MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock?  (Read 117536 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #225 on: January 11, 2008, 11:50 »
0


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.


« Reply #226 on: January 11, 2008, 12:35 »
0

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

cphoto

  • CreativeShot.com
« Reply #227 on: January 11, 2008, 13:32 »
0

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 :)

rinderart

« Reply #228 on: January 11, 2008, 15:04 »
0

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.

rinderart

« Reply #229 on: January 11, 2008, 15:25 »
0
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.

« Reply #230 on: January 11, 2008, 15:39 »
0
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




 





« Reply #231 on: January 11, 2008, 17:44 »
0
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.

« Reply #232 on: January 11, 2008, 21:26 »
0
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)

« Reply #233 on: January 12, 2008, 06:01 »
0

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

DanP68

« Reply #234 on: January 12, 2008, 10:56 »
0

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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 11:01 by DanP68 »

« Reply #235 on: January 12, 2008, 20:42 »
0
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.

« Reply #236 on: January 13, 2008, 01:24 »
0

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

vonkara

« Reply #237 on: January 13, 2008, 16:37 »
0
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?

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #238 on: January 13, 2008, 18:30 »
0
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

« Reply #239 on: January 13, 2008, 18:41 »
0
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

« Reply #240 on: January 13, 2008, 20:25 »
0
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?

helix7

« Reply #241 on: January 14, 2008, 01:59 »
0
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.



« Reply #242 on: January 14, 2008, 03:20 »
0
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.

« Reply #243 on: January 14, 2008, 06:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #244 on: January 14, 2008, 08:57 »
0
So, no one's really taking a stand against anything then here, right?

helix7

« Reply #245 on: January 14, 2008, 09:55 »
0
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.


« Reply #246 on: January 14, 2008, 10:07 »
0
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)

« Reply #247 on: January 14, 2008, 10:10 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 10:13 by sharply_done »

helix7

« Reply #248 on: January 14, 2008, 10:26 »
0
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.


« Reply #249 on: January 14, 2008, 12:17 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 12:19 by faber »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5465 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 14:00
by sharpshot
19 Replies
6169 Views
Last post February 17, 2012, 10:51
by luissantos84
15 Replies
6476 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 00:30
by Microbius
40 Replies
17236 Views
Last post June 19, 2019, 01:32
by georgep7
17 Replies
21561 Views
Last post June 28, 2019, 00:17
by Clair Voyant

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors