MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Opportunity to Sell on Jupiterimages  (Read 16801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: October 04, 2007, 17:05 »
0
Steve-O

I'm reading the responses and trying to find a reason to join, but I see no realistic incentive to play the game. Please tell me (us) what we're missing. What makes this deal "good" because no one (self included) is getting the pitch. Historically you've been a voice of reason on the site, please enlighten us as to what we're overlooking. It has the feel of someone I don't know offering me money to take my 18 year old sister on a date (creepy).

Please chime in my brother.

AAA


« Reply #51 on: October 04, 2007, 17:29 »
0

If you didn't want exclusivity, I'd happily offer you the same RM images I'm offering via Alamy and PhotoShelter Collection. I'd take my chances on the 15% because I'd only be out the time to upload (and make you TIFF files when Alamy and PhotoShelter Collection take JPEGs).  If you didn't sell, but the other agencies did, it'd be an experiment that didn't work out, and I'd not have lost much.

If you want the images exclusively, there'd have to be some really big carrot dangling out there...15% isn't it.

just a note for you jsnover

I am not 100% sure on this but I think offering RM images on two different sites is a bit of a risky thing.  Some sites let you do it, and some sites do not.  The reason being - when a buyer purchases a RM image they can state where it will be used and how long and for what. 

So the problem comes when a buyer purchases an exclusive license of the image for bilboards accross america from Alamy, and the same day or week someone purchases the same image for exclusive use across america as well - except bought from Photoshelter.... then you have big problems.

Basically if an image is listed at RM on a site - it should be exclusive.

« Reply #52 on: October 04, 2007, 18:19 »
0
Leaf,

You say it's risky, but in what sense?

If a buyer gets that image from one site, unless he gets it with exclusive rights (do sites do that without prior consultation to the photog?), can he complain if it is sold to someone else? 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2007, 21:59 »
0
From the thread, I believe I understand where some of the confusion lies   it appears that 'exclusive' is not completely understood in the context of JupiterImages. It has nothing to do with RM. It has everything to do with global distribution of RF content.

We ask for 'exclusive' because we have relationships with 'some' of the same RF distributors that you may currently submit to. We also have relationships with RF distributors that you may not have access to. Our DG opportunity gives you distribution beyond what you may be able to do for yourself.

 It would not make sense for us to upload your images under the DG brand and then have you upload them under your own brand. Having duplicate images on the same site is risky and makes a site look bad. It also risks our relationship and credibility with our partners.

The value of the opportunity is in the aggregate sales you stand to earn over 200 distributors  that you may not otherwise have access to.

We are listening, appreciate what you have to say... and look forward to hearing your feedback.




jsnover

« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2007, 22:21 »
0
I am not 100% sure on this but I think offering RM images on two different sites is a bit of a risky thing....Basically if an image is listed at RM on a site - it should be exclusive.

I answered this in the other thread where it was referenced, but Alamy's Licensed model (which is what I use) does not require exclusivity - they ask you if someone wants to buy exclusive rights.

@paddy_ji  You explain why DG wants exclusive rights, and how we might be confused about what exclusive means. However, I don't think this addresses the concerns many of us have expressed.

From the contributor's point of view it's all the same - we cannot sell the image anywhere else for 2 years. That only becomes attractive if the returns from that 2 year commitment are great. Saying that 200 distributors will have the image means very little (there are a number of internet stock sites many of us have sold through that don't actually generate many sales).

I realize companies don't want to divulge private sales figures, but you're asking us to just sign up for a 2 year exclusive commitment with zero data on what might be in it for us. If you drop the exclusivity requirement, I'll bet many more people would be willing to give it a try to see what sort of sales it generates...

« Reply #55 on: October 04, 2007, 22:36 »
0
On top of that, you are currently paying other contributors at a much higher commission level, then coming here and offering folks that contribute to the micros a smaller commission with delusions of "working with up to 200 other agencies that you may or may not already contribute to".

This deal is very one sided.  Make it attractive to everyone involved by boosting the commissions up to be higher than what a micro pays, and we may become interested.  Currently, you are low balling - the commission schedule is less than what we can earn at the micros.

« Reply #56 on: October 04, 2007, 23:28 »
0
There is no intent to delude or misreprensent this opportunity. We have communicated and clarified the DG opportunity in a very public forum and clarified what we are offering. As I mentioned in the earlier post, this opportunity is about exposure and getting in the door. Not for everyone but for some, it is worth the effort.

StockXpert has one of the best royalty rates of all the micropayments at 50%. We are proud of that and have no intentions to change.  Not every opportunity is going to be the same.  The idea is to give you options to pick and choose what you want to participate in.

In response to jsnover and her feedback about..."saying that 200 distributors will have the image means very little (there are a number of internet stock sites many of us have sold through that don't actually generate many sales).

The internet stock sites that are not currently working for you may not be the same ones that we would be distributing through. We partner with image suppliers around the world who are able to promote our content and sell it.

What is it worth to you? According to industry pundits, the average return per image in microstock ranges from $3/image to $5/image. Check out one article here: newbielink:http://rising.blackstar.com/will-adding-more-photos-bring-getty-more-sales-3.html [nonactive]

In traditional RF channels, the return per image is significantly higher as noted in this article.

Fuel for thought.

« Reply #57 on: October 05, 2007, 01:20 »
0
my questions are.

if I was to go along to jupiter outside of this "special" deal what is the royalty?
and what is the average $ / year of an image on jupiter?

I realise this is a seperate category within jupiter so there is no answer yet for this category but I would be concerned when I know a number of photogs that consider $10 image / year in traditional agencies as doing well.

Phil


« Reply #58 on: October 05, 2007, 02:07 »
0
Paddy, in this article it says the average photographer is making less than $2/image/year on iStockphoto. This is a very low number and I guess for most who might be interested in the Jupiter deal and  who Jupiter wishes that they join, make considerably more.
 I would be really interested what the average of Jupiter is. Would it be possible to post this?

Or lets assume a "very good"microstocker makes $30 / image a year on microstock. Would this microstocker make more per year at Jupiter? Or what about those who make $50 a year/image at microstock?
 
This article also says Getty is giving 30%. What is in for us, that Jupiter only gives 15% commission? More marketing more sales? I am just curious, because apart from the 15% I really like the move of Jupiter. Great work there!

Forgive us our questioning an doubt about the 15% being a good deal, but for 2 years these images will be locked to Jupiter. Depending on the photographer and images a good image can earn a few hundred $ a year at microstock. Of course everywhere is risk involved I understand that, but a little more numbers would be helpful in this decision.

Thanks!

« Reply #59 on: October 05, 2007, 10:38 »
0
anonymous (and all),

The reasons I have not chimed in more here is simply because I don't know the traditional market well enough.

I do know that the cost of reaching different customers varies, and I would think that this opportunity will provide a way to reach some of those customers. Just like there are photographers who are more comfortable uploading to certain sites and taking on a certain amount of risk, there are customers who feel the same. They just like doing business a certain way with certain agencies.

As for the 15%, if I felt my work was worth more I would see if there was room for negotiating. ;)

I look at it this way. Let's say I'm a traditional stock shooter for JI or someone else. Let's say I make $300,000 a year shooting traditional stock. I would be very happy with this. Would you?

If so, then how would I get there?

Not sure this is a realistic or reasonable scenario, but let's say I'm contracted to provide 1,000 sellable images a month. Over 12 months that's 12,000 images. If they bought the images from me outright, that's $25/image.

Now I would look at my individual circumstances versus that $300,000 per year seasoned stock shooter.

Am I (and my work) worth at least the same?

Being realistic, would I accept a buyout at $25 per image? Would I take my chances with a 15% royalty on a $70-$300 image? Would I pass on both or would I try and negiotiate a deal?

Well, if I knew there was potential to prove myself and perhaps move onto bigger opportunities with a reputable agency, I would definitely consider it.

Again, this is an individual decision. People have to weigh their risk tolerance versus past experience vs. their own current/future personal and professional circumstances vs. the opportunity presented vs. the long-term potential, etc. etc.

Then I'd see if I could change any of these factors to make the condition more favorable. If I still had questions, I'd e-mail them and ask.

Just my two cents

-Steve

« Reply #60 on: October 05, 2007, 16:13 »
0
My view:

The 'old school' style of image distribution is in decline.  That decline appears to be accelerating.  Recent announcements from Getty and Jupiter confirm the decline.

The 'new school' of microstock and on-line delivery is growing rapidly and will continue to grow.

Prices for 'old school' delivery are falling.  Prices for microstock are rising.

The print industry (the traditional buyer of RM and exclusive images) is in long term decline.  It is being replaced by on-line content and other electronic media.  Such media needs a regular change of content to keep users interested and active.  Hence demand for images for short term use will grow and demand for long term use will decline.

The 'old school' agencies need to invest heavily in developing their microstock and on-line offerings.  The market is dominated by iStock who sell 16 million images a year (and growing).  Even at an average of just $5 a shot, that's turnover of nearly $100 million per annum.  And if statistics are correct, only 8% of the image market is presently served by microstock.  That gives scope to increase turnover to somewhere between $300 and $500 million in the years ahead.

There are only about 2,000 serious microstock photographers worldwide (by serious I mean photographers producing excellent content and achieving buoyant sales).  As usual, 80% of the income will be earned by 20% of the players (or less).

There is a serious shortage of top class microstock talent.

80% of 'old school' photographers will fail in the microstock market - they cannot produce the quality and imagination needed to compete in the competitive and aggressive microstock market, and have been too reliant on getting business because 'they are a member of the club'.

Jupiter already recognises these problems, which is why it has diversified heavily into music sales, and why it launched StockXpert.

If I was an executive at Jupiter I would ask myself some simple questions: should I throw money at trying to sustain a business model that has been outgrown by advances in technology?  Should I try to sustain that business by reducing prices, cutting photographer commissions and cutting staff and overheads (which Jupiter is already doing, along with Getty)?  Or would it be better to invest to grow that part of the business which is exposed to and well placed in a rapidly growing market?

Anyone with any sense knows the answers to these questions.

My advice to you, Paddy, is to invest to grow StockXpert; StockXpert is already widely respected and gains good comment from some of the microstock industry's most important photographers (andresr's recent comments on the StockXpert forums, for example).  There is a potentially huge market out there of which StockXpert could gain a large slice.  Take whatever action is needed to grow and become even more successful, and you'll find that the microstock photographers will support you.

« Reply #61 on: October 05, 2007, 17:23 »
0
To my thinking (and I may well be wrong) you really are after people in the top 20-25%, these people would all earn much much more than $3-$5 and my concern would be that the 15% is geared up to return somewhere around this figure.  Sorry I don't see any advantages to this deal for the photographers you are after beyond 'increased exposure' something very wishy washy and unproven, and the ego of being able to say "I'm with Jupiter".

Personally it appears this deal is relying too heavily on these last two points and is extremely is one sided as far as finances, it feels to me a bit offensive, just offer the dumb microstockers 15% and tell them their playing in the big league now and they'll be happy, maybe not but thats how it feels to me.  I also feel hatman is right with his comments about bolstering company earnings at photographers expense.

I'm sure some people will take you up on it and hopefully well see the reports of how well they are doing, maybe I'm wrong and it will turn out well.

Phil

is it me or is there an irony here that the micros have long been critisiced for 'ripping off' the photographers compared to the traditional agencies, in particular, Istock's 20%, now a traditional agency offers 15% for exclusive, half of what istock pays a good stockist for exclusivity????

Steve there are micro stockers who earn $300000, not many but there are a few.  I dont think many traditional stock shooters earning $300000 would be getting 15% ???
« Last Edit: October 05, 2007, 19:33 by rustyphil »

« Reply #62 on: October 05, 2007, 22:28 »
0

is it me or is there an irony here that the micros have long been critisiced for 'ripping off' the photographers compared to the traditional agencies, in particular, Istock's 20%, now a traditional agency offers 15% for exclusive, half of what istock pays a good stockist for exclusivity????


This was my first thought, and there are traditional stock photographers who will not be happy about this development. Even if this is an offer to a limited group of contributors, it reflects an attitude, and news spread very fast these days.

grp_photo

« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2007, 02:42 »
0
Does anybody now what percentage the gold and diamond istock-exclusives get for their pictures at Getty (i think they are in the RF-Collection called photodisc but i am not sure about this).
In any case i think it should be at least the same percentage.
AFAIK 20 - 30 % is the normal RF-Standard (RM is higher) 15% really seems to be ridiculous low. 

« Reply #64 on: December 19, 2007, 00:43 »
0
anyone sign up to this offer?

helix7

« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2008, 12:45 »
0
Resurrecting an oldie here...

Has anyone tried this StockXpert/JI program? I'm wondering if anyone signed up and what kind of returns they have been getting.

FYI, I emailed Seb and got some info, and the royalty is now 20%.


« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2008, 13:06 »
0
I got in contact with them in the beginning of october and exchanged a few e-mails. I am ready to upload a few sample images, but their ftp-adress was not working for me. So in the end of november I contacted them again and asking if they can help with it and since then I never heard something again from them. Very very slow process (However I must admit I was not the fastest too.) So now its three month and they have not even looked at my sample images I want to send them. So this images, but only a very few, are just sitting on my harddisc and I am beginning to consider to cancel that with Jupiter Images and put them on Alamy or Microstock if they do not answer soon. Right now its lost money, they could have earned me in the last 3 month.

« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2008, 05:01 »
0
Update: Jupiter contacted me again. It seems they did not got my last mail, so I wrote them again, I hope they will receive the e-mail now. Thanks steve for letting them know about my issue, they responded immediately.

« Reply #68 on: January 11, 2008, 07:29 »
0
I send them an email long time ago (2 months), no response. I'll not fight for 15% commision...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3678 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 16:41
by melastmohican
76 Replies
27061 Views
Last post November 06, 2008, 10:17
by lagereek
5 Replies
13931 Views
Last post October 09, 2011, 14:39
by donding
16 Replies
6929 Views
Last post November 13, 2017, 21:04
by Pixart
25 Replies
15752 Views
Last post February 11, 2020, 04:54
by madman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors