MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Prices vs volume - John Lund  (Read 9394 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aspp

« on: February 21, 2013, 04:56 »
+2
John Lund:http://blog.johnlund.com/2013/02/getty-sales-and-numbers-for-thought.html

Quote
There is a price point at which the volume just does not make up for the low prices. That concerns me since there seems to be a movement of clients away from the higher priced sites, including microstock sites such as iStockphoto, and towards the less expensive agencies such as Shutterstock.


« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2013, 05:01 »
+2
John Lund:http://blog.johnlund.com/2013/02/getty-sales-and-numbers-for-thought.html

Quote
There is a price point at which the volume just does not make up for the low prices. That concerns me since there seems to be a movement of clients away from the higher priced sites, including microstock sites such as iStockphoto, and towards the less expensive agencies such as Shutterstock.



My experience with Thinkstock is the same.

Just not worth it and potentially damaging to images for sale at higher prices elsewhere.

« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2013, 05:05 »
+1
John Lund:http://blog.johnlund.com/2013/02/getty-sales-and-numbers-for-thought.html

Quote
There is a price point at which the volume just does not make up for the low prices. That concerns me since there seems to be a movement of clients away from the higher priced sites, including microstock sites such as iStockphoto, and towards the less expensive agencies such as Shutterstock.


Exactly my experience I'm struggling to really succeed in micro, I still make several times more at macro despite of growing difficulties and lower prices over the years and months.

« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2013, 05:40 »
-1
Irrelevant to 99 of MS contributors since we can not join the RM/RF Getty closed club.
I would LOVE moving my entire port to macro instead of micro but that isn't an option, is it ?

aspp

« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2013, 08:07 »
+2
Irrelevant to 99 of MS contributors since we can not join the RM/RF Getty closed club.
I would LOVE moving my entire port to macro instead of micro but that isn't an option, is it ?

The blog post is about prices not macro vs micro or RF vs RM.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2013, 08:13 »
0
Irrelevant to 99 of MS contributors since we can not join the RM/RF Getty closed club.
I would LOVE moving my entire port to macro instead of micro but that isn't an option, is it ?

The blog post is about prices not macro vs micro or RF vs RM.

It is, but JL confuses the issue in the way he's phrased this paragraph:
The first image, with 46 Thinkstock sales, netted meare you ready$18.40. The image sold as an RF image off of the Getty site four times for a total of $1,312.86.  HmmmI think Ill take the RF! But what about the next image? That one, with 42 subscription sales brought in $16.80. It only sold twice on the Getty site, but brought in $31.20.  AgainIll take the RF. The third image sold 11 times at Thinkstock, bringing in $4.44. It sold twice as an RF image and brought in $155.26.

« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2013, 09:31 »
0
John is not comparing 'apples with apples' and the numbers quoted therefore lead to a poor conclusion.

The PP programme (that's photos.com together with TS) currently generates about 8% of my microstock revenue and that's with most of my port having been transferred several months ago and having had the opportunity for popular images to have climbed the sort-order __ which John's new stuff may not have.

If we take John's first image, which netted $18.40 for 46 sales, and then multiply the income by 100/8 to evaluate what it might have earned in total if it had also been available on the 'Big 5' microstock agencies then potentially it should have earned $230.

That's not bad for one month is it? John doesn't say how long it took for that image to generate $1312 as RF on Getty but the numbers suggest that if it was longer than 6 months then it would have earned more on the micros.

It's kind of silly comparing one month's earnings, from one very minor microstock sub agency, to total earnings at Getty over an unspecified period of time. It just doesn't tell the full story.

« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2013, 09:37 »
+2
Image sold 157 times on SS for $58.72, same image sold 30 times on DT for $66.43.  Hmmm, I think I'll take both.

« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 09:15 »
+1
I must say, every time i get an image XS size sold at FT (net me 25c), i get more upset than happy, especially if it's a good seller. if i could, i would opt out of all sub (except at SS which is worthwhile), and all small size sales.

« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2013, 10:27 »
+2
John is not comparing 'apples with apples' and the numbers quoted therefore lead to a poor conclusion.

The PP programme (that's photos.com together with TS) currently generates about 8% of my microstock revenue and that's with most of my port having been transferred several months ago and having had the opportunity for popular images to have climbed the sort-order __ which John's new stuff may not have.

If we take John's first image, which netted $18.40 for 46 sales, and then multiply the income by 100/8 to evaluate what it might have earned in total if it had also been available on the 'Big 5' microstock agencies then potentially it should have earned $230.

That's not bad for one month is it? John doesn't say how long it took for that image to generate $1312 as RF on Getty but the numbers suggest that if it was longer than 6 months then it would have earned more on the micros.

It's kind of silly comparing one month's earnings, from one very minor microstock sub agency, to total earnings at Getty over an unspecified period of time. It just doesn't tell the full story.

I agree. The conclusions he was making weren't very sound, but it seemed like he admitted as much. Still, I think the point is valid. I know I sell about half as much as I used to and make more money, and there is room to sell half as many files as I sell now and make even more (still within micro prices). So, there is something to making more by selling less.

« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2013, 10:28 »
0
Also, note this comment:
"In that $60,000.00 sale an RF image had the copyright transferred and was taken out of the collection (though the similars were left in). That sort of thing happens more often than one might think!"

Kind of like with Google Drive, where the copyright seems essentially transferred.  Yet we got $12.

shudderstok

« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2013, 19:23 »
+1
never understood the race to the bottom with microstock, especially the subscription sites. i too got caught in that snafu over at getty, the results were the same, selling for real prices earned much more.

« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2013, 19:30 »
+2
never understood the race to the bottom with microstock, especially the subscription sites. i too got caught in that snafu over at getty, the results were the same, selling for real prices earned much more.

Again, not everybody have this option. Getty is a closed club for new comers. MS is not.


shudderstok

« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2013, 20:42 »
-1

"Again, not everybody have this option. Getty is a closed club for new comers. MS is not."

This is not true at all, Getty is not a "closed" club for new comers. The only difference between the two is that almost anyone can be a MS photographer as the ticket to entry is very basic. Getty however is a lot more demanding of you in terms of a consistent and stringent body of work and evidence that you are committed to shooting almost full time - and many MS shooter don't have that. Also the huge difference between MS and Getty is the total lack of editing in the MS camp. Getty both edits and inspects images, MS takes it all if it passes an inspection.

If your work is consistently of Getty standard you should have no problem getting signed up with them.

In fact the thing that amazes me most is why there are so many really talented shooters on MS that keep selling their work for so little when they most likely could be signed up with Getty.



« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2013, 23:07 »
-1
In fact the thing that amazes me most is why there are so many really talented shooters on MS that keep selling their work for so little when they most likely could be signed up with Getty.

In fact the thing that amazes me the most ... is why shooters like you try to make being "signed up by Getty" sound like a good thing.

shudderstok

« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2013, 00:07 »
+1
In fact the thing that amazes me most is why there are so many really talented shooters on MS that keep selling their work for so little when they most likely could be signed up with Getty.

In fact the thing that amazes me the most ... is why shooters like you try to make being "signed up by Getty" sound like a good thing.

I am not trying to make being "signed up by Getty"sound like a good thing, for me it is a good thing - maybe not for you. As much as I don't like them (Getty), I have made a full time living from them for years. As per the original post here "Prices vs Volume" I side with prices that are sustainable over selling an image multiple times for commissions that barely cover the cost of parking to do the shoot. I recently saw a cover of an in-flight magazine with a SS photo on it, and I just happen to know the photographer, in conversation it was revealed that he received less than 0.50c for the cover. That is crazy. Getty screws up, and for a few months we get the same pay as this - as per the original post - and I support John Lund in what he says ini his blog 100%.

« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2013, 01:03 »
+1
I'm a bit curious to see what images had been sold, but as a guy who sells both traditional RF and microstock, I have to say, my very small traditional RF images have heavily outperformed my microstock shots in earning power. I think the ugly reality of stock photography is that for it to pay well for the photographers, an agency has to be super picky about who get's in, what they take, how long items stay in a collection, etc...

When I first looked at getting into stock photography over 10 years ago, one agency required an already shot and ready to go collection of 10,000 images. That's not a typo. Most microstock sites require 10... if even that much.


« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2013, 01:10 »
-1
I am not trying to make being "signed up by Getty"sound like a good thing, for me it is a good thing - maybe not for you. As much as I don't like them (Getty), I have made a full time living from them for years. As per the original post here "Prices vs Volume" I side with prices that are sustainable over selling an image multiple times for commissions that barely cover the cost of parking to do the shoot. I recently saw a cover of an in-flight magazine with a SS photo on it, and I just happen to know the photographer, in conversation it was revealed that he received less than 0.50c for the cover. That is crazy. Getty screws up, and for a few months we get the same pay as this - as per the original post - and I support John Lund in what he says ini his blog 100%.

Microstock is simply a different business model and experienced contributors know how to make it work for them. It's a volume thing. I sell several thousand images at SS per month, receiving an average of about 70c per download, but I'm pretty sure that 90% of those downloads are never actually used by the subscriber. It doesn't worry me. I can churn out stock images fairly quickly and cheaply. It's what I do. I'm not an 'artist', I'm a technician. It therefore follows that my images aren't intended to be 'artistic', they are intended to be functional respresentations of their (basic) subject matter and hopefully useful to the mass market that need such images. I'm disappointed if a shoot isn't in profit within a month after uploading and after that I expect it to generate further profits for the next 5 years or so. The return on time and capital can be very good if you get it right and, even when I get it wrong (not infrequently!) because the shoots are cheap, the losses if any are minor.

Just because the high-price/low-volume model works better for you and Lund does not in itself prove that it must therefore work better for everyone else too. Hundreds of contributors make a full-time living from microstock, me amongst them. Our real problem, in common with yours, is not so much the price that our images sell for but the massive cut that our agencies take from it. If a microstock agency can sell an image for say $10 and then keep $8, whilst remaining insanely profitable, how come your friend Mr Getty needs to keep several hundreds, if not thousands of $'s, from your sale price every time he sells one of your splendid images?

« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2013, 01:18 »
-1
Believe it or not, i don't agree with John Lund.

Nowadays, your net earnings with RF images on Getty is usually in the 50-150$ range and same for Alamy and second tier RM agencies.

His image selling 4 times for 1300 bucks is NOT the norm.

Secondly, Thinkstock is a joke in terms of payout, what else did he expected ?
The same images sold on IS as Vetta Collection would give him a decent amount of money, maybe not on par with Getty RF but neither a ridiculous 0.2$/download.

Third, he's specialized in conceptual images, which is a niche selling like hot cakes on Getty so to me it looks like comparing apples and oranges, thinkstock is really not representing of the micro industry as Getty treats it as a leftovers collection.

« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2013, 01:41 »
+1
Getty is NOT closed !

They're just very selective and picky.

At least they accept applications, Corbis instead is a closed fortress but you can get the foot in the door joining one of their partners, and same for Getty.

« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2013, 01:53 »
-2
Getty is NOT closed !

They're just very selective and picky.

At least they accept applications, Corbis instead is a closed fortress but you can get the foot in the door joining one of their partners, and same for Getty.

I would argue it's 99% closed off, even for those with a lot of talent. They would much rather send you a photographers choice deal - pay to play.... The only reliable ways to get into the Getty site are via agencies that sell threw Getty or via Flickr. I would say Flickr is almost better because a lot of the smaller partner agencies do NOT send all their shots to the Getty site and many of them have greater requirements to get in and stay in. I've been approached several times, so I've been around this block ;)

« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2013, 00:47 »
0
no pain no gain.

try and try again, there's plenty of sh-it sold on getty, it's not rocket science to get in, it's still not a closed fortress like Corbis.

JFP

« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2013, 00:57 »
0
Indeed quite easy to get in if you are willing to pay a fee of USD50 per image

Image sold 157 times on SS for $58.72, same image sold 30 times on DT for $66.43.  Hmmm, I think I'll take both.

JFP

« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2013, 01:00 »
+1
Pro-Macrostock, but still putting SS's banner on his site.

John Lund:http://blog.johnlund.com/2013/02/getty-sales-and-numbers-for-thought.html

Quote
There is a price point at which the volume just does not make up for the low prices. That concerns me since there seems to be a movement of clients away from the higher priced sites, including microstock sites such as iStockphoto, and towards the less expensive agencies such as Shutterstock.


« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2013, 02:39 »
0
Pro-Macrostock, but still putting SS's banner on his site.

Nice catch!  ;D








 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
8946 Views
Last post March 20, 2009, 16:12
by null
71 Replies
27215 Views
Last post December 09, 2010, 16:53
by RacePhoto
14 Replies
6503 Views
Last post January 10, 2011, 18:19
by Jonathan Ross
130 Replies
36532 Views
Last post January 27, 2011, 17:43
by Noodles
8 Replies
3492 Views
Last post June 20, 2013, 12:06
by Leo Blanchette

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors