MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: OutsideViewer on April 21, 2009, 18:36
-
Hello, my name is John and this is my first post. I am neither a photographer nor ...stocker, but I do follow these forums because you can learn a lot about the general direction of business this way. I also have several photographer friends that are exploring new ways to market their images.
The reason I decided to post is because of the glaring absence of any discussion of large segment of the photography market. I know this segment is large, but there seems to be no mention of it or its impact. That is the "non-traditional" image buyers. I am talking about people that like to collect nice images for "personal" use.
In discussing this market with a photographer friend who is making a very good living he estimates that as much as 80% of the people buying his images are private collectors that have no need or interest in obtaining commercial rights. He says these private buyers often avoid stock sites because they are too cumbersome and seem to be geared exclusively to business users. The current crop of ...stock sites all seem to ignore the private segment and cater all of their marketing efforts to business users.
My question is why is this? How come there are no hybrid sites marketing to both private collectors and commercial buyers? Have you considered that many of the people buying your images may be private collectors? Hopefully this will spark some debate.
(Incidentally, I have nothing to sell or offer, I am merely a student of business and it seems odd that ...stock sites seem to ignore this segment.)
-
I can't imagine the segment of "personal buyers" is very large. What percentage really buys images just to look at them on their monitor?
Regardless, iStock, or any of the other sites are easy enough and cheap enough to buy from if you just want to sit at your desk and look at an image.
-
I feel a pitch from another 'new member' coming along very soon, and wouldn't it be a surprise is that pitch was for a new site targeting private buyers!
-
I feel a pitch from another 'new member' coming along very soon, and wouldn't it be a surprise is that pitch was for a new site targeting private buyers!
Crazy talk!
-
It would be interesting to find out if 'personal use' buyers are really inclined to buy totally digital files. There are sites like Zazzle, Cafepress, ImageKind, and Red Bubble that reach this audience through product sales. They don't focus on large business clients. A personal use buyer could get framed or printed versions of any image they like without stock license RM/RF agreements.
There are some stock sites with hybrid features. IstockPhoto offers an option to buy prints, other sites partner with companies that market more directly to personal use clients.
-
As I stated before I am not offering a service, information, and will not name or link to any.
As far as there not being a market of private collectors interested in commercial imagery is true if your subject matter is road signs or web icons. I am referring to things like interesting people, sporting activities and vivid landscapes. I am honestly a little surprised some would think there is no market for this as stock imagery often represents the very best of photography. I myself have bought many stock images exclusively for personal use merely because I appreciated the art.
As far as being easy. I thought the buying process was ridiculous and totally unsuited for personal use. Imagine walking into an art store and having to do the following to make a purchase:
1 - Figure out what a "stock image" is and am I even eligible to buy it. Isn't stock images just for use by businesses?
2 - Search through the enormous number of images on a computer many of which are loosely keyworded so I find everything but what I am looking for.
3 - Find one I might want to buy but there is a watermark on it. Will this be on the image I buy? Time to get lost in the help pages.
4 - OK I am ready to buy but wait, there are many different sizes measured in pixels? I also need to open an account, and pay with tokens or purchase an expensive subscription plan????
5 - Read through the pages of legal fine print just to figure out what I am getting and what I can do with it.
I bet 50% or more of collectors would never get past number 3.
The point is people want easy when it comes to making purchase. The more steps and complexity the more you are likely to lose the sale. They do not want to have to learn the ins and outs of the stock buying process. If you think I am kidding please consider researching buyer behavior.
My points are simple. There is a large market of consumer buyers for interesting and unique imagery. I am one myself. Many people are unaware of stock, what it is, and how to buy it. Finally, the buying process is unfriendly and overly complex for consumer buyers. Many of these individuals decision to purchase is merely an impulse, but with the current purchasing process it would likely be abandoned.
-
1 - Figure out what a "stock image" is and am I even eligible to buy it. Isn't stock images just for use by businesses?
2 - Search through the enormous number of images on a computer many of which are loosely keyworded so I find everything but what I am looking for.
3 - Find one I might want to buy but there is a watermark on it. Will this be on the image I buy? Time to get lost in the help pages.
4 - OK I am ready to buy but wait, there are many different sizes measured in pixels? I also need to open an account, and pay with tokens or purchase an expensive subscription plan????
5 - Read through the pages of legal fine print just to figure out what I am getting and what I can do with it.
These are all silly. Yes, of course, the everyday buyer would assume the image you license would have a big "ISTOCKPHOTO" across it.
-
hello John, and welcome.
if you are referring to prints for personal exhibition like you would collect an Ansel Adams, or a David Hamilton,etc... i would think these sort of market would not sit very well in a microstock environment.
first, stock photos are more or less generic, and a contributor would not mind getting a commission ranging from 10 cents to ... (whatever). moreover, we don't really need to know who buys the images, unlike that of a gallery print .
secondly, a photographer who produces gallery prints is not likely going to submit these sorts of images for that price. at least, i won't.
perharps there is a market for them. at the moment, i am involved in a consortium that more or less does this. exhibition and sales during the reception of the featured artist. as you may well know, many galleries already do this. and they do it locally.
are you thinking of doing it globally via the web? i am sure there are already some photographers doing it. but when it comes to selling gallery prints,
i still prefer a one on one meet the photographer arrangement, like we do with our consortium and local galleries. it's an entirely different atmosphere and relationship.
i would say stock photos are more like your litho mass production piece
as opposed to the original gallery print. two diverse market, and never the twain shall meet; at least not in my river 8)
this is just my tuppeny's worth of insight. cheers and welcome to this forum. ;)
-
Silly for someone familiar with the stock licensing process maybe, not for an unfamiliar impulse image buyer in an economic recession.
Here is another way of looking at it. I used to develop software and design interfaces for many years. Many times I would release a "brilliant" new interface design for testing only to get a less than glowing response back from the testors. I could not understand how something so obviously simple to use was giving testors so many problems. It turns out I could not see the problems because of my own extensive familiarity with the design and possibly some of my own arrogance. I had made some simple assumptions and dismissed the possibility of flaws.
All I am saying is consumer image buyers must be comfortable with the process or they will likely look elsewhere. People are scared now especially of wasting money.
-
Thank you for the cordial response batman. I truely have nothing to lose or gain with my postings. I am simply a student of business trying to understand business and consumer behavior.
The types of images I am talking about include everything from artistic images suitable for prints to Youtube-style comedy images. If you do a search in most microstock sites there is an enormous variety of images to suit all interests. For example some of my favorites are the funny pet images.
Have you ever wondered why an image sold and what could possibly be the business purpose? It may not be for business at all; it might just be to put on someones t-shirt. Sometimes the more rediculous the image or situation the more consumers might be interested. Yet, the stock agencies do not seem to market them to consumers. I am just curious why.
-
The stock agencies do nothing _but_ market them to consumers. I'm not sure where your concern lies except that Joe Sixpack can't figure out how to open an account and license an image.
What kind of solution do you see for your perceived problem, need I ask?
-
ok, i get it. i thought you meant the gallery type images.
you're talking about youtube type, and funny hilarious types.
well, as whitechild noted on one of the other threads, he sold one of those.
if there really is such a demand, i am sure any site would jump to it. after all they are in the business to make money ;)
it's not uncommon for buyers to put in a request. some site do post a list of images sought . or if you are planning to market them, do like sjl just said, open an account and license those images.
-
OK, lets look at some assumptions:
There is no such thing as purely consumer buyers of stock photography or the percentage of such buyers is very low. People do not purchase images that interest them for personal use.
The current crop of ...stock agencies are already aggressively pursuing this market or they see little opportunity in it. They are already consumer friendly.
Purchasing an image on a typical agency website is a simple matter for even new or unsophisticated buyers with little need for improvement.
Fulfillment sites like xyz adequately address the consumer market. They'll even sell you images on a t-shirt.
If this is the general concensus there is no need to go any further. Maybe it is better to be a tiny fish in a big market than a big fish in a smaller niche market.
I am not trying to be argumentative. You may be right. I just see troubled waters ahead because current ...stock math does not work long-term for contributors. When supply is increasing far faster than demand prices must eventually fall and average sales per image must decrease.
It is my guess that photographers willing to cater to smaller niche markets will be best positioned to prosper.
-
To answer your questions more directly:
1 - Figure out what a "stock image" is and am I even eligible to buy it. Isn't stock images just for use by businesses?
Anyone may purchase a stock image, as long as the use conforms to the site's license.
2 - Search through the enormous number of images on a computer many of which are loosely keyworded so I find everything but what I am looking for.
You are best served by searching for clear, simple words that describe images that fit your needs. If you should find a photographer's style that you like, you might want to look more deeply at that photographer's portfolio.
3 - Find one I might want to buy but there is a watermark on it. Will this be on the image I buy? Time to get lost in the help pages.
Watermarks are never included on purchased images.
4 - OK I am ready to buy but wait, there are many different sizes measured in pixels? I also need to open an account, and pay with tokens or purchase an expensive subscription plan?
You will need to register an account with any site you work with. Purchasing an image (and it's rights) is a contract, for which the site needs your information. Sites will generally ask you for credit card or other payment when you have made your selections.
5 - Read through the pages of legal fine print just to figure out what I am getting and what I can do with it
Or, you could ask on the site's forum. For instance: I wish to purchase this image to hang on my wall; at work; for advertising on a dating site; etc. You will get a flood of (probably) correct answers. Or you can email support at any site and ask your question directly.
-Cora, who remembers what it was like to be a newbie
-
Cora, he's not asking questions. He's trying to play "dumb consumer" who wants to buy an image for personal use.
-
I hope someone will print my master piece... "Gold silver and bronze medals isolated on white" and print it on a 24 inches wide canvas
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7789668/2/istockphoto_7789668-three-medals.jpg)
The bronze medal is slightly higher than the others representing how participation is important in the modern society... or how tired the photographer was this day
-
He's trying to play "dumb consumer" who wants to buy an image for personal use.
Given what Elena from FP said a while ago, I don't think it is so surprising that there are "dumb consumers". I do agree that there possibly are many buyers who don't want to bother about all those details in a license term.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
He's trying to play "dumb consumer" who wants to buy an image for personal use.
Given what Elena from FP said a while ago, I don't think it is so surprising that there are "dumb consumers". I do agree that there possibly are many buyers who don't want to bother about all those details in a license term.
Regards,
Adelaide
Well, they're out of luck. To buy something somewhere on the internet, you need to register. To get permission to use something, you need to agree to something. It can't be that hard.
-
He's trying to play "dumb consumer" who wants to buy an image for personal use.
i'm not even sure sjlocke. it seems to me he's trying to convince the sites to accept more
...(quote) The types of images I am talking about include everything from artistic images suitable for prints to Youtube-style comedy images. If you do a search in most microstock sites there is an enormous variety of images to suit all interests. For example some of my favorites are the funny pet images (unquote) ... stuff.
perharps he is already a contributor and unsuccessfully submitting these sorts of images, and trying to "create a market" so they can be accepted. ;)
-
Well, they're out of luck. To buy something somewhere on the internet, you need to register. To get permission to use something, you need to agree to something. It can't be that hard.
Maybe it could be simpler. I am sure a lot of people buy an image without fully knowing the limitations in the license terms. I personally find the terms in those licenses too full of legal jargon - I understand the need for it, but many people may either be afraid of buying something under such a complicate wording, or they may simply ignore it.
That's why the original model in Shutterpoint was good, the license was so extensive that a buyer wouldn't be able to make anything wrong, unless he tried to resell the images.
-
OutsideViewer, thanks for the interesting posts. Many of us would be very happy to find an image market such as you describe, where people could find our images, click on them and buy without becoming a registered "buyer" at a "microstock". As others have pointed out, there are already some sites doing roughly this, such as RedBubble.
I have imany mages on which I've spent serious time and effort, that aren't very marketable as "stock", but I actually believe many people might want copies, or prints, if I had a way to reach them. And of course there are countless other photographers who'd say the same thing.
What would a collector, such as you describe, do with purchased digital images? Wouldn't they typically want a print instead of just an image file?
-
He's trying to play "dumb consumer" who wants to buy an image for personal use.
i'm not even sure sjlocke. it seems to me he's trying to convince the sites to accept more
...(quote) The types of images I am talking about include everything from artistic images suitable for prints to Youtube-style comedy images. If you do a search in most microstock sites there is an enormous variety of images to suit all interests. For example some of my favorites are the funny pet images (unquote) ... stuff.
perharps he is already a contributor and unsuccessfully submitting these sorts of images, and trying to "create a market" so they can be accepted. ;)
I'm not sure anymore what he's talking about. Is talking about trying to get niche photos accepted somewhere or creating some sort of new sales opportunity?
BTW, you used to be able to buy an image on iStock without joining up. They got rid of the option because, surprise, surprise... the buyer did not have to agree to the license.
http://www.maccreator.com/articles/bitpass-interview.html
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=21353&page=1
"We have discontinued Bitpass for the time being, principally because under the structure by which they accessed our images, Bitpass users were not entering into the Content License Agreement in a way that ensured we could track compliance properly. We determined that our photographers and other artists would be better served by proper protection of their copyright than any infinitesimal increase in revenue brought on by the higher price. We will look at this again when the issue is addressed properly."
So, the experiment has been done already.
-
I think it is funny that some people are reading so much into what I am saying that is not there. I can understand this a little because forums are often filled with indirect sales pitches. All I ask is that people give me the benefit of the doubt as I have done nothing to deserve these assumptions.
To answer a few. I have never attempted to contribute any images to an agency as I am not a photographer and do not pretend to be. I am also not trying to "expand" the market of accepted images--contrary to what some may believe not everyone is trying to secretly break into stock photography. In looking at some of the work produced by members of this forum I would not have a chance in h*ll even if I wanted to.
As stated before I enjoy studying business and I feel stock photography is a good indicator of what is to come. It is a canarie in the cold mine of sorts. Likewise, whereever I feel I can offer a useful "outside" opinion or viewpoint I will unless there is no interest.
As far as typical consumer buyers, I think many photographers think too narrowly limiting their focus to the private (i.e. weddings, portraits), commercial and art markets. All I am saying is some people simply enjoy collecting images often only to add them to digital collections. They have no interest in prints. I think in many cases they have no intended purpose when they buy them, they may simply like the colors, design or geometry.
-
Microstock is like vanilla cake. If you are looking for a Molten Lava Cake try www.deviantart.com (http://www.deviantart.com) .
When we get something approved that is too beautiful or artistic it rarely ever sells.
-
OutsideView, I think a lot of my subscription sales on Shutterstock are what you're talking about - people picking up images for 25 cents just because they like them, not having any specific use in mind. But at 25 cents it's hardly worth the trouble of uploading them, much less producing them.
-
It is a canarie in the cold mine of sorts.
Is there no end to the blight of these poor little birds, first they gassed them down coal mines but now you're telling me they're trying to freeze the poor little things. ;D
-
edited for brevity
As stated before I enjoy studying business and I feel stock photography is a good indicator of what is to come. It is a canarie in the cold mine of sorts. Likewise, whereever I feel I can offer a useful "outside" opinion or viewpoint I will unless there is no interest.
As far as typical consumer buyers, I think many photographers think too narrowly limiting their focus to the private (i.e. weddings, portraits), commercial and art markets. All I am saying is some people simply enjoy collecting images often only to add them to digital collections. They have no interest in prints. I think in many cases they have no intended purpose when they buy them, they may simply like the colors, design or geometry.
ok, let's put it in simpler terms why we don't buy into what you're selling.
you are NOT Ellen Boghun or anyone who has proven to know what they are talking about.
if you are, i am sure sjlocke and the other more experienced stock people here would have cheered you on.
capice ? 8)
-
Well it seems that some have this industry all figured out and have nothing to gain from outside perspectives. After all what could someone outside the industry that studies business models and practices to gain insight possibly know.
I am not selling anything, I have simply made an observation and have decided to share. I could really care less if you buy what I am not selling. It reminds me a little of GM ignoring the outside world and telling customers what they need. After all they are the experts and are not susceptable to group think. We all know how that song is ending.
From now on I will keep my observations and opinions to myself because I am obviously unqualified to offer any.
-
It reminds me a little of GM ignoring the outside world and telling customers what they need.
Except that we do listen to what our customers tell us that they need, we study statistics, trends and the market, a lot of us then try to match those needs. You're upset because you've come here admitting that you're not in the industry as a customer or a supplier, and yet you want us to jump on board to a thought process that you've pulled out of your hat, you're trying to convince people of a market need that exists in our industry when there is no evidence to support your claim. You say you specialise in studying business models and practices, yet you don't seem to have grasped the fundamentals of this business model, that is we do not produce images to target the single end user consumer and neither do the microstock sites, the ability for a single user to purchase an image is already there but for a site to apply resources to target those few customers would not be a viable financial move.
-
Yeah, yeah. What he said.
-
BRAVO! RT you said it all...
-
I've been an industry analyst for the stock photo sector since 1999. I came into the industry because, as a photographers, I was curious about the same question as the original poster: what is the real size of the non-traditional photo buying market? Since then, I've been doing research, aggregating data, charting trends of related industries that use imagery, and so on. (I have a prior history of economics and business/hi-tech development.)
If you truly want to dive into this subject, my blog has tons of content for you to churn through: http://www.danheller.com/blogs
There are many articles related to this question, but also related to microstock's role in this industry as well. (It's not what you think.) The various titles are self-descriptive.
Though it would be futile to try to address such a huge topic here, I can summarize it this way: the total size of the "stock photo licensing market" (where the definition of a "stock sale" is "any financial transaction that involves purchasing a license for using a pre-existing image"--as opposed to paying someone to shoot a photo) is about $20-25B. The size of the "traditional stock license" market involving stock agencies and "traditional buyers" (ad agencies, news outlets, media companies, corporate) is about $2-3B. (most of that is Getty, followed in sequence by the smaller agencies.)
Approximately 15% of total stock licensing revenue comes from pro photographers. 85% of the rest come from semi-pro's, newbies and amateurs. The distribution of those sales is almost exactly the same as that of any business engaged in internet-based "long tail economics." That is, the amazon.com model, where the "big winners" (such as best-selling books) actually represent a tiny proportion of overall aggregate sales of ones and twos that no one pays attention to.
As for photo sales, there's a pretty consistent distribution across the Us population of people who've "sold an image at some point in the past 5 years for any amount of money." When you aggregate 300 million people, this quite quickly totals large amounts of money. When you start factoring in those incrementally smaller sub-groups that sell increasingly larger and larger revenues--such as $5K/year--then the revenue map starts making more sense.
The reason why most pro and stock photographers don't see this is because long-tail economics is still a new paradigm most people don't understand. ("If you don't see it, it must not exist.") But this answer is not entirely complete--for photographers, there's a cultural bias rooted in a complicated history that makes their true role in the larger market more difficult to accept.
A longer discussion on that can be found here: http://www.danheller.com/truisms
dan
-
Thanks for joining in Dan. I'm always pointing out your model and property release pages.
-
Thanks for joining in Dan. I'm always pointing out your model and property release pages.
that's always appreciated--writing a lot and having people link to it relieves me a lot of time of having to prowl the forums and having to retype the same thing over and over. thanks for sending them to those pages.
-
All I am saying is some people simply enjoy collecting images often only to add them to digital collections. They have no interest in prints. I think in many cases they have no intended purpose when they buy them, they may simply like the colors, design or geometry.
Quite frankly I think that any attempt to base any sort of business model on this line of thinking for a photographer or stock agency is pure suicide! There is just far to much free content on the web now and has been for years and will continue to be! I know that I can fall into the description "only to add them to digital collections" as I use some images from National Geographic and NASA as screen savers just because they are great images, why would I even consider purchasing????? With the increasing use of sites such as flicker were the masses can take what they want for "free" your logic is beyond fuzzy just downright moldy.