MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: No freebies!  (Read 11958 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 15, 2010, 15:40 »
0
Lately, more and more people are talking about some big changes in the Microstock industry. "It is coming soon, a new Microstock style, giving your images for free?!?"  If this is the case then I am done with Microstock.
No freebies. I don't give my images for free. I live from photography and why would I give it for free. Camera and photo equipment is expensive. I don't get that for free. Who is going to pay my time spent producing free images?
Microstock is big part of my income but if I quit Microstock I will have more (plenty) of time to do some other stuff (as a photographer). Currently, I spend 70% of my time on Microstock productions so if I use that time to advertise myself I think it will pay off.

"Microstock - Microprices. There is no money."  -  That is what I have been told by some of my friends who are photographers in 2005-2006 when I joined Microstock. But I found a way to make some money and after all of this, if agencies want me to give them my images for free, I will quit Microstock and close all of my accounts. No agencies give us anything for free (they make more money from our images then we do) so why should we give them free images. For exposure? If they do that, personally I think it will be the end of Microstock. Are they trying to go back to 2003 and start all over again?

Personally I think this is not going to happen, they can't ask us to give them files for free, they must have something smarter on the way. Right now we need some growth in income or most of the big guys will leave Microstock. If they leave, customers will leave too (those who are after quality). So somebody with something else will come up, maybe RM Microstock.
And also agencies are making big money on this business so why would they screw this all up? I am not worried too much right now, I'm just trying to say that I am not supporting a free-image type Microstock and I am not interested in that type of business at all.

I know some of you commented on this in the other thread but anyway feel free to say few words.

I am wondering what you think and what would you do if this is true. Free images?

Me? I am out!

Kone
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 19:39 by Kone »


« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2010, 16:25 »
0
Obviously, I'd rather sell things, but I don't think the concept of free is all that horrible. It really depends on how it is done. If they gave away small web images that were specially watermarked with the agency and artist info, that might work as good advertisement. Then, clients would pay for the upgrade like a non-watermarked image or a larger size. I think that is what most of the "free-conomics" business models are based on is buying the upgrades. I'm not sure if any of the stock agencies free sites work like that.

« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2010, 16:59 »
0
Obviously, I'd rather sell things, but I don't think the concept of free is all that horrible. It really depends on how it is done.

No it doesn't.  Giving away your work is idiotic, "advertisment" or not.

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2010, 17:05 »
0
I basically agree with Kone.  I do this for a living.  I don't need the exposure and I am way past the point of getting excited just to have my pictures used. 

If micro goes to a free model then I am going to be pulling out altogether.  I would rather go back taking pictures as a hobby than to work this hard for no reward. 

If the agencies were to go to a free model, they would have to figure out how to pay contributors - either a portion of ad revenue or a portion of whatever revenue the freebies generate.  Otherwise their collections will rapidly be reduced to the amateur grab shots that micro started with ten years ago.    

« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2010, 17:46 »
0
Obviously, I'd rather sell things, but I don't think the concept of free is all that horrible. It really depends on how it is done.

No it doesn't.  Giving away your work is idiotic, "advertisment" or not.

Agree it is idiotic. Idiotic and desparation. Devaluation of your hard work. Silly and stupid, I agree. Only amateur who live with mother and father with no rent to pay can see freebie as sensible. If I want to give freebie, I shoot
landscape and give to grandma to hang in house. Why I give to some * stranger to use to make money for them?

m@m

« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2010, 17:48 »
0
Obviously, I'd rather sell things, but I don't think the concept of free is all that horrible. It really depends on how it is done.

No it doesn't.  Giving away your work is idiotic, "advertisment" or not.

+1...idiotic is an understatement when it comes to giving your work for free!

WarrenPrice

« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2010, 17:59 »
0
I'm not sure it is the same thing but I seem to remember FREE Gift as an enticement to attract "subscribers" to newly formed web sites.  An SEO ploy to raise site relevancy in search engines.  Higher placement led to "advertisers" and "click thru" references for such as Amazon Associates.  Or, it could lead to purchase of upgraded (larger) images from a photographer's website.  My site designer/SEO expert hounded me to make Free CD offerings.  I probably would have but it was too much work.  I turned to Microstock.  ::)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2010, 18:04 »
0
We work for scraps the way it is....giving them away for free is just idiotic. I'd just go on my way and use photography in a different way.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2010, 18:06 »
0
People are always talking about big changes in microstock but - although this industry is constantly changing and sites are opening and closing and merging all the time - I still haven't seen any *big* change in the last few years.

I don't think microstock as a whole is turning towards "free", because that won't benefit the agencies as well as photographers, so I am not too much worried.

They are offering some free pics as an advertisement - that's all.

Luckily, we can decide whether to offer our pics for free or not. In the end, it's up to us photographers to avoid giving away too many good images for free and compete with ourselves.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 18:19 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2010, 18:34 »
0
Obviously, I'd rather sell things, but I don't think the concept of free is all that horrible. It really depends on how it is done. If they gave away small web images that were specially watermarked with the agency and artist info, that might work as good advertisement. Then, clients would pay for the upgrade like a non-watermarked image or a larger size. I think that is what most of the "free-conomics" business models are based on is buying the upgrades. I'm not sure if any of the stock agencies free sites work like that.

I'd agree that in certain situations I think free is okay for stock photography but only when it's a direct incentive to buy. Buy 10 images, get one free. 10 free images when you buy a $200 credit package.

The free advertising deal is a better fit for portrait photographers. I was at a tradeshow and a photographer was there taking headshots and giving away free web sized portraits for social media like Facebook. For him the idea was sell full size prints and also build awareness of his other portrait services for weddings, seniors, etc. I can see this being a way to get direct leads and sales.

But just giving stock images away in return for "advertising" and "exposure"? I don't see how this would directly benefit me. And free images in exchange for advertising revenue? This may work for other media but I don't see it being sustainable for photography and more specifically, photographers.

« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2010, 18:36 »
0
I'm sure someone is thinking of way to go from giving images away to having you pay to place them and pay for someone to use them.

Free i.e. no one is paying you. Even from a microstock perspective that's a big jump down.

« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2010, 19:01 »
0
I'd agree that in certain situations I think free is okay for stock photography but only when it's a direct incentive to buy. Buy 10 images, get one free. 10 free images when you buy a $200 credit package.
I guess this was kind of my point. There are some incentives to freebies. Although like most people above pointed out, it probably doesn't make much sense for microstock because we get paid such small amounts. Just thought I'd play devil's advocate.  :D

« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2010, 19:03 »
0
OUT!

« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2010, 19:06 »
0
I've seen nothing, but prices going up. I've heard nothing, but the main agencies talking about increased revenue. "Free" just sounds naive. If you're worried about free, stop submitting to 8 million agencies all trying to make the same dollar. Back the sites that are making you real money and keep prices moving in the right direction.

« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2010, 20:41 »
0
I've seen nothing, but prices going up. I've heard nothing, but the main agencies talking about increased revenue. "Free" just sounds naive. If you're worried about free, stop submitting to 8 million agencies all trying to make the same dollar. Back the sites that are making you real money and keep prices moving in the right direction.

Is excellent point. You waste time giving sites that do not get your downloads. Big waste of time. Better to kill the proliferation of lame duck site and support the one giving you downloads regularly.
Also, when site boasts wow look we got 8 million pictures. You don't encourage with free , you said no, not 8 million, maybe only 6 million if you stop count on free.
Time we tell agency and lookers, Sorry no free lunch. I want the money .

« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2010, 20:47 »
0
Btw, the only people talking about 'big changes' or 'free' are those who aren't actually active in micro.  The 'pundits' of the industry if you will :).

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2010, 21:27 »
0
I've seen nothing, but prices going up. I've heard nothing, but the main agencies talking about increased revenue. "Free" just sounds naive. If you're worried about free, stop submitting to 8 million agencies all trying to make the same dollar. Back the sites that are making you real money and keep prices moving in the right direction.

Yes, prices are going up at several sites which is a step in the right direction. Good trend.

But cutting the contributor's chunk of sales also seems to be in the works for most sites. Not a good trend.


« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2010, 21:35 »
0
Btw, the only people talking about 'big changes' or 'free' are those who aren't actually active in micro.  The 'pundits' of the industry if you will :).

Maybe it's a way for Ellen to draw blog traffic and get her Mini-Consult business going

« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2010, 00:35 »
0
Does iTunes give aways songs for free? Oh wait, yeah they do but just as a teaser to introduce new artists.

I really don't feel free is a sustainable business model now, or ever.

« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2010, 02:05 »
0
But who will upload new pictures for fee!? I won't...
So that the stupidity can last a very short...
But anyway these are just unreal fears of microstockers... :P :-\ :-*

Today we have bunch of free pics sites, but good work still worth someone's money...
So, I see no reason why microstock agencies want to depend on some third parties (through advertisment paying agenices), without direct links with their customers...

So don't worry, I think that future is in big spread in cost of licensing, depending on the type of use... From microstock to macrostock on the same agency...

Nobody digs a trap under his feet...
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 02:12 by borg »

« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2010, 03:54 »
0
I know some of you commented on this in the other thread but anyway feel free to say few words.
I made some comments, but I never talked about giving images for free to a third party. Free images, when combined with relevant textual material (or tutorials) can drive traffic very efficiently. Traffic can be monetarized. I would offer the freebies myself, of course. Secondly, nobody is going to give away prime content for free. You can do that with old sub-par material that didn't sell the past years, or with sub-par or LCV editorial that illustrates a story. In that case, I would spend maximum 5 minutes in PS to make the shot presentable at 1000px.

« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2010, 10:50 »
0
I've seen nothing, but prices going up. I've heard nothing, but the main agencies talking about increased revenue. "Free" just sounds naive. If you're worried about free, stop submitting to 8 million agencies all trying to make the same dollar. Back the sites that are making you real money and keep prices moving in the right direction.

I particularly agree with "stop submitting to 8 million agencies all trying to make the same dollar. Back the sites that are making you real money..."

« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2010, 11:23 »
0
Whenever you hear a phrase like "getting your foot in the door" or "getting your name 'out there'" you know you have a big sucker sign hanging around your neck.

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2010, 12:55 »
0
Yes, prices are going up at several sites which is a step in the right direction. Good trend.

But cutting the contributor's chunk of sales also seems to be in the works for most sites. Not a good trend.

I agree with Paulie (like your new avatar pic, BTW :) ).  The real threat isn't going to an all free system.  It's the sites squeezing our royalties on the one end while they squeeze customers on the other. 

But that will eventually fail for the same reason the freebies would.  Once the most talented contributors find it isn't worth their while to submit anymore the sites will lose the good content, and buyers will once again be stuck with poorly isolated objects and grab shots from the garden.

« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2010, 13:59 »
0
Guys the concept of "Freemium" although we do not like it is here to stay. I have heard various movers and shakers on the management side of micro talking about it over the last 6 months as the next natural step of their marketing campaigns.

Look at the way Fotolia is using everystockphoto.com if you want to see this in action.

Of course it is unsustainable as a universal model for providing pictures to the customer but as a strategy of getting customers to sign up to site and then to upsell to them it actually makes a lot of sense.

Not that I will be giving any of my content away for nothing any time soon but I can see where they are coming at this one from.

George

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2010, 14:12 »
0
The real threat isn't going to an all free system.  It's the sites squeezing our royalties on the one end while they squeeze customers on the other.  

But that will eventually fail for the same reason the freebies would.  Once the most talented contributors find it isn't worth their while to submit anymore the sites will lose the good content, and buyers will once again be stuck with poorly isolated objects and grab shots from the garden.

Agree. That's exactly why I am not too worried about the future of microstock: they can crush us but they can't kill us because they'll always need new content, from all kind of people and all places in the world.

And good commercial content doesn't come for free: I would shoot whole different subjects if I weren't in here for the money.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 14:23 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2010, 14:36 »
0
The knee-jerk reaction to this is to say "free is stupid."  But I agree with the minority here... it's possible to envision a scenario in which something is given free and leads to payment by some means afterward.

I've posted my watermarked images at flickr for people to use.  My watermark is very prominent, so when the user puts it on his blog he is advertising my work.   This user was not going to buy images from anyone to begin with.  He might as well have my watermarked image, often with a credit that Google picks up so I also get good SEO out of the deal.   But how do I actually profit from this?  Many people have found me after doing image searches on Flickr and asked me to do custom work for them.  "Free" has worked very well for me so far.

You may not like it, but it's a movement that you're going to have to deal with sooner or later.  Figure out how to make free work for you or compete with those who have.

Here's an excerpt from a recent Wired article:

"Once a marketing gimmick, free has emerged as a full-fledged economy. Offering free music proved successful for Radiohead, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and a swarm of other bands on MySpace that grasped the audience-building merits of zero. The fastest-growing parts of the gaming industry are ad-supported casual games online and free-to-try massively multiplayer online games. Virtually everything Google does is free to consumers, from Gmail to Picasa to GOOG-411.

The rise of "freeconomics" is being driven by the underlying technologies that power the Web. Just as Moore's law dictates that a unit of processing power halves in price every 18 months, the price of bandwidth and storage is dropping even faster. Which is to say, the trend lines that determine the cost of doing business online all point the same way: to zero."

FULL ARTICLE: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free


« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2010, 15:36 »
0
Guys the concept of "Freemium" although we do not like it is here to stay. I have heard various movers and shakers on the management side of micro talking about it over the last 6 months as the next natural step of their marketing campaigns.

"movers and shakers" should do more work doing real promotion and less moving and shaking.

« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2010, 15:43 »
0
Overall, from the stock site's point of view the freemiums make good sense. If were a buyer and looked at a dozen or so really crappy free images and then saw some good ones next to them for just a few bucks I'd go for the good ones every time. However, I'd also be thinking "bait and switch" and maybe think that there was some sleaze goin' on. I guess it would boil down to how much work I'd have to do to wade through the garbage and find the gems.

« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2010, 15:59 »
0
I guess it would boil down to how much work I'd have to do to wade through the garbage and find the gems.

Exactly. I could easily spend a half hour searching through the freebies, looking for a decent image. Billed at my regular hourly freelance rate, well, that's a whole lot more to bill to my client than just doing a search and finding exactly what I'm looking for, at good quality, and paying for the image. It isn't cost-effective for me to use the freebies (doing freelance work). For a project for myself? Maybe. I think I have only ever browsed a free section once.

« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2010, 17:35 »
0
Guys the concept of "Freemium" although we do not like it is here to stay. I have heard various movers and shakers on the management side of micro talking about it over the last 6 months as the next natural step of their marketing campaigns.
That's what I have been saying in the "other" thread. But the model can also fail. Look what happened with the newspapers. They offered online free versions of their content, in the hope that readers would switch to their paper paying versions. That didn't happen: paper sales kept going down. One of the reasons is lack of an easy upgrade path to "premium": you still have to walk to the news stand. As it turned out, most readers were happy with the (limited) online version, so some titles (I think of Murdoch) plan to offer paying content again, this time online.
"Free" is meant to appetize, not to replace.

« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2010, 17:51 »
0
Guys the concept of "Freemium" although we do not like it is here to stay. I have heard various movers and shakers on the management side of micro talking about it over the last 6 months as the next natural step of their marketing campaigns.

"movers and shakers" should do more work doing real promotion and less moving and shaking.

Hear Hear sjlocke. It takes as much energy to do real promo that will profit both site and contributors.
Maybe movers and shakers should move and shake for no pay. Then I too will agree freebee is a good idea.

« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2010, 18:08 »
0
The knee-jerk reaction to this is to say "free is stupid."  But I agree with the minority here... it's possible to envision a scenario in which something is given free and leads to payment by some means afterward.


What happens when everyone is doing this, and they will? Does it become 4 of the price of 3? Or 3 for the price or 2? Or 6 for the price of 1? Lost leaders are to get customers in the store but I don't see more images being used because of it. So it becomes the same number of  images selling for less on average.

« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2010, 19:31 »
0


Look at the way Fotolia is using everystockphoto.com if you want to see this in action.


You mean the way that Fotolia "give away" images from collections such as flickr for "free" and try to upsell to their main collection? This site is a lawsuit waiting to happen. I wonder if Getty is aware that they are crawling stock.xchng and presenting the thumbnails as if it was part of their own collections.

Their other free site where they sell subscriptions to "free" images just makes photographers look stupid.

« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2010, 21:06 »
0
"Once a marketing gimmick, free has emerged as a full-fledged economy. Offering free music proved successful for Radiohead, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and a swarm of other bands on MySpace that grasped the audience-building merits of zero. The fastest-growing parts of the gaming industry are ad-supported casual games online and free-to-try massively multiplayer online games. ."
Maybe free can be a good idea for some products, but not for stock images. I can imagine Rolling Stones becomes famous with free than make money. But I cannot imagine a microstock contributor, specialist of isolated images, build a faithful fan club this way. Even if we think be artists our "products" , in huge majority, are not art.
Free is not good at all for contributors.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2010, 22:35 »
0
(like your new avatar pic, BTW :) ). 

Hey thanks. I had the fever for some cowbell. But I figured it was time to put Mr. Walnuts back.

« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2010, 09:56 »
0
"Free" is meant to appetize, not to replace.

Good point!

Everything what has some value, it will not be free of charge, always been so and will be...
Nobody will use their knowledge and time to produce something worthwhile, and then give it for free or without any reward...
When we say that something is worthwhile,, it means that someone is willing to give something to get it...
Thing, picture, information, tool etc., isn't matter ....

This topic only reflects unjustified fears of  microstockers and it is completely unnecessary....
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 10:00 by borg »


« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2010, 21:19 »
0
(like your new avatar pic, BTW :) ). 

Hey thanks. I had the fever for some cowbell. But I figured it was time to put Mr. Walnuts back.

Ouh no, this likes like my angry parakeet avatar
 ;D

« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2010, 10:12 »
0
Some sites will switch your old unsold photos over to their free section if you don't watch out. Change the default setting for auto-removal to "delete". I sell pictures on several sites. Why should I give away full-sized files that are still selling? Sure, some of my old ones have fewer mp and my older versions of PhotoShop weren't as good with WB, but I still don't want to give them away. Recently, a friend who is not a photographer told me she is having a harder time finding good free photos to use on her personal projects. I think that may be good news. In spite of all the talk about free content, I think we are seeing a shift to subscriptions or pay for use for writing and visuals online. The days of free samples are slowing drawing to a close. Creators have expenses just like everybody else.

« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2010, 12:10 »
0
I don't see a big difference between giving away pictures free, and earning $0.26 "XSmall" royalties, of which I have seen an inordinate number lately.  /gripe

« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2010, 16:09 »
0
I don't see a big difference between giving away pictures free, and earning $0.26 "XSmall" royalties, of which I have seen an inordinate number lately.  /gripe

Well, there is a huge difference.
If you give your file away for free, somebody else will make money off of it. People who need it, and those who don't need it, will download it anyway, and later you will find your file on sale burned onto CDs on Ebay. So why don't you sell it and make money off of your own file? Or, just stop doing stock photography, this is a business (at least for some of us) not a charity.
I don't like the prices of subscription as well, but what can I do? Maybe we should all follow Madalaide and stop selling subscriptions on all sites (where possible) and then when the customer who has purchased a subscription plan sees that most images are not available through a subscription plan, they will stop buying it. I know many sites will go out of business, but do they care about us? In the end, we will have fewer sites to deal with and with an acceptable pricing range.
Up in the thread, someone said that free files are for promotion. We are already paying a big chunk of our sales to agencies for advertising. That 50-80% fee on every sale should be enough for them to promote our work or their businesses. If they cannot, too bad, they should go back in time and open a free-stock site.
I won't work for a free-stock site.

« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2010, 17:17 »
0
I don't see a big difference between giving away pictures free, and earning $0.26 "XSmall" royalties,

I see a difference, even if extrasmall.   ;D

Seeing a large file go for a few cents is what annoys me, even more when it can be used even in a book cover.

« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2010, 18:54 »
0
I don't like the prices of subscription as well, but what can I do?
There is a difference between the real subscription site SS, and sites that adopted the model later, out of greed. With SS, you know what you'll get and you can upload smaller sizes there pre-emptively. With hybrid sites like DT, you tend to upload the largest size possible for the size/revenue benefit on credit sales, just to find out that the max size is almost always downloaded as sub. Since higher level images on DT are very costly as a credit sale, buyers can make a huge profit after 3-4 days in a month with the smallest subs package and at max size.

What can you do? Upload small sizes to DT (and forsake the almost non-existing max size credit sales) and reward SS with larger sizes since after all, SS makes (me) 5 times as much as DT.

The problem would largely be solved if hybrid sites would put a size limit on the subs. After all, the argument for subs is that buyers can make comps for customers without an unprofessional looking watermark. They don't need the max size for that: 1024px will do fine.

« Reply #43 on: August 02, 2010, 12:12 »
0
Those of us who have been on the Internet long enough have seen that things start out free, and then, when customers are hooked, the bills arrive. Quality content does not want to be free. It wants to be paid for, and the Internet economy is moving in that direction. When I post pictures on Flicker, I post very small versions of "seconds" I couldn't sell and save them for the web at low quality. Now, granted, this would be fine for display on portable devices. The big watermark is a good idea. We do have a problem with low quality images. People are even reading magazines on low-res portable devices now. Will high res shots even be relevant in the future? Anyway, I'm with the majority. I won't give my quality pictures away.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors