pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Who's winning the race to the bottom?  (Read 4554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 18, 2013, 15:59 »
+1
Last large credit sale on

DT - 3.27
SS - 2.48
FT - 2.14 (converted from )
123 - 1.40
"dot" - 0.76



« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2013, 16:10 »
-4
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:55 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2013, 16:16 »
+3
Yeah I did notice that lot's of exclusives reckon that high prices are making up for the shortfall in downloads - I wonder how long this will last if the competition is going for the prices I quoted on the same site?

« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2013, 16:19 »
-2
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:55 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2013, 16:57 »
+4
Overall I don't believe there is any difference between exclusive content over non-exclusive except one has a price tag 10 times greater than the other - it doesn't sound like a long term sustainable model but I've been wrong from time to time   ;)

« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2013, 17:15 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:55 by Audi 5000 »

travelwitness

« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2013, 17:50 »
+10
But you can find very similar content on iStock at a fraction of the price of exclusive content.

Its only been 3 months since the price disparity, what is the long term consequence on exclusive sales? 

Stock images are completely saturated now, nearly every niche is covered by exclusives and indies alike. iStock need to make exclusivity attractive for contributors again, if they don't subs sites will become the norm.

« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2013, 17:57 »
+3
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:57 by Audi 5000 »

travelwitness

« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2013, 18:39 »
+3
I get what you are saying, but if iStock drop the ball the market will split into Macro and subs which will be hard for exclusives.

Exclusives are in a precarious position, iStock need to keep them on board or the middle ground will be lost to subs with SS cleaning up.

I'm guessing it will be tough for both exclusive and indy contributors as the top agencies slug it out.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2013, 21:38 »
+9
how can everything be covered? 2 years ago no one was talking photos of kids doing selfies, quinoa fritters, or hipsters with film cameras.......

fashion changes, technology changes faster, those 2 alone mean we get to keep shooting new stuff.

« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2013, 02:17 »
+6
Some content is very similar, all content is not.  Do you believe Stocksy stock images are covered by the sub sites since nearly every niche is already covered?  I think going forward everyone indie or exclusive needs to make their work relevant and unique, it's not just a problem for exclusives at iStock..

But there is still enough content around that is not unique but rather generic. And that sells in masses. For such content the price differential - only because it is "only on iStock" -  is not sustainable.
Sor for anybody who wants to sell such content, exclusivity at iStock does not work - because it's artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.

« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2013, 03:37 »
+3
alamy has a lot higher prices than SS. It helps me to make less there in half a year than in a day on SS.

« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2013, 05:02 »
+2
Overall I don't believe there is any difference between exclusive content over non-exclusive except one has a price tag 10 times greater than the other - it doesn't sound like a long term sustainable model but I've been wrong from time to time   ;)
One difference is you can't find my images on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123rf, Fotolia, Depositphotos, etc. etc...  To me it sounds like the only sustainable model, if all the sites have the same images they will just compete on price.  Do you like how that's going?
Doesn't seem to work like that or all the buyers would of moved to the lower priced sites.  I think buyers are prepared to pay a reasonable amount for a site that makes it easy for them to find what they want quickly.  That doesn't seem to be working with istock.  It always seems like the slowest site I use and a lot of my photos get lost in the search because the keywords aren't in their vocabulary.  So I can understand why they appear to be losing buyers to SS.

« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2013, 05:10 »
0
Sor for anybody who wants to sell such content, exclusivity at iStock does not work - because it's artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.

+1

« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2013, 09:14 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:55 by Audi 5000 »

Batman

« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2013, 12:02 »
-1
alamy has a lot higher prices than SS. It helps me to make less there in half a year than in a day on SS.

Alamy is becoming midstock.

« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2013, 14:36 »
+3
Sor for anybody who wants to sell such content, exclusivity at iStock does not work - because it's artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.

+1
I agree that anyone who creates average generic content is in trouble even if you are on the sub sites, like I said this isn't an exclusive issue it's an industry wide issue.

(1) Anyone who makes like an ostrich and stays exclusive is in trouble.  Within the space of a year it's gone from better than SS volumes and DT commissions to worse than DT volumes and 123 commissions.  Can anyone really have faith that the muppets responsible  either care or are capable of sustaining the business.

(2) Anonymous commentary about "generic content" in a pejorative way is pretty meaningless and, anyway, generic stuff is the stuff that sells because it's useful.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 14:39 by heywoody »


« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2013, 15:03 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:55 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2013, 15:14 »
+2
I think buyers are prepared to pay a reasonable amount for a site that makes it easy for them to find what they want quickly.  That doesn't seem to be working with istock.  It always seems like the slowest site I use and a lot of my photos get lost in the search because the keywords aren't in their vocabulary.  So I can understand why they appear to be losing buyers to SS.

I think IS made a huge investment in the "controlled vocabulary" and it didn't pay off.  And let's face it, the search on other sites is pretty crummy too.  How good can keyword search be, when you rely on your contributors to do the keywords?  Try to imagine some other retail or 'agency' business where the proprietors don't actually know what they have in stock, but rely on their suppliers to label everything and then just pile it all in a warehouse.

This is a huge opportunity for the future.  Someone needs to start fresh and actually take responsibility for keywording their images.  Then they could have 2 sets of keywords - one set describing what's actually IN the image, and another set being relevant topics.  Yes, contributors will usually know of some good keywords that typical reviewers would not - especially for niche or technical subjects.   The contributor would still have input.  But to produce a truly better search, agencies need to take responsibilty for keywording.  And yes that costs money.  But imagine the payoff over time.

« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2013, 15:16 »
0
how can everything be covered? 2 years ago no one was talking photos of kids doing selfies, quinoa fritters, or hipsters with film cameras.......

fashion changes, technology changes faster, those 2 alone mean we get to keep shooting new stuff.

Actually it means ppl should avoid those because they are fads that go away as quickly as they came, and the pictures will be mostly worthless. The best is to try and do (pseudo)iconic type of shots that have longevity (like yuri's #1 handshake shot f.e.) and I have to say, micro agencies are far more likely to accept those than stocksy, and they have far more of them, and this bothers me a bit.

« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2013, 15:40 »
+1
Sor for anybody who wants to sell such content, exclusivity at iStock does not work - because it's artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.

+1
I agree that anyone who creates average generic content is in trouble even if you are on the sub sites, like I said this isn't an exclusive issue it's an industry wide issue.

(1) Anyone who makes like an ostrich and stays exclusive is in trouble.  Within the space of a year it's gone from better than SS volumes and DT commissions to worse than DT volumes and 123 commissions.  Can anyone really have faith that the muppets responsible  either care or are capable of sustaining the business.

(2) Anonymous commentary about "generic content" in a pejorative way is pretty meaningless and, anyway, generic stuff is the stuff that sells because it's useful.

You are talking from a non-excl point of view. As exclusive I' going the same, or even a bit better (including Getty sales, btw, paid today and great) than last year.I understand that the demise of Photo Plus and the reduction in price for non-ex stuff has taken its toll. That could be an argument to don't stay as non-ex at IS, but, certainly, not a valid argument against exclusivity.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 15:45 by loop »

« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2013, 16:01 »
+2
Withdrawing comments I made about attitudes to generic images - my bad, I didn't read the previous posts properly and interpreted what you were saying based on a certain former member's frequent comments on such matters.  :-[

My personal numbers are insignificant but if one considers the decline over such a short period, the number of non-exclusive contributors, the significance of some of their ports and the fact that IS trousers the vast bulk of their sales revenue, the fall in revenue for the business must be phenomenal.  This is down to a series of bad decisions from the people at the top and displays monumental incompetence so the term "muppet" is well justified. 

Current main collection exclusive commissions seem to be in the same ballpark as average DT commissions and pricing at something over 4 times what independent files cost on the same site.  The much higher rates you mentioned presumably are from some higher priced exclusive only collections with an even higher price difference.  I fully accept that there are some top notch exclusive images which arguably should attract a higher price but there are equally top notch indy images on the same shelves at a fraction of the price.   I really can't see how this can remain viable but the killer argument is that the folks who have destroyed a great brand in the blink of an eye are still in charge.  I'd suggest that hoping current exclusive revenues remain the same in these circumstances is not very realistic.

« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2013, 16:41 »
0
I wonder if nanostock is going to be the next big thing.  Leaf better register nanostockgroup.com :)
First Getty,
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/interesting-times-in-which-to-live/
now Yaymicro.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-news/yayimages-streaming-microstock/

« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2013, 18:13 »
+2
Sor for anybody who wants to sell such content, exclusivity at iStock does not work - because it's artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.

+1
I agree that anyone who creates average generic content is in trouble even if you are on the sub sites, like I said this isn't an exclusive issue it's an industry wide issue.

(1) Anyone who makes like an ostrich and stays exclusive is in trouble.  Within the space of a year it's gone from better than SS volumes and DT commissions to worse than DT volumes and 123 commissions.  Can anyone really have faith that the muppets responsible  either care or are capable of sustaining the business.

(2) Anonymous commentary about "generic content" in a pejorative way is pretty meaningless and, anyway, generic stuff is the stuff that sells because it's useful.

You are talking from a non-excl point of view. As exclusive I' going the same, or even a bit better (including Getty sales, btw, paid today and great) than last year.I understand that the demise of Photo Plus and the reduction in price for non-ex stuff has taken its toll. That could be an argument to don't stay as non-ex at IS, but, certainly, not a valid argument against exclusivity.

It is in a way. If I were still exclusive, I would fear what IS might do next - will they cut exclusive income in half overnight, just like they have done to Indies. If you could still pay your bills on half the income, then maybe you'll be fine, but giving up on exclusivity for me had a lot to do with concern as to what they might do. That exclusive contract is very restrictive. Having a variety of sources of income feels a lot better.

« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2013, 18:28 »
0
I have a variety of sources of income, but not in microstock itself. I consider relying just in microstock would be a really crazy and dangerous decision. There are too manyh common problems to ALL sites as a whole: the flood of new photographers/factories/photos, sites, the race to the bottom etc. When a site gets away with a cut, other sfollow. No, thanks; there's life beside  ms, and even beside photography. As I said, I consider to be in a much greater danger those that only do ms, no matter to how many sites they upload.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 18:35 by loop »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5041 Views
Last post September 28, 2011, 01:19
by RacePhoto
41 Replies
8370 Views
Last post July 21, 2015, 11:56
by madman
8 Replies
3666 Views
Last post February 09, 2018, 19:50
by shiyali
3 Replies
1961 Views
Last post May 15, 2018, 05:53
by Brasilnut
25 Replies
5029 Views
Last post January 18, 2019, 12:16
by davidbautista

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results