Who has the advantage? - WARNING...this is a MIZ posted thread

[rjmiz]

Alot of threads about subs this month.
And although I hate to hear people constantly cry, whine, and complain, I do in fact understand why they do it.

So I want to present some of the more reasonable people in this forum a question;

A site that acts a broker for sale like the micro sites does needs to turn a profit. (I think we all can agree on this point)
Given that the site needs the profit there are only 2 other parties left....the photog and the buyer.

Either 1 of 3 scenarios can  be true
A. The buyer wins (because subs are so inexpensive)
B. The photog wins (because sub prices are higher than other sites)
C. Both photog and buyer maintain a fair and equal distribution.

In my opinion the only site that comes to mind in the "C" scenario is DT.
That's just my opinion, and I have no scientific evidence to back me up.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

[Sean Locke Photography]

Is this the Friday Miz thread, or the Saturday Miz thread.  I'm just trying to keep track.  Tx...

[vphoto]

by Shanghai time it is Sat, by EST it is still Friday.

[rjmiz]

sjlocke
I thought you were on the list of people who don't find my threads worth even bothering with!?
Well, I want to welcome you back into the fold. Now just be civil and behave yourself.

I love you

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

[epixx]

In my opinion the only site that comes to mind in the "C" scenario is DT.
That's just my opinion, and I have no scientific evidence to back me up.

Doesn't work like that for me. My sales volume at DT is more or less unchanged (slight increase from last year), while the profit per sale is going down. Logically then, my net revenue at DT is going down as well. So far this month, DT ranks as my number five earner, even behind FP, while it used to compete with IS for the second spot.

It's nice for DT if DT makes a profit, but long term, everybody except the customers will lose on lower prices, and the photographers are the ones who will lose the most. It seems to me like the agencies are peeing in their pants, trying to keep warm. Soon, it will be winter.

[vphoto]

In my opinion only SS and IS really pay.  Photogs produce images and SS and IS find enough buyers for the images. Other agencies fail in that. For that reason DT
rotates the portfolios.

[sharpshot]

.

[rjmiz]

Perhaps I did not make my question plain enough.
It's not about sales amount, or the amount of money to be made.

The question is which site serves both the photog and buyer equally from a fair price point of view.

[Adeptris]

None they are Merchants that broker the goods between the Vendors (Photographers) and the Customers, and all they are really concerned about is protecting thier own margin, which will vary from merchant to merchant based on the number of Vendors and Customer and thier own overheads, so they do not care about anything but the number of Vendors and Customers they have, if they could get away with it and keep up the supply they would give the vendors nothing.

On some sites like SS with fixed fees, every time prices go up by xx% the contributors share only goes up by x% and in the case of noobs last time 0% so the merchant rakes off a bit more.

David

[vphoto]

Perhaps I did not make my question plain enough.
It's not about sales amount, or the amount of money to be made.

The question is which site serves both the photog and buyer equally from a fair price point of view.

FP

[DiscreetDuck]

That's why FP is dying...

[vphoto]

That's why FP is dying...

you are obviously privy to some inside information. Keep us informed. 

[DiscreetDuck]

you are obviously privy to some inside information. Keep us informed. 

Nothing really private when most contributors experiment the same.
For me, FP has represented 0.14% of my overall income (in the last 6 months : $0.97 for 1 sale). Even Albumo is ahead.
When I upload there, I feel giving my time to support a business model that is theoretically fair for contributors, but it remains only utopia...

[vphoto]

If I were wise, I would upload to only 2-3 sites that are on there right margin of this site. I do not think FP is dying, I think they make a nice profit, we get morsels, but it is our fault of judgment.

[rjmiz]

Gentlemen might I again remind you that the answer I'm looking for is which site serves both the photog and buyer equally from a fair price point of view.

The reason I reiterate this thought is it appears you are moving into a discussion about profit again.

This is your second warning
If I have to remind you again I will blow up this thread with a bomb I bought on eBay.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

[Adeptris]

 If one site give the best return per image treating it's photographers well in theory, but then it has no sales, if another site gives less of a return but has more sales, then do we want fair rates with little sales or the cash?

[lisafx]

Have to agree with Miz on this one.  I have always felt that Dreamstime strikes the best balance between fair prices and service to the buyer and good return to the contributors. 

I have never heard a buyer complain about Dreamstime.  In fact most that switch from elsewhere are amazed at the quality, variety, and price of the images there, and the superior customer service. 

At the same time, as a contributor my $/sale keeps steadily over a dollar despite rising subscription sales.  For July I am averaging 1.09/DL there.  And any customer service issues I have had over the years have been dealt with quickly and professionally. 

And most importantly, their site upgrades have all been useful and seemlessly implemented, and the search consistently returns relevant results.  That serves both buyers and contributors well. 

Over time I believe that the combination of prices, quality, service, and site functionality will place Dreamstime ahead of the pack. 

[epixx]

you are obviously privy to some inside information. Keep us informed. 

Nothing really private when most contributors experiment the same.
For me, FP has represented 0.14% of my overall income (in the last 6 months : $0.97 for 1 sale). Even Albumo is ahead.
When I upload there, I feel giving my time to support a business model that is theoretically fair for contributors, but it remains only utopia...

The sales on FP depends on your portfolio and is highly individual. So far this month, my revenue at FP is twice that of DT. Not the usual situation, but it happens. Even my referrals there earn me much more than a place like Crestock.

Saying that FP is going down because you haven't had any sales there is crap. If that is the criteria, it looks to me like Alamy is going bust.

[DiscreetDuck]

Did I mention I haven't had any sale there ? : no.
And remember that post (and there are others), where most people feel the same about FP.
You were saying there quite different things... check your own criteria.

That comparison between Alamy and Featurepics is just crap !

[rjmiz]

In answer to the question asked in this thread, I received exactly 2 replies.
All other answers were self centered weenie headed idiots carrying on about something else.

Makes me wanna stop posting questions altogether!

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

[vphoto]

In answer to the question asked in this thread, I received exactly 2 replies.
All other answers were self centered weenie headed idiots carrying on about something else.

Makes me wanna stop posting questions altogether!

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

Very cheerful greeting on Sunday morning!  MIZ, are people on this forum your friends, competitors or unlearning disciples ?

[basti]

In my opinion midstock is the good solution for this micro/macro schisma. When some agencies charge unbeliavable commisions up to 80% and photographer does 90% of all real work and have to invest lot of the time and money, there should be some balance. For many buyers isnt real difference if they pay $1 or $2 or $5. Its still unbeliavably cheap! Getty charging $1000 for ordinary picture is another extreme.

While magazines/newspapers charge thousands of $$ for each page of advertising it shouldnt be problem for them to pay $2 per picture instead of $1 - but the impact for the photographer is huge.
Current race of "cheaper and cheaper" images is dead end (in my opinion). For many photographers already trained and skilled is more and more profitable to move to macrostock or direct sales rather then working more and more to earn less and less. Im pretty curious how will this microstock business evolve, thats in fact why I  started with it

[PeterChigmaroff]

Getty charging $1000 for ordinary picture is another extreme.

I praise any agency that still charges $1000 for images. There are many applications for image usage that warrant this  or ten times $1000. The campaign is of such a high profile and it's overall budget is so high that $10000 for photography is insignificant. I'm sure Getty still makes many sales in this range and I am equally sure that the photographer does not complain. It's not just the picture but the rights attached to the image that gives it its value; this is an important concept to many. I am fairly sure that anyone paying $1000 or more for an image know what they are doing and can't be though of as being taken advantage of .

[RacePhoto]

In answer to the question asked in this thread, I received exactly 2 replies.

All other answers were self centered weenie headed idiots carrying on about something else.

Makes me wanna stop posting questions altogether!

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

A. I searched your message and couldn't find a question mark and did find a Miz opinion. Maybe people are having a problem answering a question that wasn't asked?

B. You haven't specifically called me one of the "self centered weenie headed idiots" yet, can I join the club?

C. You would make a large group of people very happy.  

ps - Shutterstock has the best balance in my personal opinion, because it pays via volume of small sales, which add up to more dollars. If an agency gave me 100% and sold nothing, or 50% and sold one photo a month, I'd rather have the sales volume and smaller percentage. Because of the sales and payments, I find that the fairest site.

[rjmiz]

Hey weenie head:
"A. I searched your message and couldn't find a question mark and did find a Miz opinion. Maybe people are having a problem answering a question that wasn't asked?"

The question is right in the title of this thread! "Who has the advantage?  "

Weenie Head is a name I made up. It has no meaning to anyone in this world but me.
I will tell you this though. For you miss the question all together as you did, I will place in in the class of weenie heads who "never look before they leap".
Meaning you shot yourself in the foot on this one.

You sir are now officially classified as a "TYPE C" weenie head.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

PS I noticed even though you state you could not find the question, you managed to answer the very question that eluded you!
("Shutterstock has the best balance in my personal opinion......)