pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Observations as a buyer  (Read 20511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tror

« on: August 03, 2016, 09:42 »
+22
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".


« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2016, 09:55 »
+2
Thank-you for taking your time to post this. I shoot mostly video but I can assume it is pretty much the same on that side as well. I shoot stock for a living
and have slowed my work down in order to produce higher and higher quality! This also points out our weakness in keywording  as I am not always specific
in my descriptions. Thanks for the reminder that there is still a lot of room in the market for better work!

« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2016, 10:02 »
+24
Thanks for sharing your observations.

With lower margins for photographers, many are putting their best work on macro sites as it is the only way to make a worthwhile return from shoots. If you have a unique image, it makes more sense to sell it once at a high price on a macro site, since you are unlikely to get the hundreds of sales needed on a micro site to recoup your costs.

« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2016, 10:08 »
+17
No surprises here, really - this is how photographers see it too.   In particular, there's no longer any point in shooting 'niche' subjects that can't possibly make enough sales to pay back any time and money spent making them.    The problem isn't just that prices are low - it's that the only pricing model is One Size Fits All.   Microstock is basically a giant "dollar store" and those stores are mostly full of products made to sell at that price.   

Another aspect of the situation is that with an archive approaching 100 million images, going back now and cleaning up the situation - vetting keywords, removing trash - would be just prohibitively expensive.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 10:11 by stockastic »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2016, 10:12 »
+6
iS used to be a reasonable place to put files which might only sell a few times, but now these few times are more likely to be subs, so as mentioned above, little more point nowadays in putting these files onto iS than any of the other micros.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 10:47 by ShadySue »

« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2016, 10:13 »
+8
Thank you for your comments. Quality is not encouraged anymore on the main known sites. In the past Istock tried that route with Vettas but it was a failure and was scrapped away. Nowadays you submit to them and if you get images accepted as E+ you get 2.50 instead 0.75......do you really think this motivates photographers supplying micros to produce outstanding or niche images?.

The other agencies I don't even talk about because IMHO the quality is mediocre. But in any case who cares about quality anymore.....barely good enough is sufficient for most buyers nowadays. If it was not so agencies would have headed to another direction already. For 95% of buyers it is all about paying a low price. And that is what agencies are promoting...... Of course there are exception to this game and there is where quality photographers are heading for pure survival reasons.....

gyllens

« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2016, 10:18 »
+12
What you say is true and the likes of Shtterstock and istock are nursing amateur photographers since they command less royalty payouts for agency. The consequences are obvious less serious and professional photographers bother to upload and many are even leaving micro-stock.
I have a large portfolio at SS and am about to deactivate at least 3000 files and upload them to a Macro agency. Most of us will upload as long as we see a return but almost all micro-agencies will sooner or later find ways to ruin a healthy relationship between supplier and agency.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 10:36 by gyllens »

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2016, 10:26 »
+4
In contrast to Tror's post, I shop on a monthly basis for images for a couple of publications I design, and have not had any problems finding suitable, quality images. I am not disputing Tror's post at all, I think it might just depend on the subjects needed. I certainly can see where Tror's experience will likely become common for everyone at some point, considering how little the micros are now willing to pay for high quality photography. I can totally understand good photographers wanting to only sell on macro sites to recoup their money.

Quote
Microstock is basically a giant "dollar store" and those stores are mostly full of products made to sell at that price.

I understand and agree with your sentiment, but I dont think things are that dire quite yet. Do a search for technology, for instance, on 123rf or shutterstock (a subject I surf and buy often) and you will see lots of good images, especially if you sort by popularity.

« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2016, 10:30 »
+5
Thank you for your comments. Quality is not encouraged anymore on the main known sites. In the past Istock tried that route with Vettas but it was a failure and was scrapped away. Nowadays you submit to them and if you get images accepted as E+ you get 2.50 instead 0.75......do you really think this motivates photographers supplying micros to produce outstanding or niche images?.

The other agencies I don't even talk about because IMHO the quality is mediocre. But in any case who cares about quality anymore.....barely good enough is sufficient for most buyers nowadays. If it was not so agencies would have headed to another direction already. For 95% of buyers it is all about paying a low price. And that is what agencies are promoting...... Of course there are exception to this game and there is where quality photographers are heading for pure survival reasons.....

I agree with you here. I have seen national campaigns from large corporations using mediocre images and having content full of typos...as if no one cares anymore, even at the top levels.

« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2016, 10:44 »
+7
In contrast to Tror's post, I shop on a monthly basis for images for a couple of publications I design, and have not had any problems finding suitable, quality images. I am not disputing Tror's post at all, I think it might just depend on the subjects needed. I certainly can see where Tror's experience will likely become common for everyone at some point, considering how little the micros are now willing to pay for high quality photography. I can totally understand good photographers wanting to only sell on macro sites to recoup their money.

Quote
Microstock is basically a giant "dollar store" and those stores are mostly full of products made to sell at that price.

I understand and agree with your sentiment, but I dont think things are that dire quite yet. Do a search for technology, for instance, on 123rf or shutterstock (a subject I surf and buy often) and you will see lots of good images, especially if you sort by popularity.

I think I recall that when the Dollar Store chains were new, they had a lot of 'bargains' that looked like actual closeout or surplus merchandise.  Over time I'm seeing less and less of that, and more cheap junk that would obviously never show up anywhere else, at least not in the U.S.  I've read that that same thing is true about "outlet" stores - initially they sold the real deal, but over time many of those big-name manufacturers started up second-string lines of lower quality, made specifically to sell in outlet channels.  It didn't happen all at once, but I'm confident the same thing is happening at the microstocks.   How could it be otherwise?

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2016, 10:53 »
+5
Honestly I have found the same thing. As a seller I struggle to find gaps to fill but every time I have needed to buy for a client I have really struggled to track anything down on the micros that exactly fits the bill.

I think a huge part of the market is images too specific to make a contributor enough money at the current remuneration level to justify producing it. So thousands of buyers needing thousands of different images, no single image with enough demand to be worth shooting.

I have ended up buying some really poor quality stuff for hundreds of dollars just because the subject wasn't on the micros. Seems like the micro sites are increasingly good quality shots of the same few niches, those with the volume to make it worth while shooting. Soon that wont be sustainable either.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2016, 11:12 »
+22
Ha. This thread reminds me of the time a Shutterstock rep came here to point out examples of niches that needed filling for specific clientssuch as students in a very specific age group with a very specific ethnic look wearing a very specific school uniform in very specific colors. And the client only wanted to pay a few dollars for such an image, which would be useless to everyone else.

There's no way microstock photographers are going to cover every possible specific subject matter in order to make buyers happy they can pay next to nothing for extremely niche high-quality images. Especially for a glossy magazine that will cost mucho dinero to design and print, and everyone from the client to the writers to the designers to the printer to the ink and paper suppliers is being paid a fair wage for their work on said glossy magazine...but there's somehow no budget for photography.

Find a good photographer and pay for a custom shoot if you want very specific custom images. We all need to be able to make a living, even us lowly micro photographers and illustrators.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2016, 11:12 »
+21
Basically you are saying you get what you pay for.

« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2016, 11:21 »
0
Ha. This thread reminds me of the time a Shutterstock rep came here to point out examples of niches that needed filling for specific clientssuch as students in a very specific age group with a very specific ethnic look wearing a very specific school uniform in very specific colors. And the client only wanted to pay a few dollars for such an image, which would be useless to everyone else.

There's no way microstock photographers are going to cover every possible specific subject matter in order to make buyers happy they can pay next to nothing for extremely niche high-quality images. Especially for a glossy magazine that will cost mucho dinero to design and print, and everyone from the client to the writers to the designers to the printer to the ink and paper suppliers is being paid a fair wage for their work on said glossy magazine...but there's somehow no budget for photography.

Find a good photographer and pay for a custom shoot if you want very specific custom images. We all need to be able to make a living, even us lowly micro photographers and illustrators.


+10
iow,...(read her lips...and mine too )...
everybody wants to get to heaven but nobody wants to die!
...or like the muchacho says about mucho dineros...
"caramba, amigo, show me the money... or else, don't speak in the mic!"


otoh, there are a handful of fanbodies here who might be too happy to service you for peanuts.
but for the most of us, we are just trying to ekk out a living.

p.s.
sorry for sounding so unsympathetic to your needs;
but i was not taught to speak from both ends of my body.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 12:00 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2016, 11:26 »
+2
What you say is true and the likes of Shtterstock and istock are nursing amateur photographers since they command less royalty payouts for agency. The consequences are obvious less serious and professional photographers bother to upload and many are even leaving micro-stock.
I have a large portfolio at SS and am about to deactivate at least 3000 files and upload them to a Macro agency. Most of us will upload as long as we see a return but almost all micro-agencies will sooner or later find ways to ruin a healthy relationship between supplier and agency.

echo - red
they lift the bar so high...and they keep dropping the earnings..
and then they go public and then they placate to the shareholders
and surprise, ppl... now you don't need 7/10 to get in..
and then they say, ... oh oh..another thing ..minimum payout is now lower than ever !!!
(whisper among themselves in the boardroom... "you're getting less and less ...
if you're experienced LOL")

capice??? basta, already !!!

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2016, 11:47 »
+1
Ha. This thread reminds me of the time a Shutterstock rep came here to point out examples of niches that needed filling for specific clientssuch as students in a very specific age group with a very specific ethnic look wearing a very specific school uniform in very specific colors. And the client only wanted to pay a few dollars for such an image, which would be useless to everyone else.

There's no way microstock photographers are going to cover every possible specific subject matter in order to make buyers happy they can pay next to nothing for extremely niche high-quality images. Especially for a glossy magazine that will cost mucho dinero to design and print, and everyone from the client to the writers to the designers to the printer to the ink and paper suppliers is being paid a fair wage for their work on said glossy magazine...but there's somehow no budget for photography.

Find a good photographer and pay for a custom shoot if you want very specific custom images. We all need to be able to make a living, even us lowly micro photographers and illustrators.
I do agree but I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. If the agencies paid better they would have better collections. Still not covering every niche, some things will never be worth shooting for stock, but more varied than now. Like IStock used to be back in the distant past.

« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2016, 11:52 »
+27
I'm not crying that you can't get a specific high quality specific image for $1. :)


« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2016, 12:08 »
+1
Honestly I have found the same thing. As a seller I struggle to find gaps to fill but every time I have needed to buy for a client I have really struggled to track anything down on the micros that exactly fits the bill.

I think a huge part of the market is images too specific to make a contributor enough money at the current remuneration level to justify producing it. So thousands of buyers needing thousands of different images, no single image with enough demand to be worth shooting.

I have ended up buying some really poor quality stuff for hundreds of dollars just because the subject wasn't on the micros. Seems like the micro sites are increasingly good quality shots of the same few niches, those with the volume to make it worth while shooting. Soon that wont be sustainable either.

well spoken from either side of the business.
it is rare for a client (buyer) to be so objective, in this age of scavenger-hunting for roadkill.

it's very simple solution , really.
give the contributors their dues for being faithful and making the agency what they are ...before they got greedy to slice the contributors left right and center, attracting only flies who are pleased
to receive peanuts.

give the clients (buyer) .. the choice without strangle-hold of controlling / maximizing profits for the self-interest shareholders.
tomorrow, the latter will be gone, but the clients and contributors will still be here.

like you said, so geniusly and objectively,
be fair to the contributors, be transparent to the buyers...

there are only these two who will remain in the business
after the shameless greedy shareholders take profit and scoot.

Tror

« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2016, 12:17 »
+13
...for those of you tempted to accuse me of not wanting to pay more for an image: maybe it is my imperfect english or you misunderstood the vibe and intention of the post.

As a buyer I really do not care if I pay 200$ or 1$ for an Image. We pass the price in the budget through to the client and the total budget is basically never below 4 digits and more likely in the 5 digit $ zone. It really doesnt matter.

I am a long term contributor and wrote this post as a sign of hope: the more the established microstock system fails and opens vulnerabilities, the higher the chances that competent competition comes up which values our work again. As said, clients would be definitely there, otherwise sites like stocksy wouldnt be such a huge success.

« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2016, 12:51 »
+5
Ha. This thread reminds me of the time a Shutterstock rep came here to point out examples of niches that needed filling for specific clientssuch as students in a very specific age group with a very specific ethnic look wearing a very specific school uniform in very specific colors.

I remember that too.  And they never came back.   There have been other "let us tell you about specific needs" campaigns from several micros, and I'm sure they've all gone nowhere, because those "specific" needs aren't matched by "specific" prices. 

People at the agencies have to be realizing by now that they're losing the niche market.  And they understand that price is the issue, and the only solution is pricing tiers.   The problem is that they're locked into their simplistic pricing model.  They'd either have to pay their reviewers to spend time assessing the 'niche' marketability of photos and assign prices accordingly, or give contributors some control over their pricing.  They won't do either one.  I conclude that long term they intend to just abandon this part of the stock photography market, at least where high quality is concerned.   The big question is, will someone else pick it up?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 15:03 by stockastic »

« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2016, 13:17 »
+2
...for those of you tempted to accuse me of not wanting to pay more for an image: maybe it is my imperfect english or you misunderstood the vibe and intention of the post.

As a buyer I really do not care if I pay 200$ or 1$ for an Image. We pass the price in the budget through to the client and the total budget is basically never below 4 digits and more likely in the 5 digit $ zone. It really doesnt matter.

I am a long term contributor and wrote this post as a sign of hope: the more the established microstock system fails and opens vulnerabilities, the higher the chances that competent competition comes up which values our work again. As said, clients would be definitely there, otherwise sites like stocksy wouldnt be such a huge success.

tror, not to worry, it isn't your imperfect english that got you misunderstood.
i am sure most of our "accusations" are not directly at you,
but at the agency and the business model of microstock these days.
it is full of ill-will and i am sure you too noticed it,
as a contributor/client...

is it unsustainable??? definitely!!!  but who is listening out there in ss h.o.???
robots don't listen???

« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2016, 13:21 »
0
Ha. This thread reminds me of the time a Shutterstock rep came here to point out examples of niches that needed filling for specific clientssuch as students in a very specific age group with a very specific ethnic look wearing a very specific school uniform in very specific colors.

I remember that too.  And they never came back.   There have been other "let us tell you about specific needs" campaigns from several micros, and I'm sure they've all gone nowhere, because those "specific" aren't matched by "specific" prices. 

People at the agencies have to be realizing by now that they're losing the niche market.  And they understand that price is the issue, and the only solution is pricing tiers.   The problem is that they're locked into their simplistic pricing model.  They'd either have to pay their reviewers to spend time assessing the 'niche' marketability of photos and assign prices accordingly, or give contributors some control over their pricing.  They won't do either one.  I conclude that long term they intend to just abandon this part of the stock photography market, at least where high quality is concerned.   The big question is, will someone else pick it up?

+10
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 14:39 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2016, 14:39 »
+2
Ha. This thread reminds me of the time a Shutterstock rep came here to point out examples of niches that needed filling for specific clientssuch as students in a very specific age group with a very specific ethnic look wearing a very specific school uniform in very specific colors.

I remember that too.  And they never came back.   There have been other "let us tell you about specific needs" campaigns from several micros, and I'm sure they've all gone nowhere, because those "specific" aren't matched by "specific" prices. 


maybe they had to spend more time with family ;)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2016, 16:53 »
+16
I specialize in cities and have removed most of my work from both micros and macros. I now mostly sell directly through my website where prices per RM usage license range from $25 up to a few thousand dollars and I get 100%. Macros are now selling at micro prices. It's not worth it to me to spend a ton of time and money on flights, hotels, rental cars, gas, parking, and camera equipment to get up at 4AM and hike until after midnight to get a few cents. At one time the mix of price and sales volume made worth it for me but not now.




« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2016, 17:13 »
+4


« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2016, 18:28 »
+6
I specialize in cities and have removed most of my work from both micros and macros. I now mostly sell directly through my website where prices per RM usage license range from $25 up to a few thousand dollars and I get 100%. Macros are now selling at micro prices. It's not worth it to me to spend a ton of time and money on flights, hotels, rental cars, gas, parking, and camera equipment to get up at 4AM and hike until after midnight to get a few cents. At one time the mix of price and sales volume made worth it for me but not now.

wow, congrats paulie.
it's good to hear someone who has indeed succeeded to find a way out of this microstock
stockholm syndrome.
you're an inspiration to look ahead and beyond ss and is.


« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2016, 22:14 »
+1
1100 vertical images of swedish winter landscape on shutterstock and not one is good enough ?


I found 971 when I did the same search but for photos only (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=winter+landscape+sweden&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=photo&orientation=vertical&safe=true).  A lot of them looked pretty good to me - almost 1000 images seems like a lot for probably a relatively small market.  There were over 1500 on Alamy with the same criteria (http://www.alamy.com/search.html?CreativeOn=1&adv=1&ag=0&all=1&creative=&et=0x000000000000000000000&vp=0&loc=0&qt=winter%20landscape%20sweden&qn=&lic=6&lic=1&imgt=1&archive=1&dtfr=&dtto=&hc=&selectdate=&size=0xFF&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=&gtype=0&pn=1&ps=100&ot=2#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D0%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D100%26sortby%3D2%26qt%3Dwinter%2520landscape%2520sweden%26qt_raw%3Dwinter%2520landscape%2520sweden%26qn%3D%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26videos%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26bespoke%3D%26apalib%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D0%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D2%26imgt%3D1%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26blackwhite%3D%26cutout%3D%26archive%3D1%26name%3D%26groupid%3D%26pseudoid%3D%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D%26xstx%3D0%26cbstore%3D1%26lightbox%3D%26resultview%3DsortbyPopular%26gname%3D%26gtype%3D%26apalic%3D%26tbar%3D1%26pc%3D%26simid%3D%26cap%3D1%26customgeoip%3D%26vd%3D0%26cid%3D%26pe%3D%26saveQry%3D%26editorial%3D1%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D).

If you have specific needs that are not being met why not mention them?  I'm sure someone will probably be willing to try to supply it.

« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2016, 00:43 »
+6
1100 vertical images of swedish winter landscape on shutterstock and not one is good enough ?
you only have to look at the first page to see that most of them aren't swedish winter landscapes.

50%

« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2016, 02:46 »
+1
1100 vertical images of swedish winter landscape on shutterstock and not one is good enough ?
Just shows there is no reason to go to Sweden at least in winter, I have better winter images from my area.

« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2016, 03:24 »
+1
1100 vertical images of swedish winter landscape on shutterstock and not one is good enough ?
Just shows there is no reason to go to Sweden at least in winter, I have better winter images from my area.
I find local images of places I know well and can be there at the right time often sell better than the famous places that are photographed thousands of times........

« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2016, 03:47 »
0
1100 vertical images of swedish winter landscape on shutterstock and not one is good enough ?
Just shows there is no reason to go to Sweden at least in winter, I have better winter images from my area.
I find local images of places I know well and can be there at the right time often sell better than the famous places that are photographed thousands of times........

+1

« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2016, 04:07 »
+2
Until buyers and contributions get together and start their own site that they control and wont be taken over, what can we do?  Alamy is the only big site left that I think might not be solely focused on squeezing as much out of its contributors in the long term as possible.  I thought Pond5 were the same until last year.  All the other sites are either too small to make much money with or have investors that will want to see increasing profits probably at our expense.

Every time someone mentions starting a site owned by contributors and buyers here, they get laughed at but what other option is there?  I don't like the idea of us all having our own sites, one big site is much more appealing to me but will it ever happen?  Bruce has shown what can be achieved with Stocksy, maybe he will have a less niche site one day?

If we could get 500 contributors and 500 buyers together to start a site, I think it would take off.  It just needs someone to start the ball rolling.  No doubt there will be lots of people here that think this idea is crazy and would much rather spend all their time complaining about the current sites but that gets us nowhere.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2016, 04:40 »
+1
"If we could get 500 contributors and 500 buyers together to start a site, I think it would take off."

What about the site would make it take off though? I'm sure getting 500 buyers and 500 sellers wouldn't be too hard with a bit of effort, but if that's all it takes for something to take off... then are you saying that each and every one of us could create a stock site, bring along 500 buyer snd 500 sellers... and it would automatically take off?

I don't want to unnecessarily add to the list of people that laugh at other people for suggesting starting a stock site... but it's not exactly easy. Even with your 500 buyers... Some might need one image a year, some might need 100 a week... but with 500 contributors with 100 / 1,000 / 10,000 images... even at 100% commission, what are they going to earn per image per month? One cent?

And just on this point...

"All the other sites are either too small to make much money with or have investors that will want to see increasing profits probably at our expense."

A new stock site would be no different. And if we don't have investors, then that rules out the latter and automatically makes us the former.

I'm not saying it's not possible to make a great new stock site, or that people shouldn't try, but the odds of making a great new stock site are pretty low. I think we've missed the boat a bit.
 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 04:44 by SpaceStockFootage »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2016, 05:00 »
0
1100 vertical images of swedish winter landscape on shutterstock and not one is good enough ?
you only have to look at the first page to see that most of them aren't swedish winter landscapes.

Can you not use a non-Swedish image, and Photoshop something unmistakably Swedish into the scene to help sell it? Like a big bag of korv or something.

gyllens

« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2016, 05:39 »
0
Getty house some of the best Scandinavian winter scenics available and since Tror dont mind paying he should check it out.

« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2016, 06:36 »
+4
"If we could get 500 contributors and 500 buyers together to start a site, I think it would take off."

What about the site would make it take off though? I'm sure getting 500 buyers and 500 sellers wouldn't be too hard with a bit of effort, but if that's all it takes for something to take off... then are you saying that each and every one of us could create a stock site, bring along 500 buyer snd 500 sellers... and it would automatically take off?

I don't want to unnecessarily add to the list of people that laugh at other people for suggesting starting a stock site... but it's not exactly easy. Even with your 500 buyers... Some might need one image a year, some might need 100 a week... but with 500 contributors with 100 / 1,000 / 10,000 images... even at 100% commission, what are they going to earn per image per month? One cent?

And just on this point...

"All the other sites are either too small to make much money with or have investors that will want to see increasing profits probably at our expense."

A new stock site would be no different. And if we don't have investors, then that rules out the latter and automatically makes us the former.

I'm not saying it's not possible to make a great new stock site, or that people shouldn't try, but the odds of making a great new stock site are pretty low. I think we've missed the boat a bit.
I disagree, there should be a way for a site to work for the people that supply the images and people that buy them, instead of investors that have nothing to do with the industry.  See how Stocksy works:-
"We are a photographer-owned cooperative founded on the principles of equality, respect, and fair distribution of profits. Our contributing photographers receive 50% of a Standard License Purchase and 75% of an Extended License Purchase and every single Stocksy contributor receives a share of the company."
https://www.stocksy.com/service/about/

Would that work for a site that isn't as niche as Stocksy?  It would be interesting to find out.  Hopefully one day someone will give it a go.


« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2016, 06:51 »
+3
Corporate greed is crushing the world and our colleges are teaching the young people how to do it. (the Chinese remind me of the ferengi aliens with the big ears on star trek).

More and more everyday companies learn to squeeze the dollar and could care less what the end result is.

""In recent years as buyers we felt in heaven""

I often wonder when reading these threads how much money those who purchase these images make.

There is still room for another great image company,  it will take money and heart to create it, and it would have the potential to steal all the great stock artist from the rest of the industry.  But this will not happen with one lone person and a 10 dollar per month server,  we have all seen those with dreams in here before.  It would take someone like John Henry (iracing, Boston Redsox) to show up with a plan and the muscle to create such trust.


 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 07:00 by old crow »

Tror

« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2016, 07:02 »
+2
Corporate greed is crushing the world and our colleges are teaching the young people how to do it.

""In recent years as buyers we felt in heaven""

I often wonder when reading these threads how much money those who purchase these images make.


It is not so much about the money from a buyers POV. We make money with the end-product: a website, a ad package, a product catalogue etc. We do not care so much about a image price.

I felt in heaven because suddenly there was enough supply to cover almost any subject out there.

This seems to come to an end since we as photographers stop to upload niche material and the Agencies fail to stimulate niche and quality material production.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2016, 07:26 »
+2
(the Chinese remind me of the ferengi aliens with the big ears on star trek).

Blimey. Donald, is that you?

gyllens

« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2016, 07:34 »
+2
Corporate greed is crushing the world and our colleges are teaching the young people how to do it.

""In recent years as buyers we felt in heaven""

I often wonder when reading these threads how much money those who purchase these images make.


It is not so much about the money from a buyers POV. We make money with the end-product: a website, a ad package, a product catalogue etc. We do not care so much about a image price.

I felt in heaven because suddenly there was enough supply to cover almost any subject out there.

This seems to come to an end since we as photographers stop to upload niche material and the Agencies fail to stimulate niche and quality material production.

Oh good Lord Tror!  you can't supply niched material anymore to SS or any other agency. The next algorithm change and they could very well land on page 1 million and never to be seen.
Niched material is often expensive and time consuming to produce and certainly not fit for any of the present micro agencies.

Tror

« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2016, 07:49 »
+2
Corporate greed is crushing the world and our colleges are teaching the young people how to do it.

""In recent years as buyers we felt in heaven""

I often wonder when reading these threads how much money those who purchase these images make.


It is not so much about the money from a buyers POV. We make money with the end-product: a website, a ad package, a product catalogue etc. We do not care so much about a image price.

I felt in heaven because suddenly there was enough supply to cover almost any subject out there.

This seems to come to an end since we as photographers stop to upload niche material and the Agencies fail to stimulate niche and quality material production.

Oh good Lord Tror!  you can't supply niched material anymore to SS or any other agency. The next algorithm change and they could very well land on page 1 million and never to be seen.
Niched material is often expensive and time consuming to produce and certainly not fit for any of the present micro agencies.

Exactly! And that makes the existing Micros vulnerable. Vulnerable for competition which discover niche and quality as a USP and make Profit by collecting higher, non-micro yet business friendly (RF license) prices and a good cut for photogs :-)

« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2016, 08:08 »
0
The problem is you are looking at the photos of people who get an average of .25 c per image.

« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2016, 09:21 »
+1
(the Chinese remind me of the ferengi aliens with the big ears on star trek).

Blimey. Donald, is that you?

  :D   Actually that is my name  !!!!!!    If you lived here in the states and have seen the many knock off products,  stolen music and videos, stolen software, hacked companies with stolen info, have their baby berthing houses pumping out Chinese babies,  flooring with massive formaldehyde, drywall filled with corrosive poison, toys with lead paint and on and on,  you might think so as well.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 09:49 by old crow »

« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2016, 09:29 »
+3
Until buyers and contributors get together and start their own site that they control...

Ironic, isn't it - because that's what we thought the web was going to do in the first place - let sellers find buyers, anywhere in the world.  The 'flat' economy.  Instead it turned into a channel controlled by a just couple of middlemen who are taking the lion's share of the money on every transaction. 

Current web technology isn't sophisticated enough.  As an individual seller, I need 3 things:

1.  A way for buyers to find my product; and today's thoroughly corrupted, endlessly 'gamed' Google search isn't it.

2.  Independent quality assurance - a 3rd party looks at my file at 100% and gives it a digital stamp of approval.  And really, how much QA do we need?  Other than noise, a 900px watermarked preview tells the story. 

3.   Secure, automated transaction processing - including delivery of the image file.  This already exists in some form.

We need these things available right on the web - not by installing some big, complicated, buggy, unsupported, dead-ended "open source" fantasy app. 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 09:37 by stockastic »

« Reply #45 on: August 04, 2016, 09:40 »
+1
Tror,

Do you purchase from and like Stocksy material / website ??

Tror

« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2016, 09:53 »
+5
Tror,

Do you purchase from and like Stocksy material / website ??

If needed, yes. However, my volume of buying is low. I am mostly a contributor. As a contributor, Stocksy did not accept me and therefore as a buyer Stocksy is one of the last sites I look for when buying. Solidarity works in two ways for me and is not a one way route. But yes, of course I check there and bought a couple of times.


« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2016, 10:15 »
+2
Tror,

Do you purchase from and like Stocksy material / website ??

If needed, yes. However, my volume of buying is low. I am mostly a contributor. As a contributor, Stocksy did not accept me and therefore as a buyer Stocksy is one of the last sites I look for when buying. Solidarity works in two ways for me and is not a one way route. But yes, of course I check there and bought a couple of times.

That's a bit spiteful, don't you think? 

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2016, 10:31 »
+10
Tror,

Do you purchase from and like Stocksy material / website ??

If needed, yes. However, my volume of buying is low. I am mostly a contributor. As a contributor, Stocksy did not accept me and therefore as a buyer Stocksy is one of the last sites I look for when buying. Solidarity works in two ways for me and is not a one way route. But yes, of course I check there and bought a couple of times.

That's a bit spiteful, don't you think?

How is buying a "couple of times" spiteful? Just cause Stocksy is not their first choice for personal reasons does not qualify as spiteful.

If I was a buyer, from what I have seen on Stocksy, it too would be my last choice especially if I was looking for "winter in Sweden". Honestly, SS or IS give you much more variety.


« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2016, 10:36 »
+2
He said specifically it's the last place they look because he wasn't accepted as a contributor. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2016, 10:36 »
+11
He said specifically it's the last place they look because he wasn't accepted as a contributor.
Would you look first at iS?

I'd think most people would first of all support the agencies at which they sell, and snub any who snubbed them, or worse.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #51 on: August 04, 2016, 10:36 »
+1
Even is Stocksy isn't a fit for your work why would you purposely shop there later than other sites? Don't you prefer their business model for contributors? wouldn't it be nice to have more sites like that that are a good fit for you? Why not support the model to show it can work, or at least not shun them out of spite.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2016, 10:37 »
0
He said specifically it's the last place they look because he wasn't accepted as a contributor.
Would you look first at iS?
Bit different don't you think?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2016, 10:38 »
+8
He said specifically it's the last place they look because he wasn't accepted as a contributor.
Would you look first at iS?
Bit different don't you think?
Same principle, even if more extreme.

« Reply #54 on: August 04, 2016, 10:43 »
+18
Assuming the problem wasn't just noise in the shadows, Stocksy rejected his aesthetic.  If I were working as a designer and an agency told me they didn't think my photos were good enough, they wouldn't hear from me again unless I were really in a bind.  Call it whatever you want, I guess, but people who put down my work wouldn't be my partners.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2016, 10:46 »
0
Assuming the problem wasn't just noise in the shadows, Stocksy rejected his aesthetic.  If I were working as a designer and an agency told me they didn't think my photos were good enough, they wouldn't hear from me again unless I were really in a bind.  Call it whatever you want, I guess, but people who put down my work wouldn't be my partners.

That's spiteful :)

« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 10:50 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #56 on: August 04, 2016, 12:01 »
+9
Assuming the problem wasn't just noise in the shadows, Stocksy rejected his aesthetic.  If I were working as a designer and an agency told me they didn't think my photos were good enough, they wouldn't hear from me again unless I were really in a bind.  Call it whatever you want, I guess, but people who put down my work wouldn't be my partners.

I'll definitely shop first at the places who've accepted me, and buy first at the ones who offer the better payout for contributors.


« Reply #57 on: August 04, 2016, 12:28 »
+3
what is missing on nearly all agencies is a sensible way of making niche content visible and giving reliable income to those that produce it. Doesn't matter if it is getty or SS, any agency with 100 million files has the same problem.

stocksy and smaller places are using the walled garden approach, tiny collection, very small group of suppliers.

But would small agencies work if they had 10 000 artists and 100 million files? Even if all files were tightly edited and only had the best quality?

By being a small niche player you probably don't have to deal with that problem for 20 years or more.

However as a customer, does this mean I have to start shopping at 20 different specialized agencies?

And as an artist, do I have to work with many different places and always make a decision into which niche my content fits best?

To me it sounds like the market is going back to the situation before Getty bought up all the small players.

Is there really no solution for a large agency with 100 million + files and a sustainable income?

I think most people want to have one major place that they either supply or buy from. It saves time, like amazon.


« Reply #58 on: August 04, 2016, 12:43 »
+3
I think where it all went wrong was when agencies assumed that every image has to be the same price. That made their systems, accounting and IT much simpler.  But I don't think it's really that important to buyers, and it's had a huge impact on contributors.

« Reply #59 on: August 04, 2016, 12:52 »
+1
I think it had impact on buyers too.
The problem is that they started to think that every image is nothing else than the result of a button click and because of this should cost some cents. Many times i heard from clients that "we want a family on the beach, all beautiful/healthy" and photographed exclusively for their company, but when it comes to costs of models, tickets to Ostend etc , they tell that we cheat, because online images are cheap. Stock which sells many times is an argument to bargain a price for exclusive shooting.

Tror

« Reply #60 on: August 04, 2016, 13:12 »
+11
He said specifically it's the last place they look because he wasn't accepted as a contributor.

Yes. In first place I support Agencies which are supporting me.

That is not "spiteful", that is logic. That does not mean I ignore them, they are just not the first on the list (neither the last one). Sorry if that hurts your feelings ;-)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 13:15 by Tror »

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2016, 13:52 »
+1
I support agencies that support their contributors. Whether I am one of them or not.

« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2016, 13:55 »
+3
Assuming the problem wasn't just noise in the shadows, Stocksy rejected his aesthetic.  If I were working as a designer and an agency told me they didn't think my photos were good enough, they wouldn't hear from me again unless I were really in a bind.  Call it whatever you want, I guess, but people who put down my work wouldn't be my partners.

That's spiteful :)



not, not spiteful,
just being honest with himself !!!

He said specifically it's the last place they look because he wasn't accepted as a contributor.

Yes. In first place I support Agencies which are supporting me.

That is not "spiteful", that is logic. That does not mean I ignore them, they are just not the first on the list (neither the last one). Sorry if that hurts your feelings ;-)

no, it's not spite. .. it's human nature..
as stockastic so diplomatically puts it..
why should tror???
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 14:00 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2016, 14:10 »
+1
16,439 horizontal "winter sweden" images on SS. Many of them seem to be quite good. What are you looking for exactly? Surely you haven't even scraped the surface of the supply.

Isn't the problem more that there are too MANY images and the good ones get lost?

Tror

« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2016, 14:15 »
+3
16,439 horizontal "winter sweden" images on SS. Many of them seem to be quite good. What are you looking for exactly? Surely you haven't even scraped the surface of the supply.

Isn't the problem more that there are too MANY images and the good ones get lost?

I specified "Vertical" in the original post, for example. These things do not work on a superficial basis or nor can I pick an image just because it looks "visually quite good". If you really filter the whole database for the clients need you quickly realize that most material is duplicate, not suitable, not from that zone etc. Happens quite a lot, not only on this subject.

As said in the first post. SS and iS are still the better ones, but smaller Agencies seem to be dying. Usually, once a site falls below a certain width of offers, they quickly vanish from the market.

These will be an example that even in Microstock you have to listen to Contributors in order to get the supply right.

« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2016, 14:18 »
0
Corporate greed is crushing the world and our colleges are teaching the young people how to do it.

""In recent years as buyers we felt in heaven""

I often wonder when reading these threads how much money those who purchase these images make.


It is not so much about the money from a buyers POV. We make money with the end-product: a website, a ad package, a product catalogue etc. We do not care so much about a image price.

I felt in heaven because suddenly there was enough supply to cover almost any subject out there.

This seems to come to an end since we as photographers stop to upload niche material and the Agencies fail to stimulate niche and quality material production.


well said both.
the niche suppliers either go solo like paulie, or gave up giving their hard work for peanuts.
as for paulie, i am sure many buyers do not know he exist independently,
so they would still go to ss,etc to buy the marginal ones.,,

there is a truth in what sharpshot says too.. something like stocksy offset but less elitist
and more in line with ss and is, with the focus on long term contributor interest.
still, those who laugh at the idea knows only too well, it would not last
before they too change their tune.
it's not call one of the 7 deadly sins for nothing...
and yes, it is being taught in business ...short term gain , minimization of loss,
without caring for long term or loyalty.

« Reply #66 on: August 04, 2016, 14:21 »
0
I specified "Vertical" in the original post, for example.

Ah, my bad. Brings it down to 2,454 and doesn't look as good, no. It seems like you're looking for something very, very specific then...

And of course I'm sure that many photographers (like me) look at each of their images and if it's a 10/10, it's simply not going to SS. It's going somewhere more expensive and the "it's alright I guess" shots go to SS.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 14:23 by increasingdifficulty »


Tror

« Reply #67 on: August 04, 2016, 14:34 »
0
I think where it all went wrong was when agencies assumed that every image has to be the same price. That made their systems, accounting and IT much simpler.  But I don't think it's really that important to buyers, and it's had a huge impact on contributors.

Yeah, true. I was always favoring the "collections" Model, but later doubted in it due to SSs success.

Nowadays I think sites like SS lose a lot of Money by not marketing specialized material as such and supporting the contributors to fill the gaps.
As said: they open up lots of vulnerabilities to alternative concepts of IP marketing.

« Reply #68 on: August 04, 2016, 15:19 »
+2
"Yes. In first place I support Agencies which are supporting me.

That is not "spiteful", that is logic. That does not mean I ignore them, they are just not the first on the list (neither the last one). Sorry if that hurts your feelings ;-)"

And that kind of shows why a union or contributor made co-op won't work. 

« Reply #69 on: August 04, 2016, 16:29 »
+3
With the private equity/ stock market driven financial demands on the main agencies, with the let's pay as little as possible for as much as possible expectations of customers, and the ease of production of images by folk who will accept pennies for their hundreds of images, the industry has quite predictably gone to hell in a handcart. Customers are not winning, contributors are not winning, agency staff are not winning.

I largely gave contributing up 5 years ago after not inconsiderable previous success as I did not want to end up getting into the hamster wheel of more work for diminishing returns, and I guess more and more of the better producers have gotten out of that rat race over recent years, that being the very thing they thought they were getting out of by going into stock in the first place. I hope some of the names I still recognise here can keep at it but I don't envy your predicament.

Quality demanding buyers are going to have to come to the realisation that quality images are actually worth more than microstock prices and new agencies will enter the market one way or another with quality and user experience to the fore-front, it's started and I'm sure it will continue.

Point in case, Beers, after mass international consolidation of brewing companies producing identikit gassy tasteless 'product' there is a return to local, artisan and characterful brewing.

However there are still far too many consumers that utterly undervalue creative arts yet happily pay ridiculous amounts for coffee to tax dodging corporations.

Ho Hum here's to Entropy

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #70 on: August 05, 2016, 02:18 »
+2
I understand the author and do not see bitterness, only logic in what he said.

As a buyer i would promote the agency treats me better. In my case W61 for macro and micro pictures in Creative market.

If you want pictures of high price of hipsters you can get them in Plainpicture and if you want them cheaper-Mid priced in Stocksy. Very Cheap in Creative Market.

I am not in Stocksy but i will buy anything needed there, there are pictures of great commercial quality, know spanish people in this agency very happy and is a fair company.. obviously no one promotes a site where it is not, is stupid, I prefer other altruistic activities than promote a private company.
 
Really are great stufff in micro, mid and macrostock... and crap images in both, but en theory, more curated in higer levels.

When I bought an image or products is curious but I usually distrust the very cheap, cheap I put the images that I consider bad or burned in microstock

« Reply #71 on: August 05, 2016, 05:15 »
+1
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".
Welcome to the dollar store man.
Sorry, but we cannot sell you the gold rolex watch you are looking for a dollar, our apologies.
:-)

Tror

« Reply #72 on: August 05, 2016, 05:36 »
+3
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?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #73 on: August 05, 2016, 05:51 »
0
what is missing on nearly all agencies is a sensible way of making niche content visible ...
There's no problem withe the work being visible. If you submit kleeph images, your file will soon show up when someone searches for a kleeph1.
The problem is that your kleeph will sell for the same price as an apple on white, so unless you shoot/draw/video kleephs anyway for your business or hobby, it's not worth the effort.

1Except on iStock, where for 18 months now, if a word isn't in the CV or was previously accepted 'for your own use', it can't be found. And for at least 18 weeks, they seem not to be adding new keywords from the request thread to the CV.

« Reply #74 on: August 05, 2016, 05:53 »
+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

« 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
3023 Views
Last post May 01, 2007, 20:17
by michaeldb
18 Replies
6953 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 13:10
by epantha
93 Replies
29597 Views
Last post August 14, 2011, 22:03
by Zephyr
16 Replies
5529 Views
Last post September 14, 2011, 01:11
by microstockphoto.co.uk
18 Replies
2793 Views
Last post January 22, 2024, 11:57
by pancaketom

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors