Author Topic: Maybe we should do something like this... (Read 2281 times)

spike · « **on:** May 10, 2014, 19:27 »

I found this a few moments ago on reddit: http://imgur.com/CqTGaDb

So I propose we do something similar for each agency and let the buyers know about the conditions contributors are in.

However, I would make the title "smarter" and write it from a buyers perspective - Where MY money goes whenever I buy a $x image. This way it's a more direct message that they are indeed doing this. Because the agency can propose any rate they want - it's a free economy. It's up to contributors to determine if we want to contribute there or not. But it's also up to the buyers - do they want to buy from an agency that has low royalty rates?

And then we put out a pie chart: 5$ agency - server upkeep and marketing, 1$ artist - researching, planning, shooting, editing, keywording, submitting.
And maybe another pie chart showing how much time it takes for the agency to do all this (10%) and the artist (90%).

It might be completely useless and it might change the mind of some buyers. Who knows. Thoughts?

File Sold · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2014, 02:39 »

That's a good idea!

You know what would be a really cool idea too? To build an artists-to-artists stock company. I don't know if there is one already, but in graphic area there is creativemarket.com. It's founded by real artists and contributor gets 70%. That's pretty awesome! Atm it generates about 7% of my overall monthly earnings and it has been around for about little over year or some now.

With your idea we could get people aware of our situation and even think about crowdfunding possibilities to found a new "greener" stock photo company. It could be: greenstock.com

Just have a thought for this how much more competitive it would also be. I'm earning about 28% commission at SS and 25% at FT. Now if a XL credit sale is $10, I'll get $2.5-$2.8. If I would get 70% then we could price it $4! Good for us and buyers

SS:$10 -> $2.8
GreenStock: $4 -> $2.8

Just fast thoughts. Of course there is lots of moneyholes in a microstock business, but what I've seems SS, FT and IS are making big bucks from our asses.

I need greenstock!

Have a nice mothersday.

Ariene · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2014, 03:30 »

Quote from: spike on May 10, 2014, 19:27

I found this a few moments ago on reddit: http://imgur.com/CqTGaDb
So I propose we do something similar for each agency and let the buyers know about the conditions contributors are in.

I'm affraid this graphic is wrong. Where is marketing and production cost? This is the huges part of it! Packaging and shipping desist lately - you can buy digital version by internet... That changes a lot.
Big companies engage many levels of workers (graphics, game disigners etc...) who work on one game product. Then its marketing and seller part...
In photography there is one author and one reseller (without partner programs

)
Generally I wouldn't compare it to photography.

Back to idea.
I'm sure clients don't know what they're paying for, but I'm not sure they're interested... Client sees price and that's it.

I'm doing photo service and my clients don't care what is my cost. They just ask the price.

But it would be interesting experience to try to show our stock clients the other side, open their eyes (iStock firts on the list!).
Don't forget to mention about places like Photoshelter or Symbiostock!

Can't wait to see your effect in next months

Good luck! I'll help in publicating with all my pleasure.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2014, 22:37 »

Great idea, especially if repeatedly shown in a graphics format!
When it comes to the agency chart, show not only their expenses, but also their profit slice. In most cases it's bigger than the contributor's royalty.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Maybe we should do something like this... (Read 2281 times)

spike

File Sold

Ariene

LesPalenik

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors