Author Topic: Are we cannibalizing our own sales? (Read 8615 times)

lisafx · « **on:** February 22, 2011, 17:07 »

This discussion was an interesting (but OT) side note to this thread:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/illustration-general/canstockphoto-what-a-good-surprise!/msg186838/?topicseen#new

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 22, 2011, 12:40

Quote from: lisafx on February 22, 2011, 10:58
Quote from: jcpjr on February 22, 2011, 10:48
Oh, and from the "what it's worth...department, I'm making more from IS's partner sales then from IS main sales....kinda sad after 6 years with them that it has come to this...

Do you think this could be because your images are available at the partner sites? (not trying to slam you for participating, BTW)

One of the big concerns about participating in the PP was the potential to cannibalize sales on Istock. Is it possible this is what you are seeing?

My sales have dropped at IS, but they are still more than a third of my overall microstock income. My stuff isn't in the PP. Don't know if there's a connection or not.

BTW, sorry to continue OT. Would be happy to have this conversation moved to a relevant thread...

This is an interesting subject and probably should be in a separate thread. I just wanted to comment that:
Doesn't uploading to CanStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia, Shutterstock, offer the same potential to cannabilize sales ... or, at least dilute the sales?

FWIW, I don't worry too much that uploading to different sites is cannibalizing my sales. I suspect that the buyers who find each of these sites do it independently of the others. Whatever the reason a buyer is shopping at one site over another, at least they will have the opportunity to buy my images.

Same argument could probably be made about the Istock partner program, but this is the only case, that I know of, where one site is actively seeking to send their own buyers to another, cheaper website. To me it is very direct and deliberate cannibalization, and not worth the potential tradeoff of the $1.17/DL I make on IS for the .25 at TS.

Again, not throwing any stones, just that when I read comments from people opted in to the PP that their partner sales are soaring while their Istock sales have dried up, it suggests a direct link. This was one of my main reservations about the PP from the beginning.

Happy to hear other thoughts...

helix7 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2011, 19:14 »

Seeing istock directly market TS to their customers, it's pretty clear that Getty hopes to drive buyers to the site that earns them the most profit. It's the exception rather than the rule (thankfully), and in general I don't worry about cannibalizing sales from one agency to another. The big difference is that there is no pathway from a more expensive agency to a cheaper agency, other than the IS/TS scenario.

I think most buyers are unaware of the options they have and the idea that they can sometimes find the same images at various agencies, and sometimes for less money. Buyers are also creatures of habit, as we've clearly seen from the loyalty buyers show to istock despite regular price increases and the release of more expensive collections.

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2011, 20:05 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 22, 2011, 19:14

I think most buyers are unaware of the options they have and the idea that they can sometimes find the same images at various agencies, and sometimes for less money. Buyers are also creatures of habit, as we've clearly seen from the loyalty buyers show to istock despite regular price increases and the release of more expensive collections.

Good point. Amazing how many buyers are unaware that other micro sites exist, or at least haven't tried them. I guess when you are happy and everything is running smoothly there's no need to look around...?

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2011, 20:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 22, 2011, 20:05

Quote from: helix7 on February 22, 2011, 19:14

I think most buyers are unaware of the options they have and the idea that they can sometimes find the same images at various agencies, and sometimes for less money. Buyers are also creatures of habit, as we've clearly seen from the loyalty buyers show to istock despite regular price increases and the release of more expensive collections.

Good point. Amazing how many buyers are unaware that other micro sites exist, or at least haven't tried them. I guess when you are happy and everything is running smoothly there's no need to look around...?

And remember that some of the buyers are designers employed by companies who have the accounts. So they buy where they are told, rather than where they wish they could (even if they do know of other places).

visceralimage · « **Reply #4 on:** February 22, 2011, 20:26 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 22, 2011, 20:11

Quote from: lisafx on February 22, 2011, 20:05
Quote from: helix7 on February 22, 2011, 19:14

I think most buyers are unaware of the options they have and the idea that they can sometimes find the same images at various agencies, and sometimes for less money. Buyers are also creatures of habit, as we've clearly seen from the loyalty buyers show to istock despite regular price increases and the release of more expensive collections.

Good point. Amazing how many buyers are unaware that other micro sites exist, or at least haven't tried them. I guess when you are happy and everything is running smoothly there's no need to look around...?

Also, most are pretty busy with tight deadline schedules; saving two bucks by shopping at another site wastes another 10 minutes or so; I can't imagine the budgets are so tight that they can afford price shopping to save two dollars.

And remember that some of the buyers are designers employed by companies who have the accounts. So they buy where they are told, rather than where they wish they could (even if they do know of other places).

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2011, 20:26 »

An expression from a while back in the tech field was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". What they meant was that when you went with the company perceived as the leader, even if things didn't work out, people wouldn't blame you for choosing them - you had picked the perceived number one.

Those perceptions do change over time, but I think that sometimes the Getty connection helps from a buyer point of view. Getty Images is a well known name and if you're looking for images on a budget, Getty's microstock site might well seem like a safe bet.

I've said repeatedly that I see the IS PP as a way Getty is trying to drive all commissions lower (once I'd have said down to 20%, but now it's down to 15% and I don't expect they'd raise 15% to 20% once they've done away with the parts of IS that cost them more than 20%). All that talk of different markets was transparent rubbish (clearly rammed home when they started marketing TS subscriptions on IS and marketing Image Packs (i.e. credits) on the TS main page to those who didn't want to commit to a subscription package.

I don't see any reason to help Getty any more than I can avoid in their march to lower my royalty rate. If I were independent again and the terms at TS made sense, I'd happily participate - it's just another site at that point. If I thought TS was damaging SS (at the moment I don't see any reason to think TS has taken off - why would there be all those discounts offered if that were the case?) and my SS royalties were better, I think I'd consider dropping TS.

When StockXpert content first went to photos.com (when Jupiter was independent and had bought StockXpert), it was because photos.com subscribers were ticked off that they didn't have enough new content. Subscription buyers won't put up (for long) with the same old pile of content. If enough of the bigger portfolios stay away from the sites that don't pay contributors enough, buyers will push for changes. Sites don't give a toss about contributors (any more - their collections are large and there are too many of us) but they will care if buyers aren't happy and aren't renewing their subscriptions.

SNP · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2011, 01:21 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 22, 2011, 20:26

An expression from a while back in the tech field was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". What they meant was that when you went with the company perceived as the leader, even if things didn't work out, people wouldn't blame you for choosing them - you had picked the perceived number one.

Those perceptions do change over time, but I think that sometimes the Getty connection helps from a buyer point of view. Getty Images is a well known name and if you're looking for images on a budget, Getty's microstock site might well seem like a safe bet.

I've said repeatedly that I see the IS PP as a way Getty is trying to drive all commissions lower (once I'd have said down to 20%, but now it's down to 15% and I don't expect they'd raise 15% to 20% once they've done away with the parts of IS that cost them more than 20%). All that talk of different markets was transparent rubbish (clearly rammed home when they started marketing TS subscriptions on IS and marketing Image Packs (i.e. credits) on the TS main page to those who didn't want to commit to a subscription package.

I don't see any reason to help Getty any more than I can avoid in their march to lower my royalty rate. If I were independent again and the terms at TS made sense, I'd happily participate - it's just another site at that point. If I thought TS was damaging Shutterstock (at the moment I don't see any reason to think TS has taken off - why would there be all those discounts offered if that were the case?) and my Shutterstock royalties were better, I think I'd consider dropping TS.

When StockXpert content first went to photos.com (when Jupiter was independent and had bought StockXpert), it was because photos.com subscribers were ticked off that they didn't have enough new content. Subscription buyers won't put up (for long) with the same old pile of content. If enough of the bigger portfolios stay away from the sites that don't pay contributors enough, buyers will push for changes. Sites don't give a toss about contributors (any more - their collections are large and there are too many of us) but they will care if buyers aren't happy and aren't renewing their subscriptions.

JoAnn - I think this is really informative, especially for people not around in the "beginning." I disagree with only one thing you've said. I don't believe buyers will push for changes. At least not changes that benefit contributors solely. I also don't buy any idealistic notion that buyers or contributors uniformly consider the 'big picture' and their impact on the industry as a whole. With the exception of buyer/contributors obviously--I think most buyers are unaware of issues facing contributors and contributors unaware of issues pertinent to buyers. I think many contributors hope that buyers will take this stand, but it's unrealistic IMO.

I think prices and content will continue to drive the industry. so it is important that major contributors--and I realize that's an unpopular statement, but it has to be contributors bringing in sales with quality work---are the key to moderating the industry by being selective about where their work is available. I think that is the variable most likely to affect change in the industry at this point.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2011, 02:18 »

Considering the OP question, yes artists and agencies have been cannibalizing sales, since the beginning.

Everyone who isn't an exclusive, is competitive with themselves.

Every agency that has any sort of partners or redistribution is competing with itself. That extra percentage to pay two people, before us, comes from one place, the artists commission.

The only difference between most sites, because the same 400 people have all of their images on all the sites, is price. Artists are competing with themselves all the time, based on price.

As many people have pointed out, the crowd source supply has now exceeded the needs. The agents have too many pictures, they don't need to make anything more attractive to new people. They have all the photos they need. They have all the artists they need. In most cases too many of both!

Considering all of that, the only difference between Getty and most of the rest is, IS is open about cannibalizing it's own sales, within the same company while others are in competition with each other, compromising our income based on price.

It's OK for some new site to come and compete with SS for sub sales. In fact a few of them have popped up, setting the same prices and contracts. Identical grab for the same buyers and what else, some artists flock there, and compete with themselves.

It always seemed kind of odd to me that expanding distribution to more and more competing agencies, only weakens any value and support for the established sites. Dilution weakens the perceived value.

But the biggest complaint for months has been that Getty is doing the same thing that artists have been doing from the beginning? They sell the same images at two different price points on two different sites. Tell me how that's different than anyone here selling on IS and SS?

Yeah, the commission cut sucks, I'm 100% in agreement with that. It's worse for people who worked years to achieve promised levels and now they pull the rug out from under you, and lower the commissions to the majority of contributors. They aren't the first and won't be the last. Remember, artists have scattered their work indiscriminately to every upstart, new site, old mule and anyplace that will take them. There's nothing separating the sites except price!

At 15% the only way for me to make anything anymore is go RF exclusive on IS for 25% and sell the RM and Editorial images everywhere else. Want the numbers? For every $100 that I make now on IS I'd make $165 as an IS exclusive. That's the difference between 15% and 25%. Not so bad is it? There might be some fringe benefits as well.

Maybe Getty is crazy like a fox. They get rid of the low earners and at the same time, sell to the sub market, the OD market and then they added Vetta and whatever else. One agency for all needs. They aren't cannibalizing their own sales, they are diversifying and making their agency one stop shopping for buyers.

Same as people who upload to 20 sites, aren't cannibalizing their own sales, they are diversifying.

Someone who uploads to 6 or more sites, explain the difference?

The exclusives and people with maybe 3 or 4 sites, get the shaft.

visceralimage · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:08 »

Race Photo

I believe you make some very valid points. I am sure there are those buyers that price shop from agency to agency. However, I believe most buyers are creatures of habit or pressured for production: these buyers will generally choose one or two agencies and stick with them.

We are dealing with a truly global market; images are used in every type of publication is all areas of the world. I am sure there are buyers in Norway/Sweden/Finland that prefer to purchase from a "local agency" just as there are buyers in USA or Germany that want to purchase from their local agency. Because of the internet; we have the ability to supply these agencies located in different parts of the world.

There are also buyers, for one reason or another, will not deal with a particular agency. If we are exclusive to one agency, we loose potential sales.

I was exclusive with DT for a bit of time; it had many advantages but also disadvantages. I did not like the fact that if they declined an image I was not allowed to sell it at any other agency. To me, it felt like they were the image police; able to tell me what would sell and what would not sell.

I believe our best strategy is to not put images with those agencies that are unfair. I believe if enough of the major players (those with 3000 plus images) banned together and pulled images from a major agency, you would see some changes. Sure, there will always be other photographers to fill the spaces but the major players do supply images that are pretty much in demand. Replacing the image portfolio of Moneybusiness, Elenathewise, Yuri or others with "mom at home with the baby and camera" images is not going to satisfy buyers. Buyers will go where they can get products they need; the agency will change to get back the images they need.

On the other hand, if we do nothing, the agencies are in the drivers seat and will direct the traffic so they max. profit.

travelstock · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:31 »

If you have your images available at places where they're sold at different prices, you're always going to have a certain amount of cannibalization.

Not all buyers do it, but there's definitely some that will.

I've spoken to buyers who have accounts at a subscription site (in that case SS) and also access to pay-per-download sites. They would typically search both sites, find what they wanted and if it was available by subscription, buy it there. If not they'd get it at the higher price point. Obviously in this scenario many buyers will try to find what they're looking for at the cheaper site first & only look somewhere more expensive if something suitable isn't available, so the choice for sellers becomes: do I miss out on the sale entirely or do I potentially miss out on a higher royalty.

With subscription buyers, I also don't think its uncommon to have a subscription package to do a lot of the low-value grunt work, and selectively purchase more expensive images for more important placements.

Then again the buyers who are most price-sensitive are often not using subscriptions. If you're a blogger and need 30 images a month at most, signing up for $250 a month commitment isn't that economical. These are the sort of buyers who know to shop around, will probably often substitute the best image for whatever fits and for whom its worthwhile to spend an extra 5 mins searching for an image between different sites if its going to save a few dollars in royalties.

Another completely different buyer I spoke to used a mix of iStock, Corbis and Getty - they were oblivious to the pricing structure on each site and were exclusively focused on getting the images that they wanted - in that case it seemed to be mostly iStock.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:36 »

Quote from: visceralimage on February 23, 2011, 03:08

Race Photo

I believe you make some very valid points. I am sure there are those buyers that price shop from agency to agency. However, I believe most buyers are creatures of habit or pressured for production: these buyers will generally choose one or two agencies and stick with them.

I think people here have made good arguments for both sides and more. There are buyers who will stay where they are, because it's what they know. There are others who will shop around for the best price. There are some who buy wherever they find what they want, price doesn't matter. There are people who work for someone else, who decides for them where they will buy.

I think they are all correct and only vary by location and situation. There is no simple answer.

red · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:22 »

I know of one regional advertising firm whose designers did not know of other stock agencies until they couldn't find what they were looking for. I explained that there were other sources for inexpensive photos and illustrations and they took a look at some of them. They asked, "but why are the same images available, I thought this was a "different" source?" There was some level of frustration because they didn't want to weed through all of the same images they had just looked at. They had no clue where the images came from and did not know or care who or where they originated, they only wanted to find something new and different. Frankly, it turned them off a bit. This was not a large firm but what they learned from looking around created an impression of the industry in general. Ultimately they went back to the microsite where they had their subscription as they were most familiar with that site's search engine.

dirkr · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:29 »

Question:

Quote

Are we cannibalizing our own sales?

Answer: If WE don't cannibalize our own sales, someone else will.

Or, a little less drastic: I am sure that the advantage to have an image available at many different outlets (with many different customers) dramatically outweighs the disadvantage of sometimes selling an image at a lower price point due to a customer specifically shopping for the lowest price of a specific image.

That said, for me personally there are some limits to this sales model. And these are where I feel that I am getting a bad deal. TS was such an example, as they a) set out to sell at very low rate (25c) and b) this move was a direct commission cut (as the same images sold for 30c before the StockXpert closure. The next example was IS, where I felt that just accepting the commission cut was not something I wanted to do, so I pulled my port.
These two actions (not opting in to TS, pulling out from IS) may even be economical nonsense given what I said above, but luckily I am in no way depending on money made from stock so I have the freedom to make emotional decisions...

cathyslife · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2011, 10:30 »

Quote from: dirkr on February 23, 2011, 09:29

Question:
Quote
Are we cannibalizing our own sales?

Answer: If WE don't cannibalize our own sales, someone else will.

Or, a little less drastic: I am sure that the advantage to have an image available at many different outlets (with many different customers) dramatically outweighs the disadvantage of sometimes selling an image at a lower price point due to a customer specifically shopping for the lowest price of a specific image.

That said, for me personally there are some limits to this sales model. And these are where I feel that I am getting a bad deal. TS was such an example, as they a) set out to sell at very low rate (25c) and b) this move was a direct commission cut (as the same images sold for 30c before the StockXpert closure. The next example was IS, where I felt that just accepting the commission cut was not something I wanted to do, so I pulled my port.
These two actions (not opting in to TS, pulling out from IS) may even be economical nonsense given what I said above, but luckily I am in no way depending on money made from stock so I have the freedom to make emotional decisions...

I agree that to an extent if we upload to multiple sites we are cannibalizing ourselves, but something about the IS/TS cannibalization just galled me more. For instance, at TS, you get $.25...there is no chance of ever earning more than that, and a BIG chance you will earn less in the future. On the other sites, like DT, if my image sells, I have the chance to increase my payout for that image. Fortunately, I am not worried about the IS/TS thing anymore. I, like dirk, opted out of TS and pulled my port at IS.

VB inc · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2011, 11:05 »

Smaller firms or individuals are price sensitive and like to shop around and might have more time to look for their images. Larger firms have the budget or have one main account (which i believe is istock) where time is more important. I dont think a big firm would have two micro accounts but i might be wrong.
What if out of 100 buyers, 70 are price sensitive while the other 30 are not. The 30 buyers as a whole, outspends the price sensitive buyers by more than 2-8 times. I would like to showcase my stuff to these 30 buyers. These numbers are just made up but highly plausible to me.

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2011, 11:39 »

I don't consider having your portfolio with different agencies, even at significantly different price-points, to be 'cannibalisation' as such. To me that is simply making your product available to different markets. The gains from doing so are almost certain to be far greater than any sales at lower prices.

Where cannibalisation does take place IMHO is when you upload several series of the same subject matter, shot at different times, to the same agency. The temptation is always to follow up best-selling images with more of the same subject. Unfortunately, if you are successful in producing even better images than before, then you are quite likely to simply divert a sale you would have had anyway to your new images. Mind you that's still a lot better than the sale going to one of your competitors who may have tried to copy your success. If you don't compete against your own best-selling images then you can be sure that someone else will.

dirkr · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2011, 11:59 »

Quote from: VB inc on February 23, 2011, 11:05

Smaller firms or individuals are price sensitive and like to shop around and might have more time to look for their images. Larger firms have the budget or have one main account (which i believe is istock) where time is more important. I dont think a big firm would have two micro accounts but i might be wrong.
What if out of 100 buyers, 70 are price sensitive while the other 30 are not. The 30 buyers as a whole, outspends the price sensitive buyers by more than 2-8 times. I would like to showcase my stuff to these 30 buyers. These numbers are just made up but highly plausible to me.

By showing your work to the 70 price sensitive buyers you are not taking it away from the other 30.
On the other hand, you reach those of the 30 that only have one account, but not at the agency of your choice.

That's how I see it: Those that stay with one agency you can only reach when you are represented on that agency. Those who shop around you can only reach when you are broadly represented.

The beauty of non-exlcusivity. The exclusive bonus at any given agency has to make up the loss of both those buyers that stick to one (other) agency and those that shop around. My own figures have never indicated that exclusivity would be better, but it's hard to know if my assumptions are right.

cthoman · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2011, 12:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2011, 11:39

Where cannibalisation does take place IMHO is when you upload several series of the same subject matter, shot at different times, to the same agency. The temptation is always to follow up best-selling images with more of the same subject. Unfortunately, if you are successful in producing even better images than before, then you are quite likely to simply divert a sale you would have had anyway to your new images. Mind you that's still a lot better than the sale going to one of your competitors who may have tried to copy your success. If you don't compete against your own best-selling images then you can be sure that someone else will.

I've been wondering about this in relation to DT. Do new lower tier files in the same subject category take away from older higher tier files? It's a simultaneous growing and preventing growth.

As far as the original topic, I always find it interesting to look up one of my niche images on Google images and see it pop up from multiple agencies. You have to assume some buyers are finding it that way. Which agency will they click on and buy it from? Which would you prefer they did buy it from?

kingjon · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2011, 12:33 »

You may be cannabilizing your own sales by being on different sites but only to some extent. The sites have different search engines. My flames at IS are completely diffent from my best sellers on other sites (a few are the same but not many). If I had files only on one site, only a few of my files would ever get sales.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2011, 18:18 »

Quote from: dirkr on February 23, 2011, 09:29

Answer: If WE don't cannibalize our own sales, someone else will.

Or, a little less drastic: I am sure that the advantage to have an image available at many different outlets (with many different customers) dramatically outweighs the disadvantage of sometimes selling an image at a lower price point due to a customer specifically shopping for the lowest price of a specific image.

You know, I never thought about it like that, but you make some really excellent points, Dirk. Better to compete with ourselves than to lose sales to competition. Good to be diversified, with the exception of companies that are grossly unfair, incompetent, or just don't sell.

Your reasons for opting out of TS echo my own exactly. I would categorize the TS relationship to IS as parasitic.

lisafx · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2011, 18:24 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2011, 11:39

Where cannibalisation does take place IMHO is when you upload several series of the same subject matter, shot at different times, to the same agency. The temptation is always to follow up best-selling images with more of the same subject. Unfortunately, if you are successful in producing even better images than before, then you are quite likely to simply divert a sale you would have had anyway to your new images. Mind you that's still a lot better than the sale going to one of your competitors who may have tried to copy your success. If you don't compete against your own best-selling images then you can be sure that someone else will.

Yes, this is certainly a frustrating situation. If you don't update your own concepts, you may lose sales to someone else you have "inspired", but if you do, you are competing with yourself.

Not to mention that if you've been at this awhile, you have probably gotten much better equipment, and improved your lighting and post processing skills over time. As much as I would rather always move on to new ground, it does seem necessary to update older concepts to stay competitive.

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2011, 20:06 »

I thought of starting a new thread, but I think this video fits well here.

http://www.thephotographybiz.com/photography-business/how-to-deal-with-clients-who-want-your-photography-for-the-cheapest-possible-price/

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2011, 20:07 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 23, 2011, 10:30

... at TS, you get $.25...there is no chance of ever earning more than that

You'd better get a refund from that Crystal Ball course you did!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=1

Starbucks · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2011, 20:08 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 23, 2011, 18:18

Your reasons for opting out of TS echo my own exactly. I would categorize the TS relationship to IS as parasitic.

Agreed.

People shooting themselves in the foot.

cathyslife · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2011, 20:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 23, 2011, 20:07

Quote from: cclapper on February 23, 2011, 10:30
... at TS, you get $.25...there is no chance of ever earning more than that

You'd better get a refund from that Crystal Ball course you did!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=1

Oops, you're right! Gosh, non-exclusive TSers will now earn a whole $.28 instead of $.25!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are we cannibalizing our own sales? (Read 8615 times)

lisafx

helix7

lisafx

cathyslife

visceralimage

Jo Ann Snover

SNP

RacePhoto

visceralimage

travelstock

RacePhoto

red

dirkr

cathyslife

VB inc

gostwyck

dirkr

cthoman

kingjon

lisafx

lisafx

madelaide

ShadySue

Starbucks

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors