MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: They are not agencies, they are on-line stores  (Read 7892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2013, 20:36 »
+2
But we ought to come up with some zingy term that expresses our frustration with the way they currently control the market and exploit creative producers.

How about "sites I no longer do business with"?  ;D

I'm on that train for a couple of years. But that's only because I said, "I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing." I'm self employed and have other income and pretty simple, I'm not needy and desperate enough for them to take advantage of me. When they pulled the rug out, changed the rules, changed the levels, and dropped commissions... AND told us the business was unsustainable with the original promised contract? For another one it was open treats towards contributors. Sorry, I won't take that.

Yes it is like drugs. Promise of happiness and escape through chemicals.

What Microstock agencies sell (with the help of people on the forums who brag about earnings, and recruited for referral income  ) is H O P E. A dose of reality and looking at financials for each individual might be good. Only you can decide if you are making money or treading water, until you drowned. That means, add up expenses and time and see how it worksvs actual income and what goes into the bank.

Making a profit? Best wishes, go for it.


BoBoBolinski

« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2013, 05:40 »
0
"Words like "leeches" and "parasites" don't quite capture the pretentiousness, or the arrogance, of many of these companies."

But you still sell your work through them? So not that bad.

« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2013, 17:34 »
0
But we ought to come up with some zingy term that expresses our frustration with the way they currently control the market and exploit creative producers.

How about "sites I no longer do business with"?  ;D

I'm on that train for a couple of years. But that's only because I said, "I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing." I'm self employed and have other income and pretty simple, I'm not needy and desperate enough for them to take advantage of me. When they pulled the rug out, changed the rules, changed the levels, and dropped commissions... AND told us the business was unsustainable with the original promised contract? For another one it was open treats towards contributors. Sorry, I won't take that.

Yes it is like drugs. Promise of happiness and escape through chemicals.

What Microstock agencies sell (with the help of people on the forums who brag about earnings, and recruited for referral income  ) is H O P E.

A dose of reality and looking at financials for each individual might be good. Only you can decide if you are making money or treading water, until you drowned. That means, add up expenses and time and see how it worksvs actual income and what goes into the bank.

Making a profit? Best wishes, go for it.

Completely agree and nicely put.

I often wonder how the IS exclusives that jumped ship because of those bragging about stellar sales at SS are doing.   

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: July 28, 2013, 06:21 »
+1
I often wonder how the IS exclusives that jumped ship because of those bragging about stellar sales at SS are doing.
I would hope that at the very least they checked with people in a similar topic area. No point in sending my underwater macrame shots to a company which has stellar sales of models in a studio.

« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2013, 17:46 »
0
Hi grsphoto,

 I find this to be a bit of a blanket view, I know some very upstanding companies out there in the stock industry that offer an opportunity to share in the sales 50/50 but without the support of photographers to make those agencies grow then we are stuck with a 80/20 deal for a long time. Keep feeding the companies that will share only 20% with you and the opportunity for change becomes increasingly difficult. Just my 2 cents.

P.S. I agree with your post about retailers selling goods. Many retailers do not pay their suppliers until they have sold their product.

Thanks,
Jonathan
« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 15:59 by Jonathan Ross »

« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2013, 18:25 »
+2
...I know some very upstanding companies out there in the stock industry that offer an opportunity to share in the sales 50/50 but without the support of photographers to make those agencies grow then we are stuck with a 80/20 deal ...

Very true and I have my photos at 2 of them. Unfortunately both are still making zero sales.

The heart of the problem is that  companies are changing their terms after we've submitted our work - steadily lowering commissions - secure in the knowledge our path of least resistance is always to simply leave the photos there, having already done the front-end work of submitting them.  So while we give new companies our content to sell on better terms, we never remove it from the old ones, because they have all the sales.  This situation obviously persists indefinitely and I see no simple solution.

There must be a formal economic term for this behavior, which maximizes short-term returns at the expense of future returns.  It's similar to the "sunk cost fallacy" but not identical. 

If I started to see at least 'some' sales at the new agencies, it might represent a light at the end of the tunnel.  Unfortunately, to date they seem to have lost ground rather than gained.





« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 18:29 by stockastic »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2013, 18:38 »
0
^^ so some of us of maturer years may not live to see any worthwhile return.

« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2013, 18:47 »
+1
^^ so some of us of maturer years may not live to see any worthwhile return.

Exactly.  Even if we bit the bullet and moved everything to the agencies paying reasonable commissions - and even if those agencies then started making significant sales - the time frame seems like it would be years.   I'm already retired, by then I'd be interred.

If we saw even SOME small growth in sales at the new agencies, serious change would at least be conceivable.  But it seems like the trend is opposite.


« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 20:46 by stockastic »

« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2013, 15:07 »
0

They are on-line stores and we provide them with merchandise on a consignment basis.

They are the same as Walmart, and their goals and tactics are the same.

Something I accepted from day one believe it or not. I also like to think of it as a giant snow globe. At SS, judging by the number of "regular contributors" announcing their sales have gone to pot, someone has given the globe a shake. I wrote somewhere else if you have 28m assets it makes sense to monetise as much of it as you can; not just the oldest; not just the best selling and not just because someone has put a lot of work into their port - the site owners and shareholders don't care, it is all one big port. One big pot of money.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 15:33 by Red Dove »

« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2013, 15:10 »
0
double post - oops


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3091 Views
Last post October 29, 2009, 20:48
by LSD72
4 Replies
4105 Views
Last post August 27, 2012, 16:40
by leaf
26 Replies
11054 Views
Last post January 02, 2013, 23:51
by Silken Photography
2 Replies
3715 Views
Last post May 12, 2019, 15:43
by Clair Voyant
2 Replies
2499 Views
Last post February 14, 2020, 13:45
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors