Author Topic: The wave is breaking (Read 21185 times)

bad to the bone · « **on:** February 27, 2012, 16:50 »

It looks to mee, just subjective, that the wave is breaking. Any big agency what is at the market had downsized the midiocrazy Constributors in the last two years ... what allmost means Freelance- Grafikers, Designers, Fotographers and high talented Hobbyists...(what, as i think, are the exceptions).
Most of us who are "inside" of the advertising business know, that this is a personal business with a high grade of networking. Somebody had this
mentioied some month befor.
I do Pictures and i bought pictures, i also recommend Pictureagencys in personal contact, with big clients without getting any earnings from that.
It is kind of service in my kind of business. I also often be recommended for a tip about a good pictureagency. I can't send them to a link waht gives me a profit from my recommendation. This is Service, not business! If i would earn for recommendation i would lost my reputation!!! This is what most agencys don't understand.
But the numbers show it up!
Any agency what abused constributors lost a lot of traffic, lost earnings or stayed at the level they're choosed for constributor abuse. Gaining more from constributors work for a short time, not by more marketing or better prices for custumers. Because best marketing was, is, will be, refferal!!!
Prices? Do anyone think the Price is relevant for a picture you have to search for a half Hour or one or more? For a project what should spend your client a gain of 2-20% of its exchange? Are clients of Pictureagencys earn less than 0.30 $ at the hour? Or do they can't aritmetic? Any price what is lower than 50$ never interested any of my clients.
All of this thought were allready written down.

But current, they all have it through. IST, FT, DT and 123. In my case, they all lost and loose permanent. I also.
SS did not and SS is permanent going from one bme to the next for me.
But i don't think that this is a reason for beeing blissfull. We all could earn more ... even SS.

And, at the end...i see a light at the horizon... when all big agencys have come to their position by support of constributors...and all what abuse them fall. How many times will it take until someone catches the coherence?
123 will tell them by falling faster than a stone. No agency was faster to kill the rising by abuse constributors.

wut · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2012, 17:17 »

Quote from: bad to the bone on February 27, 2012, 16:50

123 will tell them by falling faster than a stone. No agency was faster to kill the rising by abuse constributors.

I sure hope so.

And yes, it's obvious SS will come out of this as big winners, they're already on the way there, in a year or 2 they'll definitely be there.

Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so. They're not competition they're totally insignificant to the big agencies, not really affecting any of them or more importantly their policies of cutting royalties etc. No big agency is scared of loosing their contributors and feeding the competition. If they're doing anything, is that they're leading the way to the bottom with their absurdly low prices, free subs etc. If they'd just stop doing business, customers would go to one of the top 4 agencies and spend their money there and we'd earn the same or even more (yes royalties are lower, but prices on average make up the difference and sometimes more) and have more time to produce new content. Or have a beer or two.

bad to the bone · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2012, 17:30 »

as i tried to say...it looks so easy to know it better. Anything in life behave like waves. Pictureagencymanagers don't look at the conclusion between constributors and profit...
but the conclusion is so near someone will find out.
Then the wave will break.
We saw People who gained more than a workerincome by shooting freshfruits on white. People on TV-Shows who told us about shooting without no equipment and no experiences hat makes this a living.
Now...at 0,09 cent for an image what needs to shoot, needs Equipment and light, needs a model, needs experience, needs to be attend to, needs to be keywordet...
Best selling picts at all agencys are not done by hobbyists...
And the Bestperformers all over the world don't fill a agencysdatabase. It's the middleones, by the way also a problem of all politics worldwide.

wut · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2012, 17:43 »

The problem is how business is done nowadays. All that managers care for is short term good results, an upward trend measured quarterly. So they can get their big time, multi million bonuses at the end of ever year. On top of their seven figure (yearly) salaries. Speculators or investors such as H&F are even worse, just looking to milk the cow almost dry and then sell it to the highest bidder, making a double profit.

helix7 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2012, 17:45 »

Quote from: wut on February 27, 2012, 17:17

...Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so. They're not competition they're totally insignificant to the big agencies...

So who's top 4 should remain open? Because from where I'm standing, the "top 4" don't include istock or fotolia. I've got 2 low earners that bring in more per month than istock and fotolia.

bad to the bone · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2012, 17:46 »

Not in this business, the idea was there, but the investors are still lost.

bad to the bone · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2012, 17:49 »

helix7: This is not the average.

wut · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2012, 18:12 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 27, 2012, 17:45

Quote from: wut on February 27, 2012, 17:17
...Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so. They're not competition they're totally insignificant to the big agencies...

So who's top 4 should remain open? Because from where I'm standing, the "top 4" don't include istock or fotolia. I've got 2 low earners that bring in more per month than istock and fotolia.

According to the poll. It might be different for illustrators. Or peanut earning contributors (which I know you're not), no matter the content they submit (I gather that from monthly earning and similar threads)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2012, 18:35 »

Unable to read beyond the first couple of lines of your thesis. Please correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and capitalisation and once it is intelligible I may respond.

Thank you

(PS: Maybe you think I am just being snarky; I am not. I am very tolerant of non-native-English speakers having problems with English but you seem to be familiar with the language but think it is clever to avoid using it properly. If English is your second or third language, I apologise for not spending more time on your post)

Allsa · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2012, 20:17 »

Same here, I couldn't make sense out if it, and didn't want to struggle with trying to decipher it, so I quit reading.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2012, 18:35

Unable to read beyond the first couple of lines of your thesis. Please correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and capitalisation and once it is intelligible I may respond.

Thank you

(PS: Maybe you think I am just being snarky; I am not. I am very tolerant of non-native-English speakers having problems with English but you seem to be familiar with the language but think it is clever to avoid using it properly. If English is your second or third language, I apologise for not spending more time on your post)

helix7 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2012, 00:22 »

Quote from: wut on February 27, 2012, 18:12

According to the poll. It might be different for illustrators. Or peanut earning contributors (which I know you're not), no matter the content they submit (I gather that from monthly earning and similar threads)

The poll is just an average. Even among photographers, people have differing results with different agencies. Hardly seems fair to suggest that only the top 4 of the poll should exist when lots of people do very well with middle and lower tier agencies.

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2012, 01:47 »

He uses words from a gone by era, such as picture-agencies, etc, used by the old trad film agencies so I presume he has been in the game for some time. I think what he is trying to say is: the game is falling apart, its been so much skimming off the top, the business has been destroyed?
Well is some cases he could be right, certainly with dozens of agencies housing the same, almost identical shots and some of them with close to 20 million images, hell! we have to presume buyers are born imbeciles.

michealo · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2012, 05:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2012, 18:35

Unable to read beyond the first couple of lines of your thesis. Please correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and capitalisation and once it is intelligible I may respond.

Thank you

(PS: Maybe you think I am just being snarky; I am not. I am very tolerant of non-native-English speakers having problems with English but you seem to be familiar with the language but think it is clever to avoid using it properly. If English is your second or third language, I apologise for not spending more time on your post)

my guess is it was google translated ...

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2012, 05:32 »

Quote from: wut on February 27, 2012, 17:17

Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so.

No-one is forcing you to upload to a dozen or more sites to get your extra 5%.
You either feel it's worth it, or it's not.
If it's not, you don't upload to whichever sites aren't worth the effort for you.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 28, 2012, 05:32

Quote from: wut on February 27, 2012, 17:17
Now that I've tried to contribute to 10 agencies or so, I really think it would be best if all beyond top 4 closed their doors, they're good for nothing but taking the crumbs that are falling of the table and tens of thousands of contributors wouldn't have to do all that extra work of uploading to dozen (or more) sites in order to get an extra 5% or so.
No-one is forcing you to upload to a dozen or more sites to get your extra 5%.
You either feel it's worth it, or it's not.
If it's not, you don't upload to whichever sites aren't worth the effort for you.

Yeah that's the real flaw in the argument isn't it? He seems to be arguing that because an agency exists he is somehow forced to contribute to it and things would be easier if they just shut their doors so he wouldn't have to. New agencies pop up like any other business. Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

He should remember that Google was a brand new search engine once. Before google came along we had Excite, Lycos, Infoseek etc. etc. Google thought they had a better way of doing things and now they're kinda well known. Any new and small agency has the potential to be the next Shutterstock if they can find a way to do it better. I'd rather let them try than say they should just give up because the status quo is just so great.

helix7 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 28, 2012, 09:28 »

Quote from: digitalexpression on February 28, 2012, 08:20

...Before google came along we had Excite, Lycos, Infoseek etc. etc. Google thought they had a better way of doing things and now they're kinda well known. Any new and small agency has the potential to be the next Shutterstock if they can find a way to do it better. I'd rather let them try than say they should just give up because the status quo is just so great.

Great point. If all we have is the top 4, innovation disappears from this business. Because let's face it, none of those four companies are innovating.

wut · « **Reply #16 on:** February 28, 2012, 09:51 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 09:28

Quote from: digitalexpression on February 28, 2012, 08:20
...Before google came along we had Excite, Lycos, Infoseek etc. etc. Google thought they had a better way of doing things and now they're kinda well known. Any new and small agency has the potential to be the next Shutterstock if they can find a way to do it better. I'd rather let them try than say they should just give up because the status quo is just so great.

Great point. If all we have is the top 4, innovation disappears from this business. Because let's face it, none of those four companies are innovating.

Innovation to do what, drive royalties down even further? Because let's face it there has been no innovation whatsoever in years. To take this even further, since the introduction of micro RF, IS and SS with their sub model, there was absolutely no innovation. In almost 10 years time, which is an eternity in the internet based business. So I really can't see where are you getting your optimism from, how can you hope for a change. What do you expect to change, really?

wut · « **Reply #17 on:** February 28, 2012, 09:55 »

Quote from: digitalexpression on February 28, 2012, 08:20

Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

That argument makes no sense, there's no logic behind it. BTW we, Europeans, don't treat those junk food joints as restaurants, not even close. Just artificial, artery clogging garbage, most try to avoid.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:12 »

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 09:55

Quote from: digitalexpression on February 28, 2012, 08:20
Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

That argument makes no sense, there's no logic behind it. BTW we, Europeans, don't treat those junk food joints as restaurants, not even close. Just artificial, artery clogging garbage, most try to avoid.

That's a non-sequitur and you know it. You no more have to eat there than you have to submit to smaller agencies, if you don't want to.
Some like to support new starts, in the hope that they may usurp the stranglehold of the larger agencies. Sadly the history of these new starts, no matter how well intentioned, hasn't been good; but things always change, and someone will usurp the big two one day.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #19 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:17 »

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 09:55

Quote from: digitalexpression on February 28, 2012, 08:20
Would he also say there are too many restaurants and he has to eat at them all so there should be no new restaurants just McDonalds and Burger king?

That argument makes no sense, there's no logic behind it. BTW we, Europeans, don't treat those junk food joints as restaurants, not even close. Just artificial, artery clogging garbage, most try to avoid.

The argument makes perfect sense, if you have the imagination to see beyond the literal. Anyone who doesn't see the potential of new business because old business hasn't innovated in 10 years, is lacking in imagination.

How's this for an example: Yuri Arcurs, Andres Rodrigues, Monkeybusinessimages, Sean Locke et al have the market cornered on stock photography, There's no point in anyone else even trying to take stock photos because the top players are all we need. So why don't you and I just stop trying? Do you get the connection in that example?

BTW I don't really care if you consider McDonalds a restaurant, that's not the point.

wut · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:27 »

Quote from: digitalexpression on February 28, 2012, 10:17

How's this for an example: Yuri Arcurs, Andres Rodrigues, Monkeybusinessimages, Sean Locke et al have the market cornered on stock photography, There's no point in anyone else even trying to take stock photos because the top players are all we need. So why don't you and I just stop trying? Do you get the connection in that example?

I can see logic in that and I'm sure some ppl think like that. But! I'm more than happy to compete against those guys and hope to earn 5% of their average. It's realistic. And still more than enough to live off of it. And just as well it makes sense for new agencies to start business, with similar plans in mind (eg 5% of SS or IS earnings). My point was different however, I was just pointing out that we have to do more to get the same amount of money at best and that those agencies are just worsening the situation for us, just bringing down prices. We'd be better off without them, in a way, especially looking at them historically or at the present situation. The point is also they're not keeping big agencies in check. They're insignificant, just as every single contributor, save for the top 5 or so are to the agencies.

helix7 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:38 »

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 09:51

Innovation to do what, drive royalties down even further? Because let's face it there has been no innovation whatsoever in years. To take this even further, since the introduction of micro RF, IS and SS with their sub model, there was absolutely no innovation. In almost 10 years time, which is an eternity in the internet based business. So I really can't see where are you getting your optimism from, how can you hope for a change. What do you expect to change, really?

This business is far from perfect and the door is still wide open for someone to do it better than anyone currently is. Look at any agency and you can find plenty of flaws.

And the idea that new companies only come along to drive down royalties is completely false. In fact, most new companies that gain any traction usually introduce higher royalty rates to generate contributor interest. Superhug uses an innovative rotating royalty scheme that varies between 75% and 100% royalties (that's right, 100%). I'd call that unique and innovative. Whether they can be successful long-term with a plan like that is uncertain, but it's certainly innovative and it's cool to see them trying something different.

StockFresh came around a few years ago and went against the grain of the industry with a 50% royalty and a dirt simple pricing plan. No credit shenanigans, $1 credits, simple per-size pricing. Not new, but in this day and age, certainly unique.

GraphicLeftovers offers 52%. Definitely unique and certainly not driving down royalties. GraphicRiver/PhotoDune are part of a unique marketplace that allows you to use a single account across multiple sites to purchase photos, illustrations, web templates, video, motion graphics, audio, web code, 3D models, etc. Who else is doing that? Getty has hinted at a system that allows single account usage across multiple sites, but have yet to really do it.

Not sure what business you're looking at, but to say that microstock has seen no innovation is ridiculous. And to further suggest that small, new companies only drive down royalties is equally silly.

wut · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:45 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 10:38

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 09:51
Innovation to do what, drive royalties down even further? Because let's face it there has been no innovation whatsoever in years. To take this even further, since the introduction of micro RF, IS and SS with their sub model, there was absolutely no innovation. In almost 10 years time, which is an eternity in the internet based business. So I really can't see where are you getting your optimism from, how can you hope for a change. What do you expect to change, really?

This business is far from perfect and the door is still wide open for someone to do it better than anyone currently is. Look at any agency and you can find plenty of flaws.

And the idea that new companies only come along to drive down royalties is completely false. In fact, most new companies that gain any traction usually introduce higher royalty rates to generate contributor interest. Superhug uses an innovative rotating royalty scheme that varies between 75% and 100% royalties (that's right, 100%). I'd call that unique and innovative. Whether they can be successful long-term with a plan like that is uncertain, but it's certainly innovative and it's cool to see them trying something different.

StockFresh came around a few years ago and went against the grain of the industry with a 50% royalty and a dirt simple pricing plan. No credit shenanigans, $1 credits, simple per-size pricing. Not new, but in this day and age, certainly unique.

GraphicLeftovers offers 52%. Definitely unique and certainly not driving down royalties. GraphicRiver/PhotoDune are part of a unique marketplace that allows you to use a single account across multiple sites to purchase photos, illustrations, web templates, video, motion graphics, audio, web code, 3D models, etc. Who else is doing that? Getty has hinted at a system that allows single account usage across multiple sites, but have yet to really do it.

Not sure what business you're looking at, but to say that microstock has seen no innovation is ridiculous. And to further suggest that small, new companies only drive down royalties is equally silly.

I meant prices not royalties, my bad. And you're right it is silly to suggest that (but I did it by mistake). But to touch that subject, all of them start cutting it once the become big. And before they become big they don't really bring us any money, so it doesn't really matter, make a difference until they start bringing in serious cash. Just look at 123RF and their utterly, utterly appalling moves.

Superhug etc, it sounds great, it's nice someone is trying something new, but who does it affect? Who's even going to come to a site with such a silly name

?

Innovations, yes you've made a few, but none of them has really affected us, or better said the 95% of our earnings. So they don't really matter, at least IMO. And it really is all about opinions here in the forum, right?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:57 »

there is room for everybody but one thing I am sure we are all taking a "slice" of each other, even if it is 0.01%, I have a picture that is close to 1000 sales in 1 year in SS (something like 500$), that might not sound much but I am sure it took sales from Yuri, Andres or other top contributor, and thats me, imagine other having the double/triple/etc and also on thousands of pictures/contributors

will see how far agencies will keep approving more and more pictures, if there is a limit

helix7 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2012, 11:29 »

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 10:45

I meant prices not royalties, my bad. And you're right it is silly to suggest that (but I did it by mistake). But to touch that subject, all of them start cutting it once the become big. And before they become big they don't really bring us any money, so it doesn't really matter, make a difference until they start bringing in serious cash. Just look at 123RF and their utterly, utterly appalling moves...

Which small agencies became big and cut rates? And how can you say "all of them"? I'm sorry, but you're just completely making things up now. I'm with 21 agencies and the only ones that have cut my rate are istock, fotolia, and 123RF. And istock and fotolia haven't been small for a very long time. They were big for a long time before they cut their pay rates.

There is no precedent to suggest that any small company will cut their rates if/when they become big. The majority of these companies keep rates the same. Rarely, some even raise them. SS used to give regular raises. Envato raised their rate from 25% to 33%. And if we're talking about prices, most companies raise prices as they grow.

wut · « **Reply #25 on:** February 28, 2012, 11:40 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 11:29

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 10:45
I meant prices not royalties, my bad. And you're right it is silly to suggest that (but I did it by mistake). But to touch that subject, all of them start cutting it once the become big. And before they become big they don't really bring us any money, so it doesn't really matter, make a difference until they start bringing in serious cash. Just look at 123RF and their utterly, utterly appalling moves...

Which small agencies became big and cut rates? And how can you say "all of them"? I'm sorry, but you're just completely making things up now. I'm with 21 agencies and the only ones that have cut my rate are istock, fotolia, and 123RF. And istock and fotolia haven't been small for a very long time. They were big for a long time before they cut their pay rates.

There is no precedent to suggest that any small company will cut their rates if/when they become big.

Every big agency beside SS has cut royalties (and SS stopped giving us yearly raises). Every single one. We all know that. What was made up by me? Besides 123RF no small agency has become big enough to afford it. And you seem to forget about DT and their level system, we now have to get up to 50%, we were getting it for every DL. Out of the 21 you mention there are 4 big+123RF.

I don't know what to say except for you're being naive if you believe there will be no further cuts from the small agencies, when/if they'll become big. But looking at the market at this moment, none of the small agencies are going to become big anytime soon.

helix7 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 28, 2012, 12:17 »

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 11:40

I don't know what to say except for you're being naive if you believe there will be no further cuts from the small agencies, when/if they'll become big. But looking at the market at this moment, none of the small agencies are going to become big anytime soon.

Well then I'll just enjoy my naiveté for now and continue to expect that few (if any) small agencies will cut rates. Like I said before, there is no precedent for a small agency becoming big and cutting rates. The top 4 existed pretty much since the beginning of microstock, istock being the start of all this. They were never small, so to use those companies as examples of companies that got big and cut rates is ridiculous.

And there are small companies that are getting big, and not cutting rates. I consider GraphicRiver big (I earn more there every month than I do at Fotolia or istock) and they increased rates. Look at DepositPhotos. They didn't exist a few years ago. Now they're a major player. As a historical reference, look at StockXpert. They always paid 50%, when they were small, when they got big, and even after Jupiter acquired them and became part of a huge company. They only fell apart when Getty acquired Jupiter. GraphicLeftovers is also rapidly growing.

You've got such a negative and shortsighted view of this business. Small companies are becoming big, you just refuse to acknowledge it. None of these growing companies are cutting rates. I don't get what the benefit is to viewing everything in microstock in terms of what a few loser companies did. There is a lot of good growth happening, lots of companies sticking to their promised pay rates and prices, and very little of what you describe regarding cuts and lack of innovation. It's a wonder you even bother with microstock at all with such a negative outlook on things.

wut · « **Reply #27 on:** February 28, 2012, 12:40 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 12:17

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 11:40
I don't know what to say except for you're being naive if you believe there will be no further cuts from the small agencies, when/if they'll become big. But looking at the market at this moment, none of the small agencies are going to become big anytime soon.

Well then I'll just enjoy my naiveté for now and continue to expect that few (if any) small agencies will cut rates. Like I said before, there is no precedent for a small agency becoming big and cutting rates. The top 4 existed pretty much since the beginning of microstock, istock being the start of all this. They were never small, so to use those companies as examples of companies that got big and cut rates is ridiculous.

And there are small companies that are getting big, and not cutting rates. I consider GraphicRiver big (I earn more there every month than I do at Fotolia or istock) and they increased rates. Look at DepositPhotos. They didn't exist a few years ago. Now they're a major player. As a historical reference, look at StockXpert. They always paid 50%, when they were small, when they got big, and even after Jupiter acquired them and became part of a huge company. They only fell apart when Getty acquired Jupiter. GraphicLeftovers is also rapidly growing.

You've got such a negative and shortsighted view of this business. Small companies are becoming big, you just refuse to acknowledge it. None of these growing companies are cutting rates. I don't get what the benefit is to viewing everything in microstock in terms of what a few loser companies did. There is a lot of good growth happening, lots of companies sticking to their promised pay rates and prices, and very little of what you describe regarding cuts and lack of innovation. It's a wonder you even bother with microstock at all with such a negative outlook on things.

Oh man, you're taking things so literally down to the letter (big 4 never being small, so that automatically means smaller won't behave the same way if they became big - a narrow view of things). You figured out yourself IS started all that. Other followed. And since every other that was in the position to follow the policy of cuts, did follow it, we can expect it in the future. It's a pattern. A well established one.

What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

Well I guess it's pretty obvious I don't have to reply to the last paragraph since I've covered everything in my previous paragraph. I bother because the big players bring me more and more almost every single month, my earnings are rising. I'm satisfied with my earnings at SS and IS. FT, DT and 123RF (well the latter will last until the cuts come into effect) also bring decent cash, at least there is a relatively positive outlook with DT and FT. The rest are bad to pathetic for me, of course some months are exceptions. The poll and monthly earning threads confirm that. Sure, contributors earning a few hundred $ at best may experience different results, but that's also because their images are not up to the standards of the big agencies, so their ports at the smaller agencies are a lot bigger, even a few times bigger. Illustrators obviously earn some decent cash at sites like GL, but togs that earn more, have more representative stats usually, well the vast majority of them earn 90%+ at the top 4/5 agencies. Just check the stats that Lisa, Lagereek, Gostwyck, Baldrick, Jsnover etc post every month

helix7 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 28, 2012, 13:11 »

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 12:40

Oh man, you're taking things so literally down to the letter (big 4 never being small, so that automatically means smaller won't behave the same way if they became big - a narrow view of things). You figured out yourself IS started all that. Other followed. And since every other that was in the position to follow the policy of cuts, did follow it, we can expect it in the future. It's a pattern. A well established one.

How is that well established? You're talking about the companies that started the microstock business model. istock is over 10 years old. How can you compare what they did to what newer companies have done or will do? Like I said before, there is no precedent for a new company growing into prominence and then cutting rates. And when I say "new" I'm talking about exactly that. New companies, not decade-old companies or companies that were around in the very early years of microstock.

I don't know where you get the idea that this scenario has already been played out before. You can't look at istock and fotolia as examples of that. They're clearly exceptional cases. Show me one example of a company started in the last 5 years that grew to any significant notoriety and then cut rates.

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 12:40

What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really...

DP is right below 123RF in the poll, and you consider 123RF a big agency. So 123RF is big, but DP just below it is small? Isn't that a convenient place to draw the line in an arguement about new companies becoming big.

StockXpert was a major player. Not by my standards only, but by most. Lots of people did very well there. Some better than what they're getting from some of the top 4 today.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2012, 13:41 »

pettifog.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #30 on:** February 28, 2012, 14:56 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 13:11

Show me one example of a company started in the last 5 years that grew to any significant notoriety and then cut rates.

Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products.

Lets all upload to the top 25 sites, so we can compete with ourselves at the lowest level possible, making everything worthless and ordinary... at the lowest commissions and lowest prices. That's ridiculous.

Whether people pick the top two, top four or top six, the point I'd make is, supporting the small ones is cutting your own throat, by competing against yourself at the places that pay best (bottom line) and advertise. All the new sites can offer is the same collections for less, which dilutes the marketplace with cheap copies. And we are providing those cheap copies!

wut · « **Reply #31 on:** February 28, 2012, 15:07 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 28, 2012, 14:56

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 13:11
Show me one example of a company started in the last 5 years that grew to any significant notoriety and then cut rates.

Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products.

Lets all upload to the top 25 sites, so we can compete with ourselves at the lowest level possible, making everything worthless and ordinary... at the lowest commissions and lowest prices. That's ridiculous.

Whether people pick the top two, top four or top six, the point I'd make is, supporting the small ones is cutting your own throat, by competing against yourself at the places that pay best (bottom line) and advertise. All the new sites can offer is the same collections for less, which dilutes the marketplace with cheap copies. And we are providing those cheap copies!

That's exactly it! Very well put!

cthoman · « **Reply #32 on:** February 28, 2012, 15:11 »

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 12:40

What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

I don't know about you, but it is all about my earnings for me. I don't really care how much market share an agency has. In fact, I'd prefer they were smaller and actually do things like represent listen and take care of their contributors. You know like an agent should.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2012, 15:31 »

Quote from: cthoman on February 28, 2012, 15:11

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 12:40
What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

I don't know about you, but it is all about my earnings for me. I don't really care how much market share an agency has. In fact, I'd prefer they were smaller and actually do things like represent listen and take care of their contributors. You know like an agent should.

Have anyone specific in mind? Or is that hypothetical?

wut · « **Reply #34 on:** February 28, 2012, 15:35 »

Quote from: cthoman on February 28, 2012, 15:11

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 12:40
What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

I don't know about you, but it is all about my earnings for me. I don't really care how much market share an agency has. In fact, I'd prefer they were smaller and actually do things like represent listen and take care of their contributors. You know like an agent should.

Sure it's about their earnings for everyone, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the text you quoted or the one I replied to

. Yes and that is the case with small agencies. 123RF used to reply to every email, if you asked them to review a batch after a few days past, they did it. Now it takes a lot longer and they never reply and they're going to cut commissions. Everyone is super nice, even humble when he needs contributors. Then when they become big they almost ignore you, friendliness is gone, some even treat you like dirt. A scout once "raised" his voice in his rude reply. They can afford it, since they don't meet any serious resistance. I've heard the attitude and attention to every contributor is a lot different with macros. But there's a lot more money, professionalism and tradition involved. What you pay is what you get, but it looks like also contributors benefit from that. It's like going to a cheap or a high end restaurant, a completely different experience.

cthoman · « **Reply #35 on:** February 28, 2012, 15:45 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 28, 2012, 15:31

Have anyone specific in mind? Or is that hypothetical?

I'm a big fan of Clipartof, but they are somewhat of a private party. I assume their strategy is to only take on a smaller number of contributors they can represent and keep happy. I would think more agencies like it that are smaller and invite only will pop up. With so much off the shelf software, I imagine more contributors will band together to form 5 or 10 person smaller agencies too. Maybe they are our there, they are just under the radar.

helix7 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 28, 2012, 16:55 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 28, 2012, 14:56

Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products...

Kind of a rough generalization, no? All small agencies start at the bottom? What about StockFresh? GL (name your price and 52% royalty)? Superhug ($4-$5 royalty per sale ain't bad, just wish they had volume)? Sure there are some deadbeats and bottom feeders. I'm not entirely proud of working with VectorStock, but they've been receptive to raising prices on my images lately. Not all bad. But overall, you can't say that all small, new companies are perpetuating this "race to the bottom".

Most of what I'm seeing out of small agencies that are just a few years old is good stuff. High percentages, decent prices, contributor relations that the big companies just can't match. I just got off the phone with the owner of a small agency (small by most standards but mid-tier in my opinion). Try getting an exec on the line with any of the top 4.

wut · « **Reply #37 on:** February 28, 2012, 17:12 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 16:55

I just got off the phone with the owner of a small agency (small by most standards but mid-tier in my opinion). Try getting an exec on the line with any of the top 4.

Of course you couldn't get him on the line, he's busy doing business, obviously. They don't have the time to chat and play with themselves (they've got secretaries to do that;)

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** February 28, 2012, 18:17 »

I tend to agree with Wut, that chances are good that if some of the small agencies hit it big, they will start messing with royalties. As I see it, 123RF didn't try lowering royalties until they made it into the Big 4 (however briefly).

I also still remember when Istock had been around for 5 years or so, and SS for at least 2 years and FT was the newest kid on the block (no, they haven't all been around the same amount of time). Originally, FT were extremely responsive and accommodating. There was a lot of give and take with the contributor community. Over time, I think we were viewed and treated by the big sites, less as partners and more as a necessary evil. Our opinions were no longer welcome as they introduced subs, and later lowered royalties.

However, seeing that some sites will do this when they get successful doesn't make me want to limit my options to those successful sites, who have already proven they will lower commissions. It makes me want to broaden my options and upload to the smaller sites. Yes, its slightly more work to upload to more sites, but a very small price to pay to keep some checks and balances on the big sites.

I am extremely glad I joined Veer, Depositphoto, and Photodune. Together they account for several hundred dollars a month I would not otherwise have, plus an insurance policy against falling royalties at the larger sites.

gbalex · « **Reply #39 on:** February 28, 2012, 19:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 28, 2012, 18:17

I tend to agree with Wut, that chances are good that if some of the small agencies hit it big, they will start messing with royalties. As I see it, 123RF didn't try lowering royalties until they made it into the Big 4 (however briefly).

I also still remember when Istock had been around for 5 years or so, and SS for at least 2 years and FT was the newest kid on the block (no, they haven't all been around the same amount of time). Originally, FT were extremely responsive and accommodating. There was a lot of give and take with the contributor community. Over time, I think we were viewed and treated by the big sites, less as partners and more as a necessary evil. Our opinions were no longer welcome as they introduced subs, and later lowered royalties.

However, seeing that some sites will do this when they get successful doesn't make me want to limit my options to those successful sites, who have already proven they will lower commissions. It makes me want to broaden my options and upload to the smaller sites. Yes, its slightly more work to upload to more sites, but a very small price to pay to keep some checks and balances on the big sites.

I am extremely glad I joined Veer, Depositphoto, and Photodune. Together they account for several hundred dollars a month I would not otherwise have, plus an insurance policy against falling royalties at the larger sites.

I agree with you Lisa and I try to upload to the sites who treat their contributors well. I find it hard to swallow when the sites which we helped become successful, in turn thank us for our support by cutting our royalties and then utilizing that money to stick it to us further via newly ramped up sites sporting niceties such as best match disease.

antistock · « **Reply #40 on:** March 01, 2012, 10:15 »

i also upload to agencies who pay me more but guess what ... they sell LESS and i mean a LOT less.
and if they required exclusivity i wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole.

this industry is just .. broken !

the OP is right ... who cares about the price if it takes 1 hour for him to find the right picture among millions of similars ?
but hey that's the same if you search on Getty RM and the pic may cost you 1000$ ...

any ideas ?

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** March 01, 2012, 13:37 »

Quote from: gbalex on February 28, 2012, 19:58

I find it hard to swallow when the sites which we helped become successful, in turn thank us for our support by cutting our royalties and then utilizing that money to stick it to us further via newly ramped up sites sporting niceties such as best match disease.

Yes! So true!

velocicarpo · « **Reply #42 on:** March 01, 2012, 13:41 »

Quote from: gbalex on February 28, 2012, 19:58

I find it hard to swallow when the sites which we helped become successful, in turn thank us for our support by cutting our royalties and then utilizing that money to stick it to us further via newly ramped up sites sporting niceties such as best match disease.

+1. Well said.

Sadly, moral has no value anymore. This goes too to sites like 123rf.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #43 on:** March 02, 2012, 19:23 »

Hey Warren,

Great opportunity to use that word.

Cheers,
Jonathan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #44 on:** March 03, 2012, 13:46 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 16:55

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 28, 2012, 14:56
Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products...

Kind of a rough generalization, no? All small agencies start at the bottom?

Yes that's the point, you can't race to the bottom, when you are already there. And many of the new agencies have started out = we sell for less, and they also pay less, whether it's by short commissions or my less sales. And what are they selling? All the same images from all the same people. Contributors are competing with themselves and forcing the value of their own products down. They are clawing their way up a hill of slippery mud and "the wave" of price wars, market flooding and over-saturation that is flowing down upon them.

Helping the new small agencies does nothing for the viability of the market as a whole. It just produces weaker and more diluted distribution. You don't build a solid sales franchise by allowing uncontrolled distribution of your product. Stock photos are on all kinds of agencies and those agencies have partners and those partners do what? We don't even know much of the time. So in other words, mass distribution without any control or idea of where it's going, doesn't appeal to me. If someone steals an image, or uses one improperly, most people don't know where it came from. No control of ones own product and distribution. It might as well be free because it's uncontrolled.

I think the part that I find offensive is MicroStock agencies in general (yet another generalization) tend to ignore the artists who supply the materials and treat them more like slaves. You can't get a good honest response to a question at most sites. They don't list partners openly. Some that do answer, will just slap some BS on you, which has no basis in truth. They change the rules, payments and any darn thing they want, usually with minimal notice, and people can take it or go away.

So first off, new agencies provide nothing but a dilution of the current troubled market. Second they protect and prevent nothing, in fact they create more problems by making everything less valued and artists lose control of any possible tracking.

All a new agency does is give the false impression of greater income, which is achieved by being a parasite on the established agencies. You can move that dollar bill from one pocket to another all day long, and it's still only one dollar.

If you hurt the sales on the established agencies by feeding the little ones, it's like taking boards out of one home to build another. What you end up with is two weak dwellings instead of one strong one.

In the case of agencies, we don't need more weak ones, hope or empty promises, we need a few good ones that meet the needs of artists and consumers, which will get the support needed to stay strong for the future. Dilution and weakness is not a way to build for the future.

lagereek · « **Reply #45 on:** March 04, 2012, 03:20 »

^ very, very true! all the smaller new coming agencies are in it for short term, basically robbing the established ones, quick buck and thats it. I am now refering to these really low earners, some ten of them that are just kind of hanging in there, etc.
In the long run this is detrimental to all of us.

CD123 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 04, 2012, 05:45 »

+1 on that RacePhoto and still, with the pressure on income, as soon as a new one sticks its head out here, you see a flock of hopefuls still joining up.

LesHoward · « **Reply #47 on:** March 04, 2012, 13:46 »

While I agree with much of what Racephoto says, it leads to the conclusion that we don't need any new agencies. In fact we DO need those new agencies in order to prevent the existing ones from becoming a small group of monopolies. That would eventually make the business model unsustainable for most contributors.

Most of those low earners will eventually fail but a very few will thrive and rise up to the middle and top tiers. I wish I knew which ones!

lagereek · « **Reply #48 on:** March 05, 2012, 01:08 »

No, wrong! we dont need them. For starters, person exclusivity should never have been introduced into microstock, from the very beginning, years back, with millions of images added every month, it was a joke. Image exclusivity, if that, would have been enough. This market, today, is out of hand. Exclusivity, is associated with RM, has always been.
We can blame ourselves to a certain extent, new agencies are popping up all over the place, what happens? tons of contributors are queing up, spreading the same ports, same pics, same keywords to every one of them, diluting the entire market. I bet most buyers heads are spinning around in confusion.
So, we have given any joe-bloggs, carte-blanche, to start agencies, outlets everywhere, anytime, any place. Crazy!
Anyone today, with a dubvious past or false intentions can open up shop, fooling millions of newbies, even established members, resulting in a total dilution of the market, thay are here today, gone tomorrow.
The old adage, " a good picture will alway prevail" has from the buyers point of view become, " where do I find the good pictures"?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #49 on:** March 06, 2012, 15:18 »

Quote from: LesHoward on March 04, 2012, 13:46

While I agree with much of what Racephoto says, it leads to the conclusion that we don't need any new agencies. In fact we DO need those new agencies in order to prevent the existing ones from becoming a small group of monopolies. That would eventually make the business model unsustainable for most contributors.

Most of those low earners will eventually fail but a very few will thrive and rise up to the middle and top tiers. I wish I knew which ones!

No we don't need more new agencies and I don't worry that my lawn will run out of dandelions if I clean them all out.

Yeah, I could make wine with them if I had a bushel or two. That's microstock. But the ones who win are people with a few thousand images, the rest are just treading water, not making expenses, or getting a return on our time.

The new little agencies are a waste of time. They do nothing but dilute the market and force prices and commissions AND sales down at the established places. Parasites covers it just fine for me.

Really, you're worried about a monopoly. Honestly? There are 500 microstock agencies maybe 1000 and people are arguing we need more?

Sorry, but what we need is ten good ones that will compete for our work, pay properly, and respect contributors, not a bunch of rain in the ocean where we are as cheap as sand on the seashore.

Yes, if we knew which agency would succeed, it would be wonderful. Kind of like we can predict which photos will sell and which are really "pissing in the wind". But now and then out of the blue, something unexpected sells like hotcakes, and that's sure a nice surprise.

I'm a cynic and skeptic I admit it. I also dropped down to SS and IS and I'm quite happy not dealing with the quirks, manipulations and variations that some of the others toss at us. I have a couple of "real" jobs. So put me as Hobby Shooter. That means I'm very difference from the people who depend on income from Micro and are kind of over the barrel when the agencies screw with us. I can walk away, many others are dependent and being held hostage by economic necessity. Too bad, because I'd rather see a fair market based on work and talent, with rewards based on that and effort.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #50 on:** March 06, 2012, 15:34 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 06, 2012, 15:18

The new little agencies are a waste of time. They do nothing but dilute the market and force prices and commissions AND sales down at the established places. Parasites covers it just fine for me.

I would agree if agencies have done the CUTS because of that, I believe we are pretty sure that wasn´t the case, basically contributors are only looking for more income outside top5, of course I am not saying joining everyone that does a slightly movement, we all do microstock for a few time and we have our own demands lower or higher it doesn´t matter but at some point we understand if a small/new agency is worth our time or not..

even if there aren´t bigs sales on stockfresh, glstock or agencies over 50% we need to support them, sure everybody decides whats best/suitable for themselves but I am sure they aren´t the ones "screwing" stock in any aspect, we cannot blame contributors for top agencies calls

cthoman · « **Reply #51 on:** March 06, 2012, 15:58 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 06, 2012, 15:18

The new little agencies are a waste of time. They do nothing but dilute the market and force prices and commissions AND sales down at the established places. Parasites covers it just fine for me.

What's a new little agency? Aren't they all fairly new. Most of them not so little anymore though. I still have a domain I bought in 2001. I must be a dinosaur. I did update my dinosaur the other day. He is still looking good for a ten year old. He's evolved a lot.

lisafx · « **Reply #52 on:** March 06, 2012, 18:29 »

Quote from: LesHoward on March 04, 2012, 13:46

While I agree with much of what Racephoto says, it leads to the conclusion that we don't need any new agencies. In fact we DO need those new agencies in order to prevent the existing ones from becoming a small group of monopolies. That would eventually make the business model unsustainable for most contributors.

Most of those low earners will eventually fail but a very few will thrive and rise up to the middle and top tiers. I wish I knew which ones!

Really well summed up Les. Agree with you completely

stockastic · « **Reply #53 on:** March 06, 2012, 18:58 »

We don't need any more new agencies unless they manage to differentiate themselves in some way - reach a new market, or pay better commissions, or specialize in some way.

Why contribute to more "me too" players that are just trying to lure buyers from the big agencies by selling our images even cheaper and paying us less? Oh yeah, they have nice new web sites and post friendly personal messages on MSG. In the end they're the ones who'll be making money from a new business, while we make less for what we're already doing.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #54 on:** March 06, 2012, 19:03 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 06, 2012, 18:58

We don't need any more new agencies unless they manage to differentiate themselves in some way - reach a new market, or pay better commissions, or specialize in some way.

Why contribute to more "me too" players that are just trying to lure buyers from the big agencies by selling our images even cheaper and paying us less? Oh yeah, they have nice new web sites and post friendly personal messages on MSG. In the end they're the ones who'll be making money from a new business, while we make less for what we're already doing.

what are the new players you are talking about? I dont know any agency paying you less than IS (royalties %)

wut · « **Reply #55 on:** March 06, 2012, 19:20 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2012, 19:03

Quote from: stockastic on March 06, 2012, 18:58
We don't need any more new agencies unless they manage to differentiate themselves in some way - reach a new market, or pay better commissions, or specialize in some way.

Why contribute to more "me too" players that are just trying to lure buyers from the big agencies by selling our images even cheaper and paying us less? Oh yeah, they have nice new web sites and post friendly personal messages on MSG. In the end they're the ones who'll be making money from a new business, while we make less for what we're already doing.

what are the new players you are talking about? I dont know any agency paying you less than IS (royalties %)

I'm starting to get an allergic reaction because so many ppl are talking solely about royalty %? What does it matter? You get over 5$ even if you're at 15% at IS for a XXXL, while you get 1,2$ at 123RF. And the vast majority of contributors will get even less from Jan 2013 on. You get 3$ at PD, I don't even know what you get at DP, since I only get sub sales and every once and a while a credit sale, that was never larger than M. CS pays 1,25$ for an XL (again 21 mpix), they're just as pathetic as 123RF. I don't contribute to any other mid/low tier agency, but I've seen more than enough from them. Low volume, even lower royalties. As we can see they get up to 50% of what IS pays, but usually they pay just around 20%. Or even way less compared to a higher level DT file. SS pays approx half of what IS does for ODs and about the same for SODs (depends on the level you're at, at a certain agency), but the volume is higher, so is the bottom line for most contributors.

I don't know about you, but those small agencies don't do anything good for us, on the contrary, they're just lowering our earnings, since we're selling there at a lower price, if they didn't exist, buyers would come to the top 4 and pay a more fair, higher price. They're also not affecting the big agency and their policies in any way, since they're insignificant, they take a few percent of the market at best.

stockastic · « **Reply #56 on:** March 06, 2012, 19:42 »

Of the handful of sales I've made at PD, the most recent netted me 33 cents. On-demand sales at subscription prices - it's the best of both worlds

RacePhoto · « **Reply #57 on:** March 08, 2012, 01:21 »

To each their own, I don't think this is a one size fits all situation. That's what I was getting at. For some only one agency is best, exclusive, good percentages, work towards one goal. For some two, because they are the two worth the time and effort reward for investment. And for the rest, as many as you can get your images on to make as much as possible. Because every sale add to the total and becomes like a trickling spring and 1000 tributaries become a mighty river.

New is the weeds that pop up every other month as "hey did you hear about this new agency XYZ, what do you think of them."

Old in Internet time is actually about four years, yes. What's that? Before 2009 for Microstock sites.

I'd love to see someone come up with something new an revolutionary, instead of We sell for less. When the big agencies have 17 million images on one and the other is comprised of 18 agencies it gobbled up. What does some new place with 1.2 million images (or less) have to offer to a buyer, except, the same images? It's not selection?

Something different would be fantastic. More of the cookie cutter sites with the same images, same pricing, same contributors, same styles, all just copies, is boring and doomed.

The specialty sites seem to have died, I'm not so sure that someone can't come up with a dedicated site for one area, and can make a go of it, with catering to a specific market. Hypothetical. Food Photos Are Us. Only selling food images, the best of the best, so someone doing a search for red apple doesn't get a field with a tree on the horizon, key worded as "red apple tree" A new site could do something the old ones can't and that if force only accurate appropriate relevant keywords. That would make it a KILLER for buyers who are tired of best match bingo.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The wave is breaking (Read 21185 times)

wut

wut

helix7

wut

helix7

lagereek

michealo

digitalexpressionimages

helix7

wut

wut

digitalexpressionimages

wut

helix7

wut

helix7

wut

helix7

wut

helix7

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

wut

RacePhoto

wut

helix7

wut

lisafx

antistock

lisafx

velocicarpo

RacePhoto

lagereek

CD123

lagereek

RacePhoto

lisafx

wut

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors