MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales slump  (Read 89619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 11, 2010, 14:55 »
0
An RF shot sold through a traditional agency can easily sell for anything between 10 up to hundereds of bucks, a Micro RFshot can sell for what?  25 bucks?  proper RF is pretty much the thing within the Trad-agencies, Getty, Alamy, Corbis, etc,  but no, you dont have to be exclusive to supply to RM.

Sorry, Sean, what's your point?


« Reply #76 on: August 11, 2010, 14:57 »
0
Just clarifying that both "traditional" agencies and micro sell what is generally considered "RF".

« Reply #77 on: August 11, 2010, 15:08 »
0
Yes, that's right. My best royalty free sale on Alamy was just over $300. Single usage RM or TL sales are usually for less but you hope for repeat orders. There's nothing magical about the kind of license, in fact the micros should really be selling RM for single use, it would make much more sense at those prices but, of course, would be quite impossible to police.

« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2010, 15:13 »
0
I haven't noticed any sales increase with alamy, I am doing much worse there than last year but I have a small mainly RM portfolio, so perhaps I just got lucky last year.  Haven't sales fallen with alamy as well?  I think this might just be an industry wide slow down that could be temporary or might be more serious.  I wont panic after a few slow months, the end of the year will be the time to do that :)

lisafx

« Reply #79 on: August 11, 2010, 15:16 »
0
I think DPadanova, that you're going a bit off topic now.
My sales ...
Right.


Yes, it is OT, but I am going along on this side track for a minute.  

Dan, don't assume from Eirann's sales that she is new to the world of microstock.  She has been involved as a buyer for years.  One of the few active buyers that regularly posts on this forum.  

I agree that larger and older portfolios are a much better indicator of sales trends than newer, smaller ones, but in a thread talking about promotional pricing and commissions I believe input from someone who is both a frequent buyer and a seller is extremely valuable.  
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 15:19 by lisafx »

« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2010, 15:34 »
0
Sharpshot, Alamy has been in decline for years but that's to do with competition from the micros followed by a hit from the economy (newspapers, for example, decided to negotiate cut-price packages). Even when sales were growing, the growth in the collection outstripped them and when earnings took a dip (as I believe they have, but the statistics seem to have been taken off the site) the collection continued to grow.

« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2010, 15:40 »
0
Boy, the news from istock just keeps getting better and better. NOT!  :-\

« Reply #82 on: August 11, 2010, 15:45 »
0
Lisa,

Are we suggesting that 123RF, BigStock, iStock, Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, etc has never offered a 10%, 20%, or 30% sale during the summer, Christmas, or any time of the year to entice new buyers to check out the business?  With many agencies, we are paid a fixed commission percentage based on the sales price, whatever that price is.  I'm just saying I don't think this is the first time a sale has occurred with no change in commission percentage.  It sucks, but I highly doubt this is an industry first.

lisafx

« Reply #83 on: August 11, 2010, 17:22 »
0

Are we suggesting that 123RF, BigStock, iStock, Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, etc has never offered a 10%, 20%, or 30% sale during the summer, Christmas, or any time of the year to entice new buyers to check out the business?  

Well, that is not an issue I was addressing in my post.  I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

My response was directed entirely at the idea that because Eireann has only been selling stock for a year and only has a small portfolio, she isn't knowledgeable about the industry.  If you reread my post you will see that the point I was making is that she is a long time buyer and therefore perfectly qualified to make the observations she did.  

It's one thing to disagree with the content of someone's post, but quite another to question whether they have the right to an opinion, if you see what I mean.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 17:31 by lisafx »

« Reply #84 on: August 11, 2010, 17:30 »
0

Are we suggesting that 123RF, BigStock, iStock, Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, etc has never offered a 10%, 20%, or 30% sale during the summer, Christmas, or any time of the year to entice new buyers to check out the business?  

Well, that is not what I was taking issue with.  I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

My response was directed entirely at the idea that because Eireann has only been selling stock for a year and only has a small portfolio, she isn't knowledgeable about the industry.  If you reread my post you will see that the point I was making is that she is a long time buyer and therefore perfectly qualified to make the observations she did.  

It's one thing to disagree with the content of someone's post, but quite another to question whether they have the right to an opinion, if you see what I mean.

I am kind of glad you stated this Lisa, because a comment was directed to me in another thread (if I need to, I will go find it) implying the same thing. When I stated I was a a buyer (a small buyer, but a buyer none-the-less) as well as a contributor, the comment was made to the effect "well yeah, but you are also a contributor. it would be nice to hear from someone who is a buyer only." As if my opinion doesn't matter just because I upload photos too? I am not getting what the difference is, and I was a little perturbed to be dismissed like that.

edited: and while we are off-topic, and related to the above, I have seen posts whereby people here don't think buyers hang out...maybe they don't, but maybe they do. Do you really want to offend anyone who is a buyer or may be a future buyer?

Ok, back to dissing istock!  ;)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 17:34 by cclapper »

lisafx

« Reply #85 on: August 11, 2010, 17:35 »
0

When I stated I was a a buyer (a small buyer, but a buyer none-the-less) as well as a contributor, the comment was made to the effect "well yeah, but you are also a contributor. it would be nice to hear from someone who is a buyer only." As if my opinion doesn't matter just because I upload photos too? I am not getting what the difference is, and I was a little perturbed to be dismissed like that.

Lovely.  

There are so few buyers willing to post on these contributor dominated forums.  I hear people talking all the time about how nice it would be to hear from more buyers.  Then we diss them when they actually post?  I don't get it  ???

ETA:  Cathy, you must have been revising as I was posting...

Do you really want to offend anyone who is a buyer or may be a future buyer?


I totally agree.  Slamming buyers when you are selling stock seems a bit counterproductive... ;)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 17:41 by lisafx »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #86 on: August 11, 2010, 17:39 »
0

When I stated I was a a buyer (a small buyer, but a buyer none-the-less) as well as a contributor, the comment was made to the effect "well yeah, but you are also a contributor. it would be nice to hear from someone who is a buyer only." As if my opinion doesn't matter just because I upload photos too? I am not getting what the difference is, and I was a little perturbed to be dismissed like that.

Lovely. 

There are so few buyers willing to post on these contributor dominated forums.  I hear people talking all the time about how nice it would be to hear from more buyers.  Then we diss them when they actually post?  I don't get it  ???

Neither do I....buyer's have just as much in site into all this as we do.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #87 on: August 11, 2010, 17:53 »
0

When I stated I was a a buyer (a small buyer, but a buyer none-the-less) as well as a contributor, the comment was made to the effect "well yeah, but you are also a contributor. it would be nice to hear from someone who is a buyer only." As if my opinion doesn't matter just because I upload photos too? I am not getting what the difference is, and I was a little perturbed to be dismissed like that.

Lovely.  

There are so few buyers willing to post on these contributor dominated forums.  I hear people talking all the time about how nice it would be to hear from more buyers.  Then we diss them when they actually post?  I don't get it  ???

ETA:  Cathy, you must have been revising as I was posting...

Do you really want to offend anyone who is a buyer or may be a future buyer?


I totally agree.  Slamming buyers when you are selling stock seems a bit counterproductive... ;)

I posted as a buyer a few times giving some suggestions based on images I'm always looking for.. and I was asked by one member 'why don't I go and take the image myself' if I felt there was a gap in the stock library :D Now THAT'S counter-intuitive.. now I just lurk..

I will say this though, Istock is overpriced at the moment compared to other libraries, and we have moved elsewhere to source images at 'old' istock prices.. I'm pay as you go rather than a subs buyer.. dunno if that helps but, that's why I don't buy so many credits anymore on is, they just don't stretch far enough, especially given the economy, is prices have gone up regardless of the recession, meanwhile clients have no stock budget whatsoever, so it has to be price first for now.. a travel client of mine is even just sourcing images from their suppliers, which they have the correct licence for to use commercially etc, but they are provided for free and given the economy, this is what the client is going to use, even if the quality is awful in a lot of the images, they don't seem to care when it's bad quality vs having to pay..
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 17:56 by hqimages »

« Reply #88 on: August 11, 2010, 17:57 »
0
I apologize.  Obviously I didn't know she was a buyer, but her comments have been regarding her experiences as a seller of stock - not as a buyer.  And I never said she didn't have a right to her opinion.  What I said was simply that someone with 1 year of experience in microstock suggesting this iStock situation has never happened before in the history of microstock, hasn't been around long enough to know whether it is true or not.

Now obviously she has been around a lot longer than 1 year as a buyer.  But the comment is still false.  This is not the first sale in microstock history.

And btw, why complain about a 25% temporary reduction in iStockphoto prices in one breath, and then happily contribute to a subs site in the next breath?  Even with the price reduction, your work is being valued much higher at iS than it is at a subscription site.  And maybe if said subscription sites weren't undercutting the industry and every photographer on this board, maybe iStock wouldn't be losing its buyers.  Aren't we beating up on the wrong company?

« Reply #89 on: August 11, 2010, 18:06 »
0
Some buyers prefer subscriptions, I am sure shutterstock would of continued raising prices if it wasn't for other sites like thinkstock keeping them down.  Now who owns thinkstock :)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #90 on: August 11, 2010, 18:08 »
0
I apologize.  Obviously I didn't know she was a buyer, but her comments have been regarding her experiences as a seller of stock - not as a buyer.  And I never said she didn't have a right to her opinion.  What I said was simply that someone with 1 year of experience in microstock suggesting this iStock situation has never happened before in the history of microstock, hasn't been around long enough to know whether it is true or not.

Now obviously she has been around a lot longer than 1 year as a buyer.  But the comment is still false.  This is not the first sale in microstock history.

And btw, why complain about a 25% temporary reduction in iStockphoto prices in one breath, and then happily contribute to a subs site in the next breath?  Even with the price reduction, your work is being valued much higher at iS than it is at a subscription site.  And maybe if said subscription sites weren't undercutting the industry and every photographer on this board, maybe iStock wouldn't be losing its buyers.  Aren't we beating up on the wrong company?

I agree with djpadovona that such contributor abuses have happened and fairly recently ... the DT changed price structure, for instance, or the FT change in level, or containers or whatever you call them.

BUT ... those change also brought loud protest, just as the iStock change is being questioned ... after it was revealed that contributors were secretly being screwed.

It is so easy to stir misunderstanding in our two dimensional communication.  Too many of the senses are not visibly expressed.   :)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 18:10 by WarrenPrice »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #91 on: August 11, 2010, 18:40 »
0

I posted as a buyer a few times giving some suggestions based on images I'm always looking for.. and I was asked by one member 'why don't I go and take the image myself' if I felt there was a gap in the stock library :D Now THAT'S counter-intuitive.. now I just lurk..

I will say this though, Istock is overpriced at the moment compared to other libraries, and we have moved elsewhere to source images at 'old' istock prices.. I'm pay as you go rather than a subs buyer.. dunno if that helps but, that's why I don't buy so many credits anymore on is, they just don't stretch far enough, especially given the economy, is prices have gone up regardless of the recession, meanwhile clients have no stock budget whatsoever, so it has to be price first for now.. a travel client of mine is even just sourcing images from their suppliers, which they have the correct licence for to use commercially etc, but they are provided for free and given the economy, this is what the client is going to use, even if the quality is awful in a lot of the images, they don't seem to care when it's bad quality vs having to pay..

Thanks for posting that. It's pretty much what I suspected. I don't think there is an easy answer to any of it and it just seems things keep getting worse and worse.

RacePhoto

« Reply #92 on: August 11, 2010, 19:47 »
0
Some buyers prefer subscriptions, I am sure shutterstock would of continued raising prices if it wasn't for other sites like thinkstock keeping them down.  Now who owns thinkstock :)

Every time you bring up the evil empire and Thinkstock, matching established agency prices, I'll be forced to point out that Deposit Photos is undercutting those price levels, but no one seems to be targeting them as the problem.  ??? Oh that's right, DP pays 25c an upload for people to prostitute themselves, and gives away free credits to "buyers" for artificial sales numbers.  >:(

A number of people have pointed out that ThinkStock sales stink and are less than StockXpert sales, but then someone will counter that ThinkStock is hurting IS sales. How can they be selling less and hurting IS downloads at the same time. Some sort of math contradiction with that. It's impossible!  ;D

It's nice of ThinkStock to provide a convenient scapegoat for all the ills of the industry including sales slumps everywhere, but I really think people need to look further than blaming Getty and the recycling industry that ThinkStock represents, a collection of old photos from old agencies, dumped on a sub site. ThinkStock does not represent a vital competitive site, it's more like an old cobweb covered collection getting dusted off in hope of getting anything out of it.

Anyone criticizing Thinkstock without looking at what's offered there, should really take a few minutes just to see what's for sale, before they keep claiming it's stealing business and causing the sales slump.

I found the comment that IS is overpriced to be interesting. Heck, a bunch of hard working people spend hours taking photos, getting models, filing releases, editing, pay for expensive equipment, lights and cameras and a buyer says, they are over priced! I appreciate the buyers opinions but if IS is overpriced, then Microstock is dead. You can buy a decent size photo, professionally created, with model release, quality controlled, for about $5 on demand, and that's "too expensive"?

Do designers work for free? I mean, if someone wants free photos, and photographers to work for free, then they should be willing to work for free too!  :o

So what's killing the market? Subs, cheap competition or buyers who aren't willing to pay micro prices for high quality images? Makes me wonder...

« Reply #93 on: August 11, 2010, 20:38 »
0
Padanova, Warren Price

I'm going to try to make my point as clear as I possibly can.
And this is my last post on the matter. Promise :)

I'm not talking about contributor commissions (higher, by the way, on all sites except Getty's family).

The subject here, right now, is about special offers.
Special offers are temporary promotions offered by agencies, to the buyers. These promotions happen from time to time. The costs of such promotions are normally covered by the agencies. Except Getty.
Is that clear enough?

Let's try a bit harder.

A few weeks ago Veer launched their new web site.
At the same time they offered a promotion to their buyers. (sounds familiar?)
The promotion was entirely covered by Veer.
Contributors didn't have to pay a cent.

About a month ago Graphic Leftovers launched a marketing campaing. It included a buyer promotion.
The promotion was entirely covered by Graphic Leftovers.
Contributors didn't have to pay a cent.

A few months ago Shutterstock made some changes to their search engine.
At the same time, they offered a promotion to their buyers.
The promotion was entirely covered by Shutterstock.
Contributors didn't have to pay a cent.

Some time last winter Dreamstime launched a marketing campaign. It included a buyer promotion.
The promotion was entirely covered by Dreamstime.
Contributors didn't have to pay a cent.

Deposit Photos - their promotion is still going on. For months.
Costs are entirely covered by Deposit Photos.
Contributors don't have to pay a cent.

The list goes on.

Are you trying to tell me that Deposit Photos can do it, but Getty can't afford to pay for a single week, 25% price reduction, without asking IStock contributors to pay for it themselves?
Getty's commission from non-exclusives is a whooping 80%.
And they still can't do it?
If that's the case, then Getty is in real trouble.
A 25% promotion paid for by contributors, won't do them much good.

Padanova, you still haven't answered my question.
Any other site, except IStock, that offers a buyer promotion and asks the contributors to pay for it themselves?
Forget about my poor sales, my portfolio or other sites' commissions for a second. Stay on topic.
Do you know of any?
I don't.

Ladies, Lisa, Cathy, Artemis and the others, top notch as usual :)
Thank you for standing up and trying your best to help improve things.
For the good of all of us.  
That's including Padanova :)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 20:49 by Eireann »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #94 on: August 11, 2010, 20:43 »
0
So what's killing the market? Subs, cheap competition or buyers who aren't willing to pay micro prices for high quality images? Makes me wonder...

I think an underlying message of what's killing the market is clear in what hqimages said. It's us, the contributors. We do it to ourselves.

Buyers are going to cheaper sites. Contributors make less at cheaper sites. Contributors continue to support cheaper sites.

When a large enough percentage of unprofitable contributors give up, more sites will close, supply will drop, and demand will drive prices back up to a level that is sustainable for contrubutors to justify investing time.

Looks like we're headed downward. Enjoy the ride.

« Reply #95 on: August 11, 2010, 20:57 »
0
So what's killing the market? Subs, cheap competition or buyers who aren't willing to pay micro prices for high quality images? Makes me wonder...

I think an underlying message of what's killing the market is clear in what hqimages said. It's us, the contributors. We do it to ourselves.

Buyers are going to cheaper sites. Contributors make less at cheaper sites. Contributors continue to support cheaper sites.

When a large enough percentage of unprofitable contributors give up, more sites will close, supply will drop, and demand will drive prices back up to a level that is sustainable for contrubutors to justify investing time.

Looks like we're headed downward. Enjoy the ride.

ehehe seems like a lot of fun, what photos will those agencies have? just yours? :P

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #96 on: August 11, 2010, 21:24 »
0
ehehe seems like a lot of fun, what photos will those agencies have? just yours? :P

They will have photos from contributors who are profitable businesspeople.

I ran some numbers and I'm estimating the average hobbyist micro newbie earns less than 10 cents per hour for their efforts. Once this becomes common knowledge, hobbyists and other non serious business people will avoid micro and the existing ones will go back to Flickr where you don't make much less and it's more fun.

« Reply #97 on: August 11, 2010, 21:45 »
0
No other site, as far as I know, has ever done such a thing.
No matter how big, well known the site, or up-coming and small.

Dear Eireann, I'm so glad to help you.
123Rf did. We got 0.20$ instead of 0.50$ (60% off)
"We've been running some promotions with some clients for which we gave completely free credits to them to test drive 123RF.com and our content.
We are paying out $0.20 for these credits, mind you they're free and our customer did not pay for them, we take this cost as part of our marketing and promotion budget and channel them to you instead of giving them away to Google/Yahoo and other advertisers".


About IS promotion - our royalties should not be affected. When I offer a gift I pay it with my money.

« Reply #98 on: August 11, 2010, 21:46 »
0
Padanova, you still haven't answered my question.
Any other site, except IStock, that offers a buyer promotion and asks the contributors to pay for it themselves?
Forget about my poor sales, my portfolio or other sites' commissions for a second. Stay on topic.
Do you know of any?
I don't.

Ladies, Lisa, Cathy, Artemis and the others, top notch as usual :)
Thank you for standing up and trying your best to help improve things.
For the good of all of us.  
That's including Padanova :)

I wouldn't go down this road if I were you.  I'm not trying to call you out, but you are getting more argumentative on this issue.  If you want to turn this into a childish women vs. man debate, go ahead and lower yourself.  But I won't be a part of it.

For 4 years I contributed to BigStock, StockXpert, DT, FT, 123RF, LO, and on and on.  And I can also tell you that I received different royalties on any given day from the same agency, time and time again.  One day DT paid me 35 cents for a small sale, the next day 37 cents for the same sized sale.  Same thing at other agencies.  It's a fact we are all aware of.

Why?  Because we were being paid a fixed commission percentage...20%, 30%, 50%, whatever the agency offered.  But they were, and always have been, based on the sale price of the credit package at the time the buyer bought the package.  Sometimes the price was higher because it was a recent package.  Sometimes the price was lower because it was an older package.  

I'll guarantee sometimes the price was lower because the package was purchased during a short term promotional package or sale event.  And no, I haven't saved screen shots of agency sales over the last 4 years.  But I've seen plenty of them splashed on the front page, so I know they existed.  I don't always go straight to my account balance.

That I even have to debate such on obvious point is beyond ridiculous.  Sales happen, it's a way to attract new customers or get defecting customers to return.  And with the exception of 123RF, who 2 years ago had a promotional sale which offered very cheap imagery but covered our costs, I never remember an agency stepping up and raising our commission percentage to make up for the sale price.  Can you?  

And don't give me this "stay on topic" line, like you are the only person in this topic with a point to be made.  I told you a few posts back that you were wrong.  This is not the first sale in microstock history offered by a fixed commission percentage paying agency, and I don't need to gather evidence to offer proof of something so obvious.  I am on topic.  Which is why I am pointing out that you are wrong, yet again.

Now if you would like to write Dreamstime, 123RF, Fotolia, or any fixed commission percentage agency directly and ask them if they have ever had a sale event, because you think they have not, then by all means feel free.  Please let us know what you find.  

« Reply #99 on: August 11, 2010, 21:54 »
0
Women versus men?
Hahaha!

I'm out of here. No more comments.
Good luck,


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
7679 Views
Last post June 07, 2007, 16:44
by hatman12
13 Replies
5192 Views
Last post July 19, 2011, 11:10
by ToniFlap
17 Replies
3556 Views
Last post February 04, 2014, 17:40
by Rinderart
5 Replies
2633 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 12:01
by gbalex
23 Replies
4880 Views
Last post September 30, 2023, 17:36
by PCDMedia

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors