MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: borg on January 20, 2011, 09:16
-
Deleting a portfolio is a drastic but probably ineffective method, because many photographers will stay...
So what else we can do?
Here is my part of solution:
1.If you promote your portfolio, do it only with your portfolios on "friendly agencies"...
2.Send new content first to "friendly agencies" and later (old materials, for a few months or even more) to the "problematic ...".
Please continue with suggestions...
3..
4...
-
The problem is... what is a friendly agency? DT seems to be the friendliest (yet they still don't let me opt out from subs), but how long will it take before they cut our commissions too?
I think I'll remove all my referrals in my website (not that they've been getting me anything lately) and only refer to FP.
-
We're spinning our wheels; running in circles.
First iStock, then Fotolia. Next ?
We can't concentrate an effort because the target keeps changing. They are always one step ahead. And, I see that as a corporate conspiracy.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
Maybe we should choose ONE target. Take them on one at the time.
-
There's nothing we can do. This is the new reality in microstock.
-
I'll say it again: there's something THEY could do. I mean the small agencies with fair % but little returns.
They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.
Take advantage of this moment when we're angry at a number of bigger sites. As much as I would like to support small sites, I don't have the time to go through their ugly upload process.
-
They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.
As much as I would like to support small sites, I don't have the time to go through their ugly upload process.
Why bother? I dumped a thousand images that had made me thousands of dollars elsewhere on a new fair-deal start-up agency and they haven't sold a single one of them in a year. All these agencies are the photographers' friend until they make a mark on the industry, then half of them turn against us. Make a small site big, the way we did with iS and SS and Fot and DT and you don't know what they will do to you. And before they become big, you won't earn much anyway.
-
They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.
As much as I would like to support small sites, I don't have the time to go through their ugly upload process.
Why bother? I dumped a thousand images that had made me thousands of dollars elsewhere on a new fair-deal start-up agency and they haven't sold a single one of them in a year. All these agencies are the photographers' friend until they make a mark on the industry, then half of them turn against us. Make a small site big, the way we did with iS and SS and Fot and DT and you don't know what they will do to you. And before they become big, you won't earn much anyway.
bingo!.. it seems their only friendly or trustworthy (never trust agencies) when their desperate for buyers
-
Absolutely! But we could enjoy another 3 years of fair rates and then dump them and start again with newer sites. Bandwidth is so cheap nowadays. No more shooting for microstock, just re-uploading again and again to new sites.
Unfortunately, you're right that most of them can't sell a single picture at present.
-
I'll say it again: there's something THEY could do. I mean the small agencies with fair % but little returns.
They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.
I second that.
-
There's only one solution: a new distribution model which will eliminate those parasites.
The only artists for whom microstock is sustainable in the long run are the con artists from IS, FT, etc.
-
The ideal situation would be that we have a union that would represent contributors as a whole and could negotiate with the agencies or threaten them with mass pullouts which if there was a large base of people that were part would be a pretty big problem for agencies.. That would be the only way to be able to really effect a change otherwise they know there is really no resistence for them because there is no organization on this end. nothing will happen unless the majority is organised together, which happens in Macro, but I don't think that it will happen in micro because of the mass amounts of "small fish" that don't have enough of an interest in the business to want to make that kind of effort or sacrifice..
I am personally not uploading any more to either IS or FT, and as a buyer I will not purchase from them for my designs either.. I will start to give more images to my Macro agencies.
-
Alamy has 60% for their contributors...
-
Has anyone ever contacted these people?
http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/ (http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/)
-
There's nothing we can do. This is the new reality in microstock.
+1
-
Alamy has 60% for their contributors...
Exactely and places like AGE and others while maybe not big volume earners are fair and at least I feel like my images are not missused and I am treated as a professional. Getty is not great but they have more volume and the higher price point make it worth it, as well as the fact that most of the macro shooters are well enough organized to fight back collectively to effect their opinions.
-
Has anyone ever contacted these people?
[url]http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/[/url] ([url]http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/[/url])
They are not really micro freindly.. Good for Macro people though..
-
Hmmm... I can understand their not being micro friendly in the old days - but with the quality standards so high now, and a fair few macro shooters participating, I'd have thought we might be considered worthy of inclusion by now.
-
Graphic leftovers has the simplest upload of any site I have ever used. Just FTP and they do the rest, no categories, you don't even have to click anything after upload. I don't do models, so I don't know about releases. They do sell and they pay 52% commission. My referral is in my signature.
I'm also going to work much harder with alamy. There's no way I want to stay working with sites that cut commissions every year, that's unsustainable for all but the few that are the best sellers.
-
Hmmm... I can understand their not being micro friendly in the old days - but with the quality standards so high now, and a fair few macro shooters participating, I'd have thought we might be considered worthy of inclusion by now.
There's still some anti-micro sentiment on their website, so yeah, I'd say they haven't exactly changed their views in recent years.
-
why would they include the very people who support sites that pay 25 cents per download and less and undercut them, when they are used to receiving hundreds per sale. how can you even take us seriously, we are not looked at as professionals but as bottom feeders willing to take literally pennies, and we really will take anything they give us there are sites like photospin that give .02 cents per download and have over a million images up clearly people are willing to take .02 cents a download. why would you want us in an organization that is trying to maintain a level of fair pricing in the industry? We have very few full time stockers so technically we are not "pros" as we don't earn 100% of our income from this. We really need to collectively start an RF Guild that helps educate contributers as to why it is a good thing in the long run to not upload to unfair agencies. interesting to note that in the new 2011 Photographers Market Book, on the section about stock photography micro is only listed as a small side note while a hundred other macro/specialty agenies are listed.
-
Graphic leftovers has the simplest upload of any site I have ever used. Just FTP and they do the rest, no categories, you don't even have to click anything after upload. I don't do models, so I don't know about releases. They do sell and they pay 52% commission. My referral is in my signature.
I'm also going to work much harder with alamy. There's no way I want to stay working with sites that cut commissions every year, that's unsustainable for all but the few that are the best sellers.
ScanStock quite similar ! but you do have to click ONCE to move ALL ftp images to review queue :)
-
Guys!
Please!
Suggestions!
How to avoid low and lower commissions and how to move buyers to the better agencies for us!?
Probably we will never have a union, we must act like individuals what might have also "global impact" ... But ,We must do the same!
-
Okay...suggestion...
Perhaps we can get stock http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/ (http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/) to open up a branch dedicated to improving micro RF commissions, it really would be in their best interest to have the hundreds of thousands of photographers they hate to actually be on their side and paying dues.
Throughout the history of the world the only way any human being in the arts ever made fair wages was if they joined a guild. Because there will always be another more poor artist who is willing to do the job for less. Whether it is the Screen Actors Guild or Masonry guild or Photographers, there are guilds for every single type of art there is a pastel artists guild. Why have we yet to convince SAA to start working with us to help raise the bar.
So who will volunteer to be our liason and speak with the president of SAA about how it would be in there benefit to stop hating us micros and try to get us to set a commision limit which we will absolutely refuse to accept. Any volunteers...I nominate yuri he is one of the few with the celeb status to get enough followers to really make it have any impact.
-
Okay...suggestion...
Perhaps we can get stock [url]http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/[/url] ([url]http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/[/url]) to open up a branch dedicated to improving micro RF commissions, it really would be in their best interest to have the hundreds of thousands of photographers they hate to actually be on their side and paying dues.
Throughout the history of the world the only way any human being in the arts ever made fair wages was if they joined a guild. Because there will always be another more poor artist who is willing to do the job for less. Whether it is the Screen Actors Guild or Masonry guild or Photographers, there are guilds for every single type of art there is a pastel artists guild. Why have we yet to convince SAA to start working with us to help raise the bar.
So who will volunteer to be our liason and speak with the president of SAA about how it would be in there benefit to stop hating us micros and try to get us to set a commision limit which we will absolutely refuse to accept. Any volunteers...I nominate yuri he is one of the few with the celeb status to get enough followers to really make it have any impact.
I would gladly volunteer, but I don't have any clout.. If someone like Yuri did it, it would be from his helpful naure not because it would help him any, as these things don't effect that status pint.. But he would definately be able to get people on board I imagine.. But if Yuri won't do it then who? Maybe Tyler would do it.. He has a voice here and would have the ability to get peoples attention to it.. I would volunteer to do leg work or whatever to help push things along..
-
I wouldn't mind closing my accounts in IS and FT (and possibly DT in the furture, the way things are going) and have them all in an agency that cares to work with us. That's why I've mentioned FP, Elena has always been responsive and there may be potential to make FP grow.
-
Until you are willing to leave microstock altogether, you will be forced to deal with lower and lower commissions. Sorry, but microstock has no future for any but the highest end contributors who are (at this point) sheltered from the commission drops. In a few years, only the fools will remain, slaving for a 10-20% commission because "a few dollars earned is better than none."
I'm going 100% with my own website and Alamy, and any other more traditional model with a reasonable commission percentage. I have 6 more months of lock-in at DT. Otherwise I am done with microstock.
-
this is never going to stop.. that´s the hard truth..
don´t know if I am thinking well but listen.. (read lol)
IS, FT, whatever will lower and lower comissions.. it will go to 10% or above, one day we will all step out.. what is the strategy behind agencies? they won´t do a single buck with 0 pictures..
ok this can take a few years but this is what will happen if this keep going.. ok they will have their pockets full but for how long, another business? not in photography for sure..
-
A good start would be to get rid of the 'a few pennies is better than nothing' mentality.
I just finished my own website (still need to think of a business name, urgh) but i'll do my small part by setting up a section talking about 'fair trade' and 'to avoid' agencies. Maybe if more bloggers would do it google would pick up some of it. It definitely wont make much difference, but every customer away from the worst agencies is a minor victory in my book.
Edit: or someone far more eloquent could put such post on their blog and we could promote it on the social networks, though issue is the mixed interests. I can imagine istock exclusives (rightfully from their perspective) not being too happy with such initiative...
-
These agencies are not going to fail. If you sit around waiting for them to fail, you will be waiting a long time. They have thrown down the gauntlet and made it so only the image factories and very best artists can afford to stay. It means nothing to them if a bunch of mid tier contributors pull out. They won't be missed.
And there will always be a line of fools waiting to submit their images so they can earn a few dollars, even if the agency is earning 5-10x what they are earning. So don't expect their image libraries to go empty. It's not going to happen.
But every contributor can choose to be 100% done with microstock any time they so choose. It may not mean much to the industry, but for the contributor it will make all the difference in the world. Unless you rely on microstock for your wages (in which case you need to diversify), there is no reason not to leave unless you really don't mind making 10-20% to the agency's 80-90%.
-
For me the fact is:
IS reduced my earnings by -20% and FT by -18% in this month...
I have to react somehow...
-
For me the fact is:
IS reduced my earnings by -20% and FT by -18% in this month...
I have to react somehow...
same situation here.. I would love to have a photographers agency, time ago it was talked here but soon everybody left, don´t know if it was because of money issue (around 1 million don´t know..) and also problems in how will be reviewing the pictures.. most be a ton of reasons but once again nothing was made.. not easy to predict agencies.. we need to come up with something.. going into other agencies?? really not easy to decide what can/should do..
-
Also, in my case!
FT holds 77% and IS 84% of image price just for agency job!!! Excellent!
-
It took this thread to move me to decide to delete my port at FT at the next payout. I wasn't aware of the pay cut til now and I'm just getting tired of my images selling for so little now and maybe even lower later this year. I've uploaded very few images there this year mainly because I'm selling in just a few categories with them. Soon there will be one fewer disappointing site on which to keep tabs.
I do disagree with some of folks here that are groping for a solution to the lowering price scale. I see this trend continuing on a rapidly increasing rate. Simple business of supply and demand. I think five years from now we will look back on 2010-11 as the golden years when earnings were still worth working for.
-
There is nothing that can be done in the short term - like helix7 said, this is the reality.
In the long term we can stop contributing to sites that don't pay realistic commissions. That means we cut off the big sites and forgo that income, while waiting for a better business model to emerge. It won't happen overnight, but slowly, buyers should become aware of new sites, stop reflexively going to IS for everything, and see new content on the new sites, and start seeing the current big sites as stale and dated.
Like I said - long term.
I did put my (very small) portfolio on GraphicLeftovers and it was a real breath of fresh air - at first. Uploading was easy, they liked my stuff, and even put a lot of it in their "GL Collection" I made some sales and got a payout early on, but they stopped in November and I haven't had one since.
At this point - speaking only for myself - I've concluded microstock isn't worth doing. I think if I started making sales at GL again I'd feel differently, but until then, I've put the whole thing on ice because I'm not seeing any future in it.
[update]
Trying to come up with a positive suggestion - the only thing I can think of would be for all of us to start contributing to, and promoting, agencies that pay fair commissions, and really talk up those agencies in forums and blogs. I don't know if any buyers ever read forums like this one, but maybe their are other ways we could get their attention and start making them aware that there's a new market getting started, outside of IS and SS.
-
Excellent post Stockastic!
Tomorrow I'll start to upload my portfolio on every small agency with good ratio... If I can get same money on five or ten agencies with fair pay structure, like on FT or IS, excellent!!!
Also deleting existing portfolio on IS and FT is losing of money because they have big part of market and our work is already there, why to lose our effort...
So, we need different approach!
So, this need to be process or campaign of all of us...
My opinion is:
Our weapon is in "new content"... If we start to upload new content only on "friendly agencies" and publish all of that with all possible ways (social networks, blogs, etc.) on the Internet, then customers can be redirected to these agencies ... Probably that will be "synergy effect", more + new materials, friendly support etc....
That is long term process (1-3 years to see results),but not impossible!
-
The reality is that it is very expensive to drive sales online to any website. The established big microstock sites are grandfathered in from the time 3 or 4 years ago when their was little competition for keywords such as " stock photo". Now the prices are extremely high- $4.50 per click last time i looked. That's just to get someone to the website, not make a sale. Likewise, SEO is very difficult to master, and is still subordinated by paid search results. It's easy and cheap to set up a website, but getting buyers to go, and buy, is not so easy. The only one who is making out like a bandit in all this is google. I'm sure they could create a search engine that could find RF images for sale at individual websites by keywords, but I doubt that they will do it, simply because the advertising war between these sites is a gold mine for them. Look at all the ads for Thinkstock- every time they get a paid click, it's $4.50 in the till. And they don't have to pay contributors!
And for those who think macrostock is the answer, just this morning I got my statement from a very big ( real big) stock agency, where I noticed that one of my royalties was for 10 cents. 10 cents! Many of the royalties were for less than a dollar. This is the culmination of a long slow slide from well over a six figure income from macrostock for many years.
Having said all that, the internet has a way of filling the holes in broken business models in a very surprising and creative way. I would not be surprised at all to find that someone has come up with a way to make an end run around all of these agencies and connect directly to the photographer in a way that preserves some of the agencies' functions without the bloated management layer. I can remember when the internet was AOL. Everyone thought that AOL would rule the online world forever. Ask Time-Warner how that worked out. Ask Rupert Murdoch how that purchase of Myspace is going. Istock could be the AOL of the stock world, or it may not even rise to that level, but it won't be around forever.
-
I think if I started seeing some sales on GL again, I'd resume doing photos, and I definitely won't be submitting anything new to IS. I got worn out from all the hoop-jumping of submitting to just 3 agencies (IS, DT, SS). What I'd really like is to submit to just one agency like GL, and ideally have GL give me something in return for being exclusive.
If not GL, then Cutcaster, or some new agency we haven't heard of yet.
-
1. get 1000 photographers to threaten to delete account on fotolia
2. start a new way of image distribution. cut off the middle man. maybe some kind of new image search engine where contributors can submit their own sites to.
-
I see on another thread that Cutcaster does have a higher commission for exclusives. Unfortunately I never sold anything at CutCaster, but they could still be a factor for the future.
-
buy IS and turn it into cooperative of artists. If you don’t contribute you cannot be shareholder.
You can contribute and as soon as you passed certain level of sales you can become a member. Pay $50,000 entrance fee and have share in profits
I know some Doctors cooperatives built in this way.
-
buy IS and turn it into cooperative of artists. If you don’t contribute you cannot be shareholder.
You can contribute and as soon as you passed certain level of sales you can become a member. Pay $50,000 entrance fee and have share in profits
I know some Doctors cooperatives built in this way.
AHAHA good one, would you bring some woman??
-
buy IS and turn it into cooperative of artists. If you don’t contribute you cannot be shareholder.
You can contribute and as soon as you passed certain level of sales you can become a member. Pay $50,000 entrance fee and have share in profits
I know some Doctors cooperatives built in this way.
At $2.4 billion ( the buyout price paid for Getty to go private), you would only need 48,000 contributors to pony up $50,000 each to buy it back. Better get started right away.
-
buy IS and turn it into cooperative of artists. If you don’t contribute you cannot be shareholder.
You can contribute and as soon as you passed certain level of sales you can become a member. Pay $50,000 entrance fee and have share in profits
I know some Doctors cooperatives built in this way.
At $2.4 billion ( the buyout price paid for Getty to go private), you would only need 48,000 contributors to pony up $50,000 each to buy it back. Better get started right away.
wait just had 2 L sales for 1.7$ each, I will get to 50k soon :)
-
buy IS and turn it into cooperative of artists. If you don’t contribute you cannot be shareholder.
You can contribute and as soon as you passed certain level of sales you can become a member. Pay $50,000 entrance fee and have share in profits
I know some Doctors cooperatives built in this way.
At $2.4 billion ( the buyout price paid for Getty to go private), you would only need 48,000 contributors to pony up $50,000 each to buy it back. Better get started right away.
you can open new site,
if you know how to market it
-
Go out and do it. Whether it is a new agency that pays fair, a coop, a guild, Macro, Ktools, Clustershot, Photoshelter, Photodeck, Pixaria, Xpoze, StockBoxPhoto, or anything else, go out and try it. You really never know. Did we all forget trial and error somewhere along the line?
-
Alamy has 60% for their contributors...
Alamy is not Micro! I may like them and have most of my pictures and sales there, but they aren't the same as micro.
Don't sell out and submit to the new agencies with promises or that pay for uploads. They are never going to be anything but false hope and a waste of time. Too many people bought into the last one and only a few will admit, it didn't work and they have low or no sales there.
Honestly drop the agencies that screw us. I did and others have too. Yeah, I'm a quitter, I admit it.
I'm sorry if someone is an IS exclusive and can't quit. It's kind of like and abused wife who won't leave or keeps coming back. OK - some agencies keep changing the rules and cutting commissions, and people keep uploading and staying with them, because they are emotionally and financially dependent. They have invested years of work into making it on some agencies, and what they get back in return is abusive treatment, cuts in pay, and at some insulting rejections.
Anyone remember? "I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
-
^
Network.
-
Its like asking for a "friendly" bank manager, square thinking of profit and loss. Forget it.
All Micro agencies rely on turnover of contributors, if they loose one today they will gain ten new ones tomorrow and hopefully one will be able to supply some good material. They DONT really want established photographers simply because they cant be messed around too much but the little new guy can be bullied into oblivion and is prepared to swallow any old garbage.
As I have said before, we dont have to do anything, the Micro industry will kill off itself, not now but maybe in a few years time it will all be history, you can only squeeze an orange so much.
-
Alamy has 60% for their contributors...
Honestly drop the agencies that screw us. I did and others have too. Yeah, I'm a quitter, I admit it.
You're not a quitter. You've just come to your senses is all.
-
Unless you rely on microstock for your wages (in which case you need to diversify),
I'm diversifying. Maybe if this forces me into gallery sales it will turn out to be a good thing. Depending on whether I sell or not, of course.
-
There's nothing we can do. This is the new reality in microstock.
+1
+2
Sad but true...
-
I'm giving some serious consideration to uploading new material only to Alamy. I've only recently been accepted there and have yet to realize any sales, but I like their model more than any other. I've uploaded some of my material to the lower-paying sites just to see if they're "hot," but they're not. Time is such a big factor, as we all know. If I have to spend 90% of my time uploading, keywording, categorizing, etc., and only 10% shooting, that's not gonna work. In my experience, IS and Pixmac are the two most laborious sites for contributors. I'm thinking that if I can upload to Alamy and be done with it (regardless of whether or not they have an exclusive benefit), I can spend my time more productively. At first, I thought of the old adage, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket," but now I'm rethinking my approach. Spreading those eggs around to various sites is proving to be counterproductive. It would take more time to delete my current portfolio from various sites, so I'd probably just leave it, and upload new material only to Alamy. Any other thoughts? :-\
-
^^^I now have two portfolios for alamy. One with exclusive images and one with ones I also have on other sites. It's easy to use different pseudonyms. You will have to have lots of patience and build a big portfolio with alamy to see regular sales. For most people I think it takes 2 years and at least 1,000 images to get going. That's not a problem for me but I have seen people remove their portfolios out of frustration.
Alamy is very different to the micros, no problems with editorial, similars, "we already have too many" rejections. I still only have around 500 images there but now I'm really motivated to move away from microstock and alamy does seem like the best option for me.
-
Any other thoughts? :-\
From what I've read in their forum the key to Alamy is quantity. Buyers seem to buy a wide variety of images that are a bit different from images that are popular at micro so you need to have a lot of images. People that are doing decent sales seem to have thousands, or tens of thousands, of images.
-
I'm giving some serious consideration to uploading new material only to Alamy. I've only recently been accepted there and have yet to realize any sales, but I like their model more than any other. I've uploaded some of my material to the lower-paying sites just to see if they're "hot," but they're not. Time is such a big factor, as we all know. If I have to spend 90% of my time uploading, keywording, categorizing, etc., and only 10% shooting, that's not gonna work. In my experience, IS and Pixmac are the two most laborious sites for contributors. I'm thinking that if I can upload to Alamy and be done with it (regardless of whether or not they have an exclusive benefit), I can spend my time more productively. At first, I thought of the old adage, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket," but now I'm rethinking my approach. Spreading those eggs around to various sites is proving to be counterproductive. It would take more time to delete my current portfolio from various sites, so I'd probably just leave it, and upload new material only to Alamy. Any other thoughts? :-\
(I've posted most of the following in earlier posts. New readers start here)
Everyone's experience will be different. Here's my experience.
(I've been uploading at iStock since Dec 06, and apart from a hundred or so RM pics with fotolibra, have no recent experience of other agencies)
I started at Alamy in April 09 and have uploaded 1473 pics there (all RM, mostly secondary editorial; some 'general' shots which would have been accepted on iStock). Because I was working full time until the end of October, and putting my energy into Alamy, I only uploaded 464 images to iStock during that time. I have to tell you that these 464 have earned considerably more on iStock, though I'm very disappointed to have to say that. That said, eight of the pics I sold at Alamy wouldn't have been accepted on iStock for PR. Of the ones which didn't need releases, I'd say on the specific images, I'd have earned less on iStock for these images. The winning formula would be if you could somehow divine which pics would sell best where. And with iStock coming up with editorial somewhere in the future, that decision will become more difficult if your editorial pics would be of a hotspot in great demand (Las Vegas, Times Square) - you'd already be up against a backstock of hundreds of images on Alamy.
I note you thing that uploading to iS is 'laborious'. Interesting: I think it's a gazillion times easier than keywording, etc. images for Alamy. I had a batch of 27 images accepted earlier in the week and it took me most of a day to get them properly captionned, keyworded and described. To be fair, I was having to research most images individually (could have done that while they were in the queue, but it would have taken the same amount of time) and getting bored, so hopping on and off here.
You have to be careful with keywords, and be aware that, as I have posted here often, if your name (pseudonym) is Jack Smith and you have a photo of a house, your image will turn up in searches for 'Jack House', pissing off buyers and hitting your Alamy Rank. I've also posted about how my photo of the main office of a political party turned up in a search for 'office party'. Conversely, info from the date field doesn't come up in the search, so if you want your photo to show up in a search for 'April in Paris', you'd better make sure April is in the caption and/or keywords.
In case you missed my other post, here (for what it's worth) is an Alexa graph for Alamy (the almost invisible blue wiggly line right at the bottom) with iStock, DT, FT and SS.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/alamy.com# (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/alamy.com#)
Where do Alamy advertise?
Finally be aware that you need $250 to cash out from Alamy, and that many buyers don't pay Alamy for months, impacting also on your cashflow. I've got an image I screenshotted from 12th October which hasn't come through yet - "three calendar months" takes it to the end of Jan.
All that said, with the Triumph of Hope over Experience, I've added 55 pics to my Alamy port in Jan, and 2 to iStock (Plus I've put c10 in a folder marked 'iStock editorial' which could go to Alamy if the editorial programme at iStock doesn't get rolled out quickly.)
AND I've signed up for a college photojournalism course which starts in April, hoping that the enforced discipline will sort some weaknesses I can see in my work, but don't seem to be able to 'cure' on my own!
You have to work out, or guess, what might be best for you. I wish I could say it was easier. ::)
Clearly, someone with a different set of pics on Alamy and iStock might have totally different results.
Everyone's experience will be different.
-
^^^I now have two portfolios for alamy. One with exclusive images and one with ones I also have on other sites. It's easy to use different pseudonyms. You will have to have lots of patience and build a big portfolio with alamy to see regular sales. For most people I think it takes 2 years and at least 1,000 images to get going. That's not a problem for me but I have seen people remove their portfolios out of frustration.
Alamy is very different to the micros, no problems with editorial, similars, "we already have too many" rejections. I still only have around 500 images there but now I'm really motivated to move away from microstock and alamy does seem like the best option for me.
Yep! true. Ive had my own RM outlet for over 8 years now, not public but only for my clients and also through my Photographers-Agent. During the last three months we have done over 170 RM sales and a few for 5-figuered amounts.
I can tell you the trad RM and RF, is really on its way up and really worth investing in. Having said that, I dont think its a substitute for Micro, its just differant and it takes a lot more time, etc.
-
^^^I now have two portfolios for alamy. One with exclusive images and one with ones I also have on other sites. It's easy to use different pseudonyms. You will have to have lots of patience and build a big portfolio with alamy to see regular sales. For most people I think it takes 2 years and at least 1,000 images to get going. That's not a problem for me but I have seen people remove their portfolios out of frustration.
Alamy is very different to the micros, no problems with editorial, similars, "we already have too many" rejections. I still only have around 500 images there but now I'm really motivated to move away from microstock and alamy does seem like the best option for me.
Yep! true. Ive had my own RM outlet for over 8 years now, not public but only for my clients and also through my Photographers-Agent. During the last three months we have done over 170 RM sales and a few for 5-figuered amounts.
I can tell you the trad RM and RF, is really on its way up and really worth investing in. Having said that, I dont think its a substitute for Micro, its just differant and it takes a lot more time, etc.
Good to know. I haven't uploaded to macro in a while and was planning on giving micro a break for a bit.
-
Alamy is very different to the micros, no problems with editorial, similars, "we already have too many" rejections.
The upload checkbox does say that you are not uploading more than four (I think it is) similar images. There have been complaints about people flooding the site with scores of almost identical images.
-
Alamy is very different to the micros, no problems with editorial, similars, "we already have too many" rejections.
The upload checkbox does say that you are not uploading more than four (I think it is) similar images. There have been complaints about people flooding the site with scores of almost identical images.
No kidding! One fool got banned and was complaining on the forum about having his upload privileges blocked. Funny part is his previous shots are still there. If anyone wants to look at similar abuse, http://tinyurl.com/4jzhpys (http://tinyurl.com/4jzhpys) it was Gene Simmons promoting a book and basically the photographer had uploaded 40 shots of the guy standing at a podium speaking. LOL :D Mash the shutter release, upload. It doesn't fly.
But you make a good point. They do take similars, but will restrict people for too many similar images as well. It's not a free for all. I might as well add that repeated rejections will earn someone a vacation, and the reviewers do seem to have so history when looking at QC. Low percentage / high rejection... will get you more scrutiny. Yet another way they are different from Micro. One fail, all fail. You have 200 pictures waiting, three batches from different uploads? One fails, everything gets the boot.
So it's isn't like Microstock where you can send up a flock of shots and see what passes. Self moderation, self review, only send good quality or you'll be penalized.
-
Happens in the Micros as well. Many times , even on first pages you can see series of shots, 15, 20, shots almost identical, some with differant toning, etc but on the whole almost identical.
This is what makes me wonder if reviewing/editing, is after all not a human process? but some sort of automation?
-
So it's isn't like Microstock where you can send up a flock of shots and see what passes. Self moderation, self review, only send good quality or you'll be penalized.
On the other hand, if you are careful enough to get your photos past the main microstock inspections most of the time, the Alamy QC is an absolute doddle. I've had hardly anything rejected.
-
[Sorry, still hitting 'quote' instead of 'modify'} :-[
-
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock (http://blogs.photopreneur.com/photographers-turn-to-fair-trade-to-beat-microstock)
-
{sorry: triple post, which I think is a record, even for me}
-
The problem is how to determine which site is worth the effort ...
They all look great and with great ideas, but where's the money?
-
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock ([url]http://blogs.photopreneur.com/photographers-turn-to-fair-trade-to-beat-microstock[/url])
Chris Barton should do his research better. You quote him as saying, "Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30".
In fact, Time Magazine has a circulation of over three million, which would require an Extended licence of 125 credits for a 'normal' file or 250 for Vetta/Agency, which would come to well over $30. Though both times they used an iStock image on their cover, they had to be chased up for the EL payment.
-
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock ([url]http://blogs.photopreneur.com/photographers-turn-to-fair-trade-to-beat-microstock[/url])
Chris Barton should do his research better. You quote him as saying, "Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30".
In fact, Time Magazine has a circulation of over three million, which would require an Extended licence of 125 credits for a 'normal' file or 250 for Vetta/Agency, which would come to well over $30. Though both times they used an iStock image on their cover, they had to be chased up for the EL payment.
I do not quote anyone. I only link to a piece of reading. If it is good or bad I leave up to everybody elses judgement. And just because there may be some mistakes in it, it may still be of value in other areas of the article (or not). :)
-
The solution to the problem lies with the buyers, IMO.
If the buyer needs an image that won't be repeated elsewhere (e.g. for a mass advertising campaign for a large brand) - they should buy RM or the company should commission a shoot.
If the buyer needs short-lived imagery for blog articles; generic imagery for web sites etc. Buy microstock.
In the old days before microstock, acquiring quality imagery at a price they could afford was impossible for many - and their ability to buy it now should have no impact at all on the trad-shooters, as they wouldn't have gone to them in the first place. Can anyone imagine how the Web and blogosphere would look if only trad-prices still existed?
I really don't think the trad-shooters and journalists should be constantly poking sticks at microstockers for providing a new marketplace. They should blame those buyers who are now moaning about 'generic imagery' and 'sameness' - but continuing to buy from the marketplace they criticise rather than looking to the appropriate marketplace to satisfy their needs.
-
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock ([url]http://blogs.photopreneur.com/photographers-turn-to-fair-trade-to-beat-microstock[/url])
Chris Barton should do his research better. You quote him as saying, "Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30".
In fact, Time Magazine has a circulation of over three million, which would require an Extended licence of 125 credits for a 'normal' file or 250 for Vetta/Agency, which would come to well over $30. Though both times they used an iStock image on their cover, they had to be chased up for the EL payment.
I do not quote anyone. I only link to a piece of reading. If it is good or bad I leave up to everybody elses judgement. And just because there may be some mistakes in it, it may still be of value in other areas of the article (or not). :)
Indeed.
But it erodes someone's credibility when they don't 'know their enemy' and attack them with distortions of the truth. (Or outdated truths, which I guess could be a problem with the nature of the net, with old quotes all over the place, ripe for the picking.)
I see the same all the time on the Alamy forums. There are some people with big chips on their shoulders against micro. I see exactly where they're coming from. But they frequently use lies inaccuracies or very out of date information to slam the micros, especially iStock. If anyone tries to correct them (even on points of fact), they're jumped on instantly.
-
I really don't think the trad-shooters and journalists should be constantly poking sticks at microstockers for providing a new marketplace. They should blame those buyers who are now moaning about 'generic imagery' and 'sameness' - but continuing to buy from the marketplace they criticise rather than looking to the appropriate marketplace to satisfy their needs.
Traditional shooters had a pretty closed and controlled image supply for a long time. I've seen comments from some traditional shooters who poke at micro but their portfolio is loaded with average images of trees and farm animals. At one time they could take pictures of anything and it would sell. Must have been nice but that ride is over.
I've also seen some of them who have adapted to the shift and are producing outstanding really innovative work, mainly macro RM. Buyers who are tired of generic stuff will probably need to buy premium micro or go back to macro. And this is good.
When enough buyers shift from buying generic to innovative there will be a shortage of innovative images. And then agencies may start to offer incentives or commission bumps to attract more contributors who are producing it.
-
This whole thing is a simple matter of supply and demand – buyers have loads of choice and plentiful supply so, inevitably, prices go lower and lower and returns for contributors go the same way. No point in talking about unions etc – it just ain’t gonna happen. All one will achieve by removing content from a site you have a beef with is to lose a potential market and lose further income. There is a solution if one of the bigger agencies had a bit of vision that would increase commissions and corner the supply. Some points:
High prices and commissions for exclusive CONTENT (need to corner the supply not the producer)
Acceptance criteria should be reasonable like DT, FT, SS (going the IS route will ensure plentiful supply for competitors)
Contributors will readily buy into this because of the rates (self interest is a stronger motivator than talk of unions / co-operatives)
Buyers will eventually have to follow the contributors instead of the other way around (win win for supplier and agency)
Automatic acceptance for images already on a big 4 site (must be removed on approval with account termination for anyone who doesn’t comply with the image exclusivity)
-
I posted this link before on my Facebook page as well as the Microstockgroup's FB page. But maybe it provides some food for thought about what to do: Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock ([url]http://blogs.photopreneur.com/photographers-turn-to-fair-trade-to-beat-microstock[/url])
Sorry, I'm not trying to slam either you or Photographer's Direct.
But again, another quote from the article you link to:
"When microstock photographers produce images of “the lowest common denominator” they widen the gap between the quality of budget pictures and the excellence of the kind of images offered by the professionals on Photographers Direct. " with a link to PD's images.
Just choosing a few images of the type I like from that linked-to page, I can see images as good or (subjectively) better on iStock.
-
Just the return for the photographer is better. For SOME non-exclusive Istock contributors for instance this might look attractive - or maybe even just the idea of that fair trade agency might be interesting. I do not think that traditional stock can offer that much different stuff than micros could (though I am not an expert here). But photographers still do have a choice where they offer their products.
Now I personally find PD unsuitable for me - I am a small fish in the pond, doing very simple stuff, but I also look for different ways of distribution for my images outside of/additionally to micro, because I am fed up with what I am offered by (some of) the micros now.
-
Just the return for the photographer is better. For SOME non-exclusive Istock contributors for instance this might look attractive - or maybe even just the idea of that fair trade agency might be interesting. I do not think that traditional stock can offer that much different stuff than micros could (though I am not an expert here). But photographers still do have a choice where they offer their products.
Now I personally find PD unsuitable for me - I am a small fish in the pond, doing very simple stuff, but I also look for different ways of distribution for my images outside of/additionally to micro, because I am fed up with what I am offered by (some of) the micros now.
Years ago, when the stock image market was controlled by a few players, the only way to communicate to buyers was to publish a huge catalog of images. It was very difficult for photographers to break into the agencies unless you had a huge backlog of images to sell. A company called Direct Stock came up with the idea of selling space in a catalog that was distributed to a very large audience of buyers. My recollection was that for maybe $1500 a page you could put 15 or 20 images up for sale, with your phone number ( no email back then) and hope for sales. I bought 2 pages the first year, and sold hundreds of thousands of dollars of images from those 2 pages. Fast forward 5 years and Direct Stock was gone. What killed it was the internet. The ability to find images on line and get the images sent out on a disk, or even download them right away(!) was too good to compete with. The guy that started Direct Stock started an online agency, which limped along until it was sold to Veer, who as we all know is part of Corbis now. The graph of my sales from RM goes from the upper left to the bottom right in a very steep curve. Changing technology is the culprit, not the greed of the microstock agencies. ( not that they aren't greedy) and not the willingness of the buyers to use cheap images. The other changing technology that killed the RM business is the digital camera. When film was the only way to capture an image, you had to pay for the film, processing and scan. That made each image much more expensive to produce. With a digital camera, just can just take a picture of every hamburger you ever ate and put it online. Do a search on microstock for hamburger if you don't agree. The fact is, some of those hamburgers look pretty good. The bottom line is you can't travel back in time, you have to deal with what is now, not then. This site you reference has a major flaw in that there is no gate keeper to tell the photographers to edit their submissions, so you end up with page after page of the same shooting with painfully slight variations between the images. Do a search for "biofuel" and you will see the same ear of corn on the same pile of corn for page after page. Sadly, there are some good images there, but a buyer will quickly give up on the site because the search is so difficult. The image business today is about speed, easy search and quality for a low price. As long as digital cameras exist, and the retouching software gets better, there will be less and less skill involved in creating and selling images, and more and more people will shoot that hamburger before eating it. So if you are fed up, there's always someone else who wants to be able to say they are a "professional photographer" by selling a few images here and there. That's the world, and the challenge is to make it work.
-
Few moments ago I sold one of my photos, large size, I got 2,5$ ...
So:
2,5$=16%
2,5/16=0,156*100=15,60$
The buyer bought it for $ 15.60, and I earned $ 2.5 ... Excellent! ;D ;D ;D
It's time for own marketing...
-
Buy or made some kind od skwii shriek soft stress ball or better voodoo doll and write on this doll: KK Konjson or Kelly or iStock etc... names from FotoLija or names from other headqw you dont like.
After that play with this thing in you hands with some big sharp needle or knife from time to time.
Maybe person/s on ball/doll feel hiccough from time to time. Maybe they feel some kind of stroke depend where you stab sharp item on the doll.
Who knows its very fragile knowledge.
In future after they new fantastic announcements how to screw us more you can combine ritual above with old indian rain invoking dance...
;D
-
Few moments ago I sold one of my photos, large size, I got 2,5$ ...
So:
2,5$=16%
2,5/16=0,156*100=15,60$
The buyer bought it for $ 15.60, and I earned $ 2.5 ... Excellent! ;D ;D ;D
It's time for own marketing...
You would have gotten $3.12 for that last year, maybe it was time for your own marketing then too... 20% was barely sustainable, now this.
-
I had looked a Photographer's Direct a long time ago - once I saw that they didn't work with anyone selling via micros, I stopped investigating. I just had another look this evening after following the link to the article about them.
The big problem is that the site looks awful and the photos are really nothing special. I like the idea of fair trade, but expecting some sort of price negotiation over very ordinary images (many of which just look dated, although perhaps they aren't) seems to require buyers to do a ton of heavy lifting when the prize is a a rather unappealing one anyway.
I think the fair trade idea is well worth pursuing, but you need a state of the art web site, search and great looking images. Don't think Photographer's Direct cuts the mustard. Do they sell a lot? Is the concept working?
-
I had looked a Photographer's Direct a long time ago - once I saw that they didn't work with anyone selling via micros, I stopped investigating. I just had another look this evening after following the link to the article about them.
The big problem is that the site looks awful and the photos are really nothing special. I like the idea of fair trade, but expecting some sort of price negotiation over very ordinary images (many of which just look dated, although perhaps they aren't) seems to require buyers to do a ton of heavy lifting when the prize is a a rather unappealing one anyway.
I think the fair trade idea is well worth pursuing, but you need a state of the art web site, search and great looking images. Don't think Photographer's Direct cuts the mustard. Do they sell a lot? Is the concept working?
(I know this thread is going off on a tangent but... )
To me the US$382 per year subscription option seems like much more of a scam to me than anything else. If they're a credible agency (which is a sort of contradiction to the whole premise of being "photographers direct") why wouldn't they actually have some sort of "who are we" page that lists a company name, address and gives some details of who is actually behind the site?
From what I can see the only person who promotes this site is a blogger called "freetradephotographer" who also happens to be associated with the website itself and does so by ignorantly criticising microstock sites. I bet he has a good laugh at the "lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers" who pay for subscriptions on his site.
-
Their subscription is for promotion and direct contact with buyers without paying commission, but you don't need to subscribe. A friend has had several sales there of his landscapes, and as far as I know he doesn't subscribe.
-
Hi all!
I'm a russian stock contributor. At our forum russian authors are actively discussing possibility of cooperation and resisting to decreasing of comission rates at stock agencies.
What do you think about cooperation? I think we could stop uploading our new works on fotolia and remove a small part of portfolio (~50 images) for beginning. When this protest will be supported by thousands of contributors situation could improve.
Here is link about protest at fotolia forum:
http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=32027&p=1 (http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=32027&p=1)
-
As a protest, I will not upload their 3D renderings and photos.
Deleted the photos and some 3d work. I removed the remainder of the expansion of sales.
-
As a protest, I will not upload their 3D renderings and photos.
Deleted the photos and some 3d work. I removed the remainder of the expansion of sales.
+1
-
Hi all!
I'm a russian stock contributor. At our forum russian authors are actively discussing possibility of cooperation and resisting to decreasing of comission rates at stock agencies.
What do you think about cooperation? I think we could stop uploading our new works on fotolia and remove a small part of portfolio (~50 images) for beginning. When this protest will be supported by thousands of contributors situation could improve.
Here is link about protest at fotolia forum:
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=32027&p=1[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=32027&p=1[/url])
I haven't uploaded anything to istock since they announced the commission cut but I'm not sure that's our best option. I really think we need to get together with a big group of buyers and run our own site, or do a deal with sites that pay good commission. I think that is likely to happen one day, if prices continue up and commissions are cut. People say it costs too much to market a site but I don't see that as a problem if contributors work with buyers. Until then, I'm looking at other ways to make money outside of microstock.
-
I quit uploading to FT the first time they cut commissions. I will just let it wither on the vine. The agency shake-out is occurring and will continue, so will contributors.
When the buyers' quit, is when the market ends. Buyers are the real control on the life or death of an agency.
Some contributors thing they can upload images and the buyers will show. That is not true, you can open a store and the shoppers will still go to Wal-Mart.
-
With discipline we could effect buyers habits:
1. Rank the Top 6 microstock sites in terms of Royalty % to contributors;
2. Upload new content only to the #1 microstock site first;
3. Wait 1 month before uploading the same new content to the #2;
4. Wait another month, upload the same new content to the #3;
and so on.....
7. Market the #1 site only on our web pages and in forums.
Buyers looking for fresh, new images would start to gravitate towards the new images on the #1 ranked site, and we would get the better Royalty %.
It takes discipline from us all though!!!
-
With discipline we could effect buyers habits:
1. Rank the Top 6 microstock sites in terms of Royalty % to contributors;
2. Upload new content only to the #1 microstock site first;
3. Wait 1 month before uploading the same new content to the #2;
4. Wait another month, upload the same new content to the #3;
and so on.....
7. Market the #1 site only on our web pages and in forums.
Buyers looking for fresh, new images would start to gravitate towards the new images on the #1 ranked site, and we would get the better Royalty %.
It takes discipline from us all though!!!
This is similar to what I've been doing the last few months. I basically decided what I think is sustainable for my business. What percentage I want to get and how much I want to receive per sale were my major factors for sustainability. I'm targeting the agencies that meet those criteria and uploading my files to those. All the rest, I'm taking a break from. I'm not sure how it will work out, but I think it is a valid experiment. If I can make those my top agencies, then I guess it will have worked.
-
Maybe this would be a good advocate for Microstock: http://searchapa.us/wordpress/wordpress/?page_id=16 (http://searchapa.us/wordpress/wordpress/?page_id=16)
-
Here we go again!
We have to find something...
It seems this is way to go only down for now...
Let's talk about this problem....
-
With discipline we could effect buyers habits:
1. Rank the Top 6 microstock sites in terms of Royalty % to contributors;
2. Upload new content only to the #1 microstock site first;
3. Wait 1 month before uploading the same new content to the #2;
4. Wait another month, upload the same new content to the #3;
and so on.....
7. Market the #1 site only on our web pages and in forums.
Buyers looking for fresh, new images would start to gravitate towards the new images on the #1 ranked site, and we would get the better Royalty %.
It takes discipline from us all though!!!
+1
-
With discipline we could effect buyers habits:
1. Rank the Top 6 microstock sites in terms of Royalty % to contributors;
2. Upload new content only to the #1 microstock site first;
3. Wait 1 month before uploading the same new content to the #2;
4. Wait another month, upload the same new content to the #3;
and so on.....
7. Market the #1 site only on our web pages and in forums.
Buyers looking for fresh, new images would start to gravitate towards the new images on the #1 ranked site, and we would get the better Royalty %.
It takes discipline from us all though!!!
+1
It's better than nothing and those who don't have the stones to delete whole ports on sites like FT and IS (DT is another candidate as well as 123RFs x00 MB TIFFs, paying the lowest commissions in the industry, 13.3%), can stick to such half measures.
That being said, I won't delete my IS port just now, I would be willing to follow that strategy. However I will delete my FT port after I get my next payout. I've stopped uploading right after the broad daylight robbery that they presented as something they had to do to follow the market.
-
Again,promote ONLY sites with good deal for us...
We also have to know that is big part of job on their side, so promoting agencies with +40% is the best way for all of us...
New content ONLY on these sites...!
-
I hate to be a wet blanket but Istock alone added 25,000 contributors in the past year. And, the majority of buyers don't have time to worry about us getting shafted or not. They want the best value for their money. So, while your efforts are correct and noble, I'm afraid you are trying to dam up the Amazon river with sticks you find on the riverbank.
I was one of the exclusive Illustrators that voiced my protest against the Vetta royalty cut and we got to keep our royalty percentage. That was in March and my sales have been down since then. I don't know if that's the reason or just coincidence, but its true regardless.
I expect quality to rise higher and prices to stay the same or go lower until the influx of new contributors slows down. If you increase supply and demand stays the same, prices go down.
-
Here we go again!
We have to find something...
It seems this is way to go only down for now...
Let's talk about this problem....
I think you are crazy.
When Photodune came with their crappy deal, you hurried to upload your stuff there.
Why do you come complaning about cuts when you were one of the people who showed the agencies that they would accept even the most crappy deal? I wrote in the other thread that we should expect commission cuts. :P
I hope you muppets are making a fortune on Photodune, but if I were FT I would cut your commissions furthermore, say to 0.15 - you will accept aynthing anyway.
-
How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?
Well, it's quite easy actually.
I decided to delete my port from agencies, where RPD drops below certain level I'm happy with. I review sites every month and make a decision based on two or three latest ones, following which trend they show.
And the overall result is that my average RPD gradually grows and volume grows as well as I continually add new images. Microstock as a business is on a rise for me and I'm happy with it. I don't see any problems about "millions of others" who will sell their images on the site what I have dropped. Let them weep on microstock forums why commissions are so low. If you choose to work with agencies with low commission, then you just have to deal with it. I decided to drop them and my stats show that it has been a good decision.
-
I think you are crazy.
When Photodune came with their crappy deal, you hurried to upload your stuff there.
Why do you come complaning about cuts when you were one of the people who showed the agencies that they would accept even the most crappy deal? I wrote in the other thread that we should expect commission cuts. :P
I hope you muppets are making a fortune on Photodune, but if I were FT I would cut your commissions furthermore, say to 0.15 - you will accept aynthing anyway.
Probably I am!
On first sight it seems so... But I still believe that they will raise up our part soon!
That is main reason...
I upload there all content that I have on Istock, so 25% is still better than 16% what I have there...
For next year I have completely different plan...
-
1. get 1000 photographers to threaten to delete account on fotolia
Here's the thing. You can get 1000 upset contributors to delete their accounts, but they will all be lower level contributors, those making just a few hundred dollars a month there. The agencies won't care... they'll be happy to see them go. They see the lowest earning contributors as the ones submitting repetitive images that simply aren't needed and won't sell. Fewer Grand Canyon shots? Handshakes? Fruit on white? Agencies will say fewer of these will make for a better user experience.
The agencies will only care if the top earning contributors pull out, those submitting the most unique and in-demand content and earning several thousand dollars a month. There are at least a hundred of these. How many of those will pull out? Zero. And they won't be joining a union, either.
The only solution for the average microstocker is to take a look at what you're doing and decide to step up your game and meet a market need that isn't already being met 1000 times over. Doing something unique and actually in demand will start earning you much higher sales, and agencies will stop seeing you as a commodity. Create enough unique and in-demand stuff and you'll get to the point at which your departure might actually hurt the agencies.
-
Probably I am!
On first sight it seems so... But I still believe that they will raise up our part soon!
That is main reason...
I upload there all content that I have on Istock, so 25% is still better than 16% what I have there...
1. No, you won't get a significant raise. They would raise royalties if people hadn't uploaded or deleted their ports.
2. Don't look at percentages, look at dollar amounts. The dollar amount is your "threshold of pain". The agencies see that you can be paid peanuts for an XL credit sale and you don't feel pain so your royalties are gradually adjusted on other sites.
-
Here's the thing. You can get 1000 upset contributors to delete their accounts, but they will all be lower level contributors, those making just a few hundred dollars a month there. The agencies won't care... they'll be happy to see them go.
Actually, little contributors add up. That's why they let them (us) in. If enough leave or focus their attentions elsewhere, then the agency might actually take a look at their business practices. Where did all our suppliers go? Why did they leave? What would it take to get them back? The survey that iStock sent out today is an encouraging sign that these stock sites might actually pay attention to the needs of the little guy.
-
Actually, little contributors add up. That's why they let them (us) in. If enough leave or focus their attentions elsewhere, then the agency might actually take a look at their business practices. Where did all our suppliers go? Why did they leave? What would it take to get them back? The survey that iStock sent out today is an encouraging sign that these stock sites might actually pay attention to the needs of the little guy.
I agree with you on ideological grounds. That's the way it SHOULD work. But I think the reality is that it would take a LOT of smaller contributors to make the dent that a single large contributor departing would create. A small (low-earning) contributor is small because he/she isn't connecting with the customer. Either the port isn't unique or it just isn't subject matter that the customer wants. What does an agency lose from a mass exodus of these contributors? By definition, the lost images are low-sellers and/or redundant subject matter. I think the agencies would see this as spring cleaning. I hate to be so cynical, but I'm just thinking like a business person, and I think every microstocker has to think that way these days. Otherwise, we're all just commodities and will continue to be treated as such.
-
1. get 1000 photographers to threaten to delete account on fotolia
Here's the thing. You can get 1000 upset contributors to delete their accounts, but they will all be lower level contributors, those making just a few hundred dollars a month there. The agencies won't care... they'll be happy to see them go. They see the lowest earning contributors as the ones submitting repetitive images that simply aren't needed and won't sell. Fewer Grand Canyon shots? Handshakes? Fruit on white? Agencies will say fewer of these will make for a better user experience.
The agencies will only care if the top earning contributors pull out, those submitting the most unique and in-demand content and earning several thousand dollars a month. There are at least a hundred of these. How many of those will pull out? Zero. And they won't be joining a union, either.
The only solution for the average microstocker is to take a look at what you're doing and decide to step up your game and meet a market need that isn't already being met 1000 times over. Doing something unique and actually in demand will start earning you much higher sales, and agencies will stop seeing you as a commodity. Create enough unique and in-demand stuff and you'll get to the point at which your departure might actually hurt the agencies.
First: If you produce really unique AND in-demand stuff (and not just think you do - photographers do have a tendency to largely overestimate their work) than you would be extremely stupid to place it in microstock.
Second: most of the so called top-contributors produce actually the most repetitive stuff, what make them to top-contributors is the large amount, the technical quality and the quality of props and models but certainly not their uniqueness.
Third: If any top microstock-company would have only half the images what they have now it wouldn't hurt them at all. You don't need to have double-digits million files to be a successful agency.
-
First: If you produce really unique AND in-demand stuff (and not just think you do - photographers do have a tendency to largely overestimate their work) than you would be extremely stupid to place it in microstock.
Just speaking for myself, I would never get into the macros and Alamy doesn't want me. Yet I'm selling extremely well on the micros.
Second: most of the so called top-contributors produce actually the most repetitive stuff, what make them to top-contributors is the large amount, the technical quality and the quality of props and models but certainly not their uniqueness.
This is true of some of the top-sellers, but not all of them. And no one starting today could be a copycat and reach their level of success. It would take creativity and a unique sense of what customers want.
Third: If any top microstock-company would have only half the images what they have now it wouldn't hurt them at all. You don't need to have double-digits million files to be a successful agency.
I think you just reinforced my point. In fact, if an agency cut its offerings in half, reducing the redundant, unimaginative, zero-sales stuff, it would make for a better experience for the customer and might sell MORE with half the pics. So agencies could see an exodus of such contributors as a much-needed cleansing.
-
First: If you produce really unique AND in-demand stuff (and not just think you do - photographers do have a tendency to largely overestimate their work) than you would be extremely stupid to place it in microstock.
Just speaking for myself, I would never get into the macros and Alamy doesn't want me. Yet I'm selling extremely well on the micros.
I'm not talking about Alamy (though I like them) I'm talking about Getty, Corbis, Plainpicture etc.
Extremely well is relative (not saying that I don't believe you).
-
Third: If any top microstock-company would have only half the images what they have now it wouldn't hurt them at all. You don't need to have double-digits million files to be a successful agency.
I think you just reinforced my point. In fact, if an agency cut its offerings in half, reducing the redundant, unimaginative, zero-sales stuff, it would make for a better experience for the customer and might sell MORE with half the pics. So agencies could see an exodus of such contributors as a much-needed cleansing.
Yes I reinforced your point to some degree but you said it would make a difference if the top-contributors would leave - nada. If they Yuris and AndersRs etc. would leave it wouldn't have a negative effect their influence is largely overestimated.
-
Extremely well is relative (not saying that I don't believe you).
That's what the dials are for under our names... to show how well we sell, relatively speaking.
-
Extremely well is relative (not saying that I don't believe you).
That's what the dials are for under our names... to show how well we sell, relatively speaking.
The dials are relative I'm sure if I would input my data in it my Dreamstime dial would be on the maximum but I don't make much money at Dreamstime at all.
-
The dials are relative I'm sure if I would input my data in it my Dreamstime dial would be on the maximum but I don't make much money at Dreamstime at all.
Um... what? If you were the top Dreamstime contributor among the forum posters here (who participate in the dials thing), you are saying you still wouldn't be making much money at Dreamstime? How's that?
-
Mature market so profit margins are going down. There is nothing we can do about it. We need to find new hot market where profit margins are high.
-
The dials are relative I'm sure if I would input my data in it my Dreamstime dial would be on the maximum but I don't make much money at Dreamstime at all.
Um... what? If you were the top Dreamstime contributor among the forum posters here (who participate in the dials thing), you are saying you still wouldn't be making much money at Dreamstime? How's that?
The dials use your files and sales but It doesn't look to me that they calculate the time (or at least to a much lower degree) you are on the site, so if you are an early contributor that doesn't completely suck it's pretty easy to have a good files/sales ratio. And I'm with Dreamstime since 2004.
-
With discipline we could effect buyers habits:
1. Rank the Top 6 microstock sites in terms of Royalty % to contributors;
2. Upload new content only to the #1 microstock site first;
3. Wait 1 month before uploading the same new content to the #2;
4. Wait another month, upload the same new content to the #3;
and so on.....
7. Market the #1 site only on our web pages and in forums.
Buyers looking for fresh, new images would start to gravitate towards the new images on the #1 ranked site, and we would get the better Royalty %.
It takes discipline from us all though!!!
Jesus...., do you seriously think this would do anything? : )) They have 10-15+ million images by now, even if every single contributor did all of the above it would be way too late. I know its blasphemy here in the kindergarten, but I have to say you ppl are severely shortsighted. You only react to a forseeable situation when it already happened, meaning its too late. You watch it all the way coming, but you only say "train!! train!!" when you got smashed by it... I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous and sad at the same time. This was inevitable. Even if the agencies didn't become meaner after securing enough stock, your situation would still suck because of oversupply. It was also pretty darn obvious that the agencies will start shafting you when they can... did they ever look like 'nice people' to anyone above 8? (I guess they did, thats the sad part): )) you'v been told these years a thousand times, but all you did was hiss back.... and now run around in circles whining. Grow up! By now the only real option you have is deleting ports.
-
With discipline we could effect buyers habits:
1. Rank the Top 6 microstock sites in terms of Royalty % to contributors;
2. Upload new content only to the #1 microstock site first;
3. Wait 1 month before uploading the same new content to the #2;
4. Wait another month, upload the same new content to the #3;
and so on.....
7. Market the #1 site only on our web pages and in forums.
Buyers looking for fresh, new images would start to gravitate towards the new images on the #1 ranked site, and we would get the better Royalty %.
It takes discipline from us all though!!!
Jesus...., do you seriously think this would do anything? : )) They have 10-15+ million images by now, even if every single contributor did all of the above it would be way too late. I know its blasphemy here in the kindergarten, but I have to say you ppl are severely shortsighted. You only react to a forseeable situation when it already happened, meaning its too late. You watch it all the way coming, but you only say "train!! train!!" when you got smashed by it... I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous and sad at the same time. This was inevitable. Even if the agencies didn't become meaner after securing enough stock, your situation would still suck because of oversupply. It was also pretty darn obvious that the agencies will start shafting you when they can... did they ever look like 'nice people' to anyone above 8? (I guess they did, thats the sad part): )) you'v been told these years a thousand times, but all you did was hiss back.... and now run around in circles whining. Grow up! By now the only real option you have is deleting ports.
Bravo! That's exactly what's happening.
BTW as I said I'm deleting my port, when I get my next payout.
-
duplicate post.
-
At the end of the day, I care about one thing: is the agency making me more money than it did a month ago, or a year ago. Am I investing time and effort and getting more or less in return? As long as the answer is MORE, and especially by a sizable amount, then I will continue to contribute. For me, I'm doing much better at FT today (even a few days after the cut... maybe the V3 site works better and is actually driving a higher volume of sales, offsetting my commission cut) than I was a few weeks, months and especially a year ago. I spend just a few hours a day at this, and when I see my payouts each month, it feels like I'm receiving a healthy raise month after month, whatever cut recently happened.
So that's the bottom line. Am I financially better or worse off in the big picture? If you're worse off despite pouring more blood, sweat and tears into FT or any other site, no one would blame you for cutting the cord. But I'm doing better today, so I'm happily staying. If my trend lines reverse in the months to come, I could change my tune, but until then, it's business as usual and counting my money.
-
There's nothing we can do. Not from this side of the table. Agencies have known for years that they can do whatever they want without consequence. So what if a few contributors leave after a rate cut. It's nothing to them in the grand scheme of things. If every single person active on this forum deleted their portfolio from a site, we're still talking about the vast minority of microstock contributors. The majority don't read or post in the forums, don't know about many of these changes, or just don't care.
There is only one way I see anything ever changing in this business, and that's if a company comes along that radically alters the game plan. Essentially it's how microstock companies beat the traditional agencies. They came along with something totally different.
All of us have thought about it. We all know that the major players in microstock all have flaws. Some have many flaws each. From excessively high prices to poor contributor relations and pay rates, and everything in between (bad site design, confusing pricing models, poor search functions, lame advertising, no marketing plan, poor branding, excessive overhead, etc) every single noteworthy microstock company in business today is flawed in some (or many) ways.
It's not a matter of if a new company could come along and do it better. It's when. Investors are always looking for the next big thing, the next startups that could topple the big boys in their respective industries. It's only a matter of time before someone puts together the right business plan, the right team, and right structure to build a company that could put all of these companies to shame. And then when the right investor comes along to fund them, that's when things will really get shaken up.
Like a lot of folks here, I think I've got a blueprint in my head for what the ideal microstock company would look like. It really doesn't take a genius to come up with something better than what's out there. I defy anyone to look at the top 15 companies listed on the right side of this page and tell me that any one of them isn't doing at least 3 things poorly, if not completely wrong.
Most of the big companies are still rolling along on the same old business models they started with 10 years ago. It is very possible for a new company to do it all better and take that top spot. And that's where change will come from. The threat of a new company that isn't handcuffed by an out-of-date business model, isn't out of touch with the needs of the artists who support the site, and isn't fatally flawed by their own failed attempts to innovate within that broken business model.
And I'm not talking about forcing the other companies to change to keep up with this new threat. They can't do it. They're not capable. I'm talking about a new company coming along that just outright kills those other companies. Think Facebook vs. MySpace.
Don't think it's possible? We've seen glimmers of hope from some recent new companies already. StockFresh had a lot going for them in the beginning. They're still flawed in several ways, also, but they showed that a startup could come along with a new offering that had enough appeal on the surface to get people talking. SF suffers from being built on the StockXpert model. It's an improvement over StockXpert, but still bound by constraints of the old system. Even some elements of the site design are too reminiscent of the old StockXpert site.
I bet that within 5 years, there's a new top agency in this business. It's already being talked about in entrepreneurial circles. I recently had a conversation with an investor who has an interest in a microstock startup and deep enough pockets to properly fund it. And the know-how to do it right (his wife is a photographer who knows the business). There are people out there with the right connections, the right ideas, and the right kind of bankrolls already talking about this. It's going to happen.
Remember when istock was "The designer's dirty little secret"? istock's new dirty little secret is that they're vulnerable. It's every major microstock company's dirty little secret now, although it's not so much of a secret anymore.
-
Like a lot of folks here, I think I've got a blueprint in my head for what the ideal microstock company would look like. It really doesn't take a genius to come up with something better than what's out there.
Best line from The Social Network... Mark Zuckerberg tells the Winklevoss twins, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook... you would have invented Facebook."
No, it doesn't take a genius to come up with an idea. It takes a genius to act on it and make it reality and make it actually work.
Lots of people around here saying they know what the problem is and how to fix it. But nobody's doing it. The agencies out there aren't perfect... a bunch of them are doing a bunch of things wrong. But they did something. You don't like what they did, and think you can do better, then do it.
-
Best line from The Social Network... Mark Zuckerberg tells the Winklevoss twins, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook... you would have invented Facebook."
No, it doesn't take a genius to come up with an idea. It takes a genius to act on it and make it reality and make it actually work.
Lots of people around here saying they know what the problem is and how to fix it. But nobody's doing it. The agencies out there aren't perfect... a bunch of them are doing a bunch of things wrong. But they did something. You don't like what they did, and think you can do better, then do it.
It takes money more than anything. The idea is the easy part, at least in this case.
If the current state of microstock had unfolded 3 years earlier, I would tried to start a new agency myself. Right now I'm a work-from-home dad and that's the way things are going to stay for a while. I have no interest in a new startup that would require me to go in to an office every day. I might be interested in consulting on a startup, though. If anyone wants to talk, you can reach me through my website.
-
The ideal situation would be that we have a union that would represent contributors as a whole and could negotiate with the agencies or threaten them with mass pullouts which if there was a large base of people that were part would be a pretty big problem for agencies.. That would be the only way to be able to really effect a change otherwise they know there is really no resistence for them because there is no organization on this end. nothing will happen unless the majority is organised together, which happens in Macro, but I don't think that it will happen in micro because of the mass amounts of "small fish" that don't have enough of an interest in the business to want to make that kind of effort or sacrifice..
I am personally not uploading any more to either IS or FT, and as a buyer I will not purchase from them for my designs either.. I will start to give more images to my Macro agencies.
I think tubed has basicly hit the nail on the head and reflects what i have been thinking about for quite sometime.
The odd contributor here and there that threatens to pull their portfolio from one of the many sites wont have any impact whatsoever.
1st and foremost we need unity and to be represented by a single voice because at the moment its just a fragmented mess. Once we have unity we could have more clout. This could be a type of union but more like a site to which we are registered to where we could all stay informed and voice our opinions, a typcal forum and blog would play a pivotal role but with the sole purpose for the protection of us. it could also serve to protect individual contributors who have been treated unfairly but have had no where to turn.
This "union" could also not only be used to point the finger at agencies that are taking liberties but also to commend and recommend agencies that treat contributers fairly. Above all it should have a positive impact.
In terms of funding it could be purely paypal donations and maybe some revenue through the usual adverts.
I'd like to re-iterate that we cannot do anything unless many of us are united (doesnt have to be all) and if we could all decide upon a certain course of action we could be a devasting force to make any agency take notice.
In the grand scheme of things we do have to be realistic, it may not change a lot because agencies are free to do what they want to do, we have to acknowledge this but at the same time we dont have to take it. At the very least it will show that we are united and we are watching agencies which may in turn force them to rethink certain policies. I for one would like to be a part of this movement.
Just to finish off i'd like to say that many of the ideas people on MSG have had i think are also good options such as a brand new agency that treats and pay contributors fairly. But just think how well this agency could do if it also had the backing of a large microstock union?
Basicly anything we decide to do should 1st and foremost begin with a union where we could stand together collectively, advise and promote sites that treat us fairly.
Lots of good ideas so far, keep em coming!
-
I'd be up for joining a union, so count me in if it ever comes to fruition.
-
Don't worry, it won't.
-
to build a union isn't that difficult, but its difficult to make it big enough.
-
A union has been discussed countless times in this and other forums. For many reasons, a union isn't realistic in this business and wouldn't accomplish anything.
The most significant reason being that agencies would be under no obligation to listen to a union any more than to individual contributors.
That and a union would never gain the kind of membership you'd expect. Most microstock contributors are not active in the forums, don't really care about the politics of the business, and are largely solitary in their microstock activities.
-
A union has been discussed countless times in this and other forums. For many reasons, a union isn't realistic in this business and wouldn't accomplish anything.
The most significant reason being that agencies would be under no obligation to listen to a union any more than to individual contributors.
That and a union would never gain the kind of membership you'd expect. Most microstock contributors are not active in the forums, don't really care about the politics of the business, and are largely solitary in their microstock activities.
I think you've slightly missunderstood at what i was trying to put forward as an idea. I wasnt talking about a union in a traditional sense, more like a representation of a collective voice and through this we could all decide to take a certain course of action and vote whether or not to do it, we have many options as well. Like i said above:
"It may not change a lot because agencies are free to do what they want to do, we have to acknowledge this but at the same time we dont have to take it. At the very least it will show that we are united and we are watching agencies which may in turn force them to rethink certain policies.
I also completely understand that most microstock contributors are not active on the forums and dont really care about the politics, but if one member sitemails another member advertising the "union" and asks him to pass it on to one other person and so on and so on, it would go a long way. Plus put the word out on sites like microstockdiaries etc.
So in terms of getting a sizable amount of people interested i cant see it being a problem personally.
My personal opinion is that if this cannot be acheived then there simply is no way out of this, you cant sit on your butt and wait for a magical agency to appear that treats contributors fairly, you have to fight for your right and this is the best way to acheive exactly that.
Hope it comes into fruition and if it does i will be the 1st to join up. And on that note im dropping out of this discussion.
Good luck.
-
Its a misconception, thinking that any agency care too much about the contributors with massive ports. Ofcourse they care but the plain fact is we are all replaceable, thanks to the internet, etc.
Take lifestyles as an example, the top 3 or 4, IS,SS,DT,FT, contributors almost all shoot lifestyles and business, with models and so on, gazillions of images and they all pretty much look the same, So if one drops out? it wont even show, wont even register.
In the old days, good photographers were pampered, looked after. Today? nobody is irreplacable. Thats the reason we have no bargaining power what so ever.
-
Sign me up. If we don't try and just sit on our hands, we'll never know. It can only get worse by not doing anything.
-
Take lifestyles as an example, the top 3 or 4, IS,SS,DT,FT, contributors almost all shoot lifestyles and business, with models and so on, gazillions of images and they all pretty much look the same, So if one drops out? it wont even show, wont even register.
Top agencies still getting more than %30 their traffic from google. And must be more than %50 new customer from search engines. if some one drops out, it will create a broken link which will effect their positon on search engines.
Cause of this they prefer not delete old not selling images against to accepting non comercial new files.
-
Its like asking for a "friendly" bank manager, square thinking of profit and loss. Forget it.
All Micro agencies rely on turnover of contributors, if they loose one today they will gain ten new ones tomorrow and hopefully one will be able to supply some good material. They DONT really want established photographers simply because they cant be messed around too much but the little new guy can be bullied into oblivion and is prepared to swallow any old garbage.
As I have said before, we dont have to do anything, the Micro industry will kill off itself, not now but maybe in a few years time it will all be history, you can only squeeze an orange so much.
Yeah, something like that maybe. I was thinking the amateur photography/illustrator, even those with big ports, will soon be unable to keep up with the new breed of contributors who are highly creative, original and can demand a higher price (Vetta or whatever). Thus the average Joe's work will become less valuable (in comparison) and slowly but surely they will disappear from Microstock. So really it's just going full circle as the pros take back their industry. At least until the next big thing that happens, which is......
-
I think you've slightly missunderstood at what i was trying to put forward as an idea. I wasnt talking about a union in a traditional sense, more like a representation of a collective voice and through this we could all decide to take a certain course of action and vote whether or not to do it, we have many options as well. Like i said above:
"It may not change a lot because agencies are free to do what they want to do, we have to acknowledge this but at the same time we dont have to take it. At the very least it will show that we are united and we are watching agencies which may in turn force them to rethink certain policies.
I also completely understand that most microstock contributors are not active on the forums and dont really care about the politics, but if one member sitemails another member advertising the "union" and asks him to pass it on to one other person and so on and so on, it would go a long way. Plus put the word out on sites like microstockdiaries etc.
That all also falls under the category of "don't worry, it won't happen". Since it hasn't happened or worked numerous times before.
-
Sign me up. If we don't try and just sit on our hands, we'll never know. It can only get worse by not doing anything.
Every time this comes up I have expressed interest in joining, but five years of discussion, and three years of serious discussion, and it goes nowhere... :-\
-
Unfortunately, the union idea is unlikely to ever happen. Each of us here has different ideas, interests, goals, and levels of tolerance regarding the agencies.
We are ants in an antfarm. Kill several of them, the antfarm will survive. This is just part of the crowdsourcing model, and microstock has taken this to a perfect level. Even if a big name like Yuri leaves a site, the model continues to run, those images are gone but other good ones will show up.
For those of you who depend on it, I'm sorry, but your hands are tied, and microstock will never be a good business again.
-
Dont like unions, period. however, a union with just a conglomarate of photographers is nothing. A bona fide union needs a whole string of legal people, solicitors, lawyers, attorneys, accountants, etc, etc. and no friends of friends will do this "free of charge" professional people cost money and who is going to pay for that?
-
A union has been discussed countless times in this and other forums. For many reasons, a union isn't realistic in this business and wouldn't accomplish anything.
The most significant reason being that agencies would be under no obligation to listen to a union any more than to individual contributors.
That and a union would never gain the kind of membership you'd expect. Most microstock contributors are not active in the forums, don't really care about the politics of the business, and are largely solitary in their microstock activities.
The reality is that we're already SCABS. So we form a union. We strike. Who provides content? Someone else. Scabs. Problem with unions with online busiunesses is that they aren't effectve. They can't walk out, march with picket signs, and shut a business down. Businesses ALWAYS have the option to seek help elsewhere. That "elsewhere" will be the thousands of contributors just like us; it is us.
-
Istock went from 85,000 contributors around this time last year to 110,000 contributors now. Protest all you want but the agencies don't have a supply problem. People will keep coming until the standards get so high that the average contributor feels it's not worth their time.
The top 100 or so superstars making decisions in unison about stopping uploads or pulling ports would be the only thing that an agency would worry about. Those contributors aren't likely to do it because that money would not be easily replaced doing something else and different financial situations from contributor to contributor would complicate things further.
I'm all for keeping royalties high but outside of that top 10% that makes 90% of the money, I don't see any real bargaining power.
-
The sites have been clever to protect their top contributors from the worst effects of the commission cuts. I don't see a union working. I do think that we could form some sort of alliance. If we all put a bit of money in to it, we could help promote sites that pay a fair commission, hopefully persuading more buyers that those sites are going to make microstock sustainable for us.
I really don't see much future with the sites that have really low commissions and are likely to cut them again. There's also the problem of rejecting images that buyers want. If buyers want a diverse collection of new images, they are going to have to help us out.
-
We don't need Union...
We need our new exclusive microstock site, with shares of company in hands of contributor... So we don't even need a story about parts of our commissions, we just need company which will give dividend on the end of year to many share holders... So profit will be everything after marketing, various costs of business etc ...
So I have a plan!
Soon will be topic about this... ;)
-
Istock went from 85,000 contributors around this time last year to 110,000 contributors now. Protest all you want but the agencies don't have a supply problem.
The numbers of 'contributors' quoted by agencies are incredibly misleading (deliberately so I suspect as it is intended to impress customers and makes us appear insignificant individually). They might have x thousands registered by only a tiny fraction of those can be considered active in any meaningful way.
If you were to determine that an 'average' active or serious contributor had an average portfolio of say 2000 images then an agency with 10M images would only really have about 5000 contributors. According to the Istock Contributor Charts, which lists 37K contributors, only 2000 of those have a portfolio of 1000 images or more. Fewer than 800 contributors have portfolios of 2000 images or more.
I always find it quite surprising just how few of us there are around the world taking microstock seriously. There's probably not more than 500 people genuinely earning their living through microstock.
-
^^ You're essentially factoring out most illustrators with those numbers. Few illustrators have portfolios greater than 2,000 images. Most have fewer than 1,000, and yet many make a living with such small portfolios.
-
^^ You're essentially factoring out most illustrators with those numbers. Few illustrators have portfolios greater than 2,000 images. Most have fewer than 1,000, and yet many make a living with such small portfolios.
No, I hadn't forgotten them however there are also illustrators with huge portfolios too. It doesn't change the fact that there really are just a few hundred contributors who matter, not tens of thousands and certainly not a hundred thousand or more.
If the top one thousand contributors of a particular agency were to remove their portfolios then it would have a huge effect on that agency's sales and future. It would set them back 5 years, a blow from which they would probably never recover. If we could act together we could be immensely strong.
-
We don't need Union...
We need our new exclusive microstock site, with shares of company in hands of contributor... So we don't even need a story about parts of our commissions, we just need company which will give dividend on the end of year to many share holders... So profit will be everything after marketing, various costs of business etc ...
So I have a plan!
Soon will be topic about this... ;)
This is the Answer! (see above which IS the answer...)
(http://s1.postimage.org/1fczxcupw/bowing.gif)
Shares are based on images sold, investment, or work on the site to keep it running. Just like any other co op business. Of course people are going to ask for big commissions and then, how do you pay the investors and workers? So it would still need to have a reasonable 50% and then divide the profits at the end of the year, based on the above, for SHARES and then give all contributors a bonus based on their sales. 100% return, after expenses and operating costs.
A union with no power, is a waste of time and that's what any group effort would be, a big nothing. But a self owned Co Op site would make sense and if people wanted to hurt the big agencies bottom line, while making more, they would pull their images and only sell on their own Microstock Co-Op site. (will people try to double dip and compete with themselves,? Of course and that's why a Union won't work, people are GREEDY!) Maybe the answer for the co op is require exclusive for all RF images and similar (from same shoot) and enforce it. What use is a site if all the same images are for sale everywhere else, as cheap subscriptions? (another problem with microstock and crowdsourcing, nothing has any unique value)
Go ahead people for the MS Union, tell me one thing, that would change? What bargaining power do you have with the agencies. Name one thing that a group of organized artists can actually do, that's different from right now without a "Union". Not a bunch of hypothetical things that could be done if people worked together for a common cause, because they won't. What force and power does a MS Union have over the agencies? None!
And people stop blaming the agencies for being in business and trying to make a profit for themselves and their investors, that's what business do, or they cease to exist. They can give all the profits to artists and in short time, you will have no agency, no income, because they can't stay in business, if they don't make money. There are multiple people who need to be paid, this isn't all about US! They don't exist to care about us and feed us or make us money. They are all about the agency and profit and as much as they can make from the slave labor workforce.
As someone else pointed out, I quit, no problem, there are ten more lined up. Maybe not as much as before, but lets say, we are all easily replaced by a few other people who will happily take the pennies and spare change that they can make selling microstock. People start and quit, but there's a line at the door of people who want to get in, and some are very good and move up fast.
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg353/scaled.php?server=353&filename=isvsmsg.jpg&res=medium)
Over 1000 photos on IS (since the numbers are there and representative of the biggest agency, even if not the easiest to upload to) Now the hard number is 2002 people with over 1000 images on IS. The percentage of contributors? 5% They are probably making some money, which is good news.
People with UNDER 100 images on IS, hard number 24,216 and in percentages... 65% have under 100 images online.
Want sales/DLs? In rough numbers, 50% of the people on IS have under 100 DLs and may have never reached payout. 18,500 people tried MicroStock, at the highest level, (remember they had to pass a test to get accepted, not even like the small sites that are less selective) and have never had a cent deposited into their bank account. Want them to join the union? And I know the rest of us wouldn't want them in the co op either. :D
-
I've always thought that a co-op microstock site would be the best thing for the industry. It would require some really motivated folks, though, and most of those folks are already building their own individual stock photo sites it seems. The closest thing to this that I've found is Photoshelter - photographers controlling their own prices and sales, but with a single portal that searches all of them.
Perhaps the way to get past the need for a group of people dedicated to organizing the thing is for everyone interested in this idea to agree to use photoshelter, and only promote photoshelter from personal sites, etc., and pull out of the other sites (at least the ones that continue be too greedy) - this last thing not likely to happen. Too many people making too much money still, and the sites tend to protect the main earners.
Alternatively, we would need to find some people dedicated to setting up a stock agency and run it a bit like a credit union or electric co-op: with 'member owners'. But it would need all of the things that other stock sites have to be successful - officers, reviewers, advertising budget, etc. It seems like anyone with the energy/time to do that would, or has already, make some form of their own stock site wherein they are the main profiteer. This level of organization and motivation is rare, but it could be done. I'll say what others have said: you build it, I will join. Hell, I'll even participate as some kind of organizer/worker/whatever in addition to being a contributor.
The third alternative to combating lower commissions (after a union or co-op), would be to go exclusive on one of the big sites and build your portfolio to thousands of images, or tens of thousands. Then, you can earn a 40-60% commission (which is fair), and have a tiny bit of negotiating power when the site tries to pull something you don't like.
But like I said, if enough people will actually get involved, we could start a co-op and see where it goes. I was secretary/treasurer of a co-op art gallery for a few years - it was interesting and fun at times, but in the end a lot of work and not very profitable (but art galleries rarely are).
Message me if you want to do the co-op. If so, we can start a new thread and use it as a home base in the beginning.
-
The closest thing to this that I've found is Photoshelter - photographers controlling their own prices and sales, but with a single portal that searches all of them.
I agree on the Photoshelter part. In fact, I am building my port there. May not be as great as a co-op, but it's very easy and inexpensive considering that they manage hosting, templates, search engine, sales. And 90%+ commission is very acceptable. Basic plan is not so expensive.
If many of us upload full port there with micro prices, buyers may start to consider it as another microstock site, but from our point of view it's quite better.
I am also convinced that without stupid rejections, and having to organise our own home page within allowed space limits, we can be more selective than agencies, resulting in a better search experience for buyers.
Building a co-op or starting a stock site is less likely to happen in my opinion: it requires time, money and we could possibly be banned from existing agencies - and I am not able to renounce to their sales for now unfortunately.
-
Is Photoshelter where you share in the profits, then it's not a co-op. A user owned site would be just what is needed to fight the low comisions.
-
Hi All,
A few of us did it in Macro we built Blend Images as a co-op and we built Cultura images as a co-op. It can be done but it is very hard. To find the right 20 people or so ( the more owners the tougher it gets ) is not easy and those people have to put a lot of their revenue into running the company, they have to choose a CEO to represent the company and completely trust that person and the board that is voted in to run the daily decisions that must be made.
There are so many levels of trust that it truly takes a real team and building a team that focuses on the companies success as apposed to their own is hard to find. How many photographers do you know that are going to share half their revenue to run the company possibly more depending on the infrastructure until it starts producing significant revenue? How much do you plan to advertise and then be able to add contributors to the co-op as 20 photographers do not a strong collection make.
It can be done but it takes great commitment and trust, that is hard to find in a large group. Dissension is always at the door and it must be run and operated by true professionals in business management. Voting those people in and keeping the faith as you shovel money into the fire to build the company is not for everyone. But it can be done.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi All,
A few of us did it in Macro we built Blend Images as a co-op and we built Cultura images as a co-op. It can be done but it is very hard. To find the right 20 people or so ( the more owners the tougher it gets ) is not easy and those people have to put a lot of their revenue into running the company, they have to choose a CEO to represent the company and completely trust that person and the board that is voted in to run the daily decisions that must be made.
There are so many levels of trust that it truly takes a real team and building a team that focuses on the companies success as apposed to their own is hard to find. How many photographers do you know that are going to share half their revenue to run the company possibly more depending on the infrastructure until it starts producing significant revenue? How much do you plan to advertise and then be able to add contributors to the co-op as 20 photographers do not a strong collection make.
It can be done but it takes great commitment and trust, that is hard to find in a large group. Dissension is always at the door and it must be run and operated by true professionals in business management. Voting those people in and keeping the faith as you shovel money into the fire to build the company is not for everyone. But it can be done.
Best,
Jonathan
I think this is the best post regarding this matter. Yes, THEORETICALLY it can be done, but in practice it never will, due to the facts Jonathan exposed.
-
^^^I don't think the facts Jonathan exposed mean that it can't be done. As he has managed to do it with macro, I don't really see why something similar wouldn't work for micro.
I do think it's extremely difficult but far from impossible. Let's see how warmpicture goes.