MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What are the Best Macro Rights Managed Sites to Try?  (Read 24833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« on: November 07, 2015, 12:23 »
+3
Hello microstockers,

Now that SS is giving our work away for free, I'm willing to try macro or rights managed websites. Are there any that are really good? I found Corbis and am ready to submit my application.
What are your personal thoughts? I really appreciate it. Thanks guys!


« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2015, 12:45 »
0
Getty Images, but only 20% of royalties.

« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2015, 13:06 »
+1
The best are the aggregates, Blend, Image Source etc.

« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2015, 13:12 »
+5
I can't offer suggestions, but would direct you to reports of Corbis' recent financial troubles and layoffs. I wouldn't expect much from becoming a contributor there

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-04/corbis-said-cutting-about-15-of-workers-amid-photo-price-war

And current & former employees' veiws

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Corbis-Reviews-E4109.htm

« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2015, 13:37 »
+5
The best are the aggregates, Blend, Image Source etc.

I have around a thousand images through two of the biggest aggregates and my RPI is higher on the lower quality images I have in microstock. Pretty sad.

Hongover

« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2015, 14:16 »
0
There are a few, but Corbis and Getty is struggling.

It may seem like SS is giving away images for free, but we must understand that it's not SS that determines the market...it's the buyers. And the buyers are disagreeing with the macro stock business model.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2015, 15:03 »
+21
There are a few, but Corbis and Getty is struggling.

It may seem like SS is giving away images for free, but we must understand that it's not SS that determines the market...it's the buyers. And the buyers are disagreeing with the macro stock business model.

It's not just the buyers that determine the market. By submitting our images to the various distributors we are helping to set the market price. If nobody submitted to micro then the buyers would have no choice but to pay whatever the price is. If the price was too high there would be no buyers. Somewhere in between is the happy spot where buyers wont pay more and sellers wont take less. Our distributors keep dropping prices so why wouldn't buyers take advantage of that?

At one point we were happy to pay $5 to rent a movie from a local video store. We were then offered stuff like Redbox rentals for a dollar. We were then offered stuff like Netflix all you can watch for $8 a month. Who in their right mind would still pay $5 to a local video store? Nobody which is why they no longer exist.

Buyers are disagreeing with macro because they now have the Netflix of photography being offered to them. And the only reason the Netflix of photography exists is because we support them. So, you, me, and everyone else here in microstockland are responsible for the current market.


« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2015, 15:11 »
+7
It may seem like SS is giving away images for free, but we must understand that it's not SS that determines the market...it's the buyers. And the buyers are disagreeing with the macro stock business model.

Why wouldn't they disagree with the macro model? They're being offered a product for a few dollars that they were (at one time at least) willing to pay hundreds for.

The microstock model has a place in the market as there are a ton of graphic designers and small businesses that need images at a low price. In my opinion, however, they should get what they pay for. Micro buyers should be getting simple images and elements at these prices. Not ones taken with thousands of dollars of professional gear and worked on for hours in post processing. If they want high production value images and advertising concepts they should have to pay more. These are the images that shouldn't be found in micro. Unfortunately, we have all bent over backwards to create these images and sell them for a few bucks through micro.

« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2015, 15:37 »
+1
So, you, me, and everyone else here in microstockland are responsible for the current market.

That's a very good analysis, Paulie, and a correct conclusion quoted above.

The question is now that we're in this pickle, what do we do about it? Some of us tried hard with the Symbiostock model, and we know how that turned out. A few of us (like you) are successful selling directly through our own websites, but most of us (like me) don't make enough that way to cover the site-operation costs.

What other options do we have at this point?

« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2015, 15:54 »
+2
Who in their right mind would still pay $5 to a local video store? Nobody which is why they no longer exist.


Off topic: I still rent from the video guy down the street. He's the last shop of it's kind in my area and he will close his doors once the lease is up. But still, it's a much nicer experience to go to this guys store. You get out of the house, talk to some people and support an independent businessman. It's good for the world and for me.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2015, 18:54 »
+1
So, you, me, and everyone else here in microstockland are responsible for the current market.

That's a very good analysis, Paulie, and a correct conclusion quoted above.

The question is now that we're in this pickle, what do we do about it? Some of us tried hard with the Symbiostock model, and we know how that turned out. A few of us (like you) are successful selling directly through our own websites, but most of us (like me) don't make enough that way to cover the site-operation costs.

What other options do we have at this point?

Now what? Well you can wait for the crash where the majority of people abandon microstock and due to lack of supply prices rise. I think we're a long way off from that. Or you can wait for more sites like Stocksy or 500px to come along and pull prices upward. Also a long way off. Or you can figure out what you're not doing right with your own direct selling and fix it.

Regarding selling direct, Symbiostock isn't part of the problem. Neither are most of the other stock software or websites. I see a lot of people blaming the software. It's rarely the software. I also have a Photoshelter website which in my opinion isn't very user friendly and I just got a $250 RM license sale. It's the strategy behind the direct selling model that matters most.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2015, 19:00 »
+3
Who in their right mind would still pay $5 to a local video store? Nobody which is why they no longer exist.


Off topic: I still rent from the video guy down the street. He's the last shop of it's kind in my area and he will close his doors once the lease is up. But still, it's a much nicer experience to go to this guys store. You get out of the house, talk to some people and support an independent businessman. It's good for the world and for me.

I'd agree. I live in a small town. We still have independent small businesses. Unfortunately they're slowly being replaced by the same franchise businesses you see in every town across the United States. Uniqueness is going away and nobody seems to care. People flock to the new Whatever Bread Company and avoid the independent sandwich shop that has better food. It's just brand marketing and people flock to it like bugs to zapper lights.

« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2015, 20:39 »
0
I also have a Photoshelter website which in my opinion isn't very user friendly and I just got a $250 RM license sale. It's the strategy behind the direct selling model that matters most.


Was that sale a direct result of your own promotion or a sale that came through their "Lattice" site (http://www.photoshelter.com/lattice/search/)?

« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2015, 21:17 »
+3
Photoshelter could be more user friendly but I have buyers willing to contact me directly, pay me via PayPal and I email them a file or a download link.  I've made more this year selling stock direct than from all the sites I'm on combined. I've also earned much more from Alamy this year than in the past and a bit from other small traditionally-priced agencies. My microstock income has increased too, but I think that direct licensing and traditionally priced agencies are the way to go.

Small boutique agencies are probably best. I'm with Alamy but their RPI isn't great.

I'd work on getting into places like Stocksy, Trevallion, and places like that. I'd also suggest licensing traditionally-priced images on your own. I'm happy with Photoshelter, despite any shortcomings in their customer interface, they bring in high-end editorial clients, I've licensed images to Smithsonian Magazine, Coastal Living, and many other advertisers and magazines who were searching Photoshelter and found my work, my images there are also found through google searches. 

I'd also suggest getting Photographer's Market - a good way to find direct clients to license your work to - and of course for assignments which pay better than stock, if that interests you.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2015, 21:21 by wordplanet »

« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2015, 22:30 »
0
getty and corbis for sure
the aggregates that subit to them and others are great too

one way or another you need to be on getty imo for macro weather its direct or though an aggregrate

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2015, 22:59 »
0
Thank you all for the input! I appreciate it so much. I feel like I'm floating around since the SS watermark came out with no place to land...

It looks like Alamy provides a big file size as well when "right-clicking>View Image".

FYI, I really love the small town video stores but don't have any time to watch movies anymore ... I miss those Blockbuster days for sure!
« Last Edit: November 07, 2015, 23:13 by angelawaye »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2015, 23:54 »
+2
Moving back on topic a bit...

My only macro experience is with Alamy and Getty.

Alamy so far I'm on the fence about. I got four images accepted a couple months ago and just had a $100 sale. But they just rejected a submission of a few hundred images and gave me a timeout for a month from submitting which I think is pretty lame. From what I've seen most people say they earn $1 per image year with them. So if I had 5,000 images I'd expect $5,000 in a year. Not real good. And with this goofy one-bad-image-everything-gets-rejected model I'm leaning toward pass. I just did another smaller submission and if they fail it again I'm probably done.

Getty is kind of difficult to give an opinion on for me because I never really fully committed to them. I hear some people there make big bucks while others make micro money. My experience was a little of both. One thing to note is once you submit images there about the only way to deactivate any of them is to cancel your contract. So Getty still seems to be the macro leader and you'd probably need to try them to see if it's right for you.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2015, 23:58 by PaulieWalnuts »


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2015, 23:56 »
0
I also have a Photoshelter website which in my opinion isn't very user friendly and I just got a $250 RM license sale. It's the strategy behind the direct selling model that matters most.


Was that sale a direct result of your own promotion or a sale that came through their "Lattice" site (http://www.photoshelter.com/lattice/search/)?


Hard to say because I don't know if Photoshelter shows the source of a sale. I'd say it was probably from my own promotional efforts.

Millionstock.com

  • Architecture; Arts; Historic buildings, Landscapes

« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2015, 04:03 »
0
I would try for sure Alamy!
Have a nice day :-)

« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2015, 04:48 »
0
Moving back on topic a bit...

My only macro experience is with Alamy and Getty.

Alamy so far I'm on the fence about. I got four images accepted a couple months ago and just had a $100 sale. But they just rejected a submission of a few hundred images and gave me a timeout for a month from submitting which I think is pretty lame. From what I've seen most people say they earn $1 per image year with them. So if I had 5,000 images I'd expect $5,000 in a year. Not real good. And with this goofy one-bad-image-everything-gets-rejected model I'm leaning toward pass. I just did another smaller submission and if they fail it again I'm probably done.

Getty is kind of difficult to give an opinion on for me because I never really fully committed to them. I hear some people there make big bucks while others make micro money. My experience was a little of both. One thing to note is once you submit images there about the only way to deactivate any of them is to cancel your contract. So Getty still seems to be the macro leader and you'd probably need to try them to see if it's right for you.
Alamy are very lenient with reviews.  I've had 1 rejection in around 2,500 images.  Maybe they check new contributors more thoroughly, I did small batches at first because getting them all rejected for 1 image not being accepted would be annoying.

« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2015, 11:39 »
+1
But they just rejected a submission of a few hundred images and gave me a timeout for a month from submitting which I think is pretty lame. From what
More than pretty lame. Alamy must have hired the photo curator from Pond5.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2015, 11:46 »
+1
But they just rejected a submission of a few hundred images and gave me a timeout for a month from submitting which I think is pretty lame. From what
More than pretty lame. Alamy must have hired the photo curator from Pond5.
Although it's daft, it is their officially-stated policy.
However, their managing images system is such a PITA that having any more than a dozen files waiting to be managed would be like a black cloud hanging over me, so now I drip up really small numbers at a time anyway.

« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2015, 12:19 »
0
What's the deal with Getty Images? Can anybody contribute? What are they looking for? Thanks!

« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2015, 12:35 »
+1
But they just rejected a submission of a few hundred images and gave me a timeout for a month from submitting which I think is pretty lame. From what
More than pretty lame. Alamy must have hired the photo curator from Pond5.
Although it's daft, it is their officially-stated policy.
However, their managing images system is such a PITA that having any more than a dozen files waiting to be managed would be like a black cloud hanging over me, so now I drip up really small numbers at a time anyway.
I've got something like 11,000 images on Alamy so understand their process. I just don't understand the "why" of the process. I've had the pleasure of looking at some of Paulie's work and I don't see someone who is at all careless. If he is getting rejections, then the process is broken and flawed.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2015, 13:10 »
0
Human/computer error are always possible.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
5073 Views
Last post August 10, 2010, 06:05
by ShadySue
41 Replies
15911 Views
Last post January 29, 2011, 04:05
by BaldricksTrousers
18 Replies
5730 Views
Last post April 20, 2012, 07:34
by sgoodwin4813
4 Replies
1372 Views
Last post January 01, 2020, 13:13
by HughStoneIan
1 Replies
2903 Views
Last post January 14, 2021, 19:35
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle