MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What are the industry wide problems and what sollutions do you think there are?  (Read 14075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 21, 2014, 13:17 »
-4
The title of the thread says it all, please only post if you have something constructive to say. 


« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2014, 13:29 »
+1
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.

« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2014, 13:31 »
+3
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 17:59 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2014, 14:20 »
+4
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
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 14:30 by etudiante_rapide »

Goofy

« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2014, 14:36 »
+3
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)


« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 16:19 by Goofy »

« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2014, 14:49 »
+6
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.

« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2014, 14:58 »
+7
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.







Goofy

« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2014, 15:31 »
+1
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!  :-\


 

« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2014, 15:41 »
+4
Subs.

« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2014, 17:06 »
+5
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.

Ed

« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2014, 18:22 »
0
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.

« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2014, 18:41 »
+3
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.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 22:29 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2014, 18:46 »
+3

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 ffliate... treated like a 3rd party site.
to me, that`s scary.

Ed

« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2014, 20:45 »
+1
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

« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2014, 20:50 »
0
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

I think there are other issues besides agencies not offering premium and non-premium content at different price points.

« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2014, 20:55 »
0
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. 

« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2014, 21:03 »
+8
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.


« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2014, 21:04 »
+2
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.

« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2014, 21:06 »
+5
True. But overall we could be much more effective if we could stop bickering over small inconsequential things.

« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2014, 21:06 »
+1
True. But overall we could be much more effective if we could stop bickering over small inconsequential things.
Agreed.

« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2014, 21:17 »
+5


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.




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

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."


 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 05:19 by Ava Glass »

« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2014, 21:32 »
+2
Subs.
I agree subs are a huge problem in the industry.  But what do you see as a solution to the problem?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2014, 21:44 »
+1
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.


« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2014, 21:59 »
+1
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.

« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2014, 22:01 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7398 Views
Last post July 27, 2008, 12:35
by basti
8 Replies
5316 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 10:43
by BaldricksTrousers
4 Replies
2709 Views
Last post August 07, 2014, 22:27
by elvinstar
15 Replies
10157 Views
Last post October 26, 2015, 18:06
by DavidZydd
29 Replies
14438 Views
Last post December 23, 2016, 19:03
by spike

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors