pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Take Advantage of the Moment  (Read 6400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 21, 2013, 17:21 »
0
There have never been darker days for contributors in microstock. With the recent Google-Getty fiasco, and 123RF slashing commissions, it seems we are at an important juncture. Either we stand up for the value of our artistry now, or we let microstock agencies ruin this industry for us.

I posted in the iStock D-Day thread, and also in the Link Exchange thread, that I wrote an article on this topic for Warmpicture. At the end of the article, I included a Call-To-Action for image purchasers who want to see agencies taken to task for how artists have been treated, while their own prices kept going higher. It includes a list to all of our websites.

This is a good first step. I can promote this article to our Facebook following (600+ and growing fast) and Twitter (2000+). Many of our connections are our direct audience - graphic designers and bloggers. They need to know what is happening, and that there is an opportunity to purchase images direct from us, the same way that they can buy produce from the local farmer's market and tell Wal-Mart to shove it.

But it won't make a big difference.

What is required is a continual effort. Since many of you have websites, I assume you have blogs too. You certainly should. This is the perfect opportunity to talk about artist exploitation.

In my view, each article should lay out the facts as we know them, and inspire our buyers (many are  fellow artists) to change allegiance. It should have a clear Call-To-Action, and a link list (or at least a link to a link list).

Eventually when someone searches Google for a source of stock images, they start to see a few articles talking about the treatment of artists, and alternative websites. One article doesn't make a difference. But many will. Word spreads. Buyers realize they can get the same images less expensively elsewhere, and directly support their fellow artists. All the while they get to tell "Wal-Mart" to shove it.

Let's use this thread to list articles which promote our efforts, and why we choose to sell direct rather than through an agency. List them as you write them. Push it through social media. In time, we can get this ball rolling.


Poncke

« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2013, 17:30 »
0
What about the people that dont sell direct? They are as much affected as anyone else?

« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2013, 17:40 »
0
Any loss of agency sales as a result of publication of their abuse of artists, will discourage further abuses. So I believe anything we can do to get this story into the mainstream will be to your benefit. Regardless of whether or not you choose to sell stock from your own site.

Poncke

« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2013, 17:45 »
0
Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2013, 17:50 »
0
Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

I think that more and more of the masses have been putting up their own site. Some just point their images to their agency (like Sean points to istock right now) but others sell direct too, like lisafx. It's the Plan Bs that many have been doing over the past year.

« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2013, 18:00 »
0
I shared your blog post on Facebook, with a small note.  I don't have a blog, but am looking at setting one up (as part of a suite of activities in preparation for the potential of walking away from iStock).

I tweeted it too, using the hashtags #istock #googlefail and #getty. All of them are existing tags and my thinking was it might be more help to get the word out to use tags that already have "currency". Having our own hashtag would let us see how we were doing if we got masses of people involved (anyone remember #istock10 which briefly beat that doofus Justin Bieber?)
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 20:14 by jsnover »

Poncke

« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2013, 18:05 »
+1
Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

I think that more and more of the masses have been putting up their own site. Some just point their images to their agency (like Sean points to istock right now) but others sell direct too, like lisafx. It's the Plan Bs that many have been doing over the past year.
I really think not. 50 or 100 people is not masses. I think if this is a movement, you cant single out a group of photographers to benefit from this. Its about all of us, not the ones selling direct.

I am all for action, but action that benefits all.

I am not knocking the promotion of links on Warm Picture blog, I am talking about making this whole IS debacle about selling direct.

« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2013, 18:15 »
+3
Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

I think that more and more of the masses have been putting up their own site. Some just point their images to their agency (like Sean points to istock right now) but others sell direct too, like lisafx. It's the Plan Bs that many have been doing over the past year.
I really think not. 50 or 100 people is not masses. I think if this is a movement, you cant single out a group of photographers to benefit from this. Its about all of us, not the ones selling direct.

I am all for action, but action that benefits all.

I am not knocking the promotion of links on Warm Picture blog, I am talking about making this whole IS debacle about selling direct.

I don't really understand your point. I think Dan is just saying do whatever to get the word out. He has an "agency" site, so he is using that. Some people have their own sites. If they do, use that. If you don't have your own site and aren't selling direct, get the word out any way you can.

As far as the masses getting the ball rolling, the first and foremost reason ANYONE should be removing their images from istockgetty is to stop them from being given away in the getty/google deal, as well as any other deals coming down the pike. The rest of it...getting buyers and anyone else in the industry (the masses?), is going to help prevent other agencies from thinking they can get away with this too.

Poncke

« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2013, 18:22 »
0
Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

I think that more and more of the masses have been putting up their own site. Some just point their images to their agency (like Sean points to istock right now) but others sell direct too, like lisafx. It's the Plan Bs that many have been doing over the past year.
I really think not. 50 or 100 people is not masses. I think if this is a movement, you cant single out a group of photographers to benefit from this. Its about all of us, not the ones selling direct.

I am all for action, but action that benefits all.

I am not knocking the promotion of links on Warm Picture blog, I am talking about making this whole IS debacle about selling direct.

I don't really understand your point. I think Dan is just saying do whatever to get the word out. He has an "agency" site, so he is using that. Some people have their own sites. If they do, use that. If you don't have your own site and aren't selling direct, get the word out any way you can.

As far as the masses getting the ball rolling, the first and foremost reason ANYONE should be removing their images from istockgetty is to stop them from being given away in the getty/google deal, as well as any other deals coming down the pike. The rest of it...getting buyers and anyone else in the industry (the masses?), is going to help prevent other agencies from thinking they can get away with this too.
Read the OP again, its about promoting selling images direct. I did all the stuff already, posting on facebook and blogging about it and deleted my port from IS. I am not against Dan, WP or promoting direct links. All I am saying is that this should not be about promoting one small group of photographers who sell direct.

I am sorry for taking this thread OT, I will leave it for what it is.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2013, 18:25 »
+1
I am all for action, but action that benefits all.
There is no action that benefits all.
We all have our own canoe to paddle, and we all have different desired outcomes, which may be quite different to each other's.
I've been reading some suggestions in various places about what the ideal site would look like, and none of them fit my ideal.
Some people will do well through selling at their own sites, and that's great. Wouldn't work for me, but I wish all the best for those who do it.

What action would you suggest would benefit 'all'?
I think the model is to have a variety of actions, and people join in or don't, as they feel matches their desired outcomes.
Try to pressure people, and they'll just bow out and go their own way. Which is also OK.

Poncke

« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2013, 18:31 »
0
Sure,  I shouldnt have said benefits all, it thought it was about IS stopping giving away images. Not about a call to sell only images direct and pull buyers away from all agencies.

Never mind, I wont bring it up again.

« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2013, 15:30 »
0
Great article by Denis Pepin -

http://www.denispepin.com/google-and-getty-licensing-deal

Keep punching!

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2013, 18:02 »
+3
I think if this is a movement, you cant single out a group of photographers to benefit from this. Its about all of us, not the ones selling direct.

I am all for action, but action that benefits all.

I am not knocking the promotion of links on Warm Picture blog, I am talking about making this whole IS debacle about selling direct.

Poncke, I think you have made an excellent point.  Dan's idea about spreading the word and directing buyers to fair trade sites is what's important, whether they are artist owned or not, IMO. 

Perhaps those who want to blog, tweet, facebook, etc. about this could make a list of the (few) fair trade micro agencies out there that pay artists 50%, such as GLimages, and StockFresh.   That way any readers of their blog would know where to find their images at a site that supports the artists. 


EmberMike

« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2013, 20:21 »
+3
Poncke, I think you have made an excellent point.  Dan's idea about spreading the word and directing buyers to fair trade sites is what's important, whether they are artist owned or not, IMO...

Well put.

I'd add that in addition to spreading the word about fair trade companies, don't forget to deliberately stop spreading the word about companies like istock. I've seen links to istock portfolios and referral links to istock still around, and who knows how many referral links on personal blogs and websites. It is more important than ever to stop sending potential new buyers to istock.

We know that buyers are creatures of habit, they tend to buy where they first land. Let's not get them in the habit of buying from istock and staying there because they get comfortable. istock still only exists because many buyers don't even know they have other options.

« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2013, 10:48 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 08:23 by Indivstock »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4441 Views
Last post June 22, 2009, 09:43
by Squat
28 Replies
7655 Views
Last post January 27, 2012, 13:27
by RacePhoto
8 Replies
6919 Views
Last post July 11, 2012, 14:18
by jm
24 Replies
8754 Views
Last post January 05, 2015, 07:04
by samards
6 Replies
10824 Views
Last post December 21, 2018, 08:32
by davidbautista

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors