Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock? (Read 118183 times)

Mshake · « **Reply #250 on:** January 14, 2008, 16:37 »

Quote from: 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

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.

epixx · « **Reply #251 on:** January 14, 2008, 16:56 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 14, 2008, 10:10

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.

epixx · « **Reply #252 on:** January 14, 2008, 17:01 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 14, 2008, 09:55

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.

epixx · « **Reply #253 on:** January 14, 2008, 17:16 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 14, 2008, 10:26

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.

duaneellison · « **Reply #254 on:** January 15, 2008, 00:31 »

Yuri -

Your thread has ended up on John Harrington's Blog. He isn't a big fan of microstock or the people who market in that arena. On the post he referenced Lee Torrens 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

pixelbrat · « **Reply #255 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.

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #256 on:** January 15, 2008, 11:36 »

Quote from: duaneellison on January 15, 2008, 00:31

Your thread has ended up on John Harrington's Blog. He isn't a big fan of microstock or the people who market in that arena. On the post he referenced Lee Torrens 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.

UberLens · « **Reply #257 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.

Pixart · « **Reply #258 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.

leaf · « **Reply #259 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.

madelaide · « **Reply #260 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

ale1969 · « **Reply #261 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.

helix7 · « **Reply #262 on:** January 15, 2008, 19:52 »

Quote from: Lee Torrens on January 15, 2008, 11:36

...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.

leaf · « **Reply #263 on:** January 16, 2008, 04:07 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 15, 2008, 17:17

... 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.

epixx · « **Reply #264 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.

leaf · « **Reply #265 on:** January 16, 2008, 06:53 »

it will be interesting to see what the poll reveals next month.

vphoto · « **Reply #266 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

rene · « **Reply #267 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.

stokfoto · « **Reply #268 on:** January 16, 2008, 09:39 »

Quote from: rene on January 16, 2008, 08:58

..... 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!

ale1969 · « **Reply #269 on:** January 16, 2008, 10:18 »

Quote from: stokfoto on January 16, 2008, 09:39

Quote from: rene on January 16, 2008, 08:58
..... 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.

leaf · « **Reply #270 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.

gbcimages · « **Reply #271 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

Aurelio · « **Reply #272 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

ParisEye · « **Reply #273 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

leaf · « **Reply #274 on:** January 16, 2008, 12:20 »

Quote from: 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

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)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock? (Read 118183 times)

Mshake

epixx

epixx

epixx

duaneellison

pixelbrat

Lee Torrens

UberLens

Pixart

leaf

madelaide

ale1969

helix7

leaf

epixx

leaf

vphoto

rene

stokfoto

ale1969

leaf

gbcimages

Aurelio

ParisEye

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors