pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This worries me more than free pictures sites :-(  (Read 20072 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 05, 2010, 08:05 »
0
One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html

See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... >:(
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 08:08 by borg »


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2010, 08:15 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?

« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2010, 08:20 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?

There is no problem, only cheap subscriptions are problem, nothing more...
Big companies use pics for dollar,every day  more and more, several years ago they needed to pay few zeros more for the same...

Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 08:27 by borg »

« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2010, 08:29 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?

There is no problem, only cheap subscriptions are problem, nothing more...
Big companies use pics for dollar,every day  more and more, several years ago they needed to pay few zeros more for the same...

Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...

old microstock discussion.. or we are in or not...!

« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2010, 08:32 »
0
But it hurts every day more and more... ;) ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2010, 08:50 »
0
BBC were using Thinkstock images from the start. I guess they've got their licence payers (including me) to think about. I can just imagine the questions at the shareholders meetings if they didn't use the cheapest legally available. Doesn't mean I'm opted in, though.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2010, 08:52 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?
Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...
The buyer at TS knows that for a pittance, their pics have MRs or PRs if necessary. Not usually the case if offered freely.

Noodles

« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2010, 09:00 »
0
One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html

See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... >:(


Before MS and digital cameras, pro photographers earned heaps of money - Now its only the elite or those who adapted that can earn such money.

Same with these free picture sites - only the elite MS photographers will survive.

But those that can survive will earn good money as quality always wins in the long run and big companies always have a big budget for quality imagery.

So its getting close to that time now when its either adapt or start looking for a new hobby :)

« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2010, 09:26 »
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!

KB

« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2010, 09:38 »
0
We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!
I'm sorry to say, but that's exactly the type of reasoning which is leading us down this path of lower and lower commissions.

So if $0.25 is acceptable to you, is $0.20? $0.10? Even $0.01 is better than making nothing, right?

You have to draw the line somewhere and say, less than this, it is not better than making nothing. For me, that figure is $0.33 (though I accepted $0.30 from StockXpert begrudgingly, so perhaps it's really $0.30).  I'm not willing to whore myself out for less than that.

« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2010, 09:49 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?


There is no problem, only cheap subscriptions are problem, nothing more...
Big companies use pics for dollar,every day  more and more, several years ago they needed to pay few zeros more for the same...

Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...


yes borg, but several years ago we all got paid more zeros too. it's economics. supply demand..
One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html

See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... >:(


Before MS and digital cameras, pro photographers earned heaps of money - Now its only the elite or those who adapted that can earn such money.

Same with these free picture sites - only the elite MS photographers will survive.

But those that can survive will earn good money as quality always wins in the long run and big companies always have a big budget for quality imagery.

So its getting close to that time now when its either adapt or start looking for a new hobby :)


Good point. Survival of the fittest to earn the pittance :)

« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2010, 10:32 »
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!

No no no and no!

What was the quality of your images before microstock  and now.!?
They brought us up to commercial standards in photography, only because we can sell...
Otherwise (if we had commercial standard before), we could easily sell through the traditional agency before Microstock...

What is problem now?

Customers buy a professional photography today on microstock, not amateur as microstock was conceived from the start...
Because of  that, there is too much big difference from price to quality in Microstock, that is problem...

I hope that agencies see it, and We see that they slowly changing the rules, because they raise the cost of photographs, what gives hope to all of us...

Cheap subscriptions remain as biggest problem for now...
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 10:41 by borg »

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2010, 10:43 »
0


You have to draw the line somewhere and say, less than this, it is not better than making nothing. For me, that figure is $0.33 (though I accepted $0.30 from StockXpert begrudgingly, so perhaps it's really $0.30).  I'm not willing to whore myself out for less than that.

Exactly.  At some point it isn't worth doing.  Particularly if this is no longer your hobby, but an important part of your monthly income.  


What was the quality of your images before microstock  and now.!?
(snip)

Customers buy a professional photography today on microstock, not amateur as microstock was conceived from the start...

I also agree with borg.  Sure, I was thrilled to get .20 or .25 for the pictures of flowers, ducks, buildings, and stuff from my back yard that had been sitting on my hard drive.  But levels of skill and production value have climbed exponentially and for awhile prices and royalties were going up too.  

Now Getty is to get rich selling those high quality images and paying next to nothing to the producers.  They are trying to push royalties back to where they were 5 years ago, but on the professional quality images of today.  

I can't understand why any self-respecting contributor would NOT have a problem with that.  
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 10:44 by lisafx »

« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2010, 10:44 »
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!

No no no and no!

What was the quality of your images before microstock  and now.!?
They brought us up to commercial standards in photography, only because we can sell...
Otherwise before we could easily sell through the traditional agency before Microstock...

What is problem now?

Customers buy a professional photography today on microstock, not amateur as microstock was conceived from the start...
Because of  that, there is too much big difference from price to quality in Microstock, that is problem...

I hope that agencies see it, and We see that they slowly changing the rules, because they raise the cost of photographs, what gives hope to all of us...

Cheap subscriptions remain as biggest problem for now...

Okay, borg , I now get your point. Yes, you are right.
We look and compare the standard quality of microstock before and after, and we can see the big change. With more strict review and more demanding reviewers. So now we are making better quality not amateur stock photo,
but the stock agencies and buyers expect to pay less and less with more and more quality photos available.
If you say this is problem, I agree much more to your point.

Borg, I tried give you a heart for this comment, but not permitted because I am too new. But you get heart anytway from me
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 10:48 by lefty »

« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2010, 11:29 »
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.

« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2010, 11:36 »
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.

Right you are Sean.

Cheap subs are the reason that I became exclusive @ IS and am opted out from the partner sites.
My lowest commission now is around $0.70 and my highest is $18+ (thus far & not counting extended licenses).
Selling for $0.25 is a losing proposition in my book unless you just happen to have a shot that sells in the multiple thousand of times.
That is a very rare shot indeed.
Why would anyone want to give their hard work away for peanuts?

« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2010, 11:51 »
0
I f I buy a prop to do a photo it's no more then 5.00 my cost per image is very low
I would rather make sub prices then give it away. ::)


« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2010, 11:53 »
0
Thanks Lefty for support!  ;)

Others too, Lisa, Sjlocke etc..

@Sljocke Excellent metaphor  :D ;D


Question:

What is worse, few rejected images for our promotion on some free site, or whole portfolio for a few cents or peanuts?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 12:01 by borg »

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2010, 12:35 »
0
I f I buy a prop to do a photo it's no more then 5.00 my cost per image is very low
I would rather make sub prices then give it away. ::)

If your highest cost per shoot is $5 then yours are not the high-production-value images that are being talked about here. 

If your costs per shoot were several hundred dollars or more and many hours of planning and shooting,  then you might feel very differently...

« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2010, 12:45 »
0
Not only does what all of you have discussed above bother me, but here's another trend that bothers me:

Notice the credit line does NOT have the contributor's name, only the agency's. So not only is the picture purchased for peanuts from Thinkstock, but the contributor has been stripped of any benefit of having his/her name published along with the photo!

Something's gotta give...we just keep going backwards faster and faster.

KB

« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2010, 12:51 »
0
I f I buy a prop to do a photo it's no more then 5.00 my cost per image is very low
I would rather make sub prices then give it away. ::)
Are you including the cost of your equipment, insurance, and considerable time? My cost per image is much higher than $5 / image even if I go out in my backyard and shoot something "for free".

« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2010, 13:06 »
0
I echo, no, no, no!  You might as well bend over and get the soap.

Ha!ha! sjlocke! which soap you use ?

Not only does what all of you have discussed above bother me, but here's another trend that bothers me:

Notice the credit line does NOT have the contributor's name, only the agency's. So not only is the picture purchased for peanuts from Thinkstock, but the contributor has been stripped of any benefit of having his/her name published along with the photo!

Something's gotta give...we just keep going backwards faster and faster.

cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.

lisafx

« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2010, 13:13 »
0

cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.  All major micros show who the artist is and offer a link to more of their porfolios. 

Thinkstock doesn't, but they are unique in that and they are definitely NOT a major micro. 

« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2010, 13:14 »
0

Cheap subs are the reason that I became exclusive @ IS and am opted out from the partner sites.
My lowest commission now is around $0.70 and my highest is $18+ (thus far & not counting extended licenses).
Selling for $0.25 is a losing proposition in my book unless you just happen to have a shot that sells in the multiple thousand of times.
That is a very rare shot indeed.
Why would anyone want to give their hard work away for peanuts?

It depends on bottom line $$$. You sell more 25 cents Shutterstock versus $2 IStock.
At the end of month Shutterstock give bigger total with 25 cents por commission.
In case of me, I take 25 cents any day with Shutterstock because each month my total is bigger
than Istock.  But for other agency I don't think it is worth my trouble.
Other people here , you agree?
 

« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2010, 13:17 »
0

cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.  All major micros show who the artist is and offer a link to more of their porfolios. 

Thinkstock doesn't, but they are unique in that and they are definitely NOT a major micro. 

Thinkstock is Getty. And new. So maybe it is too soon to make judgement with Thinkstock.

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2010, 13:28 »
0

cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.  All major micros show who the artist is and offer a link to more of their porfolios. 

Thinkstock doesn't, but they are unique in that and they are definitely NOT a major micro. 

Thinkstock is Getty. And new. So maybe it is too soon to make judgement with Thinkstock.

Uhm...  You seem to have completely missed the point.  The point is that micro sites DO, in fact, credit the the contributors.

« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2010, 13:28 »
0
Quote
If your costs per shoot were several hundred dollars or more and many hours of planning and shooting,  then you might feel very differently...

Some of my shoots fall into that category and some don't. I was merely making the point that before microstock, I made $0 from my camera. Not the case now. However, I didn't take into account the difference in quality in what I produce now vs then.

So thanks everyone for jumping down my throat for expressing my opinion.


« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2010, 13:34 »
0
One of my photos appeared in a major magazine and I was given a credit line with my name AND the agency's name. I earned a nice EL commission for that (after having to email support because at first I did NOT receive the EL commission...the circulation of this magazine is over 4 million. But that's a whole nuther story.)

But in addition to the EL commission, I would like to think that if a buyer saw that photo and could reference my name with it, they might go ahead and check out the rest of my portfolio. Without my name being there, that might not happen.

Anyway, it's a little off topic, but certainly related.

Edited: to exclude specific names to keep the story generic, to avoid any repercussions.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 15:18 by cclapper »

« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2010, 13:37 »
0
I make $0 from my lawn mower.  Doesn't mean I want to mow my neighbors lawn for free just so they'll tell people I did it and for the possible benefit of someday, possibly making $.25 each time if they abuse me enough.  People wouldn't download if they didn't get some benefit out if it.  Why give that away?

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2010, 13:38 »
0
Quote
If your costs per shoot were several hundred dollars or more and many hours of planning and shooting,  then you might feel very differently...

So thanks everyone for jumping down my throat for expressing my opinion.

I just reread my post that you quoted and not sure if you are including me as having "jumped down your throat".  That was certainly not my intention. In fact my comment was directed to someone else.  

Can we still disagree around here without being "disagreeable"?  :)
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 13:50 by lisafx »

« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2010, 13:41 »
0
I make $0 from my lawn mower.  Doesn't mean I want to mow my neighbors lawn for free just so they'll tell people I did it and for the possible benefit of someday, possibly making $.25 each time if they abuse me enough.  People wouldn't download if they didn't get some benefit out if it.  Why give that away?

I agree sjlocke. If buyer not pay 25 cents for picture, why let them take it for free. Crazy .

« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2010, 13:54 »
0
No, Lisa, not you! You're one of the few that are unfailingly polite and I do appreciate that. There's not much common courtesy left in the world.

« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2010, 13:55 »
0
Microstock is changing, and for the simple apple on white or tape measure around the waist shot - of which there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands - buyers will get the shot the cheapest way possible. That's pretty similar to what happened with traditional agencies when micros came along - they could no longer charge high prices for easy to produce shots.

If you want to churn out high volumes of those types of objects and people on white, then you're stuck with modest returns from subs sites and better keep your production costs low.

For anyone hoping to compete on something other than price, putting your high quality stuff on the race-to-the-bottom sites doesn't help. You shouldn't think that 25 cents is better than zero, but that if you let it go for 25 cents, over time, you're eliminating your ability to charge more. If buyers need stuff that they can't get on the high volume sub sites, they'll go find them at the cheapest price possible (i.e. other micro sites, if not there, then macro sites, if not there then commission a photographer for custom work).

I don't (and won't) participate in the partner program - i.e. no Thinkstock or photos.com. My expectation is that doing so will slowly pull buyers away from the place where we get a good return on our work.

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2010, 14:01 »
0
No, Lisa, not you! You're one of the few that are unfailingly polite and I do appreciate that. There's not much common courtesy left in the world.

Thanks for posting that!  I was worried I had offended you and since you are one of the folks around here I have a lot of respect for I would have hated to do that :)

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2010, 14:07 »
0
You shouldn't think that 25 cents is better than zero, but that if you let it go for 25 cents, over time, you're eliminating your ability to charge more.

That sums it up perfectly JoAnn!


I don't (and won't) participate in the partner program - i.e. no Thinkstock or photos.com. My expectation is that doing so will slowly pull buyers away from the place where we get a good return on our work.

^^Yep!  Once buyers are trained to go to the cheapest (or free-est ;) ) site, they may eventually stop looking at the higher priced site(s) altogether.  Sound familiar...?

« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2010, 14:10 »
0
Microstock is changing, and for the simple apple on white or tape measure around the waist shot - of which there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands - buyers will get the shot the cheapest way possible. That's pretty similar to what happened with traditional agencies when micros came along - they could no longer charge high prices for easy to produce shots.

If you want to churn out high volumes of those types of objects and people on white, then you're stuck with modest returns from subs sites and better keep your production costs low.

For anyone hoping to compete on something other than price, putting your high quality stuff on the race-to-the-bottom sites doesn't help. You shouldn't think that 25 cents is better than zero, but that if you let it go for 25 cents, over time, you're eliminating your ability to charge more. If buyers need stuff that they can't get on the high volume sub sites, they'll go find them at the cheapest price possible (i.e. other micro sites, if not there, then macro sites, if not there then commission a photographer for custom work).

I don't (and won't) participate in the partner program - i.e. no Thinkstock or photos.com. My expectation is that doing so will slowly pull buyers away from the place where we get a good return on our work.

You make excellent point jsnover. I am in full agreement. Also I like make other point about production cost.
If you do stock for many years already you know how to mass production. Your workflow is perfected. You don't spend too much time to make pictures for uploading. For this, you can accept micro stock low prices.
Second observation too. For Istock I mark for partnership program because I go with Shutterstock also.
But I notice sale with Istock still mostly the higher commission and not many partnership program commission.
So, maybe it is not all the same buyer look for Thinkstock Photos.com and Istock.
This only my personal observation. Yes, I reduce production cost by streamline workflow for micro.

red

« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2010, 14:47 »
0
For all the people who opt out of subscriptions and alliances, there are many more new shooters (often with better cameras) who will take their place. So, any decisions you make as to how and where you sell your images is a personal choice you must make based on your beliefs. That being said, it won't make a hill of beans of difference in the overall microstock model. To buyers.

I recently got a job at a high volume place that cranks out newspaper circulars - the ones for hardware stores, grocery stores, farm stores - that you get in your Sunday papers or throughout the week (in the US). They use microstock for lifestyle accents such as people gardening in the background behind summer plants, a pile of firewood to go with a chain saw, a horse to go with horse feed... They have a subscription at Shutterstock and at Thinkstock (which they were thrilled to find because of the low prices). They know of no other stock agencies and don't care to because they produce tons of pages and spend no more than a few minutes at either site.

They get in, find what they want, buy about a 4-inch size shot and get out. They buy no special licenses because their Shutterstock "rep" told them they don't need to (their exact words). I suspect the circulation of these flyers is below 500,000 but they use these same images year after year. They believe that once they purchase them they own them. They make sure they use up their subscription and store images they may need in the future.

They do not care about quality, about who shot the pic, about how creative it is, how much it took to set it up, the cost of the pic, or giving anybody credit for anything. It is a part of their workflow and they do not look at photos like we do. (I color correct and clip images all day and it's amazing to find that the quality of some of the purchased images is not up to snuff.) It is merely a means to an end. If one site goes away they will find another source but it has to be quick, easy and cheap. It's just reality. It might be different for big fancy ad agencies in NYC or London, but they probably get their photos from macro, or hire for a custom shoot.

So yes, don't put your good stuff on microstock. Find a different venue, and good luck with that.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 18:23 by cuppacoffee »


« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2010, 15:39 »
0
For all the people who opt out of subscriptions and alliances, there are many more new shooters (often with better cameras) who will take their place....
I recently got a job at a high volume place that cranks out newspaper circulars ...
They have a subscription at Shutterstock and at Thinkstock (which they were thrilled to find because of the low prices)....
and good luck with that.

Interesting anecdote about your new employer's buying habits - thanks.

Change is a constant for our business - and from a buyer's perspective, particularly something like newspaper circulars, they'd be nuts to pay more than they had to.

Fortunately, they aren't the sum total of image buyers (or I'd have made no sales).

Change is coming to newspapers too - and in another decade I'd be surprised if anyone was producing all those bits of paper. Coupons won't be paper any more.
We will need to be adaptable - I'm a low priced ho, not a cheapie or free one :)

« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2010, 15:41 »
0
clip: They buy no special licenses because their Shutterstock "rep" told them they don't need to (their exact words).

I have a suspicion that this may be true at some of the other sites, especially where large clients are concerned.

Here is a story: one of my images appeared in a MAJOR magazine...circulation of over 4 million. I was ecstatic when I discovered my photo and especially happy that my name and the agency's name appeared in a credit line on the side of the page. I started thinking about how big this magazine was and that I should have gotten paid an EL for it. Since I knew specifically where the mag bought the image, I checked my list of ELs. Guess what...no EL for it. OK, now I'm annoyed. I emailed support. Two and a half weeks later, I did get paid the EL. But I started thinking about how this isn't a magazine that I subscribe to and it was happenstance that I even bought the magazine this particular month. If I would not have seen the article, I likely would have gotten a $1.00 or $2.00 sale, instead of the $36+ EL. There are thousands of mags out there just like it. There is no way for me to monitor whether correct licenses are being purchased. And to the micro's defense, I don't think there is a micro rep monitoring the customer's purchases (or is there?)

I can totally envision (and you have confirmed my suspicions cuppacoffee) a sales rep at these microstock sites bargaining with clients to get their business and one of the best ways to bargain is to do exactly what was said above. Tell your client they don't need to purchase ELs...if a contributor finds their photo and they can track that they have not received an EL, no worries. We'll gladly apologize and give them the EL. What are the chances they are going to know? In the meantime, the sales rep has gotten the client and saved them a ton of money. You know the saying, it is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.

And I don't think this is an exclusive or independent specific problem. None of us can monitor every single magazine out there.

Disclaimer: I just want to say I am not saying, in my instance, that the agency has done that and I don't have any idea if this was intentional or just an accident. I AM saying that you can believe that this is a very believable sales tactic, as cuppacoffee has related.

« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2010, 16:21 »
0
As far I expect, there will be many web-size images downloaded in future... They will take them cheap and then show them to whole world via their websites...
The question is that if prices of that images will rise or not. As far I think, there will be necessity that images are sold in original size under some 'normal' prices...
This about 19 or so cents is really under any real sense for wast majority of contributors. Just think if you are pro and how much you must invest in your equipment every year or so. Will you get that investment back or not under not certain prices thus you can expect that prices will fall  even more...

It is quite not an industry to invest in as startup for sure. But, some of us are already into it... Well, I hope we'll survive these crazy times!

« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2010, 23:26 »
0
One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html

See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... >:(


Finally I dig it up whats the catch 22
this and other portals stole some Getty images from google images.
There are lots of wanabe overpaid pompose letter creators and they need stock images
Not portals but writers e.g. search on google by images/pistures and compound it in they online story.
After that Getty black mail them to subscribe at ThinkStoka and then will not be law persuit.
Very very clever...............
So dont to be simpatic to view how BBC and Getty are licking them selfes.
So for BBC and other companies to avoid millionare judgements Gre(d)tty has solution. They must to sign up to ThingStoka.......
Cathch 22 is force up "big" houses to make contract with them.
And for all of us is big loose................

« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2010, 23:48 »
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.

« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2010, 23:53 »
0
Great, reflective comments by so many above.

I also choose to NOT opt into partner plans,etc, that publish agency, but not the contributor's name. I'm very comfortable having my images sit out that dance.

« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2010, 03:12 »
0
clip: They buy no special licenses because their Shutterstock "rep" told them they don't need to (their exact words).
Shutterstock sell far more EL's than any other site for me and twice they have taken legal action with buyers who didn't purchase an EL and they have compensated me.  Buyers don't need EL's for some uses and that was probably what the sales rep was mentioning.

I still make more with shutterstock than any other site, not using subs would reduce my earnings by at least 30%, I don't think subs are the problem, its sites like thinkstock holding back the commissions.  Hopefully they will follow istock and raise prices and commissions every year, then the gap between subs and PPD will close.  I think they will do that because it will make them more money and that seems to be their aim.  Keeping commissions this low should stop a lot of us using them and might limit their buyers.

« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2010, 05:14 »
0
In case of me, I take 25 cents any day with Shutterstock because each month my total is bigger than Istock.  But for other agency I don't think it is worth my trouble.
Other people here , you agree?
Basically yes. If you're shots are usable, you will be soon in the 33 and 36 cents range on SS anyways. Not to mention the ODs and the ELs there. If it has to be (or below) 25 cents, I'm not interested any more. Certainly not on StinkStock that has nothing to offer in my niches anyways. I can as well offer them for free on a site with added content and reap the associated Google ad rewards. I'm trying that now for my editorials/snapshots, along with some textual content, and it looks good. This requires an integral approach in which stock only plays a part.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 05:27 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2010, 06:00 »
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?

« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2010, 06:07 »
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?

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.


« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2010, 06:35 »
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.

Maybe you threat photography as a hobby, maybe someone don't, that isn't matter...
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...
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 06:38 by borg »

« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2010, 12:07 »
0
Consider this photo of red wine could have been bought XSmall at Istock, and paid as low as $0.16 to the contributor...  ::)

« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2010, 12:30 »
0
This isn't my photo, maybe this photo isn't so professional, never mind, but on Microstock is a lot of pro photos for a few cents...
But hope is here, OD, Veetta, etc.  ;)

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 »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #75 on: June 11, 2010, 22:42 »
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.

I think some sites are changing toward more compelling pricing. Fotolia has tiered pricing. Istock has E+ and Vetta. It's a move in the right direction but is still RF.

Microstock started out as community snapshots from ametuers. Now it has a reasonable percentage of professional quality images. Prices and compensation need to reflect that. Maybe macro was too expensive to support the buyer market but micro is too cheap to support contributors. We need to reach a happy median and I think we're slowly getting there. But a magazine cover with a $25 RF micro image isn't quite there yet. I think one of the agencies will eventually introduce a simplfied Micro RM license and I'd bet Getty will push Istock into some type of model like that at some point.



 

« Reply #76 on: June 12, 2010, 11:05 »
0
Interesting take on it Paulie. It makes you wonder if the future holds more tiers and levels for images.


« Reply #77 on: June 12, 2010, 12:27 »
0
http://www.stockphotorights.com/forum/

Maybe that forum can be right place for our complaints.
Someone who is native speaker of English language could open the topic and explain all this also there...

« Reply #78 on: June 12, 2010, 14:16 »
0
I think some sites are changing toward more compelling pricing. Fotolia has tiered pricing. Istock has E+ and Vetta. It's a move in the right direction but is still RF.
Microstock started out as community snapshots from ametuers. Now it has a reasonable percentage of professional quality images. Prices and compensation need to reflect that. Maybe macro was too expensive to support the buyer market but micro is too cheap to support contributors. We need to reach a happy median and I think we're slowly getting there. But a magazine cover with a $25 RF micro image isn't quite there yet. I think one of the agencies will eventually introduce a simplfied Micro RM license and I'd bet Getty will push Istock into some type of model like that at some point. 

I agree with this 100%.

PS:
Hey Paulie, nothing personal, but I like more your old profile photo, it is just more appealing for me.

« Reply #79 on: June 12, 2010, 20:22 »
0
Yes, I think everyone is not happy with 25 cents . Already I talk to three friends long time in microstock and they stop caring for making new contribution . It is not fair to photographer with inventory and expenses to take 25 cents.
But who will start give better deal? PaulieWalnuts say already some agencies listening to contributors feeling and trying to make a compromise .
But I am not sure if agencies want to do this, because if you me and many old friends quit microstock, new amateurs from country with low standard living will replace you me and friends who quit.
It's a problem , I think. A big one.

« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2010, 21:24 »
0
Those who happily embraced the very low prices, especially subs, are culprits of the current situation. Since the beginning of microstock, images were too cheap for the broad usage terms provided, but people were excited by making money out of their "amateur" photos.

« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2010, 22:32 »
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.

Raising Hand

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2010, 22:47 »
0
But I am not sure if agencies want to do this, because if you me and many old friends quit microstock, new amateurs from country with low standard living will replace you me and friends who quit.It's a problem , I think. A big one.

If good contributors stop submitting saleable images what would happen? Yes, there would probably be plenty of new people to take their place. But what kind of people? I'm guessing the majority would be novices with point-and-shoots submitting brick walls and flowers. If word gets around that micro is a waste of time for advanced ametuers and pros micro agencies would eventually end up with a lot of outdated unsaleable garbage. Then they would do the only thing they know how to do - discount and reduce prices which would lead to a self implosion of micro.

This is why something needs to happen with increasing pricing or introduce some type of new usage-based license. Buyers now have access to professional macro quality images at a small fraction of the macro cost.

All microstock sites have varying degrees of quality. Why should buyers pay $1 for a brick wall taken by a novice with a 2MP pocket camera versus a conference room full of business models taken by an advanced-ametuer/pro with a 24MP Nikon D3X? And why should they get to stockpile images for almost unlimited usage?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4816 Views
Last post July 20, 2017, 12:53
by MircoV
2 Replies
4241 Views
Last post July 21, 2011, 18:03
by stockastic
7 Replies
3024 Views
Last post December 15, 2013, 23:53
by cascoly
6 Replies
2577 Views
Last post February 13, 2014, 10:10
by Newsfocus1
5 Replies
1702 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