pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What is happening to iStock, is it the end?  (Read 52305 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: July 17, 2013, 15:13 »
0
Unfortunately you are wrong on both counts. Both micro and RM markets are governed by the laws of supply and demand. Over-supply will continue to outstrip the growth in demand in both markets for the foreseeable future ... probably forever. Both markets have probably peaked for all but the newest of contributors. RM has been in severe decline for years and most likely that will continue, even for your obscure niche subjects.

RM will never die, all the archival images are only available in RM agencies, and so pretty much any kind of stuff that doesnt have the typical micro look.

and what about celebrities ? that's either getty or rex features, not micros !

what will become harder is for people with small portfolio to make sales or even get noticed in the sea of new images.

in my opinion you cannot stay afloat and relax in RM without at least 10-30K images on sale.
and yet plenty of guys expect to get rich with 500 well edited images.

that could work on Getty for a while but it won't last long, the turnover of new stuff added every month is impressive, in the end quantity is becoming THE factor rather than absolute quality or uniqueness.

i don't give a sh-it about my obscure subject, it's only cr-ap i dump on Alamy as that's the only agency where there's a demand for it but i could never survive just with unconventional stuff and it's also a pain in the a-ss to keyword.

the markets have not peaked at all, the industry is getting bigger not smaller, the issue is for us .. is the party over or there's a chance to stay afloat in the future ? i'm not very positive about it but i can tell you i don't see any drop in sales since a long time, just the usual seasonal ups and downs.







« Reply #126 on: July 17, 2013, 15:25 »
+2
Xanox, you need to separate out the prospects for the agencies from the prospects for the suppliers. Neither RM nor microstock is going to die. The companies we supply will continuing licensing images to designers who need them and accumulating mountains of cash. But that doesn't mean that the artists supplying the images will get good money. It all depends on how big the supply becomes and what happens to prices.  Of course, if you've got a monopoly on stock images of Marilyn Monroe  then you're made, regardless, because there will always be demand for that. But travel photos are a different matter. You run the risk of being a victim of dilution as other people add pictures of places you've been to, however obscure they may be.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 17:44 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #127 on: July 17, 2013, 15:33 »
+3
If you look at the development of the huge stock factories, it is possible that they will control the market quite soon. Individual artists cant compete with their volume and often their quality.

So there will still be 150 000 new files every week, but they will probably be produced by a small number of factories.

This whole "community driven content" buzz will soon just be impactful marketingspeak.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 15:36 by cobalt »

« Reply #128 on: July 17, 2013, 16:12 »
0
I notice a new trend within my customer base and that is : They want stock-like photos with their employees as models in offices they own and situations their customers recognize. Not the fancy and slick looking girl on the phone. But real people with real customers

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #129 on: July 17, 2013, 16:25 »
+2
I notice a new trend within my customer base and that is : They want stock-like photos with their employees as models in offices they own and situations their customers recognize. Not the fancy and slick looking girl on the phone. But real people with real customers
Any business collateral which I see always has had their own employees, offices and customers.

wds

« Reply #130 on: July 17, 2013, 16:47 »
0
If you look at the development of the huge stock factories, it is possible that they will control the market quite soon. Individual artists cant compete with their volume and often their quality.

So there will still be 150 000 new files every week, but they will probably be produced by a small number of factories.

This whole "community driven content" buzz will soon just be impactful marketingspeak.

It would be interesting to have some financial insight into the "image factories": their revenue, cost structure and bottom line for the owners.

« Reply #131 on: July 17, 2013, 17:35 »
+2
I notice a new trend within my customer base and that is : They want stock-like photos with their employees as models in offices they own and situations their customers recognize. Not the fancy and slick looking girl on the phone. But real people with real customers

Hmmm. In my experience they want that only when they happen to have a particularly photogenic employee as their sales manager (preferably a full-figured blonde) or front-of-house staff. They don't tend to want that so much when the staff have BMI's of +30, however efficient at their jobs they might be.

« Reply #132 on: July 18, 2013, 01:24 »
+1
Xanox, you need to separate out the prospects for the agencies from the prospects for the suppliers. Neither RM nor microstock is going to die. The companies we supply will continuing licensing images to designers who need them and accumulating mountains of cash. But that doesn't mean that the artists supplying the images will get good money. It all depends on how big the supply becomes and what happens to prices.  Of course, if you've got a monopoly on stock images of Marilyn Monroe  then you're made, regardless, because there will always be demand for that. But travel photos are a different matter. You run the risk of being a victim of dilution as other people add pictures of places you've been to, however obscure they may be.

well, it's gotta be very hard to make your own private monopoly in a travel niche.

there are certainly some cities that sell a lot more than others, Paris, Venice, New York, London, just to name a few, but there are literally millions of images already on sale about that, even if you specialize on it and you live for instance in Paris for years there's no guarantee you can make a living just with that and besides most of the stuff will be more about Street photography than proper Travel photography.

while some lucky guys who made hundreds of photos of the Beatles and Rolling Stones are still selling like hot cakes today for all the others it's not so easy, celebrities come and go, and the evergreens are just a few dozens.

the point is always the same, why should agencies ever have a reason to raise our fees ? what do they get back from being fair with us ?

i can't see any way for single photographers to negotiate better deals nowadays, either you're an agency or an image factory or you're one of the few cases who can dominate a niche (say, aerial photography and other expensive stuff), for anything else the only option is to accept we're just plebeians in their eyes and why it should be otherwise if our sales make barely the 0.00001% of their total ?




« Reply #133 on: July 18, 2013, 01:34 »
+1
Good lord! We actually agree for once! (It's just a pity it's not about something more positive).
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 01:36 by BaldricksTrousers »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #134 on: July 18, 2013, 03:20 »
+2
I notice a new trend within my customer base and that is : They want stock-like photos with their employees as models in offices they own and situations their customers recognize. Not the fancy and slick looking girl on the phone. But real people with real customers

Hmmm. In my experience they want that only when they happen to have a particularly photogenic employee as their sales manager (preferably a full-figured blonde) or front-of-house staff. They don't tend to want that so much when the staff have BMI's of +30, however efficient at their jobs they might be.
I come across this all the time, except they somehow think I can magically transform their ordinary staff member to look like Yuri's Emma, cos I'm using an expensive camera that takes good photos.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 18:29 by gillian »

« Reply #135 on: July 18, 2013, 03:41 »
+4
I come across this all the time, except they something think I can magically transform their ordinary staff member to look like Yuri's Emma, cos I'm using an expensive camera that takes good photos.

Tell them to fire all their employees and make you the casting director for the new wave of applicants. ;)

« Reply #136 on: July 18, 2013, 04:53 »
0
I come across this all the time, except they something think I can magically transform their ordinary staff member to look like Yuri's Emma, cos I'm using an expensive camera that takes good photos.

the irony is a good camera with a sharp lens could actually enhance skin imperfections, spots, scars, yellow teeth, and make the staff looking even uglier, i've read the same complaints about porn actors some time ago regarding the use of HD videocameras.


travelwitness

« Reply #137 on: July 18, 2013, 07:16 »
+3
What I have noticed at iStock is new work doesn't sell, page after page of new uploads with zero downloads - over supply is becoming a real problem - I experienced it back in September but I don't think I've ever seen it like this.

Fixing declining sales with new work looks like a near impossible task now - established contributors appear to be slowing their uploads too - waiting for evidence of returns on production costs and sitting it out I guess.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #138 on: July 18, 2013, 07:27 »
+2
What I have noticed at iStock is new work doesn't sell, page after page of new uploads with zero downloads - over supply is becoming a real problem - I experienced it back in September but I don't think I've ever seen it like this.

Fixing declining sales with new work looks like a near impossible task now - established contributors appear to be slowing their uploads too - waiting for evidence of returns on production costs and sitting it out I guess.

Oversupply is a problem, but also new files, since September, have been sinking very fast in the Best Match. It's not worth uploading unless it's something with little/no competition.
Also, keywords are apparently only being checked by keywordzilla, and then only in my port, and wrongly (of course  8) ). There are some large portfolios blanket uploaded whose keywords, title and/or description are appalling. Means they will never be found for what they are, but they pollute real searches with their false keywords.
I just looked up Mara River, and the most recent uploads (showing as a best match search, but it was actually age) were taken several hundred miles from the Mara River, and had no river of any description in them.
But I could call out ports which are much, much worse.

drial7m1

« Reply #139 on: July 18, 2013, 14:16 »
+2
If you look at the development of the huge stock factories, it is possible that they will control the market quite soon. Individual artists cant compete with their volume and often their quality.

So there will still be 150 000 new files every week, but they will probably be produced by a small number of factories.

This whole "community driven content" buzz will soon just be impactful marketingspeak.

It used to be in the United States that you had hundreds of family owned farms that did business with everyone, then big business got involved and it turned into a corporate venture, the farms were turned into companies, smaller farms were purchased and in time the idea of a family farm has gone to the wayside as the big company farms have taken over.  I see a similarity here.  Very soon we will see just the Stock Factories turning out thousands of photos a week and we as the single contributors will be pushed aside. 

Everyone have a great week and stay safe!


« Reply #140 on: July 18, 2013, 16:18 »
+4
It used to be in the United States that you had hundreds of family owned farms that did business with everyone, then big business got involved and it turned into a corporate venture, the farms were turned into companies, smaller farms were purchased and in time the idea of a family farm has gone to the wayside as the big company farms have taken over.  I see a similarity here.  Very soon we will see just the Stock Factories turning out thousands of photos a week and we as the single contributors will be pushed aside. 

That analogy doesn't apply. Mega-farms can use economies of scale to bring down the unit cost of production compared to relatively inefficient small farms. That does not work in stock photography. The photo-factories, with their studios, their staff and other overheads, have a far higher unit cost of production than individual photographers operating on their own from home.

The photo-factories will actually be the first to shut down once they realise that they are not getting a return on their new content. They are not going to continually pour $K's into new shoots if it becomes obvious that they are losing money from most of them. Of course their portfolios will still be there and whoever owns them will either retire, scale down their operations or move on to new enterprises.

As it stands photo-factories have always been somewhat limited to popular (high selling) subject matter. It is simply not worth their while to tackle most niche subjects as the returns are neither high enough nor fast enough.

« Reply #141 on: July 18, 2013, 16:26 »
+3
It used to be in the United States that you had hundreds of family owned farms that did business with everyone, then big business got involved and it turned into a corporate venture, the farms were turned into companies, smaller farms were purchased and in time the idea of a family farm has gone to the wayside as the big company farms have taken over.  I see a similarity here.  Very soon we will see just the Stock Factories turning out thousands of photos a week and we as the single contributors will be pushed aside. 

That analogy doesn't apply. Mega-farms can use economies of scale to bring down the unit cost of production compared to relatively inefficient small farms. That does not work in stock photography. The photo-factories, with their studios, their staff and other overheads, have a far higher unit cost of production than individual photographers operating on their own from home.

The photo-factories will actually be the first to shut down once they realise that they are not getting a return on their new content. They are not going to continually pour $K's into new shoots if it becomes obvious that they are losing money from most of them. Of course their portfolios will still be there and whoever owns them will either retire, scale down their operations or move on to new enterprises.

As it stands photo-factories have always been somewhat limited to popular (high selling) subject matter. It is simply not worth their while to tackle most niche subjects as the returns are neither high enough nor fast enough.

They may not actually be losing money overall, but they might find the RPI rises if they move their content to high-price outlets.  You know, professionals dealing with professionals to achieve mutual sustainability and impactfulness.

drial7m1

« Reply #142 on: July 18, 2013, 16:38 »
0
It used to be in the United States that you had hundreds of family owned farms that did business with everyone, then big business got involved and it turned into a corporate venture, the farms were turned into companies, smaller farms were purchased and in time the idea of a family farm has gone to the wayside as the big company farms have taken over.  I see a similarity here.  Very soon we will see just the Stock Factories turning out thousands of photos a week and we as the single contributors will be pushed aside. 

That analogy doesn't apply. Mega-farms can use economies of scale to bring down the unit cost of production compared to relatively inefficient small farms. That does not work in stock photography. The photo-factories, with their studios, their staff and other overheads, have a far higher unit cost of production than individual photographers operating on their own from home.

The photo-factories will actually be the first to shut down once they realize that they are not getting a return on their new content. They are not going to continually pour $K's into new shoots if it becomes obvious that they are losing money from most of them. Of course their portfolios will still be there and whoever owns them will either retire, scale down their operations or move on to new enterprises.

As it stands photo-factories have always been somewhat limited to popular (high selling) subject matter. It is simply not worth their while to tackle most niche subjects as the returns are neither high enough nor fast enough.

While I can appreciate your opinion, I still see that the photo-factories will be able to turn out more photos at a lower cost than a single operator, they will put them out faster and at a lower cost and in some cases the photos will be better as you will have SME's (subject matter experts) to handle each small part of the process.  I understand that the commodities are not the same, food vs photos, but I still see that in time, there will be very few photographers on their own out there unless they have a very specialized set of photos or themes.  Look at iStock, now a part of Getty, which is part of the Carlyle Group.  I see it as just a matter of time, maybe not today, tomorrow or in the next year, but in time.

But even with your analogy of the situation, the photo factories will flood the market, dilute the pool and make it so the single photographer can't make a living off it or won't want to put in the time to get the Pennies on the dollar that they were making.  Even if there is a scale back on the new content from the factories, the photos that are there will make it a sea of photos which are mostly from the factories, thus the chance of some of us making a sale is limited at best. 

Again, this is my opinion and I actually hope that your view of this is what happens.

Have a great day!


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #143 on: July 18, 2013, 16:39 »
-1
That analogy doesn't apply. Mega-farms can use economies of scale to bring down the unit cost of production compared to relatively inefficient small farms. That does not work in stock photography. The photo-factories, with their studios, their staff and other overheads, have a far higher unit cost of production than individual photographers operating on their own from home.
I'm not sure. If they 'hot-studioed' surely that would share the cost of the studio and lighting, equipment etc between many. Provided the models are willing, there's no reason why a studio can't be used 24x7, but no one 'tog can do that. There are different ways the financing could work.

« Reply #144 on: July 18, 2013, 17:46 »
+7
While I can appreciate your opinion, I still see that the photo-factories will be able to turn out more photos at a lower cost than a single operator, they will put them out faster and at a lower cost and in some cases the photos will be better as you will have SME's (subject matter experts) to handle each small part of the process.  I understand that the commodities are not the same, food vs photos, but I still see that in time, there will be very few photographers on their own out there unless they have a very specialized set of photos or themes.  Look at iStock, now a part of Getty, which is part of the Carlyle Group.  I see it as just a matter of time, maybe not today, tomorrow or in the next year, but in time.

But even with your analogy of the situation, the photo factories will flood the market, dilute the pool and make it so the single photographer can't make a living off it or won't want to put in the time to get the Pennies on the dollar that they were making.  Even if there is a scale back on the new content from the factories, the photos that are there will make it a sea of photos which are mostly from the factories, thus the chance of some of us making a sale is limited at best. 

Again, this is my opinion and I actually hope that your view of this is what happens.

Look ... photography generally ... just does not scale. It never has and it never will. That's why if you need portraits done, some wedding photos or a commercial shoot there are no big corporate giants to turn to. It all happens, mainly on a local level, via self-employed individuals or the owners of tiny businesses with very few employees.

Stock photography is no different. If stock photography did scale ... then why don't the agencies do it all themselves, produce their own content (or at least the majority of it) and keep all the sales revenue for themselves? The answer is because they know that they couldn't possibly produce the content as cheaply, as efficiently and as risk-free (to themselves) as we can. 

The 'photo factory', as a business model, is inherently flawed and is unlikely to survive for too much longer __ 5-10 years at the outside. In the meantime they have done much damage to everyone else and they have simply accelerated the demise of their own operations and the ability of individual stock photographers to earn a living.

The fact that there are only 5-6 acknowledged 'photo factories', out of supposedly 30K-odd contributors, should tell you much about how unfeasible the long-term prospects of such businesses are. Most of us have considered the idea of scaling up our businesses and have quickly dismissed it as unworkable. When talents such as Sean, Lise and Lisa (and many other Black Diamond level contributors) turn down such an 'opportunity' to grow their businesses and their incomes it should be obvious that there isn't much of an opportunity there.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #145 on: July 18, 2013, 19:05 »
+1
there's also a lot of "being in the right place at the right time" to factor into what we do. I'd like to hope that gives many of us an edge.

« Reply #146 on: July 19, 2013, 08:26 »
0
there's also a lot of "being in the right place at the right time" to factor into what we do. I'd like to hope that gives many of us an edge.

and what about accomodation and meals ? if you work for yourself you can travel on a tight budget and eat junk food but who would work for a company that let you sleep in a 1-star hotel and eat at mcdonalds ?

same for transportation, will they fly you first class or give you third class train tickets ?

« Reply #147 on: July 19, 2013, 08:33 »
+9
and what about accomodation and meals ? if you work for yourself you can travel on a tight budget and eat junk food but who would work for a company that let you sleep in a 1-star hotel and eat at mcdonalds ?

Arrgghh __ I hate to see such excess and wastage. Before you eat a cheap meal ... you must first shoot it for stock. Then you get to eat it cold, sitting at your PC, whilst processing and uploading the images.

drial7m1

« Reply #148 on: July 19, 2013, 12:57 »
0
and what about accomodation and meals ? if you work for yourself you can travel on a tight budget and eat junk food but who would work for a company that let you sleep in a 1-star hotel and eat at mcdonalds ?

Arrgghh __ I hate to see such excess and wastage. Before you eat a cheap meal ... you must first shoot it for stock. Then you get to eat it cold, sitting at your PC, whilst processing and uploading the images.

Is there anything other than a cold meal????  and I like your thought process on this!


« Reply #149 on: July 19, 2013, 14:37 »
+6
I own a microwave  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5262 Views
Last post April 08, 2007, 20:36
by rjmiz
16 Replies
8975 Views
Last post June 19, 2007, 02:24
by snem
111 Replies
28272 Views
Last post September 21, 2015, 19:23
by goober
9 Replies
4297 Views
Last post February 21, 2017, 17:09
by Minsc
55 Replies
17680 Views
Last post September 18, 2019, 16:31
by Hoodie Ninja

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors