MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Observations as a buyer  (Read 15424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 05, 2016, 06:09 »
+1
Welcome to the dollar store man.
Sorry, but we cannot sell you the gold rolex watch you are looking for a dollar, our apologies.
:-)

You haven`t actually read the thread and/or post, did you?
I was just jocking, hence the smiley at the end.
It is not your case, but in general customers could not expect to find niche quality photos in microstock.
For 30-40 cents per download I really cannot see anybody traveling to a specific location for a shooting.
I only do video, but I suppose in stills at these prices you can only shoot what you have avaible around you with zero costs involved
Except where people live near the "niche" the only way to make things work these days is to be ruthless in minimising costs I think.


« Reply #76 on: August 05, 2016, 06:20 »
0
To make the mass market that microstock is right now (no real entry hurdles, no hart quality control, open to almost everyone as contributor) suitable for sellers/producers of niche content, it would need the "reverse dreamstime" pricing model.

Each image starts at a high price, and the price is lowered with rising sales numbers. It would make it worhthwhile to offer content that has lower demand, but could still lead to "attractive" (from a buyer's view) prices for generic content.

And such model would work within some of the existing paradigms of micro sites (no curation, huge libraries, low cost inspection process, catering for the mass market).

« Reply #77 on: August 05, 2016, 07:23 »
0
Another alternative is for contributors to name their price if they are really confident that their work is superior. But to be honest with the increasing imbalance between supply and demand means declining income per image is inevitable. Theoretically it will reach a point when contributors will conclude its simply not worth it and stop contributing doesn't seem to be a prospect any time soon

« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2016, 18:14 »
+4
Hi Folks,

Just wanted to share some observations as a buyer: Every year our studio does some contracted freelance work for about three fix clients. These are mostly packages of print and web products bundled. We are doing this (or me alone before growing) since about 12 years (before stock already) - because of that I guess I can give some subjective comments on the stock market as a buyer.

In the first years there was nothing on the Micros. Many times I had to switch back to the Macros. The Situation good gradually better every year until about 2 years ago. This year we had to select a key visual photo for print as we do every year and I was quite baffled that we had so much trouble to find something suitable for the client.

In recent years as buyers we felt in heaven. Now it feels rather dry. Best chances still on istock and shutterstock but SO many subjects are not covered or have just trash. In many cases, on sites like Dreamstime, Depositphotos,.... there are just two or three good Microstock contributors left who are able to supply quality products which are good enough for a key element.

I was totally surprised. I expected in that subject to have plenty to chose from.

It looks like the Agencies convert more and more to trash bins of amateur photographers. Or photogs are just supplying the well known seller categories and stopped bothering uploading niche or quality material.

Most subjects I do not want to disclose but just as an example: look for a winter landscape in Sweden. Condition: High resolution and vertical orientation since it is for a high gloss mag print ad: You just get low quality compositions. Trees and uninspired landscapes. Now imagine you have to reduce the search filter to a specific region in Sweden: then you are f+*-e* .

From this Point of view it does not at all look like "oversupply". More like "flooded with trash and cannot find good specific material" lol.

Guess with their low pricing and zero-editing strategy the micros bury their own grave. It is just a matter of time until a reasonable company steps into competition since the USP can consist of something such simple as "Quality".

many well known agencies have lowered the bar even further on who gets accepted. In addition, certain agencies are likely using bots or software to do a large portion of the image inspecting. What happens is, Crappy, flat, boring shots get accepted because they are "sharp" while images that have real dynamics to them, like motion, shadows, depth of field, get thrown out by the algorithm.

« Reply #79 on: August 11, 2016, 18:45 »
0
Another alternative is for contributors to name their price if they are really confident that their work is superior. But to be honest with the increasing imbalance between supply and demand means declining income per image is inevitable. Theoretically it will reach a point when contributors will conclude its simply not worth it and stop contributing doesn't seem to be a prospect any time soon

as opposed to giving up, it could well be worth while to make a last ditch effort to give someone the chance to show it can be a viable alternative to ss , is, getty...
eg. GL.
your idea is good, but it won't work in ss format as say if you submitted offset/stocksy type images, chances are they will be rejected.
also, you won't get to fix the higher price to your confidence.

otoh, going with GL and uploading both micro and offset/stocksy type images
and setting the prices accordingly might work

only catch is whether GL can pull in the clients to see the wider range of both prices and quality
and type of images to a wider buyers' market.
the question===  are buyers going to want to look for better than micro same old same old
and ...willing to pay more.

ie. if you're so used to going to Mr.GLut all you can eat for $10
would you change to go to an exquisite restaurant???
probably not.

so the thing now is to market it to a new clientele market

« Reply #80 on: August 17, 2016, 16:03 »
+1
Welcome to the dollar store man.
Sorry, but we cannot sell you the gold rolex watch you are looking for a dollar, our apologies.
:-)

You haven`t actually read the thread and/or post, did you?
I was just jocking, hence the smiley at the end.
It is not your case, but in general customers could not expect to find niche quality photos in microstock.
For 30-40 cents per download I really cannot see anybody traveling to a specific location for a shooting.
I only do video, but I suppose in stills at these prices you can only shoot what you have avaible around you with zero costs involved
Except where people live near the "niche" the only way to make things work these days is to be ruthless in minimising costs I think.

You and Tror are right. Less of us are willing to work for 25c to make a specific good location image. No way to make back expenses. Or we decide to upload to where we can make back more and not to micro. You get what you pay for has been happening.

« Reply #81 on: August 18, 2016, 05:59 »
+2
I am sorry but for me this OP message can never be a base to decide if there is "trash" in micro or not. There are millions of opinions. If one "hater" decides to write a message it can not be that it is valid in general.

For now it doesnt look like micro or shutterstock is going down soon..... fact is that several macros lost it. If i put Sweden landscape on shutterstock i dont really see trash, neither less quality then macros. It is all about the search engine.

Not everyone needs mega beatiful images. A documentairy book about Sweden would rather need a photo that shows the "REAL" view of a landscape then a fancy colorwonder.

« Reply #82 on: August 20, 2016, 06:29 »
0
I am sorry but for me this OP message can never be a base to decide if there is "trash" in micro or not. There are millions of opinions. If one "hater" decides to write a message it can not be that it is valid in general.

For now it doesnt look like micro or shutterstock is going down soon..... fact is that several macros lost it. If i put Sweden landscape on shutterstock i dont really see trash, neither less quality then macros. It is all about the search engine.

Not everyone needs mega beatiful images. A documentairy book about Sweden would rather need a photo that shows the "REAL" view of a landscape then a fancy colorwonder.
You have a good point I think many of my better selling location shots are about accurately depicting a place rather than some stunning art piece. Microstock does equal "art". There is little evidence that microstock is going down however its becoming a far harder place for contributors to make $$$.

alno

« Reply #83 on: August 21, 2016, 05:23 »
+2
I am sorry but for me this OP message can never be a base to decide if there is "trash" in micro or not. There are millions of opinions. If one "hater" decides to write a message it can not be that it is valid in general.

For now it doesnt look like micro or shutterstock is going down soon..... fact is that several macros lost it. If i put Sweden landscape on shutterstock i dont really see trash, neither less quality then macros. It is all about the search engine.

Not everyone needs mega beatiful images. A documentairy book about Sweden would rather need a photo that shows the "REAL" view of a landscape then a fancy colorwonder.
There is little evidence that microstock is going down however its becoming a far harder place for contributors to make $$$.

I just wonder why so many people starting selling their good but quite ordinary photos now. There are really a lot of new possibilities and creative markets but most people are quite lazy to learn something new about 3D, animation, time lapses, video or Wordpress. Instead of this they are uploading 103456th photo of isolated green apple and starting to complain about low sales. And even with good sells of that apple they will need 60 downloads to get the same money they would get with single video download.

Tror

« Reply #84 on: August 21, 2016, 08:41 »
+1

many well known agencies have lowered the bar even further on who gets accepted. In addition, certain agencies are likely using bots or software to do a large portion of the image inspecting. What happens is, Crappy, flat, boring shots get accepted because they are "sharp" while images that have real dynamics to them, like motion, shadows, depth of field, get thrown out by the algorithm.

Yeah, great explanation of at least one aspect. Thank you for that! I adjusted - sadly - my shooting style as well to get material through the inspection. Additionally, even talking about real inspectors, many of them are simply incompetent as editors.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2490 Views
Last post May 01, 2007, 20:17
by michaeldb
18 Replies
6119 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 13:10
by epantha
93 Replies
25056 Views
Last post August 14, 2011, 22:03
by Zephyr
16 Replies
4747 Views
Last post September 14, 2011, 01:11
by microstockphoto.co.uk
20 Replies
3833 Views
Last post November 30, 2015, 10:42
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle