Hi All,

We offer 50% in Macro at Spaces Images and we are not the only ones.

Best,
Jonathan

What's our share at Veer? I couldn't find it

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 22, 2011, 05:43
Hi All,

We offer 50% in Macro at Spaces Images and we are not the only ones.

Best,
Jonathan

How does someone get accepted and submit there again?

Hi all, I've updated the initial post so as not to give newbies the wrong impression.  I hope everyone is happy with it now. 

tks for this list   I've just added 3 of those agencies to my upload list in StockSubmitter !!

They are relatively easy to upload to, and with good commission worth a try

Never had a sale at any !  but who knows !? 

Quote from: Stu49 on January 22, 2011, 13:13
tks for this list   I've just added 3 of those agencies to my upload list in StockSubmitter !!

They are relatively easy to upload to, and with good commission worth a try

Never had a sale at any !  but who knows !? 

Sadly, that's the problem

General rules:

- The smaller the agency and the lesser sales, the more "fair" they are. Who cares? They always can go bankrupt when they ate their resting money from the payout limit and they don't sell enough anyways (except for the very talented happy few) to reach that limit.
- No agency founded after 2005 ever made it.
- The larger the agency, the more they will scrëw you in any possible way, going from bans, no replies, moving goalposts, commission "changes". It's called "crowd sourcing". There will always be enough crowd left in the crowd that are happy with less. It's called "sustainable", like windmills.
- "Commission structure change" is always newspeak for contributor share cut.
- Cutting your ear off and dying early might make you famous - a century later.

Cheers for that.

There's two ways of looking at this as far as I can see.

1)  We're where we are, the leaders will always be the leaders and nothing will ever change
2)  Things will shift over time and it might be a good idea to keep an open mind about how things will go.

I'm heavily discouraged about the microstock game right now, but none of us has a crystal ball, and history tells me that everything changes in time... so I'm hanging out in camp two.

Hi Race,

Just go to www.spacesimages.com and go to the contributors page, it will explain from there how to send us a message. I would be happy to have you contact us.

Hi FD,

Maybe not in Micro but in Macro there are several top agencies that have started in the past 5-6 years. It is an interesting point you bring up. Why have we not seen smaller Micro agencies be able to establish themselves in Micro but the small agency can thrive in Macro. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe it is time for some Niche Micro agencies that can support their own sales and also be represented by the bigger Microstock agencies at the same time. I think we might see something of this nature in the near future.

Best,
Jonathan

I wonder that too.

Although obviously some may have not been up to the challenge (practically or financially), I have to wonder if some fail simply because they don't manage to obtain enough images from us to become serious competitors.

Quote from: rubyroo on January 22, 2011, 21:36
I wonder that too.

Although obviously some may have not been up to the challenge (practically or financially), I have to wonder if some fail simply because they don't manage to obtain enough images from us to become serious competitors.

Most fail because they don't have a unique selling proposition.

Quote from: rubyroo on January 22, 2011, 20:48

There's two ways of looking at this as far as I can see.

1)  We're where we are, the leaders will always be the leaders and nothing will ever change
2)  Things will shift over time and it might be a good idea to keep an open mind about how things will go.

I'm heavily discouraged about the microstock game right now, but none of us has a crystal ball, and history tells me that everything changes in time... so I'm hanging out in camp two.

Very nice summation.  Although I am discouraged at the moment too, I think I will join you in camp #2. 

Welcome Lisa and thank you, I'll get the camp fire started  

Quote from: rubyroo on January 23, 2011, 00:59
Welcome Lisa and thank you, I'll get the camp fire started  

I'll bring the marshmallows

Ooh! Fab! 

^^  +1   

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 19:14
General rules:

- The smaller the agency and the lesser sales, the more "fair" they are. Who cares? They always can go bankrupt when they ate their resting money from the payout limit and they don't sell enough anyways (except for the very talented happy few) to reach that limit.
- No agency founded after 2005 ever made it.
- The larger the agency, the more they will scrëw you in any possible way, going from bans, no replies, moving goalposts, commission "changes". It's called "crowd sourcing". There will always be enough crowd left in the crowd that are happy with less. It's called "sustainable", like windmills.
- "Commission structure change" is always newspeak for contributor share cut.
- Cutting your ear off and dying early might make you famous - a century later.

I think Graphic Lefovers has made it and I think they started in 2008.  I get regular sales there and so do some of my referrals.  I agree that most agencies that started after 2005 have been a waste of time but I think there's always room for a new agency, as long as they have something original to offer.  The other new sites are too much like copies of what is already on offer.  I think Graphic Leftovers wins on simplicity, one price for each image and a great site design that looks good and doesn't have a lot of the problems the older sites have.  They also pay 52% commission, going against the trend of most of the older sites to grab as much money from us as they can.

Quote from: louoates on January 22, 2011, 22:08

Quote from: rubyroo on January 22, 2011, 21:36
I wonder that too.

Although obviously some may have not been up to the challenge (practically or financially), I have to wonder if some fail simply because they don't manage to obtain enough images from us to become serious competitors.

Most fail because they don't have a unique selling proposition.

You nailed it. Why would a buyer choose the new site over one of the big four? The new site usually doesn't have a reason. They just built the site hoping buyers would come. And when they do come up with a reason it's usually "we're cheaper" which is not what contributors need. We already have the bottom tier sites that are cheaper, have nice 40-50% commissions, and don't sell much.

Any new site that's going to make big 4 territory is either going to need bottomless pockets or a completely new distribution model that disrupts the agency model. Photoshelter's agency looked great but died even after dumping over $1M in marketing money into it.

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 19:14
General rules:

- The smaller the agency and the lesser sales, the more "fair" they are. Who cares? They always can go bankrupt when they ate their resting money from the payout limit and they don't sell enough anyways (except for the very talented happy few) to reach that limit.
- No agency founded after 2005 ever made it.
- The larger the agency, the more they will scrëw you in any possible way, going from bans, no replies, moving goalposts, commission "changes". It's called "crowd sourcing". There will always be enough crowd left in the crowd that are happy with less. It's called "sustainable", like windmills.
- "Commission structure change" is always newspeak for contributor share cut.
- Cutting your ear off and dying early might make you famous - a century later.

     Windmills! That's a really perfect analogy! FD , you are one of the truly most analytic thinkers I have come across in a while. Keep up the good work!
Lisa and Rubyroo, it's situations like what we have now that creates an opening for a new idea. Keep the fires burning.

Thanks JBarber - will do ('lose hope, lose all' is so true - and one of the worst things to learn the hard way IMO.  Life's too short). 

Here, have a toasting fork to go with your marshmallow and enthusiasm 

... and yes, FD is indeed a clever dude.   

GraphicLeftovers and CutCaster sounded good, and I put about 150 images on each.  Never got a sale at CC.  At GL I got a few, and even made a payout, but that ended after a few months and I've sold nothing since mid November. 

I'd been looking to those sites for some glimmer of hope for the future, and motivation to start doing more microstock images.  If I was getting just a few sales at these sites I'd have an idea of what future work might return.  But zero multiplied by any number is still zero. 

I think the number one thing new sites could offer is more productive searches for buyers.  I keep reading how buyers are turned off by pages of repetitious and/or unrelated junk.  Providing better results means checking contributors' keywords, maintaining reviewing standards, and not blindly racing to 10 million images and beyond.   In other words, spending time and money doing something besides crowdsourcing.

Quote from: stockastic on January 24, 2011, 15:40
GraphicLeftovers and CutCaster sounded good, and I put about 150 images on each.  Never got a sale at CC.  At GL I got a few, and even made a payout, but that ended after a few months and I've sold nothing since mid November. 

Other people reported this too. Maybe the Holiday Slowdown hit smaller sites more than bigger ones. Lately, my sales at GL have begun to rebound, and are doing better than ever. CC is also showing signs of life, and their new site may help.

IMO it's still worth supporting these fairer sites with submissions. GL is especially easy to submit to. I really don't see a downside to submitting there.

In my humble opinion Dreamstime belongs in this list too. The only downside is their 'similars issue'. (I've never been hurt by it much because i usually pick only 1 or 2 shots from a shoot (and the times i felt it wasnt fair i shot a message to support and it got reversed) so i am slightly biassed here).
Apart from that issue they have always been very transparent and open for our suggestions. They constantly are trying to improve their site for customers and contributors and i feel like i've always been treated very well and fair there. Their image level system (as far as i know) seems unique in the industry and works very well (level 4-5 images pay a good sum). imho they fit the 'fair category' well

Quote from: Artemis on January 24, 2011, 17:47
In my humble opinion Dreamstime belongs in this list too. The only downside is their 'similars issue'. (I've never been hurt by it much because i usually pick only 1 or 2 shots from a shoot (and the times i felt it wasnt fair i shot a message to support and it got reversed) so i am slightly biassed here).
Apart from that issue they have always been very transparent and open for our suggestions. They constantly are trying to improve their site for customers and contributors and i feel like i've always been treated very well and fair there. Their image level system (as far as i know) seems unique in the industry and works very well (level 4-5 images pay a good sum). imho they fit the 'fair category' well

yes I frequently receive sales in the $5 range for my level 4 or 5 images. Very smart to start raising prices on the images you know are selling well.  I am surprised others haven't copied this model, an image with over 50 downloads will most certainly still be purchased for a few dollars more. This is a great way to increase profit for the agency as well as contributor.  Simple idea but also one of the smartest ideas I have seen in microstock. Pay per popularity... this model has worked in many other industries throughout the history of free-market economies...it is called Supply and Demand....we all know it, but for some reason the internet does not put it to use very often....the more demand for an image the higher the price people are willing to pay.

Funny you should say that - I was just praising the 'image popularity' bonus model to my partner yesterday.  I agree that it's very fair.

I'm very happy to put Dreamstime on the list - it's just with all the variations in the contributor's cut (year credits were purchased etc)... it's hard to know how to express their arrangement in a way that is relative to the others in the list.  Any suggestions?