pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Prices dont need to go down  (Read 16168 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 22, 2009, 17:02 »
0
I have always rejected subscriptions because images are sold too cheap.  I find it outrageous, regardless of how much I earn.  I know the microstock world started cheap, but it really doesn't need to be like that.  It doesn't make much difference charging US$5 or 6 or maybe even 10 for an image - if this is what a buyer needs, he will get it.  I often have clues this is true.

Recently I sold two images in SP for the same buyer, one for US$40 and another for US$2.  The first was available only in their version of an EL, the second, by my mistake, was available also at the standard license.  It is not necessarily a valid assumption, but I believe the buyer did not mind paying the US$40 and might perhaps have paid the same for the second image, and I also believe he is not going to use the second image as if it was an EL - were he going to cheat, he would not have paid high for the first image.

A second recent example came today in DT.  My level 4 image, exclusive to DT, sold for US$7.50 as XS.  It is not an awesome image (check here) and there are many good and cheaper "hot sun" illustrations, but the buyer picked mine (and maybe others).

Of course I don't expect it to be true, but it shows that images don't have to be sold amazingly cheap. 
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 17:23 by madelaide »


Milinz

« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2009, 17:15 »
0
You're absolutely right...

But, as there are authors who are content with 20-30 or 50 cents per dollar sale there will be 'cheap images'...

The point is not in agencies... But, they must compete even with some agencies where you can buy EPS vector file for ONE HUNDRED times LESS money...

So, authors are main cause on how things stand now... As for example 30 cents downloads which that authors see right after their image appears in search means much more than $50 commission if that image is sold in future... There is the catch and there is main source of all problems about pricing...

So, be careful what where to upload and make strict definintion on your micro and macro quality images...
I did that and it works ;-)  One image on some site brings me more total income than some sites listed here on the right together ;-)
It is funny - and I am planning to migrate most of my future quality images to market where I can get 100 times more money for one single download... And, that downloads aren't so rare as some people may think... Portfolio size matters as everywhere...

« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2009, 17:23 »
0
I have always rejected subscriptions because images are sold too cheap.  . 


How have you 'always rejected subscriptions' if you are on DT where there is no opt-out? Surely, by definition, that means your portfolio is indeed available via subscription?

If that is the case then why does it matter where it is bought? Since I started over 4 years ago my portfolio has earned me slightly more than double at SS than it has at DT. I also earn more from subscriptions per sale at SS than I do at DT. Just struggling to understand your logic.

« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2009, 17:28 »
0
I agree with Adelaide. I'm considering not opting in to the new IS subscription program because I'm afraid many people joining to that program will put pressure on SS and the others to bring their subscription prices down even further.

Going through the sites, the loss would probably be minimal when opted out of subscriptions on StockXpert and CanStockPhoto. On DT we don't have that option at all. I think SS is the only site where volume justifies subscription prices, at least for me.

The way to go is to support sites like Zymmetrical, CutCaster and FeaturePics, and even MostPhotos and to opt  out of subscriptions where we can? However,  I'm afraid this might result in sites disabling opting out altogether?

« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2009, 17:32 »
0
gostwyck,

I would have left, or at least stopped uploading, if subs in DT were prevailing like in 123RF or CanStockPhoto (I don't upload to any of them anymore).  If I had a choice, as I do in StockXpert, I would opt out from subs.  In a site like DT or FT, it is a balance between the two models.  Had I been given a choice, I would have opted out in both, but I have no such choice and so far overall RPD is satisfactory enough not to quit these sites (although it hurts when I see one of my best sellers go as subs).

As I said many times before, for me this is not about how much one make from an image, but at what prices people are able to buy them - their value in the market, in a way.  Personally, instead of seeing a buyer get 10 images for US$3, I would prefer he would buy a single one for US$3, even if not mine.  Only one person would earn that money, but it would be a fair price.

KB

« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2009, 17:41 »
0
In a site like DT or FT, it is a balance between the two models.  Had I been given a choice, I would have opted out in both, but I have no such choice and so far overall RPD is satisfactory enough not to quit these sites (although it hurts when I see one of my best sellers go as subs).
I admire and respect your position.

One thing to keep in mind, as I pointed out on another thread. There is a significant difference between the 2 sub models on DT & FT. DT's subs give the buyer the largest size available. FT's subs are limited to < 4MP in size. If a sub buyer needs a larger size image, they have no choice but to purchase it separately.

OTOH, DT's sub sales help an image climb the "level ladder", so it's much easier to achieve many images with higher levels.  Which will become increasingly unimportant if sub sales continue to grow.  >:(

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2009, 17:46 »
0
It  makes good sense, but in a real world, it may not be as possible as we like it to be. What I mean is, for every one of you who opted out, there is probably what? 50, 100 , ??? people willing to settle for 25 cents, and able to clone your work.
As someone else said in another thread, it's not rocket science. It 's generic images,
and the micro stock sites know that.


« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2009, 02:55 »
0
The only subs site I like is SS, as they have lots of buyers and pay me 38 cents.  They also sell far more EL's than istock.  At the moment I have stopped uploading to crestock, as 25 cents is too low.  I wont opt in with istock and in the future I will probably opt out of StockXpert subs.  If subs commissions don't increase, I will move away from the subs sites.  Perhaps people can copy my photos and sell them for 25 cents but I would rather flip burgers than join them.

Milinz

« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2009, 05:22 »
0
The only subs site I like is SS, as they have lots of buyers and pay me 38 cents.  They also sell far more EL's than istock.  At the moment I have stopped uploading to crestock, as 25 cents is too low.  I wont opt in with istock and in the future I will probably opt out of StockXpert subs.  If subs commissions don't increase, I will move away from the subs sites.  Perhaps people can copy my photos and sell them for 25 cents but I would rather flip burgers than join them.

Good thinking!

Just one small detail:
5 minutes image or good snapshot can be sold as sub.
5 hours image or very good taken photo can be sold on expensive places.

Just add that to your consideration... Makind difference in production makes difference in micro and macro images.

« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2009, 05:48 »
0
Once I was already told that the future of image sales is midstock...

If  agencies reduce the cost of pictures,if upload won't be profitable for our work etc. We should all  migrate to midstock (Zymm., Cutcaster etc...)
There are our prices and classic microstock agencies will die without photographer and new photos...

« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2009, 07:41 »
0
Once I was already told that the future of image sales is midstock...

If  agencies reduce the cost of pictures,if upload won't be profitable for our work etc. We should all  migrate to midstock (Zymm., Cutcaster etc...)
There are our prices and classic microstock agencies will die without photographer and new photos...

borg, This is almost similar in question to the other topic on this forum.  But I will answer it in this context.
I don't think we need to be that harsh as to create an exodus out of the land of IStock et all ;)

There is a place for microstock, and there can be a place for higher priced images. We just need to learn to separate the expectations based on our production costs, and upload accordingly.
Some , or should I say.. many, will still submit to micro since it's the easiest to get accepted. There will not be a vacuum in this business, as for every one that leaves, there will be ten if not more, to fill that space. 

On our own personal value, it's really up to us to edit our own vision of what we want from micro stock. I already faced the reality that I should be creating two separate portfolios each time I start shooting for stock, one for my exisiting micro , and the other, for a few mid stock sites that I am quite interested in testing their capability to sell and stay viable IN SPITE of micro sliding prices heading towards the bottom of the barrel.

« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2009, 08:05 »
0
I agree with Adelaide. I think buyers would buy our images anyway. Prices are so low just because of competition among agencies. When one agency decides to introduce something like subs, many other will do the same because they know they will lose buyers. I work in a company that dies right now because we simply couldn't decrease prices so much, while some other companies could. But there is something that really scares me. Microstock agencies don't have to pay for our images. We give them images for free. So, they could eventually decrease our earnings per image to something like 5 cents, or even worse. 

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2009, 08:51 »
0
The only subs site I like is SS, as they have lots of buyers and pay me 38 cents.  They also sell far more EL's than istock.  At the moment I have stopped uploading to crestock, as 25 cents is too low.  I wont opt in with istock and in the future I will probably opt out of StockXpert subs.  If subs commissions don't increase, I will move away from the subs sites.  Perhaps people can copy my photos and sell them for 25 cents but I would rather flip burgers than join them.

Good thinking!

Just one small detail:
5 minutes image or good snapshot can be sold as sub.
5 hours image or very good taken photo can be sold on expensive places.

Just add that to your consideration... Makind difference in production makes difference in micro and macro images.

milinz, madelaide, etc..
when you say opt out, you only mean item 7 of Stockxpert, right? you still opt in for ext lic and partner licensing. is that correct?
as for the other sites, you really cannot opt out on subs with Dreamstime, Fotolia,,etc..

Milinz

« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2009, 09:31 »
0
....
milinz, madelaide, etc..
when you say opt out, you only mean item 7 of Stockxpert, right? you still opt in for ext lic and partner licensing. is that correct?
as for the other sites, you really cannot opt out on subs with Dreamstime, Fotolia,,etc..

Look at this:

I invest say 5-10 minutes of my work to make some vector image. Then I make few variants of it and voila: One hour after I have 15-20 vector images... Or i make studio lights setup and shoot isolated on white series of this or that... That images are quite ok to be sold on any terms except to subscription or low sales sites with low commissions... I specify that are Crestock or Vectorstock who are way picky and don't deserve my or anyone elses support at all! But, there are and always will be greedy people who will end with empty pockets at the end and that is their problem...

I am very fine with StockXpert subs... They are minor in regard to single downloads and that is why I didn't opt-out from them. Also, there are some days when StockXpert brings me double or tripple more subs via JUI/Photos.com/and its own subs that other sites combined together including SS! But still at the end of month my most sub sales are on SS and my earnings are quite significant there due to ODs and ELs...
But, when you are on Crestock or Vectorstock, buyers will spend 5-10 dollars and buy your images from there  with lowest cut for you. When I realised that, I started to value agencies who accept most of my images and are not picky as some others... Also, what is the quality if Crestock rejects your image and all other sites accept it? Who is crazy in that case? They are limiting you as author to have portfolio. And they are making their base of images something like 'the best of the best' counting money and points for ther own future. You are expendable good there as author. Microstock is all about portfolio! So, I say that if they are picky, they should give 60% at least to authors as well as that  they should have sales! My expirience in Crestock and Vectorstock is not good by that parameters and that is why I oppose to them!
The factor 2 I use is complexity of vector I need to finish - or expences to get some photos done... That is measured bu hundreds or even thousands of dollars. So, I won't send such images on micros.
I don't have studio on wheels like Yuri and I can't compete with him yet. So, I leave Yuri to do what he does and I do my images on my own way. That is how things are set. So, Yuri in just one day can make hospital series, bedroom series, business series and so on... I can't! So, I won't compete with him. But, Yuri can't do some other images I can and there is my chance to earn my money. Thinking out the box is the way to make money! If you can't do anything except copying other people images then time is to go away and shoot weddings or assignments. You will not last long on microstock if you can't find your own way.

Other story is your making of images which needs time to be created. There should never be possible to work for days on one single vector image and give it on sub for 30 cents commission. Look around: there are photorealistic vectors better done than photographs. Do you think such images are sold for 30 cents? No ! that images are worth thousands of dollars - sometimes single image comes to total of all images you sell for year on all microstock and even macrostock sites combined!

« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2009, 11:43 »
0
when you say opt out, you only mean item 7 of Stockxpert, right? you still opt in for ext lic and partner licensing. is that correct?
as for the other sites, you really cannot opt out on subs with Dreamstime, Fotolia,,etc..

StockXpert said a while ago that in fact they had no partner other than JI, so that option button was actually useless.  You can not opt out from subs in DT or FT.  I have stopped uploading to FT both for having a high % of subs and also a very poor relationship with us contributors (I stopped by the time of the commissions change).  I don't submit to 123RF and CanStockPhoto anymore.  Long ago I stopped uploading to CS. 

FT's subs are limited to < 4MP in size.

Not exactly.  They are limited to the L size, which is at least 4MPix but goes up to 7.8MPix, which is the cut to the XL size.  Anyway, XS to L make about 90% of my non-subs sales (on some months, 100%), so the L size covers basically all buyers needs and are possibly suffice for any subscriber.

« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2009, 12:10 »
0
Prices are so low just because of competition among agencies. When one agency decides to introduce something like subs, many other will do the same because they know they will lose buyers.

You make an interesting point.  As most of us have basically the same images in every site, most buyers - correct me if I am wrong - will look for a combination of cheaper prices and some technical differential (for instance, low prices with a search tool that doesn't work won't attract buyers).  I think FT used to have a differential for being the first multilanguage, which is not the case anymore. 

Anyway, while they fight among themselves for subs buyers, at the same time they once in a while raise their credit prices.  Isn't that contradictory?  Yet, they still sell at higher prices, although I suppose a small fraction of their frequent buyers eventually move to subscription.

IS introduces a subs scheme that doesn't harm us much - it is basically a discount credit package in the end.  A buyer still pays more for a large image than for a smaller image.  I wonder if it's only me, but subs in IS is basically non-existent. 

lisafx

« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2009, 12:23 »
0
I agree in theory about the prices not having to be so low.  My prices on Fotolia are doubled and sales are still good.  Add to that the the fact that istock sales continue to be steady even with their yearly price increases, and you have to conclude customers aren't all that price sensitive, at least at micro prices.

What I don't understand, and I mean no disrespect, is how people can afford to stop uploading to all these sites every time they do something lousy.    Honestly, if I closed my account or stopped uploading to every site that does something that angers me or does something I disagree with,  I wouldn't have any outlets to sell my images. 

Personally, I need at least 6 other sites to compensate for the income I would make if I was exclusive at istock.  I don't like all the eggs in one basket, and I am even more committed to independence after what Getty tried to impose on their exclusives with the prior photos.com/jui deal.  But if I was going to drop any one of the other major agencies and lose that income I would be better off exclusive at istock. 

Those of you who are able to drop sites at will, are you doing this for a living or just hobby income?  That would certainly make a difference as to how choosy one could afford to be.   Very difficult to drop sites right and left when you rely on the income to pay your mortgage and put your kid through college. 

Now if they stop earning me enough to pay my bills then of course I would have no problem pulling my images.  Hope we don't get to that point... 


 
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 12:28 by lisafx »


« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2009, 12:25 »
0
IS introduces a subs scheme that doesn't harm us much - it is basically a discount credit package in the end.  A buyer still pays more for a large image than for a smaller image.  I wonder if it's only me, but subs in IS is basically non-existent. 
That is true for traditional IS subs, not for the new program offering images on photos.com. I believe that might put pressure on other agencies to lower the prices of their subs if a lot of IS contributors join.

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2009, 12:26 »
0
Ooops, double posting  :-[

« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2009, 12:36 »
0
good point lisafx. maybe that explains why some exclusives at IS are quiet in spite of what Getty is dishing out. Once again it goes back to the old saying, "better to stick with the devil we are familiar".
Also, in cases where someone is willing to cut off the hand that feeds them, they probably are, as you say, doing this as a hobby. You only need to look at some of the threads with commentaries made by some who are totally oblivious to something as simple as production cost, or depreciation.
On yet another thread, some get irate to be called "hobbyists". But then again, how else would you survive in microstock if you are not a "hobbyists", and not making the income that you are commanding?
Realistically, it is still a numbers game, and like it or not, it is also a tough lesson on auditing and economics. Lack of insight of these basics, you end up being on the losing end. As you pointed out elsewhere, only a small section of this field actually makes money; the rest almost never seeing a pay out.

At this moment, you also see more banting due to mass rejections. This could be  the silver lining in a dark cloud to micro stock. There is already a glut of images, and hopefully, when quality replaces quantity, maybe then we will see the money increase that all of us are hoping for. How else is a micro stock site to demand an increase other than to say that it comes with an increase in image quality.

« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2009, 12:40 »
0
Those of you who are able to drop sites at will, are you doing this for a living or just hobby income?  That would certainly make a difference as to how choosy one could afford to be.   Very difficult to drop sites right and left when you rely on the income to pay your mortgage and put your kid through college. 
I think this is true. Dropping sites at will while depending on microstock income is very hard. I was trying to make this point when we were talking about contributors collective. Agencies know all this and I think it's very hard for contributors to influence changes in price structure that are not in contributors interests. What IS did was a little bit too much at once, and they went one step back while going 5 steps forward. I'm sure they will eventually make that one step and more in future.
We all keep thinking of the ways to stop them and be more influential in their decisions, but so far, I think, we have not come up with a solution.

Milinz

« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2009, 15:04 »
0
@ Lisafx:

1. Crestock is not major agency at all... It may be for Yuri Arcurs or some other people but not for most of authors.

2. iStock is also not major if you are not exclusive there - I believe you felt that on your own skin. Yes, you was more persistant than me - I simply gave up from any serious uploading there when I saw my image rejected and some exclusives image accepted with absolutely the same doubtable error on isolation... So I've tried with vectors and after 6 rejects I gave up on that too... I will go with other agencies.

3. I was mad on Shutterstock reviewers many times - and I didn't pull out my portfolio from them. Sometimes they was wrong and sometimes I was wrong. At least they are reasonable and have fast response if you show them that you don't agree with reviewer... Absolutely the same is with Dreamstime or Fotolia... They really respond... Not as iStock with prepared responses and clicking on 1, 2 or 3 button as response. As far as I know the best reviewers are on StockXpert - they look for quality vectors or photos and if yours don't comply to their standards they ask what to change or say they don't need such images.

On iStock I sent one CG video. They asked additional info of how it was created (release)... So I sent them whole recipe. Then they rejected it with NO RESUBMIT due to it is different from original base image! All other video agencies accepted that CG loop without any problem.

So what to say for iStock except they are really pain for uploads... And make me very frustrated.

;-)

« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2009, 16:13 »
0
I think fair rice for subs would be not less than 50% of regular sales. Correct me if I'm wrong, and tell me where some example of so low subs prices for any product in the world. Lets take any printed magazine in the world, and let's compare it's regular price for one copy, and subs price for whole year. I doubt there would be more than 40% discount for subs.

« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2009, 16:56 »
0
Actually I just got an offer for subscription for National Geographic for $12 per year, which is 80% discount. These days, publishing houses are pretty desperate because newspapers and magazines are not selling that well anymore due to internet expansion. I think all these companies are willing to go for a big discount for some form of steady financing that subscriptions offer. This doesn't give us a lot of hope in microstock industry.

« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2009, 16:58 »
0
Actually I just got an offer for subscription for National Geographic for $12 per year, which is 80% discount. These days, publishing houses are pretty desperate because newspapers and magazines are not selling that well anymore due to internet expansion. I think all these companies are willing to go for a big discount for some form of steady financing that subscriptions offer. This doesn't give us a lot of hope in microstock industry.

Thanks for giving an example. I have to say that's sad...

« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2009, 17:11 »
0
------------Milinz , you pointed out: (extract) Shutterstock reviewers many times - and I didn't pull out my portfolio from them. Sometimes they was wrong and sometimes I was wrong. At least they are reasonable and have fast response if you show them that you don't agree with reviewer... Absolutely the same is with Dreamstime or Fotolia... They really respond... Not as iStock with prepared responses and clicking on 1, 2 or 3 button as response. As far as I know the best reviewers are on StockXpert - they look for quality vectors or photos and if yours don't comply to their standards they ask what to change or say they don't need such images.(extract)-------------------

Yes, I agree, only most recently I had Dreamstime actually rejected an image and told me in a nice way , "please resubmit the original,  this one has some interpolation problem and is not usable to buyers". When I resubmitted, the image was approved and went live within 24 hours.  That shows they want your images. It's good to know a reviewer took the trouble to tell you that.


« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 17:13 by Perseus »

Milinz

« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2009, 17:13 »
0

------------Milinz , you pointed out: (extract) Shutterstock reviewers many times - and I didn't pull out my portfolio from them. Sometimes they was wrong and sometimes I was wrong. At least they are reasonable and have fast response if you show them that you don't agree with reviewer... Absolutely the same is with Dreamstime or Fotolia... They really respond... Not as iStock with prepared responses and clicking on 1, 2 or 3 button as response. As far as I know the best reviewers are on StockXpert - they look for quality vectors or photos and if yours don't comply to their standards they ask what to change or say they don't need such images.(extract)-------------------

Yes, I agree, only most recently I had Dreamstime actually told me to resubmit the original due to some interpolation problems with the one I submitted. When I resubmitted, the image went live within 24 hours.  That shows they want your images. It's good to know.



Not just that. They are not brown noses as some reviewers on iStock or Crestock!


« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2009, 17:15 »
0

------------Milinz , you pointed out: (extract) Shutterstock reviewers many times - and I didn't pull out my portfolio from them. Sometimes they was wrong and sometimes I was wrong. At least they are reasonable and have fast response if you show them that you don't agree with reviewer... Absolutely the same is with Dreamstime or Fotolia... They really respond... Not as iStock with prepared responses and clicking on 1, 2 or 3 button as response. As far as I know the best reviewers are on StockXpert - they look for quality vectors or photos and if yours don't comply to their standards they ask what to change or say they don't need such images.(extract)-------------------

Yes, I agree, only most recently I had Dreamstime actually told me to resubmit the original due to some interpolation problems with the one I submitted. When I resubmitted, the image went live within 24 hours.  That shows they want your images. It's good to know.



Not just that. They are not brown noses as some reviewers on iStock or Crestock!

oh wow, you answered me just as I rewrote my comment.
But yes, I agree that some sites are very good to contributors.

lisafx

« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2009, 17:54 »
0
@ Lisafx:

2. iStock is also not major if you are not exclusive there - I believe you felt that on your own skin. Yes, you was more persistant than me - I simply gave up from any serious uploading there when I saw my image rejected and some exclusives image accepted with absolutely the same doubtable error on isolation... So I've tried with vectors and after 6 rejects I gave up on that too... I will go with other agencies.



I agree with most of your points Milinz, but I have to disagree about istock.  According to all sites that measure traffic, istock's traffic is still roughly double their nearest competitors.  Also for me and many other independents who do similar volume istock is still a huge part of their income.  In my case as a non-exclusive they are 40% and judging from the month end threads there seem to be a good number of us experiencing the same. 

I agree istock can be frustrating for independents, but for anyone who is serious about microstock to not upload there is leaving a lot of money on the table. 

KB

« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2009, 18:09 »
0
FT's subs are limited to < 4MP in size.

Not exactly.  They are limited to the L size, which is at least 4MPix but goes up to 7.8MPix, which is the cut to the XL size.  Anyway, XS to L make about 90% of my non-subs sales (on some months, 100%), so the L size covers basically all buyers needs and are possibly suffice for any subscriber.
I'm not sure what you meant by "goes up to 7.8MP"?

If you upload a 7.8MP image then, yes, it will be categorized as an L size image, and given away as a sub. But if you UL images larger than that, then L size images are limited to just 3.7MP.

I UL'd my first 5D2 images there recently. Here were the sizes they equated to:
XS    XS Standard    1 credit ($ 1.00)    424 x 283 (0.1 MP)
S    S Standard    2 credits ($ 2.00)    849 x 566 (0.5 MP)
M    M Standard    4 credits ($ 4.00)    1688 x 1125 (1.9 MP)
L    L Standard    5 credits ($ 5.00)    2356 x 1571 (3.7 MP)
XL    XL Standard    6 credits ($ 6.00)    3421 x 2280 (7.8 MP)
XXL    XXL Standard    7 credits ($ 7.00)    5616 x 3744 (21.0 MP)

I'm not a big fan of FT for many reasons, but the fact that the largest image a sub buyer gets is 3.7MP (assuming you UL XL or larger images) seems to me to be the most fair of any of the non-size-based sub sellers.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to see sub plans disappear, because I would. Even a 3.7MP image is big enough for many buyers. So, yes, subs are bad for us. But if we have to have subs, then either sized-based plans or size-limited plans are the way to go. Not 123's, DT's, or StockXpert's unlimited size way of doing things.

« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2009, 19:24 »
0
FT's subs are limited to < 4MP in size.

Not exactly.  They are limited to the L size, which is at least 4MPix but goes up to 7.8MPix, which is the cut to the XL size.  Anyway, XS to L make about 90% of my non-subs sales (on some months, 100%), so the L size covers basically all buyers needs and are possibly suffice for any subscriber.
I'm not sure what you meant by "goes up to 7.8MP"?

If you upload a 7.8MP image then, yes, it will be categorized as an L size image, and given away as a sub. But if you UL images larger than that, then L size images are limited to just 3.7MP.

On my side, I have several 7Mpix images, so most of my port would be L only.  I upsized some of them slightly just to make them XL, but the majority is L.  My illustrations, perhaps, are all XL and some even XXL.  A few images were taken at 10MPix and so are "natively" XL. 

But in any case, I basically sell up to L - 90% or more of my non-subs sales.  Is your % much different?  So it seems this is what most buyers need, and therefore FT's size restriction for subs would not be a hindrance to most buyers, should they consider moving from credits to subs.

« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2009, 19:26 »
0
What I am asking myself: What if prices keep on going down and the Photographers that join Microstock for years quit uploading?
I suppose Yuri Arcurs par example has now a very good and nice studio etc. to work with and because of reaching a high ranking and having a big portfolio (and so high earnings) he can pay all that costs. But how many people can do so if photographers like he decided that making stockphotos for microstock has become too expensive and has become a waste of time and money?
For most photographers it is too expensive already to make images the way he does!
It seems to me that the 'golden years' are over, so will new photographers ever have the chance to grow to that level in the future? With prices going down and down?
When the 'big' contributors quit, or move to mid- or Macrostock, where will microstocksites find photographers that can fill the need for that kind of images for the buyers?
I know that there's a big, big load of images in the stocksites, but this type of images with models, interiors and so on, need to be renewed all the time otherwise it get outdated. There is need for a lot of them and they are not very easy and cheap to make!
We have a saying that when two dogs are fighting for a bone, the third one will run away with it...
Perhaps I see it all wrong ( I don't do this for a long time), so I am curious what the feelings are of the photographers that join microstock a lot longer than I do...





« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2009, 19:33 »
0
Those of you who are able to drop sites at will, are you doing this for a living or just hobby income?  That would certainly make a difference as to how choosy one could afford to be.   Very difficult to drop sites right and left when you rely on the income to pay your mortgage and put your kid through college.

I think it should be the opposite, in a way, Lisa.  For a hobbyist, anything is a plus.  But for someone whose main income, or at least a significant income, comes from photography, isn't it a bigger problem to see your produce being devaluated?  By not uploading new images to sites that devaluate our work, we are giving them less power.

KB

« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2009, 20:09 »
0
But in any case, I basically sell up to L - 90% or more of my non-subs sales.  Is your % much different?  So it seems this is what most buyers need, and therefore FT's size restriction for subs would not be a hindrance to most buyers, should they consider moving from credits to subs.
You win.  ;D

As much as I talk about size, I hadn't researched my actual results.

I just quickly looked at my last 100 sales on FT.

Only 7% were XL or larger.  :(

However, the 100 does include sub sales, so for non-sub sales only, it should be somewhat higher.  37% of my last 100 sales were subs, by the way.

Oh, ok. So it was a bit more work, but excluding subs, 13% were XL or larger. Pretty much the same results that you have seen. Thanks, madelaide.

subs are the scourge of the Earth!  >:(


DanP68

« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2009, 00:57 »
0
What I don't understand, and I mean no disrespect, is how people can afford to stop uploading to all these sites every time they do something lousy.    Honestly, if I closed my account or stopped uploading to every site that does something that angers me or does something I disagree with,  I wouldn't have any outlets to sell my images. 

That is very true.  But I feel at some point it is important for contributors to draw a line in the sand with repeated offenders.  I pulled out of Fotolia, not because of 1 or 2 things, but because of repeated offenses toward contributors over the course of nearly 2 years.  With regard to Crestock, I closed my account because I feel 25 cent top line sub sales are pathetic.  Anyone is free to continue to contribute to Crestock.  But they should know that by doing so, they are facilitating microstock's race toward the bottom.

Let me say this clearly.  No contributor who sells for 25 cent commissions through Crestock or Photos/JUI should ever complain about microstock agencies racing toward the bottom.  The contributors themselves are racing there just as fast.

Where do I draw the line?  That's a tough call.  I'm not averse to the subscription model.  Rather I am averse to the exploitation of the subscription model through ultra-low package prices and low ball commissions.  I'm happy making 42 cents for a exclusive image at Dreamstime when it is sold as a subscription.  I can live with the 33 cent sales at Shutterstock, because the OD + EL sales are significant and I average around 50 cents per download over the long term. 

30 cents for an IS Exclusive through Photos/JUI?  Meh.  That doesn't sound very good to me, but that would leave me on the fence and inspire me to dig deeper into the situation.  25 cents for a IS Independent through Photos/JUI?  No thank you.


I agree in theory about the prices not having to be so low.  My prices on Fotolia are doubled and sales are still good.  Add to that the the fact that istock sales continue to be steady even with their yearly price increases, and you have to conclude customers aren't all that price sensitive, at least at micro prices.

Dan Heller seems to be a rather controversial figure among microstock contributors.  I read his blog regularly, and have two of his books.  He firmly believes low prices project an aura of poor quality and low expectations.  There are retail sales studies which back this up.  Customers become weary of prices which "seem too low" because "there must be something wrong with the product."  Customers regularly pay up for the more expensive item because they believe the expense is suggestive of higher quality.

Heller thinks microstock agencies are missing the boat on this issue, and could make a much larger profit if they cut their downloads in half but raised the price per download by several times (just an example).  His own photo sales have not declined, and have grown despite the increasing popularity of microstock. 

Why?  Perhaps because customers who want top quality don't trust they'll get it from microstock because the prices are so low, they think there must be a "catch."  But I'll let you draw your own conclusions.  I certainly know the quality exists in microstock.  But the important question is how many potential customers know?


« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2009, 01:34 »
0
To provide a counterpoint to the 'prices are too low' point of view: I've had the exact opposite experience, when I was informed that although my images were suitable, they could not be used because they weren't available on Shutterstock, and were thus unaffordable. Given the person who told me this and the reason the images were required, I was more than a little surprised.

Milinz

« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2009, 03:43 »
0
@ Lisafx:

2. iStock is also not major if you are not exclusive there - I believe you felt that on your own skin. Yes, you was more persistant than me - I simply gave up from any serious uploading there when I saw my image rejected and some exclusives image accepted with absolutely the same doubtable error on isolation... So I've tried with vectors and after 6 rejects I gave up on that too... I will go with other agencies.


I agree with most of your points Milinz, but I have to disagree about istock.  According to all sites that measure traffic, istock's traffic is still roughly double their nearest competitors.  Also for me and many other independents who do similar volume istock is still a huge part of their income.  In my case as a non-exclusive they are 40% and judging from the month end threads there seem to be a good number of us experiencing the same. 

I agree istock can be frustrating for independents, but for anyone who is serious about microstock to not upload there is leaving a lot of money on the table. 

Yes... You're right! But, what I can do when they 'don't need' my vectors ;-)
It seems I must live without that 40% as well they must live without significant earnings on my images ;-)

Nevertheless, that images iStock sells for $25 can be sold on other places for $100 and even much more money... Why bother then?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2009, 04:02 by Milinz »


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2009, 03:55 »
0
When the 'big' contributors quit, or move to mid- or Macrostock, where will microstocksites find photographers that can fill the need for that kind of images for the buyers?
I'd imagine that most of the companies which use Yuri's kind of image are percisely not the little 'mom and pop' businesses that iStock mainly supplied in the beginning, so they'd be able to make the budget available to buy from the macros.

« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2009, 04:57 »
0
Quote from Shadysue: "I'd imagine that most of the companies which use Yuri's kind of image are percisely not the little 'mom and pop' businesses that iStock mainly supplied in the beginning, so they'd be able to make the budget available to buy from the macros."

Sorry if I understand you wrong, but that's what I tried to say. If you have to start today a company like Yuri's you have to be rich enough at start. And if you are rich enough: for what reason should you join microstock? So who is able to fill the need for that kind of images in microstock, when all that photographers move to macrostock?
When you start as newbie you get the lowest prices for your images and it takes time to see your income grow. I don't think a newbie can ever reach the level that the topcontributors has build up in the "golden years'.
But what about the midgroup? Those who do this for years, make a living out of it... Are they able to fill the hole if the topcontributors move to macro?
What I has read is that a lot of them also are trying to move to macro- or midstock already. And it's not only the quality, but also the quantity that is needed. All stocks ask for "people, people, people', but you can not produce that cheap and you can not produce enough!
What is the reason for a midstocksite as Zymmetrical to start just now? I have read that he has been in the stockworld for seventeen years. Does he see this situation coming? That there will become a lack of high quality images on micro in the near future because of the mid- and topphotographers stop uploading them to micro. And the reason they stop with micro is that the costs to produce their images are to high for the income they get from them?
And what someone said about Dan Heller seems also true to me. Most people don't expect to get top quality when you can get something to a bottomprice. Why should buyers of images think different? We know that the accepted images on stock are of good quality, but do they believe if they can get them for 30 cent?
But perhaps stocks don't care about long term thinking. When they earned enough they simply sell it, like Istock. :-)


Milinz

« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2009, 06:46 »
0
One more detail to consider when size is in question:

Publishing houses are turning more and more to internet as its prime media... Not much print licences I expect in the future due to expenses on printing...

So, prepare to have more xs and sm sales.

Also, there will always be XXXL sales due to huge ADs needed to be printed.

Photorealistic vectors are the future also... But, only for really skilled authors - and not much on stock.

« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2009, 07:10 »
0
Deleted: Wrong thread :D

« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2009, 07:20 »
0
I have always rejected subscriptions because images are sold too cheap.  I find it outrageous, regardless of how much I earn.  I know the microstock world started cheap, but it really doesn't need to be like that.  It doesn't make much difference charging US$5 or 6 or maybe even 10 for an image - if this is what a buyer needs, he will get it.  I often have clues this is true.

Your example is most likely true. For that customer it wouldn't have made a difference if the second image would have cost $40 as well. And you will still find examples of customers paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for images if they find them the best for their project.

But concluding that "all customers are not price sensitive" is a different thing. Would you think a group of college students would spend $3 for a graphic they could use for the party posters? Yeah, I'd say this is most likely. Would they pay $50 for the same image? Doubtfully. And I believe there are lots of different customer groups. By supplying images at a low price point you might indeed lose some income with some customers. But you will win income from customers who wouldn't buy at higher prices. Finding the right price point to get the best return is not a simple thing.

« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2009, 07:30 »
0
I think fair rice for subs would be not less than 50% of regular sales. Correct me if I'm wrong, and tell me where some example of so low subs prices for any product in the world.

Actually I don't think a "real" product can be compared with this. There is (almost) no marginal cost to distributing a digital image. If your image gets downloaded 3 times or 50 times, you don't get an additional bill. The best product you can compare this to in my opinion is telephone services. Most providers for fixed lines already have at least two price plans: One offering pay-per-call (say 3 cents per minute) and one offering a fixed-price scheme (say 10 dollar a month).

Translated into a hypothetical situation this would be 30 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes = 43200 minutes per month costing 1296 dollar... with the flat rate you would get a discount of more than 99%. It still works for the phone companies because most of the cost is fixed cost - and probably none of the users are getting even close to using the full amount.

What we have seen in telecommunications market was a massive reduction of prices over the last two decades. I remember having paid 70 cents per minute at night time for an international call 15 years ago - nowadays I have to pay about 5 cent for the same call. As a result demand was growing faster than the reduction of prices and the total market volume has grown. But yes, a lot of companies made wrong decisions during that period and went downhill. Still, the total communication market has grown faster than the average economy in most countries.

I don't say this example is perfectly transferrable to the image market but I think it's closer than any comparison to buying cars or magazines.

« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2009, 08:17 »
0
The best product you can compare this to in my opinion is telephone services.

And look what happened to the telecom industry over the past decade or so!


« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2009, 03:51 »
0
Interesting interview with Tom Grill:

'For micro to survive successfully it will have to raise prices substantially.  Their further success will depend upon their ability to attract a higher quality of material.  This means images with higher production value.  The value cannot be put in by photographers if they dont receive the financial returns from their efforts.  It simply doesnt make sense as a business model.'

Full interview: http://www.johnlund.com/Interview-Tom-Grill.htm

« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2009, 04:19 »
0
^^^ Thanks for that __ great reading.

« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2009, 07:06 »
0
Yes, I agree with that too!
So even very experienced photographers like he is, say the same. When prices are too low, you are not able to shoot the more expensive images anymore. That is surely true when you are new and your income from stock is low.
When stocksites don't have a view for this, there will become a lack of certain needed images and they will lose even buyers as contributors. And they don't come back...
When you left a shop and don't want to buy there  anymore for bad quality and service and you find a better shop, you will not go back to the other one when quality and service become much better there. I have seen several shops that has to close their doors for that reason. And it always started to go down when they start to disdain or contempt their customers.
You can never get a good name back when you lost it. But some people never learn!
Someone wrote on this site that one person can build a stocksite to a very succeful one and then one fool can destroy it in a year.
I don't remember his name and how exactly he said it, but it is true...
So I am curious what will happen to the world of microstock in the next few years!


« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2009, 23:56 »
0
Who should set the prices of microstock?
The suppliers?
The sites?
The customers?

Or all of us? All together we comprise a market. No one controls prices. If the prices fall too low, suppliers may not find it worthwhile to participate. If prices rise too high, customers will go away. The sites are in the middle. They do not mean to insult or hurt us by lowering prices, why would they want to do that? The sites want to find the right pricing level so that they can make money and stay in business. The sites (as long as there are several competing) cannot decree prices, even if they wanted to. The only right price is the one which makes them money, and they cannot make money unless the suppliers also make money.

Milinz wrote, "There should never be possible to work for days on one single vector image and give it on sub for 30 cents commission." I almost always agree with Milinz's posts but wiht this I disagree. According to that theory, Stephen King should never work on a novel for a whole year because it is only going to be sold for $5.95. Stephen King should demand at least $100 per copy or refuse to sell his novel. Green Day and Sara McLachlan should refuse to allow their songs they worked so hard on to be sold for a dollar on download sites.

Fortunately for Stephen King and his fans, he understands what business he is in and how it works. It is a mass market business, and even the best band and most popular author will never be able to decree prices. Only the market can do that properly.

« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2009, 01:22 »
0
Fortunately for Stephen King and his fans, he understands what business he is in and how it works. It is a mass market business, and even the best band and most popular author will never be able to decree prices. Only the market can do that properly.

Well, that's a good comparison. There is a mass market which overcompensates lower prices with volume.

Still I see a point that this is not true for all books, uhm, images I meant. There will always be a market for images that will not sell a single license more if you lower the price because the number of potential customers is very low or even one (compare it to scientific or special interest books if you will). For those images you have to find a way to figure out the maximum that this one (or few) customers is willing to pay to maximize your profit. In many cases you will find that the one customer would have no problems paying 50, 100 or 500 Dollar to use that image once.

So while for mass market images it's true to say, you can sell your image 5 times for $100 or 200 times for $5, for some images the equation is you can sell it 5 times for $100 or 5 times for $5. Difficulty, of course, is to find out in advance which images are best for micro and which are suited better for mid and macro.

« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2009, 02:32 »
0
When I  was a contributor, I thought the prices were awfully low.  Now that I've moved on to other things and buy images, it's hard to understand how much I can get so much for so little.  Even on my tight budget while putting together these projects, I could, and would, certainly pay more for what I'm getting. 

The demands put on contributors are extremely high, and their portion of the download simply isn't enough for what they're producing. 

But there's that old saying that we teach people how to treat us, and that seems to be proving itself in microstock.  My mother always used to say price it high because you can always lower it if you have to, but once you stick a bargain basement price on something it's nearly impossible to raise it.  These subscriptions with even lower prices is a disservice to the hard work and dedication of pro photographers.  It's kind of sad.

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #50 on: May 27, 2009, 03:23 »
0
Interesting interview with Tom Grill:

'For micro to survive successfully it will have to raise prices substantially.  Their further success will depend upon their ability to attract a higher quality of material.  This means images with higher production value.  The value cannot be put in by photographers if they dont receive the financial returns from their efforts.  It simply doesnt make sense as a business model.'

Full interview: http://www.johnlund.com/Interview-Tom-Grill.htm



exactly what i'm trying to say.

but let me add : i've seen pictures in micros much better than some you find in macros.

the business model is well sustainable for the microstock companies.
the problem is bringing some money for the photographers too but hey
they are sure people will keep uploading for hobby.

a good compromise would be a move to mid-stock but at the moment
i don't see much at the horizon.

i've plenty of second and third rate images i would be glad to sell on mid-stock
for few bucks but i feel it's just not worth the time it takes to upload and keyword.

0.25$ should be the right price for a shaken or out of focus image, not for a
hi-res razor sharp photo taken with Pro equipment.

for buyers micros must be a heaven.

« Reply #51 on: May 27, 2009, 11:43 »
0
Well, that's a good comparison. There is a mass market which overcompensates lower prices with volume.

Still I see a point that this is not true for all books, uhm, images I meant. There will always be a market for images that will not sell a single license more if you lower the price because the number of potential customers is very low or even one (compare it to scientific or special interest books if you will). For those images you have to find a way to figure out the maximum that this one (or few) customers is willing to pay to maximize your profit. In many cases you will find that the one customer would have no problems paying 50, 100 or 500 Dollar to use that image once.

So while for mass market images it's true to say, you can sell your image 5 times for $100 or 200 times for $5, for some images the equation is you can sell it 5 times for $100 or 5 times for $5. Difficulty, of course, is to find out in advance which images are best for micro and which are suited better for mid and macro.
You make an excellent and thoughtful point. The business of selling books images and books are not exactly alike. Your comparison of limited-demand images to scientific or other special interest books is valid. Such books do command higher prices, sometimes over $100 per book.

However there is a crucial difference between such books and low-demand images: the author of the scientific book may only write one or a very few books in his or her career. But the photographer or illustrator creates thousands of images. So, the reality of the microstock business is that yes I will create a few limited-demand images (and as you say, I will not know which ones those are going to be). But it doesn't really matter. As long as the majority of images which I create do sell well, and a few of them sell very well, I just write-off the limited-demand images. I can still make a good living in micrstosock whether those limited-demand images sell or not.

The limited-demand images don't really matter at all in the long run. And so the pricing of them is irrelevant. What matters are the mass-demand images. They are what the microstock business is about. (If we knew which image were going to be limited-demand, we should perhaps put them in RM, but, as you say, there is no way to know that, only the market knows that.)

« Reply #52 on: May 27, 2009, 12:05 »
0
The limited-demand images don't really matter at all in the long run. And so the pricing of them is irrelevant. What matters are the mass-demand images. They are what the microstock business is about. (If we knew which image were going to be limited-demand, we should perhaps put them in RM, but, as you say, there is no way to know that, only the market knows that.)

Totally right as long as you focus on classic microstock. But many of us are confronted with choices nowadays...

What I didn't say is there is no way to know that - I said it's difficult, and sometimes we make wrong choices. But we can always try to learn and improve, not only in photography, also in marketing our images. ;-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5090 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 16:05
by Anita Potter
3 Replies
5281 Views
Last post January 07, 2011, 06:59
by Michael Krabs
16 Replies
8210 Views
Last post February 22, 2012, 17:08
by RacePhoto
9 Replies
4705 Views
Last post November 06, 2013, 11:28
by sweetgirll
1 Replies
4333 Views
Last post February 25, 2015, 12:33
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors