Author Topic: Dear stock agencies, time for you to take control (Read 14188 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **on:** August 20, 2014, 03:19 »

Dear stock agencies,

You may not realize it yet, but there has been a seismic shift in the stock industry in the last six months or so. FL's DPC has been a road to Damascus moment for many of us.

As much as many of us hate to admit it, Yuri was right when he spotted the turning point months ago. We can argue about his response, but the underlying issues he identified and tried to bring to your attention were there.

Since its humble start microstock photography has attracted more and more professionals creating better and better images, often with very high production costs in terms of time or financial investment. Some of these filling quite specific niches. These high value images coexist side by side with less professional snap shot images in the libraries, which none the less also have a market.

Up to a point the massive increase in customers offered by micro-pricing offset the high cost of producing these images, but now as the size of libraries has caught up with the demand the return is not there for producing this content.

The result is that you are losing your high quality content. This isn't obvious yet. Many of us reacted initially by trying to produce a higher volume of work for you, sacrificing variety and quality for numbers. But this trend is very real, creatives that had been producing for micros are actively searching for other outlets for their best content. The ripples have started. Some of you have to show initiative and take control now, before it is too late.

My suggestion (for what it is worth) is to have a simple two tier model. One price for most content, one for premium. Let the contributor opt in a certain percentage of their portfolio, perhaps up to thirty percent in a similar way to 123RFs Faved selection. We can decide in which tier the work will make the best return for us and for you. High quality but very generic work can be priced lower to maximise our downloads, high quality niche work priced higher to counter lower download numbers. You want to offer subs? Then brand the two sides differently, sell subs from the lower priced site and upsell to the sister site.

I know the opinion of one anonymous small time contributor doesn't amount to much, in fact the opinion of the worlds best selling contributors didn't amount to much either, but for me the writings on the wall, make use of it while you still can.

heywoody · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2014, 14:02 »

How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

Valo · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2014, 14:14 »

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02

How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

You said it better than I could

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2014, 15:00 »

Indeed something's gotta give.
I've completely stopped spending any money on shoots and just working through my back catalogue. I know many other photographers doing the same.
Agencies are in denial about sustaining new quality work, something's gotta give.
Thank god for clients!

Cesar · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2014, 15:36 »

first we have to stop uploading to DP, 123rf, dpc. Warn istock to stop shity practises. We need to block bad agencies. it is our work. first we must respect ourself.

why we did not set date d day for DP?

gbalex · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2014, 15:40 »

Completely agree, they have slit their own throats. I think the suits are in it for the short term. They will milk it for all it is worth and take the money and run.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2014, 16:08 »

Quote from: Valo on August 20, 2014, 14:14

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02
How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).
You said it better than I could

i think that applies to most things in life, really. like fast food outsells your cordon bleu restaurants, garbage reading outsells good books, lady gaga outsells ella fitzgerald,etc..
what did someone say a long time ago re the same problem... something about the mass appeal of mediocrity to the proliterian majority. paul simon and sting said the same thing quoting this guy in the 60 s or something.
maybe someone here can help me with that.

and today , nothing's changed. wooly booly outsold round midnight ... crap sells.

Ava Glass · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2014, 17:09 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 20, 2014, 16:08

i think that applies to most things in life, really. like fast food outsells your cordon bleu restaurants, garbage reading outsells good books, lady gaga outsells ella fitzgerald,etc..

Yup. "Premium" images should be a lower-volume, higher-price business model with a defined market. "But what about rights-managed," you ask? There are lots of price points between $10 and $600+. Plus, rights-manged sites aren't very accessible to markets like self-publishing.

Last weekend, I posted a link to a photographer's port on Solid Stock Art on a popular self-publishing forum. You can see the very positive reaction here:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,192510.msg2713108.html

The images are perfect for book covers. Solid Stock Art doesn't do subs or credit packs, but these authors didn't seem to care. The price point of around $40 seemed just fine because the images are very useful.

I know some of you have issues with Solid Stock Art because of the EL thing. My point still stands. If it was Pond5 instead of Solid Stock Art, the result would have been the same. There should be certain types of images for the sub sites, and certain types of images for other sites.

FYI: book covers don't need ELs, just SLs.

cthoman · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2014, 18:35 »

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02

How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

I'd define premium as anything or anyone that can sell at premium prices.

roede-orm · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2014, 18:52 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19

Dear stock agencies,
You may not realize it yet, but there has been a seismic shift in the stock industry in the last six months or so. FL's DPC has been a road to Damascus moment for many of us.
...

I would say, the agencies did realize the changes faster than most contributors

Hobostocker · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2014, 02:32 »

we told you so !

and by the way, the agency's role is to provide buyers and making sales.
if they don't make sales they cease to provide their only reason to exist as far as we're concerned.

oversaturation and oversupply should NOT be our problem, it's the agencies the ones who should be concerned and who should find a solution.

either that, or the suppliers will go bankrupt, it's not a matter of IF but of WHEN.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2014, 03:38 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 20, 2014, 18:35

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02
How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

I'd define premium as anything or anyone that can sell at premium prices.

Precisely how I would describe it. High quality high volume selling content we could struggle to price as premium as there is such a big supply, we may make more pricing it lower to maximize sales. High quality more niche content would do better as premium. A less well shot image of a very rare bird may do better being priced as premium. Let us do the experimenting, we can micro analyse the market far better than the people running the agencies from the top down.

A while ago I had to source some images of engineers working on specific type of rail track, I ended up having to pay hundreds of pounds for some terrible grainy snap shots from a niche site because the content had to be right. Premium in my example refers to the pricing rather than the quality.

My point is that one solution to the un-sustainability of the current model for content providers is to let us make the decisions, which I think would be a win win. Two flat simple prices, or only one price for each site ("premium site" and "standard site")

The solution is just a suggestion, the underlying problem I would say is a fact. Maybe the an agency can come up with a different solution that makes this business sustainable for us. At the moment they are losing control of their content stream. To be in this long term they have to step up and take positive action.

I disagree that they spotted this first, we are still at the stage where only we down in the trenches have felt the vibrations. As far as they're concerned they are still seeing huge volumes of content uploaded, they haven't realized it's an act of desperation by many of us to pump out as much stuff as possible in the short term.

Have a conversation with some of the producers who are aware of DPC but have left their work in there. Most of them will tell you it is because they have thrown in the towel on micro altogether and it is part of an exit strategy.

Tror · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2014, 04:29 »

Very well said. You speak out what I observe since a little more than one year. Nothing left to say than that I fully agree and I could not have said it better. For me personally it is even painful to watch how little some of the microstock agencies understand their own business and how blindly they move towards that hard wall.

Personally, I continue to produce high value shoots. I just do not upload them anymore on the typical subscription/micro sites. The content goes to other sites :-) And no, this is not ill will, this is the strategy which secures my revenue. Simple business. I even would have preferred to stick with the micros, they just left me no other choice due to lack of incentive (in terms of revenue as well as sustainability).

robhainer · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2014, 05:16 »

Shutterstock, the top site, has already done what you're asking for. It sells subs on the main site and higher priced niche content on Offset. This has even led to the occasional big sale for contributors on the main site when buyers can't find what they need on Offset.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2014, 06:17 »

Do you think that every one of “us” will make the right decisions for separating our work into “one price for most, one for premium”? The sites have tens of thousands of contributors, all with different views of their own work. Buyers will still search for the image, not the price. I’m not sure this is a good idea, some agencies have tried this and it makes buying images confusing.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2014, 08:31 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 21, 2014, 06:17

some agencies have tried this and it makes buying images confusing.

because buyers have the arrogance to expect any kind of image to cost the same while we all know that this is not the case at all.

i don't see the same prices for apps and games on smartphones, nor in the other desktop softwares, nor in clothes, food, drinks, burgers, whatever ...

but for whatever reason stock images have to be all priced for a pittance and this has no connection with the reality of our job, it has been tolerated so far because of course it's easy for the buyers and less confusing, but two wrongs dont make a right.

if buyers think buying images is too cumbersome, well then what about hiring somebody on assignment, signing a contract, meeting him face to face, etc ? how's that any easier and cheaper ?

we already provide the absolute cheapest way to get the product they need in real time and with the least effort and yet they keep complaining and treating us like dogs, how long is this sustainable ?

find me another industry where the ROI is so bad and where there's a de facto monopoly and where the buyers are so entitled and full of sh-it.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2014, 09:07 »

Yes, I agree. But that doesn't answer the question of who decides the pricing and how to determine which images should be priced higher. If we leave it up to the contributors themselves it will be chaos. That might work on sites with fewer images but we are talking millions of images. The word "premium" was mentioned but everyone has a different definition of what that means. Raising the price on an image because it sells a lot doesn't work. If those images are everywhere are they worth more, or worth less because they are not unique?

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2014, 09:28 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 21, 2014, 08:31

because buyers have the arrogance to expect any kind of image to cost the same while we all know that this is not the case at all.

i don't see the same prices for apps and games on smartphones, nor in the other desktop softwares, nor in clothes, food, drinks, burgers, whatever ...

but for whatever reason stock images have to be all priced for a pittance.....
............................
treating us like dogs, how long is this sustainable ?

find me another industry where the ROI is so bad and where there's a de facto monopoly and where the buyers are so entitled and full of sh-it.

+1
awhile back, way back someone here used the word, "bend over" . ie. agency keep thinking of pleasing "our clients" and expecting the contributors to bend over, and then shove something up our
u know where.

yes, only in ms does the bend over continued until today there is the whole business is full of sh*t, as u say so profoundly.
until what happens? (see other thread Designer slamming showtime... for exposure or whatever) .[/b]

JPSDK · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2014, 09:33 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 21, 2014, 03:38

Quote from: cthoman on August 20, 2014, 18:35
Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02
How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

I'd define premium as anything or anyone that can sell at premium prices.

Precisely how I would describe it. High quality high volume selling content we could struggle to price as premium as there is such a big supply, we may make more pricing it lower to maximize sales. High quality more niche content would do better as premium. A less well shot image of a very rare bird may do better being priced as premium. Let us do the experimenting, we can micro analyse the market far better than the people running the agencies from the top down.

A while ago I had to source some images of engineers working on specific type of rail track, I ended up having to pay hundreds of pounds for some terrible grainy snap shots from a niche site because the content had to be right. Premium in my example refers to the pricing rather than the quality.

My point is that one solution to the un-sustainability of the current model for content providers is to let us make the decisions, which I think would be a win win. Two flat simple prices, or only one price for each site ("premium site" and "standard site")

The solution is just a suggestion, the underlying problem I would say is a fact. Maybe the an agency can come up with a different solution that makes this business sustainable for us. At the moment they are losing control of their content stream. To be in this long term they have to step up and take positive action.

I disagree that they spotted this first, we are still at the stage where only we down in the trenches have felt the vibrations. As far as they're concerned they are still seeing huge volumes of content uploaded, they haven't realized it's an act of desperation by many of us to pump out as much stuff as possible in the short term.

Have a conversation with some of the producers who are aware of DPC but have left their work in there. Most of them will tell you it is because they have thrown in the towel on micro altogether and it is part of an exit strategy.

We CAN take decisions. We can choose to not sell on all agencies but only on those few, where volume makes up for price. Thats what I have done.

robhainer · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:08 »

Agree. I don't understand. If you want to sell your images at a higher price point, then choose to submit to sites that sell them at a higher price point. What's the frustration about? It's your choice where you sell your images.

stockastic · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:11 »

The OP gave a good summary of the situation. This is exactly what the agencies have to do, if they want me to start contributing again. I'm not expecting it to happen.

Specifically, this is what Shutterstock has to do - they're now the biggest and will increasingly control the market. They need to give us some control over our pricing - at minimum, a premium tier with the decision up to the contributor, not the agency.

Until then, they'll never get another photo from me. And my photos are pretty good, and they sell.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:27 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 21, 2014, 10:11

The OP gave a good summary of the situation. This is exactly what the agencies have to do, if they want me to start contributing again. I'm not expecting it to happen.

Specifically, this is what Shutterstock has to do - they're now the biggest and will increasingly control the market. They need to give us some control over our pricing - at minimum, a premium tier with the decision up to the contributor, not the agency.

Until then, they'll never get another photo from me. And my photos are pretty good, and they sell.

stockastic, ... but SS did introduce a premium ie. Offset
except it also announced microstockers need not apply

tickstock · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:43 »

The problem isn't the stock agencies. It's contributors uploading premium images to sites that license them for next to nothing. The only way a change happens is if it is lead by contributors.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:50 »

Quote from: Audi 5000 on August 21, 2014, 10:43

The problem isn't the stock agencies. It's contributors uploading premium images to sites that license them for next to nothing. The only way a change happens is if it is lead by contributors.

The trouble is no control.
iS had a system whereby you could nominate files to S+. I chose to nominate some images which at the time were unique or rare not just on iS but on other agencies too. But iS demoted some, randomly, even which had sales at S+, while retaining others with 0 sales.
Certainly, little point in producing low-supply, low demand images now, when we can't promote and risk enormous undercutting by indies.

Same on other sites - you can't 'protect' files on SS from being sold as subs, and on Alamy it all depends on the buyer's negotiated discount, nothing to do with the file.

tickstock · « **Reply #24 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 21, 2014, 10:50

Quote from: Audi 5000 on August 21, 2014, 10:43
The problem isn't the stock agencies. It's contributors uploading premium images to sites that license them for next to nothing. The only way a change happens is if it is lead by contributors.
The trouble is no control.
iS had a system whereby you could nominate files to S+. I chose to nominate some images which at the time were unique or rare not just on iS but on other agencies too. But iS demoted some, randomly, even which had sales at S+, while retaining others with 0 sales.
Certainly, little point in producing low-supply, low demand images now, when we can't promote and risk enormous undercutting by indies.

Same on other sites - you can't 'protect' files on SS from being sold as subs, and on Alamy it all depends on the buyer's negotiated discount, nothing to do with the file.

If you don't like what a site is doing with your images, don't contribute there. Simple.

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** August 21, 2014, 11:09 »

It's fine to suggest that we just stop contributing to sites that don't pay enough. I've definitely done that. It's also fine to suggest that we instead contribute to sites that do pay something reasonable. Done that too.

And there it sits. I get a tiny trickle of money for my photos, and I don't do any new ones. The sites that pay fairly make hardly any sales. From my perspective, microstock is dead.

If you're happy with the way things are, that's fine. Presumably whatever you shoot either sells so well, or costs so little to produce, that the current business model works for you.

But the topic of this thread is: what would have to happen for things to really change, such that the rest of us would want to get involved again?

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** August 21, 2014, 11:25 »

Quote from: Audi 5000 on August 21, 2014, 10:51

Quote from: ShadySue on August 21, 2014, 10:50
Quote from: Audi 5000 on August 21, 2014, 10:43
The problem isn't the stock agencies. It's contributors uploading premium images to sites that license them for next to nothing. The only way a change happens is if it is lead by contributors.
The trouble is no control.
iS had a system whereby you could nominate files to S+. I chose to nominate some images which at the time were unique or rare not just on iS but on other agencies too. But iS demoted some, randomly, even which had sales at S+, while retaining others with 0 sales.
Certainly, little point in producing low-supply, low demand images now, when we can't promote and risk enormous undercutting by indies.

Same on other sites - you can't 'protect' files on SS from being sold as subs, and on Alamy it all depends on the buyer's negotiated discount, nothing to do with the file.
If you don't like what a site is doing with your images, don't contribute there. Simple.

Indeed. I've all but stopped submitting to iS.

Ava Glass · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2014, 18:03 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 21, 2014, 09:07

Yes, I agree. But that doesn't answer the question of who decides the pricing and how to determine which images should be priced higher. If we leave it up to the contributors themselves it will be chaos.

When pixels.com started licensing, a photographer priced her photo of the moon for $30,000. Heh.

Amazon prevented this with self-published authors by offering its sweet 70% cut only to books priced between $2.99-$9.99. Outside that range, authors only get 35%. It gives authors a big incentive to stay within a certain range, yet gives them plenty of room to fiddle with their prices and find a book's "sweet spot."

And authors talk to each other about pricing. Norms have been established.

So it's not impossible to have a large picture site with varied image pricing. Contributors just need guidelines.

ETA: now Amazon has introduced Kindle Unlimited. Subs. So far the return to authors has been about $1.60-$2.00 per borrow. It's still new, but from what I've seen authors are putting in short books, old books, loss-leaders, etc. Not too many are opting-in a new 100,000-word novel because they can charge $3.99 and up and get more.

ETA2: I forgot to mention that Amazon is now beta-testing an algorithm that suggests a price based on different factors and sales data. I wish Amazon got into image licensing.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #28 on:** August 22, 2014, 21:02 »

I think that covers it. FBN = fly by night, take the money and scram. Milk the cow dry and sell it for stew meat.

On the other hand:

Buyers will pay a premium for better and high quality content. What we have now is marketing at the lowest level and the people who work hard and produce the best quality are being shorted.

How do we know premium? 1) larger size 2) professional lighting and models 3) Well thought out concepts and content 4) Careful editing and the obvious one 5) You'll know it when you see it!

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2014, 15:40

Completely agree, they have slit their own throats. I think the suits are in it for the short term. They will milk it for all it is worth and take the money and run.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2014, 04:24 »

I think there's a bit of talking at cross purposes in this thread. Most seem to agree what the problem is, but are some people saying "well just stop uploading to agencies that have a model you don't like" as if this is somehow arguing against the purpose of the thread.

My point is this is exactly what is already happening, creatives stopping upload to the micros or uploading inferior content in volume, more so than before. The discussion is where do we go from here. If any of the agencies wanted to reverse this trend what could they do.

It's not necessarily bad for us, a lot of us are moving on to other outlets outside micro. My point is it would be a win win if we had more decent outlets for our work by some of the agencies changing their model to a more sustainable one for us, before they lose our best work.

stockastic · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2014, 21:03 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 23, 2014, 04:24

My point is it would be a win win if we had more decent outlets for our work by some of the agencies changing their model to a more sustainable one for us, before they lose our best work.

They've already lost my best work - because it's in the future.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2014, 23:03 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 23, 2014, 21:03

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 23, 2014, 04:24
My point is it would be a win win if we had more decent outlets for our work by some of the agencies changing their model to a more sustainable one for us, before they lose our best work.

They've already lost my best work - because it's in the future.

+1
I hear this more and more. Skilled people who won't make any more pictures for micro. Some day maybe they will notice?

Hobostocker · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2014, 13:23 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 21, 2014, 11:09

From my perspective, microstock is dead.

of course, the idea was to sell the images for a pittance but many times.
this is not happening anymore because of oversupply.

but hey, oversupply will decrease sales also in RM agencies if that matters, it's the business model that is de facto unsustainable, it's math !

the only solution is to stop oversupply for instance setting a limit of xxx million images on sales and automatically removing the low-sellers.

you can see the same on web pages and also in music and many other industries.
the only way to stay afloat is to "feeding the beast" continously but for photos this can work with huge volumes, it's not working in many many niches.

in short, stock (micro or not) is not for everybody.

the micro agencies managed to cover this obvious truth because of the slow migration of buyers from RM to micro RF but it was obvious that it could not last forever.

even agencies like alamy have just way too many images on sale and unless you've tens of thousand images you can't expect decent steady results and of course it will get worse over time.

unfortunately, agencies have no reason to stop the oversupply, actually they see it as their main selling point !

having a constant fresh supply of new content is what all agencies are about nowadays, if we leave in droves they don't care, Yuri left for Getty and the industry hasn't given a sh-it, we're all worthless as long as new chumps keep joining every day.

it's a rigged game and they're fully aware of this, as they're aware that the entire industry could pretty much disappear soon because of whatever new ground breaking technology.

again this is not just about micro or stock, it's exactly the same sh-it for anyone selling digital products, people selling ebooks for instance cannot even dream about making a steady income with their books, they know it's a just a hobby from the start unless they hit the jack pot with a best seller !

we're in such a better position in my opinion, we're having it bad but it could be a lot worse.
and you know why, because ultimately it takes a wide range of skills to produce a big portfolio, it's laughable that so many here are scared by the snapshots on Flickr or whatever, yes they will steal a few sales but if your port if big enough you'll compensate for it, it's always a numbers game.

Tror · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2014, 13:56 »

There are so many great posts in this thread! Looks like many people here are finally growing up

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 24, 2014, 13:23

unfortunately, agencies have no reason to stop the oversupply, actually they see it as their main selling point !

Yes and no. They still think they do not have any reason. But quality and variety will decrease as fast as our revenue. As many of my long term friends (or people I`m in contact with), I already totally stopped uploading any sort of niche material to Microstock. The Agencies just see pure numbers, but this is what will doom them on the long run.

They would have all the power to stimulate new investments through prices, collecetions, workshops, community, etc. and secure revenue for those who are a bit more creative by e.g. rejecting all the low quality duplicates and waaaayyytoosimilars to that successful shot of the original guy. (don`t get me wrong, I`m ok with replicating concepts. But their quality should be better or at least ok and it should be not a 100% copy like nowadays).

I guess 50% of nowadays databases are just duplicates from another "me too!!!" guy nobody really needs and which are just cannibalizing the originals with their handful of sales. This is the perfect strategy if you want to kill off a) creativity b) originality c) put yourself as an agency in the position of having to face rough competition
d) if you as an agency do not want to have any unique selling point and just want to grab money today no matter what happens tomorrow.

Through oversupply they doom themselves to fail on the long run IMHO.

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 24, 2014, 13:23

having a constant fresh supply of new content is what all agencies are about nowadays, if we leave in droves they don't care, Yuri left for Getty and the industry hasn't given a sh-it, we're all worthless as long as new chumps keep joining every day.

I do not give a s**t if a company goes bankrupt if I leave or if they do not even notice it or if they do not give a s**t. My content is my content. I decide which is worth to distribute it. The first step is that we have to learn to value ourselves first. I do not care what happens afterwards. Honor and pride are words which are looked at as old fashioned but are used way to rare nowadays IMHO. The problem are the sheeps who have no respect for themselves and others and continue to upload to shady companies like IS or DP...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2014, 14:48 »

prior to any sale , be it rental property, stock agency, anything...
you will see the artificiality/superficiality/window-dressing . it's to give potential buyers, shareholders,etc.. the impression it is doing better than ever
- in this case, as mentioned by our colleagues here, approval of apples and pretty woman,etc..
lots of fillings all flash no substance stuff, in order to inflat the bottom line.

they don't care about the specifics, so long as the numbers impress.
no one is going to ask how many of these come from long-time contributors or top-selling contributors,
or contributors who made the agency what they are. notice the same thing happened to IS
when they let go of their exclusive superman,etc.. ie. everyone is expendable.

that's what business does. like the takeover corporations who replaced highly-paid middle management
and placed minimum-waged wet behind the ears assistant/interns in their place, to report a
remarkable profit.
last year .

stockastic · « **Reply #35 on:** August 24, 2014, 14:52 »

Hobostocker, your analysis assumes that photos are a commodity - like paper clips - and are all of equal value. That's not true, some images are obviously much more valuable than others. The problem as I see it is one-size-fits-all pricing, which inevitably becomes lowest-common-denominator pricing, and sinks to the level of the very large number of images having the lowest value.

Next time you see an "Everything's $1" store in a strip mall, go in and look around. You will not find many actual bargains in those stores today. Most of the products on their shelves are produced to sell at that price.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #36 on:** August 24, 2014, 14:53 »

Quote from: Tror on August 24, 2014, 13:56

The problem are the sheeps who have no respect for themselves and others and continue to upload to shady companies like IS or DP...

no , not sheep, ... lemmings
and pls don't forget to include SS too ...lately with their (quote) shenanigans (unquote) ... remarkably a new class act

Tror · « **Reply #37 on:** August 24, 2014, 17:46 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2014, 14:53

Quote from: Tror on August 24, 2014, 13:56
The problem are the sheeps who have no respect for themselves and others and continue to upload to shady companies like IS or DP...

no , not sheep, ... lemmings

Hehe, true... lemmings fits much better

Favete · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2014, 03:19 »

In general idea is good, but I don’t see it working in a real world. Because if agencies give contributors right to decide by themselves on where to put images, it will result in «premium category» looking not so premium after all. Because everyone has it’s own feeling of what is great and I think you know that now everyone is honest to themself in detecting it.

raclro · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2014, 14:41 »

It seems to me that iStock did exactly as the OP is suggesting. They created Vetta which was a much higher priced/ higher quality offering to buyers looking for just that. They have also used Signature and Signature +. I am not privy to sales/revenue figures from higher priced categories but suspect most buyers are NOT looking for or buying professional studio/model/quality lighting shots but "snapshot" type files. If buyers are wanting "crap" we better be providing it or suffer. Microstock is not an outlet for artistic creative efforts unless they sell. I have said it before, if Ansel Adams had all his work on microstock, he would be earning about $200 per month. I look at all kinds of print and web stock photography and they are mostly what many of us consider lower end.

goober · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2014, 18:18 »

Justanotherphotographer - I totally agree with your initial post. After nearly a decade full-time stock contributing I'm leaving the industry. I haven't uploaded for a few weeks. I said I was done. Unless something changes, I'm done.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2014, 18:31 »

Quote from: raclro on August 25, 2014, 14:41

if Ansel Adams had all his work on microstock, he would be earning about $200 per month.

heavens, mentioning Ansel Adams and ms in the same sentence

that's like the late great Luciano Pavarotti singing at the street corner for small change.
sacrilege

EmberMike · « **Reply #42 on:** August 25, 2014, 18:42 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19

...But this trend is very real, creatives that had been producing for micros are actively searching for other outlets for their best content...

And those outlets now exist. More of them are popping up, and we have more options to distribute our work with companies that that can pay well and generate sales volume. I get multiple sales daily at places like Creative Market, which is currently my #3 earner and rapidly approaching #2.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19

...The ripples have started. Some of you have to show initiative and take control now, before it is too late...

So why should I care enough about these other companies to try persuading them to offer something similar? I don't care if they take control of anything. I'm doing well enough elsewhere. They can continue on doing what they're doing and paying us our 30% or whatever. Or they can come up with some other product that pays a little more, but even then what's the best I can expect... 40% or 50% on prices that I have no control over and are generally unfavorable to artists already? I'm still not impressed.

So no thanks, I don't care if these companies "take control" and try to nudge their way into this higher-end market. They don't deserve my concern, nor do they deserve a piece of what these smaller yet far more innovative companies are doing. They made their choices years ago and I think they should get to live with those choices. It's time for some new thinking in the stock business and I'd much rather see it come from new companies.

For the old ones, I hope it is too late already.

gbalex · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2014, 09:17 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 25, 2014, 18:42

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19
...But this trend is very real, creatives that had been producing for micros are actively searching for other outlets for their best content...

And those outlets now exist. More of them are popping up, and we have more options to distribute our work with companies that that can pay well and generate sales volume. I get multiple sales daily at places like Creative Market, which is currently my #3 earner and rapidly approaching #2.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19
...The ripples have started. Some of you have to show initiative and take control now, before it is too late...

So why should I care enough about these other companies to try persuading them to offer something similar? I don't care if they take control of anything. I'm doing well enough elsewhere. They can continue on doing what they're doing and paying us our 30% or whatever. Or they can come up with some other product that pays a little more, but even then what's the best I can expect... 40% or 50% on prices that I have no control over and are generally unfavorable to artists already? I'm still not impressed.

So no thanks, I don't care if these companies "take control" and try to nudge their way into this higher-end market. They don't deserve my concern, nor do they deserve a piece of what these smaller yet far more innovative companies are doing. They made their choices years ago and I think they should get to live with those choices. It's time for some new thinking in the stock business and I'd much rather see it come from new companies.

For the old ones, I hope it is too late already.

Completely agree

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2014, 09:56 »

Tiered pricing to de-commodify professionally shot work is the next big challenge for micro stock and the only way it will work is with an exclusive programme. iS blew its chance to control the market, the only other agency in that position is SS.

My guess is SS will keep pilling the pressure on iS until most of its exclusives throw in the towel, then they might surprise us all with their own exclusive programme.

Its lucrative for sure, when iS first introduced Vetta my money nearly tripled over night.

Photominer · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:04 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 09:56

Tiered pricing to de-commodify professionally shot work is the next big challenge for micro stock and the only way it will work is with an exclusive programme. iS blew its chance to control the market, the only other agency in that position is SS.

My guess is SS will keep pilling the pressure on iS until most of its exclusives throw in the towel, then they might surprise us all with their own exclusive programme.

Its lucrative for sure, when iS first introduced Vetta my money nearly tripled over night.

I'd love to see it (exclusive at SS) but only by an image by image kind of things. They could do it easily by allowing the option to submit HCV images to Offset, and if they don't pass, then go into SS.

gbalex · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:52 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 09:56

Tiered pricing to de-commodify professionally shot work is the next big challenge for micro stock and the only way it will work is with an exclusive programme. iS blew its chance to control the market, the only other agency in that position is SS.

My guess is SS will keep pilling the pressure on iS until most of its exclusives throw in the towel, then they might surprise us all with their own exclusive programme.

Its lucrative for sure, when iS first introduced Vetta my money nearly tripled over night.

IS exclusives would be wise to observe how shutterstock has treated the contributors who made it possible for them to be successful in the first place.

I will never put my exclusive material with shutterstock. They have shown their true colors in the way they treat contributors who have been loyal to the business long term.

They will milk IS exclusives as long as they are useful and after that expect a huge push for new contributors via skillfeed.

Paying out .25 cents over .38 for shutterstock, amounts to a 35% increase in earnings for each sub file sold. Talk to a large number of shutterstocks long term contributors. By taking note in the changes in their bottom line, it is not difficult to see that shutterstock values money over the welfare of it's contributors.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2014, 13:21 »

I don't buy the conspiracy theories.

The amount of high standard work being ingested has increased, many ex iS exclusives dumping years of work into SS, contributors improving their skills, macro shooters dumping their work in there, pro shooters from outside taking a punt. Lots of high quality ports floating around looking for a place to earn income.

I've hit the top tier at SS and the downloads are remarkably stable, I haven't noticed any penalisation in the search results. Income fluctuates depending on whether subs or image packs are being used.

Like I say, if they increase the RPD everyone will be much better off. If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS.

SS need to evolve into a more mature agency if they want to be around in 10 years time. If they don't you can guarantee Getty will start a price war with them.

EmberMike · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2014, 13:54 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 13:21

...If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS...

I'm not sure I can ask this without it coming across as snarky, but... if it worked so well at iStock then why aren't you still exclusive there?

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 13:21

...SS need to evolve into a more mature agency if they want to be around in 10 years time. If they don't you can guarantee Getty will start a price war with them.

I think Offset is Shutterstock's more mature "agency" (collection).

I can't see what sort of price war Getty could bring to Shutterstock's doorstep. Shutterstock is already cheaper than iStock. What can Getty do? Match SS prices? Not sure that will do much damage.

The only price war I see happening is Fotolia/DPC vs. everyone else.

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2014, 14:16 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 27, 2014, 13:54

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 13:21
...If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS...
I'm not sure I can ask this without it coming across as snarky, but... if it worked so well at iStock then why aren't you still exclusive there?

He said "I have seen", not "I see".

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #50 on:** August 27, 2014, 17:03 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 27, 2014, 13:54

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 13:21
...If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS...

I'm not sure I can ask this without it coming across as snarky, but... if it worked so well at iStock then why aren't you still exclusive there?

Did work well, past tense.

Exclusivity only really works when you have the majority on board, we all know how badly it was mismanaged, Royalty Credits, Google deal, etc, etc... they lost the majority.

I've been on both sides of the fence and when it worked income was high, way higher than SS and the top tier put together. I jumped because I could see where my income was heading, SS were obviously hurting iS so I hedged my bets.

Don't underestimate Getty, they are way bigger than SS and all the other micros put together. They're also bloating their collection to match the competition. I think its naive to think they'll sit back and not start undercutting SS with the indy collection they have. They can do it through iS by offering existing clients big discounts (which we'll not even notice) or through Thinkstock by just dropping the prices or start their own DPC.

Offset is an attempt at eating into Getty's market but they need way more content.

I know its hard for indies to believe but MidStock pricing was hugely popular before they out priced it, income was extremely good and motivation to produce top end work was high. Getty sales were also pretty good before they stopped E+ nominations. I think indies had a glimpse of what could happen to their income with the + files when they were allowed to nominate before they canned it and decided to go head to head with SS.

Like I say if SS are still a long way from pole position, I actually think they are vulnerable to a counter punch from iS/Getty or even Fotolia. I wish they would take a proper swing at Getty and show some evolution away from micro and start properly motivating their contributor base.

Ubermansch · « **Reply #51 on:** September 01, 2014, 04:17 »

I sympathize with all the sentiments above on these 3 pages.

The truth is microstock is a business and too many photographers believe the total and complete end of their online microstock selling business is the submission and acceptance of their work to an SA

If I use someone like stocksy or stocktal for higher earnings, it doesnt change anything as long as the fork is firmly in the meat. You have to REMOVE that fork from the meat for the meat to be properly shared.

People complain but dont join these innovative start ups with 70 plus percent going to the contributor. They are looking for pennies now, rather than changing "the business forever" Is it possible that one day getty will be begging you to submit images at 75% your way? HEC YES!

An SA like stocktal offers 78% flat commission, no catches. Are we crazy supporting the big Sa's? An SA like this, giving this much room to move, one could do a lot of things one cannot do with a business model that exploits the hard work of producers. You become in charge of your own marketing using them for reach. THATS THE JOB - NOT TAKING 200,000 pictures!!!

Stocksy offer 50% with full promise that any extra profits at year end will be shared with ALL members at end of every year. THIS IS THE TYPE OF MODEL WE WANT! I want that promise too! The stocksy start up is the guy who originally started istock, so, he "GETS IT"

The truth is we need fair share and we need room to move so we can market our own stuff using the "reach" of the SA as a low priced search engine tool. THATS IT!

I can write my own blogs and market my own images situated on an SA but I need a FAIR SHARE. So thats my take. You cant build a microstock photography business on dust and sand, you need some water too.

I wont call this a rant, its the truth, but end rant.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dear stock agencies, time for you to take control (Read 14188 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Valo

stock-will-eat-itself

Justanotherphotographer

Tror

cuppacoffee

cuppacoffee

Uncle Pete

Justanotherphotographer

Tror

Tror

stock-will-eat-itself

Photominer

stock-will-eat-itself

stock-will-eat-itself

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors