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.

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 ?

Quote from: aeonf on February 21, 2013, 05:40

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 me�are 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.  Hmmm�I think I�ll 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.  Again�I�ll 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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Quote from: shudderstok on February 23, 2013, 20:42

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%.

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?

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.

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.

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.