pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: time for stock to be unionised?  (Read 3745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 01, 2006, 04:18 »
0
is anyone else peeved at the huge percentages some ms sites take, I mean 80%!!! For acting as a non exclusive agent this is ridiculous. I figure I've easily paid a full time member of staff's wages at IS this year. There's no way it can be argued that anything like that much per photographer is necessary for review times, server space and advertising. The only reason sites can get away with it is because of the huge numbers of contributors each acting as individuals. Also, if it were possible for enough photogs to act as a unit, something could be done about the ever lower pricing per photo sale.  Isn't it time we got unionised!!


« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2006, 07:50 »
0
I whole-heartedly agree.

There is no reason that an agency should take 80% of the profits.

Here are some ideas to get you started:

1. I believe that you would need to gather a consortium of submitters with large portfolios to make a difference.  If you could get a few dozen members with over 1000 images that would be a good start.

Once some of the larger submitters joined, many smaller submitters would fall in line and join.

2. The consortium would need to wield their power against smaller agencies first.  This would strike fear into the hearts of the larger agencies.  You don't want to pick on an agency that is too small, because you might put it out of business.  But you also don't want to start on a large agency, because if your first attempt fails, then people might disband.

For example, I would start with Fotolia first.  They have some of the worst royalties in the business.  Not only is the royalty percentage low (@ 33%), but their average payouts are small as well.  For me, they average 0.49/image (if you don't include Extended License sales).

Their Extended Licenses are also among the lowest in the business ($6.60), and there are no limits to their licenses (i.e., they allow unlimited runs).

3. IMO, the best way to "strike" would be to stop uploading for a while (such as a month).  This would drop sales at the agency, since many buyers sort by Newest Images.  The drop in sales would gain the attention of the agencies real fast.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.  Any feedback is welcome...

« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2006, 09:00 »
0
The marketing guys at microstock sites are * in loads of photos from people who'd never sold their photos before (me included). People like iStockphoto really push to get lots of people on their site (fair enough that they want to do this) with this huge supply they can get away with giving people very little %

what can be done about it - do some publicity for the sites that give better %. Education that's the only way.

 

« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2006, 09:14 »
0
Unfortunately I dont think it would make a difference.  Even if you got the big names to join, why would anyone else?  Remove the big names and it will be more downloads for me?

Unionism really only works on an all or nothing basis. (ie when unions strike, they normally try to stop other non union members from going to work)

« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2006, 09:19 »
0
Nice thought, but not a chance of pulling it off. Every photographer is an independant contractor. The guys with all the downloads may bitch "as one" but they wouldn't be willing to "go on strike" (ie take their photos down). If photographers were really that upset about it they would only upload to sites that have larger royalites. The fact that IStock is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, and yet has the lowest royalty percentage shows the actual amount of concern photographers have.

« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2006, 09:23 »
0
i think this same discussion went on when people started submitting to the micros as apposed to the macros.

And went on even earlier when royalty free images came about as apposed to rights managed.

« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2006, 10:02 »
0
start you own stock site

« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2006, 10:23 »
0
Yes...of course you could always just start your own stock site.....Start with the 'technical' costs...servers etc, then realise the administration alone would mean you'd have to hire employees. To compete at all you'd have to market your site, both to clients and submitters. Ok, so now you have at least ten employees,office rent,computer and server costs...
You see where this is going? You could always of course just have a small site...But then the income would be...hmmm...about as much as you'd make from the existant micros.
The BEST model for any photog,once they have sufficient catalog, is to simply have their own site, for their own work, and directly market themselves to design firms et al. Of course this would take a lot of your time and effort,and you won't be spending as much time shooting.

« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2006, 10:36 »
0
The BEST model for any photog,once they have sufficient catalog, is to simply have their own site, for their own work, and directly market themselves to design firms et al. Of course this would take a lot of your time and effort,and you won't be spending as much time shooting.
  Are there any sites that do this (ie. hosting) and just charge a transaction fee (smugmug??).  Does anyone do this.  Do you get many hits?

« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2006, 11:06 »
0
It won't matter squat. iStock depends heavily and bases their model upon the exclusive photographers. In fact in the last year alone the share of exclusive photographer photos on the site risen twofold. They have higher upload limits (MUCH higher) get priority reviews, free business cards and most importantly to them: get commissions in order of 25-40% vs the 20% that everyone else gets. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that any of the key photogs on iStock (and there is a lot of them: LiseGagne, Hidesy, Abu, Aldra, Mammamart, sx70...) would support this as they get a fairer share of profits. And none of our action will matter squat.

All Top 10 on iStock are exclusives and only 8 of all Diamond (> 25,000 sales) photogs are NON-exlusives. So I'm afraid this action is as futile as spitting at the sun to put it out.

« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2006, 11:11 »
0
This depends on you having a marketable name. Honestly, no microstock photographers in existance today have a name that can stand on it's own. No one out there is Anzel Adams. I guarantee you that even Lise Gagne or Andresr or Abu or PhotoEuphoria would starve to death if they were dependent on their own sales (be it at a much higher prices and a 100% profit to the photog). I have a well functioning site and I had a purchase function built in. I got in the range of 100 visits a day, some of them from designers and I roughly 1-2 sales per week generated from the website. I gave up on that and instead ref-linked my entired portfolio to a microstock agency (one that pays the highest commission to me). Suddenly I have about 5 sales per week generated (based on the affiliate info, since I not only get the commission but also affiliate commission now).

The BEST model for any photog,once they have sufficient catalog, is to simply have their own site, for their own work, and directly market themselves to design firms et al. Of course this would take a lot of your time and effort,and you won't be spending as much time shooting.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
15110 Views
Last post March 05, 2007, 17:20
by madelaide
0 Replies
3583 Views
Last post June 19, 2007, 14:01
by scrappinstacy
16 Replies
10073 Views
Last post March 04, 2008, 11:14
by graficallyminded
10 Replies
5078 Views
Last post November 25, 2013, 00:59
by Me
24 Replies
8001 Views
Last post April 06, 2015, 00:33
by enstoker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors