MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This worries me more than free pictures sites :-(  (Read 20143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2010, 12:32 »
0
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.

We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!

I echo, no, no, no!  You might as well bend over and get the soap.

If stock keeps heading toward free and subscriptions we may not be able to afford the soap.


« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2010, 12:59 »
0
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.

We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!

I echo, no, no, no!  You might as well bend over and get the soap.

If stock keeps heading toward free and subscriptions we may not be able to afford the soap.

ha!ha! no, we have to bring bottle from home to steal liquid soap from hotel W.C.

« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2010, 15:58 »
0
Let's all of us to stop using soap, it is too big risk... :D
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 15:59 by borg »

« Reply #53 on: June 06, 2010, 17:06 »
0
Let's all of us to stop using soap, it is too big risk... :D

ha!ha!..
I know we all think this is going to be a big joke. But now I think about what this mean if microstock become only free image and make money with advertiement . Maybe it effects many contributors that microstock is lifelihood.
How many to you here will lose house, car, property etc if microstock screw up/
it's a big question huh?

« Reply #54 on: June 06, 2010, 17:21 »
0
Consider this photo of red wine could have been bought XSmall at Istock, and paid as low as $0.16 to the contributor...  ::)

I doubt they downloaded an xsmall version. And the fact is that at istok they could have beensdold for almos 4 dollars o-es comission. At TS there's no such possibility.

« Reply #55 on: June 06, 2010, 23:13 »
0
Quite right Randy. Didn't RF stock used to be the dumping ground of shoot leftovers?
pretty much. I know lots of people who use to do that ... and still do.

To be honest, when I tell pro photographers that I shoot for microstock they are  all disgusted in some way. On the other hand, they all say they used to earn more few years ago, and they are not satisfied now. So, it seems that most people are not satisfied with their current earnings, at least when photography business is in question.
I'm primarily a traditional photographer, that's where my income is from but micro doesn't disgust me. In fact to some of the other pros that I talk to regularly I have mentioned them getting into micro. However, when we talk about it we are talking about using it not as a major income stream but as a way to balance our current income/expense/tax deductions. Do you mean pros current earnings in non-stock fields? Because those continue to raise every year. Average consumers are more eager to spend than corporate clients to be honest. A corporate client will say ok this is our new budget and that is final. A consumer will say crap my budget isn't enough for what I want so I'm gonna spend double my budget and figure it out later .. man those pictures are nice .. ok I'm gonna triple my original budget .. oh wait you have a payment option on larger prints !!! .. who needs a budget anyway. That's the type of clients we traditional pro shooters deal with so that's why you get some attitude when you mention micro to them. Next time bring up the fact that they can not put much work into it and create some major deductions to offset their studio taxes and they will be more interested in talking about micro. :)

Professional quality cost more in every business...
Is important that big companies do not use our images for their hobbies,they use for  their promotional purposes on their web sites...

So, subscription plan can remain as a kind of an offer in Microstock, but RF licenses HAVE TO be quite different for any kind of business promotion,not strictly commerical...
Is a big difference between example in my first post here and some student's blog....

I'm not happy when I see my picture (my 25 cents) at the site of some large corporation, where  2-inch near ad-space cost thousands of dollars...
No professional quality does not cost more .. an established recognized professional costs more. Big difference. If McDonalds adds crab legs and high dollar items to their menu I'm not going to buy them .. I'll head over to Red Lobster because they are the local pro sea food place. When I want a cheap nasty burger for a dollar to hold me over on my way home I'll go to McDonalds .. because that's all they are worth. Same concept and when big corporations are looking for cheap images they are going to head for micro. Do they see micro as a pro resource? No they see it as a cheap one. So you use it for what it's worth. Look for advantage in the disadvantage and if a person is dead set against seeing a wealthy corporation using a 25 cent image ... then don't sell 25 cent images.

« Reply #56 on: June 06, 2010, 23:49 »
0
I thought Red Lobster was the McDonald's of crab legs?  ;D

lagereek

« Reply #57 on: June 07, 2010, 00:37 »
0
Thinkstock and similars are a joke!!  and if more producers respected their own work a bit more, agencies like these wouldnt even exist,  Why?  because soon they will give away your shots away for free and expect you to be thankful for it. Well,  maybe an exaggeration but dont be surprised.

« Reply #58 on: June 07, 2010, 00:46 »
0
I thought Red Lobster was the McDonald's of crab legs?  ;D

LOL yeah they kinda are .. I started to type our local top restaurant but then realized nobody would know what . I was talking about so I changed it.
Red Lobster does have killer bread rolls though :)

« Reply #59 on: June 07, 2010, 01:39 »
0
Show of hands .. how many people have ever forked over the $25 for a yearly copy of the photographers market ... and actually used it  ???
Don't like $0.25 sales then take business into your own hands .. you don't have to belong to a single agency micro or macro or whatever to pull in bigger sales ... but it takes motivation and you have to treat it as a career. Treat photography as a hobby and you'll bring in a hobby income which is nobodys fault but your own.
Face it people, no matter how many "pro shooters" become contributors microstock will always be at the bottom of the barrel in the overall photography industry .. that's where it was designed to be and that's where it belongs .. take it for what it is.

Quite right Randy. Didn't RF stock used to be the dumping ground of shoot leftovers?
No! not just RF, all of stock photography was the dumping ground. Microstock is here to stay but that doesn't mean you should be happy with 0.36$ or 0.25$. 

lagereek

« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2010, 02:24 »
0
Show of hands .. how many people have ever forked over the $25 for a yearly copy of the photographers market ... and actually used it  ???
Don't like $0.25 sales then take business into your own hands .. you don't have to belong to a single agency micro or macro or whatever to pull in bigger sales ... but it takes motivation and you have to treat it as a career. Treat photography as a hobby and you'll bring in a hobby income which is nobodys fault but your own.
Face it people, no matter how many "pro shooters" become contributors microstock will always be at the bottom of the barrel in the overall photography industry .. that's where it was designed to be and that's where it belongs .. take it for what it is.

Quite right Randy. Didn't RF stock used to be the dumping ground of shoot leftovers?
No! not just RF, all of stock photography was the dumping ground. Microstock is here to stay but that doesn't mean you should be happy with 0.36$ or 0.25$. 

Hi Thomas!

Yep, your right,  all stock photography was a dumping ground. Today however its debatable, The established RM agencies, some RF and higher-end Micros ( Macros) can as far as quality stand their ground.
However, as far as irrelevat quantity theyre definetely a dumping place and I seriously dont understand this paranoia about letting billions of shots clogg up the files, its as if theres no tomorrow and some of the junk that is accepted,  well, if I was a buyer I would run fr cover.

best.

« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2010, 04:53 »
0
Agree with you 100% lagereek on both your points.

RacePhoto

« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2010, 11:23 »
0
Let me get this right. Yet another ThinkStock bashing thread or just Subs in general? I can't decide.  ???

What should disturb you more than people have a choice if they want to sell their images as subs or not. (free choice is a good thing) And maybe that SS pays most people 25c a sale, because it takes $500 / 2000 licenses in sales to get that huge raise. Or maybe that other sites offer subs and some have plans that pay less than 25c for a sale...

But what about this which netted someone a download from Dreamstime:



Was the photographer paid a fair amount for their work? Odd, no photo credit either.

These two came from iStock.


Source:

http://www.creativepro.com/node/64967

I take a snapshot with my pocket camera and send it off to SS and IS. I get paid when someone downloads it. I think I'm getting paid fairly for a sub sale, considering my expenses are nill. I already have the camera and use re-chargeable batteries.

Now someone else gets soft boxes, expensive lighting equipment, a full frame DSLR, has a studio and other expenses, then shoots one of these for a few bucks commission, and who's a fool?  ::)

Must have been a slow weekend. Nothing to do but start another "subs are the devils work" thread.  ;)

« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2010, 11:43 »
0
Let me get this right. Yet another ThinkStock bashing thread or just Subs in general? I can't decide.  ???

I think it's just another "we started in this microstock thing with good intentions, hoping to grow and make more money but it seems like all we do is go backwards" thread. And until we all can figure out a better way to do things, it helps by just moaning and griping with others who know what we're feeling. You know, kind of like group therapy? Or going down to the local bar with friends?  :)

RacePhoto

« Reply #64 on: June 07, 2010, 12:05 »
0
Let me get this right. Yet another ThinkStock bashing thread or just Subs in general? I can't decide.  ???

I think it's just another "we started in this microstock thing with good intentions, hoping to grow and make more money but it seems like all we do is go backwards" thread. And until we all can figure out a better way to do things, it helps by just moaning and griping with others who know what we're feeling. You know, kind of like group therapy? Or going down to the local bar with friends?  :)

When does double bubble start, you can count me in.  ;D Yes, I can see your point, a good one.

I see the subs thing as a personal choice, and since the first time I read a message here, there have been people saying that they won't do it. I support their individual decision. Carrying this forward some people won't take $1-2 downloads for income, and think Microstock is selling out. Good for them, they don't have to upload. No one is forcing us to sell at any price level, against our will. We all decide for ourselves.

More than a good laugh is some people who rant and rally against cheap subs, and then upload to the "new site of the month club" because they get paid for that. So I guess selling out for 25c, having your images languish somewhere which now owns the distribution rights, and having the same site stealing customers from the established agencies, selling SUBS diluting the market... is far different than taking a 25c download from someplace that's already working for us? If I told you I was confused would you understand?

Hey bartender, bring us another round.

« Reply #65 on: June 07, 2010, 12:20 »
0
Thinkstock, charge $249 for a 1 month subscription and pay $0.25.  Shutterstock charge the same $249 but pay me $0.38.  It shouldn't be hard to see why I don't like thinkstock, every 1,000 downloads they would be paying me $130 less than shutterstock.  No thanks.

RacePhoto

« Reply #66 on: June 07, 2010, 13:18 »
0
Thinkstock, charge $249 for a 1 month subscription and pay $0.25.  Shutterstock charge the same $249 but pay me $0.38.  It shouldn't be hard to see why I don't like thinkstock, every 1,000 downloads they would be paying me $130 less than shutterstock.  No thanks.

You can like or not like ThinkStock, to each their own. But SS doesn't pay everyone .38 a download. Many people are still getting 25c a download on SS.

BigStock credit purchase, under $1 per download. How are sales on BS going lately?
Fotolia: $249 a month 25 per day sub
Dreamstime: $128.99 a month 10 a day sub
Deposit Photos: $180 a month 25 per day sub - undercutting all of the above including ThinkStock

If you get more per sale on site "X" and they don't sell anything, how much more are you making?  ???

How are things on Albumo.com and YayMicro?

Also viewed as 10% of something is always going to be more than 100% of nothing!

I still wonder about people who upload for payment to a new site, which gives that site redistribution rights and marketing rights for a one time 25c an upload. Then what happens? They control your images and you are competing with yourself on your good selling sites? Some new sites give away credits to build the business. The long term effect doesn't make sense for a one time upload bonus.

How is that 25c different from ThinkStock making 25c sales month after month and bringing in a continuing return?

What I should be writing is please don't allow IS partner sales on ThinkStock and please make sure you killed your StockXpert account and have all the photos removed. That leaves more sales opportunity for me.  ;D
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 13:24 by RacePhoto »


« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2010, 13:35 »
0

Also viewed as 10% of something is always going to be more than 100% of nothing!


Let me put it to you this way... If you were a waitperson in a restaurant and gave exemplary service, would you be happy if you were left a $0.25 tip or would you leave it on the table in disgust?

« Reply #68 on: June 07, 2010, 15:07 »
0
Another time, when your  boss  reduce your salary for -10%,  tell him "better something than nothing"!

Isn't problem in 1,2 or 25 or 38 cents...

Problem is what he can do with our images for that price in range of current RF license...
Changes are necessary for the RF licenses...

Does the front page of famous newspaper is worth only 25 cents or even 25$ for photographers work? I don't think so, even this is EL, still is too low...
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 15:17 by borg »

RacePhoto

« Reply #69 on: June 07, 2010, 16:40 »
0
Another time, when your  boss  reduce your salary for -10%,  tell him "better something than nothing"!

Isn't problem in 1,2 or 25 or 38 cents...

Problem is what he can do with our images for that price in range of current RF license...
Changes are necessary for the RF licenses...

Does the front page of famous newspaper is worth only 25 cents or even 25$ for photographers work? I don't think so, even this is EL, still is too low...

Thank You I agree! I just can't stand the argument that 25c isn't enough but 30c is alright.  :o Like a lousy nickle makes a difference.

$28 ELs on SS make me happy. Maybe I'm just easy?


Also viewed as 10% of something is always going to be more than 100% of nothing!


Let me put it to you this way... If you were a waitperson in a restaurant and gave exemplary service, would you be happy if you were left a $0.25 tip or would you leave it on the table in disgust?

Not quite. As a bartender I'd rather have everyone leave a buck or two, than have 9 people leave nothing and one person leave me $5. Then walk around saying, Oh Boy I got a $5 tip, when I really got less per customer than if everyone left a reasonable smaller amount.

By saying, I won't sell subs, I'd be turning away money because I'm underpaid, while I accept 50c sales elsewhere and call that "good". Personally I think both aren't enough, but people want to quibble over 25c vs 30c or point out how 38c in 1000 sales makes $170 more, when 1000 sales at 25c on another site would make $250 more. They are turning money away based on percentage, instead of bottom line. The same number of sales on both sites, will make $250 more if someone sells on both, but they turn up their nose and say, "I'll take nothing, instead of $250!"

See that's where 100% of nothing is less than a percentage of something. ;)

Now about the real world. If someone left me 25c as a tip, I'd point out to them that they left their quarter change on the bar... in a very loud voice!  :D
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 17:07 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #70 on: June 07, 2010, 17:02 »
0

Also viewed as 10% of something is always going to be more than 100% of nothing!


Let me put it to you this way... If you were a waitperson in a restaurant and gave exemplary service, would you be happy if you were left a $0.25 tip or would you leave it on the table in disgust?

Are we working for tips now?   :-\

« Reply #71 on: June 07, 2010, 17:17 »
0

By saying, I won't sell subs, I'd be turning away money because I'm underpaid, while I accept 50c sales elsewhere and call that "good". Personally I think both aren't enough, but people want to quibble over 25c vs 30c or point out how 38c in 1000 sales makes $170 more, when 1000 sales at 25c on another site would make $250 more. They are turning money away based on percentage, instead of bottom line. The same number of sales on both sites, will make $250 more if someone sells on both, but they turn up their nose and say, "I'll take nothing, instead of $250!"

See that's where 100% of nothing is less than a percentage of something. ;)

Oh boy. At last someone speaks my feelings exactly. I don't care if 25 cents each download or $2 or xxx $.
I don't care too, if commission is 50% or 20% etc. What I care is end of month I see more money in my balance.
For that, I take Shutterstock all the time instead of others who promise me big chunk commission but no sale.
Racephoto, you said it.  Correct , thank you .

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #72 on: June 07, 2010, 21:31 »
0
Another time, when your  boss  reduce your salary for -10%,  tell him "better something than nothing"!

Isn't problem in 1,2 or 25 or 38 cents...

Problem is what he can do with our images for that price in range of current RF license...
Changes are necessary for the RF licenses...

Does the front page of famous newspaper is worth only 25 cents or even 25$ for photographers work? I don't think so, even this is EL, still is too low...

This is why there was such an uproar when Royalty Free licensing got introduced. And that was Macro RF which was higher priced. Now micro RF gives almost unlimited usage for a dollar or a few.

A usage based micro license needs to be created that is simple for buyers but compensates contributors accordingly.

« Reply #73 on: June 08, 2010, 02:40 »
0
..A usage based micro license needs to be created that is simple for buyers but compensates contributors accordingly.
I agree but the sites haven't done anything about this for years and all we do is keep complaining about it.  If we can't get the sites to change, what are our options?  I used to think we could start our own site but it seems too late now.  If we can't persuade the sites to change, we will just have to put up with it or do RM instead.

« Reply #74 on: June 08, 2010, 03:42 »
0
I agree with Paulie and Sharpshot...

Again, isn't problem if one of our photos was sold to some blogger for 0,25$, but when commercial TV use that photo for their article on their website, with same licenses and rights of usage, is something completely different...

I think it is necessary to determine the new border between commercial and non-commercial use...

Maybe, photorights.com is first step in that direction...
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 03:48 by borg »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4823 Views
Last post July 20, 2017, 12:53
by MircoV
2 Replies
4249 Views
Last post July 21, 2011, 18:03
by stockastic
7 Replies
3033 Views
Last post December 15, 2013, 23:53
by cascoly
6 Replies
2583 Views
Last post February 13, 2014, 10:10
by Newsfocus1
5 Replies
1703 Views
Last post February 10, 2016, 10:30
by cthoman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle