MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales slump  (Read 65437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: August 18, 2010, 01:55 »
0
Since I became exclusive, my sales went downhill.

After F5 alive, my sale number rarely changes when I hit F5. Now I am at the bottom.

It is so depressing.

Cheer up!

Once you're down at the very bottom, there is only one way to go...





















... sideways  ;D


Sorry, couldn't resist...

My sales at IS are miserable too. May has been ok, but since then it's down all the way, July being less than a third of May  >:(


« Reply #201 on: August 18, 2010, 02:05 »
0
I agree it's a good thing. We need higher prices. Micro now gives buyers a lot of macro quality images at micro pricing.

At $50 a pop you could dig out plenty of RM stuff. $40 or $50 cost to buyers is quite normal on Alamy and I think I read some time ago about Getty launching a "Trad" collection selling at below $50. So it isn't "microstock" any more. I guess iStock/Getty wants to use iS as a vehicle to drive high value sales, with the "great photos from $1" blurb being the bait. If that is the strategy, it really isn't going to work.  Trads don't have the volume of sales and if Istock gets lumped with them in people's minds the result will be disastrous.

Both days this week iS is way behind SS in earnings and yesterday was behind Fotolia and DT, too.

lagereek

« Reply #202 on: August 18, 2010, 02:24 »
0
I agree it's a good thing. We need higher prices. Micro now gives buyers a lot of macro quality images at micro pricing.

At $50 a pop you could dig out plenty of RM stuff. $40 or $50 cost to buyers is quite normal on Alamy and I think I read some time ago about Getty launching a "Trad" collection selling at below $50. So it isn't "microstock" any more. I guess iStock/Getty wants to use iS as a vehicle to drive high value sales, with the "great photos from $1" blurb being the bait. If that is the strategy, it really isn't going to work.  Trads don't have the volume of sales and if Istock gets lumped with them in people's minds the result will be disastrous.

Both days this week iS is way behind SS in earnings and yesterday was behind Fotolia and DT, too.

At least IMO, Alamy has done one good thing, their novel-use, similar to Macro/micro,  I had 299 sales within a couple of weeks. Perhaps IS should stop promoting themselves as Micro and instead concentrate on the higher end, maybe buyers would think they get something special.

« Reply #203 on: August 18, 2010, 04:12 »
0
At least IMO, Alamy has done one good thing, their novel-use, similar to Macro/micro,  I had 299 sales within a couple of weeks. Perhaps IS should stop promoting themselves as Micro and instead concentrate on the higher end, maybe buyers would think they get something special.

Any idea if that was them crediting you with sales from the last 12 months or if it was live sales? I had two (small) annual lumps and a scattering since then which seem to be being reported live. Their prices are too low, though: even with 50% commission it is still well below the average microstock payout. As far as I know, they are not making any real impact through that programme.

lagereek

« Reply #204 on: August 18, 2010, 05:28 »
0
At least IMO, Alamy has done one good thing, their novel-use, similar to Macro/micro,  I had 299 sales within a couple of weeks. Perhaps IS should stop promoting themselves as Micro and instead concentrate on the higher end, maybe buyers would think they get something special.

Any idea if that was them crediting you with sales from the last 12 months or if it was live sales? I had two (small) annual lumps and a scattering since then which seem to be being reported live. Their prices are too low, though: even with 50% commission it is still well below the average microstock payout. As far as I know, they are not making any real impact through that programme.

Hi!

Dont really know how successfull or not they are with this Novel-use, all I know is Ive got a heck of a lot of sales since they introduced it but it seems to be the same within their RF, definetely on the rise.

Frankly Im experiencing a big rise in RM and RF  which is weird considering the finance climat, Not saying its got anything to do with the Micro slump but if its right across the board its an issue for the micro industry, isnt it?

best.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #205 on: August 18, 2010, 05:58 »
0
I agree it's a good thing. We need higher prices. Micro now gives buyers a lot of macro quality images at micro pricing.
At $50 a pop you could dig out plenty of RM stuff. $40 or $50 cost to buyers is quite normal on Alamy and I think I read some time ago about Getty launching a "Trad" collection selling at below $50. So it isn't "microstock" any more. I guess iStock/Getty wants to use iS as a vehicle to drive high value sales, with the "great photos from $1" blurb being the bait. If that is the strategy, it really isn't going to work.  Trads don't have the volume of sales and if Istock gets lumped with them in people's minds the result will be disastrous.
Both days this week iS is way behind SS in earnings and yesterday was behind Fotolia and DT, too.

$50 RM on Alamy? RM price depends on usage so not a good comparison. An RF license there is $5 to $365, Vetta is $20 to $70. Good luck finding something creative there among all of the snapshots and 50 different poses of the same model. And Alamy is heavily discounting which I absolutely do not want my agent doing. I've seen all of the posts about sales for peanuts that the RM calculator was showing was supposed to be hundreds or thousands of dollars.  I don't think anybody is earning anything significant at Alamy and the discounting isn't helping. Alamy is becoming micro because their only value proposition has been "we have 15 million images". Yeah, well so do the micros and now they have no value proposition.

And so because IS is behind for you does that mean it's an industry trend and it's behind for everybody? It looks like sales are down everywhere.

« Reply #206 on: August 18, 2010, 07:09 »
0
Yesterday i bumped into someone who works for a big production house that buys a lot of stock.
He said they have always used istock, but recently moved over to Shutterstock as istock got way too expensive. He was also complaining about so many images that cost easily $50/image. (Vetta).
Because we're so involved in stock we know what Vetta is about, but apparently not all buyers are aware and the fact that Vetta's are pushed to the front of the best match so agressively doesnt seem to be helping istock... that in combination with the other price raises makes maybe istock for big buyers isnt as interesting as it was anymore.
Of course this is only one company but i thought it was interesting to hear. (and was relieved they prefer shutterstock over TS ;))

This is interesting as I have experienced the same thing and have spent allot of time assuring friends which deal with Istock to just look further back in the search and the less expensive choices are there, whether or not they are prepared to put the time in of course is another matter, no wonder my sales are still tumbling  >:( This really need to be addressed imo

Have no problem with Vetta Pricing as such but for heavens sake why not have a separate category after all if it really is that good and in demand it should sell itself without hogging the first pages of every search
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 07:19 by iclick »

« Reply #207 on: August 18, 2010, 07:10 »
0
...I don't think anybody is earning anything significant at Alamy....
That's wrong.  People sometimes say how much they have been earning in their forum and on the alamy pro forum.  There might not be many but some are earning more than 95% of microstockers.  It takes a huge portfolio but as they accept almost everything, that is possible there, with a lot of hard work.

lagereek

« Reply #208 on: August 18, 2010, 07:28 »
0
True!  I know many photographers belonging to Alamy, majority is doing ok but a few are doing very well indeed. A few that came via Pictor are doing great.
Even so they are outgunned by Getty and Corbis on the RM and RF side, still theyre ticking over.

« Reply #209 on: August 18, 2010, 07:48 »
0
Alamy has not been huge for me, it trails along in fourth or fifth place but it is still big enough to be significant. I don't feed into their main market, though.

Paulie, iStock and Alamy are different. If reality rather than studio glitz is your requirement, Alamy is probably a better bet. If you want Vetta "creative", fine. The iStock hype that their chosen files are the only really great ones on the market is just that - hype. They simply represent a particular genre.

I still don't see sales down everywhere (is it iStock exclusives who keep saying that?). I see them up at SS and Fotolia, mixed at Dreamstime (as usual) but seriously down at iStock.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #210 on: August 18, 2010, 08:00 »
0
...I don't think anybody is earning anything significant at Alamy....
That's wrong.  People sometimes say how much they have been earning in their forum and on the alamy pro forum.  There might not be many but some are earning more than 95% of microstockers.  It takes a huge portfolio but as they accept almost everything, that is possible there, with a lot of hard work.

For earnings I've seen plenty of posts at Alamy saying you can expect to earn 50 cents to $1 per image per year. Micro seems to average about 50 cents to $1 per month. I then see quite a few people say they have several thousand images and earned a couple hundred dollars for the month. If there's anybody there with better sales performance than micros I don't see them posting about it.

And when you say "earning more" are you comparing apples to apples? Or do you need 10x as many images at Alamy to earn the same monthly amount as micros?

« Reply #211 on: August 18, 2010, 08:05 »
0
As far as I get from the forums, Alamy is a big hit for British folk who enjoy wandering around the island snapping pictures of every square inch.  They then license these to local papers and textbooks.  You seem to be assured of making under $1000 a year from 10,000 such images.

Of course, like micro, a few are more successful.  Most aren't, really, or at least are as successful as they seem to want to be.  Certainly, no one is saying "I quit my day job based on my Alamy income".

lagereek

« Reply #212 on: August 18, 2010, 08:11 »
0
As far as I get from the forums, Alamy is a big hit for British folk who enjoy wandering around the island snapping pictures of every square inch.  They then license these to local papers and textbooks.  You seem to be assured of making under $1000 a year from 10,000 such images.

Of course, like micro, a few are more successful.  Most aren't, really, or at least are as successful as they seem to want to be.  Certainly, no one is saying "I quit my day job based on my Alamy income".

Thats right, British photoagencies are extremly conservative and true, if youre a good landscape artist and especially England, Scotland, wales and Ireland, bloody hell!  youll be laughing all the way to the bank.

On a differant note, I think IS is holding up pretty well though, all the Micros are down, some more then others but all into account IS can still produce.

best.

« Reply #213 on: August 18, 2010, 08:11 »
0
Yesterday i bumped into someone who works for a big production house that buys a lot of stock.
He said they have always used istock, but recently moved over to Shutterstock as istock got way too expensive. He was also complaining about so many images that cost easily $50/image. (Vetta).
Because we're so involved in stock we know what Vetta is about, but apparently not all buyers are aware and the fact that Vetta's are pushed to the front of the best match so agressively doesnt seem to be helping istock... that in combination with the other price raises makes maybe istock for big buyers isnt as interesting as it was anymore.
Of course this is only one company but i thought it was interesting to hear. (and was relieved they prefer shutterstock over TS ;))

This is interesting as I have experienced the same thing and have spent allot of time assuring friends which deal with Istock to just look further back in the search and the less expensive choices are there, whether or not they are prepared to put the time in of course is another matter, no wonder my sales are still tumbling  >:( This really need to be addressed imo

Have no problem with Vetta Pricing as such but for heavens sake why not have a separate category after all if it really is that good and in demand it should sell itself without hogging the first pages of every search
I agree, I also think Vetta is a great collection and an excellent idea, but stop shoving it in the buyers faces like that already!
What does the 'typical' buyer do? They dont read newsletters or forums; they go to the site and perform a search. If they get as first results images that cost $50 i can vivdly imagine they walk out to somewhere else (which seems already to be the case).
I think Paulie's idea with the 2 different search-result boxes both with a 'see more of this collection' would be a perfect solution.

« Reply #214 on: August 18, 2010, 08:14 »
0
I have seen several people say they earn $100k or more with alamy, and it isn't just photos of the UK.  There are some good travel photographers that go all round the world.  It's only going to be a few people that make that much, some make more than my microstock earnings with less than 10k images.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #215 on: August 18, 2010, 08:15 »
0
Alamy has not been huge for me, it trails along in fourth or fifth place but it is still big enough to be significant. I don't feed into their main market, though.

Paulie, iStock and Alamy are different. If reality rather than studio glitz is your requirement, Alamy is probably a better bet. If you want Vetta "creative", fine. The iStock hype that their chosen files are the only really great ones on the market is just that - hype. They simply represent a particular genre.

I still don't see sales down everywhere (is it iStock exclusives who keep saying that?). I see them up at SS and Fotolia, mixed at Dreamstime (as usual) but seriously down at iStock.

I'm aware that they're different. Reality for Alamy to me looks like snapshots. If they're selling well that's great. Maybe I need to send snapshots there. I haven't been able to figure out what sells at Alamy other than the advice I've seen of "you need a gazillion images". Doesn't really sound like a good use of time to process 10,000 images to earn a couple hundred dollars per month. I invest time where I can expect good sales performance. If I have anything in the reality category I'd send it to Getty or Istock before Alamy.

Again, you don't see sales down everywhere. I've seen posts here saying things seem to be slowing down, or inconsistent, at most sites.

« Reply #216 on: August 18, 2010, 08:26 »
0
Paulie, I started late at Alamy, so I have only about half as many images there as on the leading micros. Apples to apples it would probably be in third place behind Shutterstock. I'd probably do better if I was more UK oriented.

Your figures fit pretty well with me, I manage about $5 per year per pic from micros and $1  from Alamy. But I am using half-a-dozen micros to get that $5 and only one Alamy. IS and SS both kick Alamy's butt, Fotolia and DT are sparring with it and the others are well behind.

Sean .... it's more like $1 per file per year, not 10c. At least, for a reasonably competent stock shooter.

You of all people know that there are some who make a lot from each file and a lot who make virtually nothing - and that is as true of iStock as it is of Alamy.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 08:34 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #217 on: August 18, 2010, 08:37 »
0

Again, you don't see sales down everywhere. I've seen posts here saying things seem to be slowing down, or inconsistent, at most sites.

I can only report what my stats tell me. I am among the bigger fish but I may not be typical. It's hard to know.

« Reply #218 on: August 18, 2010, 08:41 »
0
Sean .... it's more like $1 per file per year, not 10c. At least, for a reasonably competent stock shooter.

You of all people know that there are some who make a lot from each file and a lot who make virtually nothing - and that is as true of iStock as it is of Alamy.

Most in the forums are probably not competent stock shooters.

I do know that.  That is why there are a small few that make money, and the rest don't.

michealo

« Reply #219 on: August 18, 2010, 09:18 »
0
There are plenty of "real" looking ordinary people in microstock. 

Problem is they are nearly impossible to find, drowned as they are in a sea of Yuri's and Monkeybusiness's  perfect looking, cookie cutter images. 

If the micro sites don't find a way in their search engines to allow the real people type images to see the light of day, they will continue to lose buyers to Flikr and the like.   And adding the keyphrase "real people" isn't helpful because buyers don't know to search for it. 

Very true! We have heard buyers moaning about this for years, I tried it once or twice and it wasn't terribly successful. Buyers still seem to buy shiny happy models ???

Yeah it's liking salad at McDonalds, everyone says they want them but they don't actually.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #220 on: August 18, 2010, 17:48 »
0
You of all people know that there are some who make a lot from each file and a lot who make virtually nothing - and that is as true of iStock as it is of Alamy.

The difference is like Sean said. I haven't seen anybody post they're making a living solely from Alamy.

You seem happy with it so that's what counts.

alias

« Reply #221 on: August 18, 2010, 18:08 »
0
Those 'real people' shots which Lagereek was writing of are always very stylishly done and often with an indie feel. This sort of work is well represented at IS. Definitely more than at many places. IS has always had a sort of indie side.

RacePhoto

« Reply #222 on: August 19, 2010, 00:59 »
0
You of all people know that there are some who make a lot from each file and a lot who make virtually nothing - and that is as true of iStock as it is of Alamy.

The difference is like Sean said. I haven't seen anybody post they're making a living solely from Alamy.

You seem happy with it so that's what counts.

I think we went through this a year or two ago. They are different places, different images, different markets, different people, different earnings per image. But in the end, after doing the numbers research, the top 10% of Alamy photographers, make about the same as the top 10% of Microstock image producers.

The 10c per image, per month that most people actually make on Micro across five agencies, (on average) is about the same as one image on Alamy selling for the same amount, per year. But it isn't about income per image, it's bottom line. That's where Micro and Alamy meet. The bottom line income.

I haven't seen any change at Alamy with the new licensing, new collection (which I'm not part of) or any of the USA office additions. I have to admit that US photos in the UK and European market isn't a great marketing concept.  :)

It appears that the people who shoot locally are getting the majority of the sales at this point. Girl with a headset is not best seller on Alamy, neither is smiling business people or sliced tomatoes. It's important to remember that not only are the agencies, locations and commissions different, the buyers are far different with their demands and usage. I still think Alamy is heavy in the news and publishing market.

« Reply #223 on: August 19, 2010, 02:36 »
0
You of all people know that there are some who make a lot from each file and a lot who make virtually nothing - and that is as true of iStock as it is of Alamy.

The difference is like Sean said. I haven't seen anybody post they're making a living solely from Alamy.

You seem happy with it so that's what counts.

It adds a bit to my monthly total and it fits with my strategy of diversifying my income sources. If Alamy isn't worth my effort, then 123, Bigstock and Canstock aren't either - and chopping all those off would cut my income by at least 15% each month. That's how I look at it.

lagereek

« Reply #224 on: August 19, 2010, 05:36 »
0
You of all people know that there are some who make a lot from each file and a lot who make virtually nothing - and that is as true of iStock as it is of Alamy.

The difference is like Sean said. I haven't seen anybody post they're making a living solely from Alamy.

You seem happy with it so that's what counts.

It adds a bit to my monthly total and it fits with my strategy of diversifying my income sources. If Alamy isn't worth my effort, then 123, Bigstock and Canstock aren't either - and chopping all those off would cut my income by at least 15% each month. That's how I look at it.

Today there are very few getting a really healthy income from stock alone, I know this,  many in RM, RF or micro are ofcourse ticking over but nothing spectacular. Back in the Trad Agency days there were over 5000 photographers making a real good living and they were mainly with Image-Bank and Stones-Worldwide. In them days stock-shooting was reserved only for the Professional and there was ofcourse very little competition.
Today there are a few guys from the old school and within the maincore of the Getty-RM, from the very start, they are big established names and well known advertising photographers, some of these fellas are earning well past a six-figured amount per year from stock only,  mind theyve bit at it for about 30 years.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
5673 Views
Last post June 07, 2007, 16:44
by hatman12
13 Replies
3571 Views
Last post July 19, 2011, 11:10
by ToniFlap
8 Replies
2243 Views
Last post July 04, 2012, 16:58
by wut
17 Replies
2090 Views
Last post February 04, 2014, 17:40
by Rinderart
5 Replies
1673 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 12:01
by gbalex

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results