What "niche" is Cutcaster filling?  Stockfresh?  And CreativeWarehouse?

I think there is also a place for a general picture library with no serious gaps, and it doesn't have to be one of the big sites.

I am on 3 of those sites and I have had good months on 2 of them, but also plenty of months with little to no sales. Maybe they aren't my niche.

I do think that it would make sense for buyers that only wanted something that a decent supplier had it would make sense to go there instead of somewhere like IS with high prices and low returns for the artist and probably impersonal service.

I watch my data and I know my numbers and I have concluded that the future of microstock is not in a few big guys but rather in a bunch of little guys each doing a different niche and doing it really well.

I tend to agree to a certain extent. I think there is an inherent flaw in larger sites' long term sustainability. How do you keep vast amounts of contributors happy and prosperous? I'm not sure you can. That and illustration seems to be an afterthought at some of these larger agencies (even though it sells well). It all definitely makes me think that smaller agencies will be the future (maybe even the present).

SS and IS,  right now the entire micro world is revolving around these two, for better or worse and really, its been like this for a couple of years now, in fact all the time. The others, even the good ones are just "extra" cash.
If these two were the only two sites in the world, buyers would have no option but to go there and by the look of things, revenues, etc, it seems that in spite of 100 sites, 80% of buyers, still go to SS or IS. So? your point of support?  really is based on building them up, isnt it?  bit late in the day, I would say. Many of these lesser sites could have done a lot more for themselves then what they have done, but oh! no, they were after a quick and easy ride with plenty of cash.

In fact, I would state the opposite to your proposal, if we only had the big 4, lots of non-worthy contributors would not clogg up agencies, it would be "cleaner" all over the place and a by far healthier climate in the stock-world.
Agencies come and go, the spring up like mushrooms, some even want us to give them free shots?  I mean what is this or rather, its turned into a bad joke. Make no mistake, all these hole-in-the-wall outfits are just hurting the market.

In the old film days we had plenty of agencies but still, it was all about three, really, the rest were just surplus stuff. It was a hell of a lot healthier, believe me.

Photography, computer works, uploading, this and that, is extremely time consuming, time is money and there is no time to, help building-up sites, support, yes, but not maintenance in order to grow. The carrott in the other end is too small and to the point of vanishing.

I don't see how the "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" strategy can possibly mesh with a niche marketing concept. A niche agency would require not only the best possible quality - and that means production quality as well as image quality - it also requires exclusive content.

So you would need to spend heavily to create your very best images for this niche micro - stuff to compete with the BBC's Science Picture Library, perhaps - and then place it exclusively with wooyaymicro.com to get 50c per sale, when you could have sent it to SPL and got $50 per sale.
 
And lots of other top-quality producers have to make the same decision, otherwise wooyay won't become known as the place to go for that niche.

Not only is it not going to happen, it shouldn't happen and we shouldn't want it to happen because we ought to leave seriously good niche stuff for the trads, where LCV shots have a chance of bringing in a decent return.

I've shot scores of wildflowers recently and the only possible hope of making any money out of them is if a magazine, book or postcard publisher wants a collection of images of the wildflowers of Crete, with scientific names, all shot in the same style. There's no point in my letting them grab those of the micros so they're going to Alamy and I'll keep my fingers crossed that maybe oneday somebody will want them and I'll get a decent payout. If there was a niche micro for the island of Crete it would guarantee that such work was a complete waste of time for everyone, including those supplying similar material to it and the host website itself, because of low demand.

I would really like to see the smaller sites have a universal payment system.  One registration allowing buyers to purchase images from lots of different sites.  We could all start our own niche sites then.

My first thought was "what a good idea!" My second thought was "Hang on, we would have to pay a fee for that". My third thought was: "But wouldn't that be an open door for the credit card crooks?"

And I've just had a fourth thought: how would a site know how many credits were still left, it would have to route back through a sort of paypal portal.

PS: For anyone who doesn't understand, I am not being negative, I'm playing devil's advocate. If the objections can be overcome and it could be made a reaility I could well be interested in this.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 25, 2012, 03:09

Quote from: sharpshot on May 25, 2012, 01:54

I would really like to see the smaller sites have a universal payment system.  One registration allowing buyers to purchase images from lots of different sites.  We could all start our own niche sites then.

My first thought was "what a good idea!" My second thought was "Hang on, we would have to pay a fee for that". My third thought was: "But wouldn't that be an open door for the credit card crooks?"

And I've just had a fourth thought: how would a site know how many credits were still left, it would have to route back through a sort of paypal portal.

PS: For anyone who doesn't understand, I am not being negative, I'm playing devil's advocate. If the objections can be overcome and it could be made a reaility I could well be interested in this.

5th thought   we still need buyers! and 80% tend to stick to the usual ones, the same old story.

6th to 10th thoughts ... by the time we all set up our websites, all linked though a payment agent we will have more or less recreated a microstock site, but one where we would determine the number of credits per sale, which might not be a bad thing, though how would the marketing be handled, would each site look after itself with no redirection or would looking at an image on one part of it lead to "similars you might be interested in" being generated from thoughout the web? What about people having really cr@ppy pictures on their sites? Would that drive buyers away if there was cross-linkage? Without cross-linkage would this be any better than just setting up your own site with a paypal link?

I put my images on many small sites, as long they have an easy upload process. Even a $10 more per month is welcome if it just takes a minute to get.

I really can't understand why there are new sites popping up that doesn't have an easy upload process. Do they really think bigger contributors will upload their stuff to a site with no track record but still have a upload process that is a pain in the *ss.

LOL. I think this thread just turned into a greatest hits of my arguments on MSG. I'm not going down that road again. Once was enough. I'm sitting this one out. 

I'll just add that if you are shooting "niche" subjects the only site that rewards you for that would be IS with the Vetta and Agency collections otherwise it's best to be on the macros (which you would be through the mirroring of images on Getty).  I don't see much incentive to sell a high production cost or low selling (but niche) image on a site like the small ones mentioned above, the return just wouldn't be worth it.  Even with the E+ collection I can get $30 dollars for a regular sale, I don't see that kind of return being possible even on a high volume site like SS.  In fact when I was nonexclusive I didn't bother putting most of those types of images onto the micro sites and instead put them on Alamy but now the returns are high enough on IS that it is worth it.

Lagergeek, what I'm suggesting is already happening and you yourself in a small way are helping it along.

Let me explain- One could argue that the most successful contributors have a strong understanding of their particular target market. This is at least part of the reason they are so successful. I know you do... its obvious by your posts. Likewise, so do Cthoman, Yuri, and SJLocke. Each of you have significant portfolios and each one of you has chosen a different approach as to which sites you choose to market your images for you.

You seem to prefer the big 4 and the Macros- Of course you do... a large portfolio takes a long time to upload and why would you waste your time with uploading on every site that comes along- it makes no sense for you.

Yuri seems to have determined that he is better off moving his stuff (at least new stuff) to his own site exclusively.
SJLocke- prefers Istock exclusivity
And Cthoman has chosen an entirely different path by focusing on revenue per download.

4 extremely successful portfolios with 4 different approaches. I bet all 4 of you are exactly right in your decisions.

This is my point- Buyers who are looking for your niche-style-feel (call it what you want) will over time learn where they can buy those images and will shop there. You will bring success in that criteria to your chosen vendors and bring in buyers. If those buyers like your style but you don't have that particular subject they will buy from a different contributor with a similar "feeling portfolio". That contributor will also see success at that site and continue to upload thereby reenforcing the cycle. Someone looking for your industrial photos is likely to be an entirely different type of customer than someone looking to purchase one of Cory's cartoon characters. Cory's upload priority list for agencies is likely to be entirely different than yours, or Yuri's or Sean Locke's. Therefore, Cory is having a similar effect on an entirely different set of agencies with an entirely different set of buyers. The sites are evolving based on contributor success or failure and the effects of this will become more and more pronounced as we go along.

I am not suggesting that the contributor or even the agency is able to or even capable of determining the "Niches". I am simply saying that the "Niches" are being created organically already. I think it is in the best interest of most contributors to at least test the new sites and give them a chance. Especially if that contributor hasn't completely determined the best approach for his/her individual portfolio.

Of course all of this would be sped along if agencies would just start trying to adjust the "best match", delete non selling images, or mess with the pricing. Oh wait... isn't that what they are doing already?

@ Velocicarpo - I know that my list isn't really of "Niche" companies. However, they probably will be in the future or they will not make it. GL is starting to go in that direction with their GL Galleries and I would bet that the other guys are also paying attention and making adjustments to promote those types of images which ARE selling for them.

Those sites can only evolve into niche sites if contributors exclusively put their images on those sites.  If the same images can be found at found GL and SS what's so niche about that?   How many people are going to selectively upload content to different small sites without a much greater expectation on return.  I don't think you'll find many people (anyone) here that only uploads their images of Europe to Fotolia while not uploading it to SS even though Fotolia has the "niche" of the European market.