How do you feel about paying more and getting less in return?

[Ed]

Something that's been bugging the heck out of me as of late...and why I keep leaving more and more micro agencies (I've dropped 8 microstock agencies since the first of the year).

Seems to me that a lot of folks have lost site of the agent => client relationship. 

We pay our agents in the form of a commission to represent our images.  Lately, our agents have been raising their fees to us (dropping commission down to 20% or less) and they've been raising prices toward their customers (image prices have gone up at places like iStock and Dreamstime).  I'm also seeing, in a lot of instances, less images being licensed despite the fees we pay our agents going up.

So in essence, we are paying more to get represented, and we are getting less in return...and the constant response we get from agents (and other folks caught in this trap) is that we need to upload more.  Does this sit right with folks?

It doesn't sit right with me.

[rubyroo]

No, it doesn't sit right with me at all.  I find it very demoralising, and it's certainly not what I expected when I joined this venture.

I don't really have the energy, time or mental space to do anything about it though, so I just keep hoping that either:

a)  They will realise that they will get far greater enthusiasm and productivity from creatives that feel respected and well-renumerated.

or

b)  Karma will get them 

[ShadySue]

b)  Karma will get them  

And, if even that should fail, Hell Mend'em.

[rubyroo]

 

Good to have a contingency plan!

[BaldricksTrousers]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

[lisafx]

No, it doesn't sit right with me at all.  I find it very demoralising, and it's certainly not what I expected when I joined this venture.

I don't really have the energy, time or mental space to do anything about it though, so I just keep hoping that either:

a)  They will realise that they will get far greater enthusiasm and productivity from creatives that feel respected and well-renumerated.

or

b)  Karma will get them 

The above sums up my feelings exactly.  I have invested quite a lot of time, energy (both creative and physical) and money in building a fairly large and marketable stock portfolio for the last 7 years.  I had hoped at some point to be able to cut back my hours and enjoy the fruits of my labor.  Instead, I see my income plummeting as the agencies compete with eachother on how hard they can squeeze their contributors.  

Bottom line is, I don't want to become an image factory.  It would take away everything I enjoy about doing stock - the creative aspects, the personal touches, the flexible hours.  Short of being able to double or triple production, I don't see how I can possibly continue to make a living at this for the long term.  

And when people like Yuri and Andres are feeling squeezed by the micro agencies, something has gone horribly wrong.    

[ShadySue]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

True, but this thread is not about that, it's about the way the agencies are charging more, but paying us less or the same.

[lisafx]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

This makes sense, and I think it was something many of us understood and were prepared for.  What I (and probably others) wasn't prepared for was the way the agencies have grabbed back more commissions for themselves, and manipulated their search engines to boost their profits at the expense of their better selling artists.  The law of diminishing returns is inevitable and can't be helped.  The law of screwing the contributor is a much more immediate threat.

[Ed]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

I disagree.  I've been spending a lot of time lately looking for agencies that pay 50 - 60% commission....and with a lot of work, I am finding them and getting accepted to them (gradually).  Take a look at the size of the Alamy collection - 30.8 MILLION stock photos.  Sure, prices of images licensed are down (which makes sense based on your analogy above) but the commission percentage is constant.

I am paying the same amount, and getting back what the market is willing to pay.  I'm not paying more...and getting less.

The issue is, these agencies will not accept images that are on the micros and some of these images require a file size of 12mp or larger of which my older stuff doesn't qualify.

[ShadySue]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

I disagree.  I've been spending a lot of time lately looking for agencies that pay 50 - 60% commission....and with a lot of work, I am finding them and getting accepted to them (gradually).  Take a look at the size of the Alamy collection - 30.8 MILLION stock photos.  Sure, prices of images licensed are down (which makes sense based on your analogy above) but the commission percentage is constant.

Even on Alamy the %age is down compared to a few years ago - IIRC, it was cut to provide funds to set up a US office.
And don't forget that the prices on the macros are decreasing because of micro prices as well as saturation of the market.
'If only' Alamy had marketed themselves better: macro prices (then), but with a much more democratic acceptance of contributors - would iStock even have gained a foothold, far less the later entrants?

[Ed]

Sue - Alamy Blue is the current contract - and has been since 2006 if I remember right.  The difference is there was a monthly storage fee charged to contributors perviously.

The only agency that I know of that had a commission greater than 60% (what Alamy currently pays) was Photoshelter when they had their stock agency in 2007.  I uploaded like crazy there, but the agency went under and they went back to what it is today.

The thing is, I'm not talking about prices specifically....40% paid to Alamy is much different than 80% paid to a micro - especially when it comes to non-exclusive images.

I also don't think it would be as big of an issue if we received a return in the form of volume sales to make up for the differences.  All I'm seeing in the form of increased sales relates to increased images in portfolio. I'm not seeing a net increase in sales based on sales volume.  Whether I have 100 images in a portfolio and I sell one per month, or I have 1,000 images ina  portfolio and sell 10 per month, there is no visible change in effort with relation to representing my portfolio coming from the agency.  The only effort is from the photographer who is killing himself/herself to keep up with the higher charges in the form of commission to increase net revenue.

[BaldricksTrousers]

I'm also seeing, in a lot of instances, less images being licensed despite the fees we pay our agents going up.

Ed, I was responding to this bit of your original post. There is a reason fewer images (from big portfolios) are being licensed. Overall, I presume the number being licensed is still increasing but the sales are spread more thinly.

As for the cuts in commission rates, I think seeking opinions on that here is a bit like asking the College of Cardinals whether they think God exists. The only difference being that you can be 100% sure that people here saying that they resent the treatment they are getting from the agencies are telling the truth.

[Jo Ann Snover]

I don't like it, is the short answer.

But like most relationships, the issue is who has the power, and unfortunately, contributors don't have much. Even if existing microstocck contributors acted together and pulled our portfolios, it wouldn't take the agencies long to recruit more people to take more pictures of handshakes and goldfish jumping and pretty women in phone headsets. At the beginning of the micros, the agencies wanted to build their business and those of us willing to supply them were treated better because they needed us and it was a bit of a gamble as to whether anything would pay off. With success the agencies became very greedy and took more because they could get away with it (and I would note that some are definitely worse than others, with SS remaining a lot less awful than the group as a whole).

But that says it all, IMO - the best we can do at the moment is celebrate the least awful agency, spread our work across multiple agencies, avoid the bottom feeders and keep an eye out for any good new opportunities. I don't know that I have the energy to build a whole new portfolio for any agency or group - my thought is that even if that worked for a bit, once they got successful, the cycle would repeat. I can make a decent part time income from this and the flexibility suits me.

And I do have a deep wish that Karma will get the slimebuckets who took a good thing and effed it up for contributors to line their own pockets.

[BaldricksTrousers]

And I do have a deep wish that Karma will get the slimebuckets who took a good thing and effed it up for contributors to line their own pockets.

Wasn't it inevitable that it would get effed up? If they treated the contributors better then even more hopefuls would climb on the bandwagon, speeding up the dilution of sales. I bet that the proportion of people who join up now and then drop out because of dissappointing return on effort is far higher than it was at the beginning. I really find it quite hard to imagine any newbie getting a decent foothold these days.

[stockastic]

I've accepted that these "agencies"  (and I use the term loosely) will only continue to exploit this dysfunctional market,  and will never give me a reasonable return on any time spent creating products for them.  It's only going to get worse.

I've lost most of my interest in stock; I only do a photo now and then if I see an easy opportunity, or something I like.

The internet itself has created this situation, where consumers and suppliers never find each other and are dependent on a handful of middlemen who take an outrageous percentage and add little value.

Something else has to come along, to replace microstock - a new way to connect buyers and photographers.  It will happen eventually.  The internet created the problem, it will also create the solution.

[cthoman]

I suppose it is better than charging less and getting paid less.

[Elenathewise]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

True, but this thread is not about that, it's about the way the agencies are charging more, but paying us less or the same.

The equilibrium idea still holds in this case. If we have diminishing returns because of number of images on the market, and also get diminishing returns from cut commissions - this will actually speed up the arrival of the equilibrium. If noone will care to submit images anymore the agencies will have to face a problem of stagnant libraries and the only way to deal with that is to attract more submitters by ... well, increasing commissions for example. What we're seeing now is just the burst of a microstock bubble and it hurts; but it will get to "mature" state  eventually.

[JPSDK]

There are many things in this business I do not like.
First the agencies share, should be 50% not more. Thre rest is greed and neither decent nor just.
Second, they should take the responsibility of their trade and NOT pass frauds and losses onto the contributers.
Third, all the search engine secrecy, sucks. I would like to know, how my pictures are found, or not, so I can make a qualified decision to not sell via this and that agency.
Fourth, the agencies should take responsibility and protect our copyright better.
Their extreme arrogance.
Some agencies discrimination of unfavoured races of contributers, both with searches and review, is very annoying.

Compare it to a physical store.
It is the store that take the risk with credit cards and shoplifters, not the deliverer of oatmeals, since he has no chance in protecting himself. Same here, we cannot protect ourselves when we have no acces to the system.
If you sell oatmeal to a physical store, you can visit the store and see where your good is placed and how the costumers find it. The complex and obscure search machines give you no chance of insight in how the machines work. They claim it is to be competitive in the market. That is not true, the purpose of the secrecy is only to keep the contributers in darkness.

So conclusion: we are being taken the piss on, and thats possible because we are part of a greedy global crowdsourcing program, with ever increasing crowds and no oppertunity to make any demands from our side.
Not decent, not just.
Just like the rest of the world.
it will first stop, when all phiotographers in the world has been exploited and when the hourly wages have stabilized on a global uniform (low) level, and that will take 20 years at least.
Globalisation.
Nice word isnt it?

[gbalex]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

This makes sense, and I think it was something many of us understood and were prepared for.  What I (and probably others) wasn't prepared for was the way the agencies have grabbed back more commissions for themselves, and manipulated their search engines to boost their profits at the expense of their better selling artists.  The law of diminishing returns is inevitable and can't be helped.  The law of screwing the contributor is a much more immediate threat.

I could not have said it better myself!

[Batman]

It stinks, of course, but anyone going into this should understand that the rate of growth of the collections is bound to outpace the rate of growth of established individual portfolios as well as the growth in the market for images. That means that, long term, the return to artists will eventually fall - unless, that is, the low return deters people so much that an equilibium between the growth of the market and the growth of the size of the collections is arrived at.

I disagree.  I've been spending a lot of time lately looking for agencies that pay 50 - 60% commission....and with a lot of work, I am finding them and getting accepted to them (gradually).  Take a look at the size of the Alamy collection - 30.8 MILLION stock photos.  Sure, prices of images licensed are down (which makes sense based on your analogy above) but the commission percentage is constant.

Even on Alamy the %age is down compared to a few years ago - IIRC, it was cut to provide funds to set up a US office.
And don't forget that the prices on the macros are decreasing because of micro prices as well as saturation of the market.
'If only' Alamy had marketed themselves better: macro prices (then), but with a much more democratic acceptance of contributors - would iStock even have gained a foothold, far less the later entrants?

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008  To fund the extra costs of operating in the US, the company is planning to increase its commission fee by five per cent. Distributor sales commission will also go up by five per cent. The increases will apply once the US sales team has been recruited.

However, Alamy will be discontinuing some of the charges that contributors pay such as bank transfer and cheque fees and the one per cent foreign exchange fee on accounts not paid in dollars.

Sue you complain about all Alamy. They will get more sales and more income by investing in marketing and you complain. Yes they took 5% to pay for new office, reduced other fee. Make us more money.

You receive 60% of the sale and Alamy receive 40%. There are no other fees associated with submitting or storing your images. 60% and you are complaining.

[sharpshot]

We all know the problem with microstock, there's hundreds of threads about it here now.  What we need is a way to be able to carry on selling a decent volume of images in 10 years time for a reasonable commission.  It looks like higher prices and lower commissions hasn't been a success but there's no sign of an end to it.

So how can things improve?  Perhaps if Google started a site with at least 50% commission and wiped out all the greedy sites?  I can't see that happening.  We could start our own site and only submit to that until the other sites offer us 50%.  That doesn't seem possible.  The only hope I have is for a new site to come along that does things much differently to microstock and has the ethics of sites like alamy.  I think it should be possible to make a site that's better for contributors and buyers than the current sites.  The problem is that all the new sites since 2005 have either followed the formula that was started with the original sites or they've come up with something different that was never going to work.  I just hope there's someone out there that can shake this industry up, like istock did but doesn't want to focus on ripping off contributors.

[Mantis]

We all know the problem with microstock, there's hundreds of threads about it here now.  What we need is a way to be able to carry on selling a decent volume of images in 10 years time for a reasonable commission. 

Amen!!