Author Topic: Buyers frustrations (Read 19454 times)

cascoly · « **Reply #75 on:** April 24, 2010, 14:08 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 24, 2010, 09:20

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 09:13
Quote from: macrosaur on April 24, 2010, 05:24
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :

And how many of them are model-released? Micros cater mostly to commercial use.

Not to mention the 'Bud light' ads in the background, in fact the whole thing looks like a pretty cool Bud light advert.. are they selling this as commercial? Never gonna happen, maybe a nice editorial news image, even then Bud are getting some nice free advertising out of it..

actually i have it avaialble on both alamy and ms -- only sales are from ms despite lack of model release [of the 38 images on alamy, 21 are mine]

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #76 on:** April 24, 2010, 18:49 »

Hi HQIMages,

Sometimes to get something a bit higher in quality and concept you need to pay more. If you check some top RM agencies I think you will find images that have very strong talent and big budgets. This is where the cream can be found. There are some Micro images that meet the standards of some lower end Macro RM shots but there is no control over who or how many times it has been used.
If you go with Macro RM you can see the history of the sales and be sure it doesn't and won't conflict with your clients needs, you can even pay to make sure no one uses it for a certain period of time. You must also educate the client that the image is what stops the buyer to read the copy. You place the right image in an add it will more than cover the cost in return sales from the cost of the image usage.

Best,
Jonathan

crazychristina · « **Reply #77 on:** April 24, 2010, 19:15 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on April 24, 2010, 18:49

Hi HQIMages,

Sometimes to get something a bit higher in quality and concept you need to pay more. If you check some top RM agencies I think you will find images that have very strong talent and big budgets. This is where the cream can be found. There are some Micro images that meet the standards of some lower end Macro RM shots but there is no control over who or how many times it has been used.
If you go with Macro RM you can see the history of the sales and be sure it doesn't and won't conflict with your clients needs, you can even pay to make sure no one uses it for a certain period of time. You must also educate the client that the image is what stops the buyer to read the copy. You place the right image in an add it will more than cover the cost in return sales from the cost of the image usage.

Best,
Jonathan

I find it interesting that you think the image is what sells (or am I overgeneralizing here?). I don't think I've ever made a buying decision based on an image. Usually I'm looking for very specific things and it's always features I go for. To me images in advertizing are like muzak in department stores - create a nice ambience but not actually meaningful in context.

stockastic · « **Reply #78 on:** April 24, 2010, 19:41 »

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 19:15

I don't think I've ever made a buying decision based on an image. ...

Consciously, you mean.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #79 on:** April 24, 2010, 20:28 »

Gosh, I'm sure we all dream of meeting standards of some lower end macro RM shots.

crazychristina · « **Reply #80 on:** April 24, 2010, 20:53 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 24, 2010, 19:41

Quote from: averil on April 24, 2010, 19:15

I don't think I've ever made a buying decision based on an image. ...

Consciously, you mean.

True, but then I don't belong to any demographic that advertising generally targets.

lagereek · « **Reply #81 on:** April 25, 2010, 01:09 »

Ian Ogilvy ( Ogilvy-Mather agency) the grandfather of all Advertising and supreme guru, once said to a very famous photographer " my dear fellow, Im not interested in youre pictures and weather they are good or bad even lousy, that I can find anywhere, Its only youre name that will sell this commercial, youre name is why I hired you".
Thats what its all about, who you are, not what you are. Take this a bit further and apply this to the stock-agency world. What do we find?? well, RM, RF, the better Micro, etc, all the same, bazillions of shots, all the same, none better or worse then the other, add to that, buyers "quality-thinking" have decreased to a minimum geared by a forever lousy world-economy. So?? they head straight for the Micro!

Buyers dont give a crap about which Micro ( as we would like to think the opposite) but really buyers dont, as long as they find what theyre looking for, they dont give a toss about Micro exclusivity, special-collections or whatever, they know its BS, how great can a 20 buck exclusive shot be?? its BS and buyers know that.

As a freelance Ad-photographer and stock, well I can really feel the buyers dilema: theres simply nothing special out there any more, its all gone down the spout.

best thing the Micro industry can do, to save name and status is to: start limiting the acceptance rate into the files, throw out all irrelevant material, tons of it.
onlky because images are technically sound doesnt mean a thing, they must also be good, able to convey. i.e. rigorous creative inspection, not technical only, this is amateurish.
Micros should not be an escape-route for dilletants or happy weekend snappers. Its a job and shoukld be treated as such.

red · « **Reply #82 on:** April 25, 2010, 01:51 »

I can't fathom why some images are accepted unless the sites want to entice people into uploading their snapshots from which a few (very few) downloads will be realized. The photog gets discouraged and never uploads again, leaving the agency with a few bucks multiplied by thousands of disheartened submitters who never reach a payout. Not a bad scheme.

That being said, I've just viewed the "latest downloads" on DT (shown on one of the main pages) and can't fathom why they are being downloaded, who is purchasing them, and for what use. They currently include a set of birdhouse vectors, a hydrangea, a website template with the obligatory earth image, a black background with blue circles and a cow.

What's worse is that this same page also shows the "latest additions" which include a sunflower, a turtle, a "pretty woman," a cup of coffee, stack of books, a bunch of grapes and green grass.

My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.

Perhaps it's not the audience we imagine or would like purchasing our photos. I agree that the schlock should be weeded out, but it's too little too late with millions of images already there and selling to everyone and their uncle for triviality.

crazychristina · « **Reply #83 on:** April 25, 2010, 02:09 »

Get real people, the world has changed. I get my money from ATMs not bank tellers these days. And pay my accounts online. With respect to imagery, I'm a very small buyer. I teach, and occasionally buy an image for inclusion in my teaching material. Do you really think I'd be paying Getty RM prices? I've enjoyed quite a few battles in the istock steel cage, and had to buy images for quite a few of them. Wouldn't be doing that either under the old regime.

Perhaps traditonal buyers are being seduced away from quality imagery by the abundance of decent cheap stuff. You may want a return to the good old days but ain't gonna happen.

As a contributor I have another full time job and no intention to work at stock (or photography generally) full time. However I have few assets and I'm getting on. I expect istock to pay my rent by end of next year, and why should I get out of the game just because some people think I'm not taking it serioulsy enough.

lagereek · « **Reply #84 on:** April 25, 2010, 02:42 »

Quote from: averil on April 25, 2010, 02:09

Get real people, the world has changed. I get my money from ATMs not bank tellers these days. And pay my accounts online. With respect to imagery, I'm a very small buyer. I teach, and occasionally buy an image for inclusion in my teaching material. Do you really think I'd be paying Getty RM prices? I've enjoyed quite a few battles in the istock steel cage, and had to buy images for quite a few of them. Wouldn't be doing that either under the old regime.

Perhaps traditonal buyers are being seduced away from quality imagery by the abundance of decent cheap stuff. You may want a return to the good old days but ain't gonna happen.

As a contributor I have another full time job and no intention to work at stock (or photography generally) full time. However I have few assets and I'm getting on. I expect istock to pay my rent by end of next year, and why should I get out of the game just because some people think I'm not taking it serioulsy enough.

Somehow these posts are not aimed at buyers like you and although youre a very important category of buyer, I think we are more or less refering to the full-time buyers, designers and contributors.
The old cliches, like "world has changed" Trad-buyers" good old days" they dont exist anymore and I dont think any would like them back either or we wouldnt even have RF and Micros but since we do have it, lets then take care of it not throwing stones in glass-houses.

ShadySue · « **Reply #85 on:** April 25, 2010, 04:12 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51

My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.

Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?

lagereek · « **Reply #86 on:** April 25, 2010, 04:30 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51

I can't fathom why some images are accepted unless the sites want to entice people into uploading their snapshots from which a few (very few) downloads will be realized. The photog gets discouraged and never uploads again, leaving the agency with a few bucks multiplied by thousands of disheartened submitters who never reach a payout. Not a bad scheme.

That being said, I've just viewed the "latest downloads" on DT (shown on one of the main pages) and can't fathom why they are being downloaded, who is purchasing them, and for what use. They currently include a set of birdhouse vectors, a hydrangea, a website template with the obligatory earth image, a black background with blue circles and a cow.

What's worse is that this same page also shows the "latest additions" which include a sunflower, a turtle, a "pretty woman," a cup of coffee, stack of books, a bunch of grapes and green grass.

My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.

Perhaps it's not the audience we imagine or would like purchasing our photos. I agree that the schlock should be weeded out, but it's too little too late with millions of images already there and selling to everyone and their uncle for triviality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true, at the moment our buyers are probably in the lower end of the market but surely our aim should be to go after and entice the middle and upper end? or else we come to a stand-still, nothing to aim for?

The Gettys, Stones, Image-Bank of this world didnt get the middle and upper end of markets through pictures, pictures alone cant do much. They got it through careful monitoring, market-strategy and special deals.
Back in early 90s, I think if I remember it was Getty actually, tried to put together a collection from famous photographers including Haas and everybody in order to attract business, these pics were only mildly more costly, this whole thing fell flat on its face ofcourse because similar pics could be found by ordinary photographers that little bit cheaper. This business has been tried and tested and it fails every time.
Today, in this digital era, etc. well imagine, who want to sit and wade through page after page of almost identical stuff and in every single agency? even if an image is exclusive, millions of almost identical shots are just around the corner and for 0.25c. Pointless exercise.

stockastic · « **Reply #87 on:** April 25, 2010, 11:29 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51

....
Perhaps it's not the audience we imagine or would like purchasing our photos.

Very interesting post, also very funny (I thought).

When I stand in line at the food store I always marvel at how other people are blowing their money on tons of junk food, frozen dinners, sugary soda drinks, cigarettes etc.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #88 on:** April 25, 2010, 11:46 »

Hi All,

They blow that money on brands that have been well marketed. What was part of their marketing, photos. I in no way was putting down Micro as some here are always so defensive of I was answering the persons question about finding images that are a cut above the same old stuff they see in Micro. I am still convinced by doing my own surfing of agencies and being involved in every level of distribution that all photos are are not created equal and do not create the same reaction from a buyer. If that were the case we would all be out of work because everything has been shot already to some degree
When is the last time a Micro shot sold for 35,000 dollars or even 17k this happens on a regular basis, two friends of mine just this week had these exact sales in RM. Why do some photographers have better sell through rates that others because some understand the market better and take better photographs for the models they choose to sell in, same goes for Micro some Micro photographers are better than others and their sales show it.
Do not feel that Micro is low end in it's appearance they just stick to a safer image that is general for large sales, that is their market. RM doesn't follow those standards and the buyers are ad agencies that seem they need the photo for the price that is being asked for it. Why would an ad agency pick a photo for 35k over a Micro shot. Different subject matter maybe some control over who else in their market might buy it. No need to feel insulted by my statement. If photos don't help sell products why have advertisers used them for so many years.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #89 on:** April 25, 2010, 11:54 »

SJ,

You already tried submitting to Macro remember and you said it didn't make you good money so it's good you have the Micro market because from your own words your Macro doesn't sell. That's okay you sell a ton in Micro so you found your niche.

Best,
J

lagereek · « **Reply #90 on:** April 25, 2010, 13:46 »

jonathan is right, Micro should not be viewed as a lower way of selling, its simply just another way of selling, thats all and GOD knows its an effective way as well.
Sales in RM can fetch very large sums and these 5-figured amounts do happen but today they are far and few in between. Back in beginning of the 90os a large Corp bought a shot, lifelong copy and rights, etc, as their new Logo, price was 75K, however extremly seldom this happen.

Its no secret that RM is not at all what it used to be and I know many highly prolific RM shooters that are way, way down in earnings, these same guys are also all involved in the Micros but never, ever on an exclusive basis.
Hell, who cares really, as long as agencies keep selling, who gives a hoot what type of agency? RM, RF, Micro, as long as theyre doing a good job.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #91 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:10 »

Well said Lagereek,

As long as they still want to buy our photos for more than it costs us to make them then all is good. I will say though I still believe photos do stop buyers to attract them to an ad. Tell me how many adds that are all copy catch your interest to read a page about something. A picture is worth a thousand words, just not very often a thousand dollars : )

Best,
Jonathan

cascoly · « **Reply #92 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 25, 2010, 04:12

Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51
My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.
Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?

teachers have ALWAYS spent money from their own pockets to buy materials for their classes - some may even have enlightened school districts that support them.

in any case, this area, as noted is continuing to grow - the elitists don't like to thinkl abut it, and it will never produce the thousand dollar unicorn sales of yore, but this is exactly the sort of market that evolves as prices drop. in the 80s thousands of people were willing to play online games for $10-20 per hour on 2400 baud modems; when the price dropped to pennies, the market exploded to the point wageslaves in china became WOW goldfarmers.

steve

cascoly · « **Reply #93 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:21 »

Quote from: averil on April 25, 2010, 02:09

Get real people, the world has changed. I get my money from ATMs not bank tellers these days. And pay my accounts online. With respect to imagery, I'm a very small buyer. I teach, and occasionally buy an image for inclusion in my teaching material. Do you really think I'd be paying Getty RM prices? I've enjoyed quite a few battles in the istock steel cage, and had to buy images for quite a few of them. Wouldn't be doing that either under the old regime.

Perhaps traditonal buyers are being seduced away from quality imagery by the abundance of decent cheap stuff. You may want a return to the good old days but ain't gonna happen.

As a contributor I have another full time job and no intention to work at stock (or photography generally) full time. However I have few assets and I'm getting on. I expect istock to pay my rent by end of next year, and why should I get out of the game just because some people think I'm not taking it serioulsy enough.

EXACTLY - to many it seems it must be all or nothing -- either you're a fulltime pro or you're wasting your time. some people just can't realize that there are more ways to live in the world than are dreamt of in your philosophy

ShadySue · « **Reply #94 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:27 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 25, 2010, 14:18

Quote from: ShadySue on April 25, 2010, 04:12
Quote from: cuppacoffee on April 25, 2010, 01:51
My take on it is that the majority of purchases are not for high level ads, books and product campaigns, but for scrapbookers, grade school teachers, IT websites and people writing blogs about food.
Where do these grade school teachers work that they can afford to buy stock images?

teachers have ALWAYS spent money from their own pockets to buy materials for their classes - some may even have enlightened school districts that support them.
steve

I buy things for school (high school) all the time, but say 10-15 photos per lesson, five lessons per day, it soon wouldn't be worth working.
My pupils have to satisfice with Microsoft clip art, Flickr creative commons (which is often more suitable, i.e. 'real', than anything I could buy on micros) etc.

elvinstar · « **Reply #95 on:** April 25, 2010, 18:11 »

Quote

some people just can't realize that there are more ways to live in the world than are dreamt of in your philosophy

AMEN!

yuliang11 · « **Reply #96 on:** April 26, 2010, 00:53 »

cool, my photo was sold for 0.30 cents and got refunded cause the image was not suitable for their use. now, where do i vent my frustration ?

Nordlys · « **Reply #97 on:** September 09, 2010, 16:00 »

Quote from: hqimages on April 22, 2010, 08:28

And here we go again: http://www.veer.com/products/marketplace/

Click on big business, portraits, teamwork, practically anything, and yet again we have siai syndrome, same images as istock...

Is there no gallery can offer fresh business images that we HAVEN'T seen before, or do they all wet themselves when Yuri uploads his portfolio and push them to the top of every category, cos by God I'm sick of those models..

Go here: Alamy.com

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers frustrations (Read 19454 times)

cascoly

Jonathan Ross

crazychristina

stockastic

Sean Locke Photography

crazychristina

lagereek

red

crazychristina

lagereek

ShadySue

lagereek

stockastic

Jonathan Ross

Jonathan Ross

lagereek

Jonathan Ross

cascoly

cascoly

ShadySue

elvinstar

yuliang11

Nordlys

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results