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.

  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.

Quote from: Zeus on August 11, 2010, 17:16

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?   

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.

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.

Take away all this subscription crap and Micro will yet again have a good time.

Quote from: grp_photo on August 06, 2010, 05:48

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.

Photocase might be an alternative for the more arty images.  They reject 99% of my micro portfolio.

Quote from: lagereek on August 12, 2010, 01:26

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.