MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fed up to my ears with all the sites. And why!  (Read 27092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: April 21, 2010, 08:17 »
0
But who is it who buys stock? At work today I saw the latest copy of New Scientist in the staff tea room. Opened it and a big ad on the inside of the front cover. I immediately recognized the three models  in one photo - Cecilie, Sophie and Ask. Not too many blond, blue eyed Scandinavians in India or China.

Exactly why Yuri & Mr. Locke et al do not have any competition from Indian or Chinese shooters. They only need to worry about competition from the old Soviet block.

Yeah, stuff can be done cheaply if the far east (on bootleg software), but you are not going to get cheap decent looking Caucasian models there.
High end -read expensive- models travel to the far east for gigs,
When the major consumers of stock start to switch to targeting the far east then the model demographic will need to change as well.

I have been around Asia quite a bit. In India, the models are fair skinned Indians.
In Singapore, Indonesia etc. the models are fair skinned Asians or fair skinned mixed race (Asian/Caucasian).


« Reply #101 on: April 21, 2010, 08:39 »
0
I have been around Asia quite a bit. In India, the models are fair skinned Indians.
In Singapore, Indonesia etc. the models are fair skinned Asians or fair skinned mixed race (Asian/Caucasian).

Yes, I always think that advertising in a particular country, being aspirational, tells you quite a bit about their ideals.

In Thailand the billboard models have been 'whitened' to the degree that they're virtually translucent. If I wanted to sell stock into the Thai market I'd presumably have to do the same to my models although to my eyes it looks faintly ridiculous as nobody on the street looks even remotely like that.

Funny how light-skinned people aspire to be darker and dark-skinned people want to be lighter. Both appearances, in their respective countries, are associated with wealth, health and leisure.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #102 on: April 21, 2010, 10:37 »
0
in China i've met plenty of blond and blue eyed female expats.

the problem is they were very far from looking like models ...

plenty of fat yanks on business trips or teaching english,
and probably shy about the idea of modeling.

as for russia it's now as expensive as germany.
only ukraine and other eastern euro countries
are cheaper to live but it's not gonna last for long,
even in romania you need 1000 euro/month to
survive nowadays.

« Reply #103 on: April 21, 2010, 10:59 »
0
in China i've met plenty of blond and blue eyed female expats.
Allow me to grin at all your self-contented posts. You know it best, huh? You know everything about China, Russia, the East, India, - with your smirky face, yet we didn't see any single shot of you or any port. Let me call you a fraud, a redneck, an imposer, a fraud.

I have seen much more than you of (central) China, India and the "East". I'm currently living in SE Asia but I'm connected with IT outsourcing in Chennai. I don't even care for microstock, except it's fun. My snapshots on business travel are for myself. I probably fly more miles in a year than you in a lifetime. I have more "editorial" on my disk that you can dream off, but I just don't like to brag about it since in the time it takes to process, I earn more outside photography.

But that's none of your's or any body else's business. Unless you show some of your work and/or port, I will just consider you as a dementing old hilarious pensioner troll in some remote Western downstairs suburb hamlet getting his orgams from forums. The time you spend on forums with unproductive crap you could better spend on processing your 1,000$ pending images that are - undoubtedly - god's gift to stock.

 ;D (I met some fine braggers, guy, and you are one of them; too chicken to show port?  :D)

« Reply #104 on: April 21, 2010, 11:35 »
0
Nobody here is going to see my port either, because then I wouldn't be able to speak freely about issues with the microstocks, their management and ownership.  I guess that makes me a "dementing old hilarious pensioner troll" too.  So be it.

« Reply #105 on: April 21, 2010, 11:59 »
0
the problem is always the same : agencies must pay more and sell more.
it's unthinkable to keep selling as low as 0.25$.

I totally agree with this statement. It doesn't matter if you make 10 to 5th Dls per day per photo, they still need to sell for a much higher price and quite frankly I get tired of the old "well we sell a lot more so it's okay to get less money" argument.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #106 on: April 21, 2010, 12:05 »
0
you certainly fly more than me as i like to travel overland and smell the stink of sh.. coming in from the windows.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 12:08 by macrosaur »

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #107 on: April 21, 2010, 12:11 »
0
the problem is always the same : agencies must pay more and sell more.
it's unthinkable to keep selling as low as 0.25$.

I totally agree with this statement. It doesn't matter if you make 10 to 5th Dls per day per photo, they still need to sell for a much higher price and quite frankly I get tired of the old "well we sell a lot more so it's okay to get less money" argument.

how can they sell more if agencies' portfolios are doubling or tripling and the number of buyers
remains the same ?

in fact pictures are selling less and for less money than before and for a short period of time too.

what will we sell when istock will have 30 millions pics online ?
microstock is getting near the point where shooting micro alone
is no more sustainable.

their new "exclusive plus" options are targeting exactly the few exclusives
who are sick of poor payout or planning to go elsewhere.

anyone starting doing microstock today is getting screwed.

lisafx

« Reply #108 on: April 21, 2010, 12:28 »
0
Nobody here is going to see my port either, because then I wouldn't be able to speak freely about issues with the microstocks, their management and ownership.  I guess that makes me a "dementing old hilarious pensioner troll" too.  So be it.

Lots of people here are anonymous (although usually with only one account) and it's perfectly obvious why.  You can tell the sincere ones from the ones who are just shooting off their mouth. 

I would classify stocktastic as the former, and macrosaur/perseus/tanjomast/batman as the other type.  Why would anyone need to keep changing alias's and have several going at once unless they were trolling?

« Reply #109 on: April 21, 2010, 12:36 »
0
I would classify stocktastic as the former, and macrosaur/perseus/tanjomast/batman as the other type.  Why would anyone need to keep changing alias's and have several going at once unless they were trolling?
Perseus is certainly an obnoxious troll. He just made another pathetic "blog" entry at DT. I'm trying to keep myself from commenting.  :P Macrosaur is clearly a troll. He has no portfolio at all. He is a nobody just ranting here. He should join a knitting club.

On topic: DT just launched a new assignment: agriculture. Three weeks ago I was on an expedition with friends, lightboxes and models to the inlands of Bukidnon (a tropical plateau, where's a lot of subsistence agriculture). The FAO (UN) was interested in the shots, since the location and crowd is unique. I just said "thank you no" in the DT thread. That shoot amounted to 100$ in total (I had to feed an entire village since I'm a Caucasian - dirt rich by definition) and there is no way I'm going to give it to microstock for a meager 0.35$ sub. Microstock has gone too far... I'd rather give my shots for free on Flickr.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 12:46 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #110 on: April 21, 2010, 12:39 »
0
how can they sell more if agencies' portfolios are doubling or tripling and the number of buyers
remains the same ?

They no longer want the small contributors and hobbyists they used to start their business. They don't really want addtional millions of images that cost them time and money to review.  If 25 cent commissions cause us to go away, that's fine.

What they want now, ideally, is a relatively small number of pros supplying enough imagery so that the vast majority of buyers find something adequate for their needs, and spend whatever money they have available to spend for it.   Beyond that point, additional intake of images is a waste of money spent on reviewers' time.
 
Occasional buyers looking for small numbers of niche images are of little interest - neither are the suppliers of those images.  Who is going to produce low-volume niche images at these prices?  Those buyers and sellers won't find each other through microstock.   But macro is broken - the prices are now too high.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 12:44 by stockastic »

« Reply #111 on: April 21, 2010, 12:48 »
0
I would classify stocktastic as the former
By some coincidence, I know his port and it's great.

« Reply #112 on: April 21, 2010, 13:35 »
0
 If 25 cent commissions cause us to go away, that's fine.


Not a chance in a billion years. Amateurs, for the most part, care little about the how much they make. I takes nothing to institute a policy of non acceptance from poor photographers.

« Reply #113 on: April 21, 2010, 14:26 »
0
Not a chance in a billion years. Amateurs, for the most part, care little about the how much they make. I takes nothing to institute a policy of non acceptance from poor photographers.
I thought it was the amateurs that complained the most because they are trapped. All the pros have either graduated to higher royalty rates, better stock sites or the low royalties work in their business model.

« Reply #114 on: April 21, 2010, 14:32 »
0
Not a chance in a billion years. Amateurs, for the most part, care little about the how much they make. I takes nothing to institute a policy of non acceptance from poor photographers.
I thought it was the amateurs that complained the most because they are trapped. All the pros have either graduated to higher royalty rates, better stock sites or the low royalties work in their business model.
Complain sure, but never leave because of it.

ShadySue

« Reply #115 on: April 21, 2010, 14:56 »
0
But who is it who buys stock? At work today I saw the latest copy of New Scientist in the staff tea room. Opened it and a big ad on the inside of the front cover. I immediatley recognized the three models  in one photo - Cecilie, Sophie and Ask. Not too many blond, blue eyed Scandinavians in India or China.

Good point.
And food is different too.
Which is what I meant by "You, however, are in the lucky position of having easy access to most of the subjects currently in greater demand."

« Reply #116 on: April 21, 2010, 17:06 »
0


If you go to Montana you will never move back home wherever that is. If I was in good health I'd move to Montana tomorrow. Freedom!

-Larry

I'll be visiting in September...   Be shooting in Glacier, and up into Banff & Jasper.   Looking forward to it very much!!!  Have friends out there that wont put a foot back in Jersey.  Can't blame them at all.  When you open a studio in Montana, Larry,  I'll be knocking on the door for a job!!  8)=tom


macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #117 on: April 21, 2010, 17:27 »
0
Macrosaur is clearly a troll.

On topic: DT just launched a new assignment: agriculture. Three weeks ago I was on an expedition with friends, lightboxes and models to the inlands of Bukidnon (a tropical plateau, where's a lot of subsistence agriculture). The FAO (UN) was interested in the shots, since the location and crowd is unique. I just said "thank you no" in the DT thread. That shoot amounted to 100$ in total (I had to feed an entire village since I'm a Caucasian - dirt rich by definition) and there is no way I'm going to give it to microstock for a meager 0.35$ sub. Microstock has gone too far... I'd rather give my shots for free on Flickr.

hahaha !

p.s.
so the FAO, who's receiving BILLIONS of $ from the UN is going cheap asking starving microstockers to shoot a whole reportage for just 100$.
weren't you guys telling me to "adapt or die", "micro is the future", "RM is dead" and other BS some time ago  ? :)

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #118 on: April 21, 2010, 17:31 »
0
I would classify stocktastic as the former
By some coincidence, I know his port and it's great.

and since when people writes on public forum with their real name/surname, email, www address, telephone, and much more ?

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #119 on: April 21, 2010, 17:37 »
0


 Those buyers and sellers won't find each other through microstock.   But macro is broken - the prices are now too high.

not yet.
macro is priced right exactly because you can NOT find those images elsewhere, and good look browsing Flickr
or google images for a few hours...

it's called "added value" or just plain "value".

on the other side micro is paying less and less because their images can be found in dozens of RF agencies
for as low as 0.25$.

who can blame the buyers if the photogs shoot themselves in the foot ?

and talking about niche images, shooting that stuff can only be sustainable at RM prices, it could never ever work
in RF.

the funny thing is FAO will probably grab some sh.. from DT for 5 or 6 bucks and pay hundreds of $ on RM for the missing
pics they need.

« Reply #120 on: April 22, 2010, 02:49 »
0
Quote
on the other side micro is paying less and less because their images can be found in dozens of RF agencies
for as low as 0.25$.

You keep getting it wrong.  Over the years, micro is charging and paying more and more.  3 years ago, $0.25 was my highest subs commission, now it is my lowest and I don't need to use the sites that pay that low.  Pay per download prices and commissions have increased a lot.  I sell less than a few years ago but my earnings have gone up each year.  How can that happen if micro is paying less?  Some images sold on istock will now make more for the contributor than ones sold with Getty.  Considering the huge gap a few years ago, I think that is incredible.

Of course these facts don't register with you or several other people here that keep posting about the race to the bottom.  There is a difference between wanting it to happen and it actually happening.  If micro was going to collapse, I think it would of happened by now.  The sites are going to take more commission, that isn't a surprise.  Do Getty , Corbis, Alamy etc. pay the same commission they did 5 years ago?  People will always want new images and over the years everything changes, macro has survived and I think micro will as well.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2010, 02:52 by sharpshot »

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #121 on: April 22, 2010, 03:02 »
0
Quote
on the other side micro is paying less and less because their images can be found in dozens of RF agencies
for as low as 0.25$.

You keep getting it wrong.  Over the years, micro is charging and paying more and more.  3 years ago, $0.25 was my highest subs commission, now it is my lowest and I don't need to use the sites that pay that low.  Pay per download prices and commissions have increased a lot.  I sell less than a few years ago but my earnings have gone up each year.  How can that happen if micro is paying less?  Some images sold on istock will now make more for the contributor than ones sold with Getty.  Considering the huge gap a few years ago, I think that is incredible.

Of course these facts don't register with you or several other people here that keep posting about the race to the bottom.  There is a difference between wanting it to happen and it actually happening.  If micro was going to collapse, I think it would of happened by now.  The sites are going to take more commission, that isn't a surprise.  Do Getty , Corbis, Alamy etc. pay the same commission they did 5 years ago?  People will always want new images and over the years everything changes, macro has survived and I think micro will as well.

because lots of former RM buyers are moving to microstock and the transition is not over yet.

but before or later it will stop, the number of buyers will remain the same, their budget will remain
the same, istock's portfolio will triple, and you'll start to see a sharp decline in sales and views,
it's math !

on the other side my RM earnings are increasing as well despite some agencies are
adding as much as 600K images every month (see Alamy), how do i explain this ?

« Reply #122 on: April 22, 2010, 03:24 »
0
Quote
on the other side micro is paying less and less because their images can be found in dozens of RF agencies
for as low as 0.25$.

You keep getting it wrong.  Over the years, micro is charging and paying more and more.  3 years ago, $0.25 was my highest subs commission, now it is my lowest and I don't need to use the sites that pay that low.  Pay per download prices and commissions have increased a lot.  I sell less than a few years ago but my earnings have gone up each year.  How can that happen if micro is paying less?  Some images sold on istock will now make more for the contributor than ones sold with Getty.  Considering the huge gap a few years ago, I think that is incredible.

Of course these facts don't register with you or several other people here that keep posting about the race to the bottom.  There is a difference between wanting it to happen and it actually happening.  If micro was going to collapse, I think it would of happened by now.  The sites are going to take more commission, that isn't a surprise.  Do Getty , Corbis, Alamy etc. pay the same commission they did 5 years ago?  People will always want new images and over the years everything changes, macro has survived and I think micro will as well.

because lots of former RM buyers are moving to microstock and the transition is not over yet.

but before or later it will stop, the number of buyers will remain the same, their budget will remain
the same, istock's portfolio will triple, and you'll start to see a sharp decline in sales and views,
it's math !

on the other side my RM earnings are increasing as well despite some agencies are
adding as much as 600K images every month (see Alamy), how do i explain this ?
I think you have ruined your own argument.  The competition doesn't matter as long as you can supply something the buyers want that hasn't already been over supplied.  You can do it with alamy and I can do it with microstock.  I don't have any problem using both with different portfolios.  100 million more images wouldn't bother me, as there will always be something missing that I can work on.

I don't see that many macro contributors switching, as a lot of them detest micro.  They might have a shock with the micro QC standards.  From past experience, it looks like portfolios with lots of people photos get hit hardest, as that is already an over supplied category.  I don't do those and haven't had a problem.  There are already enough buyers for me and there will probably be more as the internet expands.

« Reply #123 on: April 22, 2010, 13:39 »
0
but before or later it will stop, the number of buyers will remain the same, their budget will remain
the same, istock's portfolio will triple, and you'll start to see a sharp decline in sales and views,
it's math !


math has little to do with it - especially if your initial assumptions don't hold. you make 4 claims:


===the number of buyers will remain the same,   -- why? the internet continues to grow as hundreds of millions of new computer users come online.  the demand for images will continue to grow, and lower costs make it more accessible. 


==== their budget will remain
the same, -- again, based on what?  more likely budgets will increase in total as more firms start using stock rather than custom shoots


====istock's portfolio will triple, -- ok, you got 1 of 4!

====and you'll start to see a sharp decline in sales and views,--- only if you're correct on items 1 & 2 above

your doomsday forecasts are remarkably similar to what the pro's were saying would happen 20 years ago when digital stock first took hold.  the same arguments were recycled 5 years ago as microstock started making an impression.  saying it 3 times won't make it true.  the market will change; some photographers won't make it, but overall, the direction will continue upwards

steve

« Reply #124 on: April 22, 2010, 14:05 »
0
+1, what steve (cascoly) said.

Add to his argument:

- When the world emerges from the current recession, more businesses will form and need to advertise, and those who have been quiet will jump back into full marketing gear, and the need for images will increase dramatically.

- As the undeveloped, or underdeveloped, world sees growth in their small business sectors, those businesses will also look for the most cost-effective ways to advertise and will become big users of microstock.

To macrosaur and the other nattering nabobs of negativism... why do you spend so much of your energies concerning yourself with something you see as dead or dying?  You present yourselves as astute business people, but how smart is it so spend so much of your time and energy kicking what you see as a dead horse, when you could be making more money elsewhere?  
« Last Edit: April 22, 2010, 14:44 by PowerDroid »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
2887 Views
Last post October 19, 2006, 08:00
by CJPhoto
3 Replies
2489 Views
Last post January 22, 2007, 16:52
by madelaide
2 Replies
1904 Views
Last post February 12, 2007, 17:13
by XeniaII
12 Replies
3998 Views
Last post April 04, 2008, 06:34
by RacePhoto
43 Replies
8927 Views
Last post April 24, 2010, 19:01
by Jonathan Ross

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results