Author Topic: Most likely to go under (Read 14360 times)

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Most likely to go under (Read 14360 times)

Karimala

sharpshot

grp_photo

epixx

Elnur

vonkara

Elnur

epixx

null

epixx

fotografer

gborce

rene

PaulieWalnuts

vphoto

madelaide

lisafx

Tim Markley

mantonino

fotoKmyst

etudiante_rapide

jsnover

sharpshot

etudiante_rapide

fotoKmyst

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors