pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Which Agency would you like to see disappearing?  (Read 9046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tror

« on: September 16, 2016, 09:07 »
0
Hey guys...just curious and for fun: which site would you love to see disappear? Kick out of the market if you could?

Do you think the disappearance of one company could change the market environment? Would you feel personal satisfaction if one would disappear?





« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2016, 09:14 »
+6
It doesn't really matter. Most of them are the same or interchangeable now.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2016, 09:21 »
+19
Any agency that was founded solely on subscription sales and currently advertises on sponsors third party sites that promote themselves as a source for free photography.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 09:55 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

Shelma1

« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2016, 09:45 »
+22
Any agency that offers independent image creators a 15% royalty and is quickly dying anyway.

« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2016, 09:45 »
+11
I'd love to see SS crash and burn.

« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2016, 10:09 »
+8
SS

« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2016, 10:12 »
+14
Any agency that cuts commissions while promising more sales and then doesn't live up to its promise.

« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2016, 10:16 »
+6
Any agancy whose way of conducting business means crashing and burning for the contributers

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2016, 23:00 »
+17
iStock

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2016, 23:25 »
+13
SS, but in an ideal world, all who sell cheap subs and/or pay less than 50%.

« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2016, 00:22 »
+1
SS, but in an ideal world, all who sell cheap subs and/or pay less than 50%.

Agree

Chichikov

« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2016, 01:39 »
0
Every crook agencies
(Somebody will say me it was faster to write "All")

« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2016, 02:04 »
+10
Istock and thinkstock.
Bigstock.
Depositphotos.

Why ss when they pay a bigger percentage than istock and more for sub sales than thinkstock? Makes no sense to me.

Eta. Of course not including freepik and the like that I don't consider legitimate agencies.

« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2016, 02:26 »
0
"Do you think the disappearance of one company could change the market environment?" No the market environment determines  the success or otherwise of the agencies not vice versa.  Would you feel personal satisfaction if one would disappear? Only Crestock because of their insulting rejections.

dpimborough

« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2016, 03:02 »
+9
All of them they are all carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen

But the worst? Probably Getty/iStock for their awful royalties, controlled vocabulary wretched contributor assistance and the arrogance of assuming they are in the dairy business  ;)

Except Alamy which at least offers decent contributor service and a fair split on royalties.

gyllens

« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2016, 03:27 »
0
I dont care really but if I had to pick one model that I would like gone its the Distributors. They take their cut regardless of agency model. They just dump tens of thousands of files everywhere and scoup their percentages.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2016, 03:31 »
+3
Why ss when they pay a bigger percentage than istock and more for sub sales than thinkstock? Makes no sense to me.
They have held prices down to a ridiculous level for far too long.
(I accept I'm in the minority with this view.)


« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2016, 03:42 »
+10
iStock for sure.

« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2016, 04:19 »
+11
iStock, of course! 16% and $0.19 commissions? And $5-$9 for HD clips? Common!
I wish to see their customers redistributed between better paying agencies.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 04:22 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2016, 04:54 »
+6
Why ss when they pay a bigger percentage than istock and more for sub sales than thinkstock? Makes no sense to me.
They have held prices down to a ridiculous level for far too long.
(I accept I'm in the minority with this view.)

Honestly I don't think anyone has done more to lower prices and keep them down than Getty/ IStock.

They left the door open to start with by squeezing contributors till the pips squeak in terms of rates then when they jumped into subs with both feet again paid out the very minimum.

I think I should have phrased it "why Shutterstock OVER IStock" as I can see where you're coming from with SS being the original subs site.  If you accept subs as now a given, then SS treats contributors much better than IS, and even given the current spate of F-ups has been much more competent at running their business.

« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2016, 08:49 »
+2
Why ss when they pay a bigger percentage than istock and more for sub sales than thinkstock? Makes no sense to me.
They have held prices down to a ridiculous level for far too long.
(I accept I'm in the minority with this view.)

Honestly I don't think anyone has done more to lower prices and keep them down than Getty/ IStock.

They left the door open to start with by squeezing contributors till the pips squeak in terms of rates then when they jumped into subs with both feet again paid out the very minimum.

I think I should have phrased it "why Shutterstock OVER IStock" as I can see where you're coming from with SS being the original subs site.  If you accept subs as now a given, then SS treats contributors much better than IS, and even given the current spate of F-ups has been much more competent at running their business.

They could be the next to close their doors if the two law suits against them are lost.  Could be a lot closer that we think.  Even if they settle, it would probably be for a lot of money and would also further damage their "brand" in the eyes of their customers.

« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2016, 09:39 »
+4
Why ss when they pay a bigger percentage than istock and more for sub sales than thinkstock? Makes no sense to me.
They have held prices down to a ridiculous level for far too long.
(I accept I'm in the minority with this view.)

I don't think we're in the minority. SS has gained control of the market by driving prices down to the floor and below.  They're the big force behind subscriptions. 

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2016, 11:02 »
+5


I don't think we're in the minority. SS has gained control of the market by driving prices down to the floor and below.  They're the big force behind subscriptions.
[/quote]

Great Greedy strategy for the shareholders and suicidal for the contributors. What an evil agency strategy in every way for the industry. It simply is not sustainable to produce work at this royalty price point for the long term.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 11:04 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2016, 12:40 »
+1
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2016, 12:53 »
0
DT isn't trying to be socialist. In fact it is harder to succeed there than at any of the other top sites. If anything pricing images by sales is less socialist than the others and reflects market forces more closely.

They just market themselves as a "community"

« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2016, 13:02 »
+1
DT isn't trying to be socialist. In fact it is harder to succeed there than at any of the other top sites. If anything pricing images by sales is less socialist than the others and reflects market forces more closely.

They just market themselves as a "community"

They make it harder because have such a narrow criteria for what is accepted into their portfolio. If they accept what all the other agencies accept, they would have more buyers. Contributors would also be a lot more successful.

A redesign to their website could help too. Outside of their recent Asian women success, their page views are abysmal compared to an average website.

« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2016, 13:29 »
0
DT isn't trying to be socialist. In fact it is harder to succeed there than at any of the other top sites. If anything pricing images by sales is less socialist than the others and reflects market forces more closely.

They just market themselves as a "community"

They make it harder because have such a narrow criteria for what is accepted into their portfolio. If they accept what all the other agencies accept, they would have more buyers. Contributors would also be a lot more successful.

A redesign to their website could help too. Outside of their recent Asian women success, their page views are abysmal compared to an average website.
I've never found their criteria much tougher/restrictive  than anyone else, well before SS became a random affair. Are they now elitist rather than socialist?


« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2016, 14:20 »
0
Just that i hear that a lot of people aren't doing very well there but there are some who have seen steady growth. From that I am taking it that it is harder to succeed there than on say fotolia, where sales seem to be up for almost everyone, but still possible.

alno

« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2016, 15:07 »
+1
Every agency except Videoblocks :)

« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2016, 15:10 »
+7
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2016, 15:44 »
+7
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......
You may not like it but its the truth I reckon for 80% of microstock contributors SS earns most of their income. Seems to me there's far more of an entitlement mentality as for slave no one is forcing anyone to submit anything anywhere.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 15:51 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2016, 17:45 »
+2
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

Competition is always good. What do you want? Regulation? Price control?
Nobody is slave in microstock. If you don't like it, you can instantly leave, no notice required, no penalties. OK, you might have to keep your port online for a few months. But you knew this when your agreed to play the game.

Prices are driven down by the abundance of photos, by better and cheaper cameras, by the free photography lessons available everywhere (this forum inclusive) and not by "greed" and other Marxist "explanations"
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 18:12 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2016, 22:17 »
+2
What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

You need more than just me to disappear. You need 70,000 other contributors to disappear, so they can only sell your stuff.

If this industry is too much for you, no one is asking you to stay. You choose to be part of it, so you'll have to play by the same set of rules as everyone else.

« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2016, 10:11 »
0

everyone except Getty !!!

haha, just kidding. i would say everyone except stocksy and gl
...ie the ones who charges clients more.
altho stocksy is still abit eltist and artsy , much in the same way as offset,
so for now, that leaves only GL.

but in the real world??? see below...
It doesn't really matter. Most of them are the same or interchangeable now.


« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2016, 10:14 »
0
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

cough cough ;)
sorry, frog in my throat reading the first redded statement LMAO...

slave/fan boy, i have to go with everest...!!!

if ss did not abolish the 7/10 admission criterion, i would have said everest is the one talking c*ck.
but today, everest wins on points!!!
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 10:19 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2016, 13:18 »
+3
What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

You need more than just me to disappear. You need 70,000 other contributors to disappear, so they can only sell your stuff.

If this industry is too much for you, no one is asking you to stay. You choose to be part of it, so you'll have to play by the same set of rules as everyone else.

I don't need you to dissapear. I only need to people with talent look into other agencies that are fair to contributors and give much better revenue to their contributors. I don't care about the apple on white shooters or beauty with mobile phone smiling to camera..... they can all go to Shutterstocks and the likes...they are not a real threat to pro photographers. But makes me sad when sometimes I see real talent that does go this direction maybe because they don't know about much better alternatives.

I dont know about you but I make a full living ( close to five figure monthly ) from stock photography.....not a dime comes from Shutterstock, so keep calm that I will not take anything from this agency for me. If it works for you and the time & investment you put into pays off go ahead. But if someone is reading this thread and has a powerful photographic style I would recommend to look out for much higher revenue generating agencies. If you  are into easy images or lazy to push the boundaries stay with pay by the weight agencies. Now I am not against micro they are here for a hundred reasons that have to do with the digital revolution. But for those photographers that push themselves far ahead from the flock there are  much better alternatives out there.

« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2016, 14:20 »
+2
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

Competition is always good. What do you want? Regulation? Price control?
Nobody is slave in microstock. If you don't like it, you can instantly leave, no notice required, no penalties. OK, you might have to keep your port online for a few months. But you knew this when your agreed to play the game.
Prices are driven down by the abundance of photos, by better and cheaper cameras, by the free photography lessons available everywhere (this forum inclusive) and not by "greed" and other Marxist "explanations"


See above.

All the folks whining about the good old days when they could upload any sort of crap and make a living at it have to realize that times have changed. It is the equivalent of lamenting the decrease in availability of typewriters. You can complain all day but it won't change the fact that this industry (stock photography) has been largely "democratized" by nearly eliminating the investment necessary to get in on the action. Crowd sourcing is a real thing and this industry is based on it. Everyone with a phone has the ability to market their images. You can't undo that.

It isn't the fault of the stock libraries. It is simply a change in the availability of the technology.


« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2016, 14:31 »
+1
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

Competition is always good. What do you want? Regulation? Price control?
Nobody is slave in microstock. If you don't like it, you can instantly leave, no notice required, no penalties. OK, you might have to keep your port online for a few months. But you knew this when your agreed to play the game.
Prices are driven down by the abundance of photos, by better and cheaper cameras, by the free photography lessons available everywhere (this forum inclusive) and not by "greed" and other Marxist "explanations"


See above.

All the folks whining about the good old days when they could upload any sort of crap and make a living at it have to realize that times have changed. It is the equivalent of lamenting the decrease in availability of typewriters. You can complain all day but it won't change the fact that this industry (stock photography) has been largely "democratized" by nearly eliminating the investment necessary to get in on the action. Crowd sourcing is a real thing and this industry is based on it. Everyone with a phone has the ability to market their images. You can't undo that.

It isn't the fault of the stock libraries. It is simply a change in the availability of the technology.

This is 100% accurate.  But I would add that camera technology and availability isn't the only factor. Curation is a major element, and the erosion of curation methodology, both in terms of technology and inspection guidelines, has also opened the floodgates to image volume.  That, together with camera technology, makes for a poor outlook in the MS markets for contributors.

« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2016, 15:15 »
+3
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

Competition is always good. What do you want? Regulation? Price control?
Nobody is slave in microstock. If you don't like it, you can instantly leave, no notice required, no penalties. OK, you might have to keep your port online for a few months. But you knew this when your agreed to play the game.
Prices are driven down by the abundance of photos, by better and cheaper cameras, by the free photography lessons available everywhere (this forum inclusive) and not by "greed" and other Marxist "explanations"


See above.

All the folks whining about the good old days when they could upload any sort of crap and make a living at it have to realize that times have changed. It is the equivalent of lamenting the decrease in availability of typewriters. You can complain all day but it won't change the fact that this industry (stock photography) has been largely "democratized" by nearly eliminating the investment necessary to get in on the action. Crowd sourcing is a real thing and this industry is based on it. Everyone with a phone has the ability to market their images. You can't undo that.

It isn't the fault of the stock libraries. It is simply a change in the availability of the technology.

This thread has nothing to do with the good old days. It has to do with today.  I don't care about hobbyst wanting to upload their images taken with their phones or cameras. I am just saying that although this business has evolved because of technology and ability to market images by everyone, which is a good thing every pro photographer (not a doctor, a housewife, a student or a banker that does this as a additional money income) has to analyze cost/time producing images vs income to pay equipment,models,mortgage,kids at school,pension etc. Very very few pro contributors in this forum make a full income in microstock agencies. It might be true in a few years back....not anymore now.

I would like to warn those that will try to give it a shot that it is nearly impossible nowadays to make a full western world income from microstock photography (50.000-100.000$+). What amateurs do I don't care...they can even afford to loose money on their shoots......but if you are serious about this......micro is the wrong direction today.

« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2016, 15:31 »
0
I'm not all that happy with any of the agencies.  I guess the only one that's  doing pretty well by contributors is Adobe ATM. 

But there have been sites I was on that closed in the past and I never saw the earnings move to another site.  Just less earnings overall.  So honestly I think if any of the sites closed it would be less money for me. 

I would rather see them stay open and stop fracking us over.

« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2016, 16:45 »
+1
SS sales won't go back to the back old days and people need to accept that. It's still a great agency where the contributors can thrive. I like SS because it forces people to be at their best to really succeed. The only reason why anyone should want an agency to fail is when they intentionally harm contributors and buyers like iStock/Getty or agencies that try to be socialist like DT. Those buyers would move over to other agencies and it'll benefit everyone.

Having agency competition is good for the industry and it's good for contributors. That's why we need agencies like SS, FT, Envato and 123RF to stay afloat.

What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

Competition is always good. What do you want? Regulation? Price control?
Nobody is slave in microstock. If you don't like it, you can instantly leave, no notice required, no penalties. OK, you might have to keep your port online for a few months. But you knew this when your agreed to play the game.
Prices are driven down by the abundance of photos, by better and cheaper cameras, by the free photography lessons available everywhere (this forum inclusive) and not by "greed" and other Marxist "explanations"


See above.

All the folks whining about the good old days when they could upload any sort of crap and make a living at it have to realize that times have changed. It is the equivalent of lamenting the decrease in availability of typewriters. You can complain all day but it won't change the fact that this industry (stock photography) has been largely "democratized" by nearly eliminating the investment necessary to get in on the action. Crowd sourcing is a real thing and this industry is based on it. Everyone with a phone has the ability to market their images. You can't undo that.

It isn't the fault of the stock libraries. It is simply a change in the availability of the technology.

This thread has nothing to do with the good old days. It has to do with today.  I don't care about hobbyst wanting to upload their images taken with their phones or cameras. I am just saying that although this business has evolved because of technology and ability to market images by everyone, which is a good thing every pro photographer (not a doctor, a housewife, a student or a banker that does this as a additional money income) has to analyze cost/time producing images vs income to pay equipment,models,mortgage,kids at school,pension etc. Very very few pro contributors in this forum make a full income in microstock agencies. It might be true in a few years back....not anymore now.

I would like to warn those that will try to give it a shot that it is nearly impossible nowadays to make a full western world income from microstock photography (50.000-100.000$+). What amateurs do I don't care...they can even afford to loose money on their shoots......but if you are serious about this......micro is the wrong direction today.
Wasn't it really the brief period where Microstock was making very big money for average (at best) images the aberration?  Its surprising really that a professional photographer would consider it anything other than a fill in between more lucrative work.

« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2016, 17:23 »
0
Wasn't it really the brief period where Microstock was making very big money for average (at best) images the aberration?  Its surprising really that a professional photographer would consider it anything other than a fill in between more lucrative work.

you are right, and i think everest, mantis , ... right too. 
we are constantly in an open market with too many options, and yes, too much suppliers...

but at one time, microstock seemed to be going the right direction, right after getty and istock
pulled it down , ..
this was when ss got in with those single earnings 28 to 102 dollars
that some of us saw regular extra icing to the cake...
which suddenly disappeared too.

it was at this brief moment when i , and i am sure...many others...
felt like there was a light at the end of the tunnel and it was not just going to continue
to be "free" or "the lowest price in the world" promo...

but something , or someone , farked it up really bad,
and we see ss taking a page out of istock and seem to prefer to choose to repeat
history by going the direction of plumping up the golden goose
and fattening up the inventory just to attract new investors,
all at the expense of contributors.

but things change so fast, it won't be surprising that maybe tomorrow
we may see something change again in the game...

like adobe replacing ss as the company with good faith .
(but i won't be the one holding my breath ) ...

i'll just be happy enough to pull down my pant and chuck moon ... like evryone here !!!

« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2016, 17:30 »
+2
Agree on that......the money that very simple shots could make was insane......I remember now a shoot where a 7$ chalkboard a 3 days drawing concepts made me over the years 70.000 $.....that is how crazy it all was .... .....so I guess now we are again what it really should be and also think that the real living for pros is now on commercial / editorial gigs or contributing to macro or medium pricestock....giving images to micro and nano stock is not worth it as a sustainable career for any pro. Now if your goal is another, which is totally fine, thats all together a different story....

« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2016, 17:34 »
+1
What a load of crap.......I wish photographers with your mentality would dissapear so threads like this would not even exists. Sorry but I cannot stand this slave mentality......

You need more than just me to disappear. You need 70,000 other contributors to disappear, so they can only sell your stuff.

If this industry is too much for you, no one is asking you to stay. You choose to be part of it, so you'll have to play by the same set of rules as everyone else.

I don't need you to dissapear. I only need to people with talent look into other agencies that are fair to contributors and give much better revenue to their contributors. I don't care about the apple on white shooters or beauty with mobile phone smiling to camera..... they can all go to Shutterstocks and the likes...they are not a real threat to pro photographers. But makes me sad when sometimes I see real talent that does go this direction maybe because they don't know about much better alternatives.

I dont know about you but I make a full living ( close to five figure monthly ) from stock photography.....not a dime comes from Shutterstock, so keep calm that I will not take anything from this agency for me. If it works for you and the time & investment you put into pays off go ahead. But if someone is reading this thread and has a powerful photographic style I would recommend to look out for much higher revenue generating agencies. If you  are into easy images or lazy to push the boundaries stay with pay by the weight agencies. Now I am not against micro they are here for a hundred reasons that have to do with the digital revolution. But for those photographers that push themselves far ahead from  there are  much better alternatives out there.

I'm not making a "full living", since a have a well paid primary job I definitely enjoy.
On the other hand, microstock is bringing me twice the minimum wage in my state. This is pretty darn good for a weekend or vacation "job".
I would never have the time to explore better paid avenues like self marketing. Therefore microstock is a blessing and a great bonus that pays for my kid's insane university fees.
But I am very open to learn from your better paying options.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 17:39 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2016, 19:37 »
+5
Agree on that......the money that very simple shots could make was insane......I remember now a shoot where a 7$ chalkboard a 3 days drawing concepts made me over the years 70.000 $.....that is how crazy it all was .... .....so I guess now we are again what it really should be and also think that the real living for pros is now on commercial / editorial gigs or contributing to macro or medium pricestock....giving images to micro and nano stock is not worth it as a sustainable career for any pro. Now if your goal is another, which is totally fine, thats all together a different story....


Microstock was never intended to be for pros. It's the pros who decided it should be for pros. It was designed to fill the market for small to midsize companies who were ok with sacrificing a little quality to get a stock image for less than $100-200 each. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip (you cant make a decent living on pennies per image).

« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2016, 21:06 »
+6
In my mind it's not complicated. We all thought the web was going to create new opportunity, give everyone a chance,  let buyers and producers find each other in a free, open and 'flat' marketplace.  Instead, it turns out - in the case of stock photography - that the web ultimately allowed a small number of middlemen to gain control of the market and grind suppliers into dust. Like all abusive middlemen, they keep the lions share of the profit while adding little real value to the product; and they're able to keep buyers and producers from connecting directly. 

It's a classic situation in economics, and the remedy - routing around the middlemen - is called disintermediation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

Unfortunately in an internet market, cutting out the middleman is a technical challenge that hasn't been met yet - as witnessed by the failure of attempts like Symbiostock.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 21:59 by stockastic »

« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2016, 23:17 »
0
I dont know about you but I make a full living ( close to five figure monthly ) from stock photography.....not a dime comes from Shutterstock, so keep calm that I will not take anything from this agency for me. If it works for you and the time & investment you put into pays off go ahead. But if someone is reading this thread and has a powerful photographic style I would recommend to look out for much higher revenue generating agencies. If you  are into easy images or lazy to push the boundaries stay with pay by the weight agencies. Now I am not against micro they are here for a hundred reasons that have to do with the digital revolution. But for those photographers that push themselves far ahead from  there are  much better alternatives out there.

Good for you. Whatever works for you isn't going work for everyone and what works for everyone isn't going to work for you. If I choose to quit my job now, I can live off of my Microstock earnings, but I won't since my job pays me so well. In a couple years, I may just hit 5 figures per month with Microstock. If I don't upload my work to Microstock, it would just be sitting around collecting digitial dust. I like the alternative and if you don't like it, you can go rant elsewhere.

You're not on SS, and yet you wish for its death. You seem quite flustered. You're probably good at what you do, but so are many other people on here, so don't flatter yourself. The difference is that many of us are not acting like arrogant, elitist snobs.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 01:57 by Minsc »


« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2016, 02:17 »
+2
I don't see anything arrogant or elitist about wanting to maximise your income. The market will soon decide if you are any good. If I honestly thought my talent/commitment was good enough to sell on higher priced channels I'd be crazy not to.

« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2016, 02:31 »
0
I don't see anything arrogant or elitist about wanting to maximise your income. The market will soon decide if you are any good. If I honestly thought my talent/commitment was good enough to sell on higher priced channels I'd be crazy not to.

I wasn't referring to wanting to maximizing income. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong when someone is constantly bringing up how much he makes in a subtle way to belittle others. That's pretty arrogant to me and the way he acts like he's too good for microstock (this happens to be a microstock group) seems very elitist to me.

Calling someone a 'slave' for not going against SS is not exactly a good way to make an impression.

« Reply #49 on: September 19, 2016, 02:47 »
+2
I think that first post was somewhat intemperate but after that the points were fair....to be honest I ignore what anyone says about what they earn...I can't verify it one way or another.

« Reply #50 on: September 19, 2016, 03:22 »
+4
Maybe you got a wrong impression of my words or I couldn't explain myself better. So here I go again trying to make my point clearer:
Maximizing income from your talent is logic. We agree on that. Doing otherwise would be quite idiotic as with the income you can live more comfortable and produce more creative assets which with luck will enlarge this perpetuating cycle. If this cycle goes in reverse mode you are doing something totally wrong from a business perspective. Now if your goals are others like being happy for being published, giving your images for low or no money at all for the benefit of the community that is an all different approach which I am not interested to discuss as my only interest in making "commercial" images is to maximize profits. I also shoot personal work where sometimes Ego comes into play and those maximizing income goals might step back to a second term.

In the realm of photography you can make as little as a few dollars every month or some are un the 6+ figures annually. In between all the range. When I come here and say my numbers it is not intended to belittle anyone but to give readers the information of what is possible. A lot of photographers  make more than me and from a business perspective I am interested in their strategies. As you would comprehend I am not interested at all at those that make a few hundred dollars a month. They are of no use to my business. Now of course they can post their strategies here the same as I post mine. If you have a very well paid job and you do it as a side income (even if it is a good side income for you) it is no use for me or any other photographer that wants to license their images for a comfortable living in a western standard country. Your posts on the other side might get a lot of traction and interest of those photographers that make this as a secondary income to their actual jobs and with your income they might calibrate the possibilities of what is possible in that terrain.

I am not too good for micro at all. Now if I visit read and post in these forums are because I have some of my work to license through microstock agencies. I have been on the top micros and exclusive to the Istock/Getty family. Both with advantages and drawbacks. I don't like them or hate them specially (like all the bashing for ones or the others that you can read here sometimes) Every agency has their business model and tries to maximize their revenue for owners or share holders. Fine with that. I follow my interests. Sometimes they go along the agencies (for example when they try to fight piracy and defend intellectual property of assets) and sometimes they are confronted when they slash commissions to suppliers. At any of their decisions there is a reaction of mine.

A few years ago my time spent in creating micro images (from a business point of view) was very well spent. Now not so much anymore. Nothing against micro. They will stay here for long...the consolidation of micro agencies will still go forward till there only a couple of players. I guess three or four big ones all the others will be gone. Of course there will be niche agencies with higher prices that will still coexist with the big players but will only survive if their product is differentiated unique and not available in those giant outlets. It is all already happening in front of us. So i am not saying that anyone should not contribute to Shutterstock / Adobe / Istock there are a lot of more "mundane" images that have to be there if you want to sell them at all. But for the special ones, those with high production costs it will be a losing proposition to give those images to those giants as their returns would be better in other places be it in macro/mid stock agencies/distributors or pursuing commercial clients. There are already many photographers that have seen this reality . Others are happy still doing objects on white and delivering to the known micros. Well good luck to them if they rely on these for their livehood......it is not going to be easier every year that goes by. it has nothing to do with elitism it has to do with the real world and what is happening in front of our eyes right now.

I never called anybody a slave for contributing to Shutterstock. You should read twice before putting sentences in somebodys mouth that were never spoken. I said that I despise people with slave mentality like the one were/are defending in this post and generally in the forum. You look is take it or leave those agencies are a Godsend to us and everyone speaking against those is crazy and should not because nobody is forcing you to be there. That my friend is a slave mentality. Everybody is entitled to disapprove the way some of this corporations treat contributors and photography/ers they have their function and positive aspects, the same as they have ugly shady corners that many of us with now many years of experience dealing with them have the right to expose.

I dont want to make a good impression to anyone. I don't give a dime of what you or anyone thinks of me or my words. I take the time to write to give my point of view/experience. If somebody finds it useful perfect, if somebody doesn't like it perfect too. Have a nice and sunny day.

« Reply #51 on: September 19, 2016, 04:07 »
+1
Interesting post thanks.

« Reply #52 on: September 19, 2016, 12:05 »
0
In my mind it's not complicated. We all thought the web was going to create new opportunity, give everyone a chance,  let buyers and producers find each other in a free, open and 'flat' marketplace.  Instead, it turns out - in the case of stock photography - that the web ultimately allowed a small number of middlemen to gain control of the market and grind suppliers into dust. Like all abusive middlemen, they keep the lions share of the profit while adding little real value to the product; and they're able to keep buyers and producers from connecting directly. 

It's a classic situation in economics, and the remedy - routing around the middlemen - is called disintermediation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

Unfortunately in an internet market, cutting out the middleman is a technical challenge that hasn't been met yet - as witnessed by the failure of attempts like Symbiostock.

well said, stockastic.
i think in a way we are the ones partly responsible for letting the middleman control and grind us into dust. if there was no monopoly of ss, like it was before
with istock kicking ar$e as the one who keep ss on their toes,
we probably would not have let ss grind our ar$e either.

competition is healthy and monopoly encourages explaoitation.

and as far as who says what ... arrogant or not,
no one wants to be the slave or lackey for any company.
we all like to be treated fairly and feel that our work is given a level playing field
and we have an unwritten respect and good faith.

unfortunately, it is no longer that way with shutterstock,
and as i said, we made them this way !!!

« Reply #53 on: September 19, 2016, 15:45 »
+2
DepositPhotos

« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2016, 16:29 »
+6
I'd like to see the end of every Microstock agency. I'd ditch Royalty Free licenses at the same time, if I could.

« Reply #55 on: September 22, 2016, 13:19 »
+3
I just want China (which got the most population on earth) buy the images fairly and stop copyright infringement.

And then we will got more than 300% income.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
6472 Views
Last post February 02, 2008, 20:07
by mwp1969
8 Replies
20154 Views
Last post February 29, 2008, 02:45
by Karimala
43 Replies
9930 Views
Last post May 06, 2016, 14:07
by wordplanet
3 Replies
3192 Views
Last post June 29, 2016, 16:23
by CJH Photography
17 Replies
4972 Views
Last post November 20, 2022, 11:35
by Firn

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle