like GL, but togs that earn more, have more representative stats usually, well the vast majority of them earn 90%+ at the top 4/5 agencies. Just check the stats that Lisa, Lagereek, Gostwyck, Baldrick, Jsnover etc post every month

helix7

« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2012, 13:11 »
0
Oh man, you're taking things so literally down to the letter (big 4 never being small, so that automatically means smaller won't behave the same way if they became big - a narrow view of things). You figured out yourself IS started all that. Other followed. And since every other that was in the position to follow the policy of cuts, did follow it, we can expect it in the future. It's a pattern. A well established one.

How is that well established? You're talking about the companies that started the microstock business model. istock is over 10 years old. How can you compare what they did to what newer companies have done or will do? Like I said before, there is no precedent for a new company growing into prominence and then cutting rates. And when I say "new" I'm talking about exactly that. New companies, not decade-old companies or companies that were around in the very early years of microstock.

I don't know where you get the idea that this scenario has already been played out before. You can't look at istock and fotolia as examples of that. They're clearly exceptional cases. Show me one example of a company started in the last 5 years that grew to any significant notoriety and then cut rates.

What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really...

DP is right below 123RF in the poll, and you consider 123RF a big agency. So 123RF is big, but DP just below it is small? Isn't that a convenient place to draw the line in an arguement about new companies becoming big.

StockXpert was a major player. Not by my standards only, but by most. Lots of people did very well there. Some better than what they're getting from some of the top 4 today.  

WarrenPrice

« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2012, 13:41 »
0
pettifog.

RacePhoto

« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2012, 14:56 »
0
Show me one example of a company started in the last 5 years that grew to any significant notoriety and then cut rates.

Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products.

Lets all upload to the top 25 sites, so we can compete with ourselves at the lowest level possible, making everything worthless and ordinary... at the lowest commissions and lowest prices. That's ridiculous.

Whether people pick the top two, top four or top six, the point I'd make is, supporting the small ones is cutting your own throat, by competing against yourself at the places that pay best (bottom line) and advertise. All the new sites can offer is the same collections for less, which dilutes the marketplace with cheap copies. And we are providing those cheap copies!  ::)

wut

« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2012, 15:07 »
0
Show me one example of a company started in the last 5 years that grew to any significant notoriety and then cut rates.

Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products.

Lets all upload to the top 25 sites, so we can compete with ourselves at the lowest level possible, making everything worthless and ordinary... at the lowest commissions and lowest prices. That's ridiculous.

Whether people pick the top two, top four or top six, the point I'd make is, supporting the small ones is cutting your own throat, by competing against yourself at the places that pay best (bottom line) and advertise. All the new sites can offer is the same collections for less, which dilutes the marketplace with cheap copies. And we are providing those cheap copies!  ::)

That's exactly it! Very well put!

« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2012, 15:11 »
0
What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

I don't know about you, but it is all about my earnings for me. I don't really care how much market share an agency has. In fact, I'd prefer they were smaller and actually do things like represent listen and take care of their contributors. You know like an agent should.  ;)

RacePhoto

« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2012, 15:31 »
0
What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

I don't know about you, but it is all about my earnings for me. I don't really care how much market share an agency has. In fact, I'd prefer they were smaller and actually do things like represent listen and take care of their contributors. You know like an agent should.  ;)

Have anyone specific in mind? Or is that hypothetical?

wut

« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2012, 15:35 »
0
What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

I don't know about you, but it is all about my earnings for me. I don't really care how much market share an agency has. In fact, I'd prefer they were smaller and actually do things like represent listen and take care of their contributors. You know like an agent should.  ;)

Sure it's about their earnings for everyone, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the text you quoted or the one I replied to ;) . Yes and that is the case with small agencies. 123RF used to reply to every email, if you asked them to review a batch after a few days past, they did it. Now it takes a lot longer and they never reply and they're going to cut commissions. Everyone is super nice, even humble when he needs contributors. Then when they become big they almost ignore you, friendliness is gone, some even treat you like dirt. A scout once "raised" his voice in his rude reply. They can afford it, since they don't meet any serious resistance. I've heard the attitude and attention to every contributor is a lot different with macros. But there's a lot more money, professionalism and tradition involved. What you pay is what you get, but it looks like also contributors benefit from that. It's like going to a cheap or a high end restaurant, a completely different experience.

« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2012, 15:45 »
0
Have anyone specific in mind? Or is that hypothetical?

I'm a big fan of Clipartof, but they are somewhat of a private party. I assume their strategy is to only take on a smaller number of contributors they can represent and keep happy. I would think more agencies like it that are smaller and invite only will pop up. With so much off the shelf software, I imagine more contributors will band together to form 5 or 10 person smaller agencies too. Maybe they are our there, they are just under the radar.

helix7

« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2012, 16:55 »
0
Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products...

Kind of a rough generalization, no? All small agencies start at the bottom? What about StockFresh? GL (name your price and 52% royalty)? Superhug ($4-$5 royalty per sale ain't bad, just wish they had volume)? Sure there are some deadbeats and bottom feeders. I'm not entirely proud of working with VectorStock, but they've been receptive to raising prices on my images lately. Not all bad. But overall, you can't say that all small, new companies are perpetuating this "race to the bottom".

Most of what I'm seeing out of small agencies that are just a few years old is good stuff. High percentages, decent prices, contributor relations that the big companies just can't match. I just got off the phone with the owner of a small agency (small by most standards but mid-tier in my opinion). Try getting an exec on the line with any of the top 4.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 16:57 by helix7 »

wut

« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2012, 17:12 »
0
I just got off the phone with the owner of a small agency (small by most standards but mid-tier in my opinion). Try getting an exec on the line with any of the top 4.

Of course you couldn't get him on the line, he's busy doing business, obviously. They don't have the time to chat and play with themselves (they've got secretaries to do that;)

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2012, 18:17 »
0
I tend to agree with Wut, that chances are good that if some of the small agencies hit it big, they will start messing with royalties.  As I see it, 123RF didn't try lowering royalties until they made it into the Big 4 (however briefly). 

I also still remember when Istock had been around for 5 years or so, and SS for at least 2 years and FT was the newest kid on the block (no, they haven't all been around the same amount of time).  Originally, FT were extremely responsive and accommodating. There was a lot of give and take with the contributor community.  Over time, I think we were viewed and treated by the big sites, less as partners and more as a necessary evil.  Our opinions were no longer welcome as they introduced subs, and later lowered royalties.   

However, seeing that some sites will do this when they get successful doesn't make me want to limit my options to those successful sites, who have already proven they will lower commissions.  It makes me want to broaden my options and upload to the smaller sites.   Yes, its slightly more work to upload to more sites, but a very small price to pay to keep some checks and balances on the big sites. 

I am extremely glad I joined Veer, Depositphoto, and Photodune.  Together they account for several hundred dollars a month I would not otherwise have, plus an insurance policy against falling royalties at the larger sites.   

« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2012, 19:58 »
0
I tend to agree with Wut, that chances are good that if some of the small agencies hit it big, they will start messing with royalties.  As I see it, 123RF didn't try lowering royalties until they made it into the Big 4 (however briefly). 

I also still remember when Istock had been around for 5 years or so, and SS for at least 2 years and FT was the newest kid on the block (no, they haven't all been around the same amount of time).  Originally, FT were extremely responsive and accommodating. There was a lot of give and take with the contributor community.  Over time, I think we were viewed and treated by the big sites, less as partners and more as a necessary evil.  Our opinions were no longer welcome as they introduced subs, and later lowered royalties.   

However, seeing that some sites will do this when they get successful doesn't make me want to limit my options to those successful sites, who have already proven they will lower commissions.  It makes me want to broaden my options and upload to the smaller sites.   Yes, its slightly more work to upload to more sites, but a very small price to pay to keep some checks and balances on the big sites. 

I am extremely glad I joined Veer, Depositphoto, and Photodune.  Together they account for several hundred dollars a month I would not otherwise have, plus an insurance policy against falling royalties at the larger sites.   

I agree with you Lisa and I try to upload to the sites who treat their contributors well. I find it hard to swallow when the sites which we helped become successful, in turn thank us for our support by cutting our royalties and then utilizing that money to stick it to us further via newly ramped up sites sporting niceties such as best match disease.

antistock

« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2012, 10:15 »
0
i also upload to agencies who pay me more but guess what ... they sell LESS and i mean a LOT less.
and if they required exclusivity i wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole.

this industry is just .. broken !

the OP is right ... who cares about the price if it takes 1 hour for him to find the right picture among millions of similars ?
but hey that's the same if you search on Getty RM and the pic may cost you 1000$ ...

any ideas ?

lisafx

« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2012, 13:37 »
0
I find it hard to swallow when the sites which we helped become successful, in turn thank us for our support by cutting our royalties and then utilizing that money to stick it to us further via newly ramped up sites sporting niceties such as best match disease.

Yes!  So true!


velocicarpo

« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2012, 13:41 »
0
I find it hard to swallow when the sites which we helped become successful, in turn thank us for our support by cutting our royalties and then utilizing that money to stick it to us further via newly ramped up sites sporting niceties such as best match disease.

+1. Well said.

Sadly, moral has no value anymore. This goes too to sites like 123rf. 

« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2012, 19:23 »
0
Hey Warren,

Great opportunity to use that word. :D

Cheers,
Jonathan

RacePhoto

« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2012, 13:46 »
0
Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products...

Kind of a rough generalization, no? All small agencies start at the bottom?

Yes that's the point, you can't race to the bottom, when you are already there. And many of the new agencies have started out = we sell for less, and they also pay less, whether it's by short commissions or my less sales. And what are they selling? All the same images from all the same people. Contributors are competing with themselves and forcing the value of their own products down. They are clawing their way up a hill of slippery mud and "the wave" of price wars, market flooding and over-saturation that is flowing down upon them.

Helping the new small agencies does nothing for the viability of the market as a whole. It just produces weaker and more diluted distribution. You don't build a solid sales franchise by allowing uncontrolled distribution of your product. Stock photos are on all kinds of agencies and those agencies have partners and those partners do what? We don't even know much of the time. So in other words, mass distribution without any control or idea of where it's going, doesn't appeal to me. If someone steals an image, or uses one improperly, most people don't know where it came from. No control of ones own product and distribution. It might as well be free because it's uncontrolled.

I think the part that I find offensive is MicroStock agencies in general (yet another generalization) tend to ignore the artists who supply the materials and treat them more like slaves. You can't get a good honest response to a question at most sites. They don't list partners openly. Some that do answer, will just slap some BS on you, which has no basis in truth. They change the rules, payments and any darn thing they want, usually with minimal notice, and people can take it or go away.

So first off, new agencies provide nothing but a dilution of the current troubled market. Second they protect and prevent nothing, in fact they create more problems by making everything less valued and artists lose control of any possible tracking.

All a new agency does is give the false impression of greater income, which is achieved by being a parasite on the established agencies. You can move that dollar bill from one pocket to another all day long, and it's still only one dollar.  :D If you hurt the sales on the established agencies by feeding the little ones, it's like taking boards out of one home to build another. What you end up with is two weak dwellings instead of one strong one.

In the case of agencies, we don't need more weak ones, hope or empty promises, we need a few good ones that meet the needs of artists and consumers, which will get the support needed to stay strong for the future. Dilution and weakness is not  a way to build for the future.

lagereek

« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2012, 03:20 »
0
^ very, very true! all the smaller new coming agencies are in it for short term, basically robbing the established ones, quick buck and thats it. I am now refering to these really low earners, some ten of them that are just kind of hanging in there, etc.
In the long run this is detrimental to all of us.

CD123

« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2012, 05:45 »
0
+1 on that RacePhoto and still, with the pressure on income, as soon as a new one sticks its head out here, you see a flock of hopefuls still joining up.  ???

« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2012, 13:46 »
0
While I agree with much of what Racephoto says, it leads to the conclusion that we don't need any new agencies. In fact we DO need those new agencies in order to prevent the existing ones from becoming a small group of monopolies. That would eventually make the business model unsustainable for most contributors.

Most of those low earners will eventually fail but a very few will thrive and rise up to the middle and top tiers. I wish I knew which ones!

lagereek

« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2012, 01:08 »
0
No, wrong!  we dont need them. For starters, person exclusivity should never have been introduced into microstock,  from the very beginning, years back, with millions of images added every month, it was a joke. Image exclusivity, if that, would have been enough. This market, today, is out of hand. Exclusivity, is associated with RM, has always been.
We can blame ourselves to a certain extent, new agencies are popping up all over the place, what happens?  tons of contributors are queing up, spreading the same ports, same pics, same keywords to every one of them, diluting the entire market. I bet most buyers heads are spinning around in confusion.
So, we have given any joe-bloggs, carte-blanche, to start agencies, outlets everywhere, anytime, any place. Crazy!  
Anyone today, with a dubvious past or false intentions can open up shop,  fooling millions of newbies, even established members, resulting in a total dilution of the market, thay are here today, gone tomorrow.
The old adage, " a good picture will alway prevail"  has from the buyers point of view become, " where do I find the good pictures"?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 01:10 by lagereek »

RacePhoto

« Reply #49 on: March 06, 2012, 15:18 »
0
While I agree with much of what Racephoto says, it leads to the conclusion that we don't need any new agencies. In fact we DO need those new agencies in order to prevent the existing ones from becoming a small group of monopolies. That would eventually make the business model unsustainable for most contributors.

Most of those low earners will eventually fail but a very few will thrive and rise up to the middle and top tiers. I wish I knew which ones!

No we don't need more new agencies and I don't worry that my lawn will run out of dandelions if I clean them all out.  ;D Yeah, I could make wine with them if I had a bushel or two. That's microstock. But the ones who win are people with a few thousand images, the rest are just treading water, not making expenses, or getting a return on our time.

The new little agencies are a waste of time. They do nothing but dilute the market and force prices and commissions AND sales down at the established places. Parasites covers it just fine for me.

Really, you're worried about a monopoly. Honestly? There are 500 microstock agencies maybe 1000 and people are arguing we need more?

Sorry, but what we need is ten good ones that will compete for our work, pay properly, and respect contributors, not a bunch of rain in the ocean where we are as cheap as sand on the seashore.

Yes, if we knew which agency would succeed, it would be wonderful. Kind of like we can predict which photos will sell and which are really "pissing in the wind". But now and then out of the blue, something unexpected sells like hotcakes, and that's sure a nice surprise.

I'm a cynic and skeptic I admit it. I also dropped down to SS and IS and I'm quite happy not dealing with the quirks, manipulations and variations that some of the others toss at us. I have a couple of "real" jobs. So put me as Hobby Shooter. That means I'm very difference from the people who depend on income from Micro and are kind of over the barrel when the agencies screw with us. I can walk away, many others are dependent and being held hostage by economic necessity. Too bad, because I'd rather see a fair market based on work and talent, with rewards based on that and effort.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Google Wave

Started by digiology Off Topic

7 Replies
3748 Views
Last post May 30, 2009, 22:23
by null
93 Replies
26684 Views
Last post August 26, 2021, 10:50
by Uncle Pete
1 Replies
3202 Views
Last post August 10, 2021, 10:47
by For Real
46 Replies
19186 Views
Last post October 25, 2021, 15:54
by pancaketom
3 Replies
3661 Views
Last post September 06, 2021, 23:12
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors