pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Observations as a buyer  (Read 20509 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


 

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
2790 Views
Last post January 22, 2024, 11:57
by pancaketom

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors