MicrostockGroup

Was Lucky Oliver in 2009?


-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com
 

I thought it was Summer 2008. How the time flies when we are having fun? 

I hate to start the new year with a wet blanket and a pitcher of water thrown in the face, Zymmetrical had some good ideas and smart people, but they saw the future. Crestock is one of the older established sites, not a new foundering wannabe offering. Don't have a clue about picture nation except, months of, just wait here, we'll be right back. 

Albumo was a no show from the get go, and Snap was really merged and transformed by design, who knows if it could have held up or not.

I know I'm boring but the new independent sites are like driving backwards down a one way street with your lights off. You know it's wrong and you know what's likely to happen, but with no lights, you don't have to see the crash that's inevitable. 

We don't know if StockXpert is going out, but it has been sold. BigStock is no longer independent. What does that leave? The big four viable microstock sites, maybe three and the Grand Canyon as the chasm the rest will have to leap, to catch up and be on the long term profitable side.

Before someone mentions Veer and Alamy, they aren't micro!

Gee, I feel we should have a moving retrospective photo montage, accompanied by some poignant music, or something.  Like at awards shows...   

 

That would be a VERY wonderful thing!

Great, I'm all for it. Something about StockXpert just makes them friendly to work with. I don't know how a website or a bunch of anonymous reviewers can be "friendly" but right after SS and IS, StockXpert is my next favorite. First two for sales, last one for personality.


Then what about the rest of the "new sites" that are smaller than the ones that just closed? No investors, no views, no sales, what's keeping them going? I predict 2010 will see twice as many of the non-viable (garage and basement type) agencies giving up the battle. I continue to be baffled by people who subscribe, send in photos, work their butts off contributing, complain about rejections and sales, sites in beta forever, lack of communication, crummy websites, lousy searches, and then realize after two years that they either got stiffed or made some tiny return for all the work.

Why do people keep thinking that some new site coming around the corner will be any different than the last 50 that have blown away in the wind. Lack of funding? Digital Railroad lost $7 Million dollars! Mom and Pop in the basement like the newest entry from GB, that lists a residential address (I can see a pool in the back yard). Why does anyone think the new agency is going to somehow be a magic mushroom and be able to grow from apparently nothing and compete with the giants Getty and Corbis?

Please someone give me some logical argument that supports how any underfunded, new agency, will ever make it past two or three years of losing money. The established, small agencies are dropping off the map!

Oh yes, one more question: Publitek, Inc., dba Fotosearch, is one of the largest stock image agencies in the world, representing more than 100 royalty free agencies and more than 4 million photos. How are things improving at Canstock after a year under the wing of Fotosearch. Anyone see a jump in sales and income? 

Yes a little too late, I also felt that Zymmetrical had a good concept and were people who had ideas about the way to do things right and understood the market. That's what makes me go bonkers when someone in their basement just barfs up some code and calls them self an agency. But I beat my head on the desk when I see the wise people here, who fall for the same pitch, time after time, and support the fly by night new sites.

That's not to say people shouldn't look and evaluate when something good does come along, but empty promises should be ignored, not supported.

Never mind, I think I've beat this dead horse enough. I'll try to stifle my urge to comment in the future.