MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: lurkertwo on July 02, 2009, 12:22
-
An email from PictureNation:
(This sounds like FeaturePics that had to abandon its author-priced model for a subscription model)
Industry watch – pricing and licences
As mentioned in our last newsletter, we’ve been monitoring sales and trends and changes in the market even more closely than usual. Whilst our members continue to get print res sales of £35 and £75, there aren’t enough of these transactions happening.
We’ve always been a ‘mid-stock’ site – floating inbetween the American microstock sites that sell pictures for a dollar or less, and the Alamys and Gettys who sell pictures for hundreds of dollars each. Alamy are totally open about their sales figures – and have reported quite a drop in some of their sectors. Their newspaper image sales are down by as much as 70%. Picture buyers are – like many during the recession – having to cut costs for their publications – and many are turning to the cheaper microstock libraries.
This is significant for us – because our key clients have so far been the public sector, marketing companies, education establishments and, we were starting to make good progress with the newspapers. The downturn has affected them – so is affecting us, and we’re a small and quite new library – not with the income stream of the US giants or Alamy. Alamy have done their own research and found that the newspapers are instructing their picture staff to use, wherever possible, the subscription sites where they can buy images for very little. Alamy are looking at how they will address that. And we have been too.
Watchers in the image industry forecast that more and more images will be obtained from social networking sites, that images are becoming so easily available, and so many available for free, that libraries will struggle. We know that businesses and wary image buyers will always choose to get their images from a trustworthy place where the photographers, like yourselves, have given permission for the images to be bought and used, and not just right clicked off the internet for free, with the risk of copyright breach.
We have been doing our own research and talking to small business owners, printers, web designers, marketing companies, etc….who all report that they love our site, its simplicity, the licensing, and your images – especially the spontaneity of them – and for the UK businesses they love the UK look of your pictures. But, when they get to our prices they are shocked. They are literally all now using the microstock sites and say their clients will not pay £75 for a solitary image any more. It’s not just the effects of a recession – we are no longer price competitive. And once these buyers start using the cheaper libraries – they won’t go back to the pricier ones. We haven’t lowered our prices since we launched in November 2006.
Our web prices are great value. But our single print prices are too high. We don’t have license options for businesses who want to use our pictures for templates and re-use. This is losing us – and you – quite a bit of business - and the associated PR – and it’s time for us to address that.
We also confuse clients with our language - ‘subscriptions’. Not our fault – the other bigger libraries have changed their language or introduced subscriptions that have different meaning to ours.
We have to follow the big players sometimes, as they do set the trends. More libraries are now offering a subscription or a credit service. Our PN subscription service is like their credit service. So we think we need to change our language from subscription to credits.
Many of our members sell images on other sites too – which we encourage - and having spoken to some of our members on the phone and by e-mail – we know they are happy to get sales from the microstock sites even for the small amounts that are paid out. Shutterstock only pay 25 cents (about 15p) commission for every download – even high res. But they’re a good, established and popular US site.
To increase sales volume, we need to lower our print prices and we need to offer an extended license option – all of which will increase the purchase options for buyers, give better value for money in a competitive market, and increase your chances of sales.
Some members have images for sale with us and the same images on other cheaper sites, and are getting few or no sales for those images with PN. We’d need to offer a more competitive price. Your commission rate would not be affected and stay at 40%. We pay 40% across the board – before our costs – and we don’t seek exclusivity. You can sell your images elsewhere too.
-
I don't mind subs if the commission is reasonable. SS pay me 38 cents a download and I would be very pleased if PictureNation made me as much as they do every month.
I disagree about buyers only wanting to pay low prices now. istock are launching their higher priced collection and I am still getting higher priced sales on several sites. Perhaps PictureNation need to find the right buyers?
-
Similar story to absolutestock last week. A number of buyers complained about Vetta :) personally I think there needs to at least 3 tiers so that images can be priced more according to how much they will sell and hopefully the market can sustain it. My personal hope is to see more sites going to the veer / fotosearch style and offering multiple tiers in the one site (and obviously I hope this works :))
Personally I dont like subs, I put up with them very simply because I need the money but I think they are the majority of the problem. Even on $0.38 at shutterstock, I dont believe it is sustainable.
-
Here's another email from PN. To misrepresent my earnings like that they must be incredibly stupid or liars. Either way, I'm keeping my distance.
...not to mention calling me an "expert" and saying I shoot "great stock"! I'm guessing incredibly stupid. ;)
As mentioned in our last newsletter, we’ve been monitoring sales and trends and changes in the market even more closely than usual. Whilst our members continue to get print res sales of £35 and £75, there aren’t enough of these transactions happening.
We’ve always been a ‘mid-stock’ site – floating inbetween the American microstock sites that sell pictures for a dollar or less, and the Alamys and Gettys who sell pictures for hundreds of dollars each. Alamy are totally open about their sales figures – and have reported quite a drop in some of their sectors. Their newspaper image sales are down by as much as 70%. Picture buyers are – like many during the recession – having to cut costs for their publications – and many are turning to the cheaper microstock libraries.
This is significant for us – because our key clients have so far been the public sector, marketing companies, education establishments and, we were starting to make good progress with the newspapers. The downturn has affected them – so is affecting us, and we’re a small and quite new library – not with the income stream of the US giants or Alamy. Alamy have done their own research and found that the newspapers are instructing their picture staff to use, wherever possible, the subscription sites where they can buy images for very little. Alamy are looking at how they will address that. And we have been too.
Watchers in the image industry forecast that more and more images will be obtained from social networking sites, that images are becoming so easily available, and so many available for free, that libraries will struggle. We know that businesses and wary image buyers will always choose to get their images from a trustworthy place where the photographers, like yourselves, have given permission for the images to be bought and used, and not just right clicked off the internet for free, with the risk of copyright breach.
We have been doing our own research and talking to small business owners, printers, web designers, marketing companies, etc….who all report that they love our site, its simplicity, the licensing, and your images – especially the spontaneity of them – and for the UK businesses they love the UK look of your pictures. But, when they get to our prices they are shocked. They are literally all now using the microstock sites and say their clients will not pay £75 for a solitary image any more. It’s not just the effects of a recession – we are no longer price competitive. And once these buyers start using the cheaper libraries – they won’t go back to the pricier ones. We haven’t lowered our prices since we launched in November 2006.
Our web prices are great value. But our single print prices are too high. We don’t have license options for businesses who want to use our pictures for templates and re-use. This is losing us – and you – quite a bit of business - and the associated PR – and it’s time for us to address that.
We also confuse clients with our language - ‘subscriptions’. Not our fault – the other bigger libraries have changed their language or introduced subscriptions that have different meaning to ours.
We have to follow the big players sometimes, as they do set the trends. More libraries are now offering a subscription or a credit service. Our PN subscription service is like their credit service. So we think we need to change our language from subscription to credits.
Many of our members sell images on other sites too – which we encourage - and having spoken to some of our members on the phone and by e-mail – we know they are happy to get sales from the microstock sites even for the small amounts that are paid out. Shutterstock only pay 25 cents (about 15p) commission for every download – even high res. But they’re a good, established and popular US site.
To increase sales volume, we need to lower our print prices and we need to offer an extended license option – all of which will increase the purchase options for buyers, give better value for money in a competitive market, and increase your chances of sales.
Some members have images for sale with us and the same images on other cheaper sites, and are getting few or no sales for those images with PN. We’d need to offer a more competitive price. Your commission rate would not be affected and stay at 40%. We pay 40% across the board – before our costs – and we don’t seek exclusivity. You can sell your images elsewhere too.
Lee Torrens who writes [url=http://www.microstockdiaries.com]www.microstockdiaries.com[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockdiaries.com[/url]) has images on several websites – thousands of images – and reports on his earnings regularly. All the sites are American/Canadian microsotck – so sell very cheaply (hence the competition) and figures quoted below are in US Dollars (or cents).
In January 2009 these were his average monthly returns on his sales. Bear in mind this is a picture selling expert who knows the market and shoots great stock.
Image library Av. Commission per image sale
iStockphoto 20 cents
Shutterstock 14 cents
Dreamstime 8 cents
StockXpert 13 cents
BigStockPhoto 6 cents
Crestock 2 cents
Fotolia 10 cents
100 cents = 0.61p
The biggest average return on his istock images was 20 cents. That’s about 11p a sale. The least amount you make on Picturenation is 40p a sale. And much more for print sales.
Our proposal for a new pricing structure on PN is to be competitive, more attractive to buyers, but more appealing to photographers than microstock payouts. All buyers will have to purchase credits to buy pictures – with a minimum purchase of £10, which is the same as now. Only the language changes – to avoid confusion for buyers.
PN new licenses and pricing model
Picturenation image Standard license Extended license Multi-seat license
Small (72dpi) £1.00 £35.00 £5.00
Medium (300dpi) £10.00 £50.00 £35.00
Large (300dpi) £15.00 £75.00 £50.00
Your commission (still @ 40%)
Picturenation image Standard license Extended license Multi-seat license
Small (72dpi) £0.40 £14.00 £2.00
Medium (300dpi) £4.00 £20.00 £14.00
Large (300dpi) £6.00 £30.00 £20.00
What’s an extended license?
There’s a market for image purchase for re-sale, where a buyer needs to use an image several times over but will not and cannot pay for each use. For example, a school book publisher, a T shirt printer, or a poster company. The extended license would give them permission to use an image on a product for selling, (terms apply), up to a certain number, on the one license and for an increased cost. This is a very popular way of buying images and we are one of the few libraries of our kind who haven’t offered it yet.
What’s a multi-seat license?
Our standard current license permits the buyer to use and store the image in a restricted way and to one person in one place at a time. This multi-seat license allows more than one person in an organisation to legitimately use that image, i.e a classroom or a webteam working on one project.
Before we do anything we would like your feedback. As much as we’d like to converse with everyone, it just isn’t possible with 8,000 members. What we are doing is sending you a quick and brief online poll to gauge what your thoughts are. If you don’t have time or the inclination to look at it or fill it in then that’s OK. The adaptions we make will have to be for everyone. Buyers will not use us if our images are all priced differently. The larger volume sites can do that – but buyers have told us they prefer the same rules across the site for clarity. We are hoping to introduce the extended license options in the next few weeks. The new referrers commission will come in after that, where you can make money on clients purchases you bring to PN.
We hope to be able to introduce the wider and more flexible pricing options and licenses soon. The quick and simple poll attached is for us to see if you understand and support the license proposals. We hope you can take a few seconds to answer the 3 or 4 questions it contains. Many thanks for your input.
-
I have never heard of picturenation, I think that says it all
-
Here's another email from PN. To misrepresent my earnings like that they must be incredibly stupid or liars. Either way, I'm keeping my distance.
...not to mention calling me an "expert" and saying I shoot "great stock"! I'm guessing incredibly stupid. ;)
Lee I wouldn't worry about it, like many others I'd never heard of them, I looked them up and they have a total of 88k photos!!! most of which are very sub par.
I sometimes wonder if folks like them and some photographers who write how great they are actually realise most readers aren't as gullible as they'd hoped, or perhaps they hope people will read their statement and not then look at the site :D
-
Well... It looks like provocation try.
Anyway with $1 sales and so small library picturenation will go deep down...
Somehow $1 pricing is for agencies that have 1 million images and above ;-)
In next time period crisis will get even worse and after that it will get even worse than ever.
Loosers will be the lowest and the most expensive. So, I'd stick with middle priced agencies for next couple of years ;-)
-
cover blown milinz ;)
-
cover blown milinz ;)
Me? Well I'm not loose enough to confound "loosers" with "losers" all the time, second, I'm not a reviewer at FP, and third, my last iStock batch was accepted 12/15. Nice try. :P
-
Here's another email from PN. To misrepresent my earnings like that they must be incredibly stupid or liars. Either way, I'm keeping my distance.
I left that part of the email out for brevity. Don't forget to mention that PN asks a parking fee for your images > 10. They argued that their high prices would make up for that. Now that they seem to have opted for the slippery slope of subscription, I wonder if they're going to dump that parking fee too. I uploaded 10 to PN, 5 non-people, 5 models. They asked to email the Releases or fax them, for which I have no time. And that's it.
-
Similar story to absolutestock last week. A number of buyers complained about Vetta :) personally I think there needs to at least 3 tiers so that images can be priced more according to how much they will sell and hopefully the market can sustain it. My personal hope is to see more sites going to the veer / fotosearch style and offering multiple tiers in the one site (and obviously I hope this works :))
Personally I dont like subs, I put up with them very simply because I need the money but I think they are the majority of the problem. Even on $0.38 at shutterstock, I dont believe it is sustainable.
Phil, following your comments here on this forum, I have the same growing sentiments about the current state of things in microstock. I like Veer Marketplace as they belong to Corbis, and support them to prevent a Getty monopoly. Still, I dislike Getty's treatment of screwing contributors with how they handled subs between IS and StockXpert. And they killed StockXpert, which was a good site for me, which makes me pissed off with Getty.
But with Vetta, I cheer for them as they provide us with an alternative to subs. Many of the newbie sites with big promises and no sales keep pushing with their "road out of hell" (to quote cevapcici)
but we cannot forget history of those who came before them with similar empty promises. And as I pointed out elsewhere here, Dreamstime is pissing me off too. Which is sick, as I like them alot , ... until today !
cevapcici, we can do with a new idea, as this road to subs is too much of a reality that everyone has jumped on board. The only ones thinking of jumping ship is all of us, but we cannot leave without an alternative that works.
Let's hope with Veer Marketplace and Vetta, we can turn the ship around instead of heading the whole business into an iceberg. Like Phil said elsewhere, if I am to earn 3% or 30 cents mostly, I may as well quit the business, and just shoot for fun. If it keeps up, I will go back to Flickr, wth. It's stupid, none the less, but there comes a time we contributors must reach a point of getting f##king sick of being screwed. (sorry, I feel in a pissy mood today already).
-
the road is sure headed for hell, but didn't we see the writing on the wall? am i the only one who read Yuri say his expectations were down to 20% as his profit margin on microstock?
if this is Yuri's expectation and he sell like hot tamales. what do we normal folks expect for our own profit margin? how can this be sustainable? (quote Phil).
how can paying a model to pose for you and time and money on equipment, depreciation,etc.. be sustainable if all we get is 30cents.
with a tier system, at least we can submit higher cost images to Vetta and other similar stock, while keeping only the low cost productions to subs.
what do the rest of you think? am i crazy or what?
-
We're starting to sell into a generation that grew up on cell phone photos. Feelings about, and expectations for, imagery in general are changing. This generation also expects digital content to be free, or close to it.
I think that before too long, today's carefully posed and ighted stock shots of suspiciously good-looking people will look as stiff and comical as 19th century portraits often look today, and will no longer be in demand for advertising and promotion.
Everythng changes. It will be interesting to see what future "professional" photography actually has.
-
We're starting to sell into a generation that grew up on cell phone photos. Feelings about, and expectations for, imagery in general are changing. This generation also expects digital content to be free, or close to it.
I think that before too long, today's carefully posed and ighted stock shots of suspiciously good-looking people will look as stiff and comical as 19th century portraits often look today, and will no longer be in demand for advertising and promotion.
Everythng changes. It will be interesting to see what future "professional" photography actually has.
well done, I couldn't have said it out better.
-
We're starting to sell into a generation that grew up on cell phone photos. Feelings about, and expectations for, imagery in general are changing. This generation also expects digital content to be free, or close to it.
I think that before too long, today's carefully posed and ighted stock shots of suspiciously good-looking people will look as stiff and comical as 19th century portraits often look today, and will no longer be in demand for advertising and promotion.
Everythng changes. It will be interesting to see what future "professional" photography actually has.
Agree too!
Our imagery fakery went from the old full suit Chubby Checker Hang On Sloopy crowd to the sraggily unkempt dopey Woodstock stoned who cares look. Then back to polyester John Travolta disco (ugh, puke, lol) to weird M Jackson, to jailbird wannabee gangsta pyjamas , then back to the starch over dressed all flash and no substance. Now with the mobile phone we are back to the come as you are casual is best look. Except for those strung out on Paris Hilton overdressed, underdressed and still weird financed by daddy .
Yes, much as we try to predict and brainwashed by the media, the only thing certain is that it never stays the same long. Much like the attention span of our 3 year old. lol.
-
if this is Yuri's expectation and he sell like hot tamales. what do we normal folks expect for our own profit margin? how can this be sustainable? (quote Phil).
Yuri, nice guy that he is, isn't the end all of everything shot by a camera. Don't despair.
-
There will always be a market for high quality/High production imagary.
(Think European Vogue for instance).
Will there continue to be a market for it in microstock?
Only time will tell.
One thing is for certain, the pendulum swings in both directions.
What was old eventually becomes new again.
-
the road is sure headed for hell, but didn't we see the writing on the wall? am i the only one who read Yuri say his expectations were down to 20% as his profit margin on microstock?
if this is Yuri's expectation and he sell like hot tamales. what do we normal folks expect for our own profit margin? how can this be sustainable? (quote Phil).
how can paying a model to pose for you and time and money on equipment, depreciation,etc.. be sustainable if all we get is 30cents.
with a tier system, at least we can submit higher cost images to Vetta and other similar stock, while keeping only the low cost productions to subs.
what do the rest of you think? am i crazy or what?
Have you seen Yuri's studio? If he can pay for that and all the equpment, models, props and travel etc. and make a 20% profit margin, he is doing great. He could stop spending and earn more but I think he is having fun and that might be more important to him than his profit margin. Others spend less and probably make more.
-
Big Believer in a three tiered system. Just wrote a presentation to this exact subject a couple of weeks ago for a Micro Blog site, hasn't been released yet. This is the best approach I have heard so far and there are buyers to sustain all three levels. Good topic.
Best,
Jonathan
-
with a tier system, at least we can submit higher cost images to Vetta and other similar stock, while keeping only the low cost productions to subs.
what do the rest of you think? am i crazy or what?
Puravida, I thought you were independent. Are you thinking of going exclusive with istock?
If you aren't, don't expect to submit anything to Vetta. Vetta collection is for istock exclusives only.
-
Puravida, I thought you were independent. Are you thinking of going exclusive with istock?
If you aren't, don't expect to submit anything to Vetta. Vetta collection is for istock exclusives only.
yes PixelBytes, i'm indie. what i mean is credit to where it's due. Getty deserves all the crapping for what they did with StockXpert and IS sub,etc... but now with Vetta, it's somethng for contributors to feel optimistic . sure, only for exclusives, but if i were exclusive with IS, i'd expect some extra special treatment.
maybe if DT stop inventing games and do the same , they too might get some of us to go exclusive ;)
-
yes PixelBytes, i'm indie. what i mean is credit to where it's due. Getty deserves all the crapping for what they did with StockXpert and IS sub,etc... but now with Vetta, it's somethng for contributors to feel optimistic . sure, only for exclusives, but if i were exclusive with IS, i'd expect some extra special treatment.
I see what you mean. Glad you are staying non-exclusive for now. You are one of the most active and vocal independents. Would hate to lose you from our "team" :)
-
yes PixelBytes, i'm indie. what i mean is credit to where it's due. Getty deserves all the crapping for what they did with StockXpert and IS sub,etc... but now with Vetta, it's somethng for contributors to feel optimistic . sure, only for exclusives, but if i were exclusive with IS, i'd expect some extra special treatment.
I see what you mean. Glad you are staying non-exclusive for now. You are one of the most active and vocal independents. Would hate to lose you from our "team" :)
PixelBytes, that's good to know I am not just making obssessive enemies here with my (quote) most active and vocal (unquote), lol !
Not to worry. Even if I do turn exclusive, you will still get me screaming hell if something's unfair. I am not just suddenly going to turn fawn or speechless simply because I become exclusive.
For that reason, maybe the exclusves will dread the day I join their "team", rofl !
Thx again for the good thoughts, PixelBytes ;)
-
with a tier system, at least we can submit higher cost images to Vetta and other similar stock, while keeping only the low cost productions to subs.
what do the rest of you think? am i crazy or what?
Puravida, I thought you were independent. Are you thinking of going exclusive with istock?
If you aren't, don't expect to submit anything to Vetta. Vetta collection is for istock exclusives only.
me too, I'm independant but very pleased to see Vetta. Reminds people that some images are worth more than the dollar bin or subs pricing. I hope other agencies start similar collections
-
I agree with Phil.
Vetta is good for the industry to start separating the quality levels. People that have been true to Istock deserve this opportunity, they believed and it looks like for some it has paid off well.
Jonathan
-
I quit Istock some time ago, but I agree it's a good time for IS exclusives. I am happy for them that at last their fidelity with one site is being rewarded. Even after the rough time they had with Getty's subscription curve ball. The exclusives displeasure paid off and it's good to see Getty doing a changeover to the exclusives benefit.
This tier system can be a good sign for the rest of us who are independent. It can turn the road for the other Big 6 to take notice and start doing something good for those who stick with them as well. That, or risk an exodus to any site who has their ears to the grapevine and conscious that pleasing the contributors mean a win win situation for all.
I wish the exclusives at IStock good results.
-
I'm not that much upset with ShutterStock, which was the first and original subs microstock. You knew what you entered into the moment you signed up. They make me 3 digits per month, more than 0.35$/sub sale, and I upload only the reduced size to them. Fair after all, I don't want my maximums up for grabs.
What irritates me more are PPDL microstocks turning into a subs-too site after sign-up. You start uploading maximum sizes, and then you suddenly see this: (my last 7 DLs on DT).
(http://cjoint.com/data/heeGfNTHZL_dtsubs.jpg)
The latest addition to this club is FeaturePics, although they will limit sub sales to a whopping low size of 8MP.
-
I'm not that much upset with ShutterStock, which was the first and original subs microstock. You knew what you entered into the moment you signed up. They make me 3 digits per month, more than 0.35$/sub sale, and I upload only the reduced size to them. Fair after all, I don't want my maximums up for grabs.
What irritates me more are PPDL microstocks turning into a subs-too site after sign-up. You start uploading maximum sizes, and then you suddenly see this: (my last 7 DLs on DT).
([url]http://cjoint.com/data/heeGfNTHZL_dtsubs.jpg[/url])
The latest addition to this club is FeaturePics, although they will limit sub sales to a whopping low size of 8MP.
hmm, good point cevapcici. you know, i never really thought of that until now why ppl at SS were not getting pissed off with accepting sub prices. ie. SS sells lots for them to make up for it, and also,
the agreement and expectation of sub commission are understood when you join.
unlike, as you say, the other PPDL micro sites that get you interested and then turn into subs too AFTER sign up.
i suppose you can start not giving them the XXL sizes after they spring subs on you, but you cannot just pull out the old XXL sizes . maybe the only honorable thing for these sites would be give us the option to disallow max sizes for subs, IF we don't like that surprise sprung to us.
but then again, i guess it's too far gone for us to now go retroactive and demand this option.
why didn't the oldtimers think of that? oh well, too late !
-
Well... If you are not content with what you recieve on microstock - just go trady... I am sure there you will earn 4 figures a year - I do!
There is just one catch: Trady image is not the same as microstock image!
-
Well... If you are not content with what you recieve on microstock - just go trady... I am sure there you will earn 4 figures a year - I do!
There is just one catch: Trady image is not the same as microstock image!
4 figures? 1000-9999 that´s kind of wide...
Trady images. That´s a new thing for me. what is it? worse quality? since microstock can be everything, and need to be perfect.
-
Well... If you are not content with what you recieve on microstock - just go trady... I am sure there you will earn 4 figures a year - I do!
There is just one catch: Trady image is not the same as microstock image!
4 figures? 1000-9999 that´s kind of wide...
Trady images. That´s a new thing for me. what is it? worse quality? since microstock can be everything, and need to be perfect.
Well...
It depends on what buyers consider 'perfect' ;-)
P.S. To figure that out you should know at least dozen designers and dozen magazine editors ;-)
P.P.S. It is obvious that some buyers find 'perfect' maximum resolution sold for 35 cents on one place as well $100 or more single sale on other place...
-
Please don't get sucked in to traditional vs microstock vs Subscriptions, all have a place in the market with a different core customer base, some assets are on different models at different price points, so you cannot use content and quality as a true argument, only personal choice.
The type of customers more than the content and quality of assets keeps all models active as some customers would just not use the other model, this is often due to volume requirements and account tie-in.
Remember Istock was first created to provide 'Free' images for designers and hurt the traditional model, here we are a few years later and they have a new collection that has closed the gap in pricing again microstock to macrostock, some day there may be little or no difference between these two models.
As elements of the microstock model move closer to macrostock, there is still the subscriptions which may hurt both, it would be better if this model was seperated from the label microstock then we can have another set of debates.
Which is the best model for artist and buyer is a simple personal choice, not a right or wrong one, and one persons hell could be another person heaven!
David :D
-
Well put David!
-
Well... If you are not content with what you recieve on microstock - just go trady... I am sure there you will earn 4 figures a year - I do!
There is just one catch: Trady image is not the same as microstock image!
4 figures? 1000-9999 that´s kind of wide...
Trady images. That´s a new thing for me. what is it? worse quality? since microstock can be everything, and need to be perfect.
Well...
It depends on what buyers consider 'perfect' ;-)
P.S. To figure that out you should know at least dozen designers and dozen magazine editors ;-)
P.P.S. It is obvious that some buyers find 'perfect' maximum resolution sold for 35 cents on one place as well $100 or more single sale on other place...
By perfect I mean quality. sharp without filter, no noise but still details etc. So what is trady images?
-
Trady images should be those shoot in not common environment, not acceptable on micros, with very expensive production and models... Also, there should be considered and added original concepts and look of images that are not shot for microstock - you should know the difference if you are photographer.
Here is some link I can provide you to get some of how I consider it:
http://www.chiff.com/art/photo/stock.htm (http://www.chiff.com/art/photo/stock.htm)
-
Remember Istock was first created to provide 'Free' images for designers and hurt the traditional model, here we are a few years later and they have a new collection that has closed the gap in pricing again microstock to macrostock, some day there may be little or no difference between these two models.
As elements of the microstock model move closer to macrostock, there is still the subscriptions which may hurt both, it would be better if this model was seperated from the label microstock then we can have another set of debates.
david, seems like i am stalking you lol, but in essence, your insightful comments pique my own responses.
yes, IS makes a change of face and now gives their exclusive something that closes the gap between micro and macro. and we should ask why is this so . so soon after their horrible curveball with StockXpert / IS subs situation.
IS is no stranger to the marketplace ( ahem pun pun ), which includes Veer as well, and also the micro entry of Veer marketplace. this is a faceoff of the titans once again (Corbis and Getty).
the dual point strategy (high earning Vetta and peanut vendor subs) must indicate that Getty knows
the buyer base have now changed. less disposable funds mean more critical selection of images.
also outstanding images at premium cost.
we are no longer in a spendtrift environment with haphazard quantity buying from bottomless budget.
the buyers may even be consolidated into one person, like we used to see with the previous crash
where a whole dept is laid off and replaced by one secretary that handles all.
the scenery changes, and Getty which is no gremlin to the business sense the need to close the disparity. play safe at both ends, keep subs alive while introducing a premium supply that caters to buyers of the older style with cash to spare on quality, not quantity. they keep subs on for now,
and probably will kill it, after Vetta takes off.
why not? with Vetta's success, they kill two birds with one stone: happier contributors keeping their
exclusivity and earning more money at last again, and an injection of a buyer base that spend more but buy less.
personally, i wish Vetta succeeds. this may be what all contributors are waiting for. even anyone who doesn't like Istock must surely applaud this move by Getty with Vetta.
-
[url]http://www.chiff.com/art/photo/stock.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.chiff.com/art/photo/stock.htm[/url])
A site that considers Talkmicro the only microstock forum and iStockphoto the only microstock site shouldn't be considered a reference, even loosely. Perhaps some would consider it as a looser, if not a loser. ;)
-
Hi puravida,
I am a little more cynical about the reasons the microsites are having midstock / macrostock collections, I see from posts in the traditional forums many more good artists that would not have looked at microstock a year ago, are now feeling the crunch, and are looking at what the microsites are offering as an option, so these moves are good for the agencies, new buyers and the existing contributors, but also other traditional artists looking for new outlets with a better price point, so the slice of 'revenue pie' may be cut thinner again.
The big two have massive resources, and would have done the risk assesments and research for these collections, will these collections encourage some of the good traditional photographers currently sitting on the fence, also the stocksites would be aware of the increasing quality and quantity of work out there that has no real home, they will know the number of photographers that have been trying to join the big two traditional agencies, who may be close but not quite there, being to arty for microstock and not quite up to C & G quality, and now they have a 'midstock' model that can later be opened up to these photograhers.
I work in IT mid range accounting packages, Microsoft had the high end and low end markets, there were three contenders in the mid range, Microsoft just brought out all three offerings to get the market share.
With stock images the big two have the top and lower tiers well covered and now they are after the vacant middle tier.
Jonathan Ross has today posted on the three tiers on the MicroStockDiaries blog :
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/photographers-working-together-in-a-three-tiered-stock-photo-market.html (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/photographers-working-together-in-a-three-tiered-stock-photo-market.html)
David
-
I found that trying to participate in this forum is quite loosing of time because people are able to have several nicks and they can manipulate with statements. Also, I am sure I know who is behind 'cevapcici' just after reading few posts. So, I am about to finish my participation here due to same names - same thoughts with very high level of untolerance about international submitters who make typos.
So, Goodbye MSG and I wish you to grow up and understand that your interests are way below interests of all stock submitters as well your conclusions are way far from reality and sometimes not smart enough.
OVER AND OUT!
-
they will know the number of photographers that have been trying to join the big two traditional agencies, who may be close but not quite there, being to arty for microstock and not quite up to C & G quality, and now they have a 'midstock' model that can later be opened up to these photograhers.
David, myself and a handful of my network welcome this middle tier with open arms. we had long discussed our displeasure of making generic images and sure approval clones to pacify the editors of micro . With Vetta, and hopefully Veer Marketplace, we can now disregard the need to feed the beast with non-artsy images and concentrate on either going exclusive for Vetta, or making the most out of Veer Marketplace 's which has times mentioned that they are not interested in our "top sellers of SS, DT, FT,etc" but something more. It's a breath of fresh air to see something with the clout of Corbis that is not going to settle for leftovers or flavours of the day from the Big 6.
I was impressed the moment I read how many rejections Veer made from the regular sellers of the Big 6. Now the proof of the pudding is to see V M sell and sell well. Also Vetta for the IS exclusives.
Both for the common good of this sorry state of micro and subs.
-
Hi Adeptris,
Thanks for posting the Link to lee's site and my article on the three tiered system. It is just my vision of the concept and I think the more artists talk about this option the closer we can come to having a strong voice across the entire industry. You all have really good ideas and I learn from so many people here. Thanks for your input and everyone's help in educating the photographers participating in stock.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi Adeptris,
Thanks for posting the Link to lee's site and my article on the three tiered system. It is just my vision of the concept and I think the more artists talk about this option the closer we can come to having a strong voice across the entire industry. You all have really good ideas and I learn from so many people here. Thanks for your input and everyone's help in educating the photographers participating in stock.
Best,
Jonathan
Hear hear Jonathan. Echo needed 4 sure !!!..." the more artists talk about this option the closer we can come to having a strong voice across the entire industry. "
-
The latest addition to this club is FeaturePics, although they will limit sub sales to a whopping low size of 8MP.
4MPix. Which I personally still don't feel ok about.
-
Please don't get sucked in to traditional vs microstock vs Subscriptions, all have a place in the market with a different core customer base, some assets are on different models at different price points, so you cannot use content and quality as a true argument, only personal choice.
I only wanted that sites let me choose not to sell to the customers that want buy subs. This should be our choice, not the site's.
-
Please don't get sucked in to traditional vs microstock vs Subscriptions, all have a place in the market with a different core customer base, some assets are on different models at different price points, so you cannot use content and quality as a true argument, only personal choice.
I only wanted that sites let me choose not to sell to the customers that want buy subs. This should be our choice, not the site's.
Totally agree.... !
Patrick H.
-
Please don't get sucked in to traditional vs microstock vs Subscriptions, all have a place in the market with a different core customer base, some assets are on different models at different price points, so you cannot use content and quality as a true argument, only personal choice.
I only wanted that sites let me choose not to sell to the customers that want buy subs. This should be our choice, not the site's.
Totally agree.... !
Patrick H.
Absolutely
-
The big two have massive resources, and would have done the risk assesments and research for these collections, will these collections encourage some of the good traditional photographers currently sitting on the fence
Your points are all very well taken David. Like Puravida, I always get a lot from your postings.
I do wonder, though, how many of the traditional photographers would ever be eligible to contribute to Vetta. My understanding is that Jonathan and most other of these talented pros have RF commitments already to Trad sites and would never be eligible for istock exclusivity. Therefore they would be shut out of contributing to Vetta.
Also, by Big Two, do you mean IS and Fotolia (which has its Infinite collection) or did you mean IS and SS? Does SS have a high end collection in the works? If so I would love to contribute to it.
BTW, anyone contributing to Infinite on Fotolia have anything to report about income from those sales? I haven't heard anything about it in a long time. Is it dead in the water?
-
Hi Pixelbytes,
You are absolutely right about my opportunity or any other macro RF shooter that has older work tied up in 5-7 year contracts ( standard duration ) in the Macro RF market. We are not eligible for the Exclusive contract at Istock for licensing images. I think they want to support their base of photographers that put them on the map and bring in new talent as they become more seasoned. I totally understand that and I am glad to see a company support their photographers. That has not always been the case in stock history.
I think this helps control the mass of pro's that might jump on the Istock exclusive wagon if given the chance and flood their market with content. I totally get it. The only possible down side is these old timers are shooting Micro now. They are just uploading to Istock at a slower rate than all the other Micro agencies. Giving the other agencies access for their buyers to a great deal more of the old Macro stock shooters work, whatever that is worth :).
I don't know if that is good or bad yet for Istock, we'll have to wait and see. They benefit on the other end by having exclusive content that no buyer can find anywhere else. They also have the highest RPI compared to any other Micro agency in the business making them appealing to new shooters. At least from my short experience. in Micro.
Best,
Jonathan
-
BTW, anyone contributing to Infinite on Fotolia have anything to report about income from those sales? I haven't heard anything about it in a long time. Is it dead in the water?
That's what I was about to post? I was thinking more seriously about shooting some stuff just for Fotolia Infinite, probably on-location lifestyle shots and submit the studio stuff to the usual micro sites.
-
Hi Pixelbytes,
You are absolutely right about my opportunity or any other macro RF shooter that has older work tied up in 5-7 year contracts ( standard duration ) in the Macro RF market. We are not eligible for the Exclusive contract at Istock for licensing images. I think they want to support their base of photographers that put them on the map and bring in new talent as they become more seasoned. I totally understand that and I am glad to see a company support their photographers. That has not always been the case in stock history.
I think this helps control the mass of pro's that might jump on the Istock exclusive wagon if given the chance and flood their market with content. I totally get it. The only possible down side is these old timers are shooting Micro now. They are just uploading to Istock at a slower rate than all the other Micro agencies. Giving the other agencies access for their buyers to a great deal more of the old Macro stock shooters work, whatever that is worth :).
I don't know if that is good or bad yet for Istock, we'll have to wait and see. They benefit on the other end by having exclusive content that no buyer can find anywhere else. They also have the highest RPI compared to any other Micro agency in the business making them appealing to new shooters. At least from my short experience. in Micro.
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan, your understanding of what istock's goals are makes total sense. Although after seeing the impressive quality of your work I can't help but wonder if they are making the wrong decision to limit your ability and that of other similarly experienced individuals to get your portfolios on the site.
BTW, slightly OT, but I watched your video that David recommended about the various stock tiers and it was amazing. Your work at all levels is positively outstanding, and you are extremely generous to share your thoughts and skills with others. You also had a very pleasant voice and narrating style.
Thanks a lot for sharing! :D
Quote from phildate:
I was thinking more seriously about shooting some stuff just for Fotolia Infinite, probably on-location lifestyle shots and submit the studio stuff to the usual micro sites.
Hope if you do that you will share your impressions of the experience? Nobody who has been accepted into infinite has mentioned anything about it in a long time.
With so many of us locked out of Vetta, Fotolia will probably experience an upsurge in interest in Infinite. Hopefully they will recognize what a great opportunity this could be for them to compete with Istock in the mid-stock arena, and make submitting to Infinite available to more of their contributors.
-
Jonathan, your understanding of what istock's goals are makes total sense. Although after seeing the impressive quality of your work I can't help but wonder if they are making the wrong decision to limit your ability and that of other similarly experienced individuals to get your portfolios on the site.
No, there are plenty of talented individuals who have paid their dues as iStock exclusive contributors who are able to benefit from this.
-
I do wonder, though, how many of the traditional photographers would ever be eligible to contribute to Vetta. My understanding is that Jonathan and most other of these talented pros have RF commitments already to Trad sites and would never be eligible for istock exclusivity. Therefore they would be shut out of contributing to Vetta.
Also, by Big Two, do you mean IS and Fotolia (which has its Infinite collection) or did you mean IS and SS? Does SS have a high end collection in the works? If so I would love to contribute to it.
Hi PixelBytes,
Thanks for your comments, when I wrote about the traditional artists sitting on the fence, I was thinking about artists not shooting classic micro, not the 'established traditional' artists like Jonathan who's assets are already established with macrosites, but the 'new traditional' artists that do not have a home for their mid range assets, these artists assets are not ready for Getty or Corbis, and they do not support the microstock model in it's current form.
There are not many options between the microstock sites like Istock, and high end like the Getty and Corbis collections, there are many specialist boutique collections with small contributor and customer bases in this market, but currently no real big players, some services like PhotoShelter have tried to fill this gap and failed, artists aiming at this market have very few options to place their assets at the moment, Alamy being 78% editorial over commercial with no markets to grow into are also trying to move into this market with their own commercial collection which includes RF images.
The big two are Getty and Corbis, if we look at Getty they own Istock and have Microstock and traditional Macrostock well covered with little room for new growth, other possible buy-outs would have to small a customer base and many of the same assets and customers, the area they do not have covered is the mid range market, they cannot grow in the mid range market like they did with microstock by acquisition, there are no real big players to purchase, creating a new mid range agency would take to much time and resource.
They already have a vast contributor base with some assets that will fit the mid range market, and they are also aware of the number of artists out there with no markets for their new mid range assets, so the way they have dealt with this is to create collections within their existing microstock models, this will bring some of the mid range assets from existing artists back in house, but also make the model attractive to the new traditional artists.
As much as these microsites are courting existing artists for content, they are running a business so it does not mean that this will remain the case in 18 months time, the artist exclusive model works well for Istock and where they lead other will follow, so there may be many of these mid range collections, some will be by image exclusive invitation not artist exclusive, it will be interesting to see how these collections grow.
It would be nice to think that this is about offering the artists more options, but it is only about business growth, there is no more scope in the market to grow by acquisition, but there is a smaller mid range market to look at, they already have the staff, infrustructure, model, customers and vendors to make a move into this market.
David (I do not have a crystal ball these comments are just my thoughts)
-
Hi Pixelbytes,
Like SJ said they are supporting their contributors that have been there to help build their collection. I find this admirable of any stock agency. In the past most stock agencies have not followed this path. It would be nice to see this kind of support spread across the industry. I support their choice even if it keeps me from being able to compete at an equal level. I wasn't there to help build the company, I am just a newbie to Micro. Thank you for the super kind words about my work. I don't know about you but I am like so many artists I am my own worst critic. Your words are comforting.
Best,
Jonathan
-
We're starting to sell into a generation that grew up on cell phone photos. Feelings about, and expectations for, imagery in general are changing. This generation also expects digital content to be free, or close to it.
I think that before too long, today's carefully posed and ighted stock shots of suspiciously good-looking people will look as stiff and comical as 19th century portraits often look today, and will no longer be in demand for advertising and promotion.
Everythng changes. It will be interesting to see what future "professional" photography actually has.
Yes, everything changes and free things on the internet are slowly disappearing.
Whatever major newspapers are left will go online and will become subscription only. The ones that don't charge will go away.
So while this generation expects everything for free they'd better start getting used to paying for anything that has any value. The leftover stuff that isn't worth paying for will be free. Same thing will photography. The tiered system that's emerging now I believe will be the future.
-
what we truly need is not only the option of having a premium collection, but a departure from having too much homogenous (not sure if i got the spelling right) selection in the Big 6+ 3,etc..
at this moment, i see a total waste of time to upload to any more than really 3 of the big 9. i have a nasty feeling that the same reviewers are moonlighting for more than one site. why i say this is due to the fact that i sell the same images that are also wide range approved across the board in the Big 6+3. so, either the different reviewers have telepathy to select the same images, or the same reviewers are working for all these sites. i am inclined to believe the case is the latter.
so, i am not going to waste my time uploading to more than 3 of the Big 9, only uploading the those 3 discrete sites which have by tradition selected quite different images from the others. in doing so, i will perharps save time and have more time to create more images.
i figure that in doing this, i will have less duplicity in the stock sites, and therefore the buyers will still buy my images from those 3 sites . this also means i will no doubt reach payout a lot sooner, as now i will be selling more of the same images in one site vs 6 other sites.
is this unrealistic? i don't think so. we already know Istock select entire different images from SS, and Veer Marketplace has opened to show that they too are not interest in duplicity of getting our same images from SS, IS,etc..
which now leaves open the other situation ie. sites that have vision to create opportunities for contributors to earn more commission with a premium collection. as already mentioned, Photoshelter was one but sadly failed. John of Cutcaster also has a similar vision. However, also in my case, Cut has the problem of not having a viable market as say IS, SS, or FT.
I like to see John succeed in his vision to get where Photoshelter failed. But somehow I am not very confident of it, and see only Corbis and Getty being able to do this due to their exposure in the marketplace (no pun intended).
perharps a bit off topic, but i think it's pretty much relevant to what we are discussing in general. there is great redundancy in the stock sites at this moment. i am sure others will agree we don't really need 35 sites , when really only a handful produce.
-
It would be nice to think that this is about offering the artists more options, but it is only about business growth, there is no more scope in the market to grow by acquisition, but there is a smaller mid range market to look at, they already have the staff, infrustructure, model, customers and vendors to make a move into this market.
David (I do not have a crystal ball these comments are just my thoughts)
Well, whatever you are looking through, your ideas are plausible and make for a good read :)
Thanks for clarifying about the big two - Getty & Corbis. Sort of the Godzilla vs. Megallon of the stock world, LOL.
I certainly hope that you are right that the "growth by acquisition" phase is petering out. Monopoly isn't good for any industry and I doubt "duopoly" would be much better.
-
Hi Pixelbytes,
Like SJ said they are supporting their contributors that have been there to help build their collection. I find this admirable of any stock agency. In the past most stock agencies have not followed this path. It would be nice to see this kind of support spread across the industry.
Oh, yeah. Totally agree. It is great for exclusives that istock supports them the way they do. Just not so sure how long that will hold up. The Vetta collection is a great example of supporting and promoting exclusive's work, but coming so soon after the Photos.com-Jupiter thing it is hard to know exactly which way the wind will ultimately blow over at Getty.
...I am just a newbie to Micro. Thank you for the super kind words about my work. I don't know about you but I am like so many artists I am my own worst critic. Your words are comforting.
You may be a newbie to micro, but the decade plus of experience you have shooting stock at all levels gives you a perspective that even the top dogs in micro might envy.
And yep, I am super critical of my work too, but trust me, my criticism of my own work is totally justified, LOL. Unlike yours :)
-
.. free things on the internet are slowly disappearing.
Whatever major newspapers are left will go online and will become subscription only.
I question whether that will happen. It may be too late for the big print media to start successfully charging for an online version - the content has been free for too long. NYT tried paid subscriptions for a while, and gave up. It's true that free music came under heavy assault and eventually many people got used to paying something for downloads. However, I think the price of music downloads will only continue to decline.
-
Some of our newspapers limit the information you can access without a subscription. You may access most news for free (with ads), but some special reports, previous editions, etc are available to subscribers only (paper edition subscribers, as fas as I know). One of the newspapers that also own TV channels (one free and others cable) offer a special subs for online content, where you can watch their TV shows.
-
.. free things on the internet are slowly disappearing.
Whatever major newspapers are left will go online and will become subscription only.
I question whether that will happen. It may be too late for the big print media to start successfully charging for an online version - the content has been free for too long. NYT tried paid subscriptions for a while, and gave up. It's true that free music came under heavy assault and eventually many people got used to paying something for downloads. However, I think the price of music downloads will only continue to decline.
Print newspapers aren't making money and are going out of business. Their online divisions that rely on online advertising aren't charging money and aren't profitable. Readers are quickly headed toward online content. So what options are left? Go under or charge.
At some point the only news companies left will be the ones who have enough capital to last long enough to survive the transition from unprofitable print and unprofitable online advertising to profitable subscriptions. Slowly the free sites will go away until readers have no option but to pick one or a handful of pay sites.
And it may takes years but I also believe stock photo values will correct themselves. Low value images will stay in micro and higher value images will move upward in price. Bigger sites like Getty will drive prices up by luring higher value images away from free/micro (Flickr? Istock/Getty?).
Online advertising as a whole doesn't work. Targeted advertising does a bit better. When is the last time here anyone clicked on a banner ad? You buy anything?
What happened to all of the free Internet access like Netzero? New free offerings will always come up and after a few years with none of those companies making any profit they will start dying off and the ones that are left will start charging.
This is how Amazon.com is still around. Their plan was to survive dotcom circus until all of the unprofitable business models were gone. It worked.
-
Paid online content will not survive either. The reason everything printed died is availability of free content on internet. Same with TV, I think if I still need cable if I got everything I need from internet for free. The only way to survive is to find the way of monetizing on free content which Google does. They are now more advertising company than software house. They actually give away most software for free and try to link it to search engine which is money making machine.
-
.. free things on the internet are slowly disappearing.
Whatever major newspapers are left will go online and will become subscription only.
I question whether that will happen. It may be too late for the big print media to start successfully charging for an online version - the content has been free for too long. NYT tried paid subscriptions for a while, and gave up. It's true that free music came under heavy assault and eventually many people got used to paying something for downloads. However, I think the price of music downloads will only continue to decline.
adblock on all our machines, 90% of ads dont even show up, the rest are "invisble" you just dont even see them, I think it has been years since I've clicked on one of the few online ads that I do get
Print newspapers aren't making money and are going out of business. Their online divisions that rely on online advertising aren't charging money and aren't profitable. Readers are quickly headed toward online content. So what options are left? Go under or charge.
At some point the only news companies left will be the ones who have enough capital to last long enough to survive the transition from unprofitable print and unprofitable online advertising to profitable subscriptions. Slowly the free sites will go away until readers have no option but to pick one or a handful of pay sites.
And it may takes years but I also believe stock photo values will correct themselves. Low value images will stay in micro and higher value images will move upward in price. Bigger sites like Getty will drive prices up by luring higher value images away from free/micro (Flickr? Istock/Getty?).
Online advertising as a whole doesn't work. Targeted advertising does a bit better. When is the last time here anyone clicked on a banner ad? You buy anything?
What happened to all of the free Internet access like Netzero? New free offerings will always come up and after a few years with none of those companies making any profit they will start dying off and the ones that are left will start charging.
This is how Amazon.com is still around. Their plan was to survive dotcom circus until all of the unprofitable business models were gone. It worked.
-
adblock on all our machines, 90% of ads dont even show up, the rest are "invisble" you just dont even see them, I think it has been years since I've clicked on one of the few online ads that I do get
Online advertising as a whole doesn't work. Targeted advertising does a bit better. When is the last time here anyone clicked on a banner ad? You buy anything?
Oh I think you'd be surprised at how much online advertising you see, even with an ad blocker. How many people bought moo cards? did they do it after they say a banner ad? or was it after they were on flickr and clicked on 'partners' or read a blog from someone who had their cards printed? What about new microstock sites and their photographer affiliate links, most of the text ones don't get blocked, and even if it's just the name of the site in text it's still branding that site and getting their name into you field of view.
Banners never really did get high click though rates, but people still see them, and that's a big chunk of what advertising is about - getting the message out. text links make click throughs.
Ad blockers are great, I don't use them but they all work with defined rules (sometimes crowd sourced), they allow you to create ads on your site that sneak through the filter, those are really powerful as people with ad blockers are not accustomed to filtering out the general background noise of ads that everyone else sees.