The simple answer may very well be that you've hit the saturation point for your niche. As profitable as your work has been, perhaps you should consider producing images that address a different market segment.I agree with Sharply on that
Doing this kind of production for microstock is not worth it, and looking at it from an investment point of view, it is time to downscale or find new waters…with higher prices. I am in particular losing revenue on the subscription sites. SS, 123RF and StockXpert.
A photographer of your quality and experience Yuri should be taking on bespoke corporate client projects in the $150,000 and above budget range.
Those billboards would have cost hundreds to thousands to print and put up on the building, not to mention the cost of advertising space, etc. The photographer, relative to that, gets a very small part.
Macrostock is the 5-star restaurant. It has all that midstock has, but better. The food is top-notch. Prices are much higher but you get value for money, the best caviar and seafood. Those restaurants have many customers, often you have to make reservations.
I'm tending towards dropping agencies that offer subscriptions unless they have an opt out option, like StockXpert and SV. I will lose some profit short term, but long term, it's the only way to go, at least if I believe that my images have qualities that customers are willing to pay at least $5 for.Agree
Not gaining revenue is a downer, but seeing your images everywhere must be a buzz.Probably the same kind of buzz that Vincent Van Gogh got as he knew his Sunflowers were sold for 100M$, and when he barely could afford the paint when he was alive ;-)
Maybe the minority of our microstock buyers are not at all interested (and probably can’t tell the difference, McDonalds vs Gournet) in really super high quality.
Just a curious question from an amateur: why do you pros and semi-pros sell your images with margins of 0,25$ instead of selling through macrostock companies?
I think the microstock business is great for:
1) microstock companies (if they do the job right)
2) designers looking for inexpensive images
3) amateurs like me and others -> "....not gaining revenue is a downer, but seeing your images everywhere must be a buzz.." (quote josh_crestock) is true/valid for me - but I don´t have to pay my loans with that.....
But for professional photographers? Or is it just a place where you sell your second grade quality (hope its the right wording - me german, bad english.....) and your main income is created by specific customers and/or RM?
Again, I´m just curious (in fact this issue is puzzling me from a "business point of view" since I entered the "microstock-world" in early 2007).
Just a curious question from an amateur: why do you pros and semi-pros sell your images with margins of 0,25$ instead of selling through macrostock companies?
Just a curious question from an amateur: why do you pros and semi-pros sell your images with margins of 0,25$ instead of selling through macrostock companies?
It’s not like you just walk into a macro agency and say ”hi, wanna sell my pictures” Macrostock is very conservative and highly concerned about image, so being a microstocker you are at the very bottom. People spend up to four years of work and get big loans paying for the production fees building a portfolio to present to macrostock agencies so they maybe can be accepted...
Just a curious question from an amateur: why do you pros and semi-pros sell your images with margins of 0,25$ instead of selling through macrostock companies?
It’s not like you just walk into a macro agency and say ”hi, wanna sell my pictures” Macrostock is very conservative and highly concerned about image, so being a microstocker you are at the very bottom. People spend up to four years of work and get big loans paying for the production fees building a portfolio to present to macrostock agencies so they maybe can be accepted...
Yuri, thank you for your feedback and clarification! So my understanding is that you (and others) went "pro" via microstock - then it´s a different picture for me now (still have to learn a lot about this business...).
From that perspective, the "downsize" approach makes sense - to be specific: what maximum size would you suggest ("medium" at IS is 5.5 MP - a Nikon D50 is producing 6 MP, freezingpictures is suggesting "4-5 MP")?
Well, I´m just a tiny little contributor but if it helps you big guys (and it will not hurt me) you can add me to the list (ha - joining a little microstock-riot is fun...)
Just a curious question from an amateur: why do you pros and semi-pros sell your images with margins of 0,25$ instead of selling through macrostock companies?
It’s not like you just walk into a macro agency and say ”hi, wanna sell my pictures” Macrostock is very conservative and highly concerned about image, so being a microstocker you are at the very bottom. People spend up to four years of work and get big loans paying for the production fees building a portfolio to present to macrostock agencies so they maybe can be accepted...
Yuri, thank you for your feedback and clarification! So my understanding is that you (and others) went "pro" via microstock - then it´s a different picture for me now (still have to learn a lot about this business...).
From that perspective, the "downsize" approach makes sense - to be specific: what maximum size would you suggest ("medium" at IS is 5.5 MP - a Nikon D50 is producing 6 MP, freezingpictures is suggesting "4-5 MP")?
Well, I´m just a tiny little contributor but if it helps you big guys (and it will not hurt me) you can add me to the list (ha - joining a little microstock-riot is fun...)
Nope. But if you want to join the good macros it's not easy...Getty, Corbis, Jubiter, Masterfile, Blend, Tetra. etc.
The thing is that being down with about 20% in the Christmas months (the total of 5% is over 4 months), January and February has to be up with about 20% to make it even out, and to make a progress they have to be up with a lot more. If January and February are “only” up with about 20%, that means I just lost a 40000USD investment and the time put into it.
The thing is that being down with about 20% in the Christmas months (the total of 5% is over 4 months), January and February has to be up with about 20% to make it even out, and to make a progress they have to be up with a lot more. If January and February are “only” up with about 20%, that means I just lost a 40000USD investment and the time put into it.
If an increase of "only" 20% is a bad thing, I doubt anyone here can offer you advice.
You may be misunderstanding my point. Increase has to match decrease.
I opted out at StockXpert when they launched subscriptions. Minimum MP at SS is a good idea. DT is a headache though.I just opted out of subs at StockXpert though my port there is small. At SS, I already uploaded at 6MP instead of full size. DT is a real headache. I like it a lot, especially for the EL's. I still trust Serban's good judgment and I always will.
...Someone get Andreas and IOfoto on the bandwagon?
Anyone catch this little note on SXabout subscriptions?
"Gain instant access to virtually every image on the site and save hundreds, even thousands, when you Subscribe to Stockxpert."
I wonder if they'll have to change that now. This list alone has to account for 20,000 images by now, and it'll only keep growing.
I am not yet in StockXpert. I will opt out, if admitted. But how to deal with DT or 123rf, these twoI agree now StockXpert is be left holding the crappy end of the stick because they listened to their contributors and made it optional. I personally don't submit anymore to sites that pay less than 30% or don't make subscription opitonal.
do not have the option to opt out.
vphoto
SS is upsizing images anyway. I do not know what "ratio" they use. But my last image was shot with 20D (and very slightly cropped) and it can be bought in 6700x4456 at SS (Super JPG 15.2 MB). Thats why they have the strict no noise policy, makes sit easier to upsize ....
I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … toAnd what is your affiliation to the site?
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … toTotally Agree!! And stop promoting iStock and Shutterstock just to get some referrals (if you want to stop the greedy agencies you have to start with your own greed - and featurepics pay referrals too ;-))
- Upload to Featurepics
- Set price similar to DT, IS, StockXpert per picture price for max size
- Tick "do not allow downsizing" / lower price
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
- Educate customers (eg in designer forums) that IS pays only 20% to artists, FP pays 70% which is more than a fair share.
Regards
I'm sure there is no affiliation at all, featurepics are just one of the most photographerfriendly sites and deserves our support something an iStock exklusive will probably never understand!I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … toAnd what is your affiliation to the site?
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
I'm sure there is no affiliation at all, featurepics are just one of the most photographerfriendly sites and deserves our support something an iStock exklusive will probably never understand!I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … toAnd what is your affiliation to the site?
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … to
- Upload to Featurepics
- Set price similar to DT, IS, StockXpert per picture price for max size
- Tick "do not allow downsizing" / lower price
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
- Educate customers (eg in designer forums) that IS pays only 20% to artists, FP pays 70% which is more than a fair share.
Regards
Correct. There is no affiliation. I just think it's a fair deal ...I believe you after looking at your previous posts. I'm just always suspicious of anonymous posters that promote a site heavily.
Subscription opt-out and downsize list:
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights
vphoto
faber (300 images)
I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … to
- Upload to Featurepics
- Set price similar to DT, IS, StockXpert per picture price for max size
- Tick "do not allow downsizing" / lower price
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
- Educate customers (eg in designer forums) that IS pays only 20% to artists, FP pays 70% which is more than a fair share.
Regards
- Educate customers (eg in designer forums) that IS pays only 20% to artists, FP pays 70% which is more than a fair share.
Correct. There is no affiliation. I just think it's a fair deal ...I believe you after looking at your previous posts. I'm just always suspicious of anonymous posters that promote a site heavily.
I haven’t thought about this before, but maybe, by reducing the size I could actually (ironically) get a lot more downloads on subscription agencies. Maybe the minority of our microstock buyers are not at all interested (and probably can’t tell the difference, McDonalds vs Gournet) in really super high quality.
I enough people and bigger players in this game would sign this list, wouldn't that be enough to at least make the agenices that doesn't allow opt out think again? If we could present a substantial list of people with well argued demands to these agencies, wouldn't that at least make them listen to us?
Yuri, I believe you're 100% right! And I wish that all the big players such as Andres, VGStudio, etc... could start doing the same thing!
Yuri, I believe you're 100% right! And I wish that all the big players such as Andres, VGStudio, etc... could start doing the same thing!
I hope the big players , Andres, VGStudio, IOFoto don't join this nonsence. If they have a problem with subscriptions then take your photos off all subscription sites that don't offer a choice, if you're so bothered by it. Yeah, let's punish StockXpert for giving us a choice, what a joke.
...Yeah, let's punish StockXpert for giving us a choice, what a joke.
Yeah i think its a great idea but despite istock i also don't know any Designer-Forum so if you know one please let us know!- Educate customers (eg in designer forums) that IS pays only 20% to artists, FP pays 70% which is more than a fair share.
Thinking about this, where are the designer forums? I have never seen one. I know some designers hang out in the istock forums but I don't think we will get very far there :)
\Yuri, I believe you're 100% right! And I wish that all the big players such as Andres, VGStudio, etc... could start doing the same thing!
I hope the big players , Andres, VGStudio, IOFoto don't join this nonsence. If they have a problem with subscriptions then take your photos off all subscription sites that don't offer a choice, if you're so bothered by it. Yeah, let's punish StockXpert for giving us a choice, what a joke.
I'm opting in, flame on, but StockXpert has been one of the best agencies to deal with for me, they actually listen to their contributors and have the easiest upload process. If you opt out then you should not contibute to Dreamstime, 123, SV, Crestock (Who pays a measley 25 cents I may add) as a matter of principle if you're so against the subscription model. Opting out will do nothing but drive the subscription customers to a different site, ones that I might add don't give you a choice, and may even pay you LESS (Crestock).I totally agree Nruboc. If you read my older posts you will notice that i was the leading force to convince StockXpert to make it optional!
Now if you start a movement against low commission paying sites (ie IStockPhoto, UnLucky Oliver, Crestock) let me know, I'm in.
Too funny, the only thing this will do is get StockXpert to rethink it's decision to allow an opt out. How is this going to get the other agencies without the opt out to re-think if you're STILL submitting there. You think that they're going to change their policies so you can opt out on them, no way, jose.
The list should be opt out of Stock Xpert, and stop submitting to the ones that give no choice (Dreamstime, 123, Crestock..etc) otherwise subscription customers will jump from one site to another where the most content is.
grp_photo I do not see StockXpert as an enemy as well as the other agencies.Come on it's easy to get rid of the banners to promote istock and ss.
But doing this what we do is the savest thing and something we can do and many are willing to do it. I agree that it will be more pressure for the agencies if we will delete our portfolios, but the problem with this is, it is not realistic because most photographers are not willing to do it the radical way, because they need the income. This thread is still about downsizing images at SS as well.
Remember that you can also opt out on sub. on Snapvillage if you are a member there.
Please note that you will have to change every image already uploaded there manually if you uploaded them with subscription on.
If this list continue to grow I think we have something going on here.
Yeah i think its a great idea but despite istock i also don't know any Designer-Forum so if you know one please let us know!- Educate customers (eg in designer forums) that IS pays only 20% to artists, FP pays 70% which is more than a fair share.
Thinking about this, where are the designer forums? I have never seen one. I know some designers hang out in the istock forums but I don't think we will get very far there :)
I remember Steve from StockXpert mentioned that if the subscrptions didn't catch on, they would scrap them. Is this going to harm StockXpert?
Remember that you can also opt out on sub. on Snapvillage if you are a member there.
Please note that you will have to change every image already uploaded there manually if you uploaded them with subscription on.
If this list continue to grow I think we have something going on here.
I just looked and I opted out of subscriptions with SV. I think this applies to all images, as I can't see any options to stop subscriptions on individual images.
...I can't believe a site like Shutterstock does not sell individual photos! Are they afraid of losing their subscription clients? Is it too much programming?...
...I can't believe a site like Shutterstock does not sell individual photos! Are they afraid of losing their subscription clients? Is it too much programming?...
Programming definitely has something to do with it. They are terrible with doing any kind of upgrades to the site. They are pretty much the only company who still hasn't integrated vector and jpg versions of an image under one file number, and their reasoning is simply that it would take too much development to do it. And we want them to introduce a whole new buying option and system? Ha!
;D
" The free ride is over. The micros are developing an ever-growing new group of professional stock photographers who will eventually leave micro and move on to mid and finally macro stock. The quality on those sites (mid and macro) will increase as will prices once again.
Let's face it, there are very few companies out there that will change a policy just because it's the "right thing to do".
Also I dont think resizing will solve the problem , and many of people that are producing lot of images will find that a pain in the ass , bacause it takes time to resize for some sites , etc.
we just sold a photo on a trad ...We have only 4 photos on this particular site, and they have been there for three years, but none of them would ever have been accepted on the micros, and they sure would not have sold.
So why not become a comping service? For the price of a subscription, designers are only able to DL very small or watermarked images. Once they have got their design finalised, they can go back and buy the ones they really want, at the size they want, and we can get a sensible payment.It is silly but only because designers can already get comps for free at most of the sites.
Or maybe a subscription could be for 740 web size and 10 full size. We get our 30 cents or whatever, and more for the full size.
Is that a silly idea? Tell me if it is, I can take it:-)
Linda
I'm opting in, flame on, but StockXpert has been one of the best agencies to deal with for me, they actually listen to their contributors and have the easiest upload process. If you opt out then you should not contibute to Dreamstime, 123, SV, Crestock (Who pays a measley 25 cents I may add) as a matter of principle if you're so against the subscription model. Opting out will do nothing but drive the subscription customers to a different site, ones that I might add don't give you a choice, and may even pay you LESS (Crestock).I totally agree Nruboc. If you read my older posts you will notice that i was the leading force to convince StockXpert to make it optional!
Now if you start a movement against low commission paying sites (ie IStockPhoto, UnLucky Oliver, Crestock) let me know, I'm in.
I hate subscription and i want fair commissions!
It's great that contributors finally take some action BUT THIS IS GOING NOW IN THE WRONG DIRECTION its the wrong target StockXpert is one of the most photographerfriendly agencies.
This thread started at DOWNSIZE FOR SS and option out now it's only option out at StockXpert.
I personally don't submit to any subscription or 20% sites. I deleted my portfolio at 123RF and did delete about 150pics at DT at the Moment they introduced subscription and don't contribute to them anymore.
I can understand that this is too radical for many contributors BUT NONETHELESS MORE AND OTHER ACTION is needed.
If all Agencies would treat their contributors like StockXpert (fair commissions, easy upload etc.) the Microstock - world would be perfect.
But the real enemies are iStock and Shutterstock. And then Dreamstime for not listening to their contributors to make it optional.
more and other action is needed! Don't fight the good agencies fight the bad ones
In a way - I'm for subs, it seems like a good business model for the agency. BUT - I'm against giving anything away. And if I had the expenses that the big players have it would be outright criminal.
Is there anyway we can do more than say "I'm not playing this game" and suggest ways to make subs more fair for both of us?
What do designers want? Do they want 100 high rez photos - I really think not. I bet they want smaller files to use in brochures, websites, newspaper ads.
Why not sell subscriptions for 4 or 5 mp and less? Bait and Switch, they find the perfect photo but if they need a 10 or 15 mp this time. Let them pay for it! I can't believe a site like Shutterstock does not sell individual photos! Are they afraid of losing their subscription clients? Is it too much programming? They have to lose thousands $ from those customers who are between subscriptions and go to Istock for a month. What if they stay at Istock and never come back?
OR... instead of having a 15 photo per day download limit - make it a 15 credits downlimit per day. 1 credit for small - 2 for medium - 3 for large... etc. At StockXpert we would still only get $.90 for a largish file, but that's better than .30... It's a compromise for both of us (unless in the end the agency is depending on leftover credits to turn a profit).
LO may not pay the best percentages, but they ONLY sell the largest/original size photo as an EL. That's $25 to me - and it seems to work for them, they seem to sell a high percentage of large files.
Hmmm... You basically say that because SS successfully introduced subscriptions and was copied from other agencies now it can't modify its commercial strategy because otherway it would lose customers to the copied subscription planes elsewhere.
The perfect lose-lose situation where all the commercial costs are pushed down to whom produce the goods they sell, basically us, till the limit when the game is too much stretched out and it breaks up.
When the revenues don't cover the production costs talking about how much StockXpert is nice or SS is fair while others are the really evil ones becomes pretty futile, don't you agree?
The choices are limited to both of us and the agencies.
If they want quality images they have to pay more because producing those images cost money.
Microstock is coming out of its infancy when it was solely based on old portfolios kept unused in hard disks (the infamous "better 20 cents than your images just collecting dust in your hd!") or hobbyist that can be pleased by the "buzz".
Now I can sustain to work without a real gain because at the moment I'm trying to learn to be a commercial photographer-illustrator and the microstock market is a good school.
Other people who already are at that level and well over simply can't, they'd better go out shooting weddings, it's far more profitable.
Can agencies survive just with people like me? I doubt it.
Well, you didn't offer any solution to the problem now did you?
Hmmm... You basically say that because SS successfully introduced subscriptions and was copied from other agencies now it can't modify its commercial strategy because otherway it would lose customers to the copied subscription planes elsewhere.
The perfect lose-lose situation where all the commercial costs are pushed down to whom produce the goods they sell, basically us, till the limit when the game is too much stretched out and it breaks up.
When the revenues don't cover the production costs talking about how much StockXpert is nice or SS is fair while others are the really evil ones becomes pretty futile, don't you agree?
The choices are limited to both of us and the agencies.
If they want quality images they have to pay more because producing those images cost money.
Microstock is coming out of its infancy when it was solely based on old portfolios kept unused in hard disks (the infamous "better 20 cents than your images just collecting dust in your hd!") or hobbyist that can be pleased by the "buzz".
Now I can sustain to work without a real gain because at the moment I'm trying to learn to be a commercial photographer-illustrator and the microstock market is a good school.
Other people who already are at that level and well over simply can't, they'd better go out shooting weddings, it's far more profitable.
Can agencies survive just with people like me? I doubt it.
Well, you didn't offer any solution to the problem now did you? Do you submit to Dreamstime still? Did you opt out at StockXpert? That's the problem we're talking about here. If you're like grp_photo and don't submit to any of the subscription sites, then I respect that, if you are ONLY opting out at StockXpert, then you are not contributing to a solution.
I am submitting to most of the subscription site so I'm not helping matters either, but it's because I don't know a way out of this subscription mess. Right now it's making me money, and if I hear a good plan of how to increase our commissions at ALL the subscripion sites, then I am in. Opting out at StockXpert alone, is not the answer.
And yes, agencies will survive without you, and without everyone who opted out above, and me for that matter.
This was never an issue of "Subscriptions are bad for contributors" for me. It has always been a "Subscriptions are bad for the business" idea that includes both contributors and the companies we contribute to. Think about how being subscription-only has crippled Shutterstock. They can't adjust anything in their pricing model because they only have one price. Neither the contributors nor the company will see a raise any time soon, because it would mean puhing pst that $199 price point and pricing themselves out of the bargain subscription business.
Shutterstock has so far increased their photographers comissions every april. From 0.20 to 0.23 in April 2005, then to 0.25 in April 2006, then to 0.30 in April 2007 and I am pretty sure will see an increase this april to 0.35
When StockXpert first said they were introducing subscription, there was a big fuss, everyone said they didn't want it.
The solution was there for the taking, StockXpert said if not enough people joined, they would abandon it. What happened? Just about everyone opted in.
I said from the beginning that if subscription was introduced with no opt out, I would delete our portfolio. I'm still prepared to do that. I understand perfectly that my decision is of no importance to StockXpert, but it is to me.
When it comes to DT, I haven't uploaded there for a while. I'm still hopeful that they will abandon the idea. If they don't, I'm prepared to give them up too. Again, I realise that my decision is irrelevant.
But Steven, your decision is not irrelevant. Yuri and Andres have had the guts to take some action. You, and a few others, could make a difference, but you aren't prepared to do that. I don't really understand why.
As for punishing the good guys, I don't see what you see. I see a company trying to grab a slice of a pie baked by someone else. When this first came up, Steve-oh talked about new customers. I asked if they were new to StockXpert, or new to Microstock. No answer was given.
Now we see people claiming that SS sales are down. Is it a coincidence?
Please don't say that you don't see a way out of this mess. You were partially to blame and you know it. You also know what the answer is.
Linda
When StockXpert first said they were introducing subscription, there was a big fuss, everyone said they didn't want it.
The solution was there for the taking, StockXpert said if not enough people joined, they would abandon it. What happened? Just about everyone opted in.
I said from the beginning that if subscription was introduced with no opt out, I would delete our portfolio. I'm still prepared to do that. I understand perfectly that my decision is of no importance to StockXpert, but it is to me.
When it comes to DT, I haven't uploaded there for a while. I'm still hopeful that they will abandon the idea. If they don't, I'm prepared to give them up too. Again, I realise that my decision is irrelevant.
But Steven, your decision is not irrelevant. Yuri and Andres have had the guts to take some action. You, and a few others, could make a difference, but you aren't prepared to do that. I don't really understand why.
As for punishing the good guys, I don't see what you see. I see a company trying to grab a slice of a pie baked by someone else. When this first came up, Steve-oh talked about new customers. I asked if they were new to StockXpert, or new to Microstock. No answer was given.
Now we see people claiming that SS sales are down. Is it a coincidence?
Please don't say that you don't see a way out of this mess. You were partially to blame and you know it. You also know what the answer is.
Linda
To me it's not a big problem, would I like to see more money paid to contributors for high res images in subscription plans? Yes. Will I stop submitting or opt out if they don't? No.
Why? I fail to see how one person's bad business decisions (Thread starter here) means that subscription plans are bad. Look how much he pays in production costs. Is that typical of the average microstocker? I would say not. Yet many of his groupies follow along on his advice.
Shutterstock alone, pays back what I spend in production costs and alot more, so there is no way I'm going to bash subscription plans. StockXpert has never been better for me, they are the fastest growing site in my experience, even after Subscriptions were introduced.
I am not one of the major players, I do stock part-time which is what the majority of microstockers do, for the love of it, not the greed.
As for SS being down, it's that time of year. It happened last year, and will happen next year. Things ramp up to November and then take a dive for awhile. Let's wait awhile before we press the panick button shall we.
I still think it's hyprocritical to opt out of StockXpert, and not only still submit to Crestock, but to accept a lower subscription payout. That is what the thread starter is doing. Crestock gives a 30% commission (after 100 sales) and a 25 cent subscription payout. If anything he should be complaining about this and not StockXpert, who pays 50% commission and 30 cent subs.
Let's start a movement around getting Crestock up (commission % and subscription payout). I'm all for that. But no one else seems to want to take a stand on that.
Let's start a movement around getting Crestock up (commission % and subscription payout). I'm all for that. But no one else seems to want to take a stand on that.
I agree that subs at StockXpert are not that much an handicap, but I honestly understand that this tread is more about a symbolic move against the subs model.
Hi guys,
Just read every one of the posts in this thread. I remember discussing with the StockXpert team whether or not we should include opt-out as a feature. I argued that if we truly believe subscriptions is another opportunity to make the contributors and us money, then we should offer the opt-out because we should have nothing to fear. It's a way of simply being honest with them about our intentions. Everyone agreed.
I think a month later I reported that only a small handful of existing ppd customers actually became subscribers. And of those only a couple were on pace to spend more on credits than subscription. And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.
So basically, most of the subscribers were new customers. And we are still adding many new customers who ppd. I don't have the latest subscriber stats. I will try to look into it, but I cannot imagine subscription is the cause for a noticeable decrease in contributor revenue, especially around the holidays.
We still believe in the subscription model, but we are following this thread with interest.
-Steve
...I think a month later I reported that only a small handful of existing ppd customers actually became subscribers. And of those only a couple were on pace to spend more on credits than subscription. And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.
Totally agree on this i really don't understand why it's so hard for some people to recognize this problem.
Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.
Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.
And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.
-Steve
Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.
Then please explain to us why you still have your work on ShutterStock. Sounds to me like your saying one thing, but doing another..hmmmm
You are right, and that is one of my considerations right now. Somewhere further up this thread, I state the need to take a short term loss to improve long term earnings. I've always been skeptical to subs, but with the falling sales at SS, it has become increasingly clear.
The dilemma for me, is that nothing changes if only one photographer withdraws his portfolio. But if several act together, we may see some changes from the agencies.
SS has been a special case, being so dominant in the subs market. With increasing competition from other agencies, we will see sales at SS decreasing further, and the real nature of subs will become apparent: it's microstock with the lowest pay possible. Although some of the sales at IS generate a lower profit, those are low-res sales. With subscriptions, we always get the lowest rate. Hasselblad or camera phone: same pay.
That's the whole point with Microstock, isn't it? You don't need a Hasselblad, thank god!you are right but that doesn't mean we don't need to invest in equipment.and as you know decent equipment (not necessarily Hassy) still cost a lot
That's the whole point with Microstock, isn't it? You don't need a Hasselblad, thank god!you are right but that doesn't mean we don't need to invest in equipment.and as you know decent equipment (not necessarily Hassy) still cost a lot
But I'm suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why.
But I'm suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why.
nruboc:
Greed seems to be blinding your judgment.
But I'm suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why.
nruboc:
Greed seems to be blinding your judgment.
Kind of ironical don't you think. Here you are accusing me of greed, when I'm the one who's happy with .30 subscription commission, and your the one arguing for more, more, more.
A little like your hyprocritical friends who bash and complain about subscription plans yet are still submitting to them...man the irony is comical.
...A little like your hyprocritical friends who bash and complain about subscription plans yet are still submitting to them...man the irony is comical.
...A little like your hyprocritical friends who bash and complain about subscription plans yet are still submitting to them...man the irony is comical.
I think this whole thread has taken a wrong turn somewhere. StockXpert became the unfair recipient of some frustration simply for doing the right thing and offerring an opt-out. I think StockXpert is doing everything right, and they are one of the best in the business.
I'll admit it, I'm regretting my name being on that list a bit. It's a jab at StockXpert, and as said above it is undeserved. However, I wouldn't say that this whole thread is just a bunch of hypocritical chatter. The problem with subscriptions is very real, and the simple fact that SS takes such a huge cut of each image sold is worthy of some discussion.
I really like the idea of having the subscriptions only at a medium sized resolution, and if they want higher resolutions, they pay more for a higher "enhanced subscription" plan and the photographers get paid more for these downloads. That to me sounds like a darn good idea, props to whoever mentioned it. I'm not sure if there's anyone who would disagree with this, if so, speak up.
QuoteI really like the idea of having the subscriptions only at a medium sized resolution, and if they want higher resolutions, they pay more for a higher "enhanced subscription" plan and the photographers get paid more for these downloads. That to me sounds like a darn good idea, props to whoever mentioned it. I'm not sure if there's anyone who would disagree with this, if so, speak up.
This seems to make good sense. I want to make sure this gets discussed further for possible implementation @ Crestock.
I agree that to keep microstock a sustainable industry, the subscription model needs to be looked at, for possible changes to it.
BTW, we had a record day of non-subscription sales yesterday. Hope those of you submitting to Crestock felt that.
Regards,
Josh Hodge
The Crestock Team
With the big istock raise in prices, I would like to see the other sites raising their prices. It doesn't seem to of slowed down istock. I can see a lot of people going exclusive there if the other sites don't raise their prices soon.
It's really like clockwork. I knew all I had to do was upload about 20 new images each week for the last 2 weeks, and I would set a new BDE. So I decided to test it out. And yesterday, I set a new BDE. Totally predictable. Those images won't be downloaded anymore 2 months from now, except for once in a great while. Shutterstock will make you some good money, but it is in no way an investment.
I think this whole thread has taken a wrong turn somewhere. StockXpert became the unfair recipient of some frustration simply for doing the right thing and offerring an opt-out. I think StockXpert is doing everything right, and they are one of the best in the business.
Well downsizing to minimum acceptable MP sizes on subscription sites may not be as painless as many here feel. I can certainly see the wisdom in downsizing 39, 16 and even 12 or10 MP images but taking everything down to the minimum 2.5 or even 4 MP could well discourage Extended License sales I think.
fred
It's really like clockwork. I knew all I had to do was upload about 20 new images each week for the last 2 weeks, and I would set a new BDE. So I decided to test it out. And yesterday, I set a new BDE. Totally predictable. Those images won't be downloaded anymore 2 months from now, except for once in a great while. Shutterstock will make you some good money, but it is in no way an investment.
Dan, I don't see how predictability is a bad thing. Yes, Shutterstock is predictable and yes, it leans toward newer images, but my experience there is that once people are pulled into your portfolio by the new images, they often browse and buy older ones too. I find it very reassuring to know that if I work hard and upload consistently I will be consistently rewarded on Shutterstock.
Contrasting that to some other sites where new images can sit totally unnoticed for weeks until they drop off the face of the map, I think I prefer Shutterstock's system.
Interesting thread and it's nice to see Bryan and Josh adding their point of view from an agency side.
The thing I dislike the most about the subscription model is that we the photographers get exactly the same amount of commission irrelevant of the file size that has been downloaded, what I'd like to see is a commission structure for subscription sales the same as for normal credit sales, for instance 30c for a web sized download and then say $1.20 for an XL, of course for an agency the subscription model is a money making machine which is why SS are so succesful, the bigger the file size a buyer downloads the more money they make because a buyer downloads fewer images but they still pay the contributor the same commission.
I agree totally with what Yuri has said but the same applies to all of us no matter what level of contributor you are, production costs are not being met by commissions, even if you don't hire models,locations and props etc you still have the cost of equipment and your time to balance out.
Microstock exists because of amatuers and by that I'm not talking about the quality of imagery that's produced, for an amatuer who's main source of income is one other than photography the commission is not as a major concern, yet for someone who's income relies on a commission structure from stock it's a fundamental problem, I can see that long term Pro's are going to reach a saturation point as previously mentioned whereby they stop submitting at the current levels they are to Microstock agencies, this in turn will effect the Microstock agencies because even though there are some very very talented amatuers they won't be able to provide a large enough supply of fresh images because of other commitments, then in turn buyers are going to go elsewhere to source fresh material.
Josh, I can't speak for Yuri but I'm surprised at your comment regarding how he must get a buzz seeing his image on a billboard, personally if I saw that and knew it was the result of a few dollars commission 'buzz' is the last feeling I'd have, however your comment is exactly what I am referring to above, for an amatuer 'buzz' is part of the enjoyment they get for doing this, speaking as a Pro the buzz wore off a long time ago I'm in it for the money because it's my job.
Bryan's comment (whatever your personal feelings about LO) is much nearer the mark IMO, I hear people say that buyers are not concerned about how much they pay for an image, I don't agree with those type of statements, when you're running a business or working to a budget you have to get the best deal you can on every part of a contract, price is an important factor and so is quality.
A simple example, Paper, for my business I purchase two types of paper, the cheapest reams of white A4 for my personal records/files etc but I also purchase expensive watermarked stuff for sending out invoices or writing letters to clients, they are both white A4 but for some things I require a better quality and I'm prepared to pay more for it.
Something I've mentioned before is that I would be prepared to send exclusive images to some of the Microstock agencies in return for a better commission, by that I mean proper commision not just another 10% of the $2 dollar download, Fotolia have started their Infinate collection and it'll be interesting to see how that works, however for the life of me I can't understand why they've restricted submissions to a very select few, why not do what I've mentioned above and open it up to exclusive images.
I have stayed away from the forums for a while but I still like to hear what people have to say.
Here's my two cents:
I have come to hate subscriptions - they devour photos and hero images have to be really amazing and unique. When I get the opportunity to do so, I will move away from that and go exclusive. Not yet however.
I have much to comment about but it isn't really relevant to this thread - the one last thing would be that developing your own style of photography and separating yourself from the rest of the field (whether through in-camera skills or through magical photoshop techniques) will ensure you will have a great deal of success in the long-term.
Thanks,
Joseph
Well downsizing to minimum acceptable MP sizes on subscription sites may not be as painless as many here feel. I can certainly see the wisdom in downsizing 39, 16 and even 12 or10 MP images but taking everything down to the minimum 2.5 or even 4 MP could well discourage Extended License sales I think.
fred
Fred, I don't think 2.5MP affects much EL sales.
With a portfolio of 800 pictures, I get between 2 to 6 EL sales every months with SS, and most of my pics are arround 3MP.
It's really like clockwork. I knew all I had to do was upload about 20 new images each week for the last 2 weeks, and I would set a new BDE. So I decided to test it out. And yesterday, I set a new BDE. Totally predictable. Those images won't be downloaded anymore 2 months from now, except for once in a great while. Shutterstock will make you some good money, but it is in no way an investment.
Dan, I don't see how predictability is a bad thing. Yes, Shutterstock is predictable and yes, it leans toward newer images, but my experience there is that once people are pulled into your portfolio by the new images, they often browse and buy older ones too. I find it very reassuring to know that if I work hard and upload consistently I will be consistently rewarded on Shutterstock.
Contrasting that to some other sites where new images can sit totally unnoticed for weeks until they drop off the face of the map, I think I prefer Shutterstock's system.
The predictability of new images selling is quite nice. But the predictability of them dying out by 2 months or so is not so nice.
I just made a video on youtube, promoting StockXpert whit a link to my portfolio. It's under review right now. I don't really know if this is a good thing to do. I know some people here have made one lately, promoting their portfolio...
But whit all of us opting out, I try to promote this site first, maybe it would be good whit Featurepics also. Do anybody know places who are more relevent to upload videos or do I make a mistake?
Sounds like a good idea, but if it was me, I would promote only my FP portfolio. They pay better and accept more or less anything i upload, so why promote the second best?
Sounds like a good idea, but if it was me, I would promote only my FP portfolio. They pay better and accept more or less anything i upload, so why promote the second best?
Do they pay a better percentage? Or just pay better in general?
I see the logic behind supporting the site that pays the highest percentage, but it isn't very helpful if they don't generate many sales. I see StockXpert as the best all-around site. High royalty percentage, high site activity and sales activity, thus high earnings. I would support them over any other site based on those factors, not just royalty percentage alone.
Some site could come along and offer 90%, but that's worthless if you get one sale a month there.
I will be opting out and in over the next few days to see if there is a difference in income. So fare none. Andreas will be doing this too
Then you have to ask the question: why don't they sell well. If the reason is lack of marketing, and I believe in my portfolio, I should invest all I have in marketing my portfolio at the agency that pays the highest percentage. That will give maximum return on my investment...
Then you have to ask the question: why don't they sell well. If the reason is lack of marketing, and I believe in my portfolio, I should invest all I have in marketing my portfolio at the agency that pays the highest percentage. That will give maximum return on my investment...From what I've read on this forum, it seems that FP is charging a 30% commission for doing nothing other than maintaining a commercial website. This doesn't sound like such a good deal to me ... I do all the work, they get 30% for hosting my files and managing the payments. Geez, you'd be further ahead by selling on eBay.
So, no one's really taking a stand against anything then here, right?
I will be opting out and in over the next few days to see if there is a difference in income. So fare none. Andreas will be doing this too
From what I've read on this forum, it seems that FP is charging a 30% commission for doing nothing other than maintaining a commercial website. This doesn't sound like such a good deal to me ... I do all the work, they get 30% for hosting my files and managing the payments. Geez, you'd be further ahead by selling on eBay.
Your efforts to advance a slow-mover are going to pale in comparison to the marketing efforts the other company is doing, and you would probably be wasting your time. Sure my efforts to push StockXpert would also pale compared to their print ads, for example, but at least my time and effort would be going into a company that has real potential.
I think people here have taken the stance that subscriptions are not in the best interests of the business, and we should be cautious about which subscription companies we get into bed with.
Unfortunately most of us are crippled by our involvement in SS, where despite the destructive nature of their subscriptions it would still be foolish to leave such a big player in the microstock world, and few people are presently in a position to take any significant action. There is an opt-out at StockXpert, which obviously many people have elected to act on, and some might be inclined to leave lower-end companies that do subscriptions and don't pay well anyway.
I am taking the stance that some microstock companies offer unfairly low royalty rates, and SS and istock are the worst offenders. Despite being the top performing companies out there, they pay some of the worst percentages to contributors. Sure they both dish out good money to us, but compared to what they take in, it is not right. The subscription model is flawed to the point where contributors get 10% or less, and istock isn't much better at a base rate of 20%. The average exclusive only gets 30 or 35% at best. Hell, Lise and the handful of top-tier exclusive still get less than 50%.
I am hoping that I might be able to reach Jon and Bruce directly to express this to them. I don't think anyone here is looking to leave these companies. Just see them share the wealth a bit more fairly. That, to me, is the stand we are taking here.
Your thread has ended up on John Harrington's Blog ([url]http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/ahh-joys-watching-maturation-happen.html[/url]). He isn't a big fan of microstock or the people who market in that arena. On the post he referenced Lee Torrens ([url]http://www.microstockdiaries.com/microstock-full-circle.html[/url]) specifically discussing this thread.
...These people have been earning a living with their photos all their careers, and now a wave of 'mostly' hobbyists are eating away at their livelihood...
... I never understood why people embrace a subs model like SS just because it sells a lot. Yes, total $ is good, but it is underpaid. You may earn a lot from a single image - more than you might in a macrostock model - but behind this you have buyers accessing images too cheaply.
Regards,
Adelaide
..... with too low prices somes buyers don't take microstock like serious business. With higher prices they start to consider MS more professional.
..... with too low prices somes buyers don't take microstock like serious business. With higher prices they start to consider MS more professional.
good point!
Leaf,
I've asked this question of another member on how many photos do you have on the various sites. If you don't mind me asking the same question.
Gary
Istock has biggest price for images but still they have more buyers than any other micro. I think there is a lot space for price to rise
There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :
The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing
[url]http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html[/url]
... I never understood why people embrace a subs model like SS just because it sells a lot. Yes, total $ is good, but it is underpaid. You may earn a lot from a single image - more than you might in a macrostock model - but behind this you have buyers accessing images too cheaply.
Regards,
Adelaide
The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that all microstock is VERY underpaid and only makes sense because you can make money on selling in bulk. Wether we are underpaid and only getting $1.00 or underpaid and only getting $.30 cents it is the same ridiculous low amount. That is why what matters to me is the end amount an image makes.
There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :
The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing
[url]http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html[/url]
some nice reading. He made quite a few good points - I hope the microstock agencies read that.
There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :
The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing
[url]http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html[/url]
The problem here is not the low price, but the too low price.
I think that the casual blogger, the casual user, were among the first to use micros for getting their images, but now you see images from all micros showing on websites from corporations and on print ads all over the place. And we still get pennies for it.
Licences are too wide on what the buyer gets and we get the burden of all the legal implications, model releases and everything else associated with the supply of photos. Aesthetic requirements are up, reviewers are more and more strict and the return just does not make it worth to keep uploading photos to most of the sites.
Any serious designer, who really needs an image for a paid work, could easily pay 20 dollars for an image without problems. So I think that the midstock model is the one to embrace and support. I, for the time being, will keep uploading to Alamy, PSC and other agencies that pay more for my work.
...Hmmm ... wasn't it hatman who said that exclusives at IS would enjoy the biggest gains in 2008? I think he was called crazy for that opinion, too.
Back to microstock, I'm enjoying the new hike in prices at iStock. Big-ups to management and I am seriously starting to consider an exclusiveness there once I go silver. Hip hip houray!
I'm getting very tired of submitting to multiple sites that provide low returns, and SS - the only other site that provides high return - has lately been giving me all sorts of crazy rejections. I originally planned to go exclusive at IS after I hit diamond, but I'm now considering making the jump when I hit gold next month. If the current prices keep up, I'll be averaging $1.90+ per DL ... can't beat that!
You can beat $1.90 per download for RF with FP, LO, SV, Alamy, and lots of other sites that you can't upload RF to if you are exclusive with istock.You could still upload RM to Alamy, but not RF. And yes, you might be able to hit $1.90 per download at FP, LO, and SV but how many downloads would you get per month? A handful total combined? Is it really be worth all of the extra time and effort to earn a extra few dollars? Looking at my earnings spreadsheet, the answer is increasingly looking like no, it's not worth it. I'm thinking I'd rather use that time to start building an RM portfolio with Alamy and Photoshelter.
I am going to upload a lot of RF to Alamy and other higher paying sites this year. From what I have read on the Alamy forums, the earnings can be good.It's really interesting how diffferent sites have different earning levels for everybody. IS and SS are rocking for me. DT and FT are doing okay. StockXpert and SV are showing potential. The rest are pretty low.
My situation is different as istock makes up a low percentage of my earnings, around 15-30%, probably because they have rejected lots of my best selling photos and illustrations, so it isn't worth sacrificing RF earnings from all the other sites.
One of their best match search changes halved my sales last year and that would have been a disaster if I had been exclusive there, so I doubt I would do it even if their earnings were higher.
where micros seem to be 50 cents to $1 for most people here
There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :
The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing
[url]http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html[/url]
$1 per photo PER MONTH is the AVERAGE income in microstock when you submit to the big 7 and you have a portfolio of more than 200 photos.It all comes down to individual portfolios no matter we talk about micro macro or whatever. So saying the average for micro is that xx amount and the average of macro is this xx amount is pretty senseless.
Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.
It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.
$1 per photo PER MONTH is the AVERAGE income in microstock when you submit to the big 7 and you have a portfolio of more than 200 photos.It all comes down to individual portfolios no matter we talk about micro macro or whatever. So saying the average for micro is that xx amount and the average of macro is this xx amount is pretty senseless.
Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.
It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.
it will be interesting to see what the poll reveals next month.
My average per time worked is around 1,5$/worked hour/month
My average per time worked is around 1,5$/worked hour/month
This number is the most important one, in the end...
If the return per hour worked really worth it... That is what each of us has to figure out with our own numbers and our own data. And if that return satisfies us... Interesting...
My average per time worked is around 1,5$/worked hour/month
This number is the most important one, in the end...
If the return per hour worked really worth it... That is what each of us has to figure out with our own numbers and our own data. And if that return satisfies us... Interesting...
How is this calcuated? Does this take into consideration that the image continues earning after the work has been completed?
I have had no increase in income for the last four months. None. I am actually down with about 5%
4. Convert my $8 in earnings on CS to credits, download someone else's photos and close my account there. I'd rather another photographer get some revenue than the site.
In doing some image searches, I've found that in some cases my images were used from BS on the same publication as other images from IS and more expensive agencies.Couldnt' this mean simply that they were impossible to find on IS? Do designers really have the time to search to page 128 for a perfect image?
In any event I've decided over the next few months to:
1. Concentrate on uploads to IS
2. Continue uploading to SS - but with reduced resolution
3. Stop uploading to the "cheaper" or low volume sites such as DT, FL and BS
4. Convert my $8 in earnings on CS to credits, download someone else's photos and close my account there. I'd rather another photographer get some revenue than the site.
5. Consider exclusivity at IS if sales there continue to rise.
One more thought - as a group, I think there is the power to influence sites. I did a rough calculation based on DT's data, the top 200 photographers make up over 500,000 of the photos online - the next 500,000 come from about 600 more photographers. DT claims to have around 28,000 photographers. What this says is that existing images, and new images come from a relatively small number of photographers. I suspect that a fair few of these top 1000 participate in this group.
Why stop uploading to DT, FL, BS??? Probably because that time saved would be better spent creating and uploading more images to SS and IS where it would get a better return. IS and SS are 83% of my earnings so far this month. The other 9 make up the remaining 17%. Fotolia is at 7% and is the only one of the lower earners that is showing growth for me.
Yep that's the main reason. I actually really like DT, and it does show some promise and makes up about 10% for me at the moment, but I want to see how IS and SS go over the next few months - if it becomes worthwhile to become exclusive on IS, then I want to be able to exercise that option - unfortunately that means no uploads to DT for 6mths.
In any event I've decided over the next few months to:
1. Concentrate on uploads to IS
2. Continue uploading to SS - but with reduced resolution
3. Stop uploading to the "cheaper" or low volume sites such as DT, FL and BS
4. Convert my $8 in earnings on CS to credits, download someone else's photos and close my account there. I'd rather another photographer get some revenue than the site.
5. Consider exclusivity at IS if sales there continue to rise.
I have had no increase in income for the last four months. None. I am actually down with about 5%
How'd the advice from here work out?
The whole microstock market is moving towards midstock prices little by little; I believe it is successfully doing so but at subscription sites I can't see that happening at the same pace.
he was opted back into subs on StockXpert.
Very interesting analysis Andresr:) I think at one stage the only way to increase $ is to gradually move pictures from microstock (avoiding sites with purely sub sales) to midstock. Quite a lot of agencies are present on this market now and they pay in Euros : I am thinking about mostphotos, zoonar,panthermedia......
L
Very interesting analysis Andresr:) I think at one stage the only way to increase $ is to gradually move pictures from microstock (avoiding sites with purely sub sales) to midstock. Quite a lot of agencies are present on this market now and they pay in Euros : I am thinking about mostphotos, zoonar,panthermedia......
L
I think too that moving to midstock sites makes sense. Let sites with subs envy midstock growth. Should we have a section devoted to midstock only discussion ?
Yes. Yuri's images are available for subscription. They have the orange "sub" button next to it on the thumbnail page. That's life. People saying one think and doing another.he was opted back into subs on StockXpert.
Reaaaaly?
Here's new liste opt-OUT:
rene (about 600 images at StockXpert)
Can anyone answer, is there any benefit to opting-in to subs at StockXpert? Do increased downloads give a photo more momentum (and possibly more regular sales)? Is it a payoff that should be measured? I haven't been on StockXpert that long so I don't have much of a history to make predictions.
I know this much for certain, 30 cents isn't enough.
Before subs I got around 80 sales / month at StockXpert. When they introduced subs I noticed that next few months the combined sales volume was same (around 80-90 images), but my income dropped to 2/3. I opted out early in this month and my sales level is same as last three months but the income went back to same level before subs...My portfolio is small (around 1000 images) and mainly focused on food and still life images so no huge sales there anyway.
Can anybody confirm similar behaviour? I'm afraid that stokfoto's concerns are quite correct. I do not get why they give money away by allowing XL size subs, because it seems that users buy images even if they are not awailable in subs sales.
I will continue to opt out crusade to get more data about it:).
br, MJP
.........Same here.
We have had our BME on IS in $$ and DL.
Is there a connection? I don't know.
However, we have decided to upload only to IS for a few months, and watch what happens.
Linda
Yuri -
Your thread has ended up on John Harrington's Blog ([url]http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/ahh-joys-watching-maturation-happen.html[/url]). He isn't a big fan of microstock or the people who market in that arena. On the post he referenced Lee Torrens ([url]http://www.microstockdiaries.com/microstock-full-circle.html[/url]) specifically discussing this thread.
Duane
Some interesting figures, comparing my Jan 07 sales with the Jan 08 sales:
SS has increased by 15% from 07 to 08
The total of all agencies, except SS, have increased by 116% from 07 to 08
The SS part of my earnings have gone down from 47% in Jan 07 to 32% in Jan 08. I have not added any agencies with significant earnings the last 12 months.
This is in my view a rather dramatic development, and there's another side to it as well: as much as 36% of my sales at SS are vectors, something I sell very little of at other agencies. If I deduct the vectors, SS represents only 22% of my total sales, at least, that is the situation for for January 2008.
Are things going well in microstock? Yes, they are for me, but I'm not so sure about SS.
Here's new liste opt-OUT:
rene (about 600 images at StockXpert)
So is this an opt out of the opt out? I was a bit quick opting in and I might experiment with subscriptions, so I will opt out.
rene (about 600 images at StockXpert)
sharpshot (about 2700 images at StockXpert