pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Isn't market large enough?  (Read 8496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 01, 2009, 15:53 »
0
It seems like all attempts to create new agency fail miserably. Most of newcomers got great sites, years ahead of existing ones. Many times they got new ideas. Unfortunately they also have no customers. Is this effort just a bite to attract takeover by some companies that do not have presence in microstock market?


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2009, 16:24 »
0
Why would anyone want to acquire a site with no customers?

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2009, 16:27 »
0
There are lots of new sites that don't seem to have any chance but a few of them might make it.  I am satisfied with the progress of zymmetrical, yaymicro and mostphotos.  They could all do better but they have shown it is possible to get sales with new sites.  I will give them some more time and hope they continue making progress.  Cutcaster might have a chance but it is early days there.

The only site I have given up on so far is albumo, as they promised a lot but delivered little.  There are dozens more that I would never dream of using because they have nothing new to offer.

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2009, 16:27 »
0
I would imagine that  before an agency becomes a takeover target, they would need to have a regular income stream and enough customers to justify the acquisition. Or the small agency would have to pose enough of a financial threat to a more established agency to  make it worth their while in acquiring and assimilating the small agency.  I do recall tech companies back in the "dot com" days that would hope to be acquired by a larger fish just so the founders/principles could cash in.

« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2009, 16:33 »
0
I think some of these new sites are run on a tiny budget by one or two people.  They might of been given a business grant to get it going.  They wont have to pay their contributors, as they will never reach a payout, so all their sales are making them money.  Perhaps some are genuine but then you have to wonder what research they did, as it is obvious that it is a monumental task to have a successful new microstcok site now.  There must be easier ways to make money.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2009, 16:54 »
0
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?

gbcimages

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2009, 17:00 »
0
my personal opinion,  all that are trying to make it now will eventually fail except maybe the top seven

« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2009, 17:01 »
0
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?

I don't see it like that.  istock charge much more than most of the other sites and they are doing great.  A few new sites have tried cheaper prices but the buyers haven't gone to them.  There might be a bit of a price war with subs but SS is still the site selling the most subs, the others don't come close.  Pay per download is still more popular than subs on most sites.  I have tried a few sites that charge much higher prices than microstock and they are doing well.  I am convinced that buyers will pay more as long as they can find what they want.  Of course some buyers will seek out the cheapest option but luckily they seem to be in the minority.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2009, 17:03 »
0
my personal opinion,  all that are trying to make it now will eventually fail except maybe the top seven

I say the top 5, and they will all be owned by Getty and be predominantly subscription based models. Good for Getty, bad for photographers/designers

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2009, 17:04 »
0
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?

I don't see it like that.  istock charge much more than most of the other sites and they are doing great.  A few new sites have tried cheaper prices but the buyers haven't gone to them.  There might be a bit of a price war with subs but SS is still the site selling the most subs, the others don't come close.  Pay per download is still more popular than subs on most sites.  I have tried a few sites that charge much higher prices than microstock and they are doing well.  I am convinced that buyers will pay more as long as they can find what they want.  Of course some buyers will seek out the cheapest option but luckily they seem to be in the minority.

Why do you think istock removed an opt-out for subscription prcing? Why do you think they want to share their library across to photos.com, a well known site, known for it's cheaper than cheap prices..

« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2009, 17:12 »
0
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?

I don't see it like that.  istock charge much more than most of the other sites and they are doing great.  A few new sites have tried cheaper prices but the buyers haven't gone to them.  There might be a bit of a price war with subs but SS is still the site selling the most subs, the others don't come close.  Pay per download is still more popular than subs on most sites.  I have tried a few sites that charge much higher prices than microstock and they are doing well.  I am convinced that buyers will pay more as long as they can find what they want.  Of course some buyers will seek out the cheapest option but luckily they seem to be in the minority.

Why do you think istock removed an opt-out for subscription prcing? Why do you think they want to share their library across to photos.com, a well known site, known for it's cheaper than cheap prices..
Because they want a share of the subs market.  That doesn't surprise me at all.  They are also trying to make more money from inagea that haven't sold on the main site for 18 months.  They are still going to grow their pay per download market and prices have gone up a lot since I started there.  We are in an economic downturn at the moment but it will be interesting to see what happens if the econony improves.  I am sure the sites will be looking to raise prices again.

« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2009, 17:15 »
0
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?

I wonder if price really need to go down at all. Who are the buyers? Does it really mater if image price is $1 or $10 for them? Common we are talking pennies here. I probably spent more on groceries monthly than these buyers for images :-)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2009, 17:21 »
0
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?

I wonder if price really need to go down at all. Who are the buyers? Does it really mater if image price is $1 or $10 for them? Common we are talking pennies here. I probably spent more on groceries monthly than these buyers for images :-)
Amen to that...not only the grocery's but the gas to make the money to buy that loaf of bread!!

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2009, 17:37 »
0
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?

I wonder if price really need to go down at all. Who are the buyers? Does it really mater if image price is $1 or $10 for them? Common we are talking pennies here. I probably spent more on groceries monthly than these buyers for images :-)

I'm a buyer and yes, it matter to me, but only if I see the exact same image, for sale on one web site for 20 euro full res, and another web site for 5 euro full res, I'll take the 5 euro option everytime! But, I won't buy subs, because there's exploitation, and there's EXPLOITATION ;)

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2009, 17:38 »
0

I wonder if price really need to go down at all. Who are the buyers? Does it really mater if image price is $1 or $10 for them? Common we are talking pennies here. I probably spent more on groceries monthly than these buyers for images :-)

For sub buyers I totally agree.  Anyone buying a sub is obviously a rather serious volume consumer of imagery.

For the very small buyers - students, teachers, housewives making greeting cards, etc. - who only buy a few images once in awhile, I can see how paying $1 would make images much more accessible than $10.  

« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2009, 17:43 »
0
I'm a buyer and yes, it matter to me, but only if I see the exact same image, for sale on one web site for 20 euro full res, and another web site for 5 euro full res, I'll take the 5 euro option everytime! But, I won't buy subs, because there's exploitation, and there's EXPLOITATION ;)

It only matters if your final product is close to 20 euro :-) Cost of raw materials should not be to high percentage :-)

<curious>Are you buying images for assignment, so then you just pass this as a cost to customer? I am trying to understand an economy of buying images. I thought it is treated as materials like paper, ink, etc.</curious>
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 17:49 by melastmohican »

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2009, 17:48 »
0
I'm a buyer and yes, it matter to me, but only if I see the exact same image, for sale on one web site for 20 euro full res, and another web site for 5 euro full res, I'll take the 5 euro option everytime! But, I won't buy subs, because there's exploitation, and there's EXPLOITATION ;)

<curious>Are you buying images for assignment, so then you just pass this as a cost to customer? I am trying to understand an economy of buying images. I thought it is treated as materials like paper, ink, etc.</curious>

I'm not willing to discuss my workflow/billing in an open forum, I'm just giving you a glimpse into the mind of a buyer..


hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2009, 17:51 »
0
If I saw an image for 100 dollars that was perfect for a customer and not available on any other web site for less, I would pitch my customer on it. And I have done that in the past..

As I said if I see an image suitable for a customer at two different prices, I will take the one around the 5-10 dollar mark (the cheaper option), but it all depends on the client. Some clients can afford to pay big bucks for custom images, some can't, so it varies from job to job. But the problem with microstock is if you offer the same image at two prices, customers will ALWAYS pick the cheaper option..
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 17:53 by hqimages »

« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2009, 17:52 »
0
If this is buyer's mind then eventually images will be 5 cents and then they will have to figure out where else they could cut cost :-)

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2009, 17:55 »
0
If this is buyer's mind then eventually images will be 5 cents and then they will have to figure out where else they could cut cost :-)

What photographers/graphic artists should do, i think, is sell their own images without an agent, but without undercutting themselves. Set the price for your own image, and remove it from any web site that offers it for less.. it's a bad business model from the photographers point of view. Make a price, stick to it if that's the price you want, from your download!!

« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2009, 17:55 »
0
If I saw an image for 100 dollars that was perfect for a customer and not available on any other web site for less, I would pitch my customer on it. And I have done that in the past..

As I said if I see an image suitable for a customer at two different prices, I will take the one around the 5-10 dollar mark (the cheaper option), but it all depends on the client. Some clients can afford to pay big bucks for custom images, some can't, so it varies from job to job.

It seems like most of the cost for customer is an image. Then market must be already so competitive.

bittersweet

« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2009, 17:57 »
0
Why do you think istock removed an opt-out for subscription prcing? Why do you think they want to share their library across to photos.com, a well known site, known for it's cheaper than cheap prices..

To clarify:
They removed the opt-out for the iStock subscription plan, for which contributers are (currently) paid an amount comparable to the pay-per-download price. That certainly can't be fairly compared to the 25-33 cents per download, regardless of size, type of arrangement at some sites.

The photos.com is definitely as crappy as that type of arrangement, but it can be opted out of, with the exception of those images currently in the dollar bin (or you choose to deactivate them). Since a whole bunch of the dollar bin images were already deactivated, and then got magically reanimated, I'm sure some people think potential for something is better than the certainty of nothing.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2009, 18:00 »
0
Why do you think istock removed an opt-out for subscription prcing? Why do you think they want to share their library across to photos.com, a well known site, known for it's cheaper than cheap prices..

To clarify:
They removed the opt-out for the iStock subscription plan, for which contributers are (currently) paid an amount comparable to the pay-per-download price. That certainly can't be fairly compared to the 25-33 cents per download, regardless of size, type of arrangement at some sites.

The photos.com is definitely as crappy as that type of arrangement, but it can be opted out of, with the exception of those images currently in the dollar bin (or you choose to deactivate them). Since a whole bunch of the dollar bin images were already deactivated, and then got magically reanimated, I'm sure some people think potential for something is better than the certainty of nothing.

"but it can be opted out of,"

But not EVERYONE will opt out, therefore your peers that choose to sell on photos.com, are undercutting their own photos on istock.com, and undercutting their collegues on istock.com. It doesn't matter hugely because subs are being offered on istock now anyway, so pay-per-download would pretty much die as we know it.. but people also selling on photos.com puts the nails in the coffin of pay-per-download, which I think is a shame for the artists..
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 18:02 by hqimages »

« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2009, 02:29 »
0
Unfortunately until one the sites finds a way to differentiate its product from those around it we as contributors will likely never see the end of subs. The reason is that in realty all the sites are playing with the same deck of images and when every store is selling the exact same widget to the exact same customers then the only advantage any site can hope to gain is in the price to the buyer. Until there is a site with a new business model we the contributors are going to get the crappy end of the stick, cause even if we can manage to pull a third of the images from the subs sites there would still be millions of images available for pennies! :'(

« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2009, 11:13 »
0
Lots of comments here are based on a false premise that there is a perfect knowledge of the marketplace by buyers. Who has the time to search across multiple sites to find every possible cost of a given image? I believe most buyers stop when they find a good workable solution even though they might find a slightly cheaper version somewhere else if they spent the time.

That's why we buy milk at a convenience store because we'd rather pay .50 more rather than making a trip to the big supermarket.

I also don't understand the debate over such small differences in image costs. I'd find it hard to work for a client who would quibble over the image cost if I found an image that really worked well. That client is paying for me to dig through hundreds or thousands of images it find one right for the job. Does he really want to double my fee for doubling my work?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3482 Views
Last post September 27, 2008, 12:11
by Pixart
4 Replies
3297 Views
Last post October 22, 2008, 09:48
by hrhportia
15 Replies
6571 Views
Last post April 14, 2009, 20:46
by goldenangel
21 Replies
12910 Views
Last post July 19, 2010, 17:02
by Elena
7 Replies
4813 Views
Last post April 04, 2011, 10:22
by tab62

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle