pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sad day for photographers  (Read 38109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 01, 2009, 14:25 »
0
I will second that one Zeus,

 RM is still very strong if you shoot the right content and are represented by the right agencies. It is bringing in my highest RPI by a mile. I have a friend in RM that had three different images sell for $15,000 this year so far, besides all his standard income from RM and that was just at Corbis.

Best,
Jonathan


« Reply #76 on: August 01, 2009, 22:21 »
0
I will second that one Zeus,

 RM is still very strong if you shoot the right content and are represented by the right agencies. It is bringing in my highest RPI by a mile. I have a friend in RM that had three different images sell for $15,000 this year so far, besides all his standard income from RM and that was just at Corbis.

Best,
Jonathan

thanks Jonathan.  I will look into it again.  I am licensing rights managed images directly but do not currently draw enough people to my site to make it pay well.  Maybe time to check Corbis and some of the others out again.

CCK

« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2009, 02:07 »
0
I can only agree.

« Reply #78 on: August 02, 2009, 08:25 »
0
The point I decided to needed to be made here is the double standard being made by microstock which I thought this image would illustrate well.  The quality standards being demanded are professional, the pay per download isn't really even something that could be considered good for a hobbyist.  This is not good for anyone.

I definitely agree with the above statement. Micro Agency are reaching 10 millions images plus. Simple Simon shots on a white background are overused. I see hundreds of grade "b" images with the big six agencies. Hundreds of start-up want to be agencies. Micro must change the days of monkeys with camera for peanuts are history.

Micros are going to have to start focusing on the better contributors. I am surprised that one of the Micro Agencies have not offered Yuri or others bonus commissions for exclusivity.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 08:26 by shutterdrop »

« Reply #79 on: August 02, 2009, 09:13 »
0
I am surprised that one of the Micro Agencies have not offered Yuri or others bonus commissions for exclusivity.


Who says that they haven't?

« Reply #80 on: August 02, 2009, 09:22 »
0
Simple Simon shots on a white background are overused. I see hundreds of grade "b" images with the big six agencies.

These types of images are often 'best sellers' and downloaded in thier many thousands every day and are the staple, 'the bread and butter of Microstock', and should not be dismissed so lightly, as they pay the bills for the agencies and some artists, the new higher priced 'quality collections' are a 'nice to have' and will bring in some extra revenue but they are never going to be the normal download price points for microstock.

Hundreds of start-up want to be agencies. Micro must change the days of monkeys with camera for peanuts are history.

Micros are going to have to start focusing on the better contributors. I am surprised that one of the Micro Agencies have not offered Yuri or others bonus commissions for exclusivity.

Business is just about supply and demand not people, because a new CEO of a start up is nice chap and all the artists wish him well because he wants to treat them well, that is all well and good but will not bring in sales, the buyers do not care who took and prepared the image Yuri or a monkey if it fits the requirement.
 
Artists will suffer lower commission from bigger stocksites for commercial reasons, because of pure sales volume and not higher price points, there are far more artists joining the party than there are leaving, the part-time monkeys can buy entry level kit for peanuts, not just cameras but the laptop as well, and revenue what might be peanuts to one monkey might be a reasonable living for another.

The day of the monkeys has just started, just like the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz, there is no shortages of new monkeys as the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz who controlled the flying monkeys said, "Going so soon? I wouldn't hear of it. Why my little party's just beginning", which is very true of microstock, it is a very young business with hugh rapid growth, the option is to join the party or leave, but don't close the door as many more monkeys are expected.   

The fact that there are already hundreds of existing and start up agencies, and services tells the story of demand, it is not cheap to break into the market with any impact, setup and proof of concept could be as much as 500k for a small player, if there was no demand then they just would not be trying, Istock alone expects fiscal year revenue to exceed $262 million by 2012, add in all the other microstock agencies and you could be talking $600 million, then add in traditionals and maybe $1 billion, so you can see that even Yuri's revenue is a drop in the ocean.

David  :o      
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 09:37 by Adeptris »

« Reply #81 on: August 02, 2009, 10:57 »
0
[ Istock alone expects fiscal year revenue to exceed $262 million by 2012, add in all the other microstock agencies and you could be talking $600 million, then add in traditionals and maybe $1 billion, so you can see that even Yuri's revenue is a drop in the ocean.

David  :o      

Your numbers are way out of whack.

« Reply #82 on: August 02, 2009, 11:19 »
0
 Hi Stardust,

 To my knowledge there isn't a Micro collection out there paying people like Yuri higher percentage for his work or making separate side deals. That is a hard secret to keep in this industry and can lead to great dissension if discovered. Just me opinion. I have seen it in Macro though.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #83 on: August 02, 2009, 11:52 »
0
Simple Simon shots on a white background are overused. I see hundreds of grade "b" images with the big six agencies.

These types of images are often 'best sellers' and downloaded in thier many thousands every day and are the staple, 'the bread and butter of Microstock', and should not be dismissed so lightly, as they pay the bills for the agencies and some artists, the new higher priced 'quality collections' are a 'nice to have' and will bring in some extra revenue but they are never going to be the normal download price points for microstock.

David  :o      

Great there are thousands of apples shot on a white background and great sellers! Does that means everyone needs to upload a thousand more???

You missed the point... the market is saturated with simple simon images and the demand is for more creative quality images! This requires more skills, equipment, composition, and creativity.

How many downloads at 33 cents will it take to pay for a Pro-DSLR, lens, lights, laptop, software, and etc?

« Reply #84 on: August 02, 2009, 13:23 »
0
error
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 13:29 by cybernesco »

« Reply #85 on: August 02, 2009, 13:27 »
0
Quote
How many downloads at 33 cents will it take to pay for a Pro-DSLR, lens, lights, laptop, software, and etc?


That's right this microstock business is about volume so yes it will take alot. See my thread "Happy day for a security guard" for a better answer.

However if I combined all sites and all different pricing schemes the average is more then 33 cents a download though. It is closer to a dollar per download.

Denis
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 13:44 by cybernesco »

« Reply #86 on: August 02, 2009, 14:50 »
0
Great there are thousands of apples shot on a white background and great sellers! Does that means everyone needs to upload a thousand more???

You missed the point... the market is saturated with simple simon images and the demand is for more creative quality images! This requires more skills, equipment, composition, and creativity.

How many downloads at 33 cents will it take to pay for a Pro-DSLR, lens, lights, laptop, software, and etc?

I did not miss the point as there are already plenty of creative images and there has always been a demand for these, and I was not talking apples, the top ten most popular images over on Istock in three months have between 1100 - 1800 downloads each, some of these would have high production costs, but that is not in scope for most people.

1. Concept shot: Tree in Palm of hand
2. Family: Happy Playful Family of four
3. Family: Happy Family of four on floor
4. Concept Shot: Child enjoying the sun
5. Business: Teamwork in office
6. Business: Team of People
7: Concept Shot: Group of young people jumping
8: Graphic: Laptop Isolated
9: Graphic: Satin Icons
10:  Family: Child with painted hands

You missed the point of my reply, the terms "Simple Simon" and Monkeys are derogatory and disrespectful to fellow artists, I have seen the terms used a few times now and it stinks of the same elitism some of the traditional photographer thought they had when the microsites started.  

Quote from: Istock
That amounts to $62.4MM per year meaning the company pays out about 31% of its revenue to 78,000 contributors for an annual average of US$800 per contributor per year.

Many artists start with a what resources they have at hand, so saying that we should all be shooting creative quality images is just wrong, and with the average Istock contributor getting $800 in revenue a year, where is the money coming from to produce the creative shots for microstock.

In time a new and fellow artist can gain more skills, equipment, composition, and creativity, but not many can just hit the floor running!

If the sites do not want the content they will say so, and as you can see from the OP's first post, it does not just affect the new photographers that upload isolated objects.

There is a great quote in this months Professional Photograper page 50:
Quote from: David Loftus PP
"You can either take a picture or you can't, regardless of subject"

David      
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 15:19 by Adeptris »

« Reply #87 on: August 02, 2009, 14:59 »
0
[ Istock alone expects fiscal year revenue to exceed $262 million by 2012, add in all the other microstock agencies and you could be talking $600 million, then add in traditionals and maybe $1 billion, so you can see that even Yuri's revenue is a drop in the ocean.

David  :o      


Your numbers are way out of whack.


Look at this article with the Istock expected revenue of 200 million for 2009 then add 3 years growth.

That is just one agency Istock now add SS and the others from the big six, Getty, Corbis, Alamy and the traditionals main agencies, and all the smaller macrostock, midstock and microstock players and the personal websites, and it will not be far out.

David
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 15:02 by Adeptris »

« Reply #88 on: August 02, 2009, 16:52 »
0
The point I decided to needed to be made here is the double standard being made by microstock which I thought this image would illustrate well.  The quality standards being demanded are professional, the pay per download isn't really even something that could be considered good for a hobbyist.  This is not good for anyone.

I definitely agree with the above statement. Micro Agency are reaching 10 millions images plus. Simple Simon shots on a white background are overused. I see hundreds of grade "b" images with the big six agencies. Hundreds of start-up want to be agencies. Micro must change the days of monkeys with camera for peanuts are history.

Micros are going to have to start focusing on the better contributors. I am surprised that one of the Micro Agencies have not offered Yuri or others bonus commissions for exclusivity.


I know you mean well shutterdrop.

But there could also be another reason why white background Simple Simon shots are ubiquitous
in micro. I would never think of spending money for a studio shoot or model shoot and upload it to micro. Why would I ?  The rewards of a few cents is ridiculous, it does not even pay for the clothes I rent for my models, never mind the depreciation cost of my lights, camera, etc.

I know there are some high cost photos with micro. My auditors would shoot me (no pun intended)
if I even try to tell them it's a good idea to spend heavily to shoot for micro.

Micro has the most asinine reviewers. That being said, micro has the highest review criteria.
But ask any accountant worth his/her salt, and they will say that this excessive standard on the images does not reflect on the commissions earned by the photographers.

I feel that one day, some magic dust is going to fall over many of these great micro photographers in their sleep, and they are going to wake up to realise they should not be spending so much money to shoot such high standard images. 25 cents per download, woo hoo !

As someone once said , " How can a buyer justify paying sub prices for quality images, yet continue to
pay 6 bucks for a cup of latte at  Starbucks every morning".
Wake up  angel dust !  Our images should at least cost as much a that cup of latte.

 

« Reply #89 on: August 02, 2009, 18:16 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: August 04, 2009, 10:28 by cybernesco »

« Reply #90 on: August 03, 2009, 07:11 »
0


You missed the point of my reply, the terms "Simple Simon" and Monkeys are derogatory and disrespectful to fellow artists, I have seen the terms used a few times now and it stinks of the same elitism some of the traditional photographer thought they had when the microsites started.  

David      

There hundreds of "starving artist show" every weekend. Is that derogatory and disrespectful name? I call it truthful.


« Reply #91 on: August 03, 2009, 09:32 »
0
Absolutely agree with Mark - Amen to that!


« Reply #92 on: August 03, 2009, 10:20 »
0
Cybernesco's points are valid, however I basically agree with markstout - microstock's quality expections are totally out of balance with the commissons. UNLESS of course you "make it up on volume".

The people making money in microstock are doing subjects that many buyers want, so even at 25 cents, they recover their costs.  That is fine. But what about images that have limited appeal - a small number of buyers that want them, but they'd pay a few dollars?  

As I see it the basic problem in microstock is that contributors have no control over their pricing.  Maybe I want do an unusual or elaborate photo, and bet that a few  buyers, somewhere, someday, will want it and would pay $5 .  I'd like to set that price myself, or at least choose from a set of pricing tiers.  Nope, the pricing structure is "one size fits all".  So there's no point in doing that photo, and as a result those  buyers will never see it.

In any normal market there are commodity products with mass apppeal and rock bottom prices, and niche products with higher prices.  Microstock is like a big shopping mall full of nothing but "Everything's $1" stores.  It's simplistic, and a huge waste of opportunity for both contributors and agencies.  The result is everyone madly shooting the same things - trying for big mass market hits - and usually wasting their time.


« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 10:28 by stockastic »

« Reply #93 on: August 03, 2009, 10:24 »
0
But what about images that have limited appeal - there are a small number of buyers that want them, but they'd probably pay a few dollars? 

That's the point of Vetta...

« Reply #94 on: August 03, 2009, 10:31 »
0
That's the point of Vetta...

Not as I see it.  I can't choose to put my images in Vetta, they have to be selected - by art school snobs who don't share my aesthetics, or those of my potential buyers, and think they know everything about photography and the image market because 4 years ago they learned how to set up a web site and a database.  Maybe the real point of Vetta is to create an exclusive club that you want so desperately to be in that you'll keep jumping through the hoops and submitting images for 30 cent sales.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 11:10 by stockastic »

« Reply #95 on: August 03, 2009, 11:12 »
0
Microstock is a small extension of freedom in a capitalistic society within its democracy. In that realm, this is part of its evolution. And like any evolutionary step, you either adapt or you suffer the consequences of not adapting.

Of course I would like to see better pricing for contributors, who would not? But better arguments then those in this thread would need to be raised. I don't think complaining about rejections or the cost of making images are sufficient reasons for this industry to take notice.
   
Denis

« Reply #96 on: August 03, 2009, 11:18 »
0
I don't expect the Big 6 microstocks to change - and contributors who are satisfied with that model don't want them to change.   What I want, I guess, is for sites like CutCaster to start having some success.  

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #97 on: August 03, 2009, 11:32 »
0
That's the point of Vetta...

Not as I see it.  I can't choose to put my images in Vetta, they have to be selected - by art school snobs who don't share my aesthetics, or those of my potential buyers, and think they know everything about photography and the image market because 4 years ago they learned how to set up a web site and a database.  Maybe the real point of Vetta is to create an exclusive club that you want so desperately to be in that you'll keep jumping through the hoops and submitting images for 30 cent sales.  ;)


compared to what? Stockastic?

objectively speaking, many of you put up with a lot more crap as long as you don't see the name "Getty" or "Istock".
you don't crap on it if it's DT, FT, SS, as much as if it were IS.

you still have to jump thro hoops , many times with Atilla with the other Big 6.
so in this sense, Vetta makes the better of 2 evils.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 11:36 by obladihell »

« Reply #98 on: August 03, 2009, 12:03 »
0


objectively speaking, many of you put up with a lot more crap as long as you don't see the name "Getty" or "Istock".
you don't crap on it if it's DT, FT, SS, as much as if it were IS.


You must overlook a LOT of the threads around here. 

The other sites take their share of heat when they try to put something over on people.  Threads complaining about Fotolia are a daily occurance.  The recent dustup at Shutterstock over their new tax policy was huge.  Before Getty bought StockXpert there were several revolts there over sub licenses and prices.   Crestock has lots of threads complaining about them, though maybe they don't count because they are so far down the sales tree.

Mostly DT doesn't do much to pi$$ of contributors, but when they do they get their share of people complaining about them too. 

Maybe you only notice the ones about Istock/Getty because of your connection to them.   

« Reply #99 on: August 03, 2009, 12:08 »
0
Although I'm obviously not a big fan of IStock, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.  IStock did introduce a second tier of pricing with Vetta, but it's of no use to me, because I can't choose to sell my images that way - only they can, and only if you're an exclusive.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
5956 Views
Last post August 06, 2009, 03:58
by pixdeluxe
14 Replies
5570 Views
Last post April 20, 2018, 19:54
by Wishing well
15 Replies
3489 Views
Last post September 18, 2007, 15:26
by chellyar
9 Replies
4988 Views
Last post May 29, 2008, 08:06
by josh_crestock
3 Replies
3985 Views
Last post August 19, 2009, 14:25
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results