Author Topic: Size of Licensing Market (Read 20736 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** October 20, 2013, 04:38 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 20, 2013, 04:08

The problem is that most buyers do seem to like low commercial value images and those that don't reach a fairly low technical standard to be rejected. Then they know that when they do a search, they have a better chance of finding something they can use. It's better for us too. It's not difficult to get in to the big microstock sites, I think anyone that can't do that is never going to make much money from stock images.

I don't agree about LCV. Weeding out everything that is "lcv" would simply ensure that there are subjects that the buyer can't get. I'd say most of my stuff is "lcv" and does OK because the competition isn't too severe. The "high commercial value" stuff is an oversaturated market, with everybody chasing to get the next pretty-girl-in-charge-of-mixed-ethnicity-team shot online. The resulting sales dilution means that many photographers are not getting enormous returns from these photos, in fact they may be worth as little as lcv shots - or less.

If you are at the forefront of the first rank then hcv is probably great for you, but if your name isn't Yuri or Andres or Sean then you may find the competition for that part of the market is a bit too fierce and it might be a good move to find niches they don't pay much attention to - better still, niches that nobody has paid attention to.

sharpshot · « **Reply #26 on:** October 20, 2013, 05:45 »

By LCV I mean the sort of images that will get zero downloads over a long period of time. The sites aren't great at defining what LCV is but if you look through MostPhotos, there's lots of it there. I don't mind one site like that but I wouldn't want more. I think istock moving in that direction is yet another big mistake.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #27 on:** October 20, 2013, 06:32 »

Ah! Zero commercial value. Yes, there's some pointless stuff about. To a degree, zero dls is an artifact of the search engines. It's interesting to see files with no sales on iS becoming hot sellers on PP. I've got one file with 179 sales on PP and zero on iS.
I agree that quality control is important. With so much high quality stuff available there's no need to pack the collections with technically bad material.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** October 20, 2013, 07:02 »

Quote from: cthoman on October 20, 2013, 00:00

On the original point, I'd say that if there is anything holding back the market from achieving higher earnings potential it would be price. I think there is enough content or content providers, but the prices are still too low. Too much content is devalued.

I'd say it's knowledge. All these people out there need content, but you tell them about stock images and legalities, and they're like "what?".

Mantis · « **Reply #29 on:** October 20, 2013, 08:04 »

Quote from: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 19:17

@Sean Locke Photography

I've read a lot that this is true. Most buyers go to google and then follow an image from there.

Then go do it. Every piece of input provided by this group you seem rebutt, so if you have the magic formula, have at it.

Toms45 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 20, 2013, 08:26 »

@Mantis,

I'm just stating my opinion. I asked because I value other's opinions here. Any other thoughts?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 20, 2013, 08:54 »

Quote from: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 18:57

@ShadySue

I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.

you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #32 on:** October 20, 2013, 09:05 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 20, 2013, 08:54

Quote from: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 18:57
@ShadySue

I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.

you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!

The way I read it, Toms has not got past the entrance exam at iStock or other sites. I'm sure the rejection rate for initial applications is way above 50% in most places. Once you were in iStock, they used to accept roughly half of submissions, according to what Bruce said a few years back. I suspect that taking the best 50% probably remained the policy until this year.

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** October 20, 2013, 09:09 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 20, 2013, 08:54

Quote from: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 18:57
@ShadySue
I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.

you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!

I don't think the OP was saying they have 50% approval. He said he and his friends were rejected from iS.
I was just coming on here to say that if they can't get onto iS nowadays, they really should spend some time working on their skills.
Back in the day, I believe it was once said that iS rejected half of the files submitted. I've heard that the video rules haven't slackened, but as you say, the photo standards are much, much laxer nowadays.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 20, 2013, 09:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 20, 2013, 09:09

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 20, 2013, 08:54
Quote from: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 18:57
@ShadySue
I think iStock accepts far less than 50% of photos. At least, my friends and I were rejected. I was just thinking about the possibility for the company. I do think that it may spread it thin amongst contributors, but it would give many more photographers the chance to sell their work, ie, it would open the floodgates.

you must be doing something very wrong, having only 50% approval at iStock? looking at some new contributions I wonder about your work, I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently, iStock have open their gates a few months or even years ago!

I don't think the OP was saying they have 50% approval. He said he and his friends were rejected from iS.
I was just coming on here to say that if they can't get onto iS nowadays, they really should spend some time working on their skills.
Back in the day, I believe it was once said that iS rejected half of the files submitted. I've heard that the video rules haven't slackened, but as you say, the photo standards are much, much laxer nowadays.

well said!

Shelma1 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 20, 2013, 10:31 »

Quote from: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 22:14

@BD.

I realize this. There are several other articles later on that support this.

Do you agree/disagree? How do you think things have changed?

What was their testing methodology? Remember, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** October 20, 2013, 10:34 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 20, 2013, 08:54

I can show you a few examples of very bad pictures accepted recently,

The port which was discussed here previously had 999 pics uploaded during late May, 803 of which were accepted. At a generous estimate, 775 at least of these would not have been accepted before May.
Result, 6 sales out of the 803, at least two of which were used on blogs to illustrate falling standards on iStock.
So I'm afraid the argument that if agencies accepted everything there would be more sales is not very strong.
(Even allowing for the fact that almost all of the 803 are appallingly badly keyworded and new files are disappearing instantly from best match search.)
Significantly, that contributor, who indicated in an iS forum post that he had thousands more files to upload, has not uploaded (or at least, has not had accepted) even one file since.
Tentative but unproven conclusion: he decided that it wasn't worth his while.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 20, 2013, 11:20 »

yep.. again well said!

gbalex · « **Reply #38 on:** October 20, 2013, 11:39 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 19, 2013, 22:43

Quote from: Toms45 on October 19, 2013, 20:55
I've read this elsewhere. I'll try to dig up the sources later on.

It may be a time sink, but it's true. Is it that hard to imagine? If some random person needs an image, their first thought is to "google" it.

That's totally different then a legitimate buyer looking to pay money to license an image legally.

I have bought countless images over the years and have never used Google to find images. We do spend time up front before purchase to find sites that offer a wide selection of content that will fit the demographic we serve.

The only people I have known to use the Google search to find images were non professional users, who were looking for free images.

Sean is right professionals work on tight schedules and do not have time to mess with Google to find images.

Toms45 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 20, 2013, 13:52 »

I don't know really. I think the article above also discusses that there's a very large consumer market (not art director/agency, etc. driven) that most people dont' know about. Maybe this is where all search through Google is coming?

Anyone else have any thoughts on this or the size of licensing market?

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** October 20, 2013, 14:04 »

Quote from: Toms45 on October 20, 2013, 13:52

I don't know really. I think the article above also discusses that there's a very large consumer market (not art director/agency, etc. driven) that most people dont' know about. Maybe this is where all search through Google is coming?

Anyone else have any thoughts on this or the size of licensing market?

Even if there is such a hidden market (we all know that non-designers buy stock), of actual paying customers, why are they not finding what they want on the existing agencies? For a lot of occasional small users with tiny budgets, stock is far too expensive, as they don't need subs or big credit bundles.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #41 on:** October 20, 2013, 14:06 »

Here's my advice; take it for what it's worth. If iStock rejected your work, try to improve your work. People won't pay for a product that has no value. If I can shoot something with my iPhone that's comparable to what you shoot, why would I pay for your shot? The photographers accepted by the stock sites have work that I'm incapable of producing myself. Therefore, it has value worth paying for.

bunhill · « **Reply #42 on:** October 20, 2013, 14:45 »

Quote from: Toms45 on October 20, 2013, 13:52

Anyone else have any thoughts on this or the size of licensing market?

The article you have referenced is from a completely different era. It was published 17 days after the very first iPhone was released and less than year after Facebook was opened up for public membership. Today most businesses are on Facebook and most of those pages use iPhone images.

In those days the international economy was booming and there was a huge demand for cheap 'professional' content.

Those days are never coming back and microstock is in gradual and inevitable decline (ditto 'web design' FWIW). The mass market for cheap content is dying. Today buyers are increasingly looking either for free content or else for curated content.

Also - if the entry bar for microstock was any lower people would trip over it.

Toms45 · « **Reply #43 on:** October 20, 2013, 15:26 »

I mean, I agree with you that the article is old. There are also a lot of updated articles, with similar information, from not too long ago.

I'm just asking for people's opinions. I'm not sure it's true or not. My initial thought is that making a site like Flickr, but with a marketplace could be huge. Why did Flickr abandon their marketplace plans and make a plan with Getty anyways?

When I stroll through Flickr, I see so much content that is so good. If there was a way to sort through all of it, and license it, I think it could make a lot of money.

These are just my thoughts of course.

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** October 20, 2013, 16:21 »

Quote from: Toms45 on October 20, 2013, 15:26

When I stroll through Flickr, I see so much content that is so good. If there was a way to sort through all of it, and license it, I think it could make a lot of money.

There is a lot of fantastic content on Flickr, and other stuff too.
I'm sure they're planning something; they didn't just decide to give all-comers tons of storage space out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact that they positively encouraged people to put up full-res images was surely also indicative.

How they could get the masses to check their work for IP issues, get MRs and keyword better, all months or years later, I can't imagine. They'd have to have a strong and believable incentive. Most of us who've been round the block know that 80% of 0 sales is £0. A lot of excellent photographers on Flickr have no interest in selling stock, and a lot of the stuff I put up there is for fun and is relevant only to friends, or is practising technique specifically for peer review. All that stuff from everyone would need to be weeded out.

Toms45 · « **Reply #45 on:** October 20, 2013, 19:05 »

Nothing personal. I read this: http://www.microstockgroup.com/members-only-discussion/shutterstock-rejections-20579/msg0/?topicseen#new

And it seems there are a lot of images rejected, that are good.

Any one else have any thoughts?

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #46 on:** October 20, 2013, 19:36 »

" Any one else have any thoughts?"

You keep asking this here and in other threads. Why? Are you writing a book, a blog, doing research because you want to start a new site, are you trying to figure out why some are making money and you aren't, looking for a get rich quick scheme, a spy from Google? It seems that you are picking our brains for some words to justify your thoughts and hoping that people will agree with your theories which are not quite clear. Whassup?

Toms45 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 20, 2013, 19:43 »

@cuppacoffee

I'm thinking of starting the company. I wanted to hear people's feedback. What do you think of the idea? It's not a get-rich scheme. It would be a long-term open platform for people to sell their work, and make a fair price.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 20, 2013, 19:52 »

right!

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** October 20, 2013, 19:55 »

Quote from: Toms45 on October 20, 2013, 19:43

@cuppacoffee

I'm thinking of starting the company. I wanted to hear people's feedback. What do you think of the idea? It's not a get-rich scheme. It would be a long-term open platform for people to sell their work, and make a fair price.

If we had $10 for everyone who's come on here with the same, or very similar, idea, we could all stop selling and live off the money.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Size of Licensing Market (Read 20736 times)

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

Mantis

Toms45

luissantos84

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

luissantos84

Shelma1

ShadySue

luissantos84

gbalex

Toms45

ShadySue

Shelma1

bunhill

Toms45

ShadySue

Toms45

cuppacoffee

Toms45

luissantos84

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors