Author Topic: Most likely to go under (Read 12932 times)

Tim Markley · « **on:** January 21, 2008, 18:36 »

I have been reading the post about those sites with the most potential. I'd like to take an opposite tack. Which sites will NOT be with us at the end of the year? Who will join sites such as USPHOTO and others as a bombs?

vonkara · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2008, 19:24 »

I would not say that it would disappear at the end of the year, but Lucky Oliver seem to not growing as fast I as was expecting it. First I was thinking about joining them, but now I'm happy to not doing it.

epixx · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2008, 20:57 »

Lucky Oliver seems to be going nowhere, Canstock is going in the wrong direction, at least for me. Albumo, ImageCatalogue and Geckostock have all been non-starters in my view.

I'm a bit doubtful with regards to Crestock as well. I don't think they will go under anytime soon, but their business concept, with high quality requirements and low (subscription based) payouts to the photographers, can't last forever.

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2008, 01:31 »

There are a few sites that have hardly any sales and will struggle to keep going but I think Lucky Oliver and Crestock are doing OK. I had 3 sales with LO yesterday. There are signs that sales are starting to pick up again after a very disappointing end to 2007. I think LO will survive because they sell images at higher prices through the sideshow and they have attracted a lot of the big miscrostock contributors.

Crestock can't be that fussy, as they have accepted most of the images I have sent there. The sales are better than I expected and the site looks good. They seem to be growing, so I think they have a good future.

Albumo have spent lots of money but have very few sales. They will have to attract buyers this year to survive. I don't know what keeps some of the sites like Geckostock going. They must be losing money, as there doesn't seem to be many sales there. I haven't felt confident enough to upload to them.

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2008, 16:34 »

If we speak of sites that used to sell and went dead, then I would pick CanStockPhoto. ImageVortex also seems forgotten - same old photos at the main page - but I don't know if it's just me, as my portfolio there is small.

If we speak of sites that never took off, Gimmestock and Microstockphoto would be my picks.

Regards,
Adelaide

travelstock · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2008, 23:54 »

Good thread - maybe we should expand it further and say... which sites do we want to kill off this year.

I'd nominate CanStockPhoto. I recall that I stopped uploading there due to apparent "copyright" issues with many of my photos. Apparently 1000 year old monuments are subject of copyright??

I've had another chance to look at my CanStockPhoto portfolio. Its moved up another $0.25 since I looked at it last (3 mths ago). I'm probably going to convert my earnings to credits, then download someones photos. That way I give some money back to another photographer rather than to a hopeless site, seeing as the $8.75 earned in 2 years is still well short of their $50 minimum payout.

eppic · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2008, 00:12 »

I'd second CanStockPhoto. I tried them for awhile and got 2 dl's. Looking at their upload stats, even the most popular photos don't have much in the way of dl's compared to other sites.
I also wonder about shutterfarm and their business model. They don't seem to be going anywhere either.

anonymous · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2008, 15:35 »

CanStockPhoto still kicks in with 5 - 7 dl's per week for me and I upload there 1st to use their keyword generator.

Crestock - quit uploading a year ago, 3 sales in the last year (all .25 - ugh). Don't see a payout until 2015.

LO - canceled my account there about 6 mos ago BUT I think they'll hang in for a few more years.

While Featurepics is a slow seller, I've uploaded everything I have there as my 1 - 2 dl's a month there equal 3 or 4 years of dl's at Crestock, AND I so love being able to set my price and receive the lion's share of it. So I'll fight for these guys.

The 2 that I HOPE will make it are MostPhotos and Zymmetrical. However, if Zymmetrical does not get out of beta soon and begin "approving" photos, they're going to simply die on the vine with no inventory. MostPhotos desperately needs to focus on marketing images instead of running a "vanity" site if they want wings in the next 2 years.

The rest of the "Low Earners" just simply have no traffic (currently) to support any revenue surge.

photojay · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2008, 15:11 »

First let me say that anybody looking to close their account at CanStockPhoto and purchase images from a photographer to give back some money to contributors, I stick out my web-hand and a link to my portfolio is: http://www.canstockphoto.com/profile.php?id=22785

That being said, I agree, the admins there need to learn to balance the needs of the contributor with the needs of the purchaser. They work for both. Lack of marketing is going to kill them this year if BennyM's forum comments don't scare contributors away!

LO just hired a web guy to help out with all of their programming issues, so they may make it a few more years, but they aren't going to have any money to pay the guy if sales don't improve, too.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2008, 01:27 »

I stopped uploading to Crestock after only 4 approvals there ...
I am giving up on Albumo as there is next to ZERO view traffice there ...
I have not submitted to LO due to all the negative things I've seen and heard on the various forums.

I will the 2nd the voice about supporting FP until it gets off the ground as it is a true site for the contributors

LONG LIVE FEATUREPICS !

Mark

Tim Markley · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2008, 10:18 »

Since I started this thread and I am $3.00 from a canstock payout feel free to download a few of mine if you're closing out your account.

What this thread has done is highlight the need for stock sites to understand their markets. Is the site a photograhper site or a designer site. So far I think Istock is the only site that plays both sides of the street well.

gbcimages · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2008, 10:45 »

I don't know about LO ,I'm trying to get approved there. I've been waiting to get the last photo viewed in the three sample section for almost a week now. They tell you to get in touch with them if it's been over five days. I shouldn't half to that 's their job to keep up with that section. To me thats poor service.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2008, 10:59 »

CanStockPhoto/LO/Alumo/ maybe even SnapVillage all seem like a fish out of water at the moment. (for me at least). Crestock on the other hand is out performing Bigstockphoto for me this month. I don't see them dying anytime soon.

gbcimages · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2008, 11:31 »

mark.... do you upload to fotomind,just curious?

mwp1969 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:24 »

Quote from: gbcimages on January 27, 2008, 11:31

mark.... do you upload to fotomind,just curious?

I've never heard of them in general discussions ... so no. What's it like there? Any luck there?

Mark

gbcimages · « **Reply #15 on:** January 27, 2008, 12:51 »

I've got 260 images with one sale .90. It's easy to upload to and they accept almost everything you submit. But that's about all I know. I'm not uploading anymore until I start seeing more sales

mwp1969 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 27, 2008, 17:42 »

That's alot of images for only 1 sale ... I'll keep my eye on the forums to see if I hear them taking off though. Right now I'm still focused on trying to get approved at both SS and IS.

Mark

rene · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2008, 05:56 »

1 - Luckyoliver
2 - Albumo
3 - Canstockphoto

vphoto · « **Reply #18 on:** February 05, 2008, 07:45 »

1. LO
2. DT
3. FP

leaf · « **Reply #19 on:** February 05, 2008, 07:58 »

Quote from: vphoto on February 05, 2008, 07:45

1. LO
2. DT
3. FP

WHAT?? dreamstime?? no way. They are one of the movers and shakers if you ask me. If things got tough and all but 4 sites were left, I would say they would be one of the four.

I also think LuckyOliver is going to be around for a while. They don't show any signs of slowing down, despite their slow sales.

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #20 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:01 »

I think also that LO will be there for a while my bet is on
1.CanStockPhoto
2.FP
3.CT

michealo · « **Reply #21 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:45 »

I see SV buying some of the weaker sites to build up their portfolio.

And you may see Bill G playing a more active role in Corbis / SV as he scales back at MSFT

Bateleur · « **Reply #22 on:** February 06, 2008, 04:28 »

How about a poll on it? Can you attach one to this message, or should a new thread be started?

marcopolo · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2008, 23:06 »

Probably CanStockPhoto and Albumo if they don't start selling. I thought since Albumo was paying people to upload they would also have serious money for marketing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I would also say SV if it wasn't backed by Bill Gates/Corbis. I hope I am wrong, but I am concerned that Featurepics may not make it either.
I have actually had several payouts with CanStockPhoto, but I have only managed to get less than half my portfolio up there because of their buggy site, whenever I try to upload more it crashes and has various problems so I decide it is not worth the effort to upload the rest as long as sales remain low. I have had a couple payouts with LO as well and they are as slow as Canstock, but I think that they need to be around a couple years longer to really see how they will perform, they are still relatively new compared to Canstock.

rinderart · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2008, 01:30 »

Im betting LO is gone very soon. what a waste of server space. and I cant even believe people still upload to canstock.

Karimala · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2008, 01:33 »

Albumo is already dead to me. I quit uploading to them before I even hit my $75 upload bonus payout after discovering their true TOS isn't the same as the one I signed up under.

Once my 14 months is up, I'm outta there! Kissing the bonus goodbye. And I suspect many more people will be pulling their portfolios as well. Their 14 month requirement and the insanely low pricing will be the cause. Once the ball starts rolling and portfolios start disappearing, it's bye-bye Albumo.

All the other sites mentioned will probably still be around. Crestock has been making some positive changes, CanStockPhoto has a fairly loyal client base, LO is doing just fine (just not as well as we all had hoped), and FP has enough support from photographers to keep going for a while. Many of the smaller sites, like FP, are an extension of a larger company, so I would expect those to stick around.

sharpshot · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2008, 03:19 »

Quote from: rinderart on February 12, 2008, 01:30

Im betting LO is gone very soon. what a waste of server space. and I cant even believe people still upload to canstock.

I had a BME with LO last month. They are growing very slowly but there are signs that they could be a success one day. I think it is highly unlikely they will be gone very soon.

grp_photo · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2008, 05:02 »

If someone likes a site or not is no indicator if it is going under or not.
LO will remain a low earner for a long time but i highly doubt there will go under soon.

epixx · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2008, 06:15 »

I've just been checking my statistics, and there were a few surprises. Biggest one is StockXpert, which is less than 50% of this time last year.

Who will survive long term, is not only a question of how much they sell, but if they are actually able to earn money. That's almost impossible to see from where we are sitting, but there are tell-tales, like slow reviewing, slow pay-outs etc. Some (most) of these agencies apparently lack a professional management.

Elnur · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2008, 11:34 »

I will only vouch for 123, FT, DT, SS, IS, StockXpert to survive another 2 years. Others do not show any signs of recovery or growth... Industry doesn't need too many sites offering the same content at the same prices at the same convenience.
Remember many internet search engines a few years ago.... now there are only top 2-3 worth mentioning.

vonkara · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2008, 12:03 »

Quote from: Elnur on February 12, 2008, 11:34

I will only vouch for 123, FT, DT, SS, IS, StockXpert to survive another 2 years. Others do not show any signs of recovery or growth... Industry doesn't need too many sites offering the same content at the same prices at the same convenience.
Remember many internet search engines a few years ago.... now there are only top 2-3 worth mentioning.

I have the same advice about there is too many agencies. But the big six must survive over 2 years. I don't understand exactly your point? After 2 years, what microstock will become if the big 6 is also not there?

Elnur · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2008, 12:43 »

Quote from: Vonkara on February 12, 2008, 12:03

Quote from: Elnur on February 12, 2008, 11:34
I will only vouch for 123, FT, DT, SS, IS, StockXpert to survive another 2 years. Others do not show any signs of recovery or growth... Industry doesn't need too many sites offering the same content at the same prices at the same convenience.
Remember many internet search engines a few years ago.... now there are only top 2-3 worth mentioning.
I have the same advice about there is too many agencies. But the big six must survive over 2 years. I don't understand exactly your point? After 2 years, what microstock will become if the big 6 is also not there?

must by my English... third language

I meant that only big 6 will survive 2 years and more... others I'm not sure.

epixx · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2008, 12:50 »

Size doesn't guarantee survival, profit does. Corbis is one of the largest, but if they didn't have a very rich owner, they would have been dead and buried long ago. They've never made a profit.

null · « **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2008, 16:24 »

Quote from: vphoto on February 05, 2008, 07:45

1. LO
2. DT
3. FP

Grmppfffff

Let's just talk about DT. One of the best managed sites with a clear professional business mind and friendly to its main asset, which is its contributors. FP and LO I don't know. They are sailing a very conservative course, with their own servers and apparently spending what their shallow pockets allow. To stay around, an agency doesn't have to make profit but just break even. If you can't win on the profit battlefront, you can stay afloat by being slim on the expenses line.

epixx · « **Reply #34 on:** February 13, 2008, 04:10 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 12, 2008, 16:24

Let's just talk about DT. One of the best managed sites with a clear professional business mind and friendly to its main asset, which is its contributors. FP and LO I don't know. They are sailing a very conservative course, with their own servers and apparently spending what their shallow pockets allow. To stay around, an agency doesn't have to make profit but just break even. If you can't win on the profit battlefront, you can stay afloat by being slim on the expenses line.

Problem is: some of those agencies spend a lot on advertising etc. As long as they grow, that works fine. If they stagnate or shrink, that may be the end for those who don't have solid financial backing. I prefer slow growth combined with realistic, long term targets rather than an explosive growth ending in a spectacular crash. Fireworks give a lot of pleasure, but a candle will keep me warm longer.

I agree about DT. To me, they are the most professionally run agency at the moment, and my earnings there are developing very nicely. I'm more than 100% above 2007 ytd.

fotografer · « **Reply #35 on:** February 13, 2008, 04:56 »

I'll give another vote in favour of DT. Very nicely run company with fair commisions

gborce · « **Reply #36 on:** February 13, 2008, 14:44 »

I had my last image waiting for approval for almost 3 weeks in the three tosses section.. I wrote them a couple of times, no replies.. very unprofessional..

Quote from: gbcimages on January 27, 2008, 10:45

I don't know about LO ,I'm trying to get approved there. I've been waiting to get the last photo viewed in the three sample section for almost a week now. They tell you to get in touch with them if it's been over five days. I shouldn't half to that 's their job to keep up with that section. To me thats poor service.

rene · « **Reply #37 on:** April 25, 2008, 17:29 »

Quote from: rene on February 05, 2008, 05:56

1 - Luckyoliver
2 - Albumo
3 - Canstockphoto

I was right. Now it's Albumo's time. And I add at this list :
4 - Crestock
5 - Bigstockphoto

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #38 on:** April 25, 2008, 20:07 »

1. Featurepics
2. Bigstockphoto
3. Albumo

vphoto · « **Reply #39 on:** April 25, 2008, 20:31 »

Quote from: vphoto on February 05, 2008, 07:45

1. LO
2. DT
3. FP

about LO I was right, I remove DT and BigStock. FP is the next candidate.

madelaide · « **Reply #40 on:** April 25, 2008, 20:55 »

Why do some of you think that BigStock is more at risk than CanStockPhoto?

Regards,
Adelaide

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** April 26, 2008, 09:38 »

I expect those comments are from people who don't submit to Canstock and therefore aren't giving them any thought.

IMO Bigstock has had consistent and (slowly) growing sales for over three years that I have been there. They continue to be well run. I don't see any sign of trouble there at all.

And the closing of the inspection queue on most weekends would imply they are not suffering from lack of submissions...

Tim Markley · « **Reply #42 on:** April 26, 2008, 10:03 »

Bigstock is really a steady performer for me and I like the low payout of $30. I think canstock will hang around because I suspect their overhead is low.

The small players like geckostock, USphoto seem like the next to go.

mantonino · « **Reply #43 on:** April 26, 2008, 10:23 »

Can I still vote for LO?

fotoKmyst · « **Reply #44 on:** April 26, 2008, 12:48 »

you'd be surprised which will be the next to go!

the stock market (as in the Bay Street , rather than photography) has turned sour, so with it many companies have less money to spend.
the Big boys may not be as big as they look after this.

i would be less surprised if the top gun is having trouble which could explain their "pickiness".
remember historically, in a market downturn, the biggest losers were the biggest players because they've over extended themselves in good times, due to being too sure of their stranglehold of the market.

being small means you have less overheaded, you topple less.
remember david and golaith

the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #45 on:** April 26, 2008, 12:58 »

rules keep changing , that's the only thing that's certain.
the same with microstock.
as new graduates come into the marketing business, new concepts take hold. what is considered great "stock" photos may not sit well with these new generation of buyers.

a good example is i have been talking to a few of my network about my going into stock photography as an extra cash opportunity.
4 of 5 in the marketing trade laughed at stock photos...
so already we see a disgreement between what they will buy and what they won't

it'll be interesting to see what happens next

jsnover · « **Reply #46 on:** April 26, 2008, 14:47 »

Quote from: joma st on April 26, 2008, 12:58

4 of 5 in the marketing trade laughed at stock photos...

Can you elaborate a bit on why these folks laughed at stock photos? I'm assuming they would use photos in their materials (i.e. it's just stock photos they find unacceptable). Do they have huge budgets and can afford custom shoots for all their work? And were they laughing at microstock (versus Getty or other trads) particularly?

sharpshot · « **Reply #47 on:** April 26, 2008, 14:49 »

Some sectors prosper in an economic downturn. Wont microstock take more of the market if buyers can no longer afford the traditional sites prices?

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #48 on:** April 26, 2008, 15:09 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 26, 2008, 14:47

Quote from: joma st on April 26, 2008, 12:58
4 of 5 in the marketing trade laughed at stock photos...
Can you elaborate a bit on why these folks laughed at stock photos? I'm assuming they would use photos in their materials (i.e. it's just stock photos they find unacceptable). Do they have huge budgets and can afford custom shoots for all their work? And were they laughing at microstock (versus Getty or other trads) particularly?

ya, it was more towards the latter as you mentioned...
micro vs trads. the fact that too many "samey" photos are seen all over the place. which they feel in a way cheapens photographers' work.

once again, it's their opinion or rather my impression.
me? i am sort of ambivalent... moving either way

fotoKmyst · « **Reply #49 on:** April 26, 2008, 15:13 »

are you ppl making your forecasting selections based on YOUR OWN SALES?
that is not a viable barometer of who is going to go down next.

epixx · « **Reply #50 on:** April 27, 2008, 00:41 »

Quote from: fotoKmyst on April 26, 2008, 15:13

are you ppl making your forecasting selections based on YOUR OWN SALES?
that is not a viable barometer of who is going to go down next.

Of course. We are all experts here, more or less professors in microstock, actually

To be honest, I think this thread is very useless. First of all, we don't know the whole picture, we don't know the total sales, we don't know the funding and we don't know the costs of any of these agencies. We can have suspicions, but little more.

The one site that was easiest to read, was LO. They looked like a high cost operation with all their stuff, and most of us knew that they didn't sell well. Places with low costs and a reasonable portfolio, can probably run for years or forever, even if it looks to us like they don't have enough to survive.

Look at a place like ScanStock. The website is so boring and primitive that any 16 year old could probably have designed and programmed it. I guess that it's a very skinny operation. Their review times indicate that. But they sell photos, day after day, or at least they do for me.

I believe that they, and a few of the other low-cost operations will be among the survivors, and as long as commissions are trickling into my account, I'm happy.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Most likely to go under (Read 12932 times)

vonkara

gbcimages

gbcimages

gbcimages

michealo

rinderart

grp_photo

vonkara

gborce

lisafx

fotoKmyst

jsnover

fotoKmyst

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors