Author Topic: The state of our market and a case for exclusivity (Read 20368 times)

Reef · « **Reply #25 on:** October 29, 2013, 00:56 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 28, 2013, 13:02

I haven't read 4HWW but I did buy Ferris's 'The 4-Hour Body' and, from reading it, I'd take anything he has to say with a large pinch of salt. Ferris is very good at self-marketing and making good money in supposedly providing simple solutions to all of life's problems. Unfortunately the real world is actually much more complex than he would have us believe and therefore his basic ideas often don't actually work.

This issue is a good illustration of how Ferris's theory breaks down when examined. We (i.e. microstock contributors) may consider the 'product' being sold by our distributors to be the content we create. SS however wouldn't agree. SS believe that what they are really selling is a service and it is their skill on handling data that allows them to provide a better service than anyone else.

Once again here's Oringer's blog explaining his thoughts on the issue;

http://jonoringer.com/2013/01/13/why-going-exclusive-as-a-microstock-photographer-doesnt-work/

Let's say I had a real tangible product to sell __ a really good homemade jam for example. Here in the UK we have the 'Big 4' supermarkets (a bit like we have the Big 4 agencies). Now I could do an exclusive deal with just one of those supermarkets. They would then be able to sell it at the optimum price and both they and I would achieve good margins for the product. However, if I sold my jam on a non-exclusive basis to all the supermarkets, then it might sell in 4x the volume. Price competition might mean that I made less margin on each sale however the greater volume might mean I made far more money.

If life was all about cost and volume then I would drink Watney's instead of Fuller's or Young's. Where do we draw the line? Are we all greedy pigs or does exclusivity offer hope?

pancaketom · « **Reply #26 on:** October 29, 2013, 02:06 »

I think the bigger problem is the sites appear to be greedy pigs and the race to the bottom is more of a race to the lowest percentage paid to the artists.

leaf · « **Reply #27 on:** October 29, 2013, 03:13 »

Quote from: Ed on October 28, 2013, 20:31

Leaf....I like the thoughts in your initial post. The problem is, with relation to stock, even if we submit on an exclusive basis to ONE agency (and mark said images as exclusive to that agency), that agency will then turn around and market those images through 50+ other agencies through partnership agreements.

There is an agency not listed here on the poll results who's owner has mentioned that the agency cannot survive without also distributing through other agencies (including Getty and Corbis) and would like to push for exclusive submissions. What's the point of submitting on an exclusive basis if the that "exclusive" agent is going to submit your images non-exclusively to other agencies?

It contradicts the business model in "The 4-Hour Work Week"

I have not been paying attention to Stocksy....I don't know if they sub-distribute to other agencies....if they don't, they are one of the very few agencies out there that don't.

The issue in our case is that the market is so flooded that even the supplier cannot control it's own distribution outlets. Heck, even Alamy is licensing images for re-distribution as is mentioned by this contributor in this thread => http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/1283-i-do-not-like-this-one-sorry-not-ctr/

Yes, very good point. I don't see much good in distribution deals at all actually. At least not for the photographer. If I want my images on site X Y and Z I can put them there myself and collect the entire royalty. I don't need a site to send them there for me and take half the income. I'm almost certain some images go around in circles and get distributed 3 (or more) times so essentially nothing is left for the photographer. It also seems in our best interest to have less competing sites instead of more. It isn't good with a monopoly either, but 5-6 sites should be enough. If there was only that many sites we could pick and choose which site to upload to. When distribution happens, 50-100 sites can have a lot of images (the same images) and the ones who can't compete with clever UI and search end up competing on price. Price goes down, and the photographers royalties (through distribution deals) gets very very small.

Red Dove · « **Reply #28 on:** October 29, 2013, 05:17 »

Ferris keeps bringing out new product and he distributes it through just about every retailer on the planet so clearly pays no attention to his own advice.

There are a lot of these guys out there making a lot of money from common sense and their blather is mostly distilled from older sources - including their Grandma.

Read Plato, Aristotle et al and this stuff (much like stock photography) has been done before and will be done again.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #29 on:** October 29, 2013, 06:47 »

Quote from: heywoody on October 28, 2013, 12:04

This is going to be unpopular but there are no new products, just variations on the same products. Stocksy et al are probably good marketing initiatives but, like apple vs pc, they are not offering anything inherently better, just that perception.

Lots of new products just not being shot yet.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #30 on:** October 29, 2013, 06:54 »

PICK ALL YOU WANT, WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.

I didn't mention the proliferation of partners where many have lost any control over rights and distribution of their own images. That element is really scary! Most people don't know if these "partners" report back, or how to see what commission they pay, if at all. Or who they are? And the agencies aren't very forthcoming about who the partners are and what the terms are, under which they sell and license OUR WORK!

No I don't like competing with myself. The whole basic premise when Micro started was valid. Supply 25 agencies and make more sales on volume, maybe find buyers who don't go to the other sites. But at this point, the top six or so (pick a number that's comfortable. my number is TWO) have pretty well satisfied the market demands for search, supply and quality.

The rest after the six (or seven or ten or...) are parasites, or wannabees. IMHO. If they offer nothing but the same images at the same or lower prices, what service do they provide to the customers that the top sites don't? How do they benefit us, by cutting into the business? They have the same images, from the same active people, who are counting on distribution variety for more income. What's the only difference? Price.

Now if one of these came up with a better search, and policed keywords and gave good accurate results. That would be something. CV on iStock attempted to do that. Not sure it worked, because it's F'ed up sometimes that it doesn't work.

I'm enjoying my limited distribution and I'm not dependent on the income, which gives me a little leeway and freedom. I'm sure some people are deeply invested into Microstock, with time, effort, equipment and have in effect become trapped. It becomes a belief system as well, that makes for some interesting defensive positions.

One day complaining about income, agencies and returns, the next if challenged as to the real profitability and business aspects, will take a hard line, in defense of the Microstock potential and returns.

Right it's not a race to the bottom?

Some people do make good money and have worked very hard to get to the top. Some people make money on Amway and other MLMs. Most people don't. Here we are in the forum, trying to find the secrets, including all the mythology of the searches, tricks to game the system, how to get better views and rank.

Really?

It's not just about producing a creative, unique, product, that meets the needs of buyers? Is that too easy?

Quote from: cthoman on October 29, 2013, 00:18

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 28, 2013, 20:46
The myth that selling at all the agencies and diluting the market, competing with oneself... which is supporting and feeding, the race to the bottom, which is very real. (why do people complain day after day, about dropping prices, commissions and sales, if things are just fine?)

I'm not picking on you, but I've always hated the whole "race to the bottom" talk. While it is true that some prices have lowered, others have raised significantly. I also think the slogan ignores other questions about contributor competition and volume of sales. I know I don't do the same volume in many agencies anymore. Also, a lot of my dissatisfaction has to to do more with my own changes in expectations than anything that happened within the industry. Sorry about my little rant.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #31 on:** October 29, 2013, 06:57 »

Quote from: leaf on October 28, 2013, 10:19

"It works like this: Reseller A sells the product for your recommended advertised price of $50, then reseller B sells it for $45 to compete with A, and then C sells it for $40 to compete with A and B .

Thoughts?

Once buyers find out they can get the same image from say site F why would they pay more for the same image from site A so rather then exclusivity just submit to site A only and then they have no choice but to get it from site A or look for a similar one from someone else on site F.

This in turn still gives you freedom from exclusivity.

Another older link.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1828&highlight=exclusivity#1828

jjneff · « **Reply #32 on:** October 29, 2013, 07:19 »

I guess I would like to know what you all think of the "time" factor. Is spreading out your work worth the time or is being exclusive and having more time to shoot instead of load and keyword a better road.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 29, 2013, 07:29 »

Quote from: jjneff on October 29, 2013, 07:19

I guess I would like to know what you all think of the "time" factor. Is spreading out your work worth the time or is being exclusive and having more time to shoot instead of load and keyword a better road.

a subject that was talked many times here, that said I am sure it is worth my time being indie, I would make much less being exclusive at iStock (thought number 1)

leaf · « **Reply #34 on:** October 29, 2013, 07:32 »

Depends on which sites you submit to. If you only submit to sites that StockSubmitter supports auto-submit for, the time factor is negligible. You could submit to Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Depositphotos, Fotolia, Canstock, Alamy, 123RF (hopefully again) with no extra time input.

djpadavona · « **Reply #35 on:** October 29, 2013, 09:30 »

I don't believe that there are many customers looking to make purchases from specific contributors. So even if you go exclusive to protect your own pricing, that doesn't stop customers from browsing for similar images at a cheaper outlet.

tickstock · « **Reply #36 on:** October 29, 2013, 10:17 »

heywoody · « **Reply #37 on:** October 29, 2013, 17:01 »

Quality is very subjective but, at the end of the day when we are talking about high volume low cost product, it just means fit for purpose. Unique doesn't necessarily equate to commercial either which is why we see endless slight variations on the same old cliches over and over - it's what sells.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #38 on:** October 29, 2013, 19:27 »

True and I wouldn't suggest that Exclusive is for everyone or for most people. Just that shotgun, price cutting and market dilution, isn't the only answer either.

Everyone needs to evaluate what they create and how they want to manage their property. Also at what point are they finding diminishing returns on their investment and time. At what point is someone going to say, I value my work higher than making $20 a month on Site X or those below that.

I personally don't like the mystery partners at all.

Quote from: leaf on October 29, 2013, 07:32

Depends on which sites you submit to. If you only submit to sites that StockSubmitter supports auto-submit for, the time factor is negligible. You could submit to Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Depositphotos, Fotolia, Canstock, Alamy, 123RF (hopefully again) with no extra time input.

stockastic · « **Reply #39 on:** October 29, 2013, 20:51 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 29, 2013, 06:54

Now if one of these came up with a better search, and policed keywords and gave good accurate results. That would be something. CV on iStock attempted to do that. Not sure it worked...

The CV represented recognition of the problem. But IS thought the way to solve it was to just force contributors to do even more work, while at the same time paying them less and less.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #40 on:** October 29, 2013, 23:02 »

Quote

Let's say I had a real tangible product to sell __ a really good homemade jam for example. Here in the UK we have the 'Big 4' supermarkets (a bit like we have the Big 4 agencies). Now I could do an exclusive deal with just one of those supermarkets. They would then be able to sell it at the optimum price and both they and I would achieve good margins for the product. However, if I sold my jam on a non-exclusive basis to all the supermarkets, then it might sell in 4x the volume. Price competition might mean that I made less margin on each sale however the greater volume might mean I made far more money.

Good analogy. However, not only would you get a lower price for each jar, but the total volume would add up to less than 4 times one-store-sales, since some shoppers are checking prices in multiple stores. And typically, they would buy the item in the store with the lowest price.

Some jam-makers are starting to sell their products at little exclusive stands and boutiques with a strawberry logo now where they keep all the sales profits.

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:49 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 29, 2013, 10:17

Quote from: djpadavona on October 29, 2013, 09:30
I don't believe that there are many customers looking to make purchases from specific contributors. So even if you go exclusive to protect your own pricing, that doesn't stop customers from browsing for similar images at a cheaper outlet.
This isn't an argument against exclusivity, it's an argument against producing images that already exist. Exclusive or not, everyone has to make images that are higher quality and/or unique in order to continue to make a living at this.

If you have something unique, don't submit it to iS at the moment. It won't be in the CV, non-CV words (certainly non-CV keyword phrases) don't stick through a database update and are therefore unsearchable (since the weekend, at least), so your unique images will never be seen.

tickstock · « **Reply #42 on:** October 30, 2013, 09:31 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #43 on:** October 30, 2013, 09:51 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2013, 09:31

I have to wonder why you complain about keyword issues on this forum when you could have them fixed by dealing with istock, in what way is it better to complain rather than get things fixed?

I do send the same reports to CR.
I never hear back from them, or see evidence that they are passed on, or if they are, that anything is done about them.
I have said this several times on msg.

tickstock · « **Reply #44 on:** October 30, 2013, 09:52 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** October 30, 2013, 09:55 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2013, 09:52

You know CR isn't the correct place to send keywording issues to.

And you know I have no access to the 'correct place'. Anyway, look how often admin tell people to report concerns to CR. Once when I could access the forums, I asked a question and was told to take it to CR; when I did, I got the hit-button from CR to seek a solution in the forums - "a wonderful resource".

tickstock · « **Reply #46 on:** October 30, 2013, 10:04 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #47 on:** October 30, 2013, 10:13 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2013, 10:04

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 09:55
Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2013, 09:52
You know CR isn't the correct place to send keywording issues to.
And you know I have no access to the 'correct place'. Anyway, look how often admin tell people to report concerns to CR. Once when I could access the forums, I asked a question and was told to take it to CR; when I did, I got the hit-button from CR to seek a solution in the forums - "a wonderful resource".
I've had no issues getting keywords added to the CV and have never been told to go through CR. Most of the issues you have affect very few contributors, some issues seem to be just yours (specific bird species), I can't understand why you wouldn't want to get those fixed even if it means asking to have your forum privileges reinstated? You keep saying you don't care but then you post all these issues you are having here, obviously you care and you could get them fixed but you've chosen not to.

When I had my SM privileges revoked, I was given a specific email address to contact for more details. I actually did that at the time (because that was my way of contacting Team Keywords), and received no reply of any sort, not even 'tough'.

But hey - things change. Just as I hit send for this, by coincidence I noticed an email had come in, an it's a pleasant reply from CR:
"Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It does not seem like the issue has been reported previously so I suspect it's relatively new. We've submitted a ticket to our development team.
I apologize for the inconvenience. "
I believe firmly it's a new bug, and think it only appeared Friday or Saturday.

lisafx · « **Reply #48 on:** October 30, 2013, 10:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 10:13

Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2013, 10:04
Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 09:55
Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2013, 09:52
You know CR isn't the correct place to send keywording issues to.
And you know I have no access to the 'correct place'. Anyway, look how often admin tell people to report concerns to CR. Once when I could access the forums, I asked a question and was told to take it to CR; when I did, I got the hit-button from CR to seek a solution in the forums - "a wonderful resource".
I've had no issues getting keywords added to the CV and have never been told to go through CR. Most of the issues you have affect very few contributors, some issues seem to be just yours (specific bird species), I can't understand why you wouldn't want to get those fixed even if it means asking to have your forum privileges reinstated? You keep saying you don't care but then you post all these issues you are having here, obviously you care and you could get them fixed but you've chosen not to.
When I had my SM privileges revoked, I was given a specific email address to contact for more details. I actually did that at the time (because that was my way of contacting Team Keywords), and received no reply of any sort, not even 'tough'.

But hey - things change. Just as I hit send for this, by coincidence I noticed an email had come in, an it's a pleasant reply from CR:
"Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It does not seem like the issue has been reported previously so I suspect it's relatively new. We've submitted a ticket to our development team.
I apologize for the inconvenience. "
I believe firmly it's a new bug, and think it only appeared Friday or Saturday.

How interesting. Perhaps a direct result of this conversation?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #49 on:** October 30, 2013, 15:21 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2013, 10:04

I've had no issues getting keywords added to the CV

But it's simply pointless. To work, the CV has to have every placename on the planet in it, it needs the scientific name of every species that has ever existed in it - otherwise, it is less efficient than simply letting people put their own keywords in. As a random example, google "plageostoma giganteum" and you immediately get text and images dealing with that particular fossil. The CV could never do what Google does because it is designed for the commonplace and nothing else.
Now they add words to it more or less at random, as people point out that they've got a picture from/of somewhere/something. That leads, for example, to minor placenames popping up as the sole option, when there is another (or many other) more important places with the same name. Take "Agia Triada", for example, which is a common place-name in Greece (Holy Trinity) - the CV offers one monastery of that name, but what about the Minoan palace at a completely different Ag Triada, which is of far more interest than the monastery?
Better still, take Agios Nikolaos. I pointed out to them that as well as the Ag Nik in the CV, there was another one on Crete. They took up my suggestion so enthusiastically that they deleted the other one and only leave the Cretan, Lasithi, version - which is not much use if you are shooting one of the scores of other Ag Niks scattered around Greece and Cyprus.
The CV is OK for translating a few thousand of the most common words into other languages, but it forces people to spam "Agia Triada" monastery, when they mean Ag Triada Minoan site, so it is no use at all for people who want to provide accurate keywords, it corrupts them.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The state of our market and a case for exclusivity (Read 20368 times)

Reef

pancaketom

leaf

Red Dove

ruxpriencdiam

Uncle Pete

ruxpriencdiam

jjneff

luissantos84

leaf

djpadavona

tickstock

heywoody

Uncle Pete

stockastic

LesPalenik

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

lisafx

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors