MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The New best match and the 80/20 Rule  (Read 21707 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: November 09, 2008, 18:19 »
0
I don't think this is the type of group that should be selling micro.  True high end stuff should be kept for higher priced collections.


AVAVA

« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2008, 18:48 »
0
SJ,

 What are higher priced collections these days. I can tell you that Micro RF and Macro RF are getting closer every day on their returns. This migration is what happened in Macro RF I don't know why it would hurt Micro. I see healthy competition as a good thing and the more options for photographers to sell their work. Just another level in the ever changing market of stock.

Best,
AVAVA

 

« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2008, 19:59 »
0
It may just be me, but there are just certain things that say to me "this should command a high price", and I'm talking about individual sales, and not volume.

« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2008, 20:15 »
0
i agree with sjlocke ...

AVAVA...

1. if you have made money from this concept you where VERY LUCKY to make 50 special producers flow you... or..... they....

2. This is not creation just fabric production you could be better go to china it's cheaper....



AVAVA

« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2008, 20:41 »
0
Hi Lobby,

 I think I understand your point but I don't think I made myself very clear. I did not create these companies that I spoke of they were built by guys much smarter and more ambitious than me. I was just fortunate enough to become an owner in the co-ops. No one followed me it was a complete collaboration of equal owners, if anything I have been one of the followers in many ways.
 We vote in a board of directors that are to everyones agreement and a CEO to run the day to day operations of the company. You can't have twenty+ owners involved in the daily operations it would be madness.
 It is structured just like any business that has multiple owners or stock holders. In this case the stock holder is also the person producing the product. Talk about motivation when it comes to your efforts for quality when you own the company.

 I can name a pretty healthy list of third party companies that have done really well in Macro. Rubberball, BananaStock, Brand X, Image Source, Tetra. Getty has bought up a ton of these companies as has Corbis. The list goes on and on in Macro RF why not Micro eventually?

 I am a little confused about the creation vs. fabric construction statement would you please explain what you mean. I don't want to comment on something I don't understand. Thanks for your feedback.

Best,
J

« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2008, 23:10 »
0
RF certainly came up in price through the years as the quality improved, even though quantity was increasing. I imagine the same will happen with micro.

« Reply #81 on: November 10, 2008, 02:23 »
0
I think it is time to try something different.  My idea would be for us all to have our own sites, using the same software and hosting company.  We all pay our own fees and take 100% of the profit.  Then we could pay a monthly fee for a site that hosts all the small preview images and a database to search all our files.  Obviously there would be advertising costs but I believe a lot of buyers would find the site if they knew they could buy directly from us and we could charge fair prices, as there wouldn't be a third party taking a large commission from each sale.

lagereek

« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2008, 03:00 »
0
Sean is actually right, in a way that is. There is however quite a big hole in the market, you can only spot it if your dealing with creative clients, art and picture-buyers, art-directors etc. its almost a forgotten breed normally associated with high-end material, i.e commisioned shoots or RM material.
There are always other avenues, thats the great thing about photography! ten years ago who would have dreamt about Micro?? then along comes Bruce with a genial idea which revolutionized the entire industry.
My only regret is that he sold out.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 03:17 by lagereek »

AVAVA

« Reply #83 on: November 10, 2008, 12:24 »
0
Hi Sean,

 I couldn't agree with you more. It's called RM. Macro RF prices have deteriorated from 1500% return over 5 years now down to 200% return over 3 years. Micro allows me to produce three times more images than I can for Macro it makes 300% return over 1 year. I just do the math and send my work where it can make me the most money.
 My other reason for getting involved in Micro is to make sure I am in play for the future at all levels of stock for changes that are coming. At this point it is hard to say where the money will be the strongest. Diversification is the best thing during unsure times.

 If you compare my new Macro RF with my Micro you'll see a big difference in quality. I send my simple vanilla to Micro so as not to compete with my higher end Macro RF. I am happy to share the difference if anyone is interested.

 Lagreek, I totally agree there are holes in the market we are aware of two very large holes in the market. There are several sources to know where the holes are beside art buyers as well. Art buyers are a very good source of knowledge and I think it is pretty smart of you to be asking buyers you know what they are missing. They are the ones spending the money after all.

 Don't be sad that Bruce sold his company for 50 million I think most people would. That is how this business has been for years now. Some collections are being built just to be sold off to the big guys.

 Good stuff guys, keep it up.

Best,
AVAVA

lagereek

« Reply #84 on: November 10, 2008, 12:42 »
0
Hi Jonathan! ( AVAVA) btw. wonder if you remmember Kettners Wine-bar back in 92???

Listen to this. Got to bring it up. I spoke to an Art-buyer earlier today in fact. She is at one of the biggest Ad-agencies in the world, London based.
She was given a huge budget for picture buying, I mean huge! for the past two years shes bought Micro, almost all the way but surprise! NO more. Quality and search-methods have deteriorated to the poit of annoyance.
If I told you where she plans to spend,  honestly, you wouldnt believe it.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2008, 12:44 by lagereek »

AVAVA

« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2008, 12:46 »
0
Now you got me all interested and salivating. I live near Seattle how about a nice Dungeness cracked crab packed in ice on your door step tomorrow morning. ;D

Best,
J


« Reply #86 on: November 10, 2008, 12:56 »
0
Cmon lagereek, spill the beans.  The only place I'd be surprised to find her is alamy, since quality and search are tough there.

lagereek

« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2008, 14:34 »
0
Yep! bring on the crabs! Seattle crab that is.
Not mentioning any names but her budget goes to a very small but highly exclusive RM,RF agency also London based. This is the kind of agency that will follow a layout a brief and translate it into the idea in question. If I remember correctly, Getty, in the beginning of 2000 wanted to buy this agency but the guys refused to sell.
Where is my crab? maybe Sean can get me one. BTW, Sean I shudder to think about the lolly your lifestyle shots would bring in at Alamy.

AVAVA

« Reply #88 on: November 10, 2008, 14:40 »
0
 Okay we are getting closer but I want a backdoor PM on this my friend. Cough up the name and the crab is in the mail. By the way I'm a Brit, they must want to work with another Pom ;)

Cheers,
AVAVA

lagereek

« Reply #89 on: November 10, 2008, 14:54 »
0
Okay we are getting closer but I want a backdoor PM on this my friend. Cough up the name and the crab is in the mail. By the way I'm a Brit, they must want to work with another Pom ;)

Cheers,
AVAVA


Yup!  Im half  Brit/Swede!  That makes two crabs. Blimey youve got exactly the same name as The Jonathan-Ross on British Television, he was the most popular TV personallity in Britain during the 80-90s. He had the Jonathan-Ross show, late evenings.

AVAVA

« Reply #90 on: November 10, 2008, 15:00 »
0
Hey lagereek,

 Please don't remind me. I can't tell you how many bad jokes have been shared with my name being the same. Someone once sent me a YOUTUBE video of a bloke in England that had trained his cat to sound like it was saying wanker. The owner then asked the cat what he thought of Jonathan Ross.  :)

Cheers,
J

CofkoCof

« Reply #91 on: November 11, 2008, 08:12 »
0
Another proof of the OP is on the MJ blog at IS:
Quote
These are the daily download stats of iStock's top 25 contributors. They represent roughly 10% of iStock downloads. Each of the horizontal lines represents roughly 5% of sales.



The top contributors are having better sales it seems.

bittersweet

« Reply #92 on: November 11, 2008, 08:21 »
0
Another proof of the OP is on the MJ blog at IS:
Quote
These are the daily download stats of iStock's top 25 contributors. They represent roughly 10% of iStock downloads. Each of the horizontal lines represents roughly 5% of sales.



The top contributors are having better sales it seems.


Yes, it looks like they are almost back up to where they were in March.

CofkoCof

« Reply #93 on: November 11, 2008, 08:33 »
0
Another proof of the OP is on the MJ blog at IS:
Quote
These are the daily download stats of iStock's top 25 contributors. They represent roughly 10% of iStock downloads. Each of the horizontal lines represents roughly 5% of sales.



The top contributors are having better sales it seems.


Yes, it looks like they are almost back up to where they were in March.

Too bad that's true only for them and not most non-exclusives/lower canister exclusives/illustrators (PS I uploaded my first picture in March so atm sales are better then in March :D). Which exactly prooves who got the best of this best match. Would love to see the same graph for illustrators.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 08:35 by CofkoCof »

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #94 on: November 11, 2008, 21:33 »
0
Here's hoping.  Today was the first time downloads and dollars were back to where they were last month.  Apart from a $0.19 extra small download a couple of days ago, these are the first downloads since October 29.  We'll just have to wait and see over the next few days.  IS was my number one producer and went from hero to zero in one day.

Microbius

« Reply #95 on: December 05, 2010, 09:17 »
0
No!  its not that difficult, not if youve got the connections and know-how.
I know a guy, previously working with Thomas Knoll, you know, the guy who invented PS and Adobe.
This guy is a certified GENIUS. At the moment he is killing himself in ironi at all differant search-engines and how sites really are functioning.
All that is needed is 200 of the best photographers, no rubbish, none of that" run-of-the-mill " crap but genuine stock-photographers.
Were already working on it AND  thanks to cretain skill combined with luck, the buyers/clients are already there.
The art is to offer something above the ludicrous "young business girl" or " business team against white".

Think Im joking?   hold on for six, seven months.

Just wondering how this is going, it's been two years, thought it was only fair to give the new enterprise a chance!

« Reply #96 on: December 05, 2010, 13:41 »
0
Another proof of the OP is on the MJ blog at IS:
Quote
These are the daily download stats of iStock's top 25 contributors. They represent roughly 10% of iStock downloads. Each of the horizontal lines represents roughly 5% of sales.



The top contributors are having better sales it seems.


Yes, it looks like they are almost back up to where they were in March.

Too bad that's true only for them and not most non-exclusives/lower canister exclusives/illustrators (PS I uploaded my first picture in March so atm sales are better then in March :D). Which exactly prooves who got the best of this best match. Would love to see the same graph for illustrators.


That doesn't look like they are getting 1/2 their downloads in the 4th quarter or whatever we were told about the credit targets when they were first rolled out.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2010, 17:05 »
0
I think it is time to try something different.  My idea would be for us all to have our own sites, using the same software and hosting company.  We all pay our own fees and take 100% of the profit.  Then we could pay a monthly fee for a site that hosts all the small preview images and a database to search all our files.  Obviously there would be advertising costs but I believe a lot of buyers would find the site if they knew they could buy directly from us and we could charge fair prices, as there wouldn't be a third party taking a large commission from each sale.


http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/pluspacks/index.htm


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Breaking the rule

Started by Lizard « 1 2  All » Adobe Stock

26 Replies
11625 Views
Last post May 29, 2008, 17:30
by MicrostockExp
23 Replies
9797 Views
Last post August 03, 2010, 18:13
by RacePhoto
4 Replies
3694 Views
Last post August 03, 2010, 06:45
by Dreamframer
1 Replies
3546 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 20:42
by fatalsweets
11 Replies
2705 Views
Last post November 21, 2018, 10:50
by christiano

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle