MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 06, 2008, 18:15

Title: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 06, 2008, 18:15
What’s your experience? Are things going well in microstock?
Here is an honest breakdown from my perspective:
Over the last three months I have produced over 2000 images of the highest quality I have ever made. They are bright, colourful, super sharp and ultra high res, all with new faces - professional models and new locations. It has cost me over 40000USD to produce these images and three months of 60 hours a week. 

Now this is the problem:

I have had no increase in income for the last four months. None. I am actually down with about 5%

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Amos Struck on January 06, 2008, 18:22
thats a realy interesting question! I think that microstock market will break into 2 different parts.
One part will be the cheap photos and the other part are the premium market.

There is not need to sell a professional photo at 1$ because most people who use it are able to pay much more.

Did you ever tried to start your own microstock agency, only for your portfolio?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 06, 2008, 18:30
That would be an extreme endeavour and I would lose all my income in the transaction, because I would en an competitor and would be banned from a lot of agencies. I also know how much advertising costs and what I would cost in online marketing to get my portfolio actually visible in Google. The thing is. That microstock is changing and the photographers are getting pros, but the agencies are still armatures in their mindset. Both photographers and agencies lose from having too low prices.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 06, 2008, 18:32
Look at the graph to the right. Everywhere there is red except Crestock, which have prices starting at 5 USD
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharply_done on January 06, 2008, 18:44
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: digitalfood on January 06, 2008, 18:47
Have you looked into photoshelter, alamy or myloupe for RM?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Whiz on January 06, 2008, 18:51
The holidays slowed things down some. Maybe it will pick back up in a couple of weeks.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 06, 2008, 19:10
I am seeing an increase in earnings except for the Christmas slow down.  Shaply-done made a good point.  I am sure diversification is the way to keep the sales going.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 06, 2008, 19:58
Yuri,
I'm seeing the same thing as you are seeing, and with a completely different portfolio. One of the problems is subscriptions, and why more and more agencies are jumping on that bandwagon is beyond me. It's as if your local grocery store said: we know you have been buying food from us for umpteen years, but as from tomorrow, you can buy ten times as much food every day for the same price.

Obviously, after a couple of years, you would have gathered enough food to last a lifetime, and you would no longer need the grocery store.

And, as many have said already: designers don't really care if an image costs 1 or 10 dollars. The price is so low compared to the total project cost even when creating the tiniest little brochure or website, that the difference totally insignificant.

If microstock is going to survive as a profitable business model, it needs to look at itself in a long term economic perspective. Since "we" are an important part of "it", we have to do what is necessary from our side to contribute to our own future. For me, that equals opting out of subscriptions when possible and consider removing my portfolio where it's not possible and to support agencies that charge better prices and pay a higher percentage to the photographers.

We often talk about microstock and midstock. I think it's simpler than that. To survive, microstock needs to become midstock, and microstock, that's us.

There will obviously always be new agencies popping up with lower prices, but as we are now in a situation with 5-10 large, established companies that "rule" the market, a small, cheap one won't have much impact long term. Customers shop for quality and diversity most of the time. The can't afford wasting time looking for the lowest price if quality is to be found elsewhere.

Just my 2p (or was that 15p?)


Jorgen
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 06, 2008, 20:04
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.


I keep saying sub models  is a kind of killer to the industry and it only lowers the prices and I don't think anyone will benefit from it in long term.
As for crestock yes they do have price tags starting from 5 dollars but as contrast they  offer one of the most reasonable(form buyers point of view) sub prices therefore I'd think their higher(?) prices is there to encourage people buy subscriptions  needless to say all my sales on Crestock  are subs(having said that I have a tiny folio there and a handful of downloads)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vonkara on January 06, 2008, 20:40
It's when microstock sites will lost peoples who invest big money and time that they will consider rebuilding the business structure.

 I heard Istock saying that they loved us so much, many times and I don't like them like they do :D that make me think that they make really much more money than me whit my own file. Even if I don't have so much.

If we were all together and stop uploading to SS and 123RF for example, they were maybe out of business in the time to shut down a computer. I can't imagine all that full size downloads I miss from subscription sites. Even if SS earn a lot...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: erwinova on January 06, 2008, 20:43
Yuri..(i'm your fans)  :)

Everything will be going well, as long as photographers walking to the right direction...
If photographers support the subscription agency or agency that give 20%-30% share, that will be bad thing in the long term...
Keep support to low share agencies at the moment for your cash flow, also support the 50-70% share agency like featurepics for long term and better future (who knows). When your revenue in 50-70% share agency going to be high you can delete your file from low share agency...

The problem is the high share agency not popular yet righ now, photographers should be help to make it popular.

Imagine that you have same ammount of download at same price between 20% share agency vs 70% share agency...maybe you not going to created this topic :)
Imagine that all photographers (at least best phographers) stop uploading at low share agencies..
imagine that your 60 hours a week pay at 70%..
imagine that all agencies give you 70%..

it's all about photographers...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: bryan_luckyoliver on January 06, 2008, 21:05
Yuri-
While we don't haven't the volume yet, we firmly believe midstock is where the industry is going.  We initiated this segment because we feel that margins need to increase for photographers.  The concept of midstock is that microstock *and* macrostock can coexist.   One drives the other.

Other agencies have held back based on fears of losing margins on their higher-end brands, but we've driven things forward. I can only think this is good for photographers in the long run.  I wouldn't be surprised if 2008 has more companies entering into this space.



Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: hatman12 on January 06, 2008, 21:17
I'm not convinced that a 5% reduction in revenue over the last four months is yet a 'trend'.  The last three months have seen a big shift to seasonal images, and as far as I'm aware you don't have those in your portfolio Yuri (except the disco/gig series).

People with a big seasonal emphasis in their portfolios will see a drop in the next three or four months, so their experience will be the opposite.

I agree that subscriptions (at these prices) devalue a photographers work and are not good for the long term.

I don't think Microstock has reached saturation (in fact I think it is still in its infancy), but it is possible for a photographer to reach saturation, as sharply suggests.

I noticed recently that Hidesy (at iStock) has just uploaded her 10,000th image.  A year ago she had 7,000.  But she still seems to be selling about 8/12,000 pictures a month, so although she's increased her portfolio by nearly 50% her sales over the past year appear to have stagnated.  It's possible that as she now uploads new work, her work of four years ago has become 'old' and drops out of the equation.

The same thing might be happening to you Yuri; the whole world is aware of your move to Hassleblad, and buyers 'might' prefer to buy those new images instead of your older ones, so you are 'working to stand still' (but at higher costs).  Sometimes publicity doesn't help the bottom line.

The good thing is that microstock prices are continuing to rise at 20% per annum or more, and I expect that to continue for the next five years, so even if sales remain constant, income should rise.

A photographer of your quality and experience Yuri should be taking on bespoke corporate client projects in the $150,000 and above budget range.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: yingyang0 on January 06, 2008, 21:22
If I was a people photographer like you Yuri (I refuse to sell any photos of people under a RF license) I'd be looking for areas that haven't been done over and over. Especially ones that are news driven. For instance, there are little to no hispanic manual workers on iStock or any place else. Given the daily rantings of republicans about illegal immigrants I would have thought people would be uploading a lot more hispanic workers.

This is just one of the many areas of people photography I've notice haven't been done and I would think are in demand (I've been trying to buy them for several months now).

$160,000 a year in overhead even for a top performer seems extreme. I thought most microstock models are paid in prints.  Why pay for beautiful people when, from what I've seen, normal people doing everyday activities sell just as well. I'd consider contacting Lisa to see what her costs are. Remember that it's not about generating the most revenue it's about generating the most profit.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 06, 2008, 21:53
Talking to a designer friend the other day she said the advertising company where she works now uses SS for "not personalized" images (the ones used in compositions, small prints, preparation work etc) instead than getting them from Getty. She said the difference in quality is very small if any, just a lack of "realistic" people shot (you know every model smiles happily in micro).

Anyway they probably download ten times from SS than before from Getty but between the 200-300 $ of Getty and the cents of SS there's the ocean. Plus they don't have the time to download at full their subscription limit, so SS get the 100% of their unused subscriptions.

I'm still wondering where lies that quality difference to justify that an image on SS would cost less than 1% than on Getty. Especially when I browse through Yuri portfolio.

In my (very) humble position I decided that some shots will go to Alamy and other RM agencies, while the ones more widely usable (isolations, 3d renders, etc) will go to micro. I think diversification is the only way.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 06, 2008, 22:16
40 grand is a lot of coin.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HughStoneIan on January 06, 2008, 22:41
A photographer of your quality and experience Yuri should be taking on bespoke corporate client projects in the $150,000 and above budget range.

That goes without saying, but I'm glad you said it anyway.  Abandon microstock, Yuri.  Your future could be so much brighter!  ;)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: jsnover on January 07, 2008, 01:21
Yuri,

I realize my experience isn't directly comparable to yours, but I do think the seasonal sales are huge Oct to December (this fall season was my 3rd full one in microstock). Each year the pattern has been a good climb from October to November (typically the best month of  the year) and a 20% drop in December from November, but that's still a good month.

If you didn't include strong images with seasonal themes in the last few months' production, the spring sales surge (March-ish) might well see some sales increase from your new images. I don't know how the wrapped packages and ornaments pictures sold, but they didn't appear to be as competitive as your people images are (IMHO).

I think that many, many photographers have seen a drop in downloads (read the moaning on the IS forums on that topic) over the last year or so - in some cases offset by the higher prices and extended license sales. A combination of a much larger pool of images and higher prices...

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 07, 2008, 01:44
Here are my weekly statistics for 2007. The text is small, but hopefully, you can read it.

(http://i.pbase.com/o4/58/694958/1/91347397.owlso2pj.MicroStat2007.jpg)

The trends are very clear:

- The distance between SS and the best of the others is decreasing.

- Sales value has flattened out, in spite of the fact that my portfolio has increased in size by more than 50% through the year.

I had a rather brutal reminder of the difference between subscriptions and regular sales today. At Crestock, where my sales are almost only subs, I had three regular vector sales yesterday, generating $3.00 each. That's 12 times as much as subscription sales.

The value of the subscription sales may be decreasing, but the fact that it's an option for the customers at an increasing number of agencies, decrease the value of my photos. 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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: josh_crestock on January 07, 2008, 03:57
This doesn't bide well for the industry as a whole, when the forerunner is struggling to turn over a profit. Its a reality check for a lot of the agencies, and we all need to start looking at new, innovative models that will provide a better selection of quality images at a pricing model better for both photographer and the agency.

As Crestock is one agency thats growing and generating an increasing customer base every day, perhaps we would be well placed to introduce changes that would provide a sustainable future in the industry.

Though, Yuri, after being on holiday in Dubai where there barely went a day where I wasn't confronted with one of your images. On the plane, browsing in-flight magazines, there were a couple from the beach series, then driving around, there were your images blown up on massive billboards on buildings. Well, 2 at least and there must have been more. Not gaining revenue is a downer, but seeing your images everywhere must be a buzz.

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: null on January 07, 2008, 05:12
I read the comparison with groceries here but me thinks that you should rather compare with the restaurant business.

Subscription is all you can eat for a fixed price. The food is OK, but fatty and starchy to get you full fast. A clever eater goes first for the oysters and the seafood (if there is any) but most are seduced by the cheap dishes near the entry. Anyways, a stomach is finite and most people just don't eat all they can.

Microstock is the fastfood restaurant were prices are somewhat higher but you can choose. The food is in disposable plastic cups. All is plastic. The spoons, the forks, even the ketchup is wrapped in plastic.
You will have to queue in a very brighly lit hall full of gossiping and screaming teenagers, then fight for a place somewhere and get over with it quickly.

Midstock is the better middle-class restaurant where you are served in a relax way at your table, with some music, in a cozy atmosphere, with real dishes and real glasses and proper forks. You don't have to queue, you are being served and taken care off. The food is better too.

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.

Now who would make the most money? The fastfood chain or the 5-star restaurant? Designers obviously want to pay for convenience and for finding the right top notch quality shot fast. They don't have time (=money) to crawl through google or cheapstock to see whether the same image is available elsewhere for 1$ instead of 10$.

Another thing: you can serve different types of food but not degrade a photo. You can downsize but it's still the same photo. What if a fastfood restaurant offered the caviar, just in smaller portions?
Finally, what about a regular restaurant customer that sees that at the same counter, an all-you-can-eat customer gets the same hamburger for less?

Yuri Arcurs offers the worlds finest caviar and sushi. He caters the best restaurants. Now suddenly, this exquisite brand name Arcurs concludes a deal with McDonalds or all-you-can eat to serve the same caviar, only in smaller portions. What will customers think? Arcurs fools us and he is throwing pearls to pigs. Plus the screaming teenagers in McDonalds don't even know the difference between caviar and fries with ketchup.

Just a thought. I am getting hungry.... ;-)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rene on January 07, 2008, 05:21

I still don't understand how an experienced photographer can sell full size images on subscription model sites. With your 39 or even 16MP customers get 4-5 pictures for 30cts. They can crop then and get good quality images of hands, legs, skin texture, hair,  clothes... with only one picture of your business woman.
Suscription model for full size images is not acceptable.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: RT on January 07, 2008, 05:22
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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 07, 2008, 05:25
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.

Lucky Oliver has the sideshow, Snap Village, Featurtespics and some of the new sites offer higher prices.  I hope all the sites follow this trend.  Top quality RF images will sell for higher prices and this will help the sites and the contributors.

I am starting to upload higher priced images just to the sites that allow this.

3 of the sites are owned by traditional stock agencies, why don't the other sites look at rights manged images at higher prices?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: michealo on January 07, 2008, 05:33
Yuri,

I wonder whether the real problem is that the barriers to entry for your competitors like me are very low. I wouldn't for a second claim to be in your league but I still nonetheless I compete with you for sales. My sales are miniscule but there are thousands of me all around the world and everyday I am joined by a thousand more. You photos may be better but you can't shoot the sheer volume that we shoot.

I have no overheads as photography is a hobby so I already had the camera, I don't pay models or rent a studio., I suspect that many of the others are like me. Microstock is growing but the contributors are growing faster than the overall revenue.

You need to look carefully at where you can grow incrementally revenue at low cost, some of the choices you will have to make may be unsavoury like aiming for lower quality or reducing your costs.

Perhaps negotiating an exclusive deal with a single agency where you get a much higher % than usual. Your portfolio would lend huge legitimacy to a small site they should be prepared to pay you a large fee - make sure you get it up front.

Perhaps you look for a position in Snapvillage, they have deep pockets and need the help

Perhaps you let your assistants shoot stock and create a low cost volume based brand.

Perhaps you move to Ireland for the artists tax free exemption.

...



Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 05:34
Thanks Josh and Brian for bringing in the agencys perspective.

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.

I’m planning to do this:
Downsize my SS uploads to minimum res, so the people that want to buy them in full res, does so for real money. This way people also don’t get irritated with too big file sizes when downloading.
Obt out of StockXpert subscription, because I feel I have lost money ever since they introduced it and maybe some of my regular buyers are now buying my pictures over a subscription instead and that’s why I’m losing money.
No casino, concert, big business shoots or pro-model shoots, because it does not pay. Stick to secure and easily produced pictures.
Do an effort at pushing subscription agencies toward regular commission of the net-income from commission downloads. No fixed rates (0.30, 0.35 cents etc.) because they hide away the actual commission. 
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: RT on January 07, 2008, 05:40
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.

You were typing this as I was adding my reply, your analogy is an interesting one and I agree with certain aspects of it except for the above statement, unfortunately on Macrostock not all the food is top notch in fact a lot of it is very sub par quality, but as you've rightly pointed out they have the customers who up until recently have only known this type of food!

There are some fantastic photographers on Macro who's work I aspire to, but believe me they are far out numbered by many who's work is quite frankly appalling.
Pick any Macro agency and do a search for an object (anything will do) on a white background, it's amazing how many photographers there think that a murkey dull grey colour is white! The background may have been white when they took the shot but it ain't in the final result, and yet these people are selling them for much more money that better shots sell for on Micro, Why? because as you pointed out buyers are tied into agencies that they've used for years, have accounts with and know how to use their search engines.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 07, 2008, 05:47
Perfect comparison FlemishDreams.

And to complete it I can add that there are some top notch restaurants that offer you a business lunch for 20 euro, while their dinner would cost 80-100, to widen their customer base.

But it is 20 against 100, not 1 against 100 and the choice is limited even if the quality is the same as the most expensive dinner.

I think that the actual problem in stock is the insufficient relation between quality and price.

While in the restaurant comparison is pretty obvious and also the customers know well the quality difference between McDonald and the "Great Gourmet Restaurant", in the stock images market you can often find better images in micro than in macro and at an insignificant price fraction of the latter.

This is confusing also for the customers and it is ruining the overall market.

To put into another comparison I still remember when electronic stuff from Japan did cost a fraction than USA or Germany one, but when it caught up with the quality of the latter the price difference was progressively eliminated and today is close to zero. My guess is that quality photographers like Yuri should sell at higher prices while most macro agencies should lower theirs.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rene on January 07, 2008, 05:57
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 05:58
From my rounds of regular costumer interviews I know that buyers can be irritated about too big files, and with my JPG going way into 20mb+ in size I think that especially subscription buyers may cancel the upload, when they see the maga download time.

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: null on January 07, 2008, 06:03
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  ;-)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Smithore on January 07, 2008, 06:27
Quote
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.

Yes and it's also normal to sell high resolution and quality images at higher price. We can't sell off our work for 25c.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 07, 2008, 06:54
Interesting topic. Yuris it might be time for you to diversify as already suggested. You might compete less with yourself.
Regarding the subscription on Shutterstock, I think you have a very good point in downsizing your images. Maybe all of us here on Microstockgroup should start a movement to agree on sending SS downsized images  max 4-5 MP and opting out on subscription where possible. Gving enough time and photographers who will join, buyers might notice that they get the best quality and images by not using subscription and paying more money for images. Also agencies will be less inclined to start subscriptions or will rethink this model or raising the price or ".. pushing subscription agencies toward regular commission of the net-income from commission downloads.." as you Yuris suggested. I am not totally against subscription, but 0,30 cents is really a little bit to low in my opinion.

Starting today I will send SS only downsized images and opting out of subscription at StockXpert.
If others will follow and want to proclaim it here in the forum, I suggest we should start a list.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 06:59
Good point! I will do so too and if I can actually get more downloads from downsizing then what’s the trouble.
Someone get Andreas and IOfoto on the bandwagon?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on January 07, 2008, 07:00
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).




Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 07, 2008, 07:07
Ok, great!

Everybody who wants to join, should copy the names from the most recent post and put his name under our names in a new post.

So here is the list:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: GeoPappas on January 07, 2008, 07:12
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 07, 2008, 07:14
Many now professional photographers started as amateurs and are now professional or semi-professional. You can make a lot of money with microstock if you are dedicated, thats the core reason why you will find more and more pros in this business.

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).





Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 07:14
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...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Smithore on January 07, 2008, 07:15
opt out done at StockXpert

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rene on January 07, 2008, 07:19
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 07, 2008, 07:26
Just opted out of StockXpert.  I think it is a good idea to upload lower resolution images to subscription sites.  It is a shame we can't opt out on some sites and I wonder if StockXpert will make it compulsory if a lot of us opt out?

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: MicrostockExp on January 07, 2008, 07:28
Just Opt-out at StockXpert make sense since I send high res . I downsize at SS (10 to 5MP)

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on January 07, 2008, 07:35
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...)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 07, 2008, 07:39
Despite being almost a complete newbie in microstock I am already sending downsized (4-5mb) images to SS. Why should someone buying them at DT have to spend 3-4 times without a reason? I guess in 90% of cases it would not make a difference for the customer and it helps to create some neat difference, web resolution image = cheap, luxus magazine resolution = a lot higher price. It makes sense.

Don't know if my name can be useful (as I told before I'm a newbie with a very little portfolio) but if can be of some help count me in.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 07:42
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on January 07, 2008, 08:00
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.


mmhhhh..... I regulary look at corbis and getty images (for "educational" purposes) - some are quite outstanding, but there is also a lot of mediocre stuff compared to top microstock images (I have to admit just from my amateur point of view...).

Could it be the these sites just protect a "closed market" regarding photographers?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 07, 2008, 08:28
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 08:43
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Lev on January 07, 2008, 08:48
Hassy won't pay you back on microstock, my friend, and you know it.

Actually i believe best camera for micro is 5D. i've recently ordered myself 1DsMk3 and i know it won't really pay back on micro comparing with forthcoming 5DKm2. the only reason for me spending $10K now was intention to have my pictures as big resolution as i can allow myself to, not the idea i will sell them for much more when i'll switch from 5D to 1Ds. so it was more artistic than business decision for me.

upscaling a bit sales volumes and going to your case, 1DsMk3 is the best camera for you as a BUSINESS TOOL FOR MICRO and you know it.

still as much as i remember the day we had a dinner in Oslo you're the one who can be considered technocrate the best possible way. so i believe you really enjoy Hassy and your artistic side is more than satisfied with this great tool. i believe you made good artistic decision. just don't expect it to pay back as business decision on micros. it won't.

friend of mine owns online IT shop. and he enjoys to make a delivery by himself. rich businessman spends his time delivering $20 worthy item he sold online and made a penny of. the car he uses for that is his own brand new latest BMW M5, he paid over 100.000 Euro for. he knows spending his time and using his car for delivery is not about business, still he enjoys it. he's just "Taxi" movie type of guy. i don't want to say it's exactly the same situation you have on micro with Hassy, but it's not that far. i will never consider you or my friend making it wrong as long as i understand how much fun you have. still don't expect it will pay back as business. if we're talking about micro or cheap online shop delivery. ;]

actually i'm doing the same shooting 10000 pictures every month and having only 2000 pictures in my portfolio. i should stop shooting and finally postprocess all great stuff i have on 3Tb of my backup storage now. i believe i have at least 20000 of very good images i should postprocess and sell. still i continue shooting, spending time, buying cameras, accessories, papers and stuff. it's pointless but i just can't resist. ;]

so well, we are ARTISTS after all. we can shoot when we don't have to or use Hassyes on micro. that's what we do. even knowing it won't pay back there on micros. we a artists, as i said so we don't have to be business and logic ONLY.
 
***

downsizing images for SS is a smart idea, i will maybe use it too.   

thanks for this thread, Yuri. it's been a long since we communicated last time so i'm really enjoying talking with you.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: digitalfood on January 07, 2008, 09:11


Yuri, you don't have to join those site to sell your images at marco, just look into Photoshelter Collect, Alamy as the to best site, Photoshelter give a 70% commission and you can sell RF or RM images. Your work is better than microstock especially if you are producing expensive shoots.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: michealo on January 07, 2008, 09:20
Yuri,

You probably missed my earlier reply in this thread but it seems that from reading dolgachov's post that there is disconnect on what is being done by him with a business justification and what is artistic or individualistic. I suspect it may be the same for you.

Unlike sjlocke I think that this forum has much to offer in terms of advice.

But I will start with a preamble

What is your plan to increase your revenue for 2008. Actual figures aren't required.

Say for example it is 20%

Then either you need to sell 20% more photos or sell the same number for 20% more.

If you can do both you will make 44% more.

Next is the bottom line.

Say you want to increase your profit 20% you can do either of the above and maintain the same margin, but if your costs are increasing faster than your revenue this will decrease your profits.

Reading your posts I get the impression your costs are increasing, all the IT investment to support the Hasselblad workflow.

Your costs, staff, rent, models, etc will go up with inflation

And it sounds like your revenue is stagnating.

Am I correct?



Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 07, 2008, 10:23
You may be misunderstanding my point. Increase has to match decrease.

No, I understood.  You want 20% minimum increase to offset your past drop in projected gain.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 07, 2008, 10:54
I opted out at StockXpert when they launched subscriptions. Minimum MP at SS is a good idea. DT is a headache though. They are selling well but don't have an opt out possibility for subs.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ludesal on January 07, 2008, 11:17
I sell vectors, so will upload only simple ones to SS.
I'm not uploading to DT anymore because I don't like their policies and when they let me, will close my account.
I've just opt out on StockXpert subscription.


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: null on January 07, 2008, 11:24
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.

Opted out of sub at StockXpert:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: RT on January 07, 2008, 12:54
Well as I mentioned earlier I think images downloaded by subscription should be structered on file size, so therefore I'm prepared to take action where I can until that's implemented.

Opted out of sub at StockXpert:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 07, 2008, 13:24
In my first writing of this reply, I said that I wasn't too concerned with subscription sales cutting into my StockXpert earnings. Since January 1, sub sales accounted for just 3 out of my 36 total sales.

But after rethinking that, I realized 2 things:

1.) While that only figures about 8% of my sales so far this month coming as subscription sales, if I imagined they were credit sales instead, at the end of the month 8% can be a big deal. Of course it's not like I'd get those sales back as credit sales if I opt out of subscriptions, since the subscription buyers will just go to another artist if they can't download my image. But the idea of missing 8% of my sales at the end of the month does mean something.

2.) StockXpert raised proces on vectors recently, and restructured the pricing tiers for vectors. I am not getting $5.00 commission per credit sale on my vectors. It definitely bugs me that I get just $0.30 cents on a subscription sale of a vector, when I should be getting $5.00.

Looking at it that way, I'd be crazy to keep doing subscription sales at StockXpert. I don't have much choice at SS, but at least at StockXpert I can do something about it.


Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vonkara on January 07, 2008, 13:33
I put my little brick to the wall and opt-out. I will now try downsizing pictures to SS and I don't think DT is professional, like Latex said whit their subscription obligation and others policies, so I will think about my future there also.


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 07, 2008, 13:36

Opted out.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 07, 2008, 13:41

Opted out.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light

We opted out of StockXpert subs from the start.
We also downsize to SS.
We are thinking hard about DT, which used to be a favourite site. Haven't uploaded anything to them, so far this year.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: mjp on January 07, 2008, 13:58
Joined on the list.. Will send downsized images to SS (what is the best resolution to downsize to maximize sales (I'm using 5D at moment))?

br, Mikko P.

---
Opted out.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 07, 2008, 14:00
...Someone get Andreas and IOfoto on the bandwagon?

I think it already speaks volumes about the problems this business faces when the top microstocker is struggling to increase income and is rethinking strategy. There have been plenty of people talk about leaving sites, being frustrated with policies and practices, and going as far as to really end relationships with some sites just to make a statement. Unfortunately, the harsh reality of the situation is that most people (myself included) don't matter enough to get noticed. I could leave any or all of the sites I contribute to and even write lengthy explanations as to why I would leave, and at the end of the day it wouldn't make it to the desk of any decision-makers and it would have been a futile gesture.

With Yuri discussing these problems and looking for ways to take action, maybe something can actually be done to bring about some real change. And with a list of people opting out, and the first name beiing Yuri Arcurs, that has to mean something.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 07, 2008, 14:04

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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: northflyboy on January 07, 2008, 14:17
I've opted out of subscription for StockXpert and so far I have not contributed to SS.

---
Opted out.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 07, 2008, 14:18

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.

Both StockXpert and SS are going to think...."What happend"
Get more people in!
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ason on January 07, 2008, 14:24
Opted out.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Void on January 07, 2008, 14:51
Opted out.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: boatman on January 07, 2008, 14:53
Opted out
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
boatman
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Alex on January 07, 2008, 14:56
Opted out.... Little ants can do amazing things.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
Alex
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 07, 2008, 15:02
Some names got dropped. I suppose from people posting close together. Use this one going forward:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
boatman
Alex
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 07, 2008, 15:14
I am not yet in StockXpert. I will opt out, if admitted. But how to deal with DT or 123rf, these two
do not have the option to opt out.

vphoto

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 07, 2008, 15:24
I am not yet in StockXpert. I will opt out, if admitted. But how to deal with DT or 123rf, these two
do not have the option to opt out.

vphoto


I 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.
It's great contributors start action but the action should be fair in my opinion iStock and Shutterstock are the worst and should feel the pressure in the first place. And then next dreamstime to make subscription optional.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Eco on January 07, 2008, 15:30
Also opted out..

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
boatman
Alex
Eco
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Rozmaryna on January 07, 2008, 15:34
Opted out at StockXpert and submitting downsized images on SS from now on.


...Not that it would make a big difference at the moment, as I am one of those beginners-amateurs with just a few images online.

However, I have got really enthusiastic about stock photograhy since I discovered the world of (micro)stock three months ago and plan to dedicate this year to studying and making stock photography and growing my portfolio both in terms of quality and quantity (with quitting my regular job at least for six months - I really MEANT IT when I mentioned being enthusiastic :-).

I have already got from the "hoooray" stage of submitting photographs "everywhere and to be sold under any conditions" to thinking a bit more about the fate of my images and my incomes. So, as the subscription-related comments posted above make sense to me, I have decided to join the list in spite of being basically at the start line - just to try to shape (though in just a microscopic scale :-) our microstock future...


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: pixelbrat on January 07, 2008, 15:39
I pulled all of my images from StockXpert when they chose to reject 50% of my photos but will pledge to submit downsized images to SS from now on.

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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Read_My_Rights on January 07, 2008, 15:41
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stock_fan on January 07, 2008, 15:44
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 ....

Just search one of your images when you not loged in and check it out ...

Downsizing to the lowest allowed size (4MPx) would make sense ... but again SS simply upsizes them.


I opted out at StockXpert in Dec. for subs.


Regards.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 07, 2008, 15:55
I got approved at StockXpert (was not earlier this day). Opted out.

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


vphoto
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 07, 2008, 15:56
They lowest allowed size is 2,5MP (if you an older contributor i think they changed it in 2006 but only for new contributors)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 07, 2008, 15:59
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 ....

If it would be needed just bicubic interpolation or genuine fractals to make an image double the size with good quality Leaf, Hasselblad and Phase One would go bankrupt in a matter of months and we all would stick around with 4mp cameras.

Just like with film if you enlarge an image is a lot better to start out from 6x6 than 35 mm. 4-5MP means that an image could be used for web, software and low-quality/small prints, so it would makes sense the low price.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stock_fan on January 07, 2008, 16:04
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 07, 2008, 16:12

Yuri, have you ever looked into some of the recent microstock-to-macrostock options for top contributors? Stockxpert's Jupiter images deal (http://www.stockxpert.com/special/sxpress) comes to mind, and I believe that istock had something going on as well, although it was probably just for exclusives. The StockXpert thing required that only the images you submit to the Jupiter collection be exclusive to StockXpert/Jupiter. If you're tired of microstock and are looking for avenues into the macro world, maybe this is a way in. Just a thought, and you probably have already considered it. :)

The way I see it, you've definitely got the skills to be a great contributor to any collection, and maybe branching into macrostock collections like this is the way to go. That way you can still shoot your standard stuff, the images that you are known for, and submit them to colections that will hopefully earn you more. And you can also keep doing the quick-and-easy microstock stuff as well.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: yingyang0 on January 07, 2008, 16:13
I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … to
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
And what is your affiliation to the site?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 07, 2008, 16:15
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
Totally 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 ;-))
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 07, 2008, 16:17
I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … to
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
And what is your affiliation to the site?
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!
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on January 07, 2008, 16:18
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)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stock_fan on January 07, 2008, 16:27
I would recommend to all the big playes like Yuri, Andres, Lev, … to
- Promote this site like hell (email signature in each eMail, web site, etc.)
And what is your affiliation to the site?
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!

Correct. There is no affiliation. I just think it's a fair deal ...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 07, 2008, 16:31
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

We can all put a link to our portfolios at featurespics in our signatures here.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: yingyang0 on January 07, 2008, 16:36
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: dbvirago on January 07, 2008, 16:39
Opted Out - also agree re FeaturePics

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
dbvirago
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: cmcderm1 on January 07, 2008, 16:41
Opted out at StockXpert
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
dbvirago
cmcderm1
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: boryak on January 07, 2008, 16:55
Opted out at StockXpert
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
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HughStoneIan on January 07, 2008, 16:57
Opted out at StockXpert
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
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on January 07, 2008, 17:04
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 just added the number of my images (see above). Maybe you can do that too, so we can easily see the overall number of images affected by this.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HughStoneIan on January 07, 2008, 17:07
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

Another vote for this idea.  It's looking like this will be the year for FP!
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: digiology on January 07, 2008, 17:11
Opted out at StockXpert
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
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: swedstock on January 07, 2008, 17:23
Opted out at StockXpert
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
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Read_My_Rights on January 07, 2008, 17:41
Not proud about my small folio but you all know how hard it is to get pics in.
Added my pictures that are affected

Opted out at StockXpert
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 (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pixart on January 07, 2008, 17:44
You know I wouldn't mind subs so much if we could tick a box and allow them on individual photos.   

And, what size are you going for?  4mp seems so small, I've been downsizing to about 5mp lately anyway.  Too big?  Just right?

Opted out at StockXpert
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 (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: fauxware on January 07, 2008, 18:15
I agree

Opted out at StockXpert
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 (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Smithore on January 07, 2008, 18:45
updated the pictures number

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Void on January 07, 2008, 18:52
Opt out Sub at StockXpert

updated the pictures number

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lumina on January 07, 2008, 19:03
Opt out Sub at StockXpert

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Rozmaryna on January 07, 2008, 19:09
Updated: Number of my photos -

Opt out Sub at StockXpert:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 07, 2008, 19:10
- 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 :)



Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 07, 2008, 19:11
Added my photos.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Lukasphoto on January 07, 2008, 19:34
Added my photos.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 07, 2008, 19:37
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.

Nothing wrong in promoting the agency that gives the best deal to photographers. I do it myself, all the time, and my connection to them is nothing more than my portfolio. One sale at FP gives me 5-10 times as much as one sale at IS or SS. Reason enough for me.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: aremafoto on January 07, 2008, 19:57
I opt-out as well.


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ikostudio on January 07, 2008, 20:00
I opt-out as well.


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Kiya on January 07, 2008, 20:24
Another opt out

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: erwinova on January 07, 2008, 20:33
opt out, I couldn't downsize my photos at SS, because I' not member there :)
And for microstockgroup admin, please add featurepics portfolio link form, I realy want make featurepics popular....


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Velvia on January 07, 2008, 21:12
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: DanP68 on January 07, 2008, 23:31
I will concur with what was said earlier in the thread.  StockXpert is the one in the cross-hairs only because they were willing to give us an opt-out. But alas I am out too.


Opted out at StockXpert:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68


Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: jorgeinthewater on January 07, 2008, 23:56
I'm not there yet but will opt out the moment I'm in. Also changing all images as SV to non sub. SS smallest possible.
Opted out at StockXpert:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 08, 2008, 00:52
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).

Now if you start a movement against low commission paying sites (ie IStockPhoto, UnLucky Oliver, Crestock) let me know, I'm in.


Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: swedstock on January 08, 2008, 01:25
Updated the list with picture count...

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 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? One can at least hope. At least it would make an impression, that we photographers can unite strong against something that we find unfair and damaging to our (and their) buisness.


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori (1060)
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: cphoto on January 08, 2008, 01:28
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.


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'm a modest player compare to you but my strategy since the beginning has been to submit to SS pictures to the minimum size requirement: 2.5 MP, and I still get a pretty decent number of downloads (about 1500/month for a port of 800 images, mostly landscapes).  Why on earth would you want to give a way one of your super high quality image in 39MP for 30 cents?  I think I would just downsize it to 2.5MP and put the 39MP on macrostocks.

I actually upload different size on each site to make sure I optimize the pay based on the site payment structure:
FT:   8MP
StockXpert: 6MP
IS: 5MP
DT: 5MP
123: 5MP
SS: 2.5MP

ALAMY: 16MP

This way the customer will have to pay $$$ to get higher resolution of my pictures.

I too noticed a drop in sales for past 3 months, especially with SS and more recently with StockXpert, and I also agree that subscription model is bad for us.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 08, 2008, 01:53
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?

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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 08, 2008, 01:57
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: cphoto on January 08, 2008, 02:05
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.

nruboc, thanks for quoting me but looks like you did not read my post.

I was saying that I think it would make sense that everybody, and especially the big players, submit their images at the minimum size requirement to Shutterstock.  I'm perfectly fine selling with subscription sites if my images are at the lowest possible resolution.  And, Like Yuri, I'm pretty sure that subscription buyers actually prefer smaller resolution image (faster download and 99% of the time they mostlikely don't need a super high resolution image).
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 08, 2008, 02:30
...Yeah, let's punish StockXpert for giving us a choice, what a joke.

I don't think anyone is ganging up on StockXpert here. They offer the opt-out, so of course they will be the topic of discussion when participating in subscription sites comes up.

The point of all this, and of opting out, is that we as contributors can't just go along for the ride anymore, letting the microstock companies take us wherever they like. We actually have some concerns about our futures in this business, and want them to listen to what we have to say. This is a way of saying, "Look at how many people opt out of subscriptions when given the choice." It says that if we are forced to participate in subscription sites, that is better than nothing. But given a say in the matter, subscriptions are definitely not cool with us.

I've wondered if StockXpert went into the subscription plan thinking that we would all be ok with it, maybe even be happy about it. This seems like a good way to let any site considering a subscription plan to give it a second thought. Not only will some people be opposed to it, but people like Yuri will opt out or consider pulling out. I really doubt that StockXpert management ever thought their subscription service would end up missing images from the top microstock contributor.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: mjp on January 08, 2008, 02:46
Updated my image count:

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 08, 2008, 02:51
- 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 :)




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!
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: null on January 08, 2008, 02:54
Of course this is not directed against the sites, and not against subs. As Duncan once pointed out on the CanStockPhoto forum, designers download much more than they need under a sub, try some pics out, then pick one for production. That's very well possible with a 3 or even 2.5 MP version.

As Yuri Arcurs found out on SS, designers even abort the download of a large size, which corroborates this guess. There is no problem with sub only sites like SS, where you can upload downsized versions (personally I always upload 6MP there). The real problem is with the mixed sites.

There could be a solution, a Solomon's verdict that satisfies all: photogs, sites, designers. That is, a mixed site only offers the small size of a shot under a sub license, like up to 3MP.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 08, 2008, 02:59
I agree it is not about punishment. The problem with the subscription at StockXpert is that when it started all photographers were automatically opted in. As soon as someone opted out this person was in a very small minority. The competing photographers who were opted in had and still have an advantage, because people have the possibility to download by subscription and so giving the files more popularity and therefore the files apear higher in the search engine (I think thats the way it works). At least I felt a little bit the pressure to do so although in the beginning I was not completely against subscription.
So I think it was kind a pressure to stay opted in as a photographer and so I see nothing wrong in getting together with photographers and agreeing to opt out. We hereby also show the industry that we are worried about the low prices of subscription. I think one reason for StockXpert and DT to start subsription and to fix the price so low  is, because they saw it works on SS.
But now they see the photographers do not agree with it, SS gets lower quality (because they have to interpolate the images to get bigger resolutions) and StockXpert is loosing photographers on the subscription plan. If we get one agency to act on it, we might get more agencies to follow and reconsider the subscription as it is. The motivation for one agency to change the subscription plan is very low right now, because of the competition,
We have to start somewhere. I believe we will never get enough people together if we say we will stop uploading to DT. It will even be hard to get enough people for this list although I think it goes quite well. What we can do though is to start a letter to DT and Crestock with people putting there names on it and appealing to stop or change the subscription as it is. Maybe that will get them to reconsider. When DT introduced subscription there was no organized protest.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 08, 2008, 03:01
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.
\

If we took our photos off all the sites that have something we don't like, we wouldn't have anywhere left to upload :)

So what do we do?
Walk away from Microstock?
Let them walk all over us, which is what you seem to be suggesting?
Or try to change the things we don't like?
We small fish can't achieve much if you big fish don't help.

Linda

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 08, 2008, 03:03
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).

Now if you start a movement against low commission paying sites (ie IStockPhoto, UnLucky Oliver, Crestock) let me know, I'm in.



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!
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 08, 2008, 03:29
Other action list
to be expanded by you ;)




Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: fotografer on January 08, 2008, 03:32
I agree totally with this.  What you should be doing is not upload to the sites that don't let you opt out. You are punishing stockxpert for giving you more freedom than the agencies without an opt out and  causing the buyers that want subs to go to one of the other less fair agencies. I also don't mind the subs at DT because sub sales hep you to get into higher catagories much quicker.  My average commision for a dl is about 1.30$ at
DT  even with the subs which is way higher than any other agency.
Quote
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.


Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 08, 2008, 03:35
grp_photo I do not see StockXpert as an enemy as well as the other agencies.
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 08, 2008, 03:51
I remember Steve from StockXpert mentioned that if the subscrptions didn't catch on, they would scrap them.  Is this going to harm StockXpert?  The biggest site, IS doesn't have subscriptions and they seem to be doing OK.  They can raise their prices, that might be harder to do when you are selling full size images for 30 cents.

I don't think this will harm StockXpert, it might make them more competitive with IS if they scrap subscriptions.

Perhaps if we can find where the designers hang out, we could promote FP.  The other option is to start our own site.  People say it costs too much to get going but I am sure there are thousands of us who would be willing to invest for some shares in our own site.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 08, 2008, 03:54
grp_photo I do not see StockXpert as an enemy as well as the other agencies.
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.

Come on it's easy to get rid of the banners to promote istock and ss.
It's easy to complain.
It's easy to upload first to the good ones
It's easy to promote featurepics
It's easy to support sxc.hu
It's easy to option out at snap village
etc.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 08, 2008, 04:22
Updated my image count:.

List for downsize images when submitting to SS and opt out subscription at StockXpert:



Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 08, 2008, 06:04
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stock_fan on January 08, 2008, 06:18
- 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 :)




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!

Sorry, not an illustrator/ designer myself. It was more a brainstorming idea / suggestion. I saw a post from a designer on the IS forum some time ago. He was really surprised (not to say shocked) to find out that the artists get only 20%.

- What is the leading Illustrator forum out there?
- What other design software (3D) forums exist?
- What are the popular/ professional magazines for designers? Do they have online representation/ forums?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 08, 2008, 06:45
I have found a forum for photoshop creative in the UK.  istock have big adverts in this magazine every month.

http://www.pshopcreative.co.uk/forum/

I joined and here's my post letting them know about FP and this place.

http://www.pshopcreative.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12271#12271

Any other design magazines that the sites advertise in with forums?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: andresr on January 08, 2008, 07:52
Quite an interesting read in general. Here are some comments of points made previously in the thread:

1- I am out on subscriptions at StockXpert, I analized the data and I believe I have also lost money because of that and if I am wrong I am risking a little only since I only make like $5 a day with subs at StockXpert.

2- Crestock being the only one in green ..... I like crestock and their prices, but I think they should include an XS size for designer comps at $1 which is what IStock has done ... buyers don't actually use the images at that size, they download them for layouts to later decide which images work better with their designs. I think this is something that CS has been missing.

3- My earnings in december also went down 20% but from August to November I saw a 60% increase having uploaded 3000-3500 images which cost me $1500 in total.
Another matter about december is that I didnt upload since 28th November as I was 3 weeks in Colombia and then 2 weeks in Egypt and I think subscription sites went down because of that.

4- Downsizing to SS, is extra work, I have the 5D so fiile sizes are not huge and buyers can download lower res images anyway so I won't be doing that. When I get the 1ds MK III I will do but not for now.

5- Macrostock, in 2008 I've made a deal with a company who are going to submit my images to several macro agencies including getty, alamy, comstock etc .... I am submitting my first 300 (exclusive to them) soon and I am hoping to be the beginning of a big career in macro as well.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 08, 2008, 08:54
I remember Steve from StockXpert mentioned that if the subscrptions didn't catch on, they would scrap them.  Is this going to harm StockXpert?

I doubt it would hurt them. In fact, I would think that keeping a subscription service would hurt them more in the long run. Subscriptions are not the way to go if you want to raise prices and generate more income. Individual image sales allow that in a way subscriptions never will.

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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: swedstock on January 08, 2008, 10:14
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 mailed SV support since one of my images sold as sub. even though I have opted out. They replied that this only affect future uploads.
All previous uploads must be change manually.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: digitalfood on January 08, 2008, 10:36
Have always opted out and will not upload to SS any new.
List for downsize images when submitting to SS and opt out subscription at StockXpert:



Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 08, 2008, 10:52
Someone mentioned the DT Subscription. Before getting angry at DT try to look at this article: http://blog.dreamstime.com/2007/10/02/real-dreamstime-royalties_art24631
HOLY! 80% commission! I did not know that...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pixart on January 08, 2008, 11:27
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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nativelight on January 08, 2008, 12:16
I've opted out at StockXpert and SV.


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 08, 2008, 13:25
...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

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nativelight on January 08, 2008, 13:53
Since I started with micro about 14 months ago, I've been amazed at some of the outstanding quality that can be found on micro. As I learned more and more about the stock business in general over these past months, I began to wonder why would these top-notch shooters even bother with micro because of the very low royalties. Well it was because it was the only viable way into the industry.

When micro first began, there were two options to sell stock - micro and macro (trads like Corbis & Getty). These trads are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get into without having an established portfolio. So amateurs flocked to the micros. Many of these "amateurs" are now pros but the trads are still difficult to get into. In my opinion, they're slitting their own throats by snubbing these new pros.

However, within the past year we've seen a new business model evolve - midstock. Featurepics, Photoshelter Collection, LO's Sideshow are a few that I know of and, of course, Alamy has been an option for a long time. I think we're going to see a big change over the next year or two. These new pros are going to finally get fed up with low royalties and will start migrating enmasse to the midstock model. And I think this is great for the stock industry.

I'll use baseball terms to compare the various stock models. Micro is a farm league where amateurs enter to learn the industry and hone their skills. Midstock agencies are the AAA teams for the pros. They are pros but they're not quite ready for the major leagues. The trads are the MLB teams and should be looking to recruit from the midstock agencies. They should be ACTIVELY recruiting and not waiting for photographers to come to them!

Now this may not bode well for some of the current macro contributors. Many if not most of them are top notch profressionals who contribute professional work. However, take a look at any of the traditional sites and you will find a lot of crap that wouldn't pass the quality standards of the newest micro site. These are the people who should be concerned with their futures. They need to "shape up or ship out." 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.

Just my 2 cents.

Your thoughts?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 08, 2008, 14:22
...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



shutterstock has tried a couple of times to sell images individually but it hasn't worked and they stopped.  They had at least one partner company that they were selling through as well as one of their own brands... but as far as I remember reading they have stopped them all and just concentrate on subscription sales.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ljupco on January 08, 2008, 14:41
Opted out at StockXpert and will downsize for SS, but I think that this isn't the solution to the problem, I see it as a way to express our dissatisfaction  in regards to the current state of things in microstock


Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: fotomy on January 08, 2008, 15:37
my first post here,
hi all and wishing you all a successful  and prosperous 2008,
 have opted out of subscription on StockXpert, not sure it does my StockXpert portfolio any favours, all images i upload are 3000 x2000px to all the microsites personally i think this is a big enough image size for microstock at present.
think the micro industry is maturing and i am sure has shown handsome profits and growth  for all the premier microstock companies, a large part of that success is due to the goodwill dedication, talent and hard work of their image contributors , for the industry to grow and mature further these companies are going to have to recognize this indispensable contribution with higher payments for contributors and better pricing models for customers,
we should not be forgetting that this is a global industry and when the dollar falls so does our profits maybe its time that images are sold in euros, every one will be better off.
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Velvia on January 08, 2008, 15:48
" 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.


I think nativelight brought up a good point. In fact, its true in a sense that the micro world is a good starting to point in stock photography. Its like slowly climbing the ladder towards mid & macro.

I think the question is...
Should we abandoned microstock all together?
Is it worth all the effort for a few cents?

Microstock is a gamble. A game of downloads. Its how you play the game...and yes it does matter whether "you win or loose".
I keep asking myself the same question over and over.

But i love doing micro...for now anyways.
 
P.S I wonder how many of you has successfully moved to macro?
Anyone? If so, please feel free to share your story :)

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: madelaide on January 08, 2008, 16:17
I wouldn't mind subs sales if they are scarce, like in DT.  In CS they are the rule, so I stopped uploading there.  I never joined SS for this, no matter how people make money there (and therefore I may be losing money by not being there). 

In StockXpert I still don't see a clear trend (it takes time, I guess), so I'm still opted-in. 

As some said here, StockXpert has been very photographer-friendly, Steve-Oh has been a great link to the site management and StockXpert has been a very good earner, so I'm giving them a credit before opting-out. 

There are many things sites could do to make subs sales more "edible", and some have been cited here:  restricting them to smaller sizes, having subs prices according to image level (DT) or image size (in general - 1 XL download would cost, let's say, 4 subs credits or count as 4 dlds), restricting subs sales to older images, allow opt-in/out in each image.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Lizard on January 08, 2008, 17:57
Well , its nice to see for the first time that a serious topic with only one point , that we are not treated fair.

In think that something got to change , but I not convinced that this is going in write direction.

I agree on those who say that SX will be punished cause they gave us a possibility to opt out , ( others sites that didnt gave us that choice are protected from that).

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.

As I see it ,there is a need of some sort of photographers union in the future , that has to include most of the big dogs.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: pixelbrat on January 08, 2008, 18:36
I agree that this movement likely won't do much without a large troop of heavy-hitters jumping on board, which seems pretty unlikely.  Quite frankly, sites just don't have any real motivation to change their subscription model or to raise commission percentages.  They are making lots of money, which is their only real bottom line.  A handful of people removing their portfolios isn't going to even register on their radar.  A batch of newbies will quickly take up where they left off, content with the thrill of making some money and seeing their images in use somewhere. (I admit, this was me at one time.)  I sure wish I had the solution, be it a photographers union or something else.  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".

My apologies for the grumpy post...  :(
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lumina on January 08, 2008, 18:52
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".

Yes, but the agencies depends of our work, not the inverse. They are only distribuitors. Contributors must get clever and defends their own interest.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HermanM on January 08, 2008, 19:11
I see that almost nobody talks about Diversification, except Andres and a couple more.

About three months ago I hit a wall in my earnings, despite uploading moderate numbers of photos my income did not grow accordingly.  It happened at the same time Alamy started to allow web uploads and a bit later PhotoShelter Collection was introduced. 

Just since September my earnings have doubled thanks to Alamy (and there I have less than 1000 images, about half of what I have in the micros) and things are improving as more and more images are added.  When Photoshelter starts selling it should be better and that is just for a start, as there are many more agencies, macro and midstock all around.

We should do all that has been stated before (i.e. bye bye StockXpert subs) but we should start looking outside of the box and start submiting work to midstock and macros and consider to adopt more and more the RM licence scheme for a more unique kind of images.  It is rather stupid (to say it lightly) to sell editorial images as microstock, the couple of downloads an image will have along its useful life wont compensate the effort put in even opening it in your computer.  It is a bad move that SS and DT introduced and that many fell into.

And the comment about the "buzz" of seeing ones image is just... well, that.  I feel no buzz unless it comes with a check.  I once sold an image that I was about to post as micro to Samsung Electronics for more than three months earnings of all my micros combined... It was an eye opener... Not that micros should be dropped, but we have to be more selective what we send and where we send it.

And my name goes into the list!

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: cphoto on January 08, 2008, 21:05
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.

Hmmm hmmmm.... it takes me about 1 minute to resize 100 pictures!

Have you heard about photoshop actions?  There are also many free tools that resize a batch of image to any size you'd like.

Telling you what, sizing down has a lot of advantages, at least to me!
 
#1 No more silly rejection for noise, artifacts, etc etc.  I have 99% acceptance with SS
#2 You encourage buyers to go buy a high resolution at non subscription agencies, where they will pay depending on the image size
#3 Faster upload, saves a lot of time when submitting a large batch!

Just seems common sense to me ;-)  But again that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 08, 2008, 22:15
FWIW, we just sold a photo on a trad for GBP824, of which we got half. 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.

We also made about $US1000 on Alamy. Not much from around 300 images, but they also have been there for a while, and the great thing is, they don't seem to age anything like so fast as they do on the micros.

We have decided to add more to the trads.  Anything that you think will sell only a few times isn't worth putting on the micros.

Hmmm, when I think about it, that means most of ours should never have gone to the micros:-)

Linda
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HermanM on January 08, 2008, 22:41
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.

Would you mind sharing the site... ;)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 08, 2008, 23:40



#2 You encourage buyers to go buy a high resolution at non subscription agencies, where they will pay depending on the image size

[/quote]

That gives me an idea.
We are forever hearing that designers DL more than they need and use only a small proportion, and it's used as a reason (excuse?) for the payout on subscription sites being so low.

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.

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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: yingyang0 on January 09, 2008, 00:24
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.

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
It is silly but only because designers can already get comps for free at most of the sites.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 09, 2008, 01:20
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).

Now if you start a movement against low commission paying sites (ie IStockPhoto, UnLucky Oliver, Crestock) let me know, I'm in.



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!
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


grp_photo - I totally agree with you, and have complete respect for you in your decision. If you disagree with the subscription model you should take exactly the action you did.

I just emailed my contact at StockXpert pointing them to this thread and recommended they take the choice away. Force these people who are "so against the subscription model" to make a choice, either both or nothing. They choose to leave their images at Dreamstime so I suspect they will leave them at StockXpert, given no choice. After this, just try getting any agency to listen to their contributors, yeah they're showing StockXpert real good, and the other agencies reading this thread to listen to your contributors at your own peril.

I'm not going to get mad at those who opt out, because in a sense everyone is correct, there is a problem with the subscription model, the prices are too cheap for the high resolution images, I think we can all agree on that.

The problem is, where do we go from here? The acknowleged leader in this space is ShutterStock. ShutterStock is not IStockPhoto, they do not have any exclusive content, and thus cannot get away with raising prices substantially like IStock without losing ALOT of customers to the likes of Dreamstime, Crestock, 123, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, customers are much more price conscious at higher price points and will have no hesitation jummping to the competition, where, the images are virtually the same, just at a lower price, if ShutterStock were to increase prices dramatically.

Do I wish ShutterStock was the only subscription site out there? YES, then they would be able to dictate the prices, and I have confidence they would raise them in line with IStock. But let's face reality, that's not going to happen, there are now like 6 sites offering subscriptions.  Do I know what the solution is? NO. Is it going to get better just opting out at StockXpert? NO. In the meantime, I will be happy to take the increased subscription sales at Stock Xpert while all you opt out.

Can we at least get a commitment from the thread starter to at least drop Crestock or pressure them to raise their LOWEST subscription commission?? If he is so against subscriptions, how does he stand for this? It's the reason I don't submit to Crestock, the least they can do is match the others. C'mon thread starter, start a movement on that one.





Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 09, 2008, 01:30
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.




Great post Pixart, you're right, subscription plans do have a place, it's just broken right now. I've purchased subscriptions at ShutterStock and I never downloaded the highest res. Not to mention I never used 90% of the ones I downloaded. This is the GOOD side of subscription plans that people fail to mention when bashing subscriptions. If I was paying credits I would have downloaded about 10% of what I did when I was in a subscription plan.


I love your idea of charing more for high res downloads in a subscription plan, make the standard subscription only good for a medium res. version. However, that still leaves us at the problem of there has to be someone to implement this first. And the one who does will risk losing alot of customers to the other sites with no restriction on resolution. Man do I wish ShutterStock was the only sub game in town now, I think we would see a lot of changes.




Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 09, 2008, 02:04
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 09, 2008, 02:19
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 09, 2008, 02:31
Well, you didn't offer any solution to the problem now did you?


The solution is there. Agencies have to pay more for images if they want to keep quality contributors. At the cost to reject more and more images from not-so-high quality contributors like me.

Paying more could mean raise the image price to the customers or not, it depends on their revenues. But I think they can't afford to lose quality contributors.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 09, 2008, 03:05
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.




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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: DanP68 on January 09, 2008, 04:07
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.


I agree with everything you say here Helix, except for the point about contributors not expecting a raise anytime soon.  A quick history check shows Shutterstock has announced raises for contributors every year for the last 3, between the end of January and early April. Those raises have been in the 10%-25% range on average.  In other words, we should expect to hear something soon.

If no raise is given, you might see a lot of artists start to move away from Shutterstock.  But I cannot imagine them not giving a raise.  Even 123RF pays 36c per sub dl.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Jimi King on January 09, 2008, 05:26
Actually Shutterstock raised their photographer cut from 25 to 30c last year, which was a 20% raise.

Of course any company/individual who is prepared to shell out what is usually a three figure sum for a subscription package is unlikely to go elsewhere to buy your particular image if it's unavailable. They'll just download something similar by somebody else.

Disabling subscription downloads may be fine if everybody does it, but that's unlikely and it would be a long haul before the subscribers actually noticed the difference.

Even then although you might win the war with some agencies, those subscribers will probably just sign up with Shutterstock. And I doubt you'll make much of a dent in their sales to be honest. In fact I suspect that although many might close the door on StockXpert subscription downloads, they'd be unlikely to remove all their images from Shutterstock. Which would make it a pyrrhic victory surely?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: andresr on January 09, 2008, 06:10
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 09, 2008, 06:19
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

Yes. But they put up prices with…was it 70%.
I hope they will not put up prices again with another 70% this year and only give us about 20% in extra income. Doing so last year is probably why SS is at a still-stand in income today.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: philo on January 09, 2008, 07:12
We can opt out at SS too ! Some contributors opted our for footage files after prices change (slashing commition about 70%). So the files are still there but customers dont see them.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lumina on January 09, 2008, 07:19
Another thing we can do: in sites which we can define the price (snapvillage and featurepics), valuate our pictures in order to obtain the same money for us. In this way, the images in friendly sites become cheaper for customer.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 09, 2008, 10:18
updated opt out list

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 09, 2008, 10:33
I can't see the orange sub indicator on any of the photos is it just  me or does it mean  so many people opt- out?

StockXpert is a great place and I am sure without subs it will be even better like how  it  was just a couple of months ago.
I hope other sites will follow the trend too

edit:spell check
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 09, 2008, 12:03

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.





Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 09, 2008, 13:03

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.







We don't submit to Crestock and don't plan to. At the moment there are too many sites, IMHO.
Some of them will surely fail.
To be honest, I'm thinking very hard about going exclusive on IS. I have always been against putting all eggs in one basket, but just now all the other baskets seem to be broken.
Unfortunately a visit to the IS forums reveals many thinking of giving up their exclusivity.
And who's to say they won't start their own subscription plan?
I'm going to take the easy way out, stop thinking and go and take some photos :)
Linda
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 09, 2008, 13:11
I just did some statistics for the first 8 days in January. Not much to base anything on, but:

SS: down 23% from 2007

All sites combined: up 99% from 2007

DT and IS are each almost as big as SS so far. If I didn't have the vectors at SS, I could as well have closed my account.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: khz on January 09, 2008, 13:11
opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Void on January 09, 2008, 13:16
I opted out for my own reasons.
Sales suck at StockXpert and they reject 2/3 of what I send them.
Usually for lame reasons for the rejections. I don't even bother checking there to see what got accepted or why they rejected this or that.
Most rejections seem to be for "we dont need this type of image" or something similar, yet the ones that actually sell on the site are the exact same type that they don't need.

As far as both Yuri and Lev go...
Guys, you both are too good to be doing stock! You both have distinct styles and personalities that the commercial world would totally embrace.
If I were to offer advice, I would suggest that both of you start focusing on the big clients directly, if you haven't already.
You have both inspired and spawned many imitators, but you two are both the best at what you do.

Spread your wings my friends! Go get 2 grand for a magazine cover instead of 20 bucks!
Get the real clients giving you real money to do the shoots you are best at! Seek out the clients that will fly you any where in the world because they believe in your vision. The real advertising and publishing world that pays real money for Artists such as yourselves!

Let microstock and stock in general be a hobby or something to do when you retire.

In my opinion, Yuri and Lev, you are too good, you have outgrown microstock and neither of you will truly make what you are worth as Artists if all your energy goes to this niche of the photography world!

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: madelaide on January 09, 2008, 15:37
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 stopped uploading there because subs sales are so prevailing.  Well, I uploaded my New Year 2008 images there (and wow, got them all accepted!), but then they're very seasonal images (with "2008") so I thought that even subs sales would be neat, and indeed
I sold two.  But unfortunately, is subs prevails, I will only upload there occasionally.
(http://www.crestock.com/images/470000-479999/474070-xxs.jpg) (http://www.crestock.com/images/470000-479999/474069-xxs.jpg)

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: steve-oh on January 09, 2008, 16:08
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vonkara on January 09, 2008, 16:28
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.

It's badly one of the only thing we can do for the moment and that's maybe don't have an energetic repercussion, again for now...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 09, 2008, 17:12
I would have believed in subscription model, if prices were not  set to cheat the photographers.  $1-$2 per subscriptions dl would have made the list of opting out very short, but it will grow.

vphoto

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lumina on January 09, 2008, 18:53
Another idea for vector contributors: ungroup the icon set or object groups and send it to shutterstock as separate files. The basic idea is to obtain a more just pay for our work.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pixart on January 09, 2008, 20:55
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.

Symbolic - partly true.  The general vibe I'm getting though is that contributors are annoyed to no end by subs, but have done nothing to arbitrate between the agency and contributor.  It's like when the hubby leaves the toilet seat up.. happens a few times, it's mildly tolerable, but one night you'll get up to pee in the middle of the night and that seat will be ice cold and the screams will be blood curdling.  This is an issue that has been festering for a while now and it really needs to be addressed?  Right?

What would our solution to subs be?  I'm not convinced I'm against them.  What I'm against is giving away large files for less than a coffee. 

Unfortulately, subs are likely not just a trend - shouldn't we come up with a model we can both profit by?  (Both us and the agency?)  At least DT "rewards" us - if a file becomes popular with the help of subs it is elevated to a higher price point for the regular customer.

How much would it take per sale for us not to feel ripped off?

What size file would we happily give away for nothing, er-um - for 30 cents?

I was at Walmart over Christmas and one of my photos was on a blanket.  I've only had 2 ELs on that photo, and I'm pretty darn positive that the only EL sales in Oct and November were too close to Christmas for that blanket to be printed in China, shipped to Montreal, distributed to Saskatchewan and stocked on Walmart shelves.  Did they buy the right license?   This leads to my biggest fear:  (partly because the blanket was printed in China and I've heard - on this site - that in China everything is pirated - please don't slam me for contributing to that steriotype)

Bad Man gets a 1 month subscription, downloads 750 of incredible high rez photos; puts them on disks and distribute them himself.  750 photos for 200 bucks.   That could turn into 15 discs/categories with 50 high rez photos each on them.  From what I've HEARD, the agencies don't seem to have much desire to help when the rules are broken, either. 


So, getting back to it:  Can we determine a happy middle ground on subs?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: techno on January 09, 2008, 20:57
opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Aurelio on January 09, 2008, 21:06
opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Aurelio (2426)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 09, 2008, 21:54
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

Steve,
The fact is: for anyone buying a subscription, the alternative is to buy at full microstock price. Where the customers are coming from is irrelevant. If they come from a non-subscription scheme somewhere else, must of us lose, since we are represented at all the major sites anyway, if they come from another subscription scheme, I suppose the reason is something like: a year or two subscription at SS give them the opportunity to DL most of what is of interest there. By moving on to the next major subscription agency (StockXpert or DT), they can download whatever is of interest there as well, until they have built a decent image bank themselves.

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 10, 2008, 00:13
...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.

We get 50% commission for ppd, what are we getting for subscription sales?  It is hard selling images for 30 cents when I could get $5 with a ppd.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 10, 2008, 00:19


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.
Totally agree on this i really don't understand why it's so hard for some people to recognize this problem.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 10, 2008, 00:35
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 10, 2008, 00:49
And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.

-Steve

That's around 3,000 images per year, or 9,000 in 3 years. As a graphic designer, I have no problems composing a portfolio that will cover 70-80% of my needs for the next 5-10 years, possibly longer, with a 9,000 image portfolio. I would obviously invoice my clients $10-50 per image, explaining to them the effort the photographer had to invest to take the photo in question, so that I can make a healthy profit on them, while the photographer is left with his $0.30 for the effort.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 10, 2008, 00:56
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 10, 2008, 01:12

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! Those who are buying Hasselblad's and spending insane money at producing their images, end up exactly in this thread, complaining that they're not making enough to cover their expenses.

And as a web designer, I have a different experience than you.  I did purchase several subscriptions for the purpose of building an image library,  and I maxed out my downloads during the subscription period. However, in my client projects it is very  rare that I can find one in my library that fits the purpose I need. The problem is that it is almost impossible to anticipate future need. Also, many of the picures with technology and styles are dated pretty quickly. Not to mention that you need a content management system to even search and find the ones I need in my own library. I still find myself going back to purchase credits to get the pictures I need most of the time, and the ones in my library are almost all unused. Which represents free money to those who I downloaded from, because there's no way I would have downloaded 1/100th the number I did in a credits based system.

This is why I will always be a believer in the subscription model. Is there room for improvement with this model, sure, but the concept is beneficial for us photographers, IMO.





Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 10, 2008, 02:22
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 10, 2008, 02:49
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


I'm not saying that at all, I've invested about $6,000 in equipment which is  more than decent - 5D with L lenses, and ShutterStock has covered that easily alone in the last few months. But I'm  suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why. My secret, ok, don't tell anyone, but I don't spend a cent on location shoots, or professional models, or people to edit my photos. Why, because I understand that high production shots don't belong on the micros.





Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: StockManiac on January 10, 2008, 03:38
But I'm  suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why.

nruboc:

Greed seems to be blinding your judgment.  Just because you are making money from subscriptions doesn't make them good.

Subscriptions are just plain bad business for the artist.

1. Deep Discounts

First, in the business world, deep discounts are normally given to the best customers.  Giving a deep discount (up to 35% off or more from the normal price) is understandable.  But subscriptions go much, much deeper than that.

The approximate cost and royalty for a maximum size image is as follows at the top sites:

IS: $20 ($4)
DT: $8 ($4)
StockXpert: $10 ($5)
FT: $5 ($1.50)

So an artist will receive between $1.50 and $5 for a maximum size image from the largest sites.

If a customer buys lots of images, then a discount should be given.  Giving discounts to large customers is good business.  But most sites already have discounts for purchasing large token packages.  For example, on IS if you buy 1500 credits, then you will receive a 34% discount.  On DT, if you buy over 150 credits, then you will receive a 25% discount.  On StockXpert, if you buy 500 credits, then you will receive a 20% discount.

But subscriptions go above and beyond these deep discounts.  Almost to the point of giving away our images.

For example, on DT, a submitter receives 0.30 for a subscription.  That is a 93% discount from the normal royalty (of $8 for a maximum size image with over 100 sales).  On StockXpert, a submitter receives 0.30  for a subscription.  That is a 97% discount from the normal royalty (of $10 for an XXL image).

2. Macro Buyers

Second, the buyers that are purchasing subscription packages are normally the large agencies that need lots and lots of images.  These are the agencies that used to purchase macrostock images for $100s (if not $1,000s) of dollars apiece.  These are the customers that could actually afford to purchase images individually (if needed).  According to the financial news, this is a multi-billion dollar industry.  They have deep pockets.  But yet, they now want to offer them even deeper discounts (over 95% off) on images that are already cheap.  It makes no sense.

IMO, it is easy to see why people are upset with subscriptions.  They benefit the buyer and agency, but hurt the artist and devalue their work.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: erwinova on January 10, 2008, 04:11
why people are upset with subscriptions (summary from posters):

1. subscription sales are much more destructive for the business as a whole, than microstock in general. Subscriptions enable customers to build large image archives that reduces the need to download photos in the future and thus our (photographers) profit potential.

2. average subscribers only use about 15 - 30% of the full potential of their membership. This means that most pictures in a subscription sell at a 5-6USD price-point in average, giving us (photographers) about 25 cents in commission. A bottom-line commission of about 5 percent. Even if I was totally wrong and every subscriber actually downloaded the double of what I have heard, the commission would still only be 10%.

3. Same price at all size, even 16mp the price same as 1.3mp?

4. Deep Discounts
First, in the business world, deep discounts are normally given to the best customers.  Giving a deep discount (up to 35% off or more from the normal price) is understandable.  But subscriptions go much, much deeper than that.

The approximate cost and royalty for a maximum size image is as follows at the top sites:

IS: $20 ($4)
DT: $8 ($4)
StockXpert: $10 ($5)
FT: $5 ($1.50)

So an artist will receive between $1.50 and $5 for a maximum size image from the largest sites.

If a customer buys lots of images, then a discount should be given.  Giving discounts to large customers is good business.  But most sites already have discounts for purchasing large token packages.  For example, on IS if you buy 1500 credits, then you will receive a 34% discount.  On DT, if you buy over 150 credits, then you will receive a 25% discount.  On StockXpert, if you buy 500 credits, then you will receive a 20% discount.

But subscriptions go above and beyond these deep discounts.  Almost to the point of giving away our images.

For example, on DT, a submitter receives 0.30 for a subscription.  That is a 93% discount from the normal royalty (of $8 for a maximum size image with over 100 sales).  On StockXpert, a submitter receives 0.30  for a subscription.  That is a 97% discount from the normal royalty (of $10 for an XXL image).

5. Macro Buyers
Second, the buyers that are purchasing subscription packages are normally the large agencies that need lots and lots of images.  These are the agencies that used to purchase macrostock images for $100s (if not $1,000s) of dollars apiece.  These are the customers that could actually afford to purchase images individually (if needed).  According to the financial news, this is a multi-billion dollar industry.  They have deep pockets.  But yet, they now want to offer them even deeper discounts (over 95% off) on images that are already cheap.  It makes no sense


Anything else?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 10, 2008, 06:26
I wasn't against subscriptions before reading this thread but it has really changed my mind.

It does seem that we are not getting a good deal at the moment.  Perhaps if we were given 50% of the commission on subscriptions it wouldn't be so bad but it seems we get a lot less than that.

We can see how much commission we are receiving from the per download sites, I would like to see these figures for the subscription sites.

istock gets away with paying low commission because it has a big volume of sales and it is an incentive to go exclusive.  Other sites pay a higher commission because they have lower sales.  With subscriptions, the smaller sites with much lower sales are giving us a similar commission to shutterstock.  This doesn't seem right.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 10, 2008, 07:17
"With subscriptions, the smaller sites with much lower sales are giving us a similar commission to shutterstock.  This doesn't seem right."

that is why i am thinking of stopping uploading to 123rf. time of uploading to such sites is better spend taking additional pictures and sending them to big 5.

vphoto
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 10, 2008, 14:23
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.




Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 10, 2008, 14:34
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.


forgive me but your remarks seems to me more like a from a buyers point of view and it is perfectly understandable they'd  willing to pay less. you might be  a also a contributer right now but  I got the impression you wouldn't mind if micro stock is just over now.
as for greed  matter I don't think it can be considered as greed  to request what you deserve. there are many people doing microstock as hobby but also some serious amount o people considering it a serious business which is why they are so concerned about the future of  it. IMHO
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 10, 2008, 14:47
and one more  think I am not personally against a fairer  sub model but the way it works now doesn't seem to be the best model.and only ones who benefits from it seem to be the buyers.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: mangia on January 10, 2008, 15:52
Well buyers will benefit in any case. Difference between 1 and 2$ is irrelevant if they want to buy images which are 99% ready for some kind of advertisement (they only need to add customer logo or some words on it).

Well you received a lot of attention on Dizajnzona forums.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 10, 2008, 16:16
...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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: fotografer on January 10, 2008, 16:25


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.



[/quote]


Agreed
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 10, 2008, 17:28
helix7 and fotografer I agree but this thread shouldn't look like this I assume like me none of the posters have anything against StockXpert.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 10, 2008, 17:36
I have nothing against StockXpert.  I hope they one day become as big as istock.  I am still with SS because they have lots of sales.  SS doesn't have a pay per download option, so I can upload lower resolution images there.

At the moment, I don't see the point in selling my images for 30 cents on StockXpert.  Perhaps if they increased the price, I might reconsider.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: nruboc on January 10, 2008, 17:44
...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'm not saying the whole thread is hyprocritical chatter, there's been some good suggestions, and I've pointed them out. 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.

So what would it take to get the agencies to implement something like this? You've already shown your ability to get alot of the major players to group together around a purpose in this thread (although the original purpose was misplaced imo). Why not group up and pressure all the subscription sites (not just pick on one site) to implement it, or something similar.

Now if your totally against subscriptions in general, then I hate to say it, but you're out of luck, they aren't going away. Let's work together to make them better, that I'm all for.





Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 10, 2008, 18:42
I am 100% in agreement with what sharpshot said in the last post. Most of us have nothing personal with StockXpert and want it to grow, not at our expense, though.

vphoto
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Aurelio on January 10, 2008, 18:58
Stockxpert is  my favorite  for a few reasons. Easy upload, fast review,good sales etc..., but I didn't like when they started with subscription. If I put opt out I thought thats not gonna change anything, but if many of us do the same thing thats will be different. At least StockXpert is fair enough to have option out, I would like to see same opt out on Dreamstime since i have a lot of subscription sales there lately.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 10, 2008, 19:29
StockXpert is doing the right thing. Subs will not disappear, but I want to choose if my images are going to be a part of it or not. FP is the ideal solution: no subs, individual pricing, 70% cut and the accept editorial images. SV is somewhere in between.

The ideal target would be if we could persuade agencies like DT and 123 to offer an opt out possibility as well.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pixart on January 10, 2008, 19:38
I pretty much like what I have on StockXpert, but some of the stuff that I have on other sites... the stuff from my early days... oh, I'd be happy to give away for 30 cents.  A "per photo" option would be very nice.  I'm sure in a couple years I won't be so attached to my current photos and would happy to opt them in one at a time to a subscription.  Just, please let me earn a little from them first.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HermanM on January 10, 2008, 23:08
StockXpert has been receiving the bashing since they are the latest in getting into the subscription model, after being very very succesful in the credits model.  How can they justify giving away my images for 0.30 cents when the same day the same images earned the maximum...?  They (despite being nice and everything) deserve some bashing.  This is wrong.

Micros are not wrong setting affordable low prices for buyers.  The problem is that those prices are too low for what they are demanding from photographers.  They incentivate the buying of better and bigger equipment promising higher returns for XXL and upper sizes images, and then give us the cold shower of introducing subscriptions and giving away those images for pennies. 

Then, what will follow?  I would hate to see Fotolia, where I have a lot of large size sales, go the same way pressured because about everybody else went subscription.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: josh_crestock on January 11, 2008, 01:51
Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Eco on January 11, 2008, 02:12
Hi Josh

Good to see that stock sites are actually taking note of discussions like this. Maybe we can make a difference after all. I am surprised that there are still non-subscription sales on Crestock. While I have experienced a sharp increase in downloads on Crestock lately they were all subscription sales and at 0.25c a download I don't feel too exited about that.  I am seriously reconsidering my continued involvement with sites that offer subscriptions. I will either stop uploading or downsize my images drastically. Limiting the size of images available for subscription downloads may be a very practical compromise.  In this way we don't give away our high res images for pennies and still have the opportunity to make a decent sale at a more realistic price for our high res images.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 11, 2008, 03:25
Quote
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.

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

I like crestock and the sales are much better than I had expected but with over 100 sales, I average 35 cents a sale.  This is too small.  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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lumina on January 11, 2008, 03:36
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.

A very strong reason for the other agencies.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 11, 2008, 04:50
Lee wrote a blogpost about this thread in www.microstockdiaries.com. He has some good points, but I do not agree on everything. Yes for many Shutterstock is still the top earner, But the loudest voices and amazement over the earnings you can achieve at SS you hear from those who are new to SS and we know why, because SS favours new contributers. IF it were not for new contributers I doubt that SS to right would be at the top. And true there are many for those SS is still the highest earner after a longer period of time. However, for me and I believe for many others it is not so anymore. SS stagnates for me, while I have strong growth from month to month in average on other agencies. How come? The half-life of my files at SS in general seems to be shorter than elsewhere. Would I abondon SS? No, but I will also give them just what is required, not more. That is in this case in my opinion a good business descision. It will not affect my sales, but will give the customer what they payed for. Lower quality to lower prices.

So letting the agencies know that I downsize with many other photographers is something I am in favour of, it is not punishment from my point of view but a business descision.
 Combined voices are louder than single ones. And voicing your opinion is better than saying nothing. What can be done I want do.

What about StockXpert? StockXpert is I agree probably the agenciy who listens most to its contributers. They seem to care most about there photographers and I totally appreciate that. This is a model more agencies should adopt. As was pointed out this is not against StockXpert. But opting out has here also a lot to do with business descisions too. If there are 5 subscribers who want to download my file but cannot do so to subscription prices, at least one might be convinced to download a medium file, which makes up for the missed subscription sales. Even if I miss a few 30 cent sales I honestly would not mind. The ratio is so low it will not make a dent in my earnings.
And by putting my name on the list I voice my opinion. Honestly I do not think StockXpert would loose much either. In the long run I am the opinion if there will be a change throught the industry in the subscription model lets say to make only low resultion files available for subscription, it will benefit us and the agencies.

Do the agencies listen? Is this entirely pointless? No it is not, Steve and Josh are listening, I very much appreciate it. There were some really good suggestions, like limiting the filsize for subscription. This is actually my favourite suggestion and I am allready doing it at SS, because I can.
For me it is not about fairness, not to build a union, but to make good business descisions and voice my opinion.
Again the agencies are not our enemies, they are our friends, they provide possibilities so we are able to make money from photography. We should not work against each other but with each other. And with Steve and Josh listening to us there is a good starting point.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: DanP68 on January 11, 2008, 06:05
I don't think Shutterstock favors new contributors.  It clearly favors new images.  Roughly 8.5 out of every 10 images downloaded from my portfolio are new images, and this is consistently true for me.  So it stands to reason that any new contributor, once they upload an existing portfolio, is going to do particularly well at Shutterstock.

As I have found however, I really cannot grow earnings.  I get a minor rise over time due to a larger number of images online, but the bulk of the DL's continue to be new images.  Increasing the port by 50% might yield a 5% rise in long term earnings, by my estimates at least.

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Carla on January 11, 2008, 06:28
Since DT allowed subscription I have stopped uploading big size images and vectors there. The difference in price between subscription and normal price is galling me. IStock has low prices as well, but at least I get more money for bigger file sizes and more complex vectors there.
Shutterstock- I just don´t upload my best photos there any more. They get the second rate images, the best images go to midstock. Besides even with more uploads I get no increase I sales at SS, which together with the low price is disencouraging.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lisafx on January 11, 2008, 10:46

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 11, 2008, 11:26
I agree with lizafx.  that is how i feel SS works.

vphoto
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 11, 2008, 11:50


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.





Agreed
[/quote]

I must say I agree. My initial post was about the problems with running a big-scale business model on microstock and not frenzy towards StockXpert. Opting out has not increased my income and I know it is causing the StockXpert management a lot of problems with all these contributors suddenly opting out. If there is a general dislike towards subscription based agencies selling full-res, then this is what this discussion is about and not just StockXpert. StockXpert gave us the choice to opt out and this is a gesture of goodwill.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Fred on January 11, 2008, 12:35

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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: cphoto on January 11, 2008, 13:32

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.

I mentioned that already many times in the past and on StockXpert forum as well,  I'm OK with subscription model, as far as they DON'T sell higher resolution of our pictures!

They should have put in place:
1. either only allow 3MP max download
2. OR make the client use more credits for higher resolution image

On a brighter note just got TWO sales with Alamy.com today, that's worth 2 months of Microstock income :)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rinderart on January 11, 2008, 15:04

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.

Agree.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rinderart on January 11, 2008, 15:25
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.



Great points Richard.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ichiro17 on January 11, 2008, 15:39
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




 




Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sam100 on January 11, 2008, 17:44
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

Couldn't agree more.
And these day you better learn to work with photoshop to get your pictures accepted.

As for the topic, i'm undecided... but on sides where a choice is given i opt out.

Patrick.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Mshake on January 11, 2008, 21:26
Very good thread.

opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Aurelio (2426)
Mshake (860)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Fred on January 12, 2008, 06:01

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.


Well, I am sure you have a great deal more experience in MicroStock than I have and I do appreciate the value of your opinion.  However, (other shoe dropping) you are unlikely to know which of your pictures were NOT downloaded as ELs because they did not fit the customers resolution needs.  I admit this is may be a rare instance but ELs represent over 20% of my SS earnings - admittedly only two months  experience there though - so the occasional lost opportunity could be a significant hit on my income even if  relatively rare.  The 80 to 1 price leverage of ELs over normal downloads can make them extremely important to the income stream.  fred
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: DanP68 on January 12, 2008, 10:56

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.


Ironically Lisa (and Rinder), I agree. 

I would just prefer a tweak, something to give older images a better "pop" in search.  I think their search is really close to working gloriously, but as people like Yuri with huge portfolios have alluded - they can't grow earnings over time at Shutterstock.  This tells me that images are not working as investments in the future.

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.

BTW I have seen a huge jump in my SS earnings since the IS price raise, coincident with a tanking of IS earnings.  Maybe it is nothing but a short term blip.  Then again, maybe we have a new king of the mountain.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 12, 2008, 20:42
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.

This is very important to remember. While I wouldn't trust any microstock agency to pay for my retirement, SS, if I don't upload regularly, I can't even trust to pay my rent next month.

With a site like FP on the other hand, if I stop taking photos but do a real effort marketing my own portfolio, I can probably increase the sales of existing images month by month, just like I would with any macro-agency.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pierdelune on January 13, 2008, 01:24

opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Aurelio (2426)
Mshake (860)
Pierdelune
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vonkara on January 13, 2008, 16:37
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?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Yuri_Arcurs on January 13, 2008, 18:30
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: madelaide on January 13, 2008, 18:41
With 30% of my sales (in dlds, not $) from subs in this very slow month for me at StockXpert, I'm almost optin out.   :-[

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 13, 2008, 20:25
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?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 14, 2008, 01:59
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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 14, 2008, 03:20
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.



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.

Doing individual marketing of an agency that pay less and that is doing a proper marketing effort already, will have a much smaller impact on profits.

Remember: we are not discussing what sales we already have, but what additional sales that we can generate through  individual marketing. Those who already buy images at StockXpert or somewhere else,  couldn't care less if any of us have a million videos at u-tube.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: andresr on January 14, 2008, 06:28
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

indeed ..... I want to work out what's the best option financially speaking. I guess it will take time to have accurate results.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 14, 2008, 08:57
So, no one's really taking a stand against anything then here, right?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 14, 2008, 09:55
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...

Two thoughts on this:

1.) Why do you feel it is your job to do marketing for a company that does not properly market themselves?

2.) If you choose to market a company, wouldn't it make more sense to push a company that already has some momentum, rather than trying to get a slow-moving company off the ground?

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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 14, 2008, 10:07
I don't quite understand what sort of finding is aimed by opting in and out.
is it trying it  figure  out tendency of sub customers to buy ppd?I can't really answer that but I assume  chances are very slim that a sub buyer would also buy   ppd
as for loosing money if one opts out that certainly mean loss of money in the short term(regardless of how much it is)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharply_done on January 14, 2008, 10:10
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 14, 2008, 10:26
So, no one's really taking a stand against anything then here, right?

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.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on January 14, 2008, 12:17
My understanding (as an amateur/hobbyist in photography but business veteran in another area) is that for the microstock companies, its BUSINESS and not a hobby. So ordinary business rules apply (like in ANY business). And top on the list of those business rules are competitiveness and profitability. "share the wealth" (helix7) is not one of the main issues as far as I understand these rules.

As a "manufacturer" (photographer) my concern is to optimize my own profitability by choosing the best sales channel within the given market. With this, my first concern is how much money the sales organisation (=microstock company) puts in MY pocket. How they do this is their business - and market rules apply. How much they put in their pocket (and how they spend it) is secondary for me. So as long as iStock is putting more money in my pocket than other companies, its fine for me. Maybe they invest their 80% share in marketing and business development? Maybe this is one of the reasons they are among market leaders? Maybe they are smarter doing their business? Anyway, these are questions that their competitors should ask themselves. Its their job to challenge iStock, not mine as a contributor - I just want results and so far they are delivering better than other companies.

So I also agree with sharply_done regarding FP: 70/30 sounds great - but its worthless if they are not willing or able to penetrate the market thus creating not enough profit for the photographer.

And to come back to the thread: part of my efforts to optimize my "sales channel" is to opt out of subscription where possible and limit the size of images to sub-only companies. And I might follow other options in the future.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Mshake on January 14, 2008, 16:37
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

Yuri and Andres, is it just how much earnings your seeing with or without subscriptions that your looking at? Isn't there a bigger picture here? I thought this was about taking a stand against the subscriptions models mixed in with regular sale sites. Don't you think your work is worth more then that? I certainly think it is.

Lets take Canstock as an example. When I joined there it was regular sales only, no subscription plan. Later on down the road they decide to implement a subscription plan and not have an opt out clause. I stayed there and eventually saw more then half my sales coming from the subscription side. I felt this devalued my work , like many other photographers feel. I decided to take a stand there and leave in protest.  I respect Duncan and his decision to head in that direction but it is not the direction I want to head in. He left me no option other then to accept it or leave.

I opted out as soon as I saw Stockxpert implement there sub plan. I do appreciate Stockxpert allowing us to opt out and I will continue to support them with new material because they gave me the option to opt out. I saw no drop off in sales at all from that and in fact have had my best month ever since the sub plan went into effect there. Would I have earned more if I opted in? I don't think much... but thats not the point of me dropping out of it. I think all of our work has more value then .25 or .30 cents.

Now if some site takes the idea of sub plans based on size that is downloaded, that would be something that is fair to both buyers and contributers. I would opt into a plan like that

I hope that Crestock and some of the others decide to go in that direction, if I see that happen at Crestock then I would join , but not until then or until they implement the opt out clause with the current sub plan. 

As far as SS goes, everyone knew it was a subscription plan when they joined and you can, as mentioned, upload smaller versions.

DT's sub plan so far is an insignificant amount of sales for me. I don't like it but even if it gained more sales I think it would be offset by the higher level payouts I see there.

In the end though I think we need to do more to let the sites know that we do not like these plans as they are and if they have to have them then make them by size or allow the opt out clause like the good people at Stockxpert have done.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 14, 2008, 16:56
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.

FP do actually sell photos, so the 30% do go somewhere, and there is also the whole database system, search engine and all. You could do all that yourself, on your own little island. I wouldn't.

But look at it another way: if you were going to deliver, invoice and collect money for each of the photos you sold, like you would do on ebay, you would easily see how cheap 30% is to get all that done. For old style macro-price image sales, where you earn a few hundred dollars for each image, that would work fine, but not with today's price level.

Even if a customer comes to me asking to buy an image, I would prefer to upload to FP. No hassle for me, easy for the customer. I take photos, somebody else move papers.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 14, 2008, 17:01
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.

Because FP takes more or less all my photos, they sell RM and editorial as well, I decide the price level of each photo and the commission is higher. While the pay at StockXpert is better than some, I have little or no control, and they are famous for their "interesting" reject reasons.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 14, 2008, 17:16
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 are right on the money here: people stay with SS and IS because they sell a lot and in spite of the low commissions. But this is internet, the ultimate democratic chaos. Things change overnight here, and if enough players vote with their feet, you're dead.

While I don't like iStock's miniature paybacks, they do actually increase prices, and with that our profits, and they do sell well, at least for the time being. My feelings towards SS are much cooler. A quick look at my sales statistics there recently, particularly compared to other agencies, are not fun reading. Lower sales and low commissions combined are not good for business, particularly when the agency in question is among the pickiest when it comes to technical requirements.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: duaneellison on January 15, 2008, 00:31
Yuri -

Your thread has ended up on John Harrington's Blog (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/ahh-joys-watching-maturation-happen.html).  He isn't a big fan of microstock or the people who market in that arena.  On the post he referenced Lee Torrens (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/microstock-full-circle.html) specifically discussing this thread.

Anyway thought you would be interested when your topics are being bantered around...

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/ahh-joys-watching-maturation-happen.html

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/microstock-full-circle.html

Duane
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: pixelbrat on January 15, 2008, 08:43
Yeah, I was afraid of this.  The anti-microstockers have been waiting for this to happen so they could enjoy a good laugh and wallow in their "I told you so" rhetoric.  And to be called an idiot to boot.  Nice.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Lee Torrens on January 15, 2008, 11:36
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.


Thanks for contributing that Duane.  It's helpful to understand both sides of any debate. 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. It's easy to understand why they're upset when you try to see what's happening from their point of view.

Conversely, it's also helpful to see that the *top* stock photographers are not at all phased about microstock. Jack Hollingsworth was asked if his business was being impacted by microstock and he casually replied, "No, we're still making a million bucks a year".  And there's Ron Chapple who's recognizing the change in the market and is just getting on with business. But for those who complain it must be difficult to look inward and ask themselves if they can survive in an open market. It's much easier to attack the change.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: UberLens on January 15, 2008, 11:55
Lee,
I read your blog and while for the most part I find your arguments valid there is something I am not sure I get it.

Yes, some photographers adapted to microstock and are doing well but the question is how many like them does this model support? Do you see 1000 like Yuri or Ron making it?

I for one don't see that possible. The reason is the market itself. How many times would those images need to sell for to support that high number of photographers at the price levels microstocks go about? Are there enough buyers for it? I doubt it.

My take is that highly successful photogs are hitting that ceiling and there is no way they can grow unless either there are more buyers or the price levels change. These are growing pains that any business goes through: there are only that many warm bodies to sell to.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pixart on January 15, 2008, 12:04
Uberlens, one thing I can say about Ron is he certainly has the most wonderfully diverse portfolio of all the uber-photogrphers.  Pretty girls.  Hockey players.  Office workers.  Dogs.  Crops.  Pencils.  Fat person looking in the fridge.  I don't think he will hit the ceiling as fast as others who are more specialized.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 15, 2008, 12:30
Additionally the microstock model is such that everyone could afford the images.  Since basically nowadays everyone has use for stock images - on their blogs, in school reports, in a sermon they are writing, a year book, other school projects, garage sale, cell phone background etc etc etc.. one image COULD be sold 1,000,000 times.  I wouldn't be suprised if that would happen sometime in the future.  If images can be purchased that many times, or even 1000's of times there is definitely enough room for a good sized quantity of pro photographers in the micros.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: madelaide on January 15, 2008, 17:17
I don't totally disagree with those two articles.  Of course, there is some exageration, but personally 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.  Again, I don't live from that, so it's easy for me to skip such a site and say that some images I sell at macrostock only. 

As Leaf said, microstock also opened a whole new market.  I know people who purchase images for the kids' homeworks.  Of course they would never pay US$50 for that, nor would a small pizza place that wants to produce a flyer.  But on the other hand companies that could afford more also benefit from that low price model. 

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 15, 2008, 17:35
What really seemed out of place in Harrington's article is that it seems that every customer in the past easily departed from hundred of bucks for every image he used.

I know for direct experience that it wasn't the case, also with huge advertising companies. Usually they "borrowed" images from various sources for their preparation designs just to be replaced with a specific customer-oriented shots once the design was approved.

Now instead they use microstock images because they can prepare better preparation designs and with more impact without spending hours in photoshop to crook things up or manually draw the design.

So I agree that they can spend more than 1$ for a timesaving image even if it's not for the final design, but no way they spent 100$ or more before.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: helix7 on January 15, 2008, 19:52
...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 have yet to see any compelling evidence that microstock buyers are largely former macrostock buyers.


Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 16, 2008, 04:07
...  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.

If i do a shoot and I earn $5.00 from those images - THAT is underpaid.
If i do the same shoot and earn $5000 from those images, then I think the shoot was worth while.  If I make that $5000 in one sale, or in 5000 sales @ $1.00 or in 20,000 sales it really doesn't matter as long as I get the $5,000 in a reasonable amount of time.

So in my opinion - the sites that are underpaying us are the sites that are not 'participating' enough in getting us that $5000 - which is to say every site that is not in the top 3 or 4 microstock sites.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on January 16, 2008, 06:23
IS just increased their prices, BS likewise. None of them have had any reduction in sales after the increase, at least not with regards to my images. That tells me one thing very clearly: the prices were too low before the increase.

I'm all for microstock, but there's no need to lower the prices to a basement level. As for SS, they seem to be losing momentum, at least for me. The two first weeks of 2008, they represent 31% of my microstock profits, down from 48% last year.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 16, 2008, 06:53
it will be interesting to see what the poll reveals next month.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 16, 2008, 07:17
I am in agreement with Leaf on both accounts: prices are  too low,  in the end the total amount that matters. Last point SS proved to me: am only there 17 days and  already $96 earned, more than total from all other sites  I am on for the same time period.

vphoto
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rene on January 16, 2008, 08:58
Strange thing, after prices increase IS rocks. I have about 100% (2x) increase in download numbers and about 30-40% price increase per download.
I haven’t thought about this before, but maybe, with too low prices somes buyers don't take microstock like serious business. With higher prices they start to consider MS more professional.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 16, 2008, 09:39
..... 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!
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 16, 2008, 10:18
..... 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!

After talking with some designers I can say that this was my impression too.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 16, 2008, 10:36
this has been a nice discussion.  Interesting to see which threads take off and get some thoughts being passed back and forth.  This is now the thread on the site with the most posts.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: gbcimages on January 16, 2008, 10:47
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Aurelio on January 16, 2008, 11:08
In my opinion  there is no big difference to buyer  is it image cost $1 or $5  or even $10. Price is so low anyway. Of course there is always some buyers who would like to have the price low as $0.10 but they are minority. You have  sites who selling images $79 per year subscription (10images a day) thats could make price low as $0.02 but  still they don't have many costumers. 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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ParisEye on January 16, 2008, 12:05
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

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 16, 2008, 12:20
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

between 2000-3000 depending on the site.  it is pretty easy to find out how many photos people have by clicking on their portfolio links on the bottom of one of their posts (if they have filled their portfolio info in, in their profile)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: le_cyclope on January 16, 2008, 12:25
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

This is a very good point.

We've red a lot of interresting points of view in this thread but I' m surprised that few people care about the low selling prices in microstock.  I mean that MS has gain a great level of maturity and as any other business, it has created his niche and has developed a market.

Now that the costumers are there, it is time IMO to raise the selling prices.  No matter how much is the commission (% or subscription), if the prices get higher, we will have more money, obviously.

I think that IS is going that way.  And I think that any site that does not follow that trend is bad for us.  No matter if a site is based on a subscription model or a per download, this is what we have to watch... and put pressure on those who will not follow the rising trend on sell prices.

Claude
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 16, 2008, 13:19
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: madelaide on January 16, 2008, 15:40
...  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.

I'm not referring to what we receive, but to what people pay for the images.  Subscribers pay too little for what they get (or can get), and that's what I don't accept taking part in.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HermanM on January 16, 2008, 15:54
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: pixelbrat on January 16, 2008, 15:56
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.


Agreed, some very good reading.  It sure was an eye-opener for me.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: crashoran on January 16, 2008, 23:14
Have you considered investing the bulk of your earnings once you reach a pinnacle Yuri?  I've read you were going to school for another major and were doing this to pay tuition.  I don't know your future plans - but the portfolios you have created online are literally a gold mine.  Even if one day you retire from microstock to pursue your major, your earnings will still come in each month - and all you need to do is reinvest everything.  As time passes your investment dividends will keep multiplying.  By the time you reach your 40's or 50's, you will be financially set for life.

Like I said I don't know what your future plans are, but I've started to invest early.  It's amazing to see an initial $10,000 USD investment grow to over 60 million dollars over 70 years at places like Edward Jones and such.

But, that aside, if your passion is to continue microstock photography - go for it

Sorry for off-topic :\

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Aurelio (2426)
Mshake (860)
Pierdelune
Crashoran
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: josh_crestock on January 17, 2008, 08:30
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]




This is doing the rounds here at Crestock. Thanks a lot for this, its essential reading for everyone.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Michael on January 17, 2008, 11:55
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.

Right! For me as an freelancer the microstocks are a gold mine. I can take photos for 1.- $, put then in my work and get 50-200.- $ for every single photo in the end. The microstockphotographers spend a lot of money to designers, journalists and other freelancers. In the other hand, the prices of macrostocks are to high for freelancer-work. So i look at the actually photo-market-advancement with to different eyes and hope that in the end the prices find a "middle-way"...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: leaf on January 19, 2008, 05:19
If you are wondering where the discussion about the stock market went - it is now in a new thread

LINK HERE (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=3377.msg31159#msg31159)
Title: Re: Debating the Stock Market (like in investing- not photography)
Post by: sharply_done on January 19, 2008, 07:17
...
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!
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.

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!
Title: Re: Debating the Stock Market (like in investing- not photography)
Post by: sharpshot on January 19, 2008, 07:52
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.
Title: Re: Debating the Stock Market (like in investing- not photography)
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 19, 2008, 09:05
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!

I'm thinking the same thing. Just like you said I'm getting tired of all of the other sites and their low earnings and quirkiness. The returns are little to nothing and I feel that time could be used more effectively where I'm seeing growth and potential. IS and SS are over 80% of my earnings.  But... even after I had an EL at SS this month (SS is doing really well for me) IS is still beating SS for earnings.  If IS keeps up like it has it could be 60-70% of my earnings within the next month or two. I'm re-evaluating my thoughts on exclusivity.
Title: Re: Debating the Stock Market (like in investing- not photography)
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 19, 2008, 09:14
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 19, 2008, 09:43
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. 

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rene on January 19, 2008, 09:55
I agree with Nazdravie. My numbers are the same (IS + SS 80% of my earnings). I think that uploading to 123, LO, BigStock is only waste of time. At DT I have more and more subscription downloads and I hate it. FT and StockXpert give me about 40-50 $ a month each so I can live without. Only IS and SS work for me. The problem with SS is that I have to upload new images all the time and I'm tired to produce all the time the same kind of cheap crap. I would love to spend more time (and money) to do same intersting projects. But with SS I will never get my money back. 5-6 good images with 200-300 dls each will give me 500$ first month then earning drop very very fast. IS system works much better for me. Maybe uploading RF only to IS and start to build good quality portfolio at RM sites is the best choice.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 19, 2008, 10:04
Yes, same for us. I've always thought we would never go exclusive on IS, too risky, all eggs in one basket etc.

But when you look at how far behind the payout for subscription now is, and all the competiton between the sites, using *our* photos, you have to think about it.

By my calculations, the payout for subscription would have to go to at least 50 cents this year to keep up. I can't see that happening.

The sites all look at their own bottom lines individually, we (photographers) look at our overall total income, and the two aren't compatible.

We can't do anything for 6 months due to DT's lock in, but that will give time to think about it and see what happens.

Linda
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 19, 2008, 10:35
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. 

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.
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.

Earnings at Alamy can be good (they claim average of $16 p/i/p/y) but I was surprised to see figures that on average traditional stock photographers make $1 per image in their portfolio per year. At first I thought "that's about the same as microstock". But wait a minute. That's per year, not per month! That's 8 cents per month, where micros seem to be 50 cents to $1 for most people here. If I calculate my earnings based upon this month, I'm at about $25 per image per year with micros. So I'd guess the chances of making comparable earnings at Alamy today aren't realistic, unless you're a superstar. What I do see with Alamy is a higher price structure, very strong and consistent revenue growth, different buyers, and a very impressive management team. So over the next few years as they continue fine-tuning, I'm thinking Alamy will be a much stronger player with higher average earning potential. I like what I see.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 19, 2008, 11:58
I suppose that is an average of all contributors.  I wonder what the average would be for the top 20%?  People can make $1 per image per month with microstock but I would think the top 20% make most of the money and the average for all contributors might be much lower.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HermanM on January 20, 2008, 23:59
where micros seem to be 50 cents to $1 for most people here

This is not a realistic number...  It's been discussed that on certain portfolios you will make $1-2/image/year.  In previous discussions it was discussed that in the long run a micro portfolio could match or even earn more than that.  In reality, it varies.  If it was a standard then everybody would be making hundreds of dollars per month, even thousands...  In every portfolio there is about a 20% of images that make 80% of your income.  I sincerely doubt that most portfolios could earn the $25 per year per photo, maybe there is one or two out there, but the real earning per photo per year is more an assumption than a real figure available for analysis.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 21, 2008, 00:36
This is not a realistic number according to whom/what? I've been around here long enough to see feedback over and over again that on average a microstocker will earn $.50 to $1.00 per portfolio image per month accross multiple sites.

So, according to this, figure a 500 image portfolio should earn $250 to 500 per month, or $3,000 to $6,000 per year, on average.

Sure, there will be some photos that sell like crazy and others that don't. The measurement is average income per image based upon total portfolio.

If I misunderstood this info, than I'd love to see some some stats of more realistic numbers.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 21, 2008, 01:39
I have seen people say many times that a reasonably good contributor can make $1 per image per month but what about all the mediocre ones?  There are a large amount of portfolios that I am sure don't reach this level and that might bring down the average for an entire site. 

There are 2,947,634 images and 87,051 contributors on shutterstock, so the average portfolio size is just 34 images.  How many of these people make $1 per image per month?  I think a lot of them make much less and lose the motivation to build a bigger portfolio.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: andresr on January 21, 2008, 07:20
$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.

Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.

It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on January 21, 2008, 07:27
Take a look over here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2387.msg20331#msg20331
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 21, 2008, 13:30
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]




http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/21/business/21getty.php

Ineresting quote from that article:
"Getty's stock has plunged 49 percent over the past year. In August, the company lowered its full-year profit estimates because of competition from low-cost rivals."

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: grp_photo on January 21, 2008, 13:34
$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.

Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.

It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Fred on January 21, 2008, 13:50
$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.

Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.

It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.

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.

Actually I find the numbers very useful.  As rather new to MS.  The numbers not only tell me how well I am doing they tell me what I should expect and what I should strive for.  If I am making $.25 per photo per month after a year I should recognize that I am either going to have to learn a lot, work a lot harder or give it up.  fred
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharply_done on January 21, 2008, 14:43
Your "number" is a measure of how commercially viable your images are - nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: madelaide on January 21, 2008, 17:44
Ouch.  My average is probably around 50c/image/month or less...

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lumina on January 22, 2008, 13:59
As vector contributor, mi average per image is bigger, around 4$/image/month.

My average per time worked is around 1,5$/worked hour/month
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Velvia on January 24, 2008, 00:33
it will be interesting to see what the poll reveals next month.

Yup!
 :)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HermanM on January 25, 2008, 01:23
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...
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 25, 2008, 08:51
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?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: lumina on January 25, 2008, 10:48
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?

If the image continues earning for various months, then I multiply $/worked hour/month by months of image life.

I don´t know yet how long is the image life in microstock, but I supose almost one year.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: photojay on January 25, 2008, 12:59
Add me to the list.  I am with MShake.  I am going now to see about cancelling my account with CanStockPhoto.

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Aurelio (2426)
Mshake (860)
Pierdelune
Crashoran
Photojay(103, but adding 50 everyday until I get my 500 image portfolio transferred.)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 25, 2008, 14:12

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?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: travelstock on January 26, 2008, 04:04
This forum has made me think about strategy going forward once again. In the last few weeks I've actually had a decent level of sales, however as usual these are predominantly from IS and SS. DT has been showing some increase, however even my best week there still only amounts to 10% of earnings.

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. This convinced me that some designers do in fact shop around for cheaper images. It could in fact be that by uploading to cheaper sites, you're canibalising my own higher price sales. In any event, if I calculate the time spent uploading to the smaller sites, it just doesn't seem worth the return.

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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 26, 2008, 11:47
I am sure some buyers shop around but it doesn't seem like a significant number of them do.  For the first 8 months doing this, I concentrated mainly on SS and IS but last year I uploaded most of my portfolio to the smaller sites and it seems to have made a significant boost to my overall earnings.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: photojay on January 26, 2008, 11:54
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.


I am looking to cash out on CanStockPhoto so I can close my account, so here is a LINK (http://www.canstockphoto.com/profile.php?id=22785) to my portfolio there.  As soon as I hit the minimum payout I am cashing out and closing the account because they won't let me opt out of sub sales.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pixart on January 26, 2008, 12:34
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.

1. Giving IS attention is very wise because they are an incredible earner.
2. I fully agreed to send smaller versions to SS unless they begin charging more for large images.
3. Why stop uploading to DT, FL, BS? 
- FT - maybe.  Many thrive there, my sales are very mediocre at FL.   I do not like their commission - way too low.
- BS - earnings aren't fabulous, but commissions are fair and it's nice to get a few extra payouts a year there.  One thing that happened last year is I questioned a sale for a book cover where I got $1.  I think on the other sites it would have at least been an EL.  It doesn't make sense to me that BS can ask for more to put it on a coffee mug than a book, but oh well.  Sales there seem to be in decline.
- DT - Some grumble about DT, but maybe that is because we expect so much from them.  They are extremely fair to contributors.  50%.  They advertise.  They have a solid, well planned structure and have not had the technical tragedies that we have all witnessed elsewhere.  They answer requests to support.  Sure, I don't make what I do on the big 2, but I am a real supporter of DT.

If we collectively don't support the smaller agencies like DT and StockXpert, that puts all the power in the hands of IS and SS.  I would love to see these two grow to the power that IS has.  They treat us way better, and we should stand by them.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 26, 2008, 22:06
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: travelstock on January 26, 2008, 22:15
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Fred on January 27, 2008, 00:57

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.

I have stopped uploading to BigStock because of the 90 day lock in and may do the same at DT if sales don't improve.  Would like to see everyone stop uploading to these sites that require you to keep your portfolio there after you quit.  Perhaps we could influence a change in that policy.

fred
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 27, 2008, 01:18
I like fotolia, as they sell more EL's for me than the other sites.  I haven't had an EL with DT or StockXpert yet and that does concern me.  How can I get them with SS, IS, LO and FT but not with DT and StockXpert?  Perhaps some sites make it more obvious to the buyers when they need to purchase an EL?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on January 27, 2008, 02:21
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.

Similar thoughts here.

And I even might stop uploading to Shutterstock - if you consider uploading images as (at least medium-term) investments, its just a too bad return there.

My impression is that the market is willing to pay reasonable prices for images, no need for giving them away nearly for free.

And I will try to upload to macrostock sites (first on the list is alamy). Maybe we amateurs just have to do a little "trial and error" to learn how far we can go in this market and whats the right direction.

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: AmandaHP on January 30, 2008, 08:05
Hi, I'm new here, made a bit observation.

Lately I have been to some forums to see Microstock photographer’s idea of Microstock business.

I think the value of photographer’s work has been cheapen by some photographers providing bulk amount of high quality photos and sell them at a low price.
For the photo buyer, the cheapest way to get big amount of high quality photos is go to Shutterstock. That is also who most photographers get their biggest payment from. Sounds reasonable, the biggest sales produce the biggest income. But photographers forget about the most important thing, their idea, skill, creativity and talent. While they sell their photos cheaply, they also sell a good photographer’s qualities cheaply. Well, if you don’t respect yourself, how can you expect agencies and buyers to respect you?

Photographers should have a price of the photo in mind. If you think 0.25 cent is too cheap then don’t sell your work there. Thinking about a neat carpenter sell his/her work in the car boot (flea market), how much do you think a person coming to the car boot would pay for the carpenter’s work? Must be cheap, isn’t it?

Mind you, pirates are everywhere. I don’t know if they have come to Microstock. If they want to pirate some decent photos for a cheap price, so that they can make a big money of it, where they will go to buy a bunch of cheap and high quality photos? You know, I know….

In this kind of business, photographers would not be able to know where their photo has been used. One day you might find a poster which has illegal used your photo to do the promotion and you might show the photo to friends and family proudly.
As silly as me, that situation might happen to me. So I decide to category my work and decide where and what price I am going to sell them. Also consider to let some good photo’s go exclusive to certain agency. Although I am not that sort of girl that can easy make a commitment.

I believe a lot of photographers have earned good money by selling cheap price. That is also the main reason they can’t draw out from the cheap market. I don’t know what would happen if they choose some photo to go exclusive to certain agency. That would definitely earn more than usual. But how much more? Can it make up the lose by exclusive photo? Self-esteem and money, hard to choose isn’t it?
I don’t have children need to be fed, I guess I can have a go.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 30, 2008, 08:20

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?

No comment?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: andresr on January 30, 2008, 09:10
I was working out some numbers today between the agencies who have introduced subscriptions and the ones who hasn't.

A while ago Fotolia, Dreamstime and Stockxpert where pretty much head to head for me, bigstock was behind and istock was in between, none of them had subscription sales available on their sites:
FT 16%, IS 15%, StockXpert 14% DT 13%, and BigStock 4% right?


Then DT decided to introduce subscriptions, sales didn't fall much because they increased prices at the same time but the growth rate almost stopped. I upload about 500 good quality images a month so my growth is quite high overall.
3 Months after DT started subscriptions the numbers looked like this:
FT 20%, IS 16% StockXpert 17%,  DT 11% and BigStock 5%
as you can see DT fell well behind in the race against the immediate competitors, istock remained the same (with the photos I can upload there the growth is not as noticeable) and bistock went up a little bit.

Then StockXpert decided to introduce subscriptions a couple of months ago and the numbers look like this in january:
FT 26%, IS 16%, DT 13% , StockXpert 12% , BigStock 8%

As you can see after several months all the sites who have introduced subscriptions have gone down.


I hope that no other per sale agency introduces subscriptions. >:(

If those numbers carry on like that in the next few months I will consider quitting subscription sites in the future.
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: MicrostockExp on January 30, 2008, 09:19
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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 30, 2008, 10:10

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.

I think your remarks are very important and should be taken as the proof of how correct we were (as contributers)being so  concerned about   sub models.
I wonder if the sites those  adopted sub model is loosing as much as we do?if not they may be willing to carry on.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ale1969 on January 30, 2008, 10:23
I guess agencies thrive on the part of the subscription not used by customers and it's a 100% gain as no percentage of that money go to contributors. The model is intrinsecally flawed, if you sell subscriptions you should pay contributors with the same logic (like per portfolio size) and not per sub download.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: HughStoneIan on January 30, 2008, 11:01
Andres, thank you for the analysis.  Coming from someone of your calibre, your insights can help us see our way a little more clearly.  With greater knowledge we can all make informed choices that will possibly influence the market in positive ways.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ChasingMoments on January 30, 2008, 13:21
I've been reading this thread really carefully... and one thing is extremely surprising for me!!! How come there is nobody from the agencies talking to us here... They are reading, that's for sure. But - what - don't they have anything to say?

...it looks like there is a labor union of sorts forming here, and photogs can, if united, influence the course of stock ... as far as I understand, a relatively small % of microstockers have over 400-500 images in their ports, and usually these photogs are on average better in everything, and if this relatively small % pools resources - then wow!
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: ChasingMoments on January 30, 2008, 13:34
Just to follow up...

If thinking from this thread catches on, what will happen is not that microstock sites will improve in price structure for photogs, but that all the photogs will stop putting their best stuff for micros and thus several things will happen: sub micros will be slowly but surely going down unless they innovate drastically as quality of their top contributors will decrease, top contributors will be putting their top work to more mid-stock-ish agencies and some work to macros...

this is somewhat based on my own thinking: from now on (makes no sense to do all the work on the existing port online) - i will separate out everything i shoot into RF for subs, RF for mid-stock and RM for bigger fish and submit accordingly....
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 30, 2008, 14:27
It would be interesting to hear from Yuri.
He started this thread, but last couple of times I have checked, he was opted back into subs on StockXpert.
Can you tell us what action you plan to take, Yuri?

Linda
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 30, 2008, 14:53
he was opted back into subs on StockXpert.

Reaaaaly?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Rozmaryna on January 30, 2008, 15:15
See Yuri´s second post on page 5:

"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"
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: vphoto on January 30, 2008, 17:55
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 ?

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 31, 2008, 03:26
Things are going well again for me.  It looks like the slower sales in December and the first weeks of January was just a seasonal thing.  The last 10 days have been great.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: mjp on January 31, 2008, 04:21
Same thing here as with sharpshot. First two weeks of this year were horrible and the december was very bad, but now things are going same level as in septemper last year .

br, MJP
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 31, 2008, 07:26
That's what I figured, and the OP is probably experiencing the same, thus the lack of concern for still supporting the effort to get rid of subscription sites, or for posting.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: MicrostockExp on January 31, 2008, 07:32
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 I think a midstock would make sense, someone suggested this earlier this month. Who do I have to pm for that ?
L
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: rene on January 31, 2008, 13:01
he was opted back into subs on StockXpert.

Reaaaaly?
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.
Here's new liste opt-OUT:
rene (about 600 images at StockXpert)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: sharpshot on January 31, 2008, 14:40

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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Pixart on January 31, 2008, 14:52
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: stokfoto on January 31, 2008, 15:06
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.

I don't have the answer for that but since the beginning my biggest concern has been that sub system will eventually turn ppd buyers into sub buyers.if I was a buyer I'd definetely subscribe and got 750 XL images for the price of 40XL ppd  it seems so clear to me but I do hope that I am wrong.to my point of view  introducing and supporting such a system would have a significant impact on our overall income

lately  people complaining about getting more and more sub sales on DT aswell is is suprising,I don't think so!
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: mjp on January 31, 2008, 15:33
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

Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: madelaide on January 31, 2008, 16:38
What hurts me when selling subs images in StockXpert or DT (where they are few compared to regular sales) is when the subscriber gets a very good-selling image.  I wouldn't mind much if they get an old unsuccessful image, but when they get one that is one of my prides...  Even if they mean just one sale in dozens, it feels bad.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Travelling-light on January 31, 2008, 16:50
We opted out of subs at StockXpert from the beginning. We have also stopped uploading to DT.

This month we have seen many, many more large sales on IS than we have previously.

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
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Karimala on January 31, 2008, 18:27
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



I'm going to have to watch my numbers for a couple more months before a clear trend can be determined, because January sucked on both levels.  It is interesting to note that December, in the subscription service's second full month, stayed in line with September - November in terms of volume.  The only difference is that credit sales dropped and subscription sales increased...not a good sign. 

September:  102 credit sales  subscription not yet implemented  102 total sales
October:  111 credit sales  2 subscription sales  113 total sales
November:  108 credit sales  14 subscription sales  122 total sales
December: 80 credit sales  35 subscription sales  115 total sales
January: 74 credit sales  12 subscription sales  86 total sales (yuck)
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: epixx on February 01, 2008, 00:33
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.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: faber on February 01, 2008, 01:09
.........
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
Same here.

I will upload only to iStock and German mid-stock sites for some time and see what happens. And try to get accepted at alamy/photoshelter.

BTW, is istock still microstock or rather moving to midstock?
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Freezingpictures on February 01, 2008, 03:12
@faber, what the customers have to pay is getting closer to midstock, but still a bit away, especially the small sizes. What the contributer gets is definately microstock :).
But Snapvillage is closer to midstock if you choose the right prices, as well as featurepics.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Phil on February 19, 2008, 19:19
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


had a look at his blog, one whinge and complaint and negative comment after another.  God the guy needs to find some joy in his life.  It's not microstock he hates, he complains and takes delight in everyone and everythings failures. What a sad individual.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on February 19, 2008, 20:27
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.

With SS, I've already run into what I've been hearing all along. SS needs to be fed regularly.

I noticed that I upload more and more but get the same monthly earnings (minus an EL). This past month I didn;t upload much because of my day job. In Nov SS was 44% of my earnings. So far this month it's in 3rd place at 9%. For my images, SS doesn't appear to be a good prospect for building portfolio earnings growth. Seems like a transaction... if upload images, they sell. No uploads = substantial sales decrease. 
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Tim Markley on February 19, 2008, 21:21
I love to hear people crack on microstock. What micro did was open photography to everybody. I love taking pictures but I have day job and never would have thought about selling pictures without micro.

Micro lets me have some fun and buy new equipment every now then. That said, there are too many sites and I suspect that we will see some contraction in the future. The list on the right has to many players.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 19, 2008, 22:01
Glad to see the OP has kept us up to date on whether or not all the help posted in this thread has helped.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: DanP68 on February 19, 2008, 23:48

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



For what it is worth, I opted back in out of curiosity.  My StockXpert sales have been so far below my other sites the last two months that I wanted to confirm if it was due to a move toward subscriptions, or just poor performance of my portfolio with StockXpert.

It turns out to be the latter.  I'm not making credit sales, nor subscription sales, with StockXpert.  They've fallen below BigStock and 123RF in my last 2 months earnings, by quite a large margin.

That being said, I will probably opt back out now that I am getting a better idea of what is going on.
Title: Re: Are things going well in microstock?
Post by: Michael on March 20, 2008, 10:05
Late Posting, but i want to tell that i have now very good sellings at alamy. I seems that it needs many time for the photos to "fight" for a good search placing in that agency. I think for the best photos you should use mid- and macrostocks and the rest is for microstock. This is my new strategy. I made over 4000 $ last month at alamy with just 25 sellings, this is a new record month for me.

I have more sells at zoonar and imagebroker too. I see much potential there...