MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Non-traditional Image Buyers  (Read 9399 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RT


« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2009, 14:10 »
0
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


batman

« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2009, 15:06 »
0

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)

« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2009, 19:04 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 19:06 by OutsideViewer »

RT


« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2009, 19:22 »
0
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.

« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2009, 19:38 »
0
Yeah, yeah.  What he said.

« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2009, 20:04 »
0
BRAVO! RT you said it all...
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 20:06 by [email protected] »

« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2009, 14:36 »
0
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: newbielink:http://www.danheller.com/blogs [nonactive]

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: newbielink:http://www.danheller.com/truisms [nonactive]

dan

« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2009, 14:40 »
0
Thanks for joining in Dan.  I'm always pointing out your model and property release pages.

« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2009, 14:47 »
0
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.

« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2009, 00:20 »
0

  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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
5242 Views
Last post February 28, 2009, 17:30
by tan510jomast
11 Replies
10819 Views
Last post May 21, 2010, 17:48
by Jonathan Ross
16 Replies
4228 Views
Last post February 11, 2011, 15:27
by Sean Locke Photography
1 Replies
2112 Views
Last post August 01, 2012, 15:35
by click_click
30 Replies
4242 Views
Last post October 15, 2013, 17:17
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle