Author Topic: Are subscriptions finally starting to hurt this industry? (Mainly SS) (Read 19198 times)

ironarrow · « **on:** January 19, 2009, 18:02 »

We are seeing way too many threads complaining about low sales recently. As a matter of fact I think there is no need to complain. I might be wrong but I think the business in general is in decline. I still manage to keep my numbers reasonable by uploading many more images than I used to.

But I don't blame the competition. This is not because of the competition because I alone referred 2 buyers for DT and I know the number of buyers is going up too, since these people had no idea about microstock before I told them..

I remember how I used to need 20+ dls a day to get to Top 50 most popular vectors.

Believe it or not I managed to get to the Top 50 vectors with about 8 dls per day. This alone, proves low sales in general.

Now imagine you are a buyer. Last year you were a subscriber of Shutterstock for 12 months and downloaded all 9000 images you are allowed to even if you don't need them. Amazing for a buyer.

Now, a clever buyer will download all the popular subjects and cover many possible uses with those 9000 images.

It is a huge number which can cover you during the economical crisis. You don't have to subscribe with all those 9000 amazing images you already have. At least until the global crisis is gone and you are out of the hot waters.

If I was a buyer, I would definitely make do with what I downloaded but never got to use. 9000 is pretty d.amn good to cover all the main subjects.

To summarize, Shutterstock and followers (StockXpert, FT, DT, 123RF) shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Giving the images away even If the buyers don't need them will prevent the buyers from buying them next time; as he/she already got them.

SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

abimages · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:08 »

I have seen a steady decline in downloads at SS over the past few months, despite regular uploads. I have seen reports of others experiencing a downturn there also.

I'm considering pulling out from there as nowadays images have such a short shelf life, it's almost not worth the effort required any longer.

stokfoto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:22 »

nowadays I too experience a significant decline of DLs at SS I don't know why it would be though despite the fact that I have been uploading as usual-if not more-
It could be because of the current economical situations but I believe increasing competition among the contributes must have something to do with it too and I also believe on demand sales some kind of affects on subs sales at SS

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:22 »

You make some interesting points, and you may be right for all I know. But IMO it is more likely the slowing world economy that is responsible for softening sales for a couple of reasons:

According to a number of folks I have spoken to in marketing (online and also in the real world), advertising is way down. Companies with tight budgets don't see the point in advertising when people just aren't spending. And given a choice between cutting marketing budgets or staff, they are opting for cutting advertising.

And secondly, as people are losing their day jobs, or having their hours cut, microstock starts to look like a great way to make extra money to supplement shrinking or disappearing incomes, so there is more competition.

As I said, you make a good point about subscriptions too - I am not a fan of them, for sure. But if the economy was still growing at a healthy pace I think those folks would still be downloading and not just relying on their stash from last year.

Iriz · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:35 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

That's a reasonable assumption. The other thing to consider is this, whenever you've got too much food in the fridge you end up not using it or throwing a lot of it out. Or at least that's what I do. So you might use a similar analogy for stock. Yes I've bought a few images myself but all of a sudden some other ones look a lot better and the whole cycle starts all over again.

Those who subscribe to the "eat as much as you can" model tend to hoard and therefore it's not so much about the quantity or quality but getting as much value as you can for whatever the sub cost. That's why microstockers will continue to make money. These hoarders never have enough if you get my drift.

ironarrow · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 19, 2009, 18:22

You make some interesting points, and you may be right for all I know. But IMO it is more likely the slowing world economy that is responsible for softening sales for a couple of reasons:

According to a number of folks I have spoken to in marketing (online and also in the real world), advertising is way down. Companies with tight budgets don't see the point in advertising when people just aren't spending. And given a choice between cutting marketing budgets or staff, they are opting for cutting advertising.

And secondly, as people are losing their day jobs, or having their hours cut, microstock starts to look like a great way to make extra money to supplement shrinking or disappearing incomes, so there is more competition.

As I said, you make a good point about subscriptions too - I am not a fan of them, for sure. But if the economy was still growing at a healthy pace I think those folks would still be downloading and not just relying on their stash from last year.

I agree with advertising as a very close friend of mine has an advertising company. He always says the first thing companies do is cutting the advertising costs. So I back you up here but I don't really buy the competition thing as I don't see many quality competition rising recently. As I mentioned in another thread it is mostly wannabes.

If I am still getting to Top 50 and it is not others I can't complain about competition since I get to top 50 vectors every so often just like last year. The difference this time is that I am getting there with many less dls. If I was hurt by competition I should not have been getting to top 50 no matter what.

But I am, so the problem is not competition. The problem is I am getting there with 3 times less dls than last year.

I might agree with stokfoto too about on demand dls having a little effect on it but still!!

I have another friend who owns a small design company and when I tell him about stock he is like "why bother, I have my CDs with lots of images about lots of subjects". He is one example and I am sure if he was to subscribe to SS for a year he is the kind of guy who would get all 9000 (not 1 less) and make do with it for 10 years

ironarrow · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:48 »

Quote from: Iriz on January 19, 2009, 18:35

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02
SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

That's a reasonable assumption. The other thing to consider is this, whenever you've got too much food in the fridge you end up not using it or throwing a lot of it out. Or at least that's what I do. So you might use a similar analogy for stock. Yes I've bought a few images myself but all of a sudden some other ones look a lot better and the whole cycle starts all over again.

Those who subscribe to the "eat as much as you can" model tend to hoard and therefore it's not so much about the quantity or quality but getting as much value as you can for whatever the sub cost. That's why microstockers will continue to make money. These hoarders never have enough if you get my drift.

I do get what you are saying but I am definitely convinced that the future of microstock would have been much brighter If there was no subs.

sharpshot · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:50 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

We are seeing way too many threads complaining about low sales recently.

I don't think this has anything to do with subs sites. There always have been threads about low sales. They seem to peak in the winter and summer, when sales are seasonally low and diminish in the spring and autumn. It is not surprising that there are more at the moment.

ironarrow · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:56 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 19, 2009, 18:50

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02
We are seeing way too many threads complaining about low sales recently.

I don't think this has anything to do with subs sites. There always have been threads about low sales. They seem to peak in the winter and summer, when sales are seasonally low and diminish in the spring and autumn. It is not surprising that there are more at the moment.

I hope you are right and subs will save our lives

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2009, 18:59 »

If only there was a hero, someone everyone looked up to and lauded with praise, that could lead the exodus from the subs...

Didn't we try that before

?

tan510jomast · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2009, 20:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 19, 2009, 18:22

And secondly, as people are losing their day jobs, or having their hours cut, microstock starts to look like a great way to make extra money to supplement shrinking or disappearing incomes, so there is more competition.

A very insightful point Lisafx. No doubt some of you who were used to seeing more sales are facing competition from these newcomers who perharps have lost their jobs, and now hoping to find some income here. Or just that as time goes by, newbies gain experience and knowhow and are now attracting buyers. The pie is being shared over a larger scale.
I for one am seeing more sales , all to which I feel is due to the aforementioned. Naturally, this increased competition will be good as quality will no doubt go up, from all involved in order to keep ahead of the game.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2009, 21:09 »

I don't really imagine that people that are losing their jobs are turning to microstock to feed their family. Maybe a couple here and there, but I just don't see it anymore than a year ago.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2009, 21:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 19, 2009, 21:09

I don't really imagine that people that are losing their jobs are turning to microstock to feed their family. Maybe a couple here and there, but I just don't see it anymore than a year ago.

I have read a number of posts in various forums over the past couple of months from microstock hobbyists who have been laid off and are trying this full time. And then there are the posts from newbies wanting to know how to make the most money in microstock (rather than looking for a place to sell the photos they enjoy taking for fun). For everyone that posts about it we can probably assume there are a number in the same situation that aren't bothering with posting in the forums.

Add to that the growing number of books, blogs, magazine articles, etc. that tout microstock as a get rich quick scheme, and how can it fail to attract hopeful folks who have been downsized?

hoi ha · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2009, 22:03 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

Now imagine you are a buyer. Last year you were a subscriber of Shutterstock for 12 months and downloaded all 9000 images you are allowed to even if you don't need them. Amazing for a buyer.

Now, a clever buyer will download all the popular subjects and cover many possible uses with those 9000 images.

It is a huge number which can cover you during the economical crisis. You don't have to subscribe with all those 9000 amazing images you already have. At least until the global crisis is gone and you are out of the hot waters.

If I was a buyer, I would definitely make do with what I downloaded but never got to use. 9000 is pretty d.amn good to cover all the main subjects.

To summarize, Shutterstock and followers shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Giving the images away even If the buyers don't need them will prevent the buyers from buying them next time; as he/she already got them.

SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.

As someone who has been using subs for a year and a half now I can tell you that this is not how it works at all - yes we have many many images that we have not actually used and hope to use them one day - but publishing is not like that - we cannot anticipate especially well what images we might need ahead of time because who the heck knows what an article in 3 months is going to be about or what news story is going to need to be illustrated?

I admit that as the economy has begun to hurt us I have contemplated whether we could perhaps not renew our subs for a month to save the revenue and whether we could live off of what we have in the image bank ... but at the end of the day that simply does not work ... every story, every news item, every article has a different slant and angle that requires a fresh way of viewing things and illustrating them ... we need new and fresh images almost every day. Period.

People moan about subs but the truth is many many many of the images downloaded via subs are never actually used - with subs your images are getting purchases they never would have had ... subs allow our designers to play around with ideas, half of which do not work and hence do not get published/used - if we were limited to pay as you go purchases none of these downloads would be happening and we would be using the comps only and our actual purchases would be very minimal.

From a pricing point of view it would be more efficient for us to send one of our designers off on a photography course in the evenings with an eye toward bringing our image production in house - and that is not out of the realm of possibility given the relative pricing issues at play here.

ironarrow · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2009, 22:20 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:03

As someone who has been using subs for a year and a half now I can tell you that this is not how it works at all - yes we have many many images that we have not actually used and hope to use them one day - but publishing is not like that - we cannot anticipate especially well what images we might need ahead of time because who the heck knows what an article in 3 months is going to be about or what news story is going to need to be illustrated?

I admit that as the economy has begun to hurt us I have contemplated whether we could perhaps not renew our subs for a month to save the revenue and whether we could live off of what we have in the image bank ... but at the end of the day that simply does not work ... every story, every news item, every article has a different slant and angle that requires a fresh way of viewing things and illustrating them ... we need new and fresh images almost every day. Period.

People moan about subs but the truth is many many many of the images downloaded via subs are never actually used - with subs your images are getting purchases they never would have had ... subs allow our designers to play around with ideas, half of which do not work and hence do not get published/used - if we were limited to pay as you go purchases none of these downloads would be happening and we would be using the comps only and our actual purchases would be very minimal.

From a pricing point of view it would be more efficient for us to send one of our designers off on a photography course in the evenings with an eye toward bringing our image production in house - and that is not out of the realm of possibility given the relative pricing issues at play here.

Well I have to tell you my friend that is only you. I did in the past worked as a very very successful graphic designer and I know how it is like. It is not like magazines or fresh new looks. You can get away with what you have on your image bank CDs many many times.

And hell, Do I want you to buy many of my images for 35 cents? No! I would have gotten more If there were no subs. Shutterstock's new on demand option proves me right every day. I am already getting 5-6 on demands a day in average which equals 50 of your little dls. If SS asked me I would give up subs dls right here, right now If it was going to become an on demand only site.

Also since I do illustrations, send one of your designers to take an illustration course as well. If he works hard enough for 65 years maybe he can get his comics published like I did. It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model.

Do you know that I am not making any more than before on StockXpert since the subs are introduced? Yes, thank god I am getting millions of sub dls

and in return I lost many of my $5 or $7,5 sales. I am making exactly the same money with subs.

I would rather make it on 50 image sales than 550 image sales.

hoi ha · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2009, 22:45 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 22:20

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:03

Well I have to tell you my friend that is only you. I did in the past worked as a very very successful graphic designer and I know how it is like. It is not like magazines or fresh new looks. You can get away with what you have on your image bank CDs many many times.

And hell, Do I want you to buy many of my images for 35 cents? No! I would have gotten more If there were no subs. Shutterstock's new on demand option proves me right every day. I am already getting 5-6 on demands a day in average which equals 50 of your little dls. If SS asked me I would give up subs dls right here, right now If it was going to become an on demand only site.

Also since I do illustrations, send one of your designers to take an illustration course as well. If he works hard enough for 65 years maybe he can get his comics published like I did. It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model.

Do you know that I am not making any more than before on StockXpert since the subs are introduced? Yes, thank god I am getting millions of sub dls and in return I lost many of my $5 or $7,5 sales. I am making exactly the same money with subs.

I would rather make it on 50 image sales than 550 image sales.

All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

ironarrow · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:09 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:45

All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

What hostility

I just made my point against your denial that you would spend much more money if there were no subs. If not, Why are you subscribing? Go for On demand!

DanP68 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:38 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

To summarize, Shutterstock and followers shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Take a look to the right. Do you see that chart?

Where is Shutterstock ranked?
#1.

Where have they been ranked for the last 12 months?
#1.

I've been there for 18 months, and my images continue to sell from my initial uploads. I also make $28 per EL sale, which is substantially more than I make anywhere else. So will you revisit your theory on how we have shot ourselves in the head one year from now when SS is still ranked #1 among contributors?

I also don't appreciate SS contributors being called "it's followers" as if we are all a bunch of lemmings. Perhaps you should accomplish something meaningful in microstock before criticizing all of us?

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:43 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:45

All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

Oh no, please don't regard Ironarrow as speaking for all of us. Thanks very much for your interesting insight into a regular volume-buyer's needs. Cheers.

hoi ha · « **Reply #19 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:49 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 23:09

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 22:45
All right then ... hostility noted. It's pretty interesting to learn my company is so unique ...

What hostility I just made my point against your denial that you would spend much more money if there were no subs. If not, Why are you subscribing? Go for On demand!

I took your words ..." It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model ..." as being evidence than you had a degree of hostility towards subs model and those who back it ... but perhaps I misunderstood that ... no worries ...

DanP68 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:49 »

Of course Hoiha's company is not unique. His experiences echo what we many of us read in the thread Yuri started one year ago regarding the amount of images actually downloaded under a subscription plan. Ironarrow is attempting to suggest every situation is like his own. Unfortunately for his argument it does not mesh with the information we already have on this subject. So do you trust the contacts of one of microstock's top contributors, or Ironarrow?

I will say this...

Before another one of these anti-subs threads is started, I would like to see the poster put his money where his mouth is. Pull out of Shutterstock. Pull out of Dreamstime. Pull out of Fotolia. Opt out at StockXpert. Then talk all you want. Until then, it's just words. You don't have the conviction to back yourself up, so why expect anyone else to do it for you?

And by the way, I made my stand with FT's treatment of contributors over the last year. I didn't moan about it incessantly. I pulled out, and sacrificed future earnings for what I stand for. Until someone else does the same with SS or whoever else they are railing against, I am calling their bluff.

ironarrow · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2009, 00:07 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 19, 2009, 23:38

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02
To summarize, Shutterstock and followers shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Take a look to the right. Do you see that chart?

Where is Shutterstock ranked?
#1.

Where have they been ranked for the last 12 months?
#1.

I've been there for 18 months, and my images continue to sell from my initial uploads. I also make $28 per EL sale, which is substantially more than I make anywhere else. So will you revisit your theory on how we have shot ourselves in the head one year from now when SS is still ranked #1 among contributors?

I also don't appreciate SS contributors being called "it's followers" as if we are all a bunch of lemmings. Perhaps you should accomplish something meaningful in microstock before criticizing all of us?

By "it's followers" I meant StockXpert, FT, DT, 123rf and other sites which introduced subs following SS. Not contributors. And SS is only the best If you haven't got enough images and acceptance at IS. Because anyone claiming SS is better than IS is dreaming.

The reason SS is on top on the right is because most contributors are not approved by IS.

IS has 22.000 contributors...
SS claims to have 135.000 something... The difference is 113.000 people. They don't even have an experience of a real high standard microstock site.

SS is at best 2nd website. No top contributor will rate SS over IS. If they do, it means they are not TOP, and they have not achieved anything yet.

ironarrow · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2009, 00:10 »

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 23:49

I took your words ..." It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model ..." as being evidence than you had a degree of hostility towards subs model and those who back it ... but perhaps I misunderstood that ... no worries ...

I did think twice before I used that statement but then decided what's the big harm

Why would I have any problem with you? I don't even know you. Thanks for the input but I don't agree at all.

hoi ha · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2009, 00:28 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 00:10

Quote from: hoi ha on January 19, 2009, 23:49

I took your words ..." It makes me want to puke when someone backs the subs model ..." as being evidence than you had a degree of hostility towards subs model and those who back it ... but perhaps I misunderstood that ... no worries ...

I did think twice before I used that statement but then decided what's the big harm Why would I have any problem with you? I don't even know you. Thanks for the input but I don't agree at all.

no harm at all ... I am not so thin skinned

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2009, 02:09 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 00:07

The reason SS is on top on the right is because most contributors are not approved by IS.

IS has 22.000 contributors...
SS claims to have 135.000 something... The difference is 113.000 people. They don't even have an experience of a real high standard microstock site.

SS is at best 2nd website. No top contributor will rate SS over IS. If they do, it means they are not TOP, and they have not achieved anything yet.

This thread is an interesting discussion -

But about the point quosted, Those who are not accepted at iStock wouldn't be giving a vote to IS so this wouldn't bring their average down at all.

I think the reason iStock is so low is because people can't get their portfolio online. I see that per image iStock earns way more than any other site, but at a limit of 20 uploads/week when my goal is to produce 50/week - I get behind 1600 images/year. Add to an extremely laborious upload process, there are many weeks I can't be bothered to upload there at all. Big producers get behind even quicker making shutterstock or fotolia an easy #1 earner. I don't think it is the subs though that make IS a better earner per image basis. I think it is their amount of customers. If people have heard about microstock, it is iStock they have heard about.

nruboc · « **Reply #25 on:** January 20, 2009, 02:24 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 00:07

Quote from: DanP68 on January 19, 2009, 23:38
Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02
To summarize, Shutterstock and followers shot themselves in the head for the sake of short term success. Sure, they got very good numbers in the past but the subscription model is eventually going to create "a doomsday effect" for microstock industry.

Take a look to the right. Do you see that chart?

Where is Shutterstock ranked?
#1.

Where have they been ranked for the last 12 months?
#1.

I've been there for 18 months, and my images continue to sell from my initial uploads. I also make $28 per EL sale, which is substantially more than I make anywhere else. So will you revisit your theory on how we have shot ourselves in the head one year from now when SS is still ranked #1 among contributors?

I also don't appreciate SS contributors being called "it's followers" as if we are all a bunch of lemmings. Perhaps you should accomplish something meaningful in microstock before criticizing all of us?

By "it's followers" I meant StockXpert, FT, DT, 123rf and other sites which introduced subs following SS. Not contributors. And SS is only the best If you haven't got enough images and acceptance at IS. Because anyone claiming SS is better than IS is dreaming.

The reason SS is on top on the right is because most contributors are not approved by IS.

IS has 22.000 contributors...
SS claims to have 135.000 something... The difference is 113.000 people. They don't even have an experience of a real high standard microstock site.

SS is at best 2nd website. No top contributor will rate SS over IS. If they do, it means they are not TOP, and they have not achieved anything yet.

Oh no, I have not achieved anything yet... I must rely on IronArrow to tell me when I have achieved something. That will be my goal in the new year, to achieve something according to IronArrow's standards.. oh if only I can succeed..

e-person · « **Reply #26 on:** January 20, 2009, 03:18 »

[quote author=ironarrow

The reason SS is on top on the right is because most contributors are not approved by IS.

IS has 22.000 contributors...
SS claims to have 135.000 something... The difference is 113.000 people. They don't even have an experience of a real high standard microstock site.

SS is at best 2nd website. No top contributor will rate SS over IS. If they do, it means they are not TOP, and they have not achieved anything yet.
[/quote]

I do suspect these forums don't tell the truth.

I do suspect people follow their own agenda.

On a per image basis IS makes me 3x SS.

SS contract says you can use those downloaded images within six months from the end of your contract. Whom is going to check? In the long term, sites like SS will just limit the value of our portfolios.

MikLav · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2009, 04:12 »

don't forget that subs existed long before microstock and SS in a form of RF CD collections...

sharpshot · « **Reply #28 on:** January 20, 2009, 04:41 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 19, 2009, 23:49

Of course Hoiha's company is not unique. His experiences echo what we many of us read in the thread Yuri started one year ago regarding the amount of images actually downloaded under a subscription plan. Ironarrow is attempting to suggest every situation is like his own. Unfortunately for his argument it does not mesh with the information we already have on this subject. So do you trust the contacts of one of microstock's top contributors, or Ironarrow?

I will say this...

Before another one of these anti-subs threads is started, I would like to see the poster put his money where his mouth is. Pull out of Shutterstock. Pull out of Dreamstime. Pull out of Fotolia. Opt out at StockXpert. Then talk all you want. Until then, it's just words. You don't have the conviction to back yourself up, so why expect anyone else to do it for you?

And by the way, I made my stand with FT's treatment of contributors over the last year. I didn't moan about it incessantly. I pulled out, and sacrificed future earnings for what I stand for. Until someone else does the same with SS or whoever else they are railing against, I am calling their bluff.

I agree, if people don't like subs, they should stop using the sites. If I hated subs, I would probably go exclusive with istock.

DanP68 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 20, 2009, 05:34 »

Quote from: e-person on January 20, 2009, 03:18

I do suspect these forums don't tell the truth.

I do suspect people follow their own agenda.

So decrees "e-person."

Why exactly would someone vote SS #1 in personal earnings if they weren't? Who would have such an agenda, and what would they stand to gain?

thesentinel · « **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2009, 08:36 »

Whatever the 'truth' is, chances are it won't be found on an internet forum. Generally they are largely populated by the opinionated, and usually the opinionated tend to have biases. A forum can also become the focus for a certain set of biases, thus on a fan site for a certain TV show the most viewed and publicly popular episode can become, ala 'comic guy' "the worst episode..ever"

The 'truth' of the poll results is that they are from a self selected small panel from an internet forum, with no controls and with no weighting for income per completer.

The only problem with that is when it gets quoted as 'the truth'.

ironarrow · « **Reply #31 on:** January 20, 2009, 09:56 »

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 08:36

Whatever the 'truth' is, chances are it won't be found on an internet forum. Generally they are largely populated by the opinionated, and usually the opinionated tend to have biases. A forum can also become the focus for a certain set of biases, thus on a fan site for a certain TV show the most viewed and publicly popular episode can become, ala 'comic guy' "the worst episode..ever"

The 'truth' of the poll results is that they are from a self selected small panel from an internet forum, with no controls and with no weighting for income per completer.

The only problem with that is when it gets quoted as 'the truth'.

Yeap, as simple as that. The column on the right is NOT the truth. What counts is the amount of traffic the sites get. Anybody feel free to check the stats on for example "alexa. com"

It is logically impossible that SS is going to be selling more than IS. That is only true if you have got 1000 images on SS, and 150 on IS.

For me, the number of images are close, that is why IS multiplies SS every month. And most of the times it is not only two times better but even 3 or 4

Danicek · « **Reply #32 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:01 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 09:56

Yeap, as simple as that. The column on the right is NOT the truth. What counts is the amount of traffic the sites get. Anybody feel free to check the stats on for example "alexa. com"

This meassure is more inaccurate than the poll we have.

Does the alexa.com counts the buyers only? What site has the biggest and most developed 'social network' of sellers?

ironarrow · « **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:20 »

Quote from: Danicek on January 20, 2009, 10:01

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 09:56
Yeap, as simple as that. The column on the right is NOT the truth. What counts is the amount of traffic the sites get. Anybody feel free to check the stats on for example "alexa. com"

This meassure is more inaccurate than the poll we have.

Does the alexa.com counts the buyers only? What site has the biggest and most developed 'social network' of sellers?

I believe alexa is very accurate. It shows the traffic regardless it is buyers or contributors and it is the same for all sites. IS is one of the top 500 sites in the world, SS is always moving between 1500 and 2000. My numbers reflect that alexa is pin-point accurate.

No one has to agree. I don't see why people make a big deal of this

thesentinel · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:46 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 10:20

I believe alexa is very accurate. It shows the traffic regardless it is buyers or contributors and it is the same for all sites. IS is one of the top 500 sites in the world, SS is always moving between 1500 and 2000. My numbers reflect that alexa is pin-point accurate.

No one has to agree. I don't see why people make a big deal of this

It's a big deal because people like to quote Alexa as 'the truth' when in fact again it's collected from a self selected uncontrolled set of users, and which during the last year has shown wild swings due to their internal methodology changes.

ironarrow · « **Reply #35 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:50 »

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 10:46

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 10:20

I believe alexa is very accurate. It shows the traffic regardless it is buyers or contributors and it is the same for all sites. IS is one of the top 500 sites in the world, SS is always moving between 1500 and 2000. My numbers reflect that alexa is pin-point accurate.

No one has to agree. I don't see why people make a big deal of this

It's a big deal because people like to quote Alexa as 'the truth' when in fact again it's collected from a self selected uncontrolled set of users, and which during the last year has shown wild swings due to their internal methodology changes.

I agree with that, but when I combine it with my personal experience it becomes my personal truth

null · « **Reply #36 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:03 »

Quote from: Danicek on January 20, 2009, 10:01

Does the alexa.com counts the buyers only?

No. Alexa counts the number of site visits by those users that agreed to have the Alexa toolbar installed. As such, this is a very biased sample, and there is no way to know what proportion of the visitors are buyers. Nevertheless, there is some correlation, though loosely, between visits and sales. You can safely assume that buyer's visits are only responsible for 0.001 % of the site visits, since most traffic is random and generated by Google (one of the smaller RF site owners mentioned that once), and it takes only 1 site visit for a well-informed buyer to buy.

This is different for commodity and wide audience sales sites, like Amazon.

madelaide · « **Reply #37 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:04 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 19, 2009, 23:49

Before another one of these anti-subs threads is started, I would like to see the poster put his money where his mouth is. Pull out of Shutterstock. Pull out of Dreamstime. Pull out of Fotolia. Opt out at StockXpert. Then talk all you want. Until then, it's just words. You don't have the conviction to back yourself up, so why expect anyone else to do it for you?

I never joined SS because of subs. I've opted out from subs in StockXpert (and I thank them so much for letting me have a choice). I stopped uploading to FT, 123RF, CS and CanStockPhoto (FT may be a major loss, as it's always a good seller for me - if only they allowed me to opt out!). I am still at DT because there a lot of positive aspects there (increasing levels is one), and subs sales, although frequent, are generally marginal. I haven't deleted my portfolio on any of those sites, but this is something I consider doing when I reach my next payout (what may take several years in CS and CanStockPhoto....)

Regards,
Adelaide

thesentinel · « **Reply #38 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:15 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on January 20, 2009, 11:03

Quote from: Danicek on January 20, 2009, 10:01
Does the alexa.com counts the buyers only?

No. Alexa counts the number of site visits by those users that agreed to have the Alexa toolbar installed. As such, this is a very biased sample, and there is no way to know what proportion of the visitors are buyers. Nevertheless, there is some correlation, though loosely, between visits and sales. You can safely assume that buyer's visits are only responsible for 0.001 % of the site visits,

Source?

nexusseven · « **Reply #39 on:** January 20, 2009, 16:05 »

Oh same old bulls.it everytime... "Shutterstock does this Shutterstock does that. Oh subs are bad..."

I know what Shutterstock does: They made me thousands of dollars... and I am very grateful to them. Istock fanboys have to pay me a lot of money in order to convince me...

Get a life. Get paid. Don't waste your time in meaningless discussions...

DanP68 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 20, 2009, 18:17 »

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 10:46

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 10:20

I believe alexa is very accurate. It shows the traffic regardless it is buyers or contributors and it is the same for all sites. IS is one of the top 500 sites in the world, SS is always moving between 1500 and 2000. My numbers reflect that alexa is pin-point accurate.

No one has to agree. I don't see why people make a big deal of this

It's a big deal because people like to quote Alexa as 'the truth' when in fact again it's collected from a self selected uncontrolled set of users, and which during the last year has shown wild swings due to their internal methodology changes.

Amazing. iStock exclusives spent the last several months denying any validity to the Alexa charts which showed their traffic falling fast while other agencies were rising. Now they are quoting Alexa like it is The Bible. Get your arguments straight.

Tuilay · « **Reply #41 on:** January 20, 2009, 18:24 »

[quote author=DanP68 link=topic=6852.msg79853#msg79853

Amazing. iStock exclusives spent the last several months denying any validity to the Alexa charts which showed their traffic falling fast while other agencies were rising. Now they are quoting Alexa like it is The Bible. Get your arguments straight.
[/quote]

It's like our politicians here Dan. They "speak through both sides of their mouth"
(a direct quote from yet another famous canadian).

null · « **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:48 »

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 11:15

Source?

About Alexa? SEO forums or SEO sites.

About mostly hits by Google? Bryan of LO on the LO forum (now defunct). A buyer will never come by Google, but he has the RF site in his bookmarks of course. I run a few sites myself and looking into Google analytics, I observe the same (Google driven traffic). A knowledgeable IT person will never install the Alexa (or Yahoo or Google) toolbar on his browser. What's the profit for slowing down your surfing and enhance your bandwidth? Alexa toolbars are mostly installed accidentally by naive persons that get it in installing some "free" software.

There is also the session question. I'm logged in eternally into Dreamstime and SS. I guess (subscription) buyers are too. Even if I had Alexa installed, my visits would never be counted.

thesentinel · « **Reply #43 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:45 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on January 21, 2009, 08:48

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 11:15
Source?

About Alexa? SEO forums or SEO sites.

About mostly hits by Google? Bryan of LO on the LO forum (now defunct). A buyer will never come by Google, but he has the RF site in his bookmarks of course. I run a few sites myself and looking into Google analytics, I observe the same (Google driven traffic). A knowledgeable IT person will never install the Alexa (or Yahoo or Google) toolbar on his browser. What's the profit for slowing down your surfing and enhance your bandwidth? Alexa toolbars are mostly installed accidentally by naive persons that get it in installing some "free" software.

There is also the session question. I'm logged in eternally into Dreamstime and SS. I guess (subscription) buyers are too. Even if I had Alexa installed, my visits would never be counted.

Indeed, but it was the 0.001% figure I was interested in, it's such a specific wee number you've quoted.

Iriz · « **Reply #44 on:** January 21, 2009, 10:09 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 10:50

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 10:46
Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 10:20

I believe alexa is very accurate. It shows the traffic regardless it is buyers or contributors and it is the same for all sites. IS is one of the top 500 sites in the world, SS is always moving between 1500 and 2000. My numbers reflect that alexa is pin-point accurate.

No one has to agree. I don't see why people make a big deal of this

It's a big deal because people like to quote Alexa as 'the truth' when in fact again it's collected from a self selected uncontrolled set of users, and which during the last year has shown wild swings due to their internal methodology changes.

I agree with that, but when I combine it with my personal experience it becomes my personal truth

Ahhh right, now you seen when we starting dealing with people's own personal truth, we start moving into the realms of fantasy. That's all too esoteric for my liking and I'd much prefer facts and figures rooted firmly in reality. But that's just my personal truth

dirkr · « **Reply #45 on:** January 22, 2009, 04:45 »

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 18:02

I remember how I used to need 20+ dls a day to get to Top 50 most popular vectors.

Believe it or not I managed to get to the Top 50 vectors with about 8 dls per day. This alone, proves low sales in general.

This specific argument is wrong.
The fact that a lower number of DLs gets you into the Top 50 could as well be proof of higher competition (or more precisely: the number of images offered is rising faster than the number of images downloaded - no matter if that second number is rising or falling).

bittersweet · « **Reply #46 on:** January 22, 2009, 07:53 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 20, 2009, 18:17

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 10:46
Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 10:20

I believe alexa is very accurate. It shows the traffic regardless it is buyers or contributors and it is the same for all sites. IS is one of the top 500 sites in the world, SS is always moving between 1500 and 2000. My numbers reflect that alexa is pin-point accurate.

No one has to agree. I don't see why people make a big deal of this

It's a big deal because people like to quote Alexa as 'the truth' when in fact again it's collected from a self selected uncontrolled set of users, and which during the last year has shown wild swings due to their internal methodology changes.

Amazing. iStock exclusives spent the last several months denying any validity to the Alexa charts which showed their traffic falling fast while other agencies were rising. Now they are quoting Alexa like it is The Bible. Get your arguments straight.

These are two different exclusives with two different opinions. It's not "speaking from both sides of the mouth"... there is more than one mouth. Good grief. Are you saying that what one exclusive believes, all should? That's ridiculous.

I do find it interesting that I've been reading all the comments from everyone, with the vast majority saying that earnings on all sites are down right now from December, yet every one at the top has green arrows except istock, and now Fotolia. Maybe everyone is waiting until the end of the month to enter their final stats. That would be the most logical explanation. I guess we'll see when things wrap up how closely the arrows represent the anecdotal evidence being posted in the threads.

DanP68 · « **Reply #47 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:59 »

Quote from: whatalife on January 22, 2009, 07:53

These are two different exclusives with two different opinions. It's not "speaking from both sides of the mouth"... there is more than one mouth. Good grief. Are you saying that what one exclusive believes, all should? That's ridiculous.

Not at all. I am referring to past arguments made by the same people in this thread that Alexa and Compete.com had no validity. Now they wish to use the same statistical data to prove iStock is the leading microstock site. I could care less whether it is or not. I contribute to IS, and as long as they do well, I have a better chance of doing well.

But this is not the Woo-Yay forum. I've watched the same iStock gang mentality which exists on the IS forum pervade this fine forum for over a year, and frankly I'm tired of it. It's the same several people, making the same tired arguments, running down other agencies, and defending each others' backs. It never takes you long to show up in these debates, does it?

If you don't keep your arguments straight, I'm going to call you on it.

lisafx · « **Reply #48 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:05 »

Quote from: whatalife on January 22, 2009, 07:53

I do find it interesting that I've been reading all the comments from everyone, with the vast majority saying that earnings on all sites are down right now from December, yet every one at the top has green arrows except istock, and now Fotolia. Maybe everyone is waiting until the end of the month to enter their final stats. That would be the most logical explanation. I guess we'll see when things wrap up how closely the arrows represent the anecdotal evidence being posted in the threads.

My earnings are definitely not down from December. December was awful (WMY). My earnings are up from there, thank God, but still down on Oct/Nov highs. And yes, I for one always wait until the end of the month to tally up my stats.

thesentinel · « **Reply #49 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:09 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 22, 2009, 12:59

Quote from: whatalife on January 22, 2009, 07:53

These are two different exclusives with two different opinions. It's not "speaking from both sides of the mouth"... there is more than one mouth. Good grief. Are you saying that what one exclusive believes, all should? That's ridiculous.

Not at all. I am referring to past arguments made by the same people in this thread that Alexa and Compete.com had no validity. Now they wish to use the same statistical data to prove iStock is the leading microstock site. I could care less whether it is or not. I contribute to IS, and as long as they do well, I have a better chance of doing well.

But this is not the Woo-Yay forum. I've watched the same iStock gang mentality which exists on the IS forum pervade this fine forum for over a year, and frankly I'm tired of it. It's the same several people, making the same tired arguments, running down other agencies, and defending each others' backs. It never takes you long to show up in these debates, does it?

If you don't keep your arguments straight, I'm going to call you on it.

Hello, you seem to have quoted me in the above mentioned posting... oddly enough I was saying that Alexa data was from a self selective panel, as is the side bar, and that it is a problem when either are quoted as 'the truth' I cannot see how I'm using this to prove that any site is the leading site.

I'm not sure where I've taken on a gang mentality, but I am aware it can run both ways.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #50 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:24 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 20, 2009, 05:34

Quote from: e-person on January 20, 2009, 03:18
I do suspect these forums don't tell the truth.

I do suspect people follow their own agenda.

So decrees "e-person."

Why exactly would someone vote SS #1 in personal earnings if they weren't? Who would have such an agenda, and what would they stand to gain?

People lie because SS pays them to lie? No that doesn't work, because then they would get more money.

People lie because they have some hidden agenda and want SS to look better. Hmmm, that doesn't work either?

I know, I know! People are telling the truth and SS does earn them more money because of the volume of subscription sales, and customers flock there for inexpensive photos for the same reason.

Either that, or it's some kind of conspiracy, which I doubt.

Contact these people.

bittersweet · « **Reply #51 on:** January 23, 2009, 10:38 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 22, 2009, 12:59

If you don't keep your arguments straight, I'm going to call you on it.

Call me on whatever you like. I have never gotten all worked up about Alexa and I don't put much stock in the little arrows either. I've never said otherwise. In this quote you refer to "istock exclusives" as a group, and it certainly seems that you believe it applies to all of them, and it certainly does NOT apply to me. It doesn't take me long to show up? If I'm being characterized in an untruthful way simply because I'm an exclusive, then yeah, it won't take me long to defend myself.

Quote from: DanP68 on January 22, 2009, 12:59

Amazing. iStock exclusives spent the last several months denying any validity to the Alexa charts which showed their traffic falling fast while other agencies were rising. Now they are quoting Alexa like it is The Bible. Get your arguments straight.

The "gang mentality" as you call it is what I would use to describe the way that some people have a serious problem hearing an opinion other than their own, and so accuses ANYone who disagrees with them as being part of some delusional groupthink mass and resorts to childish personal attacks and insults in order to justify their attitude.

bittersweet · « **Reply #52 on:** January 23, 2009, 10:44 »

Quote from: thesentinel on January 22, 2009, 14:09

oddly enough I was saying that Alexa data was from a self selective panel, as is the side bar, and that it is a problem when either are quoted as 'the truth' I cannot see how I'm using this to prove that any site is the leading site.

I'm not sure where I've taken on a gang mentality, but I am aware it can run both ways.

This I agree with 100%.

Quote from: ironarrow on January 20, 2009, 10:20

I believe alexa is very accurate.

This I disagree with 100%.

Two exclusives with entirely different opinions. I agree with one. I disagree with one. They disagree with one another. Where is this "gang mentality"?

madelaide · « **Reply #53 on:** January 23, 2009, 12:36 »

Quote

"gang mentality"

Is this really a NEW year?

Regards,
Adelaide

RT · « **Reply #54 on:** January 23, 2009, 19:33 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 22, 2009, 14:24

I know, I know! People are telling the truth and SS does earn them more money because of the ~~volume of subscription sales~~ amount of crap they accept, and customers flock there ~~for inexpensive photos for the same reason.~~ because they get frustrated with the iStock CV or because for a few hundred bucks you can get all the photos and vectors you desire which you can then upload and sell at the other sites knowing they'll do bugger all about it.

Edited with my thoughts

RacePhoto · « **Reply #55 on:** January 23, 2009, 21:59 »

Quote from: RT on January 23, 2009, 19:33

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 22, 2009, 14:24
I know, I know! People are telling the truth and SS does earn them more money because of the ~~volume of subscription sales~~ amount of crap they accept, and customers flock there ~~for inexpensive photos for the same reason.~~ because they get frustrated with the iStock CV or because for a few hundred bucks you can get all the photos and vectors you desire which you can then upload and sell at the other sites knowing they'll do bugger all about it.

Edited with my thoughts

Sure, but people are going to read that and think it was all mine.

Italics were added by RT.

I do disagree, because my photos aren't good enough to attract thieves. There is some consolation in that?

I just felt more put out by the original comment by e-person, that the stats on the right are lies, because we have some sort of hidden agenda.

Overall, considering that all sites have favorable and unfavorable opinions from a variety of people, it should balance out in the end. Even if there are people who are fabricating and boosting their favorite site, the same would be happening for all of the agencies, so again, it would even out in the end. It's probably easier to live in denial when things aren't going the way of ones opinion, and claim that the statistics are flawed or people are lying. Easier than facing the truth?

As it is, I've never entered any data in the boxes, because I don't feel I have a right to at this time.

Look at the OP, which the subject was weighted to elicit negative comments, against subscriptions and especially SS.

As long as people upload and sell photos by subscription, and it makes money for the agencies, and the buyers keep buying them, this is what we'll get. When Micro started, other stock selles were screaming how low price sales would ruin the industry. Hasn't seemed to happen quite like that. Instead a different market and strategy has evolved. Well, now we are seeing a change in that strategy and marketing. Subscriptions are an extension of the MicroStock philosophy.

Also we are seeing more of the same agencies adding on demand downloads, which is good because of the higher rates, and adding editorial which is opening new ways for micro sellers to sell photos. Talk about cutting prices? Editorial on MicroPayment? News photos aren't sliced tomatoes isolated on white, they are one time events, which can't be duplicated and imitated over and over. Now people are getting paid subscription rates for one of a kind photos? It's creepy.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #56 on:** January 23, 2009, 23:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 19, 2009, 18:22

But IMO it is more likely the slowing world economy that is responsible for softening sales...

I agree.

shank_ali · « **Reply #57 on:** January 24, 2009, 02:16 »

Nothing remains cheap forever...If something becomes popular invariably the price rises and so it has with microstock imagery.Also bring into the equation the fact more people are producing 'stock' imagery.
Money will always be spent on advertising.That money though will be spread more evenly throughout the industry.
The OP'S question can be answered....nothing will hurt this industry,which is strong ,vibrant and essential for designers and buyers alike.

DanP68 · « **Reply #58 on:** January 24, 2009, 16:51 »

Quote from: whatalife on January 23, 2009, 10:44

Two exclusives with entirely different opinions. I agree with one. I disagree with one. They disagree with one another. Where is this "gang mentality"?

My point is that this is another SS bashing thread, started by a prospective IS Exclusive contributor. And the minute someone disagrees with him, 2 or 3 more IS Exclusives immediately jump into the thread. Your opinion is always welcome of course, but the opinion is not the most informed one if you have no relations with said agency. How would you feel if DT exclusives started IS bashing threads, and made allusions to IS contributors being "part of the problem?"

DanP68 · « **Reply #59 on:** January 24, 2009, 16:58 »

Quote from: thesentinel on January 20, 2009, 08:36

Whatever the 'truth' is, chances are it won't be found on an internet forum. Generally they are largely populated by the opinionated, and usually the opinionated tend to have biases.

I think you speak the truth, though I personally take care to make my ratings as accurate as possible for Leaf. As Racephoto alluded to earlier, there isn't much reason for a contributor to lie about the ratings. None of us are taking money under the table from SS just to make them look good on a message board.

I believe for many non-exclusive contributors, IS has indeed fallen to #3 or #4 in the earnings rankings. It probably is not so much a function of traffic loss, as it is indicative of the preference for exclusive content in the IS best match. Which most of us accepted long ago, and we still happily do business with iStock. They just don't deliver the returns for us that they used to. No bias, just reality.

bittersweet · « **Reply #60 on:** January 24, 2009, 17:16 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 24, 2009, 16:51

Quote from: whatalife on January 23, 2009, 10:44
Two exclusives with entirely different opinions. I agree with one. I disagree with one. They disagree with one another. Where is this "gang mentality"?

My point is that this is another SS bashing thread, started by a prospective IS Exclusive contributor. And the minute someone disagrees with him, 2 or 3 more IS Exclusives immediately jump into the thread. Your opinion is always welcome of course, but the opinion is not the most informed one if you have no relations with said agency. How would you feel if DT exclusives started IS bashing threads, and made allusions to IS contributors being "part of the problem?"

You might want to go back through the thread and reassess who did and said what, and where the bashing came from. Or you might not. It makes no difference to me. All I ask is that if you want to say something mean, you consider directing it towards the person whom you feel has slighted you, rather than painting with a broad brush an entire group of people simply because they choose to upload to one site instead of many.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are subscriptions finally starting to hurt this industry? (Mainly SS) (Read 19198 times)

ironarrow

abimages

lisafx

ironarrow

ironarrow

ironarrow

tan510jomast

lisafx

ironarrow

ironarrow

DanP68

DanP68

ironarrow

ironarrow

nruboc

e-person

DanP68

ironarrow

ironarrow

ironarrow

DanP68

Tuilay

bittersweet

DanP68

lisafx

RacePhoto

bittersweet

bittersweet

RacePhoto

shank_ali

DanP68

DanP68

bittersweet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors