MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: tickstock on August 21, 2014, 13:17
-
The title of the thread says it all, please only post if you have something constructive to say.
-
To many photos online. To many agencies (destructing competition)...
Not enough clients who need our images (ready to pay quite serious price).
what sollutions ...
Good question.
-
This topic is already discussed here with many good ideas:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dear-stock-agencies-time-for-you-to-take-control/msg391385/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dear-stock-agencies-time-for-you-to-take-control/msg391385/?topicseen#new)
-
1- never beat a horse after it is dead
2- a dead goose no longer lays golden eggs
this, after many pages of officials looking the other way or as someone calls it recurring "shenanigan"
as goofy says, you will be disappointed.
but since you believe in miraculous ressurection,
1- have officials come in to admit they were wrong
2- have officials come in to admit they were in denial
3- have officials...
.....oh , never mind!!!... barn down left open too long... live-stock all gone :D
-
okay, believing that we can go back to the 'Good Old Days' knowing it will never happen. We have to accept what is as what is and deal with it.
Yes, can educate the buyers and some of the Microstock companies but as a whole we cannot stop this train. The train has left the station so we either jump on it or just walk away -at least that choice is ours to make 8)
-
I'd like to see the minimum prices and minimum royalty rates raised across the board. I'm fairly happy with the upper end of the market right now, but the bottom of the market feels like it's got a leak.
-
Whatever the product - if the producer has no control over prices, and there's no relationship between cost of production and the selling price - it can't work. At least not for a lot of producers. That's what's happened to these agencies, and the ultimate result will be the absence of any new, high quality photos that take time or money to produce, but which won't sell in high volume.
Apparently that's what SS, IS and the others have decided they want. I've walked away and stopped thinking about it except for occasional visits to this forum. Maybe in time some new channel will come along and stock photography could make sense again. But it won't be these agencies, they're prisoners of their current business models.
-
I'd like to see the minimum prices and minimum royalty rates raised across the board. I'm fairly happy with the upper end of the market right now, but the bottom of the market feels like it's got a leak.
Got a leak? That's what they said about the titanic! :-\
-
Subs.
-
Whatever the product - if the producer has no control over prices, and there's no relationship between cost of production and the selling price - it can't work. At least not for a lot of producers.
I've never understood why an apple on white should cost the same as an elaborate fashion shoot. I do understand, however, why agencies don't care. They're not putting in the effort or the money to make those pics, so it's all the same to them.
-
1) Barriers to entry are too low. If you don't have an online portfolio of 500-1000 images available to be glanced over (not necessarily acceptable to the agency), then your application for submission to any stock agency should be automatically rejected.
2) Images should demand higher prices no matter what volume they are sold in
3) There are too many inter-agency agreements. Agencies should be limited to licensing the images they represent. They should not be able to send our images to any other agency they want so they can sit back and let the other agency do the sales work allowing them to reap 80% of 50%.
4) Agencies should stick to what they know (I respect Stocksy for this even though I don't contribute there). If you're a stock agency, then license stock. If you're a news agency, then license news. Don't mix and match....do what you're good at and known for.
-
1) Barriers to entry are too low. If you don't have an online portfolio of 500-1000 images available to be glanced over (not necessarily acceptable to the agency), then your application for submission to any stock agency should be automatically rejected.
Uhh...no. Any stock agency? The nice--but too old-fashioned for today's publishing world--book cover RM agencies [ETA:like Arcangel or Trevillion] only require about 10-40 images, because those images take more artistry and effort. I think 40 images is too high because it makes the initial investment too much for illustrators. What about them?
It's not all about street snaps and stuff on white.
-
3) There are too many inter-agency agreements. Agencies should be limited to licensing the images they represent. They should not be able to send our images to any other agency they want so they can sit back and let the other agency do the sales work allowing them to reap 80% of 50%.
+1
but what is more complicated than a 3rd party is where an individual (not another agency, but just some body) can start a site by linking to portfolios of yours and mine and suddenly, he is an àffliate... treated like a 3rd party site.
to me, that`s scary.
-
1) Barriers to entry are too low. If you don't have an online portfolio of 500-1000 images available to be glanced over (not necessarily acceptable to the agency), then your application for submission to any stock agency should be automatically rejected.
Uhh...no. Any stock agency? The nice--but too old-fashioned for today's publishing world--book cover RM agencies only require about 10-40 images, because those images take more artistry and effort. I think 40 images is too high because it makes the initial investment too much for illustrators. What about them?
It's not all about street snaps and stuff on white.
Here's the thing...if you have a portfolio of 500-1000 images and they are all street snaps then the agency can easily judge what they are going to get. If a person doesn't have a portfolio of that size, an agency can quickly determine the experience of the photographer and that photographer's seriousness of being a professional.
I disagree this is too old fashioned for today's publishing world. Have you ever tried to apply for Corbis? "how many images comprise your collection" is a question on the application form. There's a reason for that....and they have no problem sending you to Veer if you submit to the micros.
I am not an illustrator....see point #4
-
This topic is already discussed here with many good ideas:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dear-stock-agencies-time-for-you-to-take-control/msg391385/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dear-stock-agencies-time-for-you-to-take-control/msg391385/?topicseen#new[/url])
I think there are other issues besides agencies not offering premium and non-premium content at different price points.
-
Seems everyone so far thinks it's up to the agencies to change on their own. I don't see that happening. I think it's up to contributors to force a change if we want a different situation.
-
I think the biggest problem is that we contributors can't agree on anything. Even something as clear as DPC turns out to not be all that clear. If we can't decide we have more in common than we dissagree on will never get any agencies to do anything to change our situation for the better.
-
I think the biggest problem is that we contributors can agree on anything. Even something as clear as DPC turns out to not be all that clear. If we can't decide we have more in common than we dissagree on will never get any agencies to do anything to change our situation for the better.
I don't think everyone needs to agree for an action or decision to be meaningful. DPC did change because of contributor action.
-
True. But overall we could be much more effective if we could stop bickering over small inconsequential things.
-
True. But overall we could be much more effective if we could stop bickering over small inconsequential things.
Agreed.
-
Here's the thing...if you have a portfolio of 500-1000 images and they are all street snaps then the agency can easily judge what they are going to get. If a person doesn't have a portfolio of that size, an agency can quickly determine the experience of the photographer and that photographer's seriousness of being a professional.
(http://www.arcangel.com//cache/pcache2/00395384.jpg)
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?
This image is from Arcangel. Arcangel Images, Trevillion, Red Edge, and Demurez Cover Arts are agencies that cater to publishers. Book publishers. They're old fashioned because the old RM method of negotiating price based on region, print-run, and duration doesn't work for the legions of self-publishers out there. Instead of creating special collections to cater to this exploding market, these agencies are leaving money on the table while the authors go to Shutterstock or the DPC. It's stupid.
ETA: Seriously. Look at this forum thread to see Demurez Cover Arts turn off a bunch of potential buyers.
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,139244.msg2038169.html (http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,139244.msg2038169.html)
Some choice quotes:
"I registered, and still can't see prices."
"They have some nice art, but rights managed stuff seems to be lingering in the 20th century with poor terms for digital publication"
"Yeah, the rights and pricing issues are making this not look as exciting any more. It would be great to see a site like this for cover specific stock that had more realistic rights and pricing."
-
Subs.
I agree subs are a huge problem in the industry. But what do you see as a solution to the problem?
-
Concentrate on one or two agencies.
Come up with a very short list of concrete, realistic, reasonable suggestions that can be negotiated.
Get several big players on board.
Appoint somone(s) who can attend meetings at the main corporate office if needed.
Then, start an online petition and get as many contributors and, if you can, buyers to sign it. (Yes, there are buyers who like to see people paid a fair wage.)
When you have thousands of signatures, you'll have some bargaining power.
Don't kill the golden goose. There's a reason the big agencies are successful. They spend a lot on marketing. That's what brings in buyers. They need to keep doing that to keep selling our work.
-
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?
I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
-
Concentrate on one or two agencies.
Come up with a very short list of concrete, realistic, reasonable suggestions that can be negotiated.
Get several big players on board.
Appoint somone(s) who can attend meetings at the main corporate office if needed.
Then, start an online petition and get as many contributors and, if you can, buyers to sign it. (Yes, there are buyers who like to see people paid a fair wage.)
When you have thousands of signatures, you'll have some bargaining power.
Don't kill the golden goose. There's a reason the big agencies are successful. They spend a lot on marketing. That's what brings in buyers. They need to keep doing that to keep selling our work.
That's a good answer, not sure I agree completely though. I guess it depends on the demands.
-
I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
Isn't lowering the entry-barrier how microstock started? Cheaper pictures because istock utilized decently-talented amateurs? Any agency with a strangely-high barrier to entry risks being undercut by an agency with a lower barrier and similar quality images. Again, similar quality. Different quality should be a different market.
Also, you used the term "microstock" when Ed suggested *all* agencies. My whole point is that there are lots of different kinds of images, agencies, and picture-buying markets out there. A blanket statement like Ed's is strange.
-
So you are asking for specific problems and only want constructive responses? It's kind of a contradiction?
I will try with this. Aside from all the search, agencies, reviews, back door deals, agency subterfuge, lack of meaningful communications, in a few cases outright threatening contributors, and the usual. I would point out one major problem with Microstcok, that I don't understand and don't understand why people have accepted it from the start. In other words, a tacit approval and tolerance by artists, has allowed this to become the standard of the industry and that's why we don't get fair pay for fair work... it's why some agencies have become downright abusive, because some people are apparently so desperate that they can't quit or stand up for fair pay.
Here's the problem. 20% pay and lower, while the agency takes 80%. That's backwards. Even high price agents take 20%. Some auction houses will take 30% but don't charge a buyers premium. What does that have to do with Micro?
If the agencies gave a fair commission, most of the rest of the problems, would be tolerable and livable. If people got paid for their work, it would be much nicer to have agencies, ignore questions and issues.
So that's the problem. Not "PAY" but commission rates for work. The 20% and in many cases less is slave labor. And since you asked, the answer is 50% commissions for artists, or more.
Which makes me ask, why hasn't some agency come into the market at 50% and just slaughtered the rest, because everyone who can produce anything would be banging on their door, begging to get in! The agency could have tough standards and reviews and it would still be buried with submissions, from now on. Buyers would know that only the best of the best is licensed and the artists get a fair percentage.
Best of all, it would start to force other agencies to pay better, or leave the market, which would solve two other problems. Price cutting and too many agencies. All selling the same images, trying to win the race to the bottom!
So there's my problem and the solution is someone in control, break out and give artists 50%, which will turn the entire Microstock World on it's head.
Everyone wins, except the parasites and bottom feeder agencies.
The title of the thread says it all, please only post if you have something constructive to say.
-
It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.
DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?
Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better... ::)
DPC did change because of contributor action.
-
Which makes me ask, why hasn't some agency come into the market at 50%
There have been, like Pond5, but they're full of the same images as the big microstock sites, so there really isn't much of a reason for customers to leave their pre-existing accounts, subscriptions, and credit packs.
I don't understand why people upload the same images to Alamy, 500px, or Pond5 as they do to DepositPhotos.
-
the problem is very simple :
the Sales vs Supply ratio is totally unbalanced !
the number of images on sale should be limited to the number of images sold, for instance 1000 images per each sale they make per month ... 1 million sales --> 100 millions images on archive.
instead now their archive will grow and grow limitless until they reach billions of images like Flickr !
and of course nobody will make a dime, even people having 50K or 100K images will scratch the bottom of the barrel.
by the way, considering this is the obvious outcome sooner or later, what's the point for agencies of doing QC at all and wasting time and money ?
and on top of this, what's the point for us uploading new stuff when we know they'll never sell due to oversupply and saturation ?
and this not to mention the keyword spamming and piracy.
-
It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.
DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?
Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better... ::)
DPC did change because of contributor action.
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
-
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?
I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
EXACTLY!!!!
How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image? Just 1? 100? 500?
Do you see my point? The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images.
Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside. That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero. It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
-
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?
I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
EXACTLY!!!!
How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image? Just 1? 100? 500?
Do you see my point? The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images.
Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside. That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero. It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
I don't think change will come from agencies limiting new contributors, at this point there really is no incentive to do that. Agencies are trying to get the largest number of images for a variety of reasons. Waiting for them to change their mind doesn't seem like real solution.
-
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?
I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
EXACTLY!!!!
How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image? Just 1? 100? 500?
Do you see my point? The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images.
Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside. That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero. It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
I don't think change will come from agencies limiting new contributors, at this point there really is no incentive to do that. Agencies are trying to get the largest number of images for a variety of reasons. Waiting for them to change their mind doesn't seem like real solution.
There is something to be said for new agencies trying it. Stocksy and Clipartof seem like they have had success with a similar strategy.
-
How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?
-
How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?
Depends on the problem we're talking about.
A solution to oversupply could be something like Stocksy.
A solution to subs could be for contributors to join together and only supply sites that don't have subs or sites that have better pricing for subs. A petition with the threat of taking down images or stopping uploading unless royalties are raised is another possibility.
A solution to general problems could be a union.
A solution for some problems like the DPC deal for example could be to compile an email list to alert contributors of the change. Some of these deals and programs are probably unknown to a majority of contributors.
There are lots of possibilities but one that I do not think will get us anywhere is waiting for agencies to have a change of heart on their own.
-
You really think that someone who creates images like this should really wait until he/she amasses 500-1000 until he/she even thinks about applying to any stock agency?
I guess it depends on how you work. Like anybody else, one off images take about as much time as creating a series. The more elements you create over time, the easier it is to composite together new images without much altering. If an agency takes on a more representative role, then I think it is fair for them to inquire about your productivity. I suppose the point is moot though, since I don't see most micros moving in that direction and away from crowdsourcing.
EXACTLY!!!!
How many images did it take through experimentation to create that one image? Just 1? 100? 500?
Do you see my point? The bigger the portfolio, the more the person has experience creating images.
Anyone can go into a burning home and attempt to rescue someone stuck inside. That doesn't make that person a firefighter....or a hero. It makes that person an idiot getting into to something they know very little about.
I don't think change will come from agencies limiting new contributors, at this point there really is no incentive to do that. Agencies are trying to get the largest number of images for a variety of reasons. Waiting for them to change their mind doesn't seem like real solution.
There is something to be said for new agencies trying it. Stocksy and Clipartof seem like they have had success with a similar strategy.
Is clipartof an exclusive only agency? I think in order to control supply it would need to be.
-
How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?
Depends on the problem we're talking about.
A solution to oversupply could be something like Stocksy.
A solution to subs could be for contributors to join together and only supply sites that don't have subs or sites that have better pricing for subs. A petition with the threat of taking down images or stopping uploading unless royalties are raised is another possibility.
A solution to general problems could be a union.
A solution for some problems like the DPC deal for example could be to compile an email list to alert contributors of the change. Some of these deals and programs are probably unknown to a majority of contributors.
There are lots of possibilities but one that I do not think will get us anywhere is waiting for agencies to have a change of heart on their own.
Well, Stocksy already exists. For the few who can get in, that's a good thing. For the rest of us, not so much. Same with Creative Market for illustrators.
On subs I disagree with you, because subs opened up a new market for sellers, targeting people who couldn't afford stock images previously. And for many of us subs make up a substantial portion of our income. If you don't want your images sold as subs, then absolutely don't upload to the agencies who offer them. But for many of us that's not an option right now. Asking for a royalties raise, absolutely, yes.
A union's a good idea, but not sure how that would work with an international membership.
Compiling an email list for actions against things like DPC, yes.
Overall, I think "supporting" "good agencies" (those who offer a better royalty rate) probably won't work, because the largest agencies are the best at marketing, and no amount of images or support from contributors will make an agency better at marketing. That has to come from within the corporate structure.
Starving agencies of images may or may not work. One place in particular has 66,000 contributors...it would take an awful lot of people to starve them of anything. But for a nasty startup like DPC, that can absolutely work.
-
Well, Stocksy already exists. For the few who can get in, that's a good thing. For the rest of us, not so much. Same with Creative Market for illustrators.
On subs I disagree with you, because subs opened up a new market for sellers, targeting people who couldn't afford stock images previously. And for many of us subs make up a substantial portion of our income. If you don't want your images sold as subs, then absolutely don't upload to the agencies who offer them. But for many of us that's not an option right now. Asking for a royalties raise, absolutely, yes.
A union's a good idea, but not sure how that would work with an international membership.
Compiling an email list for actions against things like DPC, yes.
Overall, I think "supporting" "good agencies" (those who offer a better royalty rate) probably won't work, because the largest agencies are the best at marketing, and no amount of images or support from contributors will make an agency better at marketing. That has to come from within the corporate structure.
Starving agencies of images may or may not work. One place in particular has 66,000 contributors...it would take an awful lot of people to starve them of anything. But for a nasty startup like DPC, that can absolutely work.
About subs, I'm not completely opposed to them in principle. I'm opposed to the low pricing and low royalties. I also don't think that subs are really for poor small time artists when a sub plan costs thousands of dollars a year for thousands of images. I think we can all agree that many of the customers of subs plans are huge companies that could easily afford to pay much much more. To keep up my blog I probably wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars a month on images. On the other hand a plan like DPC would really work for small time people that couldn't afford to buy images, I think that probably does open up the market but again at what cost?
-
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.
As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.
-
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.
As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.
I think it's reasonable to ask for pricing to be raised and royalties to be raised.
-
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.
As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.
and here's the irony.. ie. smaller ad agencies buying subs.
they make lots of money ,these penny-pinchers , paying peanuts to us.
i am sure they are not creating ads from our images and earning 33-38 cts or even $28 per ad.
it's like the old saying where the old-school business person would not only expect to be paid fairly,
but also to pay someone else a fair wage or fair sum for dealing with each other.
if only these small ad agencies and SS, IS think like that,
we would not be in this pathetic situation today, would we?
instead we continue to read of how xxx sold their business at walked away with a bundle of cash,
and each quarterly nets profit of millions, supplying millions of images, bla bla bla..
and then in the same breath cockily expects the contributors to be paid pennies.
or worst, give away their work for free.
if tomorrow, Oringer says SS will no longer do subs, and the cheapest image will earn contributors a minimum of $2, or whatever that is not 33 cts.
do u think the clients will run away to elsewhere
if we all do not cannibalize our work and give it to only another site which earns a photographer more than $2?
i highly doubt that. sure there will be lots of newbies giving away their work,
but their work will not be what the clients readily needs or will pay for.
my tuppence thoughts. but i won't hold my breath.
-
and here's the irony.. ie. smaller ad agencies buying subs.
they make lots of money ,these penny-pinchers , paying peanuts to us.
i am sure they are not creating ads from our images and earning 33-38 cts or even $28 per ad.
I've worked at ad agencies big and small, from multinational conglomerates with hundreds of thousands of employees to small mom and pop shops with 50 or so employees. None used subs. They charge their clients for images...they don't pay for the images themselves. That's why Shutterstock has introduced relatively new buying options...they're targeting the ad agencies who buy images one at a time.
if tomorrow, Oringer says SS will no longer do subs, and the cheapest image will earn contributors a minimum of $2, or whatever that is not 33 cts.
do u think the clients will run away to elsewhere
Yes. I believe they would. Why not? Everyone else offers subs now.
-
I think a price/quality tier system would work for the right agency. Good curation could then give control to the contributor on whether they are happy with their image being sold at a particular price point (ie. a submission is graded by the reviewer, and the shooter accepts or declines the placement). That way it is entirely up to the contributor on whether they want to sell an image for a dollar, or 5, or for subs, or whatever.
Add in a 50% commission for exclusive images (not exclusive contributors) and there you go. Some agency out there will scoop the competition, if they have enough buyers.
And yes, I believe that it's a pipe dream at this point.
-
But you have to be reasonable. What would your solution be? Shutterstock, for example, started as a subs place, and I'm sure that's where the major portion of their revenue comes from. Now they have to compete with iStock subs and all sorts of other agencies who jumped on the subs bandwagon.
As far as huge corporations using subs, I'm not sure if that's true. My guess would be it's smaller businesses and smaller design shops. Large ad agencies do not buy subs. They buy images one at a time. (This I know.) But I don't have any hard data about it.
I think it's reasonable to ask for pricing to be raised and royalties to be raised.
So far it seems we agree on a couple of things.
1. Compiling an email list of contributors to get in touch with about actions against agencies who act egregiously. This would have to be opt-in, not opt-out, and used sparingly...otherwise the emails would just annoy people.
2. Asking for higher royalties from some agencies. Here you'd have to have people agree who to ask, and you'd need some sort of organization of people to present the request. Plus a substantial number of people backing you (hence the idea of an online petition). And the request would have to be reasonable and negotiable.
-
as they say, one can only control one's own path, ... ie. only each of us can decide when to turn off the tap for subs .
let's say if tomorrow, a new site which provides us with the option of sub/higher price, like photominer 's pipe-dream, and they have the pull of the market with sales .
i would put all my exisiting work there, and remove the ones that i do not wish to earn sub commission at ss,is, ...
whether the others will do the same does not matter to me. it only matters that there is an agency which is earning money for me where i can choose to opt out on subs or not.
the pipe-dream being, that agency will have to be ss, as for now, only ss has the clientele.
but tomorrow, someone else may be daring enough to challenge that,
and also have the pull of the clientele.
i don't know anyone yet to be able to do this. thus, we smoke on ... like the natives around the sweet grass while great white bwana colonialists take their land away. *(sad analogy with micro today).
-
1. Compiling an email list of contributors to get in touch with about actions against agencies who act egregiously. This would have to be opt-in, not opt-out, and used sparingly...otherwise the emails would just annoy people.
2. Asking for higher royalties from some agencies. Here you'd have to have people agree who to ask, and you'd need some sort of organization of people to present the request. Plus a substantial number of people backing you (hence the idea of an online petition). And the request would have to be reasonable and negotiable.
yes, but i think the natives (of india -ie. lagaan history, africa, canada -ie riel,etc... or the chinese in hong kong, taiwan,etc.. with their qing vs sun revolution ) tried the same thing,
and ended up being blown to bits!!!
not sure if u will find too many non-lemmings for that.
when most won't even pluck the courage to voice against the robot-renegade atilla re the pages and pages at said agency's forum and here ;)
still make a good pipe-dream though.
the only solution is a new agency with the stomach and smarts to pull the market-rug from under the feet of ss/is/etc..
-
It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.
DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?
Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better... ::)
DPC did change because of contributor action.
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
that's quite a leap from Pete's statement!
the problem with collective action here is that there are THOUSANDS of contributors, so until you find a way to mobilize a large portion of that group no collective action can have much effect on the agencies -- witness the countless calls for creating co-ops, etc here and the minimal response. if we can't get a large group working hewre, how are you going to reach the many more who don't come thru MSG but just submit quietly?
it's not that it can't work, it's that no one has found a way to get it started
-
At the end of the day it's supply and demand and there is no shortage of supply. This affects everything in the internet age from music to movies to stock photos to porn. Anyone who submits to stock agencies who thinks that artistic merit has the slightest relevance is kidding himself. Is there a solution? - probably not.
-
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.
There's a big protest and they say, OK we don't own the rights and we'll give you 10%. (which sucks as it should be 80 - 20 in our behalf) And people like you will say "We won, we got 10% out of them." Yeah, nice move.
Tell me what happened to DPC that was victory? Opt out allowed. Whoopee! It should have been by choice from the start.
And here's the important question for Unions, groups, collective actions and co-ops for Microstock. What is your power and bargaining tool?
How will you pressure any agency that has too many images, too many content providers and if people collectively removed content in protest, the agency has thousands of other people, willing to work for peanuts and spare change. How do you negotiate with nothing to bargain with?
What's the power that will make the agencies give us a fair percentage? I want to know.
Is clipartof an exclusive only agency? I think in order to control supply it would need to be.
You don't know how Clipartof works? But you have an opinion of the site?
It did? You mean they allowed an Opt Out, which should have been there in the first place and you think you "won" something? Typical, well played by the agency, making it look like they listen, when they knew from the start, there would be an uprising, and this minor concession would pacify the masses.
DPC is still alive and well and images are being sold for minimal prices, thus minimal commissions. And that's Victory?
Yeah, talked them down from forty lashes to only 30, I feel much better... ::)
DPC did change because of contributor action.
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
ps I like SS and I like the money I get from them, including subs, so when people list it as the cause for almost all problems, I think that's misguided. The problem, in my opinion, is over supply and under compensation. People don't get paid a fair wage for fair work, and especially people who produce higher quality images, and make even less margin for their investment.
-
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.
So you don't think the actions contributors took against DPC accomplished much or anything. Since the point of this thread is to add something constructive, what do you think could or should have been done?
-
At the end of the day it's supply and demand and there is no shortage of supply. This affects everything in the internet age from music to movies to stock photos to porn. Anyone who submits to stock agencies who thinks that artistic merit has the slightest relevance is kidding himself. Is there a solution? - probably not.
indeed even porn, years ago i was wondering about the idea of shooting female nudes and selling them as stock, it turns out there's already tons of agencies doing that for a pittance and with subscriptions, discounts, and bulk deals too, nobody is making good money with generic nude pics as the market is now all about video, and also for video it's the same sh-it, low prices, low fees, middlemen, and less demand because of all the free porn online.
stuff like MetArt pays decently but the models are not cheap, is the ROI worth the trouble ?
and of course the models on sites like Model Mayhem are all complaining about low fees too.
music, nobody make good money with downloads, not even the top sellers.
gigs are the only way they make good profits now but as usual the artists only get a small slice of the pie.
-
The biggest, single, most effective gap that exists is the lack of a method to contact all or most contributors....the very first step is to have a communication loop between suppliers (us) so that the behaviors of agencies can be, for the most part, communicated to the supplier. A collective recommendation can be made to those tens of thousand suppliers and the impact to an agency action would be much bigger. I am not really talking about unionization, just a productive way to contact contributors across all agencies. Without that it makes it tough to wield the sword to an agency through whatever means, either mass takedowns, account closures, email blasts, etc. I do think we made an impact and FT but I also thing that once the momentum eroded the collection will eventually relax back to "normal". The KEY is being able to first communicate with suppliers.
-
Hope your are having fun in your own mind, twisting what I write, into something else.
Protesting DPC was a good move and it exposed the unfair efforts of the agency. Also the whole DP back door agency and everything is a sub, even if it sells for $25 (and we get a crappy sub commission?) was a positive community effort. Exposing a behind the scene deal that IS made, was useful. I'm sure someone could start a list, which would be a good way.
In fact someone has suggested a thread for listing agency improprieties and how they have tried to cheat us out of fair pay for fair work. Or basically unethical conduct which seems to be an industry game that they play on us.
Yes I answered on page two. Did you read it?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/23322/23322/msg391458/#msg391458 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/23322/23322/msg391458/#msg391458)
The solution I would like to see, and I'm repeating myself for your benefit, is minimum 50% commissions from some agency, across the board for any downloads, that are NOT by subscription.
Just because of the way subs work, a flat rate is to our benefit, instead of getting 8 cents if someone DLs 500 files of 500, or someone DLs 20 of 500. We get a flat rate. With that, SS could afford to install another level or maybe two?
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.
So you don't think the actions contributors took against DPC accomplished much or anything. Since the point of this thread is to add something constructive, what do you think could or should have been done?
And Mantis added a seriously essential idea, community contact and communications: "a productive way to contact contributors across all agencies." That would be super!
-
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.
So you don't think the actions contributors took against DPC accomplished much or anything. Since the point of this thread is to add something constructive, what do you think could or should have been done?
Actions? Like attacking senior members directly (i.e., emails to their personal accounts) for being in the DPC program! I don't consider that 'Constructive' but more 'Destructive'- actually like a mob! We have a right to decide where we want to sell our images - this isn't a 'Union' the last time I checked.
Bottom line- advice is available here for us to make an intelligent decision but the choice is ours...
-
The biggest, single, most effective gap that exists is the lack of a method to contact all or most contributors....the very first step is to have a communication loop between suppliers (us) so that the behaviors of agencies can be, for the most part, communicated to the supplier. A collective recommendation can be made to those tens of thousand suppliers and the impact to an agency action would be much bigger. I am not really talking about unionization, just a productive way to contact contributors across all agencies. Without that it makes it tough to wield the sword to an agency through whatever means, either mass takedowns, account closures, email blasts, etc. I do think we made an impact and FT but I also thing that once the momentum eroded the collection will eventually relax back to "normal". The KEY is being able to first communicate with suppliers.
Thanks for the response.
-
The solution I would like to see, and I'm repeating myself for your benefit, is minimum 50% commissions from some agency, across the board for any downloads, that are NOT by subscription.
If you just want one agency that does that it already exists, Pond5 has 50% royalties across the board. Alamy also has 50% sales. GL has 52%. I don't think Pond5 or Alamy or GL just existing will solve anything. Please explain what you mean?
-
So my take away from your response is that collective action cannot change anything, never has never will. Is that correct?
That's not what I said. I was talking about people bragging about the power and accomplishment of changing DPC when it was a token adjustment. Kind of like some agency saying, we're cutting you back to 5% and we own the rights to all your images.
So you don't think the actions contributors took against DPC accomplished much or anything. Since the point of this thread is to add something constructive, what do you think could or should have been done?
Actions? Like attacking senior members directly (i.e., emails to their personal accounts) for being in the DPC program! I don't consider that 'Constructive' but more 'Destructive'- actually like a mob! We have a right to decide where we want to sell our images - this isn't a 'Union' the last time I checked.
Bottom line- advice is available here for us to make an intelligent decision but the choice is ours...
There is no reason to attack other contributors. Many contributors don't know about things like DPC, it was very deliberately hidden from them just like the opt out is not easy to find. Sure some might find the information on here, most likely if they are already looking for it but many won't. It makes sense to compile a list of contributors to keep a larger group informed.
-
http://www.microstock-collective.com/ (http://www.microstock-collective.com/) is an initial attempt to gather some of the information requested above and maintain it for reference - it lets contributors rate agencies and provides other important information
-
[url]http://www.microstock-collective.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstock-collective.com/[/url]) is an initial attempt to gather some of the information requested above and maintain it for reference - it lets contributors rate agencies and provides other important information
I'm not sure how this will really create change or be able to provide solutions to industry problems when the purpose of the site seems to expressly say it will not do that?
From the about section:
• This collective is nothing more than a collection of voluntarily offered information. The purpose of this site is to clarify the overall consensus of the microstock contributor community.
• There is no agenda associated with this site other than to collect and share as much information about the microstock industry as possible.
-
I think that probably the main problem is rapdly growing number of contributers and decrease of the overall quality.
And I don’t think that anybody is able to stop it. Look for yourself: if you have $500-$1000 income each month, probably you won’t survive in USA, but in some russian or indian or chinese towns you may. So while internet is spreading, people start to searching for ways to make money in the internet - and, if they have some talent (or time to dig in Illustration) - they pass test on SS - and start doing lots and lots of images.
Probably the inly way is to make reviewing process more strict, but probably no agency would do it (because this way they will get less images, and will loose this «number of images in collection» war).
-
it turns out there's already tons of agencies doing that for a pittance and with subscriptions, discounts, and bulk deals too, nobody is making good money with generic nude pics as the market is now all about video, and also for video it's the same sh-it, low prices, low fees, middlemen, and less demand because of all the free porn online.
...would you mind sharing some links to those sites? I still have a couple of thousand nude files uselessly sitting here :-) PM me if it is too "adult" for posting public links on this board....Thanks!
-
The solution I would like to see, and I'm repeating myself for your benefit, is minimum 50% commissions from some agency, across the board for any downloads, that are NOT by subscription.
If you just want one agency that does that it already exists, Pond5 has 50% royalties across the board. Alamy also has 50% sales. GL has 52%. I don't think Pond5 or Alamy or GL just existing will solve anything. Please explain what you mean?
Now they just need buyers. The artist side is taken care of. I guess better pay isn't the answer according to you but a protest group or union is what we need. I'd want the truth and more money. Mantis and Cascoly are right. Share information and expose the truth when they try to cheat us.
-
The solution I would like to see, and I'm repeating myself for your benefit, is minimum 50% commissions from some agency, across the board for any downloads, that are NOT by subscription.
If you just want one agency that does that it already exists, Pond5 has 50% royalties across the board. Alamy also has 50% sales. GL has 52%. I don't think Pond5 or Alamy or GL just existing will solve anything. Please explain what you mean?
Now they just need buyers. The artist side is taken care of. I guess better pay isn't the answer according to you but a protest group or union is what we need. I'd want the truth and more money. Mantis and Cascoly are right. Share information and expose the truth when they try to cheat us.
How would they get buyers if other sites offer the same exact images but can charge less and advertise more because they pay contributors less? I doubt buyers will decide to pay more for the exact same product so contributors will be better taken care of. It seems to me that the only way those sites attract more buyers is if they offer something buyers can't get at the other sites.
-
Good point, when 1000 agencies offer the same images, from the same people, the only way they can compete is price. I've only been saying that for about seven years.
When artists stop supporting the parasite agencies and take a stand, only support those that pay a fair commission, and don't try to trick us or cheat us, the images will start to have some value. (here's where someone will say, then you'll need to drop all the agencies) ??? Not really, just most of them.
Would any person here take an abusive boss, pay under minimum wage, a company that changes their contract with you after the fact, lowering sales commissions, then raises the quotas (aka RC) or lowers prices so you make less commissions. Would anyone take that job in the real world of employment?
But people in Microstock will allow all that and more and say "but I need the money".
OK take the abuse and keep coming back for more. But please stop complaining that Microstock beats you up and you can't leave. Leave the loser agencies and stand up for what's right.
Yes Audi 5000 exclusive or curated collections are a fine way to combat the ordinary and common. Agencies with quality can demand more for images and we can make more. But I still say they also need to pay 50% or more. :)
The solution I would like to see, and I'm repeating myself for your benefit, is minimum 50% commissions from some agency, across the board for any downloads, that are NOT by subscription.
If you just want one agency that does that it already exists, Pond5 has 50% royalties across the board. Alamy also has 50% sales. GL has 52%. I don't think Pond5 or Alamy or GL just existing will solve anything. Please explain what you mean?
Now they just need buyers. The artist side is taken care of. I guess better pay isn't the answer according to you but a protest group or union is what we need. I'd want the truth and more money. Mantis and Cascoly are right. Share information and expose the truth when they try to cheat us.
How would they get buyers if other sites offer the same exact images but can charge less and advertise more because they pay contributors less? I doubt buyers will decide to pay more for the exact same product so contributors will be better taken care of. It seems to me that the only way those sites attract more buyers is if they offer something buyers can't get at the other sites.