pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

If you had to pick one stock photo site to send buyers to, who would it be? (Please also post why)

Shutterstock
Dreamstime
Fotolia
iStock
123RoyaltyFree
Bigstockphoto
Veer
Canstockphoto
DepositPhotos
GraphicLeftovers
Cutcaster
FeaturePics
Stockfresh
YayMicro
The3dStudio
Crestock
Alamy
ClusterShot
Personal Site/Portfolio Tool
Other (Explain Below)

Author Topic: Where do YOU think we should send buyers and why?  (Read 29029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2010, 05:45 »
0
Quote
it is more a matter of principle.

The principle being lets shaft our fellow exclusive artists on Istock? Yeah, thanks a bunch mate.

Vlad - the impaler - go hunt some gosts somewhere else.

It's not our responsebility that IS exclusives made a bad business desition - it has been clear for years, that IS was going to screw you exclusives sooner or later. But most of you were brainwashed to a degree that defies description


« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2010, 05:52 »
0
Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy
What, your Mom and Pop?
No need to be abusive. We all know by now you're the best. Let me fart in your general direction (Monty Python) and put you asleep with the other useless posters. Ploink.

RT


« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2010, 06:16 »
0
But if we put up with commission under 20%, they will just keep cutting and the other sites will do the same, costing us a lot more money.  I would like to see a list of contributor recommended sites, there are several that pay a decent commission and have prices that are fair for buyers and contributors.  If we could persuade more buyers to use those sites, wouldn't we all be better off?

You need to ignore the term 'commission percentage' and concentrate on the nett amount per download, you sell an XL image on SS for 38c or $2.85 (less for some people), an XL download on iStock will nett you twice that amount, and yet there are people who would encourage buyers to move to SS!

DT pays a better commission on some images dependent on it's popularity, but then they don't do as much to sell our work, and as has been previously reported the image selection process can be bizarre at times, I recently had a selection of images rejected on DT for being too similar, I appealed trying to point out that they are not what would be deemed similar, the appeal goes back to the original reviewer who (no disrespect intended) doesn't understand the stock industry, these same images have sold 177 times on iS alone, why would I encourage a buyer to go to a site that rejects high value images.

Trying to persuade a buyer to use a site because it's better for the contributor is IMO completely futile, you'll get the odd one or two that may support the cause, but the serious buyers will go to the site that best suits them because it's a business and in business emotions and morals are not as important as economics, iStock understand the stock industry better than any other site, it's why they're No.1 and why buyers go there, unfortunately they are ultimately controlled by bankers who only understand one thing and that is greed, these bankers also understand how business works which is why and how they bought iStock in the first place.

iStock have and will screw us and it will get worse, you just need to make the decision as to how that fits into your business module and adjust accordingly.

Ask yourself this question in response to your comment
 "there are several that pay a decent commission and have prices that are fair for buyers and contributors.  If we could persuade more buyers to use those sites, wouldn't we all be better off?"
Why aren't the buyers using these sites now?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 06:18 by RT »

« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2010, 06:28 »
0
Ask yourself this question in response to your comment
 "there are several that pay a decent commission and have prices that are fair for buyers and contributors.  If we could persuade more buyers to use those sites, wouldn't we all be better off?"
Why aren't the buyers using these sites now?

Maybe buyers don't know these sites..

« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2010, 06:28 »
0
I belive that IS main advantage was better marketing towards the market, and also to some extent better content.

But at some point, business or not, when factoring everything in, the time to produce, kryword, upload etc. IS was simply not profitable for me anymore with a 15% royalty in view.

Business is also about values, and my values didn't any longer fit with the "new" IS values - so I quitted - simple as that.

And many more will follow, but many will also stay behind in the sweatshop - well - that's their desition - quitting was mine.

RT


« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2010, 06:45 »
0
Maybe buyers don't know these sites..

So tell me, why do you commission these sites to sell your work?

« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2010, 06:53 »
0
Veer because it's Corbis  would really be a slap in the face for Getty

« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2010, 06:54 »
0
I'm pissed with the iStock announcement as much as the next person and I am 100% sure it will hit me in the pocket, but for me the bottom line is nett revenue and even after the pay cut the nett revenue on iStock per image download is still higher than on their nearest microstock rival which is Shutterstock.

I like the DT pricing structure and I can make more per download on a like for like image size than any other microstock agency, however DT don't have anywhere near the sales volume that iStock do, and from what I've seen they do not market even to a fraction the amount iStock does.

This thread is a prime example of why I don't support canvassing buyers to go elsewhere, because nobody can agree where that should be, and a lot of people are suggesting they go to a site where we'd make less per download !

I'll support any viable and practical action to get iStock to rework this commission cut, but please excuse me if I don't jump on the knee jerk bandwagon that will in the end cost me more.

Looks a little bit like a vicious circle to me.
IS has the sales volume because the spend so much on marketing. That's why their costs are so high that they have to cut our commissions to stay sustainable (pretending for a moment that there is a bit of truth in their argumentation).
If other sites want to compete seriously, what can they do? Spend more on marketing to win back customers from Istock. And finance that by cutting our commissions...

To break that circle we will have to stop licencing images for too low (whatever that is) commissions. Easy to say (and easy to do for people like me who don't depend on their stock income) but a lot harder to implement.

But in the long run, if a majority of contributors now accepts these reductions, the circle will simply continue...

Microbius

« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2010, 07:09 »
0
Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?
If you're such a big deal I guess it's time you started negotiating with some of the other agencies to see if they'll let you in at a canister level  :'(

« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2010, 07:20 »
0
Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?
If you're such a big deal I guess it's time you started negotiating with some of the other agencies to see if they'll let you in at a canister level  :'(

I'm allready well established with some hight prices trads on some of my work, some go to micros, most go to Alamy.
Alamy + trads renevue is 4x micro, but on far fewer DL's.

Diversify on your shooting and your outlet's - this protect your income.

RT


« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2010, 07:22 »
0
To break that circle we will have to stop licencing images for too low (whatever that is) commissions. Easy to say (and easy to do for people like me who don't depend on their stock income) but a lot harder to implement.

Exactly (well almost), to break the circle you could stop licensing certain images for too low commissions, diversify and sell some at the traditional agencies (which I appreciate for some is easier said than done), it's a business and like any business you have to decide how, where and for how much to sell your product to a level that satisfies you, if one revenue source drops down move up, sideways or whatever you need to do, then if the original revenue stream picks up again move back.

« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2010, 07:24 »
0
Maybe buyers don't know these sites..

So tell me, why do you commission these sites to sell your work?

Every business needs time to growth. No one is successful over night..

« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2010, 07:35 »
0
my referrals are minimal but alamy 60% on higher prices and full portfolio. If micro then DT and canstock. I have never even thought to refer someone to istock, why would I when they pay 20% and only have a fifth of my portfolio?

ayzek

« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2010, 07:47 »
0
This is my dreamed agency. it names is: OTHER
- 1-20 Credit for image prices
- 25% for non exclusives and %50 for exclusives
- 4 canister levels should be base on performans level but that must be acceptable amount of percentage not any given number (for example %1 of most seller should gain 50% then rest should be ordered till 30% for exclusives and from 25% to 20% for non exclusive..
- exclusive image option
- A business model that can sustainable with this rates for long time.
- More defined and fair inspecting ( comp and suitable for stock photography things should leave customers.)
- upload limits according to performans.
- Clear/Open statistics
- No subscription.
- Stability on policies.
these are the things that i found in 5 minutes, i am sure we can find more.


i will give my vote to OTHER.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 12:28 by ayzek »

Microbius

« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2010, 08:48 »
0
Quote
I will send my buyers to primarely Alamy

What, your Mom and Pop?
If you're such a big deal I guess it's time you started negotiating with some of the other agencies to see if they'll let you in at a canister level  :'(

I'm allready well established with some hight prices trads on some of my work, some go to micros, most go to Alamy.
Alamy + trads renevue is 4x micro, but on far fewer DL's.

Diversify on your shooting and your outlet's - this protect your income.
Sorry Nordlys my post was intended for Vlad

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2010, 09:27 »
0
I would send them to either Fotolia or Dreamstime.  Probably both. 

I chose Fotolia in the survey, though, because they pay me a higher percentage, as an emerald.   

« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2010, 09:40 »
0
I would send them to either Fotolia or Dreamstime.  Probably both. 

I chose Fotolia in the survey, though, because they pay me a higher percentage, as an emerald.   

Honestly Fotolia did something similar in near past...


« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2010, 09:43 »
0
I would send them to either Fotolia or Dreamstime.  Probably both. 

I chose Fotolia in the survey, though, because they pay me a higher percentage, as an emerald.   

Honestly Fotolia did something similar in near past...

Even worse, after dropping my commission for the second time, they (Chad) sent me an email offering me a one time bump in levels that would restore my lost commission.  All I had to do was give them 100 of my better sellers to their free pool.  Needless to say, I declined their kind offer.

« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2010, 09:45 »
0
Veer, imho they have spunk, are doing a pretty good job with their marketing and for me are showing a lot of potential.
I will NOT send them to the FT*ssholes.

« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2010, 10:21 »
0
Serban, I am sure you are following this messs.  I really really wish your little agency hadn't introduced the limited similars position, because you really could have come out the big winner in all of this. 

The best customer service I have received from any site is from Canstock and that is reason enough for me to recommend them.  BUT, my heart is with Dreamstime.  They have a decent database and fair price structure.  Yes, there was a big commission change but my own revenue hasn't actually taken a hit.  DT appears to consider the artists with every decision they make, and don't squeeze us when they want to gold plate their toilets.  They have a fair price structure and if we really are thinking of the customers - they have those dirty subs packages as well, but at least the return is a bit higher for the artists.  Customer service has always been above average as well.

But still... DT's database is becoming severely limited because they have taken the whole similar thing way too far.  I think it has been about a year now?  Buyers will want to move with but won't be able to find the photos in their IS lightboxes at DT, so the emotion of the moment will pass and they will just stay at Istock. 

I think Veer might be next on my list.

Although my earnings have been growing at FT, I will never forgive them for past hurts - so no, I will not send a single buyer to FT.

« Reply #45 on: September 10, 2010, 11:01 »
0
"Anywhere but Istock" would be my answer right now __ I'm still fuming over their cheek and their greed.

I don't particularly care that they have historically produced the most revenue from my portfolio because they've done it largely by exploitation of their contributors (by paying ridiculously low commissions). Of course that meant that they had more money to spend on marketing but you can bet that their profitability has been pretty extreme too. What I find amazing is that even that level of profit did not satisfy them. Each and every month my images generate about $5000 for Istock's coffers and that's after my commissions have been paid. I would take some persuading that their 'costs' to market and manage my port are anything more than a tiny bit of that money.

Don't forget that Istock was actually a very profitable company back in 2005 when images were being sold for a fraction of what they are now __ that's why Getty bought them.

Microbius

« Reply #46 on: September 10, 2010, 11:42 »
0
"Anywhere but Istock" would be my answer right now __ I'm still fuming over their cheek and their greed.

I don't particularly care that they have historically produced the most revenue from my portfolio because they've done it largely by exploitation of their contributors (by paying ridiculously low commissions). Of course that meant that they had more money to spend on marketing but you can bet that their profitability has been pretty extreme too. What I find amazing is that even that level of profit did not satisfy them. Each and every month my images generate about $5000 for Istock's coffers and that's after my commissions have been paid. I would take some persuading that their 'costs' to market and manage my port are anything more than a tiny bit of that money.

Don't forget that Istock was actually a very profitable company back in 2005 when images were being sold for a fraction of what they are now __ that's why Getty bought them.
Totally agree with this ^^^

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #47 on: September 10, 2010, 11:47 »
0
I voted for Dreamstime. I think their pay scale is much better than most. I make more money with Shutterstock but if the volume was the same at Dreamstime then the income there would be greater. I would never recommend Fotolia. I dropped them after their "little" pay cut. Dare say they'll also do it again.

« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2010, 12:04 »
0
Zoonar.

They pay from 50% to 80% commissions.
According to one of their owners they are profitable with that - although their volume is very low compared to any of the big 4. Nice showcase what kind of commission can be "sustainable".

« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2010, 12:23 »
0
tough one, I would have said Dreamstime for sure except for their odd similars position and their lowering our percentage earlier.
FT - no way, they pull similar crap and don't even tell us about it.

SS - They have been reasonably honest w/ us and haven't dropped anything (except sales in my case)...

oh well, anyone but IS right now.

--=Tom


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
8901 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 04:44
by litifeta
5 Replies
4608 Views
Last post February 08, 2009, 16:14
by icefront
18 Replies
5819 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
4 Replies
2780 Views
Last post October 01, 2012, 13:04
by leaf
29 Replies
25682 Views
Last post January 25, 2013, 17:15
by gillian vann

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors