Author Topic: PDN Article (Read 15027 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **on:** November 21, 2008, 06:18 »

I don't know if anyone saw this article on the group of contributors that are micro "factories".

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/featured-in-print/e3i0731a97427122625320ef0cf0d1d4849

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2008, 06:57 »

Interesting article but I'm more interested in the first comment

"Ken Mckee
November 21, 2008Dear David, I don't tink it's very wise to dedicate articles to these people who have destroyed the photo industry. If we go on like this in a couple of years there won't be anymore business left. Is it smart to sell for one dollar what is worth maybe 300 or 1000? Every silly man can do that. No wonder lot of agencies are closing. But why don't you ask photographers what do they think of microsales?"

I find comments like this amazing. First, micro didn't change the market by itself. Cheap pro DSLRs, internet distribution capabilities, changing buyer trends, and now the economy are what changed the industry. Micro, along with every other type of buyer source including Flickr, are a byproduct of these industry changes.

If demand is dropping on $300 to $1,000 photos and the supply is increasing then the market dictates those prices will go down. While I would love to sell all of my photos at higher prices the reality is there is now a whole new micro segment, and there will always be a macro segment. But some macro buyers are shifting to micro and macro is shrinking. Until that shift has stablized macro sales volume will be flat or decrease.

So what's better to do? Try to brush under the carpet that speeding train that's about to run over you and your career? Or do like some of the contributors mentioned in the article and continue macro while also embracing the newer micro market?

I see so many comments from traditional photographers who think microstock is solely to blame that give me the impression that they either know little about business in general or feel the best approach is to ignore the massive change. Good luck.

CLARIFICATION EDIT: Added "who think microstock is solely to blame". Wasn't trying to imply all traditionals think this way.

hali · « **Reply #2 on:** November 21, 2008, 11:03 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 21, 2008, 06:57

...So what's better to do? Try to brush under the carpet that speeding train that's about to run over you and your career? Or do like some of the contributors mentioned in the article and continue macro while also embracing the newer micro market?

Pauline, some will; others won't. you know what happened to dinosaurs? inability to adapt.
some macro photographers will become stock dinosaurs. and many newbies (like myself) could well get drowned by the next flood...

AVAVA · « **Reply #3 on:** November 21, 2008, 11:18 »

Thanks for the article Sean,

I also think there is a lot of growth in Micro and you will see more and more production houses approach the market, I know of a couple that are in the middle of their transition. I think the letter rings true to a point. The only thing that will stop this transition is if or when there is not enough money from buyers to sustain these companies at these lower price points, number of buyers is finite.
The biggest mistake Micro made was where it set it's price point in the beginning. Companies like Fotolia show that when an image price is doubled the photographer doubles his income and does not lose sales. If Micro had started at a base of $5 dollars for the smallest the sales would have been astrinomical by now ( remember at the time the cheapest option was $79 in Macro RF ). Money was left on the table to start with but that doesn't mean it will not change over time.
Macro RF started with very low prices and over time the price point of that product increased significantly. I would expect to see the price point of Micro continue to grow along with the quality but I think it will take the control of just a couple of big players to set that point and control it.
If photographers send their work out in Micro to all the sites the buyers are going to find their favorite images at the lower priced stores if everything else about the shopping experience remains equal.
That makes the growth sale point harder and slower to move until the majority of the Micro sites that produce the lions share of the revenue are bought up by a couple larger companies. I expect to see sales of strong Micro companies to much larger corporations in the future.

Interesting times,
AVAVA

jsnover · « **Reply #4 on:** November 21, 2008, 11:47 »

I'd missed that article - thanks for posting.

I found a couple of interesting things in there - one was the story about Monkey Business. Very similar to Ron Chapple's set up. You certainly can't argue with the sales these high-production outfits generate, but one of the things buyers had commented on was the availability of "real people" through microstock. For those who found mainstream stock too slick, this provided an alternative. As the mainstream moves in, they bring their high polish production values with them. Perhaps keeping the "real" look is a niche that the smaller microstock producer can exploit to stay competitive.

Another was the comment about microstock as a dumping ground for RF. I'd opined earlier about FT's Infinite collection (that it was of poor quality), but this quote from the article said the same thing very publicly: "Not surprisingly, RF distributors are dumping their surplus on microstock distributors. Image Source recently unloaded thousands of outdated and non-selling images into Fotolia's "Infinite" collection. " If you were FT, trying to pitch the premium nature of this collection, such press coverage isn't helping

The other comment by Yuri Arcurs that seemed to leave a niche for the one-person microstock producer was this: "To cut his costs, he tries to shoot in the studio rather than doing location shoots as going on location requires more planning, travel and post-production clean-up while yielding fewer selects". For those using friends, family, their own houses, gardens and neighborhoods, the costs of "location shooting" can be kept low.

No one mentioned illustrations - I guess because you can't churn those out in quite the same way. If iStock ever fixes the best match problems that sent illustration sales tumbling, I plan to do more of those as another niche that the volume producers can't easily fill.

It's clear that those of us who started small and amateur have to find a spot in this new universe. The trick is spotting and filling the niches.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2008, 13:22 »

Can someone please explain to this newby the difference in RF and Microstock? I thought Microstock was RF???

Thanks for posting the article. It was very enlightening .. and discouraging for this loner. $:-\$

loop · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2008, 14:13 »

Microstock is usually RF (except some agencies tht accept editorial); Macrostock can be editorial, RM, editorial and RF. When macrostock is RF the licensing is the same; what is different is just the price for the buyer. Macrostock y more expensive.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2008, 14:25 »

Quote

Microstock is usually RF (except some agencies tht accept editorial);

Do not confuse Royalty Free/Rights Managed with an commercial/editorial license. You can have editorial RF, and that's what the micros have.

vonkara · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2008, 14:45 »

Yeulet also believes in the growth potential for microstock because buyers are mostly U.S.-based; international markets have yet to fully develop.

My Key sentence

you need to produce volume.

That's what the agencies want us to do

Yeulet also believes in the growth potential for microstock because buyers are mostly U.S.-based; international markets have yet to fully develop.

Without investing more

So we

need to produce volume.

For the same

mostly U.S.-based;

Buyers

ichiro17 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2008, 14:59 »

Great article. Shows there is still hope. However, it also should be used to motivate the regular contributors to fight off high volume guys who may or may not slowly creep into their niche (depending on what they shoot)

One thing that will never change is to upload variety first, then find out what sells and what makes good money and attack that subject to the point that you find new and creative ways to represent that subject. Volume on a subject that flies low on the radar but gets a lot of attention from buyers is key. Its where you can make your mark, the same way Yuri and others started with making their mark on business people on white backgrounds.

helix7 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2008, 20:14 »

I'll make the same comment here that I made over at SS:

Quote

"When it becomes that much of a business and it loses that community feel, they [volume producers] will suffer in other ways. There's that real camaraderie in our community. When someone steps out of that, I wouldn't be too surprised if some of them get ostracized a little bit."

I like Kelly, and think he's generally a pretty sensible guy from what I've read and heard from him in interviews. But that statement has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read about microstock. Ron, Yuri, and the rest of the top volume shooters could not care less about that community, and rightfully so. It's their choice. What arrogance to think that the his community can have such influence over the business, especially over how good or bad the volume shooters do.

Sorry, Kelly, but pleasing the masses at any one site (even a big one) is not a requirement for success in microstock. Call it ostracized, disrespecting your community, call it whatever you want. Some of these guys are simply choosing not to be a part of it, and they're still making excellent money. What does it matter if they don't give a crap about your forums?

CofkoCof · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2008, 20:31 »

Totally agree. But still, maybe he meant those enthusiastic supporters, who are feeding the hype about IS (somehow reminds me of Apple, don't know why

), even though they don't get (that) much sales, and who say "Great change of the best match" even though their downloads get down to half of what they used to be?

PS: Isn't Yuri danish not dutch?

stormchaser · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2008, 21:33 »

Quote

Some of these guys are simply choosing not to be a part of it, and they're still making excellent money. What does it matter if they don't give a crap about your forums?

And likely they're just too busy to be bothered. All the warm and fuzzy faving and networks meant to smooth photog egos I think and there is very little, if any, value to buyers. Instead of fluff architecture, any site is better served by building better features for buyers in order to find what they need in an efficient manner.

PS Yes I believe Yuri is Danish.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2008, 22:04 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 21, 2008, 20:14

But that statement has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read about microstock. Ron, Yuri, and the rest of the top volume shooters could not care less about that community, and rightfully so. It's their choice. What arrogance to think that the his community can have such influence over the business, especially over how good or bad the volume shooters do.

I don't think that's especially what he's saying. By not participating, as notably some of these high-flyers do, they miss out on tips and other ways to be successful, on a certain site. Which is great. Also, as far as iStock is concerned, everyone here seems to think independents are disadvantaged in the best match sort, and these factories certainly aren't going to go exclusive and join that community, so they lose out even more. Which is great.

AVAVA · « **Reply #14 on:** November 21, 2008, 22:46 »

Hi All,

The reason some of the older players ( that have every right to this market as everyone else ) cannot become exclusive with Istock is because of the incredibly limiting contract that has been built at Istock. A contract this limiting has never existed before in the stock industry. It limits a photographer more than any contract ever presented in the history of stock industry. I would imagine you would like to have a chance to work your way to a Stone contract the highest return per image in the market or working for Corbis someday if they become the big player next year.
I hope you get a chance I hope everyone that works hard gets a chance. Sometimes it sounds like you think these larger producers are run by Time Warner or some big corporation. They are people just like you that helped build this industry working very hard for many years and continue to give back to the community, Ron Chapple ( iofoto ) has been a great mentor for many in this industry for years and to say he doesn't care is just ignorant. These producers only want to be part of the future growth without being kept from free trade. It sounds to me like there are some people out there that are threatened by free trade and open competition. I have never worried or felt threatened about the next guy or my competition it just doesn't seem productive to me and defiantly not healthy.

Best,
AVAVA

jsnover · « **Reply #15 on:** November 21, 2008, 23:01 »

I don't know about community on one site only, but one thing it seems that none of the really high volume producers are interested in is trying to improve terms and conditions for contributors as a whole. They are there as their own business and any sense of a community of contributors trying to ensure we don't get hosed by the sites we submit to is absent, as far as I can tell.

Over the past few years there have been battles over money and terms - with DT (1 year commitment reduced to 6 months), FT (subscription terms), StockXpert (subscription terms and the Jupiter Images stuff). It is possible for contributors to make a difference to avoid the worst excesses of the agencies through which we license our work.

I don't recall participation, let alone leadership, from those high volume producers. As they haven't built any type of relationship with any other contributors, there may be others who feel as I do that I wouldn't raise my little finger to help them unless my own interests were also served.

The recent thread about credit card fraud chargebacks is a good example of this. I agree that the sites should be taking that hit out of their own portion of the sales proceeds. Unless contributors take a stand against it, they'll keep on doing what they currently are. There's not much incentive for them to tighten up their security procedures while contributors pay. I don't expect to see any help or support on pushing for change from the high-volume producers.

vonkara · « **Reply #16 on:** November 21, 2008, 23:20 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 21, 2008, 23:01

I don't recall participation, let alone leadership, from those high volume producers. As they haven't built any type of relationship with any other contributors, there may be others who feel as I do that I wouldn't raise my little finger to help them unless my own interests were also served.

That is so true. It's actually how the game is played. But sad because it's not how I live normally. If there's one thing I don't like with the contributors community it's the "who cares" if I'm not directly affected by the problem. But it's the actual community reality and why there's no stock photographers association or something like

AVAVA · « **Reply #17 on:** November 21, 2008, 23:36 »

Hi JS,

They might not have lead battles the way that you would have liked them to but some do give back to this industry. I think some have offered more advice and help on their blogs and throughout the industry than most of the posters on this site. Also you are not aware of what they had to say directly to these Micro companies about the subjects you speak of. I know I speak directly with the owners of these companies. I am meeting with one tomorrow here in Seattle while he is in town to discuss their company from a photographers view point. There is a lot that people do that you will never know about. Please don't assume every one of the big producers are out to get you or steal your business they might actually be trying to improve conditions. You might also end up being one of them someday. I think you are all expecting to much from these people they are just trying to run their businesses just like you.

Best,
AVAVA

AVAVA · « **Reply #18 on:** November 21, 2008, 23:45 »

Hi Vonkara,

Check out this link. There are groups to speak up for stock but it takes participation from everyone to make it strong.

http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/

Best, AVAVA

grp_photo · « **Reply #19 on:** November 22, 2008, 01:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 21, 2008, 22:04

Quote from: helix7 on November 21, 2008, 20:14
But that statement has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read about microstock. Ron, Yuri, and the rest of the top volume shooters could not care less about that community, and rightfully so. It's their choice. What arrogance to think that the his community can have such influence over the business, especially over how good or bad the volume shooters do.

I don't think that's especially what he's saying. By not participating, as notably some of these high-flyers do, they miss out on tips and other ways to be successful, on a certain site. Which is great. Also, as far as iStock is concerned, everyone here seems to think independents are disadvantaged in the best match sort, and these factories certainly aren't going to go exclusive and join that community, so they lose out even more. Which is great.

To read the forums helps to have success in this business but there is no need to post (i never post at istock) that said the best tips / information for this industry i have read here and in a foreign language one but not on istock. You support iStock because you're bound in a contract to them and not because you are part of a great community! This contract is the most unfair one the whole stockindustry ever have seen and its closer to middleage serfdom. You support istock just because its directly related to your personal financial gain NOT because to help the community.
You are a smart person get some common sense and don't try to bullshiting us.

hali · « **Reply #20 on:** November 22, 2008, 01:09 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 21, 2008, 23:01

The recent thread about credit card fraud chargebacks is a good example of this. I agree that the sites should be taking that hit out of their own portion of the sales proceeds. Unless contributors take a stand against it, they'll keep on doing what they currently are. There's not much incentive for them to tighten up their security procedures while contributors pay. I don't expect to see any help or support on pushing for change from the high-volume producers.

JS , could it be that they (HVP) don't get to fraud chargeback? much like the preference given to exclusives with IS. that could explain why they (HVP) are not screaming for more security measures.
like you say, they may be in fact saying, "I wouldn't raise my little finger to help them unless my own interests were also served."

going a bit off topic, but still relevant. let me tell you my most treasure experience:
i'm not sure how the stock "community" works. but as a working photographer for over 20 years,
most "working" photographers are self-centered too. i remember as a newbie in the late 80's when i went to the capital to gain experience, most of the photographers told me they had no time to see me.
except for a handful of truly successful photographers, ie. one gave me a job as a retoucher apprentice (he was the one who shot portraits of the great PM trudeau),
and another one of them who gave me the most of his time, ie 30 minutes... sat down with me to view my portfolio at his chateau laurier office. the man's name was Karsh.

do we have the same thing like that in stock photography? i don't know. i am a newbie in this section of the business. anyway, when i thanked Mr. Yusouf Karsh for being so considerate to me, a little unknown beginner in the business, even though he was already the greatest living portraitist of his time having shot everyone from churchill, to hepburn, to nuruyev, he humble reply was, "
remember this, anyone can be a great photographer if he practises enough. but it's just as important to always practise to be a great human being".
i think Karsh knew what community is, as every photographer in the business who've met the great man knew how kind he was.

AVAVA · « **Reply #21 on:** November 22, 2008, 01:19 »

Hali,

Thank you for sharing that. What an incredible man and how lucky you are to have that memory. There will always be people like that in every industry. I don't know if you will find a Karsh on this site but there are some god people and I find the more successful they are the more wiling they are to share. If I was spiritual I would think there is some kind of connection there. Karma maybe.

Best,
AVAVA

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #22 on:** November 22, 2008, 05:23 »

Quote from: AVAVA on November 21, 2008, 23:36

I am meeting with one tomorrow here in Seattle while he is in town to discuss their company from a photographers view point. There is a lot that people do that you will never know about.

Be sure to let us know what happens in the discussion. Then there won't be so much that people do that we don't know about.

jsnover · « **Reply #23 on:** November 22, 2008, 11:26 »

Quote from: grp_photo on November 22, 2008, 01:00

in reply to sjlocke...You support istock just because its directly related to your personal financial gain NOT because to help the community.
You are a smart person get some common sense and don't try to bullshiting us.

You don't have to agree with what you read, but you do need to be polite and respectful. Your comment suggests that you know that what he's saying is false and that he's trying to con people. That's an outrageous thing to say. Even a comment that what he wrote is b..s - which is your opinion, is preferable to calling someone else a liar, which is not.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 22, 2008, 11:54 »

Quote from: AVAVA on November 21, 2008, 22:46

Hi All,

The reason some of the older players ( that have every right to this market as everyone else ) cannot become exclusive with Istock is because of the incredibly limiting contract that has been built at Istock. A contract this limiting has never existed before in the stock industry. It limits a photographer more than any contract ever presented in the history of stock industry. I would imagine you would like to have a chance to work your way to a Stone contract the highest return per image in the market or working for Corbis someday if they become the big player next year.
I hope you get a chance I hope everyone that works hard gets a chance. Sometimes it sounds like you think these larger producers are run by Time Warner or some big corporation. They are people just like you that helped build this industry working very hard for many years and continue to give back to the community, Ron Chapple ( iofoto ) has been a great mentor for many in this industry for years and to say he doesn't care is just ignorant. These producers only want to be part of the future growth without being kept from free trade. It sounds to me like there are some people out there that are threatened by free trade and open competition. I have never worried or felt threatened about the next guy or my competition it just doesn't seem productive to me and defiantly not healthy.

Best,
AVAVA

I respect your opinion, but thinking that Ron Chapple is 'a mentor' from the goodness of his heart is way off base. He (and Yuri) are using their popularity and incredible photography skills to build a brand through blogs and their 'mentorship' which generates a greater bottom line for them directly or indirectly. Brand building isn't all about pictures and using the camera. They understand that. Do you?

As for iStock, they use the community to intertwine their designers and photographers, where they compete in those cage match things, and stuff like that, and despite the perceived censorship or standard issues talked about in other threads, it seems like a great place to go to do business and also to learn what is going on.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: PDN Article (Read 15027 times)

Sean Locke Photography

PaulieWalnuts

hali

AVAVA

jsnover

WarrenPrice

loop

Sean Locke Photography

vonkara

ichiro17

helix7

CofkoCof

stormchaser

Sean Locke Photography

AVAVA

jsnover

vonkara

AVAVA

AVAVA

grp_photo

hali

AVAVA

Sean Locke Photography

jsnover

ichiro17

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors