pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: downhill trend all too obvious!  (Read 33974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alias

« Reply #75 on: August 11, 2010, 16:11 »
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.

iTunes is ultimately about selling iPods and that was the raison d'tre.

You see that iTunes often charges you late or deducts a few sales together. This is for the relative high cost of processing CC micro payments. Small sales are not profitable.

But Apple has much more money than any photo agency and can afford to run iTunes sales at a break even point if necessary.

Totally different business.


RacePhoto

« Reply #76 on: August 11, 2010, 16:14 »
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.

And explains why my images on Alamy are misplaced (in my opinion) I don't think UK buyers are looking for USA shots from Wisconsin.  ;D

I thought the Google Images search was a mess and if someone was buying, they would need to be really smart about their searches to find what they are looking for. Most of the results were commercial sites, not photo sellers or artists. I'm still thinking that agencies are the better choice.

IS may not be perfect but CV is at least getting a grasp on searches and results which makes it better than anyplace else. Alamy with the weighted system and advanced search features with choices, is another one that's trying to make better relevant results easier for buyers.

Didn't try the advanced Google Image search yet, it's on the to-do list.

About iTunes


Totally different business.

Right. If people want photos that are marketed more along this line there's Red Bubble, Mostphoto, SmugMug... you get the idea.  ;) I don't see buyers flocking to those sites, buying images?

Don't this sites have single images download, on demand, and ways to buy without subs and packages? I may be missing it, but I thought they already had single image pricing? ImgBuyer makes some good points, I'm just not sure that all of them have answers yet.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 16:22 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #77 on: August 11, 2010, 17:16 »
0
  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. 

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.


So here we get to the real reasons (often free). It's not a problem, a) searching an endless stream of relevant and irrelevant material b) contacting individuals c) talking price and asking permission d) paying individual(maybe). Is this really that easy? The idea of attracting impulse buyers seems a poor business plan.

lisafx

« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2010, 17:26 »
0

So here we get to the real reasons (often free). It's not a problem, a) searching an endless stream of relevant and irrelevant material b) contacting individuals c) talking price and asking permission d) paying individual(maybe). Is this really that easy? The idea of attracting impulse buyers seems a poor business plan.

Seriously.  Seems like a huge time waste to me.  Isn't these image consumer's time worth anything?   :o

« Reply #79 on: August 11, 2010, 17:35 »
0

So here we get to the real reasons (often free). It's not a problem, a) searching an endless stream of relevant and irrelevant material b) contacting individuals c) talking price and asking permission d) paying individual(maybe). Is this really that easy? The idea of attracting impulse buyers seems a poor business plan.

Seriously.  Seems like a huge time waste to me.  Isn't these image consumer's time worth anything?   :o

Lisa, yes in most cases that is true. Anyone seriously making a living using pictures day to day wouldn't go this route. I understand that when you can't find a certain shot that this may be necessary but no one, I think, would use a shot, where there needs to be a model release or property release, where the image comes from who knows where. The liability issues are too scary. That is why the Getty/Flickr Request to License program is working. Buyers can trust Getty to secure the right releases, clearances. And for the zillionth time, usually paying more for a difficult to attain image is expected. Not getting it for fee if you ask nice and suck up to the photog.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2010, 17:59 »
0
I've suggested in this forum on several occasions that linking a portfolio to Google has worked quite well for me.  Cutcaster provides that capability.  It takes a little effort but anyone searching for a motocross image will probably be directed to my cutcaster portfolio. 

Other collections are linked as well but are not as "niche oriented" and not as frequently found on Google. 

All you have to lose is a little time.  It is not so difficult ... and can be made to work at other sites.

« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2010, 21:23 »
0
1. there is only a certain range of images you can submit to Microstock, if you differ from the Microstock-Look (for example more creative, more arty) the pictures will be either rejected or there will be not enough sales to make it viable. And I'm personally tired of the Microstock-Style I wanna produce different things.

This is the dangerous corner Microstock is painting itself into by choice.  Almost every object known to our world has been isolated over white and surrounded with a clipping path.  And there enough images of smiling women in headsets to last a lifetime.
 
But there will never be enough supply of creative imagery.  I do think there is somewhat of a push from the micros to branch out.  Before I went exclusive, I recall some very creative imagery being pushed at DT, and 123RF was starting a higher price collection for images which "stood out."  I don't know how successful or unsuccessful those pushes were after I left.  But I do know that there is some very special imagery in Vetta, some real eye popping material which are an inspiration and are completely unrelated to the typical fare. Not that I am trying to drum up support for IS.  Rather I think the success of Vetta, which many exclusive contributors can vouch for, has been watched since Day 1 by the competing agencies.  And we can expect to see similar offerings from those agencies, if they want to compete for more imaginative imagery. 

And why wouldn't they?  A completely different image set and price point suggests the real possibility of new buyers.  And the higher price point means more money for the agencies.

So I'm not as negative on the outlook for microstock.  I believe the expansion is already taking place and there are sunny skies ahead.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 21:26 by djpadavona »

« Reply #82 on: August 11, 2010, 21:40 »
0
Once in a while, I do buy. A few months ago I couldn't find the exact image I wanted so I did google. Found the perfect image through there on GL, which I didn't know existed, and bought it. Now I contribute there too. Sometimes google is worth the slog. 

lagereek

« Reply #83 on: August 12, 2010, 01:26 »
0
Take away all this subscription crap and Micro will yet again have a good time.

« Reply #84 on: August 12, 2010, 03:06 »
0
Take away all this subscription crap and Micro will yet again have a good time.
No, just make subscriptions the right price and pay a fixed commission.  Lots of buyers prefer subs, taking that away from them would probably be a mistake.

rubyroo

« Reply #85 on: August 12, 2010, 03:13 »
0
1. there is only a certain range of images you can submit to Microstock, if you differ from the Microstock-Look (for example more creative, more arty) the pictures will be either rejected or there will be not enough sales to make it viable. And I'm personally tired of the Microstock-Style I wanna produce different things.

This is the dangerous corner Microstock is painting itself into by choice.  Almost every object known to our world has been isolated over white and surrounded with a clipping path.  And there enough images of smiling women in headsets to last a lifetime.
 
But there will never be enough supply of creative imagery.  

Amen to that.

lagereek

« Reply #86 on: August 12, 2010, 03:55 »
0
Agree to the above post!  its a very dangerous corner indeed and IMO,  all these billions of isolations, plastic looking men and women, young businessmen etc are clogging up the files so much so that buyers simply get fed-up wading through it all and would you believe,  all agencies are STILL letting this kind of crap through inspection.
I think a problem of today is that all Agency-Admins are more or less computer-people, new generation, etc, while before, agency people used to be creatives, art-buyers and proper editors. I mean no disrespect, IS for example have got some great shooters in their Admin but its still very much geared towards PP trickery, etc.

« Reply #87 on: August 12, 2010, 04:13 »
0
Photocase might be an alternative for the more arty images.  They reject 99% of my micro portfolio.

« Reply #88 on: August 12, 2010, 04:41 »
0
I do not see why a paypal solution for small buyers would be such a bad idea. If they buy very few images, the fees would eat much of the profit, but I think it's a good way to attract new buyers, and give some of the thieves an easy legit alternative. Something similar to ebay (buy it now) could work, IMO.

Log in -> click on picture -> click on buy -> agree with legal -> pay with paypal.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #89 on: August 12, 2010, 04:58 »
0
Take away all this subscription crap and Micro will yet again have a good time.
No, just make subscriptions the right price and pay a fixed commission.  Lots of buyers prefer subs, taking that away from them would probably be a mistake.

Agree. Fact that SS is #1 or #2 for most of us means we can't simply throw away subscriptions unless we wish to cut our earnings in half.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 05:01 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

lagereek

« Reply #90 on: August 12, 2010, 08:39 »
0
Yes well SS is doing fine for me as well but you know, this subscription business is in the long run a killer. On top of that you gonna have to produce new stuff all the time. Is it worth it?  hardly. Why IS ever went down that road beats . out of me.

« Reply #91 on: August 12, 2010, 11:55 »
0
What???!!!! I am absolutely astounded that a buyer doesn't have that option. It makes so much sense I can't believe the sites don't have that option.


I do not see why a paypal solution for small buyers would be such a bad idea. If they buy very few images, the fees would eat much of the profit, but I think it's a good way to attract new buyers, and give some of the thieves an easy legit alternative. Something similar to ebay (buy it now) could work, IMO.

Log in -> click on picture -> click on buy -> agree with legal -> pay with paypal.


microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #92 on: August 12, 2010, 12:01 »
0
Yes well SS is doing fine for me as well but you know, this subscription business is in the long run a killer. On top of that you gonna have to produce new stuff all the time. Is it worth it?  hardly. Why IS ever went down that road beats . out of me.

In this sense, I have to agree. Uploading more and more is unsustainable in the long term. And IS moving towards subs is understandable to me as well, as they were already successful at selling credits.

But the positive side of subscriptions is that people are probably downloading more pictures than they really need, so the "real" RPI is a bit higher than it seems.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 12:05 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #93 on: August 12, 2010, 12:55 »
0
The walls are coming down for all types of media.  Consider the mainstream media.  They are on their way to becoming extinct because people want access to other viewpoints.  People no longer like being filtered by gatekeepers harboring a certain idealogy.

I personally do not like being limited to a small subset of overused images and as alternative search tools get better I think more will defect.

I also think some photographers have been in the stock business for so long they think only commercial image buyers buy images.  My walls are full of prints, many of which were sold as stock.

« Reply #94 on: August 12, 2010, 13:50 »
0
Agree. Fact that SS is #1 or #2 for most of us means we can't simply throw away subscriptions unless we wish to cut our earnings in half.

Oh come on.  Man up! ;)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 14:23 by sjlocke »

« Reply #95 on: August 12, 2010, 14:24 »
0
I also think some photographers have been in the stock business for so long they think only commercial image buyers buy images.  My walls are full of prints, many of which were sold as stock.

I think you're in the minority.  However, commercial buyers aren't limited to the traditional ideal.  Local businesses, coupon mailings, etc.  They're all new to this.

« Reply #96 on: August 12, 2010, 15:47 »
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.

You are correct, however I will be curious to see if it happens this year on istock due to the issue with new files not selling. I'd like to know if anyone has joined since February and had a lot of success.

As for the market oversaturation claim, sure it gets more saturated all the time, but I don't think we've reached the point yet where certain categories are 'filled up'. My best seller right now is a butterfly. There were already thousands of butterfly shots on istock when I uploaded that one, but darn if there wasn't room for one more. You just never know what's going to catch.

« Reply #97 on: August 12, 2010, 16:35 »
0
Hi All,

 If you have the summer sales blues please drop us a line at www.spaesimages.com It is Macro RM/RF and the split is 50/50 with the photographers. We do all the key wording you just shoot and process. We need architectural shooters at the moment So if you like shooting interiors please drop us a line.

Good Luck,
Jonathan

« Reply #98 on: August 12, 2010, 16:46 »
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.

You are correct, however I will be curious to see if it happens this year on istock due to the issue with new files not selling. I'd like to know if anyone has joined since February and had a lot of success.

As for the market oversaturation claim, sure it gets more saturated all the time, but I don't think we've reached the point yet where certain categories are 'filled up'. My best seller right now is a butterfly. There were already thousands of butterfly shots on istock when I uploaded that one, but darn if there wasn't room for one more. You just never know what's going to catch.

This notion that if you don't make it and decry the system must mean it's all sour grapes isn't realistic. The system favours those people that have been in the system longer. Either by paying more per image or allowing more uploads per week. Those out front will of course say we all had to go through this but it was considerably easier a few years ago. At some point it becomes nearly impossible to catch up and as the requirement to shoot with a smaller and smaller budget comes into play it is much harder to  produce images at a competitive level.

« Reply #99 on: August 12, 2010, 16:49 »
0
Those out front will of course say we all had to go through this but it was considerably easier a few years ago. At some point it becomes nearly impossible to catch up and as the requirement to shoot with a smaller and smaller budget comes into play it is much harder to  produce images at a competitive level.

Well, I mean, that's life, isn't it?  Same for all industries.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
10839 Views
Last post June 13, 2007, 21:56
by Peiling
59 Replies
10284 Views
Last post May 28, 2009, 18:12
by m@m
33 Replies
8436 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
3294 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 01:37
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results