Agency Based Discussion > GLStock
GL Stock (GraphicLeftover) - The state of the situation
cthoman:
--- Quote from: sharpshot on November 10, 2017, 01:51 ---I would expect GL to at least keep up with MostPhotos and Stockfresh. They pay 50% as well and I get a trickle of sales with them. I've even sold more this year on FeaturePics than GL and they've never sold much.
--- End quote ---
I guess as an illustrator I have the different perspective of experiencing a lot of different agencies move into selling vectors and it taking time to see results for the new format while they continue on getting good reviews from all the original contributors. You don't see the reverse a lot, so I guess it is a new perspective for photographers.
GraniteCove:
--- Quote from: Pauws99 on November 10, 2017, 03:02 ---
--- Quote from: GraniteCove on November 09, 2017, 19:30 ---Some great points. "A lot of buyers have proven they will pay for quality images if they can find them...". To me that one is not only spot on, it's also the most significant - and exactly what I was talking about when I referred to chasing the wrong buyers. I am in touch with buyers. Many of my clients are buyers. In my case small ad agencies with client budgets, time constraints which preclude a custom shoot, and relatively discerning taste - so I understand exactly why some buyers are willing to pay more than a subscription blogger might for the same image. Any agency that can address the issues mentioned so far in terms of merit, quality, discoverability etc. AND focus primarily on those buyers would be one I would back exclusively if they would have me. It would probably never become another Shutterstock, obviously, but anything else at this point from a contributors point of of view is just further dilution which does nothing to address declining royalties.
--- End quote ---
The problem is though they would probably pay less if they could get the same level of service......not great for contributors but I don't see a rosy future for "premium" images.
--- End quote ---
It goes without saying that buyers will pay less if they can. It's human nature. But if they can't pay less because the image that perfectly fits their requirements is only available at one agency then cost automatically becomes less of an issue.Now if the cost of that image was reasonable to begin with, say 50-60 bucks with the contributor getting somewhere near half of that, then the economics begin to make sense to me. Even if that image only sells a handful of times over a year, it is still better than hundreds or even thousands of times elsewhere. Obviously I am approaching this from my own perspective based on my own experience with my own images. To be honest, way back a lifetime ago in industry terms (last year) I was still happy with my returns. Large EL's were fairly consistent and they buoyed my portfolio. Since those have for the most part dried up for me I am no longer interested in contributing to any subscription based model. I knew what I was getting into from the beginning yes, but it was the 80 and 120 dollar buys that kept me going in a sea of subscription sales. Frankly, today I cringe every time I see a 38 cent sale. That's why I am really interested in seeing a new agency emerge (or an existing one refocus) that really takes a hard look at that mid-micro range where both my work and expectations would be a better fit. I do custom work yes, so I am lucky to have a financial buffer, but I much prefer the freedom shooting stock affords and would love to be able to continue. But I agree, the future is not looking too rosy.
Sorry about the rant.
Mantis:
Let's face it, GL is a small company trying to compete in a big world. They will never yield any level of sales close to SS or even IS and probably even DP. Look at Pond5, they supposedly got an infusion of cash to invest in the company and their marketing. I haven't seen any lift is sales. Marketing is one thing, but effective marketing is another. And marketing sustainability is yet another layer of difficulty to achieve because it costs even more money. Very difficult to realize. I applaud them for trying to stay in the game, but the probability of actually making a dent in the MS business is almost non-existent.
GraniteCove:
Exactly. Little fish in a big pond when it might make more sense to be a big fish in a little pond.
Pauws99:
--- Quote from: GraniteCove on November 10, 2017, 08:54 ---
--- Quote from: Pauws99 on November 10, 2017, 03:02 ---
--- Quote from: GraniteCove on November 09, 2017, 19:30 ---Some great points. "A lot of buyers have proven they will pay for quality images if they can find them...". To me that one is not only spot on, it's also the most significant - and exactly what I was talking about when I referred to chasing the wrong buyers. I am in touch with buyers. Many of my clients are buyers. In my case small ad agencies with client budgets, time constraints which preclude a custom shoot, and relatively discerning taste - so I understand exactly why some buyers are willing to pay more than a subscription blogger might for the same image. Any agency that can address the issues mentioned so far in terms of merit, quality, discoverability etc. AND focus primarily on those buyers would be one I would back exclusively if they would have me. It would probably never become another Shutterstock, obviously, but anything else at this point from a contributors point of of view is just further dilution which does nothing to address declining royalties.
--- End quote ---
The problem is though they would probably pay less if they could get the same level of service......not great for contributors but I don't see a rosy future for "premium" images.
--- End quote ---
It goes without saying that buyers will pay less if they can. It's human nature. But if they can't pay less because the image that perfectly fits their requirements is only available at one agency then cost automatically becomes less of an issue.Now if the cost of that image was reasonable to begin with, say 50-60 bucks with the contributor getting somewhere near half of that, then the economics begin to make sense to me. Even if that image only sells a handful of times over a year, it is still better than hundreds or even thousands of times elsewhere. Obviously I am approaching this from my own perspective based on my own experience with my own images. To be honest, way back a lifetime ago in industry terms (last year) I was still happy with my returns. Large EL's were fairly consistent and they buoyed my portfolio. Since those have for the most part dried up for me I am no longer interested in contributing to any subscription based model. I knew what I was getting into from the beginning yes, but it was the 80 and 120 dollar buys that kept me going in a sea of subscription sales. Frankly, today I cringe every time I see a 38 cent sale. That's why I am really interested in seeing a new agency emerge (or an existing one refocus) that really takes a hard look at that mid-micro range where both my work and expectations would be a better fit. I do custom work yes, so I am lucky to have a financial buffer, but I much prefer the freedom shooting stock affords and would love to be able to continue. But I agree, the future is not looking too rosy.
Sorry about the rant.
--- End quote ---
Thing is I believe that the number of images that perfectly fit the brief on only one site is getting smaller and smaller. Where the likes of SS fail to meet customer needs is not that they don't have the images....their systems are not good enough to deliver them easily to the buyer but in all probability they are in there somewhere.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version