MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What are the industry wide problems and what sollutions do you think there are?  (Read 14074 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2014, 22:41 »
0
I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.

Isn't lowering the entry-barrier how microstock started? Cheaper pictures because istock utilized decently-talented amateurs? Any agency with a strangely-high barrier to entry risks being undercut by an agency with a lower barrier and similar quality images. Again,  similar quality. Different quality should be a different market.

Also, you used the term "microstock" when Ed suggested *all* agencies. My whole point is that there are lots of different kinds of images, agencies, and picture-buying markets out there.  A blanket statement like Ed's is strange.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 01:13 by Ava Glass »


Uncle Pete

« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2014, 23:28 »
+2
So you are asking for specific problems and only want constructive responses? It's kind of a contradiction?

I will try with this. Aside from all the search, agencies, reviews, back door deals, agency subterfuge, lack of meaningful communications, in a few cases outright threatening contributors, and the usual. I would point out one major problem with Microstcok, that I don't understand and don't understand why people have accepted it from the start. In other words, a tacit approval and tolerance by artists, has allowed this to become the standard of the industry and that's why we don't get fair pay for fair work... it's why some agencies have become downright abusive, because some people are apparently so desperate that they can't quit or stand up for fair pay.

Here's the problem. 20% pay and lower, while the agency takes 80%. That's backwards. Even high price agents take 20%. Some auction houses will take 30% but don't charge a buyers premium. What does that have to do with Micro?

If the agencies gave a fair commission, most of the rest of the problems, would be tolerable and livable. If people got paid for their work, it would be much nicer to have agencies, ignore questions and issues.

So that's the problem. Not "PAY" but commission rates for work. The 20% and in many cases less is slave labor. And since you asked, the answer is 50% commissions for artists, or more.

Which makes me ask, why hasn't some agency come into the market at 50% and just slaughtered the rest, because everyone who can produce anything would be banging on their door, begging to get in! The agency could have tough standards and reviews and it would still be buried with submissions, from now on. Buyers would know that only the best of the best is licensed and the artists get a fair percentage.

Best of all, it would start to force other agencies to pay better, or leave the market, which would solve two other problems. Price cutting and too many agencies. All selling the same images, trying to win the race to the bottom!

So there's my problem and the solution is someone in control, break out and give artists 50%, which will turn the entire Microstock World on it's head.

Everyone wins, except the parasites and bottom feeder agencies.







The title of the thread says it all, please only post if you have something constructive to say.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 23:31 by Uncle Pete »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2014, 23:44 »
+1
It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.

DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?

Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better...  ::)

  DPC did change because of contributor action.

« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2014, 00:13 »
+1

Which makes me ask, why hasn't some agency come into the market at 50%


There have been, like Pond5, but they're full of the same images as the big microstock sites, so there really isn't much of a reason for customers to leave their pre-existing accounts, subscriptions, and credit packs.

I don't understand why people upload the same images to Alamy, 500px, or Pond5 as they do to DepositPhotos.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 00:16 by Ava Glass »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2014, 00:19 »
+2
the problem is very simple :

the Sales vs Supply ratio is totally unbalanced !

the number of images on sale should be limited to the number of images sold, for instance 1000 images per each sale they make per month ... 1 million sales --> 100 millions images on archive.

instead now their archive will grow and grow limitless until they reach billions of images like Flickr !

and of course nobody will make a dime, even people having 50K or 100K images will scratch the bottom of the barrel.

by the way, considering this is the obvious outcome sooner or later, what's the point for agencies of doing QC at all and wasting time and money ?

and on top of this, what's the point for us uploading new stuff when we know they'll never sell due to oversupply and saturation ?

and this not to mention the keyword spamming and piracy.

« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2014, 07:05 »
0
It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.

DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?

Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better...  ::)

  DPC did change because of contributor action.
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will.  Is that correct? 

Ed

« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2014, 08:29 »
-2
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?

I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.

EXACTLY!!!!

How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image?  Just 1?  100?  500?

Do you see my point?  The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images. 

Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside.  That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero.  It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.

« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2014, 09:04 »
0
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?

I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.

EXACTLY!!!!

How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image?  Just 1?  100?  500?

Do you see my point?  The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images. 

Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside.  That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero.  It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
I don't think change will come from agencies limiting new contributors, at this point there really is no incentive to do that.  Agencies are trying to get the largest number of images for a variety of reasons.  Waiting for them to change their mind doesn't seem like real solution.

« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2014, 09:25 »
+1
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?

I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.

EXACTLY!!!!

How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image?  Just 1?  100?  500?

Do you see my point?  The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images. 

Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside.  That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero.  It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
I don't think change will come from agencies limiting new contributors, at this point there really is no incentive to do that.  Agencies are trying to get the largest number of images for a variety of reasons.  Waiting for them to change their mind doesn't seem like real solution.

There is something to be said for new agencies trying it. Stocksy and Clipartof seem like they have had success with a similar strategy.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2014, 09:26 »
+2
How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?

« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2014, 09:31 »
+2
How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?
Depends on the problem we're talking about.
A solution to oversupply could be something like Stocksy.
A solution to subs could be for contributors to join together and only supply sites that don't have subs or sites that have better pricing for subs.  A petition with the threat of taking down images or stopping uploading unless royalties are raised is another possibility.
A solution to general problems could be a union.
A solution for some problems like the DPC deal for example could be to compile an email list to alert contributors of the change.  Some of these deals and programs are probably unknown to a majority of contributors.
There are lots of possibilities but one that I do not think will get us anywhere is waiting for agencies to have a change of heart on their own.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 09:37 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2014, 09:40 »
0
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?

I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.

EXACTLY!!!!

How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image?  Just 1?  100?  500?

Do you see my point?  The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images. 

Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside.  That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero.  It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
I don't think change will come from agencies limiting new contributors, at this point there really is no incentive to do that.  Agencies are trying to get the largest number of images for a variety of reasons.  Waiting for them to change their mind doesn't seem like real solution.

There is something to be said for new agencies trying it. Stocksy and Clipartof seem like they have had success with a similar strategy.
Is clipartof an exclusive only agency?  I think in order to control supply it would need to be.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2014, 09:56 »
+4
How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?
Depends on the problem we're talking about.
A solution to oversupply could be something like Stocksy.
A solution to subs could be for contributors to join together and only supply sites that don't have subs or sites that have better pricing for subs.  A petition with the threat of taking down images or stopping uploading unless royalties are raised is another possibility.
A solution to general problems could be a union.
A solution for some problems like the DPC deal for example could be to compile an email list to alert contributors of the change.  Some of these deals and programs are probably unknown to a majority of contributors.
There are lots of possibilities but one that I do not think will get us anywhere is waiting for agencies to have a change of heart on their own.

Well, Stocksy already exists. For the few who can get in, that's a good thing. For the rest of us, not so much. Same with Creative Market for illustrators.

On subs I disagree with you, because subs opened up a new market for sellers, targeting people who couldn't afford stock images previously. And for many of us subs make up a substantial portion of our income. If you don't want your images sold as subs, then absolutely don't upload to the agencies who offer them. But for many of us that's not an option right now. Asking for a royalties raise, absolutely, yes.

A union's a good idea, but not sure how that would work with an international membership.

Compiling an email list for actions against things like DPC, yes.

Overall, I think "supporting" "good agencies" (those who offer a better royalty rate) probably won't work, because the largest agencies are the best at marketing, and no amount of images or support from contributors will make an agency better at marketing. That has to come from within the corporate structure.

Starving agencies of images may or may not work. One place in particular has 66,000 contributors...it would take an awful lot of people to starve them of anything. But for a nasty startup like DPC, that can absolutely work.






« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2014, 10:03 »
0
Well, Stocksy already exists. For the few who can get in, that's a good thing. For the rest of us, not so much. Same with Creative Market for illustrators.

On subs I disagree with you, because subs opened up a new market for sellers, targeting people who couldn't afford stock images previously. And for many of us subs make up a substantial portion of our income. If you don't want your images sold as subs, then absolutely don't upload to the agencies who offer them. But for many of us that's not an option right now. Asking for a royalties raise, absolutely, yes.

A union's a good idea, but not sure how that would work with an international membership.

Compiling an email list for actions against things like DPC, yes.

Overall, I think "supporting" "good agencies" (those who offer a better royalty rate) probably won't work, because the largest agencies are the best at marketing, and no amount of images or support from contributors will make an agency better at marketing. That has to come from within the corporate structure.

Starving agencies of images may or may not work. One place in particular has 66,000 contributors...it would take an awful lot of people to starve them of anything. But for a nasty startup like DPC, that can absolutely work.
About subs, I'm not completely opposed to them in principle.  I'm opposed to the low pricing and low royalties.  I also don't think that subs are really for poor small time artists when a sub plan costs thousands of dollars a year for thousands of images.  I think we can all agree that many of the customers of subs plans are huge companies that could easily afford to pay much much more.   To keep up my blog I probably wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars a month on images.  On the other hand a plan like DPC would really work for small time people that couldn't afford to buy images, I think that probably does open up the market but again at what cost?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2014, 10:11 »
+1
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.

As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.

« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2014, 10:32 »
+2
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.

As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.
I think it's reasonable to ask for pricing to be raised and royalties to be raised.

« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2014, 10:46 »
+1
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.

As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.


and here's the irony.. ie. smaller ad agencies buying subs.
they make lots of money ,these penny-pinchers , paying peanuts to us.
i am sure they are not creating ads from our images and earning 33-38 cts or even $28 per ad.

it's like the old saying where the old-school business person would not only expect to be paid fairly,
but also to pay someone else a fair wage or fair sum for dealing with each other.

  if only these small ad agencies and SS, IS think like that,
we would not be in this pathetic situation today, would we?

instead we continue to read of how xxx sold their business at walked away with a bundle of cash,
and each quarterly nets profit of millions, supplying millions of images, bla bla bla..
and then in the same breath cockily expects the contributors to be paid pennies
.

or worst, give away their work for free.


if tomorrow, Oringer says SS will no longer do subs, and the cheapest image will earn contributors a minimum of $2, or whatever that is not 33 cts.
do u think the clients will run away to elsewhere
if we all do not cannibalize our work and give it to only another site which earns a photographer more than $2?

i highly doubt that. sure there will be lots of newbies giving away their work,
but their work will not be what the clients readily needs or will pay for.

my tuppence thoughts. but i won't hold my breath.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 10:54 by etudiante_rapide »


Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2014, 11:06 »
+2
and here's the irony.. ie. smaller ad agencies buying subs.
they make lots of money ,these penny-pinchers , paying peanuts to us.
i am sure they are not creating ads from our images and earning 33-38 cts or even $28 per ad.

I've worked at ad agencies big and small, from multinational conglomerates with hundreds of thousands of employees to small mom and pop shops with 50 or so employees. None used subs. They charge their clients for images...they don't pay for the images themselves. That's why Shutterstock has introduced relatively new buying options...they're targeting the ad agencies who buy images one at a time.

Quote

if tomorrow, Oringer says SS will no longer do subs, and the cheapest image will earn contributors a minimum of $2, or whatever that is not 33 cts.
do u think the clients will run away to elsewhere

Yes. I believe they would. Why not? Everyone else offers subs now.

Photominer

« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2014, 11:14 »
+1
I think a price/quality tier system would work for the right agency. Good curation could then give control to the contributor on whether they are happy with their image being sold at a particular price point (ie. a submission is graded by the reviewer, and the shooter accepts or declines the placement). That way it is entirely up to the contributor on whether they want to sell an image for a dollar, or 5, or for subs, or whatever.

Add in a 50% commission for exclusive images (not exclusive contributors) and there you go. Some agency out there will scoop the competition, if they have enough buyers.

And yes, I believe that it's a pipe dream at this point.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2014, 11:28 »
+1
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.

As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.
I think it's reasonable to ask for pricing to be raised and royalties to be raised.

So far it seems we agree on a couple of things.

1. Compiling an email list of contributors to get in touch with about actions against agencies who act egregiously. This would have to be opt-in, not opt-out, and used sparingly...otherwise the emails would just annoy people.

2. Asking for higher royalties from some agencies. Here you'd have to have people agree who to ask, and you'd need some sort of organization of people to present the request. Plus a substantial number of people backing you (hence the idea of an online petition). And the request would have to be reasonable and negotiable.

« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2014, 11:29 »
0
as they say, one can only control one's own path, ... ie. only each of us can decide when to turn off the tap for subs .
let's say if tomorrow, a new site which provides us with the option of sub/higher price, like photominer 's pipe-dream, and they have the pull of the market with sales .

i would put all my exisiting work there, and remove the ones that i do not wish to earn sub commission at ss,is, ...

whether the others will do the same does not matter to me. it only matters that there is an agency which is earning money for me where i can choose to opt out on subs or not.

the pipe-dream being, that agency will have to be ss, as for now, only ss has the clientele.
but tomorrow, someone else may be daring enough to challenge that,
and also have the pull of the clientele.

i don't know anyone yet to be able to do this. thus, we smoke on ... like the natives around the sweet grass while great white bwana colonialists take their land away. *(sad analogy with micro today).


« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2014, 11:35 »
0


1. Compiling an email list of contributors to get in touch with about actions against agencies who act egregiously. This would have to be opt-in, not opt-out, and used sparingly...otherwise the emails would just annoy people.

2. Asking for higher royalties from some agencies. Here you'd have to have people agree who to ask, and you'd need some sort of organization of people to present the request. Plus a substantial number of people backing you (hence the idea of an online petition). And the request would have to be reasonable and negotiable.

yes, but i think the natives (of india -ie. lagaan history, africa, canada -ie riel,etc... or the chinese in hong kong, taiwan,etc.. with their qing vs sun revolution ) tried the same thing,
and ended up being blown to bits!!!

not sure if u will find too many non-lemmings for that.
when most won't even pluck the courage to voice against the  robot-renegade atilla re the pages and pages at said agency's forum and here  ;)

still make a good pipe-dream though.
the only solution is a new agency with the stomach and smarts to pull the market-rug from under the feet of ss/is/etc..
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 11:38 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2014, 12:26 »
+5
It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.

DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?

Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better...  ::)

  DPC did change because of contributor action.
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will.  Is that correct?

that's quite a leap from Pete's statement!

the problem with collective action here is that there are THOUSANDS of contributors, so until you find a way to mobilize a large portion of that group no collective action can have much effect on the agencies -- witness the countless calls for creating co-ops, etc here and the minimal response.  if we can't get a large group working hewre, how are you going to reach the many more who don't come thru MSG but just submit quietly?

it's not that it can't work, it's that no one has found a way to get it started

« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2014, 16:29 »
+4
At the end of the day it's supply and demand and there is no shortage of supply.  This affects everything in the internet age from music to movies to stock photos to porn.  Anyone who submits to stock agencies who thinks that artistic merit has the slightest relevance is kidding himself.  Is there a solution? - probably not.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2014, 22:13 »
+3
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.

There's a big protest and they say, OK we don't own the rights and we'll give you 10%. (which sucks as it should be 80 - 20 in our behalf) And people like you will say "We won, we got 10% out of them." Yeah, nice move.

Tell me what happened to DPC that was victory? Opt out allowed. Whoopee! It should have been by choice from the start.

And here's the important question for Unions, groups, collective actions and co-ops for Microstock. What is your power and bargaining tool?

How will you pressure any agency that has too many images, too many content providers and if people collectively removed content in protest, the agency has thousands of other people, willing to work for peanuts and spare change. How do you negotiate with nothing to bargain with?

What's the power that will make the agencies give us a fair percentage? I want to know.

Is clipartof an exclusive only agency?  I think in order to control supply it would need to be.

You don't know how Clipartof works? But you have an opinion of the site?

It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.

DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?

Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better...  ::)

  DPC did change because of contributor action.
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will.  Is that correct?

ps I like SS and I like the money I get from them, including subs, so when people list it as the cause for almost all problems, I think that's misguided. The problem, in my opinion, is over supply and under compensation. People don't get paid a fair wage for fair work, and especially people who produce higher quality images, and make even less margin for their investment.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7398 Views
Last post July 27, 2008, 12:35
by basti
8 Replies
5316 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 10:43
by BaldricksTrousers
4 Replies
2709 Views
Last post August 07, 2014, 22:27
by elvinstar
15 Replies
10156 Views
Last post October 26, 2015, 18:06
by DavidZydd
29 Replies
14436 Views
Last post December 23, 2016, 19:03
by spike

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors