MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: A newbies view of the MS market  (Read 4351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 10, 2013, 12:39 »
0
I have been at this for about 5 weeks, have about 100 + images on the submit anything sites, about 25 on iStock and have made about $2 in sales.   A real newbie.

I am not a newbie when it comes to photography, having made a living from it ( on and off) for 10+ years.

Here are some thoughts ( if anyone cares.)



I see complaints on this forum about the sites not being interested in treating their contributors properly.  Thinking about this a bit, my answer is, Why should they? 

They get new contributors and images every minute.  I am sure some bean counter has pointed out that they make more money if the large experienced contributors don't get any payouts.  The newbies usually don't have a large enough or deep enough collection to get a payout for months or years, by which point they have moved on to something else and don't really care....what a great way to make a profit, the material you sell you get for free.

What I think has to happen is some way to make experienced contributors more valuable to the sites than newbies.

What do you think?  Am I talking out of my A$$ or am I close to being right.

Glenn


« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2013, 12:53 »
+1
pretty much right.... and?

tab62

« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2013, 13:07 »
0
Welcome to MSG Glenn!

at least you know what you're getting into thus no Illusions of Grandeur.  Your learning curve will be short compared to many others with your photography background. The big question will be on understanding the needs of the buyers- my weak point.

Tom

« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2013, 13:11 »
+3
They get new contributors and images every minute.  I am sure some bean counter has pointed out that they make more money if the large experienced contributors don't get any payouts.  The newbies usually don't have a large enough or deep enough collection to get a payout for months or years, by which point they have moved on to something else and don't really care....what a great way to make a profit, the material you sell you get for free.

What I think has to happen is some way to make experienced contributors more valuable to the sites than newbies.

What do you think?  Am I talking out of my A$$ or am I close to being right.

Glenn

Oh dear __ not this old chestnut being trotted out again. Firstly, royalties earned but not paid out are never profit. They are liabilities and thus are listed on that side of the balance sheet. The money is not owned by the agency but is simply a debt yet to be paid.

Secondly the money involved is relatively small. Mathematically the average non-collected earnings should be about $50 __ the half-way point. Even if there were 20K such contributors then it still only amounts to $1M, a tiny sum within the context of Istock's total sales.

In truth the big contributors are the bread and butter of every agency. The agencies probably lose money administrating to tiny contributors who generate few sales.

« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2013, 13:21 »
0

<snip>Firstly, royalties earned but not paid out are never profit. They are liabilities and thus are listed on that side of the balance sheet. The money is not owned by the agency but is simply a debt yet to be paid.

<snip>


On a balance sheet it may be listed as a Liability, but in any business cash flow is king, and having a large liability helps you avoid having a profit.... on which you have to pay tax.  Not a bad situation at all.

I don't think iStock and the other biggies works on this model, but other sites?  I don't know.  This is just musing while I wait for uploads...

Glenn

« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2013, 13:24 »
0
I think your assessment is basically correct.  One thing I'd add is that one-size-fits-all pricing is a pretty limiting business model.  Think of the "Everything's $1" stores in the malls. 

« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2013, 13:44 »
0
<snip>The big question will be on understanding the needs of the buyers<snip>

Tom
Thanks for the welcome Tom

I was hoping that the review process would help me learn to focus on the buyers needs... getting my images critiqued by "professionals" would help me grow..... This fallacy lasted about a week...... ::)

Glenn

tab62

« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2013, 14:02 »
0
I wish I worked in our marketing department so see thru the eyes of a buyer thus giving me more insight. I am going on my 2nd year and still wandering the field looking for my vision... ::)



« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2013, 14:53 »
0

<snip>Firstly, royalties earned but not paid out are never profit. They are liabilities and thus are listed on that side of the balance sheet. The money is not owned by the agency but is simply a debt yet to be paid.

<snip>


On a balance sheet it may be listed as a Liability, but in any business cash flow is king, and having a large liability helps you avoid having a profit.... on which you have to pay tax.  Not a bad situation at all.

I don't think iStock and the other biggies works on this model, but other sites?  I don't know.  This is just musing while I wait for uploads...

Glenn

Not exactly true.  While I agree with your comment on the unpaid balances sitting in small contributors accounts improving cash flow (slightly) that has nothing to do with profit or paying taxes.

When a sale is made, and the contributors account credited, they record an income for the sale and an expense for the royalty paid.  The expense is accompanied by an entry in accounts payable on the balance sheet, and stays there until the contributor makes payout.  So there is no affect whatsoever on their profit or taxes.

I agree that large contributors are the bread and butter and the huge number of smaller ones is likely a burden to administer.  They most likely lose money on most of the smaller ones due to overhead to setup and maintain the account and for the higher cost of reviewing that will often result from a lower accepted percentage.  But they cannot stop taking on new talent because who knows which newbie is going to be the next superstar?

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2013, 17:33 »
0
I wish I worked in our marketing department so see thru the eyes of a buyer thus giving me more insight. I am going on my 2nd year and still wandering the field looking for my vision... ::)

what's annoying is that the reviewers are far pickier than the buyers. but then having images accepted into this higher standard is pretty rewarding.

« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2013, 17:40 »
0
<snip>The big question will be on understanding the needs of the buyers<snip>

Tom
Thanks for the welcome Tom

I was hoping that the review process would help me learn to focus on the buyers needs... getting my images critiqued by "professionals" would help me grow..... This fallacy lasted about a week...... ::)

Glenn

not following you mate, what went wrong? weren't you approved a few days ago?

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2013, 19:44 »
0
Wonderful summary of how things work on a business balance sheet.


Oh dear __ not this old chestnut being trotted out again. Firstly, royalties earned but not paid out are never profit. They are liabilities and thus are listed on that side of the balance sheet. The money is not owned by the agency but is simply a debt yet to be paid.

Secondly the money involved is relatively small. Mathematically the average non-collected earnings should be about $50 __ the half-way point. Even if there were 20K such contributors then it still only amounts to $1M, a tiny sum within the context of Istock's total sales.

In truth the big contributors are the bread and butter of every agency. The agencies probably lose money administrating to tiny contributors who generate few sales.

« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2013, 20:28 »
0
Wonderful summary of how things work on a business balance sheet.


Oh dear __ not this old chestnut being trotted out again. Firstly, royalties earned but not paid out are never profit. They are liabilities and thus are listed on that side of the balance sheet. The money is not owned by the agency but is simply a debt yet to be paid.

Secondly the money involved is relatively small. Mathematically the average non-collected earnings should be about $50 __ the half-way point. Even if there were 20K such contributors then it still only amounts to $1M, a tiny sum within the context of Istock's total sales.

In truth the big contributors are the bread and butter of every agency. The agencies probably lose money administrating to tiny contributors who generate few sales.

Thanks __ but, if I remember correctly, the observation regarding the balance sheet originally came from you on one of the many other occasions when the same theory was previously expoused!

« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2013, 04:19 »
0
I don't think that much profit is made from uncollected earnings as they are to some extent cancelled out by what it cost them in admin charges to approve the contributor and review the images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6260 Views
Last post November 09, 2006, 16:33
by madelaide
21 Replies
7206 Views
Last post July 22, 2008, 16:20
by tan510jomast
General Tips for newbies

Started by Photodune Reject Off Topic

9 Replies
4543 Views
Last post April 18, 2017, 09:47
by TSLphoto
15 Replies
9811 Views
Last post December 15, 2017, 22:30
by Brasilnut
13 Replies
3941 Views
Last post March 07, 2019, 12:58
by georgep7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors