pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Midstock and microstock with the same portfolio?  (Read 11826 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 07, 2008, 07:49 »
0
On which mid-stock agencies can I upload the same images that I'm selling in other micro-stock agencies? (shutterstock, fotolia, bigstock, dreamstime, stockxpert, 123rf, featurepics, canstock)

I don't have time to build up a different portfolio, but I want to give a try to mid-stock.


« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2008, 09:26 »
0
Don't you think buyers are smart enough to look for the cheapest option?

« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2008, 09:32 »
0
I think that every agency has his target ;) And maybe with the mid-stock license the buyer can use the image in some more ways (I'm not sure, actually I'm reading some terms of usage).

« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2008, 09:54 »
0
oops. mistake:(
« Last Edit: September 07, 2008, 09:55 by noam »

« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2008, 02:55 »
0
Research and look at the type of Images on the Mid-Stock sites, you may well have some on your harddrive that at the time you thought would not be accepted for microstock that may fit in on mid-stock.

If we take Alamy as an example you should not upload as RM anything that has had sales as RF and Alamy sales statistics show that 75% of the sales there are RM and also 75% of sales are editorial.

You also may have some suitable images in you micro portfolio with no sales that you could pull from all sites to try on mid-stock.

But if you do not have time to create another portfolio then you likely do not have the time to research the mid-stock agencies and what sell there, you will only get out what you are willing to put in, so it looks like nothing!

David

« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2008, 03:07 »
0
Don't you think buyers are smart enough to look for the cheapest option?


They are but they do not always take or want the cheapest, the difference between micro and macro is the customer base, the macro's selling most of their images to Account Customers, where the micro's make sales by attracting lots of small token sales, both have a place and have good and bad points, but this is not a micro vs macro debate.

As an example to get you thinking I am sure similars of these could be found on microsites:

One of the most downloaded images over on Istock http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=1921014 downloaded 12000+ times

A similar image on PhotoShelter has sold once for $5000, to be used as a key fob for a hotel group:http://psc.photoshelter.com/image/PSC000143324

http://blog.photoshelter.com/school/2008/08/how-ryan-cardone-sold-an-image.html

Image on Alamy not to attractive view of the outside of windsor castle sold for $8000

http://www.alamy.com/thumbs/6/%7BB1EA95F4-E5C0-4325-BAB2-C22D39937D54%7D/AAE65H.jpg

David   
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 03:19 by Adeptris »

« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2008, 03:21 »
0
what's interesting here though, is that the istock photographer made the most out of your examples.

Alamy comissions generally tend to be no more than 40% after all the fees, so that photographer got $4000 for his image.

The istock photographer gets on average $1.00 per sale, so he earned $12,000 from that photo.

« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2008, 03:22 »
0
I agree Leaf, I am not defending or promoting one over the other. as a 12000+ image on Istock is by no means average but as rare as a $8000 download on Mid-stock, there are only 5 images on Istock that have 8000+ downloads, and the top 15 images range from 6000 - 12000 downloads.

You often read posts about which is more profitable, RM vs RF, Micro vs Trad, but it all depends on if your images are saleable and fit the content of the agencies you upload to.

I understand that this quote means, "Don't put the same images on both", which I fully support, but there is a market on both for similar images, so being open minded and not tied into one is not a bad move!

Don't you think buyers are smart enough to look for the cheapest option?

I was just pointing out that there may be cheaper options, but that does not mean that buyers take them, as often they are tied to where they can download by association and accounts, but if they find the same image on trad and micro you will likely loose a sale or have a 30 day refund.

David
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 04:18 by Adeptris »

« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2008, 04:02 »
0
Alamy comissions generally tend to be no more than 40% after all the fees, so that photographer got $4000 for his image.

The istock photographer gets on average $1.00 per sale, so he earned $12,000 from that photo.

But after the alamy or photoshelter sale has been made, there is still market for 12,000 image sales left.

Btw I like the photoshelter version much more, it has better colors (the face doesn't have weird green tint and the greens look more natural) and no stupid photoshopped gradient-sky. The hand is also the other way and does not look like a lump of meat.

Please, don't dilute the midstock/macrostock market with microstock images, you have to decide the price point for each image. In the real world you can't get a $200,000 Mercedes anywhere at $200, and that's why someone wants a Mercedes.

Try Alamy, but with different images, You'll find it rewarding if your images are good enough. You'll love the bigger sales without feeling yourself as a thief.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 04:06 by Perry »

« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2008, 04:10 »
0
ok! Thanks to all ;)

If I try to build up a new portfolio for mid-stock (maybe I'll delete all my landscapes and editorials from micros) on which mid-stock agencies I can upload my shots without exclusivity?

Photoshelter
Panthermedia
Mostphotos
...other?
maybe also Alamy?!


[edit] PS: and if I decide to put my images on sale with RM license I can't sell them on different sites? right?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 04:14 by Stepunk »

« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2008, 04:16 »
0
[edit] PS: and if I decide to put my images on sale with RM license I can't sell them on different sites? right?

No. Photoshelter and Alamy (Licenced = "L") are non-exclusive.

« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2008, 04:30 »
0
maybe I'll delete all my landscapes and editorials from micros on different sites? right?

That is your call, selling stock is not a "instant gratification" business, so just make a plan and give yourself plenty of time do not expect instant results, take down a few or better still offer similars first.

Try researching Alamy's content and offer sharp quality images, you will have to learn how to prepare and resize an image for Alamy, there is plenty of advice on Alamy and thier forums for this, they only reject on image quality not content as they expect you to only upload images that you have self edited, I have had 1 rejection on Alamy.

PhotoShelter is a new site so sales are picking up there, but they do want specific content, again research on what is getting accepted, and expect some rejections that you cannot understand as they are a subjective edited site, I have had 33% rejected there, also if the same image is found on sale for <$50 on another site your account could be closed.

If your images are selling on the microsites leave them there and upload different style images to use the macrosite as another avenue of revenue.
 
David
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 04:36 by Adeptris »

« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2008, 05:53 »
0
Btw I like the photoshelter version much more, it has better colors (the face doesn't have weird green tint and the greens look more natural) and no stupid photoshopped gradient-sky. The hand is also the other way and does not look like a lump of meat.

I agree.  It is a very nice image.

« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2008, 16:07 »
0
I always saw the micro v macro as more of an integrity issue. As a buyer I would be ticked to discover that my competitor was using the same image that I was for a campaign when I just spent quite a bit of money for an RM license. It would add salt to the wound to discover that my competitor spent $5 for the image license when I spent hundreds.

This is why I won't upload any of my Microstock to places like Alamy or PS as RM images. If discovered it just hurts my reputation as a photographer. Not to mention that many RM sites are now requiring that you not be a member of any micro site before they will let you apply.

« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2008, 17:13 »
0
I'm with azurelaroux.

Another point I would like to mention is that we can't actually control our images sold - either micro or macro stock. I am in Brazil, selling through US, CA and European sites to people anywhere in the world. What are the chances that I will ever find out if a certain image I sold was used out of the license terms? And if I do, what are the chances I may get any compensation for that? Will I get a lawyer to sue the user in Japan, Kenya or Costa Rica?

So to me the choice of macro vs micro is based on how much risk I want to take and how much loss I am accepting to have. I would be upset to see one of my "microstock-style" images misused, but I would be much more upset to see one of my dear travel images misused, so I sell the latter at macro only. It doesn't impede misuse, but it makes my "damage" less hurtful in my pocket (the buyer paid, let's say, US$100 instead of US$10).

Regards,
Adelaide

RT


« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2008, 18:29 »
0
I always saw the micro v macro as more of an integrity issue. As a buyer I would be ticked to discover that my competitor was using the same image that I was for a campaign when I just spent quite a bit of money for an RM license. It would add salt to the wound to discover that my competitor spent $5 for the image license when I spent hundreds.

This is why I won't upload any of my Microstock to places like Alamy or PS as RM images. If discovered it just hurts my reputation as a photographer. Not to mention that many RM sites are now requiring that you not be a member of any micro site before they will let you apply.

Microstock don't sell RM images only RF.

Also if you were a buyer and you didn't want your competitor using the same image RM wouldn't be the correct license, you would want a RP license.

And for the record I know of no traditional RM sites that stipulate you can't sell via microstock, the only one that had a policy along those lines was Photoshelter and what a success they turned out to be. However a lot of traditional RM sites require image exclusivity, but it's always been like that.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 18:35 by RT »

« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2008, 07:54 »
0
Since the PSC closure announcement I've been looking for other sites in which to sell my RM work. Workbook, Photographers Direct, and several others explicitly state that if you contribute to micros then they will not accept you as a contributor. Even PSC's contract stated that you couldn't list any images with them that were offered elsewhere for less than $50 per license, regardless of license type.

I realize that micros are all RF. That said I have seen people who offer their images on micros and also have them listed as higher priced RF or RM on sites like Alamy.


« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2008, 08:19 »
0
Yes, Yuri does that.  Ask him how successful it is for him.

RT


« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2008, 11:32 »
0
Workbook, Photographers Direct, and several others explicitly state that if you contribute to micros then they will not accept you as a contributor.

Neither of these are stock agencies.

The main traditional stock agencies Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, Alamy, Inmagine etc etc do not have policies like the one you're suggesting, and IMO if you're looking to sell RM work you will have much better success selling on these sites and not one's like Workbook or Photographers direct.

As for what others do, don't let it concern you what they do, there are some people that are very experienced in selling and understanding the stock industry and the different licensing price levels, what appears to you to be wrong may not actually be the case, now even though I personally don't mix RF and RM across different sites some do and they can within that license.

Back to your original post, it may interest you that my last RM license I sold via a macro was for $39, had the buyer bought an image license on a microstock site for the same usage terms it would have cost them in excess of $100, so you see macro (traditional) sites are not always more expensive, professional picture buyers are fully aware of the different licenses and the pricing levels available at different stock agencies so I suggest you don't get overly concerned about it yourself.

Good luck wherever you decide to sell your stuff.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
9372 Views
Last post February 09, 2009, 14:59
by Pixart
12 Replies
10401 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 15:05
by WarrenPrice
2 Replies
3911 Views
Last post February 17, 2009, 17:56
by tan510jomast
11 Replies
7089 Views
Last post August 07, 2009, 07:35
by borg
3 Replies
13929 Views
Last post January 03, 2018, 11:29
by niktol

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors