MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: downhill trend all too obvious!  (Read 33980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2010, 08:49 »
0

jeepers creepers.... You put Poland in the same basket with Ukraine ? I congratulate you on the knowledge of the contemporary world.... and invite you to Poland, you would be surprised that girls do NOT have 'Eastern' faces in a way you connotate it.

What you mean under term the "Eastern faces"...?

In which group of nations belongs  Ukraine and Poland ?! As well as Croatia ...
Faces do not change so easily , especially in neighboring countries ...Living standards maybe...
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 08:58 by borg »


« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2010, 09:27 »
0
In which group of nations belongs  Ukraine and Poland ?! As well as Croatia ...
Faces do not change so easily , especially in neighboring countries ...Living standards maybe...
Interesting (although off-topid) points:
How much you pay in Croatia for:
- a 1-bedroom apartment, just decent, not on a prime location. (400/100*)
- 1 month internet connection. (44/16)
- an average 1-month electricity bill. (50/20).
- 1 bread (2/1).
- 1 hr wage hamburger-flipping (0.4/8).

I added my prices in euro for Belgium/Philippines. We can go from there if you want.
* fenced and privately guarded area; if not, you will be robbed/burglared within the month
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 09:31 by FD-regular »

« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2010, 10:24 »
0
What are you talking about!!!?
Have you ever been somewhere in Eastern Europe, especially in shopping...?
I live and Croatia, so...

I have been debateing this here over and over. There is an illusion that life in a 3rd world country is very cheap.  In some aspects, it is (food here in Brazil is very cheap), but in anything that is not very basic - as it is the case with electronics and comm services - prices are huge (taxes are a big culprit in that).  I pay about US$70/mo for a 6Mbps internet connection, cameras & acessories cost at least twice the price in USA, gasoline costs the same as in Europe (even being self-sufficient in oil).

Rio is currently world's 3rd in the Big Mac index.  Gladly I find McDonald's totally unappetizing.  :)

Of course we need to keep out of comparison the bigger cities, because cost of life in them, especially housing, is so out of the average.  Even here in Rio, the difference in price for living in a decent 2-bedroom apartment varies absurdly between different middle-class neighbourhoods.

« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2010, 12:49 »
0
In which group of nations belongs  Ukraine and Poland ?! As well as Croatia ...
Faces do not change so easily , especially in neighboring countries ...Living standards maybe...
Interesting (although off-topid) points:
How much you pay in Croatia for:
- a 1-bedroom apartment, just decent, not on a prime location. (400/100*)
- 1 month internet connection. (44/16)
- an average 1-month electricity bill. (50/20).
- 1 bread (2/1).
- 1 hr wage hamburger-flipping (0.4/8).

I added my prices in euro for Belgium/Philippines. We can go from there if you want.
* fenced and privately guarded area; if not, you will be robbed/burglared within the month
- a 1-bedroom apartment min 400$
- 1 month internet connection cca 100$ (tel. included)
-an average 1-month electricity bill. 150-200$
-1 bread (2/1) 1-3$
- 1 hr wage hamburger-flipping (0.4/8). I don't know, depend of location (touristic, non touristic)
-gasoline like in EU
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:50 by borg »

« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2010, 13:13 »
0
Though I am not a photographer I have been following these forums for some time as I believe stock photo sales are a good way to take the pulse of the economy.  In addition, I am an occasional image buyer for both commercial and personal use.  The intent of this posting is to express my pet peeves with the current microstock model and to offer an opinion from the non-pro buyer position.  I am not sure if I am typical, but hopefully this may offer some insight into buyer behavior.

Based on my own experience I cannot stand the following aspects of microstock buying and this has greatly limited my purchases to absolute essential buying:

Indirect, cumbersome buying  -  Why can't I just purchase an image and agree to a license like on itunes.  Instead I am greeted by having to figure out credits or buy an expensive subscription.  This one aspect alone reduces my purchases by at least 80% because it is a pain in the $&^^%

Keyword spamming  -  There should be zero tolerance for contributors that include all types of unrelated keywords.  Search for almost anything on typical microstock sites and you gets tons of unrelated stuff.  For example I recently searched for images of children playing basketball for a local youth newsletter.  Probably 70% of the results contained only adults.  After page 3 of results it was bye, bye.

Junk and more junk  -  I agree totally with an earlier post.  After a certain period of time with minimal or no sales images should be removed from the search and only included in the photographer profile.  The way it is currently, you find the spectacular (though often completely staged looking and seen everywhere on the web) images in the beginning pages and then you get to go through tons of pages of results to find something high-quality but "real".

Too expensive for non-commercial  -  Sometimes an image is beautiful or artistic and you just want a digital copy.  For anybody that does not have a subscription the price is too costly in a depressed economy.  Now I know some may be inclined to give me the lecture on production costs, etc... but the reality is customers don't care about this and for such an impulsive purchase they will simply walk away and look elsewhere.

Sorry for the sarcasm and being so blunt.  My intention is not to offend anyone.  It is to awaken some that are receptive to the message.

On one final tip, more and more I, and probably many others are beginning to do their image searches on google.  This way I can search all private sources and agencies at once.  I believe global searches will dominate in the next few years.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 13:17 by imgbuyer »

« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2010, 13:55 »
0
Not a bad summary imgbuyer. I definitely think some of those ideas have fallen on deaf ears at the agencies. I know there are some agencies that don't do credits. I can't think of which one though. As far as price though, can't you still buy web images for a buck? That never seemed too expensive to me.

« Reply #56 on: August 10, 2010, 15:45 »
0
On one final tip, more and more I, and probably many others are beginning to do their image searches on google.  This way I can search all private sources and agencies at once.  I believe global searches will dominate in the next few years.
Agree. But you'll have to wade through much more garbage since GI doesn't have QC, and that's what sets the sites apart. What's more, on most images on GI isn't any licensing info.

alias

« Reply #57 on: August 10, 2010, 18:00 »
0
Why can't I just purchase an image and agree to a license like on itunes.  Instead I am greeted by having to figure out credits or buy an expensive subscription.  This one aspect alone reduces my purchases by at least 80% because it is a pain in the $&^^%

Relative high cost of processing small transactions.

« Reply #58 on: August 10, 2010, 18:19 »
0
I agree with all of your points, imgbuyer. As a contributor, I don't have a problem removing files that don't sell. Except for the guys who have been photographers their whole life, those of us who cut our teeth in microstock had some stinkers in the beginning. If I were asked to remove them, I would. If I'm not asked, I'm going to leave them there, on the off chance somebody decides to buy one. And that has happened.

As a buyer (not a huge buyer), your #2 and 3 points are right on.

vonkara

« Reply #59 on: August 10, 2010, 22:14 »
0
Istock Downhill isolated on white...



Buying it, anyone?

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #60 on: August 10, 2010, 22:29 »
0
On one final tip, more and more I, and probably many others are beginning to do their image searches on google.  This way I can search all private sources and agencies at once.  I believe global searches will dominate in the next few years.

I'd agree with a lot of what you're saying but the agencies are the ones you should be directing this at.

Could you elaborate on you use Google images? I tried using it to find stock images and it was pretty frustrating. The results were mixed with everything. Some agency stuff, blog photos, Flickr, website images, and you name it. Didn't seem like an efficient way to find a licensable image.

lisafx

« Reply #61 on: August 11, 2010, 11:58 »
0

Could you elaborate on you use Google images? I tried using it to find stock images and it was pretty frustrating. The results were mixed with everything. Some agency stuff, blog photos, Flickr, website images, and you name it. Didn't seem like an efficient way to find a licensable image.

Agreed.  ^^

I always assumed people that searched for images via google images were not really looking to license images - just take them.  Hard to believe that professional image buyers would want to slog through that mixed bag to find an image for a legitimate project. 

lagereek

« Reply #62 on: August 11, 2010, 12:01 »
0

Could you elaborate on you use Google images? I tried using it to find stock images and it was pretty frustrating. The results were mixed with everything. Some agency stuff, blog photos, Flickr, website images, and you name it. Didn't seem like an efficient way to find a licensable image.

Agreed.  ^^

I always assumed people that searched for images via google images were not really looking to license images - just take them.  Hard to believe that professional image buyers would want to slog through that mixed bag to find an image for a legitimate project. 

Anything for a freebie.

« Reply #63 on: August 11, 2010, 12:12 »
0
Delete them in a year??  sure,  but why accept them in the first place?  makes no sense at all. I mean surely a reviewer at for example IS would have the experience to know a commercial image when seeing one?

No. I have too many images in my portfolio that are rejected at some sites for "Lack of commercial value blah blah" and which are selling very good on those sites that accepted them.

I think the images should be given for example two years time. No sales in two years = deleting the file. That should also be an ongoing process: if any files have a 2 year period without sales the file would be deleted. I have some junk in my portfolios that may have been sold once or twice but maybe that was in 2006...

Yet, this all could be done within the search engine: Images with no sales for a long period of time should be moved somewhere in the end of the search results.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 12:15 by Perry »

« Reply #64 on: August 11, 2010, 14:35 »
0
Thank you everyone for responding.  I will try to answer a few of the questions posted.

I started using google image search mainly out of frustration using the microstock sites.  Yes, it is more cumbersome but you can find some great "original stuff".  In most cases the owner will grant permission for free or for a small fee.  At the established agencies you get to see what the gate keepers approve of and nothing else.  Because of this much of the stuff looks the same--perfect and fake.  Also google image search gets better and more targeted everyday.

The reason why itunes works so well is because you are converting music thieves and traders into music buyers.  Because songs became so cheap and easy to purchase they became an "impulse" purchases and it was no longer worth the hassle of trading them.

Microstock seems to be going the exact other way and the only people impulse buying are those with subscriptions.

Microstock sites need to come of their high horses or they will rapidly become irrelevant.  The world is rapidly changing for better or worse.  They need to accept this.

In reality their main value added is:
- They ensure a certain level of quality
- They ensure the images are properly released

Search is of little benefit because of rampant keyword spamming and it is becoming obsolete because of global search alternatives.

« Reply #65 on: August 11, 2010, 14:44 »
0
The reason why itunes works so well is because you are converting music thieves and traders into music buyers.  Because songs became so cheap and easy to purchase they became an "impulse" purchases and it was no longer worth the hassle of trading them.

Microstock seems to be going the exact other way and the only people impulse buying are those with subscriptions.

Sorry, you still have to register with iTunes and enter in all your information.  There is only the one extra step of purchasing credits.  I don't see why it's that hard.

ap

« Reply #66 on: August 11, 2010, 14:50 »
0
I started using google image search mainly out of frustration using the microstock sites.  Yes, it is more cumbersome but you can find some great "original stuff".  In most cases the owner will grant permission for free or for a small fee. 

that's really great for you, but it doesn't help us contributors at all. to be quite honest, you don't seem like a bona fide buyer or designer who's willing to purchase others' honest hard work.


« Reply #67 on: August 11, 2010, 15:16 »
0
There is only the one extra step of purchasing credits.  I don't see why it's that hard.

I always thought it was a pain if you are buying several images and have to add up different credit packs to see which is the best deal or gives you the least amount of extras. I recently had my extra credits deleted from IS because I didn't spend them in a year. I can't really complain because they sent me several notices, but it still doesn't seem like the best system. I can see making people have a minimum purchase, but having to buy packs is annoying.

sc

« Reply #68 on: August 11, 2010, 15:24 »
0
Slightly off topic but not really.
A little over a year ago I attended a function where the speaker was the Editor in Chief of National Geographic Traveler Magazine. We were seated at the same table for dinner. We were discussing stock photography and he said they use Flickr more and more all the time to find images.
His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.

They used to use Getty and Corbis but have come to realize they can find what they need on Flickr - if they can't then the go to another source. He also said they rarely commission a shooter to go out and shoot "Joe's Inn" unless it's the only way to get an image.

So I can see why some buyers may be searching via Google.

Food for thought.

Steve

vonkara

« Reply #69 on: August 11, 2010, 15:30 »
0
There is only the one extra step of purchasing credits.  I don't see why it's that hard.

I always thought it was a pain if you are buying several images and have to add up different credit packs to see which is the best deal or gives you the least amount of extras. I recently had my extra credits deleted from IS because I didn't spend them in a year. I can't really complain because they sent me several notices, but it still doesn't seem like the best system. I can see making people have a minimum purchase, but having to buy packs is annoying.

Very true, if I could pay directly with a credit card or Paypal, it would be a nice upgrade. Why not pricing directly the images, and let me fill my account with the amount of money I want. They could still sell virtual prepaid cards like 20$ / 50$ / 100$ and such. The credit thing is only confusing and time consuming to me.

All the successful selling network such as the PSN network (Playstation network), Itunes and such work that way

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #70 on: August 11, 2010, 15:41 »
0
Slightly off topic but not really.
A little over a year ago I attended a function where the speaker was the Editor in Chief of National Geographic Traveler Magazine. We were seated at the same table for dinner. We were discussing stock photography and he said they use Flickr more and more all the time to find images.
His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.

They used to use Getty and Corbis but have come to realize they can find what they need on Flickr - if they can't then the go to another source. He also said they rarely commission a shooter to go out and shoot "Joe's Inn" unless it's the only way to get an image.

So I can see why some buyers may be searching via Google.

Food for thought.

Steve

That's very interesting. I would have never thought they would buy off of Flickr. Guess we learn something new everyday.

« Reply #71 on: August 11, 2010, 15:44 »
0
His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.
The problem is you can't find that kind of pictures on stock since it will be rejected for lack of PR or LCV. Even as Editorial it won't be accepted since it's not newsworthy.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #72 on: August 11, 2010, 15:53 »
0
His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.
The problem is you can't find that kind of pictures on stock since it will be rejected for lack of PR or LCV. Even as Editorial it won't be accepted since it's not newsworthy.

Maybe we all need to travel all over the world photographing every "Joe's Inn" out there and put them up for sale on Flickr. The rate microstock is going it couldn't be any worse.. ;)

RacePhoto

« Reply #73 on: August 11, 2010, 15:55 »
0
No, gostwyck is totally right.  The only people who call it a pyramid scheme are those who are unsuccessful due to their own failings and it is just sour grapes.  There are plenty of new contributors who have come in only to become successful.

Btw, IS has no such referral program aside from a one time buyer referral bonus.

In general the whole industry was founded on the MLM concept, like a pyramid, new people are encouraged to recruit new people who should recruit more new people.

Historic Example:


Galastock, 10% from each sale a referred photographer makes and 10% from each purchase a referred buyer makes.

luckyoliver , Their referral programm pays you $1 for each referred photographer who got minimum 3 pics approved and $5 for each referred buyer who purchased a token package...

ShutterStock, 0.03US$ per download if the photographer/artist was referred by you, as long as these artist is a member of SS !!! Best affiliate/referral program in the trade J

123rf: for 1 year 15% of every purchase of a buyer referred by you and for 6 months between 0.03US$ and 2.00US$ (depending on license) for every image sold by an artist who was referred by you.

Fotolia,10 % commission on sales and 15 % on purchases, no time limit!

GimmeStock, referral by email or try to make your own link out of a referral email sent to your good self For each download made from the person you referred 0.01 US$ will be credited into your account. So if some of your friends join GS and 30.000 downloads are made from their images, that might be the friends that will help you buy some new gear!


CanStock: For 6 months and up to $50 you can earn 10% of a referred member's purchases and $5 for every 50 photos a referred photographer sells. If they become a photographer and purchases photos, you can earn double commission!


BigStock: 25% of buyers first credit purchase and 5US$ when new photographer hits 75 approved photos.

Dreamstime, 5US$ instantly for putting a badge on your website (pending approval), during 6 months you?ll get 10% for all sales a referee of yours makes.

Featurepics, will pay 1.5% for referring an Artist whose image has been sold and 1.5% for referring a Buyer. The total referral fees are 3% per Image. Timelimit?

xiStock, For each successful referred buyer iStockphoto pays US$5. You have to enrol in this program from your account.

Imagevortex, requires separate registration, free with a company called sharesale, which manages the referral program on behalf of IV and depending approval of your website, you can get 10% of all image purchases made by referred buyers for 90 days following the first website visit.

Stockxpert, 10% of the value of each credit purchase that has been made by customers who came through ads from your website(s) if they make a purchase within 30 days of their arrival. This only applies to new customers, and only for the first 3 months of their membership. Also here you need to have a website and apply separately for this affiliate program from your account.


No matter but I don't think the "Downhill Trend" is all too obvious. I still think there are more photos, more photographers and even if sales at the agencies increase, individual sales to people like us, will be a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. Microstock can be growing, agency profits increasing, and overall sales increasing, but on a personal level photographer income will be dropping for many people.

« Reply #74 on: August 11, 2010, 16:06 »
0
His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed.

Exactly why Alamy makes money.  Basically, all it is is people walking around Britain shooting absolutely everything they see.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
10839 Views
Last post June 13, 2007, 21:56
by Peiling
59 Replies
10285 Views
Last post May 28, 2009, 18:12
by m@m
33 Replies
8437 Views
Last post May 13, 2009, 07:55
by Dreamframer
2 Replies
2055 Views
Last post May 08, 2013, 10:14
by Microbius
18 Replies
3296 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 01:37
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results