MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Microstock is killing the stock industry  (Read 14040 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dbvirago

« on: February 22, 2013, 14:33 »
+2
msg deleted. No one read it and you can argue fine without an original point.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 20:31 by dbvirago »


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 14:38 »
+2
Yes. Still the drop from $1,000 to $0,25 is worse. Fortunately it's a small drop from $0,25 to $0

« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2013, 14:44 »
+11
The 'fasten seat belt' light is on.

Companies like Getty and Google have determined that the correct purchase price is 0, with the money  to be made from ads presented during search,  and 'fees' which are not visible to the photographer and hence not subject to a straightforward commission.   What will remain will be arbitrary token payments to photographers - which is how subscriptions basically work already. 

We all focus on what the agencies are doing and how they're changing, but the real change is happening in the mind of the buyer.  Thanks to the fine work of these agencies, and predatory companies like Google, the buyer's idea of what an image is "worth" is being steadily eroded and is rapidly approaching zero. 

fujiko

« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 14:51 »
+11
CEO and MBA with short term profits and bonuses in mind kill any and all industries. Period.

« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2013, 15:29 »
+2
The 'fasten seat belt' light is on.

Companies like Getty and Google have determined that the correct purchase price is 0, with the money  to be made from ads presented during search,  and 'fees' which are not visible to the photographer and hence not subject to a straightforward commission.   What will remain will be arbitrary token payments to photographers - which is how subscriptions basically work already. 

We all focus on what the agencies are doing and how they're changing, but the real change is happening in the mind of the buyer.  Thanks to the fine work of these agencies, and predatory companies like Google, the buyer's idea of what an image is "worth" is being steadily eroded and is rapidly approaching zero.

It can only really go so far. Content is still king. So, as soon as something becomes unprofitable to the contributors, they will look elsewhere. Microstock is already sitting on that line, so they really can only flex so far until their content/contributors leave. As we have seen with IS, it doesn't take too much to reach that tipping point. Also, the competition is always growing and waiting to accept their new and disgruntled content producers with promises of greener pastures.

« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2013, 15:48 »
+1
The 'fasten seat belt' light is on.

Companies like Getty and Google have determined that the correct purchase price is 0, with the money  to be made from ads presented during search,  and 'fees' which are not visible to the photographer and hence not subject to a straightforward commission.   What will remain will be arbitrary token payments to photographers - which is how subscriptions basically work already. 

We all focus on what the agencies are doing and how they're changing, but the real change is happening in the mind of the buyer.  Thanks to the fine work of these agencies, and predatory companies like Google, the buyer's idea of what an image is "worth" is being steadily eroded and is rapidly approaching zero.

It can only really go so far. Content is still king. So, as soon as something becomes unprofitable to the contributors, they will look elsewhere. Microstock is already sitting on that line, so they really can only flex so far until their content/contributors leave. As we have seen with IS, it doesn't take too much to reach that tipping point. Also, the competition is always growing and waiting to accept their new and disgruntled content producers with promises of greener pastures.

That's all true.  Although the agencies increasingly obsess over mechanical aspects of quality (i.e. ridiculous standards for focus) there has to be a falling off in the subjective aspects - originality and composition.  In time the market will react.  But the change will be very slow because these agencies are now able to blare out "Choose From 20 Million Images" and surely, in that 20 million, is something I could use for my current assignment, and even though I spend 30 minutes searching, the price will be insignificant....  it will be a long time before search fatigue finally takes its toll and the sophisticated buyer says "I'm not going there anymore".  And by that time, these buyers might be starting to turn away from stock photos entirely, as photo-realistic vectors become easier to spin out on demand.

Such extreme pessimism may be unwarranted, but it's depressing that we're now in a situation where one agency seems to be steadily cornering the market while the others melt down in various ways, and it's one that's just completed an IPO, which usually means that internally it's being completely re-directed to short-term profits.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 16:11 by stockastic »

« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2013, 17:21 »
+1
Quote
It can only really go so far. Content is still king. So, as soon as something becomes unprofitable to the contributors, they will look elsewhere. Microstock is already sitting on that line, so they really can only flex so far until their content/contributors leave.
  That's mostly true, except that there seems to be a constant influx of contributors delighted to make .25 per image.  I'm not sure if in their standard of living that is a good wage or if they are just delighted to have sold something.  But as long as there is an overabundance of content being dumped into the micros there is no reason to say that income to contributors will not continue to drop.

« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2013, 18:08 »
+2
if the price drops any further it will unprofitable for the professional level photos to be produced.

There will be plenty of part timers/hobbiest who don't rely on the money "to feed the family" that will continue to provide the easy, cheap to produce photos.

I'm sure that it is more effecient for the agencies to have the factory outlets with 95% acceptance rate than relying on part timers. If they drop the price too much they'll lose the top end photos that sell alot and keep buyers on the site.

You'll still be able to find a picture of an apple on microstock but you won't get anywhere near as many of those 15 model shots with perfect makeup etc.

« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 18:29 »
-1
content is not king.
Keywords are.
what use are 100.000 pictures of apples if they cannot be found, or if they are mixed with pears and nuts?

Not to mention computers.

« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2013, 18:49 »
+1
content is not king.
Keywords are.
what use are 100.000 pictures of apples if they cannot be found, or if they are mixed with pears and nuts?

Not to mention computers.

Aren't keywords, titles and descriptions part of the content?

« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2013, 18:53 »
0
Ok. Then. I didnt think of that. But in that case you are right.

We could call it "integrated content".

« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2013, 19:20 »
0
content is not king.
Keywords are.
what use are 100.000 pictures of apples if they cannot be found, or if they are mixed with pears and nuts?

Not to mention computers.

pretty much we get a dictionary and we are rich ;D why don't we focus on important stuff instead of talking 1800 stuff

« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2013, 21:02 »
+2
you missed a point.
We all think we sell pictures.
Those beautifull elaborate pictures out of our DLSR.

But we dont.
We sell digital files in the form of zeros and ones.

Of those there are many on the internet.
If you want to sell anything on the net you have to present it to the customer.
And customers are human, they can only look at 30 files at the same time.

So it all has to do with if your file is among those files displayed in the first search.
Is it or is it not?
Since there are millions, also free ones.
There are so many.
By placing your picture with one of the agencies, instead of some random place on the net, such as your own site, you cut down the degree of irrelevancy, or entropy, with many 100.000 factors.
Because now there are maybe only 10 agencies that display you and guarantee a licence.
And thats what it  is about, getting your content displayed at a place, where it is licenced in a reasonable way.
So content is not so important as the content showing up at a place that guarantees licences.


« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 21:10 by JPSDK »

« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 22:43 »
+2
So if I take a picture of a tree falling in the forest, but no one ever sees the picture...

« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2013, 22:53 »
0
So if I take a picture of a tree falling in the forest, but no one ever sees the picture...
............it never gets sold.

Ed

« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2013, 23:25 »
0
I'm sure this will go over like a ton of bricks...but I have to share...


http://blog.johnlund.com/2013/02/getty-sales-and-numbers-for-thought.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+johnlund%2FUkbR+%28The+Stock+Photo+Guy+-+John+Lund+Stock+Photographer%29

edited....after posting this, I noticed that the next topic in this part of the forum is the same link LOL

« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2013, 11:10 »
+1
We all focus on what the agencies are doing and how they're changing, but the real change is happening in the mind of the buyer.  Thanks to the fine work of these agencies, and predatory companies like Google, the buyer's idea of what an image is "worth" is being steadily eroded and is rapidly approaching zero.

Speak for yourself.
While your analysis holds true for the RF/micro market, i can't see how it can apply to the RM world.

There's still a whole universe of images sold as RM not available in any way as RF and sorry but buyers have no other alternatives than buying RM licences or hire somebody on assignment.

Ironically, buyers could easily find similar subjects for free or for next to nothing on the many photo sharing sites but since none of these images are properly keyworded it's almost impossible to find the right photo you need and it's not gonna change soon as nobody in his right mind seem to be interested in wasting long time keywording free images, and why would they ?

Moreover, it's not possible to sustain the production costs of many RM subjects if they sold at micro prices, and this too is not gonna change soon or ever.

There will always space for both RF and RM licensing, but while RM will never reach the saturation point, RF already reach the point of non return, just as it happened for so many other industries before with the advent of the internet and the spread of the "everything must be free" sub-culture.







shudderstok

« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2013, 19:33 »
+3
microstock is not killing the industry - there will always be a large demand for ridiculously cheap photography. it is making the industry unsustainable for individual photographers to produce quality imagery and make a living from doing so, and it is also enabling the sellers of our work to make tons of money from the volume of sales. it is not killing the stock industry in terms of sales, but it is killing it for the photographers who produce the work.

« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2013, 20:20 »
-2
sorry Jens but give me a break really, next you going to tell us to do some binary calculations, hexa, octa, bla bla bla

please get down to earth and do your job whatever it is, the ones who don't know how to keyword that is their business, there is google out there if you never heard of it

AND please stop being sooooo brilliant in every post you make coz it gets sooooo boring (unless a person is talking something relevant), we all know that our files need keywords (good or bad its our business/guilt), IF NOT as you may know files without keywords wouldn't even go to review ;)
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 21:22 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2013, 01:04 »
+1
microstock is not killing the industry - there will always be a large demand for ridiculously cheap photography. it is making the industry unsustainable for individual photographers to produce quality imagery and make a living from doing so, and it is also enabling the sellers of our work to make tons of money from the volume of sales. it is not killing the stock industry in terms of sales, but it is killing it for the photographers who produce the work.

As a comparison, a friend of mine is on the children book business, he draw illustrations and writes the text and also edits the whole product (which is a PDF file that will need further editing by the publishing company).

He's usually paid 10% of the retail price, each book will be printed from 1000 to 5000 copies and sent to the national distributor, but the publishers tend to give him some money in advance as it can take even 1 year to see the book in the stores.

Further payments are made every 12 months and include royalties from other books and eventual distribution agreement in other countries (a one-time fee of 3000 to 6000$ depending on several factors, spit 50/50 between authors and publisher).

Once he get paid, he will have to pay taxes, from 30 to 50%, again depending on several factors.

Conclusion ? He cannot do this full time as the book publishing business is now in deep sh-it and he would either have to publish a new book every month or become a famous and expensive illustrator, so that at the moment and for the foreseeable future he keeps book publishing just as a hobby and as a way to make some bucks.

IS THIS the same fate waiting for microstock photographers ? stock as a Hobby ? maybe.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 01:06 by Xanox »

« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2013, 09:24 »
0
Xanox what is your suggestion? we all dump micro?

« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2013, 10:57 »
+1
Xanox what is your suggestion? we all dump micro?

If the trend keeps going on, micro will dump you as the sales will not be enough to cover the production costs.

Said that, many things can happen in the industry in 2-3 years, nobody is in the position to say that micro is dead or that micro will prosper forever.

If we look at the numbers, the ones at risk of getting out of business are the photographers with small portfolios, not the top sellers.

They will be the ones to eventually keep micro as a hobby or to leave stock altogether.

On the other hand, oversupply will force top sellers to feed the beast more often than now but i guess the agencies will have to change something in their fees in one way or another.

In a typical scenario, 20% of the contributors make up 80% of the sales.
So, agencies have no reason to keep the small portfolios apart rare cases.
Being a cut-throat business it's logic that agencies will shake the fees in favor of the top sellers, or maybe give bonuses or whatever other incentive, i can't think of the whole micro industry remaining stale forever.

Getty itself could launch some new evil ideas to monetize their micro collections and they've no reason to give it away for free, if it works the other agencies could follow the same path.

All we can do is keeping out eyes open, something big could happen soon.


« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2013, 11:06 »
0
IS THIS the same fate waiting for microstock photographers ? stock as a Hobby ? maybe.

Good grief, it's already a hobby, we're there.  The few people making a living at it started very early and are hanging in despite declining returns.  Those of us who started more recently have concluded it's only going to be a hobby.  Who would possibly go in now on a serious basis, knowing that returns are only going to continue to decline?  The agencies even tell you as much; they issue tepid announcements about how they hope further "changes to commissions" won't be necessary in the immediate future. And that's the best news we're going to get.

« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2013, 12:12 »
+1
Quote
Good grief, it's already a hobby, we're there.  The few people making a living at it started very early and are hanging in despite declining returns.

According to the recent survey:
Average hours per week: 18.5
Full time: 21%
Exclusive: 26%
Sell to Alamy: 31%
Sell to macros: 21%

You could say those are unrelated facts.  Or you could draw the conclusion that 70-80% of people doing microstock are doing it as a hobby.

According to Microstock Time there are 33,230 contributors on SS.  Of those only 4,300 have more than 1,000 images. and only 7,500 have more than 500 images, which is 22%.  While I will not argue that the total size of the portfolio is the only consideration, I will suggest that very very few people are making a living in stock (any type of stock) with 500 images.  The conclusion is again that 70-80% of contributors are doing it as a hobby.  With 500 images on micros you MIGHT be making enough money for equipment, but you cannot possibly be covering your time, even if it is that 18.5 hours per week.  18.5 hours at US minimum wage is $8,000+ depending on the state.  How many are making that with 500 images?

« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2013, 12:19 »
-1
How many are making that with 500 images?

That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.

Only in art galleries you can make it with a few dozen good photos but they're still a selection of hundreds of good images.

If you really cant produce more than 500 good images, sorry but you don't have the minimum required skills to be a photographer.


« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2013, 12:31 »
0
How many are making that with 500 images?

Don't forget about us vector peoples. You can do pretty well with a small targeted portfolio. I don't know much about video, but I assume they might have similar stories.

« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2013, 12:34 »
0
microstock:
- 500 pics
- 500 hours (lets say you need 1 hour per pic, myself sometimes not even 15 minutes)
- 8k $
- 16$ / hour

min wage job:
- 18.5 hours (which is like 2x less than a full time job)
- 962 hours (52 weeks) (more 462 hours)
- 8k $
- 8.3$ / hour

if you spend 962 hours per year you would do more than 8.3$ per pic? impossible to answer but if its good stuff, why not?

I have worked for sure less than a FULL TIME month (150 hours) in 2012 (not including uploading/submitting, I do that while doing a ton other things) and made over 16k $, there is still a lot of passive income in microstock, don't think that buyers will leave it tomorrow...


« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2013, 12:45 »
0
Quote
That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.
Exactly my point, so we have in micros at least 70% (probably more) that are only hobbyist right now.  And as you pointed out this is only going to be more true as revenues decline and contributors doing this for a living can no longer make a living and move on.  This is certainly true of micros but how much will this affect other areas of stock as well?

Take another industry for example: landscaping.  There are many firms that invest $100,000's of dollars in trucks,  equipment and skilled staff, designers and landscape architects.  They produce impressive and professional work and get paid very well because they have skills.  Then the economy goes poor and anyone with a pickup truck is now advertising as a 'landscaper'.  Their work is generally poor and unimaginative, but they drive the perceived value of a job down so much that the professionals are being put out of business.  Is the quality of work the same? No, but to many it is good enough and costs 10% of what a professional would have to charge.  Are they making money?  Short term, yes if making money is defined as extra cash while collecting unemployment benefits.  Long term?  Of course not.

In some states now you must get a license and take classes and tests to prove you have the skills.  This raises the bar of entrance and helps assure the public that a contractor they hire has proven to at least have the minimum skill set.  Work without that license and you can get a big fine.  Maybe this is what will be needed for photographers?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2013, 12:54 »
+2
How many are making that with 500 images?

Don't forget about us vector peoples. You can do pretty well with a small targeted portfolio. I don't know much about video, but I assume they might have similar stories.

I've seen in the past, and have no idea who it was so don't ask for links, vector artists with a low number of files yet huge sales. I used to 'wish I could draw', but the sad truth is that even if I could, I have no imagination.

« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2013, 13:09 »
+1
How many are making that with 500 images?


Don't forget about us vector peoples. You can do pretty well with a small targeted portfolio. I don't know much about video, but I assume they might have similar stories.


I've seen in the past, and have no idea who it was so don't ask for links, vector artists with a low number of files yet huge sales. I used to 'wish I could draw', but the sad truth is that even if I could, I have no imagination.


You just have sing the Imagination Song.  ;D

South Park- The Imagination Song

« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2013, 13:48 »
0
That's exactly what I do before every illustration! :D

Poncke

« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2013, 14:05 »
0
Quote
That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.
Exactly my point, so we have in micros at least 70% (probably more) that are only hobbyist right now.  And as you pointed out this is only going to be more true as revenues decline and contributors doing this for a living can no longer make a living and move on.  This is certainly true of micros but how much will this affect other areas of stock as well?

Take another industry for example: landscaping.  There are many firms that invest $100,000's of dollars in trucks,  equipment and skilled staff, designers and landscape architects.  They produce impressive and professional work and get paid very well because they have skills.  Then the economy goes poor and anyone with a pickup truck is now advertising as a 'landscaper'.  Their work is generally poor and unimaginative, but they drive the perceived value of a job down so much that the professionals are being put out of business. Is the quality of work the same? No, but to many it is good enough and costs 10% of what a professional would have to charge.  Are they making money?  Short term, yes if making money is defined as extra cash while collecting unemployment benefits.  Long term?  Of course not.

In some states now you must get a license and take classes and tests to prove you have the skills.  This raises the bar of entrance and helps assure the public that a contractor they hire has proven to at least have the minimum skill set.  Work without that license and you can get a big fine.  Maybe this is what will be needed for photographers?
Exactly what happened to my mate. Very skillful high quality garden architect. Won prices with his gardens, and was the top garden business in the Netherlands. Went banktrupt, and now only does garden designs.

« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2013, 14:13 »
+1
How many are making that with 500 images?

That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.


It used to be perfectly possible in microstock, even with photos.  I'm not sure about anymore.

Poncke

« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2013, 14:29 »
0
Xanox what is your suggestion? we all dump micro?

If the trend keeps going on, micro will dump you as the sales will not be enough to cover the production costs.

Said that, many things can happen in the industry in 2-3 years, nobody is in the position to say that micro is dead or that micro will prosper forever.

If we look at the numbers, the ones at risk of getting out of business are the photographers with small portfolios, not the top sellers.

They will be the ones to eventually keep micro as a hobby or to leave stock altogether.

On the other hand, oversupply will force top sellers to feed the beast more often than now but i guess the agencies will have to change something in their fees in one way or another.

In a typical scenario, 20% of the contributors make up 80% of the sales.
So, agencies have no reason to keep the small portfolios apart rare cases.

Being a cut-throat business it's logic that agencies will shake the fees in favor of the top sellers, or maybe give bonuses or whatever other incentive, i can't think of the whole micro industry remaining stale forever.

Getty itself could launch some new evil ideas to monetize their micro collections and they've no reason to give it away for free, if it works the other agencies could follow the same path.

All we can do is keeping out eyes open, something big could happen soon.
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue? LOL. Surely the ones that are accountable to their shareholders? Dont talk nonsense.

« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2013, 14:35 »
0
That's exactly what I do before every illustration! :D

Me too, but they usually ask me to stop when I'm drawing on a plane or public area.  ;D

« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2013, 14:54 »
0
Quote
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue?
Not sure this follows.  The 80% with tiny portfolios are also the easiest to replace.  Now I'll give that some of those are also creating new and different that the herd is not, but if they are they don't stay in the 80% all that long.

Look what 123 has done, made it much harder on the smaller contributors.  I think even the micro agencies have realized that adding 100's or 1,000's of new contributors every year is not as cost effective as encouraging those that produce 1,000's of great images every year (or every month).

It is harder to replace a 20,000 image portfolio from a contributor that has a good eye and creativity than it is to replace 100 contributors with 200 images each.  Look in the critique forum at SS or other where, newbies every day trying to break in.  A certain amount of new is required to keep from getting stale and to replace those that burn out or drop out.  But a new contributor has to cost the agency far more than a seasoned one if in review costs alone.  What is the acceptance ratio of a newbie (or hobbyist) compared to someone who has been doing this for years?  What is the sell through ratio of a newbie (or hobbyist) compared to a pro?

I am frankly surprised that agencies still make it so easy to get accepted.  Maybe they figure enough people start and never make a payout that it covers the costs?  I think going forward it will be harder to get accepted, and the difference in returns between upper tier contributors and hobbyist will get even farther apart.  Crowd sourcing worked for awhile but the standards are much higher now and the body of work available in micro is now so large that being selective is a better business model than accepting everyone in order to build image count.

« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2013, 21:50 »
-1
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue? LOL. Surely the ones that are accountable to their shareholders? Dont talk nonsense.

It's a matter of TCO (total cost of ownership).
You forget that this 20% of revenue makes up for 80% of the running costs in servers, support, billing, etc.

How do you know they make any profit from this ?

In other news only 0.5% to 1% of the average users ever click on ads, 99% of your server costs are wasted unless you monetize it with other upsells or you keep it for "brand awareness" or "visibility".

The 20/80 rule holds true in pretty much any market, and many economists suggest to drop the bottom 5% of your worst clients leaving it to the competition (hahaha).

It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.




ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2013, 05:05 »
0
It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.
Have iStock/Getty ever shown any sign that they give a flying f*ck about bad feeling by contributors being disseminated all over the web?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 09:56 by ShadySue »

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2013, 09:45 »
+1

It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.

I see you can tell how good someones work is, by counting their photos? You're amazing!

Are you related to ClaridgeJ by any chance?

The title of the thread should have been "Microstock is killing the Microstock industry" Price cutting, commission cutting, poor treatment for artists... the race to the bottom is building up momentum and speed.


« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 09:50 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2013, 09:50 »
0
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue? LOL. Surely the ones that are accountable to their shareholders? Dont talk nonsense.

It's a matter of TCO (total cost of ownership).
You forget that this 20% of revenue makes up for 80% of the running costs in servers, support, billing, etc.

How do you know they make any profit from this ?

In other news only 0.5% to 1% of the average users ever click on ads, 99% of your server costs are wasted unless you monetize it with other upsells or you keep it for "brand awareness" or "visibility".

The 20/80 rule holds true in pretty much any market, and many economists suggest to drop the bottom 5% of your worst clients leaving it to the competition (hahaha).

It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.

Nine years scratching the injury. Yo must have the body full of scars.

« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2013, 11:11 »
+1
The title of the thread should have been "Microstock is killing the Microstock industry" Price cutting, commission cutting, poor treatment for artists... the race to the bottom is building up momentum and speed.

I'm still far from an expert but the more I learn about this business, the more I realize that the real problem is that these agencies, in pursuit of short-term gains, are steadily devaluing the product in the long term - reducing its perceived value.  And once it's gone they won't get it back.  That's what "race to the bottom" really means. 

They want to sell search services, not images per se.  They don't own the images and have to pay commissions on actual sales.  So if the value of the actual product (image) goes to zero, but they make their money off of fees for search, ad revenue and other services, that's fine with them.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 11:13 by stockastic »

Microbius

« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2013, 11:38 »
0
I'm still far from an expert but the more I learn about this business, the more I realize that the real problem is that these agencies, in pursuit of short-term gains, are steadily devaluing the product in the long term ....
If you want the most extreme example look at Getty. Getting asset stripped by the owners for short term gain to make the books look good for a company sale.
Drastically, and directly for the images involved, stripping the collection of its worth by making a one off sale to Google for a pittance, when they must know the industry is based on volume. Disgusting.

« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2013, 01:09 »
-1
I'm still far from an expert but the more I learn about this business, the more I realize that the real problem is that these agencies, in pursuit of short-term gains, are steadily devaluing the product in the long term - reducing its perceived value.  And once it's gone they won't get it back.  That's what "race to the bottom" really means. 

They want to sell search services, not images per se.  They don't own the images and have to pay commissions on actual sales.  So if the value of the actual product (image) goes to zero, but they make their money off of fees for search, ad revenue and other services, that's fine with them.

Bingo.
Agencies don't "own" nor produce the images.
WE DO !

They've nothing to lose if what they "resell" lose value, especially if they've no exclusivity and the same product is sold in dozens of other smaller agencies as well, and they've nothing to lose if we go broke and end up grilling burgers to pay the bills as the oversupply of cheap images keeps growing.

Pricing is also just one side of the whole business, the real deal is how to "monetize" this ocean of images, no matter if they're good or bad, now the new frontier is about monetizing the millions of images that for whatever reason never sold much in the past .. so they offer subscriptions, bulk packs, and soon nanostock or "paid by advertising" ...

Yes, it's still fine for them if images become worthless, as they play on big numbers and dont have to shoot or buy expensive gear nor to edit and keyword and upload, and when it will become impossible to sustain for photographers they will just stick with hobbyists, after all nobody ever promised contributors they could make a living out of microstock, isnt it ?

And dont worry, there will be always people telling you that 0.30$ for a photo is better than 0.00$ !


 

« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 01:11 by Xanox »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
63 Replies
18072 Views
Last post January 30, 2014, 10:54
by Goofy
73 Replies
27483 Views
Last post June 18, 2017, 13:25
by niktol
27 Replies
7386 Views
Last post April 26, 2022, 15:28
by fotoroad
453 Replies
61274 Views
Last post March 30, 2023, 06:04
by DiscreetDuck
22 Replies
4359 Views
Last post May 30, 2023, 17:08
by cobalt

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors