MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I simply don't understand exclusivity?  (Read 28462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: December 05, 2008, 22:53 »
0

There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.

you are absolutely correct - I mis-wrote - I meant to say ROI ... cheers ...


« Reply #101 on: December 06, 2008, 04:59 »
0
At every micro site you and me will  have files that won't sell anyhing, zero, or one or two dowloands every six months. But obviously, nobody's files sell all only one time, not at SS not a IS, nowhere. So, you could sell the same file 500 times at a subs micro or 500 times at IS or to Fotolia or whatever, and you can get 0,30 dollars x 500 (150 dollars) or until 11 dollars x 500 (5,500 dollars). There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.
What I mean is that volume of sales is much higher from a subs model ... certainly I know for me that an image may sell 10 times on istock but that same image has probably sold over a hundred times on SS because with the subs model buyers simply purchase more than they would otherwise (subs allow for far more impulse buying for example) ... there is a reason SS is many people's top earning site ...I sell 3 times as many images on SS every month than I do elsewhere ...

But in the end sjlocke is right (not about SS - I disagree with him on that as it's a good money maker for many) - it does come down to comfort levels ... the great thing about all of this is we do have choices .... exclusive or not ...  that site or not .... subs model or not .... diversity is good ... choice is good .... I really hope this industry continues in this fashion ...


Unfortunately there may come a time when we don't have choices whether or not we want to sell through subs. I'm relatively new to microstock but has SS always offered the subs system? It is my understanding that originally subs were not heard of, until SS created the idea. Now I don't think there are many "on demand" sales at SS. I was a member at SS for a few months and I made one on demand sale during that time. All the other sales were subs. I removed all my images from my account there because I could not get around the fact that a large international company could pay 30cents for one of my images and use it for any purpose they want, possibly used as part of an advertising campaign that might earn them millions. It seems downright wrong and unfair. Even a religious group, charity, one-man business can afford to pay more than 30c for an image. Hell, I'm not asking $100s, I'm asking a few $s, is that not a fair and affordable price?

The trouble I see for the future is that other agencies, in order to compete with SS, are offering the same packages now. I can understand their move to this because how else are they meant to compete. One company has driven down the price and so all the others must follow in order to stay competitive. A certain agency I believe indicated some time ago that they would not introduce subscriptions, I don't have details of who said this and exactly what was said but I believe it was said because they, at the time, felt it was an unfair deal for the photographer. But sadly now they have also had to introduce subs, more than likely to stay competitive.

Will there come a time at these other agencies where an "on demand" download is a rarity?

I really don't understand why other photographers are happy to submit to subs sites. I really can't understand why someone is happy to accept 30c for an image when it's worth more. Perhaps the reason is that people don't want to lose earnings in the short term in order to make a change to the industry, a change that I believe is the morally right thing to do.

I absolutely agree that each person has his or her own comfort level and obviously many photographers and illustrators are happy to accept this deal.

I'd also like to mention something else as someone above mentioned being able to sell 1000 files from one shoot as opposed to selecting one file from the shoot and selling it for a higher price. I don't know one agency who will accept 1000 photos from one shoot without rejecting a good majority of them for being too similar. Also remember that it's not only photos we sell, I sell a lot of illustrations, some of which might take me a couple of days creating just that one image.

« Reply #102 on: December 06, 2008, 06:48 »
0
It was fotolia who said they would never offer subs, which now doesn't seem surprisingcinsudering their recent scummy levels adjustment.

« Reply #103 on: December 06, 2008, 11:20 »
0

What I mean is that volume of sales is much higher from a subs model ... certainly I know for me that an image may sell 10 times on istock but that same image has probably sold over a hundred times on SS because with the subs model buyers simply purchase more than they would otherwise (subs allow for far more impulse buying for example)

I agree, but I don't want to support this model just because it gives higher return.  I think subs images are way too cheap, and it's unfair to compair sub vs credits with macro vs micro.  Microstock opened a huge market that did not exist before.  I know people who buy images for their kids' school assignments.  They would never do that if only macro or even midstock were available.  The hairdresser at the corner here would never buy a macrostock image for her flyer.  But this also made other heavy buyers switch to micro, because it was so much more affordable.  Subs are a even a better deal for them, even though buying at a decent price isn't expensive for them - IF they spend some time pre-selecting what they really need. 

I think microstock, with credits, already made images very cheap and affordable to a wide range of clients, most of which never existed before - this, for me, was the great step done by the introduction of microstock industry.  Subs however don't create new clients, just make clients switch to what is more favorable to them.

Regards,
Adelaide

AVAVA

« Reply #104 on: December 06, 2008, 12:15 »
0
Hi All,

 I must say I am a bit surprised by such a young part of the industry starting to sound like some of the older guys from Macro  were just a couple years ago when Micro started picking up steam. I was making a great deal more money before Micro came along in my Macro work but I am not in a position to make changes to this new price point. The market will bare what price it can for any given product and adjust accordingly.
 I think the entire industry of Micro is sorely underpriced for most to be able to make a living on. I said " Most " the numbers back me up on this. As the Micro industry grew I heard so many Micro shooters say " to bad so sad " to an industry before them. and the guys in Macro were saying " you are killing the industry  " to the new Micro players coming up.
 Now you guys are doing it to each other in your own industry. I don't think you can expect people to not compete because you don't think it is fair. If you do not like the company that represents your work you should not do business with them. I don't like the price on subs but I don't like the price in Micro period. Am I participating, yes and I made that choice as an independent business person to try and stay competitive.
  The market will adjust according to supply and demand as it always has. During that time some businesses ( you and me ) will survive through the changes and their choices others will not. I think it is great that we can talk about this openly as a group but I wonder if any can see the irony playing out here if you follow the history of our industry, it's like a broken record playing over and over.

Best,
AVAVA
 
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 12:18 by AVAVA »

« Reply #105 on: December 06, 2008, 13:08 »
0
If you do not like the company that represents your work you should not do business with them.

I agree, and is exactly why I choose not to sell my images through subs, why I choose to offer some images exclusively with an agency who will market them at a "fair price" as far as micro goes, some images through macro and some images I won't sell at all. It brings us back to my answer to the original question of this thread.

I also want to add, I do see the irony of this when we look at macro vs micro. But I think there is a difference here. Micro made imagery available to people who simply couldn't afford macro prices, as in Adelaid's hairdresser example and as I have seen from helping very small businesses set up websites. Macro prices were simply just too much for these buyers. Micro addressed this problem and made imagery available at an affordable price. However subs in my opinion is different in that it is taking an already affordable image and making it unncessarily cheaper, the buyers could afford the image at a few $s so why was there a need to offer them the images at an even much cheaper price.

AVAVA

« Reply #106 on: December 06, 2008, 15:01 »
0
Hi Sophia,

 I really think people could have paid 10 dollars a picture if they are in business instead of 30 cents or a dollar. That is where the first mistake was made by Micro but I believe it will start to correct itself over time. Good to hear your feedback.

Best,
AVAVA

lisafx

« Reply #107 on: December 06, 2008, 15:56 »
0

Unfortunately there may come a time when we don't have choices whether or not we want to sell through subs. I'm relatively new to microstock but has SS always offered the subs system? It is my understanding that originally subs were not heard of, until SS created the idea. Now I don't think there are many "on demand" sales at SS. I was a member at SS for a few months and I made one on demand sale during that time. All the other sales were subs.

Actually, Shutterstock was ALWAYS a sub site.  On demand sales are a very new thing there - like within the past few months.  In fact (someone correct me if I am wrong here) wasn't SS and their subscription model the second microstock site in the business, after istock?

Of course anyone can choose to upload or not if they don't like the way a company does business.  My average RPIS is .87, vs. the 2.20 mentioned by loop, largely because of SS's volume of subscription sales.   

Some people might not be comfortable selling at their work at an average of .87 and I totally respect that, but fore me, at the end of the day it is my total monthly earnings that count and I am satisfied in that department. 

« Reply #108 on: December 06, 2008, 16:01 »
0
It felt strange selling photos with shutterstock at first but they have been my highest earning site for all of the 28 months I have been doing this, often beating the next site by over 100%.  I now get $0.38 for subs with a nice growing amount of pay per download sales and more EL's than with most of the sites at $28.

Just checked last months numbers and I made $0.48 per download there.  I can understand why people don't like subs but it is hard to avoid them now without going exclusive with istock or taking a big cut in earnings.  If I was going to avoid subs, I would drop microstock entirely.

« Reply #109 on: February 27, 2009, 16:49 »
0
Quote from: loop on December 03, 2008, 10:35
Quote from: Perrush on December 03, 2008, 05:09
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense.  Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting    Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive.  So go and get them 


Do it flagranty and words like "deactivating" or "banned" will take a special meaning for you. It wouldn't be the first time, at all.

LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this. Actually one of the greatest copycat of all is the famous Lise Gagne and i don't see her get banned either so relax!

First time I'm logging in and I don't know how to make a quote, sorry...  I'm quite amazed by your post grp_photo. Send me some samples at newbielink:mailto:[email protected] [nonactive]. I'm curious to see those images you are talking about. Thank you kindly! Lise
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 17:11 by lisegagne »

« Reply #110 on: February 27, 2009, 17:07 »
0
to quote just press the quote button and start typing below everything that is already in your post.

welcome here Lise :)  I am sorry to see it wasn't due to nicer circumstances.   :(

« Reply #111 on: February 27, 2009, 17:13 »
0
to quote just press the quote button and start typing below everything that is already in your post.

welcome here Lise :)  I am sorry to see it wasn't due to nicer circumstances.   :(

thank you :) you are a sweetheart :).. don't worry, I'm not mad though, just sad... ;) a little bit

« Reply #112 on: February 27, 2009, 17:17 »
0
I'm sure there is plenty of copying of ideas, but then I dont know how many times something has happened and I've gone 'what a great idea I've just had' then searched and found there is plenty of that concept.  Happened during the week, searched shutterstock and found 17000+ hits for my original idea!! , * them, it seems a few hundred people managed to copy me before I'd thought of it  :o ;D

Phil
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 17:21 by Phil »

Xalanx

« Reply #113 on: February 28, 2009, 08:38 »
0
it seems a few hundred people managed to copy me before I'd thought of it  :o ;D

Phil

hahahahaha, brilliant!!  ;D

However, this is an unwritten rule of microstock. There is no single successful image (in the "most popular" or whatever similar sorting, top, first page in search) that doesn't get copied.

« Reply #114 on: February 28, 2009, 09:32 »
0
First time I'm logging in and I don't know how to make a quote, sorry...  I'm quite amazed by your post grp_photo. Send me some samples at [email protected]. I'm curious to see those images you are talking about. Thank you kindly! Lise

I doubt he will be able to produce any valid example, Lise.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 09:43 by loop »

tan510jomast

« Reply #115 on: February 28, 2009, 11:56 »
0
it seems a few hundred people managed to copy me before I'd thought of it  :o ;D

Phil

hahahahaha, brilliant!!  ;D

However, this is an unwritten rule of microstock. There is no single successful image (in the "most popular" or whatever similar sorting, top, first page in search) that doesn't get copied.

 ;D ;D ;D

no, seriously, although i am almost certain a large number of micro newbies and some established ones started out by ripping off Yuri, i just don't think that blatantly copying Yuri has hurt him.
it's much like the old illustrations of Norman Rockwell. you can be a perfect clone but the buyers will still look for the name Norman Rockwell before planting their cash down, even if it 's a measly dollar.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
19988 Views
Last post April 15, 2008, 04:05
by Mormegil
17 Replies
9165 Views
Last post August 31, 2009, 19:12
by a.k.a.-tom
24 Replies
5797 Views
Last post November 19, 2011, 04:59
by Batman
25 Replies
8922 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 18:54
by Anita Potter
40 Replies
18100 Views
Last post November 06, 2017, 17:52
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle