MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Uncle Pete on April 10, 2014, 11:54
-
As people watch and the Microstock market changes, I think this relates, but not enough to be On Topic.
Dollar Stores:
My main concern surrounding the dollar store sector is overexpansion. It feels like there is a Starbucks everywhere you look, yet it had only 6,866 stores at the end of its fiscal year. I estimate that if some of the projections become reality, the major chains will operate as many as 40,000 dollar stores across the United States. It is a number that may not be sustainable and will result in a battle of survival of the fittest.
Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterloeb/2013/06/10/dg-drtr-fdo-do-we-really-need-40000-dollar-stores/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterloeb/2013/06/10/dg-drtr-fdo-do-we-really-need-40000-dollar-stores/)
What I think we need to be watching for, besides the over inflated competition, price cutting, and a Microstock agency over abundance. Is when we see, "# Quarter profits are less than expected" and under-preforming reports from the majors. This will signal and thinning of the herd, larger than what we see with the slow in and out presently.
Last year Dollar stores were talking of expansion, adding many more stores. Now they are closing and cutting:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/04/10/family-dollar-closing-370-stores-and-lowering-prices-after-revenue-falls-6/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/04/10/family-dollar-closing-370-stores-and-lowering-prices-after-revenue-falls-6/)
“Our second quarter results did not meet our expectations,” Howard Levine, Family Dollar chairman and CEO, said in a statement Thursday morning. “The 2013 holiday season was challenged by a more promotional competitive environment and a more financially constrained consumer. In addition, like many retailers, our second quarter results were significantly impacted by severe winter weather, which resulted in numerous store closings, disrupted merchandise deliveries and higher than expected utility and store maintenance expenses.”
Survival games are coming. I don't know how soon, but for myself. Less agencies and less price cutting, is a good thing.
There is no market I know of, where MORE competition raises values and income for producers and suppliers, or the distribution outlets. Over supply and too much competition, only drives values and prices down. Less agencies would be good for our returns as producers of digital goods.
-
...Over supply and too much competition, only drives values and prices down. Less agencies would be good for our returns as producers of digital goods.
I agree. And I think some responsibility rests with us to me more cautious about who we do business with these days. I have a new personal rule of "50% or don't bother". Meaning going forward, any new company that wants my images, they need to offer 50% royalties or don't even bother contacting me. I don't even care what the pricing looks like yet, to even start the conversation it's 50% or don't bother.
There are enough agencies out there already. Like you said, too many. Some new players want in, the cost of entry has gone up.
-
I agree with Embermike's comments. In my case when 123rf dropped me to a lower ranking I stopped uploading after seeing sub sales were earning $0.25
when that same image was earning $0.30 and more with other agencies. There's
a standard I set: Nothing less than $0.30 a sale otherwise I'm walking.
I also think when an agency accepts my image they're telling me: "We think we
can sell your image".....123rf seems to put the onus on the contributor: "You're
not selling as well as you used to so we're going to punish you further."
-
it's simple from my point of view and also argumentative from other points of view...
don't submit to sites that pay you $0.38 as the top amount in a royalty. and if you do, then don't wine about sustainability as you are supporting the very thing you moan about. just sayin. you can draw your own conclusions.
-
I think you missed the whole point while you were trying to slam SS as usual.
It's not about a site, it's about the entire market. IS is just fine in my opinion, they promote and market and present a professional site. There have been some misguided diversions.
SS is up front about everything they do. Yes I agree, if someone doesn't think Subs are their thing, that's fine, but you can't be serious mentioning "$0.38 as the top amount in a royalty" unless you live in a bubble or have ignore the facts and the truth.
SS has ELs, On Demand, Single sales and other options. IS has TS giving us 28 cents vs 38 cents (wow, how did you miss that?) But also has standard licenses, ELs and other ways for a buyer to obtain a license.
Now please observe, some other 1000 other sites that offer very little except "Me Too" for their own pockets.
My post is about the marketplace, not Agency A vs Agency B or C or D or E. It's about thinning of the herd and how some people who think the answer is, sell everything, everywhere for chump change is making a profit.
Now shudderstok, face the marketplace issues and stop being defensive about one place and attacking anything you can about another. Broad Microstock market.
"$0.38 as the top amount in a royalty" ??? Do you expect one person to read this and not be laughing at how absurd you make yourself look?
Poor pathetic me, I only get 33c a download:
(http://s5.postimg.org/90blry8yv/april_4th_2014.jpg)
it's simple from my point of view and also argumentative from other points of view...
don't submit to sites that pay you $0.38 as the top amount in a royalty. and if you do, then don't wine about sustainability as you are supporting the very thing you moan about. just sayin. you can draw your own conclusions.
-
i did not slam any site in particular, you drew your own conclusions.
but yes now that you do mention SS, if you support selling your work at such a pittance then there is no point in moaning that it is not sustainable cause it's not from a contributors point of view.
it's really that simple.
-
i did not slam any site in particular, you drew your own conclusions.
but yes now that you do mention SS, if you support selling your work at such a pittance then there is no point in moaning that it is not sustainable cause it's not from a contributors point of view.
it's really that simple.
You could say the same about any agency that pays you less than 38 cents for any sale.
-
Yes, funny how that particular number came up and I erroneously came to that obvious conclusion. Especially from someone who names themselves as a takeoff on a site name. And then tries to deny their whole propose and intention?
Legally a, DUCK Thread.
I see that someone doesn't understand logic:
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck
i did not slam any site in particular, you drew your own conclusions.
but yes now that you do mention SS, if you support selling your work at such a pittance then there is no point in moaning that it is not sustainable cause it's not from a contributors point of view.
it's really that simple.
You could say the same about any agency that pays you less than 38 cents for any sale.
-
Kinda sad reading this thread. Seems as though our standards and expectations have dropped so low that getting 33 cents, or 38 cents, or 50% of $10 is (somewhat) acceptable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with SS and was with iStock so I'm participating in this devaluation of our work. Wish it hadn't come to this.
It will take a monumental effort on the part of photographers to turn this around to the point where we are getting an acceptable return on our time and investment. Personally, I'm looking for a way out of this ( by self marketing, RM, being more agency selective, etc.) but am not having a lot of success doing so. Will photogs as a group ever ban together and say 'no' to low royalties and prices?.....doubt it.
Is it too late?
(Time to add a little something extra to my morning coffee).
-
Kinda sad reading this thread. Seems as though our standards and expectations have dropped so low that getting 33 cents, or 38 cents, or 50% of $10 is (somewhat) acceptable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with SS and was with iStock so I'm participating in this devaluation of our work. Wish it hadn't come to this.
It will take a monumental effort on the part of photographers to turn this around to the point where we are getting an acceptable return on our time and investment. Personally, I'm looking for a way out of this ( by self marketing, RM, being more agency selective, etc.) but am not having a lot of success doing so. Will photogs as a group ever ban together and say 'no' to low royalties and prices?.....doubt it.
Is it too late?
(Time to add a little something extra to my morning coffee).
I guess it depends really. MS for me has always been a place where I can sell stuff that takes me little time or effort to produce, or photos that have been paid for in other ways that I can now sell again. So I'm not losing on any investment dollars. So what is a good price for a photo that otherwise would sit on my hard drive and do nothing? I'm not being intentionally argumentative, but I firmly believe that MS should be where the effort going in is less than the result. If it isn't, well, I think people are doing it wrong. If it costs you money to produce, then the return must justify it. Sell it where you can get that return.
-
Kinda sad reading this thread. Seems as though our standards and expectations have dropped so low that getting 33 cents, or 38 cents, or 50% of $10 is (somewhat) acceptable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with SS and was with iStock so I'm participating in this devaluation of our work. Wish it hadn't come to this.
It will take a monumental effort on the part of photographers to turn this around to the point where we are getting an acceptable return on our time and investment. Personally, I'm looking for a way out of this ( by self marketing, RM, being more agency selective, etc.) but am not having a lot of success doing so. Will photogs as a group ever ban together and say 'no' to low royalties and prices?.....doubt it.
Is it too late?
(Time to add a little something extra to my morning coffee).
glad to see at least one person who understood what i was aiming at.
as a group it will never be resolved as there are too many people that are happy with selling images for pennies on the dollar.
at the current direction it is going it is not sustainable.
trust me when i say this, ten years ago i would have never in my wildest dreams been thinking i'd be exclusive on any site selling images for a pittance and a fraction of what i was accustomed too. nor did i ever think the industry would devalue images by so much.
-
You mean 28 cents or 25 cents? :)
(http://s5.postimg.org/m4me61l5z/duckwebsmoke.jpg)
Yes I can agree that the cost of production should be less, if the return is less. Unfortunately people keep raising the standards of quality to where a P&S might have made it, but a full frame DSLR is becoming the base equipment now.
Kinda sad reading this thread. Seems as though our standards and expectations have dropped so low that getting 33 cents, or 38 cents, or 50% of $10 is (somewhat) acceptable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with SS and was with iStock so I'm participating in this devaluation of our work. Wish it hadn't come to this.
It will take a monumental effort on the part of photographers to turn this around to the point where we are getting an acceptable return on our time and investment. Personally, I'm looking for a way out of this ( by self marketing, RM, being more agency selective, etc.) but am not having a lot of success doing so. Will photogs as a group ever ban together and say 'no' to low royalties and prices?.....doubt it.
Is it too late?
(Time to add a little something extra to my morning coffee).
Yes, I always felt that people were willing to work for too little and then say the answer was more agencies to make more money. It's counter productive.
glad to see at least one person who understood what i was aiming at.
as a group it will never be resolved as there are too many people that are happy with selling images for pennies on the dollar.
at the current direction it is going it is not sustainable.
That part I can agree with. But the finger pointing at one site, over and over, when another actually pays even less, does nothing to help the situation, or give even the slightest appearance of unity.
-
at the current direction it is going it is not sustainable.
From a first world perspective I think you are right...from a developing world perspective the future holds some hope.
The original post was about a store expansion in the US... but we can think a lot about how the world economy is changing and how, instead of just competing with the photographer down the street or across town, you are competing with a person with a camera and a computer in all the developing nations of the world.
-
For the person who gave me a negative for my post, I could care less. Glad you're happy making 33 cents per download.....
-
whether i point one site out or ten sites it matters not. the point being is that if you contribute images to a site like SS then you have no right to complain about how unsustainable microstock is. sure, you can take the approach of "i sell thousands of images a day to make $250" or "if it's not online and on my hard drive it's making nothing" etc. you can justify however you want that is your right. but i am very clear that i would never support a site like this. now unfortunately IS has gone this way to ensure the race to the bottom continues, so reluctantly i am forced into a strangle hold. IS is the original site that created this race to the bottom, and coming from a professional background of shooting stock for many many years, i was forced to sign up to IS because they were starting to cannibalize the RF stock industry buy cutting the average web usage over at GI from $75 to now selling the same usage for $1 or $2 and allowing everyone with a digital camera to join regardless of quality. all the likes of SS are doing is exactly the same thing IS did, undercut and work on volume.
the only winners at this game are the owners or major shareholders of each and every agency not the contributor. they have us all by the nuts, and they know it. it just depends to which level you will support them, and i draw the line where i do.
the writing on has been on the wall for years.
-
For the person who gave me a negative for my post, I could care less. Glad you're happy making 33 cents per download.....
how many times do they keep having to tell you that it's not only 33 cents??? hard to believe they are so uppity on a few cents here or there. shall we all agree it is less than 50 cents???
BTW, your work is nice, and worth way more than what you get for it.
-
whether i point one site out or ten sites it matters not. the point being is that if you contribute images to a site like SS then you have no right to complain about how unsustainable microstock is. sure, you can take the approach of "i sell thousands of images a day to make $250" or "if it's not online and on my hard drive it's making nothing" etc. you can justify however you want that is your right. but i am very clear that i would never support a site like this. now unfortunately IS has gone this way to ensure the race to the bottom continues, so reluctantly i am forced into a strangle hold. IS is the original site that created this race to the bottom, and coming from a professional background of shooting stock for many many years, i was forced to sign up to IS because they were starting to cannibalize the RF stock industry buy cutting the average web usage over at GI from $75 to now selling the same usage for $1 or $2 and allowing everyone with a digital camera to join regardless of quality. all the likes of SS are doing is exactly the same thing IS did, undercut and work on volume.
the only winners at this game are the owners or major shareholders of each and every agency not the contributor. they have us all by the nuts, and they know it. it just depends to which level you will support them, and i draw the line where i do.
the writing on has been on the wall for years.
Well, you've helped to convince me of something I've been considering for the past several months. Dropping iStock felt really good, now it's time to drop SS as well. No more micros (subs) for me.
Practice what you preach, so they say.
-
whether i point one site out or ten sites it matters not. the point being is that if you contribute images to a site like SS then you have no right to complain about how unsustainable microstock is. sure, you can take the approach of "i sell thousands of images a day to make $250" or "if it's not online and on my hard drive it's making nothing" etc. you can justify however you want that is your right. but i am very clear that i would never support a site like this. now unfortunately IS has gone this way to ensure the race to the bottom continues, so reluctantly i am forced into a strangle hold. IS is the original site that created this race to the bottom, and coming from a professional background of shooting stock for many many years, i was forced to sign up to IS because they were starting to cannibalize the RF stock industry buy cutting the average web usage over at GI from $75 to now selling the same usage for $1 or $2 and allowing everyone with a digital camera to join regardless of quality. all the likes of SS are doing is exactly the same thing IS did, undercut and work on volume.
the only winners at this game are the owners or major shareholders of each and every agency not the contributor. they have us all by the nuts, and they know it. it just depends to which level you will support them, and i draw the line where i do.
the writing on has been on the wall for years.
Well, you've helped to convince me of something I've been considering for the past several months. Dropping iStock felt really good, now it's time to drop SS as well. No more micros (subs) for me.
Practice what you preach, so they say.
not sure i helped convince you of dropping IS. i simply chose to remain exclusive as all i saw was a bunch of emotional impulsive dropping of exclusivity mainly by the "followers" of the "legend" who did not drop it by choice. not suggesting that was your motivator, but it was fuel for the longest time. there was a lot of emotion going on for a while. but that said, if it felt good for you then you made the right choice, the same for SS if you choose to drop it. your work is far too good for the abuse of pennies. it's interesting to note as well, by staying exclusive and weathering the storm, my sales are pretty much back to where they were and my income is about the same.
i have always said since microstock came along that stock photographers became more like day traders on the stock market, trading stock without really knowing what they are doing, albeit some did. instant this instant that. how quick can you make a quick buck on a flip? like stock trading, i know of very few people who made real lasting money on the stock day trade thing, but boring investors like me who just keep it in the dividend funds for years and years are doing more than okay.
i now find myself of being in a position of being a hypocrite in one sense - IS has now forced upon me to be involved in subscription sales. on that my only choice is to quit if i stick to my guns, but that would cost me more than a full time income, and simply put, i can't do that. again, i did not join IS as a supporter of subs, this has been forced upon me, i always opted out of subs and partner programs when i could.
subs are here to stay, that is a fact.
-
I don't get it. I never will. All photos are not equal and they never have been. Trad stock was about scarcity of product. Now anyone with a decent camera can produce a reasonably saleable picture in minutes and sell it basically to the world. How much should that be worth? The only niche these days is imagination and sometimes rarity of subjects.
My pictures are worth the 38 cents or whatever because I spent the appropriate amount of time/effort to justify that sale. If you truly think your photos are worth more, there are appropriate places to sell them for more.
Using words like "forced to" or "reluctantly" just make it possible for you to do what everyone else is doing yet still hold your high ground about how this is terrible and you told us so, etc, etc. Don't like it? Find a new job and stop your crying about it. Or better yet, innovate and do something others haven't done yet. This industry is dying for something new to come along.
-
I don't get it. I never will. All photos are not equal and they never have been. Trad stock was about scarcity of product. Now anyone with a decent camera can produce a reasonably saleable picture in minutes and sell it basically to the world. How much should that be worth? The only niche these days is imagination and sometimes rarity of subjects.
My pictures are worth the 38 cents or whatever because I spent the appropriate amount of time/effort to justify that sale. If you truly think your photos are worth more, there are appropriate places to sell them for more.
Using words like "forced to" or "reluctantly" just make it possible for you to do what everyone else is doing yet still hold your high ground about how this is terrible and you told us so, etc, etc. Don't like it? Find a new job and stop your crying about it. Or better yet, innovate and do something others haven't done yet. This industry is dying for something new to come along.
You can do all that, but the competition won't go away. There will still be a mob of people and sites out there undercutting you. You can't really fix that.
-
Yup, and that demonstrates what the actual value of an image is, doesn't it? It's only worth what people will pay for it. Someone will always price lower, and that will work for some sites for a while yet I think. I will sell where I choose as long as its lucrative for me. When it isn't, I won't. Simple.
-
Higher commission rates are worthless to me if there are no sales.
-
Yup, and that demonstrates what the actual value of an image is, doesn't it?
Actually, I'd say it is the exact opposite. The values images are sold for at most agencies are fairly arbitrary. The real value is much different, but it is much easier to put a inexpensive one price fits all styles price on things. Once you put that out there though, it's pretty hard to take it back and assign a real value to somebody's work.
-
Yup, and that demonstrates what the actual value of an image is, doesn't it?
Actually, I'd say it is the exact opposite. The values images are sold for at most agencies are fairly arbitrary. The real value is much different, but it is much easier to put a inexpensive one price fits all styles price on things. Once you put that out there though, it's pretty hard to take it back and assign a real value to somebody's work.
Fair point, I see how that could be. In any event, the real issue is the prices are arbitrary for the whole range of images, best to worst. MS should've and could've been where photographers started, and worked their way up improving quality (and getting higher commissions) tier by tier.
The agencies could've done it in the beginning, have price points based on quality/scarcity/etc. And photographers could've done a better job by keeping their "high value" work out of MS. The fault is a blend in my opinion and now it simply is what it is.
We can bash all we want here (not directed at your comment, but the discussions in general) but at the end of the day, unless someone innovates something that skews it more towards the shooter, we have to adapt or quit. I hoped (and still hope) that various Symbiostock-based networks will someday turn into coop-style marketplaces, but only time will tell.
-
Yup, and that demonstrates what the actual value of an image is, doesn't it?
Actually, I'd say it is the exact opposite. The values images are sold for at most agencies are fairly arbitrary. The real value is much different, but it is much easier to put a inexpensive one price fits all styles price on things. Once you put that out there though, it's pretty hard to take it back and assign a real value to somebody's work.
Fair point, I see how that could be. In any event, the real issue is the prices are arbitrary for the whole range of images, best to worst. MS should've and could've been where photographers started, and worked their way up improving quality (and getting higher commissions) tier by tier.
The agencies could've done it in the beginning, have price points based on quality/scarcity/etc. And photographers could've done a better job by keeping their "high value" work out of MS. The fault is a blend in my opinion and now it simply is what it is.
We can bash all we want here (not directed at your comment, but the discussions in general) but at the end of the day, unless someone innovates something that skews it more towards the shooter, we have to adapt or quit. I hoped (and still hope) that various Symbiostock-based networks will someday turn into coop-style marketplaces, but only time will tell.
it was skewed towards the shooter until microstock came along and devalued the work. believe it or not it's the market sources that devalued the work not the buyers, herein lies the problem, the agencies should have kept pricing up for the benefit of the artists and themselves. the problem now is that certain agencies are keeping prices insanely low for their own benefit and the shareholders of course, while other agencies are dropping theirs or what you would suggest as "adapting" by bringing in subs, none of this is for the benefit of the photographers. we are simply pawns in the corporate game.
-
Photographers who started uploading to the micro agencies devalued their work.
-
My pictures are worth the 38 cents or whatever because I spent the appropriate amount of time/effort to justify that sale.
I don't think buyers consider the amount of effort a photog puts into producing a particular image before they decide to buy. If it fits their wants/needs better than all the other images out there then they buy. Some of my low production value images have sold for single sums much greater than my high production value images....you just never know what someone may want and be willing to pay for; at least I don't. I let the buyer set the value and don't let the time and effort I spent in producing my images factor into it.
-
We can bash all we want here (not directed at your comment, but the discussions in general) but at the end of the day, unless someone innovates something that skews it more towards the shooter, we have to adapt or quit. I hoped (and still hope) that various Symbiostock-based networks will someday turn into coop-style marketplaces, but only time will tell.
No offense taken. I've pretty much accepted the industry for what it is. I still try to make it better for myself, but I don't think much will change until something drastic happens. There really isn't an anti-Shutterstock to balance things out. I don't mean that as a knock against SS. I just mean if they are the high volume/low value micro king, then who is the low volume/high value king? Most of the nominees would probably be smaller sites like Stocksy, but there isn't really a consensus or threat to draw artists off SS.
I suppose a new player could fill that void or DT, CanStockPhoto, P5 or some other site could move into that role. But, I have my doubts that will happen either. Frankly, I think the biggest catalyst for change at this point would be if SS failed. And by failed, I mean that they stopped making enough money for artists (the pie cut too many times). That doesn't seem imminent either, so I'm strapped in for the long ride.
-
it was skewed towards the shooter until microstock came along and devalued the work. believe it or not it's the market sources that devalued the work not the buyers, herein lies the problem, the agencies should have kept pricing up for the benefit of the artists and themselves. the problem now is that certain agencies are keeping prices insanely low for their own benefit and the shareholders of course, while other agencies are dropping theirs or what you would suggest as "adapting" by bringing in subs, none of this is for the benefit of the photographers. we are simply pawns in the corporate game.
Not buying it. MS created new markets for low cost players (buyers and shooters). Nothing was devalued until a pro crunched the numbers and decided it would be viable to sell high quality shots for "pennies on the dollar". They shot themselves (and you apparently) in the foot. If you had of stayed in your own sandbox, the big corporate clients who paid top dollar would've stayed with the GI's of the world instead of buying the same thing for a fraction of the price.
You be a pawn all you want. I'm selling what I choose to sell where I choose to sell it.
-
No offense taken. I've pretty much accepted the industry for what it is. I still try to make it better for myself, but I don't think much will change until something drastic happens. There really isn't an anti-Shutterstock to balance things out. I don't mean that as a knock against SS. I just mean if they are the high volume/low value micro king, then who is the low volume/high value king? Most of the nominees would probably be smaller sites like Stocksy, but there isn't really a consensus or threat to draw artists off SS.
I suppose a new player could fill that void or DT, CanStockPhoto, P5 or some other site could move into that role. But, I have my doubts that will happen either. Frankly, I think the biggest catalyst for change at this point would be if SS failed. And by failed, I mean that they stopped making enough money for artists (the pie cut too many times). That doesn't seem imminent either, so I'm strapped in for the long ride.
True, and me too (strapped in for a while yet). Luckily I don't rely on MS for anything more than extra money with images I was going to take anyway. Someday I may just go solo or with a small group of similar niche markets. Not there yet though, but its a thought for down the road.
-
<snip>
the problem now is that certain agencies are keeping prices insanely low for their own benefit and the shareholders of course...
I assume you're talking about Getty here, hard to compete with "free".
-
at the current direction it is going it is not sustainable.
From a first world perspective I think you are right...from a developing world perspective the future holds some hope.
The original post was about a store expansion in the US... but we can think a lot about how the world economy is changing and how, instead of just competing with the photographer down the street or across town, you are competing with a person with a camera and a computer in all the developing nations of the world.
So, people from developing countries can't be photographers (just persons with cameras)?
For your information, current cost of life in some developing countries is not cheap. And the direction we are going now is not sustainable here either.
Greetings from the jungle!
-
<snip>
the problem now is that certain agencies are keeping prices insanely low for their own benefit and the shareholders of course...
I assume you're talking about Getty here, hard to compete with "free".
yes yes yes, noted and accepted 100%. that was after SS gives there images away for advertising for free, albeit you get paid your small amount which is a considerably nice gesture. who else is giving away free images? they all are, this is nothing new in microstock.
glad you brought this up, so now i can rest my case. the agencies are the ones dragging the pricing down as they always have for their own benefit.
it sounds like you started your stock photo career with the micros.
and FYI, pros like us dumped our years of rejects into the micros and instantly made another annual income, we still put our best stuff in the other sandbox. you should do the same thing - that is if you have what it takes to sell your work for more than your self valued 38 cents.
-
Ahh personal cheapshots. Nice. My portfolio is right there for everyone to see. Where is yours?
-
Ahh personal cheapshots. Nice. My portfolio is right there for everyone to see. Where is yours?
not a personal cheap shot at all. but it shows that you have only micro experience. big bark small bite on the forums. nothing wrong with that of course, but the way you talk is very micro know it all. one day you should get around to applying for some of the bigger agencies, it's a little more stringent than three shots and silly questionnaires, and it pays much much better. but then again, some people are only suited to micro, and that is all good too. but please don't all emotional on me and say it's a personal cheap shot, it's not.
-
Yes, I can see all the emotion in the responses, we differ on where though. Too funny the personal attack came after I mentioned the big G.
FYI, if you're really going to call my photographic talents (or lack of) into question without showing your own work, well, in my world we call that being cowardly. But we both know you won't so I'll leave it, especially since it isn't personal when you call my judgement, experience and talent into question simply because I disagree with you. I know where I am on my photographic journey, as does anyone who looks at my website, blog and portfolio.
Back on topic, I will say this however, there is so far only one (lucrative) agency that I'm with where my royalties have not gone down, only up.
-
I am still making a decent living from microstock, and I live in Toronto where cost of living is pretty high. We can speculate all we want about what future holds, but the truth is, no one knows. If you apply common sense to the situation, however, there always will be people needing to legally license images, and if "the pie gets cut too many times" there won't be many people supplying them - and that would force the agencies to increase payouts to photographers to attract new content. It's a self-correcting system.
And yes cost of living in developing countries is rising, and will continue to do so, and even though there are still photographers there that are happy with getting a few hundred dollars a month it will not last long.
-
I can agree with that. The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.
-
I can agree with that. The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.
For someone who doesn't do it for income there is little incentive to produce a lot of saleable content. Getting image to the point of being saleable is a lot of work. If you don't do this for money, then it's for enjoyment of it, and there is only so much work one can enjoy:) There are not that many people out there that are good photographers capable of producing high quality content both technically and visually and not needing the money. And images do age. You can't keep going just on the content that 5-7 years old - styles, subjects, technology change all the time, you need it fresh to stay competitive.
-
For someone who doesn't do it for income there is little incentive to produce a lot of saleable content. Getting image to the point of being saleable is a lot of work. If you don't do this for money, then it's for enjoyment of it, and there is only so much work one can enjoy:) There are not that many people out there that are good photographers capable of producing high quality content both technically and visually and not needing the money. And images do age. You can't keep going just on the content that 5-7 years old - styles, subjects, technology change all the time, you need it fresh to stay competitive.
Well, I do enjoy taking photos, and my wife enjoys the cooking and staging. So it's work I'm doing anyway, almost every evening and weekend. I like to think that my images are good enough straight out of the camera usually (I crop and maybe adjust exposure sometimes) and they usually get accepted and sell well. I also try and build my own sites although that seems to take me a lot longer than simply uploading them to other places. It seems to work for me, as I said earlier in this string, the effort is worth the reward.
The area(s) I feel I need to grow into are more along lines of concept staging and getting better at lighting.
-
I can agree with that. The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.
Just curious, since you don't do this for the money and feel that 38 cents is a fair return for your images based on the time and effort you put into production, are you charging 38 cents for the images on your website/Symbiostock site? And, if not, why not?
-
I can agree with that. The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.
Just curious, since you don't do this for the money and feel that 38 cents is a fair return for your images based on the time and effort you put into production, are you charging 38 cents for the images on your website/Symbiostock site? And, if not, why not?
Good question. Actually, no, I charge more on my own site. I charge around what I believe the stock agencies charge for my images, not what they pay me in commission. Don't get me wrong, I would love to make more money per download from my photos. However, we either accept what the agencies offer us or we leave. I've left some and stayed with others. I am also working to improve my shooting so that eventually I do move up to higher paying, RM sites and leave my current crop of stuff on MS. I don't feel like I'm there yet, but its something to aim for.
To qualify, I don't do this solely for the money, but the money is handy and I do use it. I do this for a great many reasons, money being only a part of it. I never thought that MS would be a full time sustainable career for me like it is for others, so I treat it more as a hobby. I have great respect for those who can and do.
-
I can agree with that. The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.
Just curious, since you don't do this for the money and feel that 38 cents is a fair return for your images based on the time and effort you put into production, are you charging 38 cents for the images on your website/Symbiostock site? And, if not, why not?
Good question. Actually, no, I charge more on my own site. I charge around what I believe the stock agencies charge for my images, not what they pay me in commission. Don't get me wrong, I would love to make more money per download from my photos. However, we either accept what the agencies offer us or we leave. I've left some and stayed with others. I am also working to improve my shooting so that eventually I do move up to higher paying, RM sites and leave my current crop of stuff on MS. I don't feel like I'm there yet, but its something to aim for.
To qualify, I don't do this solely for the money, but the money is handy and I do use it. I do this for a great many reasons, money being only a part of it. I never thought that MS would be a full time sustainable career for me like it is for others, so I treat it more as a hobby. I have great respect for those who can and do.
Good answer.....end of discussion as far as I'm concerned.
-
Yes, I can see all the emotion in the responses, we differ on where though. Too funny the personal attack came after I mentioned the big G.
FYI, if you're really going to call my photographic talents (or lack of) into question without showing your own work, well, in my world we call that being cowardly. But we both know you won't so I'll leave it, especially since it isn't personal when you call my judgement, experience and talent into question simply because I disagree with you. I know where I am on my photographic journey, as does anyone who looks at my website, blog and portfolio.
Back on topic, I will say this however, there is so far only one (lucrative) agency that I'm with where my royalties have not gone down, only up.
what is with you and this personal attack thing? i have already told you it was not a personal attack, do i really need to keep treating you with kid gloves and repeat this in every reply? and i don't ever recall once calling you on your photographic talents or as you say lack of < your words not mine. the topic at hand was "unsustainable" and i simply stated if you wanted to make more then apply to bigger agencies. your lack of experience does show however in your jumping to conclusions about personal attacks and you personal insecurities about your own abilities. we all crawl before we learn to walk, and it took time so don't drag me into where you are at in your abilities please, we all grow and get better, and we all started somewhere. as for not showing my work, which you deem "cowardly" - this is actually more of a privacy thing and professional thing, i trust you understand.
as for your work, i won't judge it at all, but if you did send it to some other large agencies, real editors would. and if you are not at that level yet so be it, as mentioned some people are only suited to microstock but maybe one day you will hone your skills and develop further as part of your "photographic journey", this is not anything to feel bad about, hell you even admit you don't do this full time, maybe one day you will. i on the other hand do, and probably have many more years experience doing this. either way, good luck and peace out man.
as mlwinphoto said "end of discussion as far as I'm concerned"
-
.
-
Yes, I can see all the emotion in the responses, we differ on where though. Too funny the personal attack came after I mentioned the big G.
FYI, if you're really going to call my photographic talents (or lack of) into question without showing your own work, well, in my world we call that being cowardly. But we both know you won't so I'll leave it, especially since it isn't personal when you call my judgement, experience and talent into question simply because I disagree with you. I know where I am on my photographic journey, as does anyone who looks at my website, blog and portfolio.
Back on topic, I will say this however, there is so far only one (lucrative) agency that I'm with where my royalties have not gone down, only up.
what is with you and this personal attack thing? i have already told you it was not a personal attack, do i really need to keep treating you with kid gloves and repeat this in every reply? and i don't ever recall once calling you on your photographic talents or as you say lack of < your words not mine. the topic at hand was "unsustainable" and i simply stated if you wanted to make more then apply to bigger agencies. your lack of experience does show however in your jumping to conclusions about personal attacks and you personal insecurities about your own abilities. we all crawl before we learn to walk, and it took time so don't drag me into where you are at in your abilities please, we all grow and get better, and we all started somewhere. as for not showing my work, which you deem "cowardly" - this is actually more of a privacy thing and professional thing, i trust you understand.
as for your work, i won't judge it at all, but if you did send it to some other large agencies, real editors would. and if you are not at that level yet so be it, as mentioned some people are only suited to microstock but maybe one day you will hone your skills and develop further as part of your "photographic journey", this is not anything to feel bad about, hell you even admit you don't do this full time, maybe one day you will. i on the other hand do, and probably have many more years experience doing this. either way, good luck and peace out man.
as mlwinphoto said "end of discussion as far as I'm concerned"
I had to quote it for posterity. Thanks for a good laugh and good luck to you too.
-
I don't think you can say someone lacks experience and not expect them to take it a little personally. It's not the worst insult, but it discounts any prior work they've put in and it definitely seems insulting. Just my two cents.
-
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !
--> supply vs demand.
-
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !
--> supply vs demand.
Sites still have to attract their vendors, so it isn't that simple. If you can't sell high volumes with lower royalty rates, contributors may lose interest. People follow the money.
-
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !
--> supply vs demand.
Sites still have to attract their vendors, so it isn't that simple. If you can't sell high volumes with lower royalty rates, contributors may lose interest. People follow the money.
yes of course, but at the moment suppliers are dime a dozen and it's a buyers' market, at least regarding cheap buyers who can't afford macro or midstock.
-
and FYI, pros like us dumped our years of rejects into the micros and instantly made another annual income, we still put our best stuff in the other sandbox. you should do the same thing - that is if you have what it takes to sell your work for more than your self valued 38 cents.
So pros like you doubled your incomes for a while while helping drive down prices and drive up the quality expected for those prices.
Why are you complaining now?
-
Critical mass can be a good thing and a bad thing.
-
Is this one of those, "It's better to give... than receive" things? :)
Critical mass can be a good thing and a bad thing.
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !
--> supply vs demand.
Yes, I've tried to explain supply and demand, a number of times. More competition is NOT a good thing. It drives down values and prices. Supporting the sites that do nothing but being resellers or selling all the same images from the same people, for less, is driving the market down.
What I was trying to point out at the start was not bashing Microstock. It is what it is and things are not ever going back in time. Global economy, digital product, electronic distribution, this was inevitable.
Where the comparison to the dollar stores came in, was the expansion and growth where things were booming and seemed endless. Now they are pulling back, contracting, closings.
When that happens to Microstock, we will have a better value in the marketplace, not like some cheap mass produced plastic crap that sells for a buck. When we see profits not meeting expectations, and the market growth receding, then it's going to be very interesting to watch.
I'd say right now, things are leveling off and stabilizing. The rapid growth and expansion ended a few of years ago. Artists shouldn't have expected or planned on never ending growth in the marketplace. And shouldn't have counted on never ending returns or gains from their collections.
For the high end complaints, there's still a market for high end and specific needs. They still make Ferrari's and Porsche and Mercedes, everyone doesn't drive a Toyota, Honda or Subaru. You can get choice sirloin steaks or by ground chuck.
Microstock is filling a broader need and position in the demands of enterprise, caused by the Internet boom. I think products are undervalued and we should get a better percentage of a higher price. But someone needs to find a way to do that.
For the people who spend their entire time here pointing out the obvious, that Microstock undervalues our work. (and I agree with them) Here's the challenge.
How do we fix it? Now that would be an interesting and positive discussion.
What's the realistic solution?
-
For the people who spend their entire time here pointing out the obvious, that Microstock undervalues our work. (and I agree with them) Here's the challenge.
How do we fix it? Now that would be an interesting and positive discussion.
What's the realistic solution?
There isn't one. You can sell on your own, find reasonable partners or go full macro. But, those solutions aren't going to work for everyone and they are all more lateral moves than fixing the issues. Like I said earlier in the thread, some of us may have to wait for the industry to fail. I assume that is what Mantis means by benefits of critical mass.
-
For the people who spend their entire time here pointing out the obvious, that Microstock undervalues our work. (and I agree with them) Here's the challenge.
How do we fix it? Now that would be an interesting and positive discussion.
What's the realistic solution?
It's true that the glut of newbie agencies all trying to undercut everyone to grab market share does us no good.
However, we are the ones who value our images according to the place we send them, and with a reason. If I had the only shots of a unique event of international importance I wouldn't be offering them on the micros. My very fine photos of a festive turkey being carved do not seem to me to be worth more than a few cents, and the chance that a few hundred people will pay a few cents for them makes that a reasonable pricing.
You "fix" the pricing problem by having material that is special and offering it at special prices. Material that is ordinary must be offered at ordinary prices.
Digital has made material that seemed special at one time to become ordinary. It's a shame, but we're the ones who participated in that trend.
-
I don't think the industry will ever fail any more than Computer and Software companies will cease to exist.
I do expect the same to happen, as the wild early days of computers. Some will fail, some will be purchased, some will merge. Some will go into limited special areas of interest.
I'd be happy to see all the partners and little basement parasitic agencies go away. They are nothing but a drain and compete on only one point. Lower Prices. They offer the customers nothing of value, and offer us nothing for the future. The create a loss for value and our rights as we lose any control over our own images.
For the people who spend their entire time here pointing out the obvious, that Microstock undervalues our work. (and I agree with them) Here's the challenge.
How do we fix it? Now that would be an interesting and positive discussion.
What's the realistic solution?
There isn't one. You can sell on your own, find reasonable partners or go full macro. But, those solutions aren't going to work for everyone and they are all more lateral moves than fixing the issues. Like I said earlier in the thread, some of us may have to wait for the industry to fail. I assume that is what Mantis means by benefits of critical mass.
-
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !
--> supply vs demand.
It is not about supply and demand.
Shutterstock admits that they have purposely chosen not to raise prices as a business strategy to gain market share. Shutterstock has also admitted that they will continue to price undercut the competition as a long term business road path.
Shutterstock's long term price undercutting strategy has negatively impacted micro pricing and subscription strategy for the entire industry.
"We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow."
Snip
Duck Swartz
So what’s changed in the marketplace that’s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years
So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.
Snip
Duck Swartz
Talking about your present strategy longer term?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.
We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last)
-
Why do you keep posting the same articles over and over again? It's nothing new. And you keep ignoring the non-sub options SS has introduced that bring in higher revenue.
-
I don't think the industry will ever fail any more than Computer and Software companies will cease to exist.
I do expect the same to happen, as the wild early days of computers. Some will fail, some will be purchased, some will merge. Some will go into limited special areas of interest.
I'd be happy to see all the partners and little basement parasitic agencies go away. They are nothing but a drain and compete on only one point. Lower Prices. They offer the customers nothing of value, and offer us nothing for the future. The create a loss for value and our rights as we lose any control over our own images.
For the people who spend their entire time here pointing out the obvious, that Microstock undervalues our work. (and I agree with them) Here's the challenge.
How do we fix it? Now that would be an interesting and positive discussion.
What's the realistic solution?
There isn't one. You can sell on your own, find reasonable partners or go full macro. But, those solutions aren't going to work for everyone and they are all more lateral moves than fixing the issues. Like I said earlier in the thread, some of us may have to wait for the industry to fail. I assume that is what Mantis means by benefits of critical mass.
In the case of the micros the self proclaimed "number one subscription imagery site" has done the most damage to the industry by purposely not raising prices for 8 or 9 years.
As for the computer industry, it is the large companies who failed. The smaller, leaner companies who did not spend tons of money on overhead are still in business; while their bloated competitors were forced to close shop.
-
Why do you keep posting the same articles over and over again? It's nothing new. And you keep ignoring the non-sub options SS has introduced that bring in higher revenue.
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
The pros did not keep pricing down. The micros could have easily raised pricing and created curated collections as quality rose. They did not and could not because the largest subscription site fully admits that they purposely kept pricing stagnate and low as a business strategy to gain market share.
-
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
sorry but I don't really remember seeing you complaining about subscriptions before having serious drops in income
we are all well aware about subscriptions and also ODs/SODs/ELs, the last ones represent 42% of my income at SS
can you tell us which % of your income comes from SS?
-
Why do you keep posting the same articles over and over again? It's nothing new. And you keep ignoring the non-sub options SS has introduced that bring in higher revenue.
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
The pros did not keep pricing down. The micros could have easily raised pricing and created curated collections as quality rose. They did not and could not because the largest subscription site fully admits that they purposely kept pricing stagnate and low as a business strategy to gain market share.
There are curated collections. The micros have a different business model.
-
isn't MS just a one of the Global World reflections?
it is objective and natural
-
Why do you keep posting the same articles over and over again? It's nothing new. And you keep ignoring the non-sub options SS has introduced that bring in higher revenue.
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
The pros did not keep pricing down. The micros could have easily raised pricing and created curated collections as quality rose. They did not and could not because the largest subscription site fully admits that they purposely kept pricing stagnate and low as a business strategy to gain market share.
There are curated collections. The micros have a different business model.
That is right shutterstock recently introduced Offset and the quality of the content found there often times does not justify the increased prices they charge; because they acted too late. And now they will have to compete with the artificially low subscription model pricing that they utilized to gain market share.
http://www.offset.com/search/New+York (http://www.offset.com/search/New+York)
http://tinyurl.com/mvdh3y5 (http://tinyurl.com/mvdh3y5)
-
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
sorry but I don't really remember seeing you complaining about subscriptions before having serious drops in income
we are all well aware about subscriptions and also ODs/SODs/ELs, the last ones represent 42% of my income at SS
can you tell us which % of your income comes from SS?
He started submitting to SS when he got 20 cent an image. Now he gets ODDs SODs ELs and is complaining about SS not raising prices and that their sub model is ruining the business.
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
-
Is this one of those, "It's better to give... than receive" things? :)
Critical mass can be a good thing and a bad thing.
Really, critical mass is good for the seller (MS agency) and bad for the supplier (us). Conversely, critical mass is good for the supplier (us) if you're the only one supplying to good customer demand. There are nearly always winners and losers when critical mass is at play.
-
.
-
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
Times change. For the most part images submitted back then were much lower quality than images submitted now. Look at Yuri or Andresr's images from back then and look at their latest work, clearly their work has become better. It's no wonder some people have decided to take another approach.
by another approach do you mean still having portfolio in around 10 agencies after almost 1 year? same goes for Andrers with portfolio still online at SS after 5 months of becoming exclusive, nothing beats being a professional!
or do you mean the exciting subs at iStock? yeah I thought so!
-
.
-
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
Times change. For the most part images submitted back then were much lower quality than images submitted now. Look at Yuri or Andresr's images from back then and look at their latest work, clearly their work has become better. It's no wonder some people have decided to take another approach.
Correct, thats why you can get 120 dollar on SS now for your high quality images. Or ELs for 28 dollar. And if his work is of such quality that it shouldnt be sold on a sub site, he shouldnt put it there and submit those images to Stocksy, OFFset, Istock, Getty, Corbis, 500px, Alamy and what not.
-
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
Times change. For the most part images submitted back then were much lower quality than images submitted now. Look at Yuri or Andresr's images from back then and look at their latest work, clearly their work has become better. It's no wonder some people have decided to take another approach.
by another approach do you mean still having portfolio in around 10 agencies after almost 1 year? same goes for Andrers with portfolio still online at SS after 5 months of becoming exclusive, nothing beats being a professional!
or do you mean the exciting subs at iStock? yeah I thought so!
The point was that times change and just because someone was happy 8 years ago with the subs model doesn't mean that they have to be happy with it now. A lot of people here have spent many hours learning, many hours shooting, and many thousands of dollars becoming better. A model that was good at the start may not be what's best now.
Thats like saying David Beckham signed a contract at a Leage One football club and then after two years of being top scorer, he's complaining the club doesnt play Champions League. If you want to play Champions League you need to get into a Premier League club.
-
.
-
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
Times change. For the most part images submitted back then were much lower quality than images submitted now. Look at Yuri or Andresr's images from back then and look at their latest work, clearly their work has become better. It's no wonder some people have decided to take another approach.
I would add to this that it took a while for me to understand how my images sold best. Sometimes I was moving in the same direction as micro, but lately it seems like we are moving in opposite directions. I think it's a fair criticism of micro that it hasn't necessarily grown properly with its contributors. I assume that is why you see people complaining about it.
-
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
Times change. For the most part images submitted back then were much lower quality than images submitted now. Look at Yuri or Andresr's images from back then and look at their latest work, clearly their work has become better. It's no wonder some people have decided to take another approach.
by another approach do you mean still having portfolio in around 10 agencies after almost 1 year? same goes for Andrers with portfolio still online at SS after 5 months of becoming exclusive, nothing beats being a professional!
or do you mean the exciting subs at iStock? yeah I thought so!
The point was that times change and just because someone was happy 8 years ago with the subs model doesn't mean that they have to be happy with it now. A lot of people here have spent many hours learning, many hours shooting, and many thousands of dollars becoming better. A model that was good at the start may not be what's best now.
I would agree in part but I never had a month at SS that I haven't done better comparing to last year/last month, I cannot say the same for any other agency and I have tested quite a few, that said I also believe that our work got obviously better but we are also getting paid more in terms of totals, ok there are a few contributors here that aren't feeling that but how many are they? in this forum I can only remember gbalex, at SS a few more (like 5 to 10 perhaps), the ones that SS decided to screw because they don't really have nothing else to do
I haven't said I wouldn't love a raise but in fact I would be quite happy if other agencies followed SS success
-
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
Times change. For the most part images submitted back then were much lower quality than images submitted now. Look at Yuri or Andresr's images from back then and look at their latest work, clearly their work has become better. It's no wonder some people have decided to take another approach.
by another approach do you mean still having portfolio in around 10 agencies after almost 1 year? same goes for Andrers with portfolio still online at SS after 5 months of becoming exclusive, nothing beats being a professional!
or do you mean the exciting subs at iStock? yeah I thought so!
The point was that times change and just because someone was happy 8 years ago with the subs model doesn't mean that they have to be happy with it now. A lot of people here have spent many hours learning, many hours shooting, and many thousands of dollars becoming better. A model that was good at the start may not be what's best now.
Thats like saying David Beckham signed a contract at a Leage One football club and then after two years of being top scorer, he's complaining the club doesnt play Champions League. If you want to play Champions League you need to get into a Premier League club.
No, it's like someone starting out as an amateur and getting paid little to nothing, improving their skills and wanting to get paid more.
Fair enough, so if the employer doesnt go along, you go to someone who does give you what you want. You cant ask McDonalds to pay you 50 dollar an hour when its not in their nature to pay that. So you move on to a Michelin Star restaurant.
-
.
-
I haven't said I wouldn't love a raise but in fact I would be quite happy if other agencies followed SS success
This is the problem. Shutterstock's success has come from undercutting the market, even Offset which some people here are saying is supposed to be a jump up from Shutterstock is really aiming at undercutting the RM market. When other companies follow SS's success we get things like Yayimages unlimited subs, fotolia's dollarphoto club, thinkstock, etc.. The worst thing for us is if there are more Shutterstock's out there.
SS wasnt undercutting the market as you said yourself the images they had were amateur and inferior images. Worthy of 20 cents. Shudderstok, the pro, siad himself he dumped his less quality images on micros, giving him an extra income. The amateurs were making a ton of money and the pros wanted in on that, and submitted high quality images to micros and the amateurs had to up their game to compete with that. You are blaming SS for ruining the market when in fact IS started with a free model, giving stock images away until Bruce monetised the model. IS was the first microstock site, not SS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStock#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStock#History)
-
SS wasnt undercutting the market as you said yourself the images they had were amateur and inferior images.
If I could set my prices and opt out of subs. I'd be a happy camper. Otherwise, I'm getting undercut. Not just at SS, but at most of the agencies.
-
I haven't said I wouldn't love a raise but in fact I would be quite happy if other agencies followed SS success
This is the problem. Shutterstock's success has come from undercutting the market, even Offset which some people here are saying is supposed to be a jump up from Shutterstock is really aiming at undercutting the RM market not boosting the RF one. When other companies follow SS's success we get things like Yayimages unlimited subs, fotolia's dollarphoto club, thinkstock, etc.. The worst thing for us is if there are more Shutterstock's out there. 'Disruptive' is the buzzword I keep seeing out of Shutterstock, what do you think that means?
if you have been following the sales reports here at MSG you know that the majority of the indies do from 30 to 50% from SS, some much more, do you really believe it is possible to just ditch them? who will pay the bills at the end of the month?
even Sean joined SS (with 2400 pictures already)
-
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
sorry but I don't really remember seeing you complaining about subscriptions before having serious drops in income
we are all well aware about subscriptions and also ODs/SODs/ELs, the last ones represent 42% of my income at SS
can you tell us which % of your income comes from SS?
He started submitting to SS when he got 20 cent an image. Now he gets ODDs SODs ELs and is complaining about SS not raising prices and that their sub model is ruining the business.
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
You consistently fail to admit to yourself that the image quality in 2004 was very different than it is today. You continue to ignore the facts when I posted images from shutterstocks top contributors as an example of image and content quality in 2004.
You also fail to take into account the number of downloads we were receiving for those very low commercial value images. We uploaded images that were complete crap and they routinely received 5,000 to 10,000 or more downloads each.
Yes these days we receive OD's, EL's, & SOD's for much better quality images and still receive lower RPI for those vastly superior files that also cost more to produce.
Inflation is a concept you completely ignore, and that economic denial is not typical of any business model.
-
SS wasnt undercutting the market as you said yourself the images they had were amateur and inferior images.
If I could set my prices and opt out of subs. I'd be a happy camper. Otherwise, I'm getting undercut. Not just at SS, but at most of the agencies.
SS started as a sub site, 10 years ago, and everybody was laughing all the way to the bank, people actually became millionaire submitting to SS. But times have changed, and 10 years later, SS is blamed for ruining the market. Its a silly argument. SS introduced the sub model, but everyone, every amateur and pro were free to make a choice to submit to SS or not. I get it when people not submitting to micros are complaining about microstock, but I dont get it when people submitting to micros are complaining about low prices. Microstock is named micro stock because of micro prices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography)
-
You consistently fail to admit to yourself that the image quality in 2004 was very different than it is today.
You also fail to take into account the number of downloads we were receiving for those very low commercial value images. We uploaded images that were complete crap and they routinely received 5,000 to 10,000 or more downloads each.
My image quality was certainly on a different planet. The trouble is that thousands of people have joined me on the spaceship that took me to this planet.
However, if you were getting 5,000+ sales routinely for crap images then the planet you were on must have been in an entirely different galaxy from mine (how many million sales have you got?).
-
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.
sorry but I don't really remember seeing you complaining about subscriptions before having serious drops in income
we are all well aware about subscriptions and also ODs/SODs/ELs, the last ones represent 42% of my income at SS
can you tell us which % of your income comes from SS?
He started submitting to SS when he got 20 cent an image. Now he gets ODDs SODs ELs and is complaining about SS not raising prices and that their sub model is ruining the business.
Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.
You consistently fail to admit to yourself that the image quality in 2004 was very different than it is today. You continue to ignore the facts when I posted images from shutterstocks top contributors as an example of image and content quality in 2004.
You also fail to take into account the number of downloads we were receiving for those very low commercial value images. We uploaded images that were complete crap and they routinely received 5,000 to 10,000 or more downloads each.
Yes these days we receive OD's, EL's, & SOD's for much better quality images and still receive lower RPI for those vastly superior files that also cost more to produce.
Inflation is a concept you completely ignore, and that economic denial is not typical of any business model.
I am failing nothing, I have heard and read all arguments, and have commented and replied to them all. You ignore anything I say and when I dont agree with you, you start shouting in big bold red text. If you read back I just addressed your argument about inferior quality. I addressed all your points. You just choose to constantly repeat your snips and quotes without ever listening to someone else.
-
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.
Inflation is not SS problem, in fact SS is the only agency that didnt cut earnings but did raise them. ALL other agencies have cut royalties and slashed prices, but thats fine with you, because they are not SS.
-
I get it when people not submitting to micros are complaining about microstock, but I dont get it when people submitting to micros are complaining about low prices. Microstock is named micro stock because of micro prices. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography[/url])
What's not to get? Microstock has a wide range of prices. My numbers have shown that I make a lot more from the pricing closer to the top and middle, than I do at the bottom. My earnings are basically being throttled by low prices.
-
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.
Inflation is not SS problem, in fact SS is the only agency that didnt cut earnings but did raise them. ALL other agencies have cut royalties and slashed prices, but thats fine with you, because they are not SS.
Based on your response and bottom barrel level of hope I would guess that you are a slave in servitude and pick cotton for a living!
Snip http://tinyurl.com/l6zou4l (http://tinyurl.com/l6zou4l)
A survey by Towers Watson Data Services found that employers were planning to bestow pay increases that will average 2.9% in 2014. That’s up a hair from the 2.8% average increases that employees got in both 2012 and 2013. Kiplinger expects the inflation rate to be 2% in 2014, so an employee who gets the average raise will more than keep up with rising prices.
There is a wide gap between the pay raises for top-rated workers and raises for employees with average or below-average ratings. Towers found that office stars received increases of 4.6% in 2013—well above the 2.6% pay hike granted to workers rated average and way more than the 1.3% received by those rated below average.
What you fail to acknowledge is that shutterstock has cut our earnings by not raising prices to buyers nor royalties to contributors in over 8 years. And that has impacted pricing and business strategy at all of the agencies, because they are losing market share to shutterstocks long term price undercutting war.
-
are you happy with other agencies? have they given you any raise? is income there higher than before?
blaming SS for their failure doesn't seem reasonable in my opinion, as tickstock mentioned a few days ago there are even cheaper agencies
-
Again you insult me, get off your high horse and stop pretending you are better then others. Why do you keep up with us mortals, dont you have better things to do, as heir to a fortune 200 company? I make 65000 dollar per year in my day job, dont you worry about me slaving for anyone.
-
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.
Inflation is not SS problem, in fact SS is the only agency that didnt cut earnings but did raise them. ALL other agencies have cut royalties and slashed prices, but thats fine with you, because they are not SS.
Based on your response and bottom barrel level of hope I would guess that you are a slave in servitude and pick cotton for a living!
Snip [url]http://tinyurl.com/l6zou4l[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/l6zou4l[/url])
A survey by Towers Watson Data Services found that employers were planning to bestow pay increases that will average 2.9% in 2014. That’s up a hair from the 2.8% average increases that employees got in both 2012 and 2013. Kiplinger expects the inflation rate to be 2% in 2014, so an employee who gets the average raise will more than keep up with rising prices.
There is a wide gap between the pay raises for top-rated workers and raises for employees with average or below-average ratings. Towers found that office stars received increases of 4.6% in 2013—well above the 2.6% pay hike granted to workers rated average and way more than the 1.3% received by those rated below average.
What you fail to acknowledge is that shutterstock has cut our earnings by not raising prices to buyers nor royalties to contributors in over 8 years. And that has impacted pricing and business strategy at all of the agencies, because they are losing market share to shutterstocks long term price undercutting war.
I started with Shutterstock 2 years ago, and my earnings per download have more than doubled....that's a more than 100% raise over two years. Are you still getting 20 cents per download? If so, there's something terribly wrong.
-
He'll never admit that his RPD went up, it doesnt fit his agenda.
-
are you happy with other agencies? have they given you any raise? is income there higher than before?
blaming SS for their failure doesn't seem reasonable in my opinion, as tickstock mentioned a few days ago there are even cheaper agencies
You do not seem to understand that the top agencies dictate how much their competitors can charge buyers for images and specifically sub packages. How do you expect the smaller agencies to be able to raise prices; if their largest competitors who have far greater market exposure are prepared to undercut their pricing long term?
What SS and IS do as far as pricing and the structure of their sub models; will dictate what the other sites are able to charge. Shutterstock has not raised pricing to buyers in over 8 years. How do you expect the other sites to compete with them if they charge buyers more while they have less money to advertise their product?
-
You dont seem to understand that there are still agencies out there charging a lot more then SS and IS and still do well. You need to get with them. I pointed them out a few comments ago. But you seem to ignore all we say. You fail to grasp the fact that you are free to remove your images from SS and put them where they make you more money.
-
You dont seem to understand that there are still agencies out there charging a lot more then SS and IS and still do well. You need to get with them. I pointed them out a few comments ago. But you seem to ignore all we say. You fail to grasp the fact that you are free to remove your images from SS and put them where they make you more money.
This is actually dead on right. An example: Clipartof consistently outsells SS with $40 vectors and an average RPD of $7.5. They are winning because their SEO is amazing and the customer service is outstanding. You don't need to sell at sub prices if you are doing it very well. There are other ways to compete. It is up to the contributors to choose who to support and where to send their best product to first. However I will admit that sales at Clipartof would probably be much much higher if my fellow artists would stop supplying the sub sites.
-
.
-
This is actually dead on right. An example: Clipartof consistently outsells SS with $40 vectors and an average RPD of $7.5. They are winning because their SEO is amazing and the customer service is outstanding. You don't need to sell at sub prices if you are doing it very well. There are other ways to compete. It is up to the contributors to choose who to support and where to send their best product to first. However I will admit that sales at Clipartof would probably be much much higher if my fellow artists would stop supplying the sub sites.
This is true, but it is hard to find enough places that are this way. Ideally, I'd love to have 5 Clipartofs. I think some of these larger places could become similar, but they are nowhere near making that transition.
-
You dont seem to understand that there are still agencies out there charging a lot more then SS and IS and still do well. You need to get with them. I pointed them out a few comments ago. But you seem to ignore all we say. You fail to grasp the fact that you are free to remove your images from SS and put them where they make you more money.
My guess is a lot of people would rather see Shutterstock make some positive changes instead of just leaving. From what Yuri has said he tried to talk to Shutterstock and get them to make these kinds of changes for a long time before he decided they weren't going to. The forums are read by the different agencies so it makes sense to voice concerns here before leaving the site altogether.
He is anonymous, they dont even know who he is when he leaves. So thats a non argument.
Also, why would Shutterstock change their business model? Shutterstock operates in their segment, as does Getty. Wallmart is no Wegmans either
-
Also, why would Shutterstock change their business model? Shutterstock operates in their segment, as does Getty. Wallmart is no Wegmans either
They do keep changing it and I make more when they add higher prices. They probably do too. All I'm asking for is to allow us to drop the lower stuff. It's not going to happen, but it seems like a reasonable request.
-
Back to Uncle Pete's post, anyone have ideas on how to make things better for us as photographers and artists?
What do you picture your perfect agency to be like? Mine would be:
Sales volume like Shutterstock
Commissions like Offset or Stocksy
Curating like istock pre-2011-ish (seemed a big harder to get stuff in, that's a plus in my book)
Ease of use for contributors and buyers: no idea, they all have pluses and minuses
Forum: here of course, MSG!
-
even Sean joined SS (with 2400 pictures already)
[/quote]
sean did not drop IS based on his own decisions, he got kicked out, and has since had to scramble to make even a remote fraction of his previous income, and joining SS was an "experiment". unless i hear otherwise, i will just assume these are the facts.
-
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.
Again you insult me, get off your high horse and stop pretending you are better then others. Why do you keep up with us mortals, dont you have better things to do, as heir to a fortune 200 company? I make 65000 dollar per year in my day job, dont you worry about me slaving for anyone.
I did not insult you or your job Ron, I did call you out on your ridiculous and false straw man assertions that companies do not compensate for inflation, nor do they give annual price of living increases each year.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's viewpoint, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty just wastes our time and serves to undermine honest rational conversation.
Your assertions are patently false.
Most U.S. Companies Planning Moderate Pay Raises for 2014 http://tinyurl.com/kndolqt (http://tinyurl.com/kndolqt)
Snip
A new survey by global professional services company Towers Watson (NYSE, NASDAQ:TW) shows that most U.S. employers are planning to give workers a raise next year.
The survey of 910 U.S. companies conducted by Towers Watson Data Services found that only 4% of respondents are not planning to give salary increases next year
http://news.xerox.com/news/Average-2014-US-salary-increases-to-remain-at-3-percent-according-to-survey (http://news.xerox.com/news/Average-2014-US-salary-increases-to-remain-at-3-percent-according-to-survey)
Snip
Employers say they'll dole out raises averaging 3% in 2014, virtually matching annual increases in 2013 and 2012, according to a survey of more than 900 mid- to large-size companies. http://tinyurl.com/k5hqms2 (http://tinyurl.com/k5hqms2)
-
even Sean joined SS (with 2400 pictures already)
sean did not drop IS based on his own decisions, he got kicked out, and has since had to scramble to make even a remote fraction of his previous income, and joining SS was an "experiment". unless i hear otherwise, i will just assume these are the facts.
experiment or not he is submitting at SS
p.s. yeah that deserves a minus
-
even Sean joined SS (with 2400 pictures already)
sean did not drop IS based on his own decisions, he got kicked out, and has since had to scramble to make even a remote fraction of his previous income, and joining SS was an "experiment". unless i hear otherwise, i will just assume these are the facts.
experiment or not he is submitting at SS
[/quote]
hardly a solid endorsement for SS
-
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.
Again you insult me, get off your high horse and stop pretending you are better then others. Why do you keep up with us mortals, dont you have better things to do, as heir to a fortune 200 company? I make 65000 dollar per year in my day job, dont you worry about me slaving for anyone.
I did not insult you or your job Ron, I did call you out on your ridiculous and false straw man assertions that companies do not compensate for inflation, nor do they give annual price of living increases each year.
So now you call me a liar and Xerox did give me raise? Xerox hasnt properly raised their salaries for almost 5 years now. I think they gave a 3% raise once, after I left, which didnt even cut the inflation at that time. Its the only reason I left them, because I was having less and less spending power. At SS my RPD has gone up and is still going up.
You live in internet truth, get out there in the real world and see that things are different. I am starting to think that you believe The Matrix was a documentary.
-
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
Good answers however if we were able to make some changes. And I'll add, not just better commissions, also better prices that reflect the effort and equipment, or time for illustrators, necessary to produce better work. A higher value on artists work along with a better percentage of the license price.
Back to Uncle Pete's post, anyone have ideas on how to make things better for us as photographers and artists?
What do you picture your perfect agency to be like? Mine would be:
Sales volume like Shutterstock
Commissions like Offset or Stocksy
Curating like istock pre-2011-ish (seemed a big harder to get stuff in, that's a plus in my book)
Ease of use for contributors and buyers: no idea, they all have pluses and minuses
Forum: here of course, MSG!
-
Maybe someone can create an Etsy for microstock, where you pay to advertise your images on the site and you set the price. The problem, of course, is that that requires extra work (to describe and deliver the images), and also an upfront investment (however small) which I'm guessing most people wouldn't want to pay.
-
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
I disagree. As a group we hold all the power. But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it. And if there were I doubt we could get organized and agree to take any significant action.
It's up to each individual to decide if MS is right for them cuz it isn't going to change without us, collectively, forcing that change.
-
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
I disagree. As a group we hold all the power. But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it. And if there were I doubt we could get organized and agree to take any significant action.
It's up to each individual to decide if MS is right for them cuz it isn't going to change without us, collectively, forcing that change.
I agree. Most people seem to be fairly happy. I don't get it, but they are.
-
I suppose you could get 2 or more successful artists on one website co-op style. The hard part is, as always, finding buyers. It would take a dedicated effort from everyone to have high quality, relevant commercial images plus people to tweet, cold call, email and flog the site. Not impossible, just a lot of work. You don't need to have a huge amount of customers, just enough for bread and butter. Then you work on growing it.
-
"... to have high quality, relevant commercial images...
Who decides what those are? Everyone has a different opinion.
-
"... to have high quality, relevant commercial images...
Who decides what those are? Everyone has a different opinion.
That's why you pick people you can work with.
edit- if it was me for the sake of argument, I would search out people who have portfolios with complimentary images to mine, similar portfolio sizes and able to agree on pricing and curating. I'd also factor in how much technical/marketing/other help they could offer to such a site.
-
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
I disagree. As a group we hold all the power. But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it. And if there were I doubt we could get organized and agree to take any significant action.
It's up to each individual to decide if MS is right for them cuz it isn't going to change without us, collectively, forcing that change.
I agree. Most people seem to be fairly happy. I don't get it, but they are.
It is called learned helplessness http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo (http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo)
We do hold the power we just need to wake up to that fact. The site are hoping we don't and that is why they canned Sean, they know we hold the power and they knew we were listening to Sean. Yuri built a functional site and that changed the power dynamic for him as well.
-
We do hold the power we just need to wake up to that fact. The site are hoping we don't and that is why they canned Sean, they know we hold the power and they knew we were listening to Sean. Yuri built a functional site and that changed the power dynamic for him as well.
Good luck with that. This pretty much explained it all to me...
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/let%27s-promote-together-%27the-best-contributor-friendly-agency%27 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/let%27s-promote-together-%27the-best-contributor-friendly-agency%27)!-first-time!/
-
We do hold the power we just need to wake up to that fact. The site are hoping we don't and that is why they canned Sean, they know we hold the power and they knew we were listening to Sean. Yuri built a functional site and that changed the power dynamic for him as well.
Good luck with that. This pretty much explained it all to me...
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/let%27s-promote-together-%27the-best-contributor-friendly-agency%27[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/let%27s-promote-together-%27the-best-contributor-friendly-agency%27[/url])!-first-time!/
I do agree that at that point in time many pinned their hopes on one site and that magnified the problem.
I do not agree that everyone will eventually become frog soup. We already see that some of the bullfrogs have made attempts to jump out of the pot.
-
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.
Again you insult me, get off your high horse and stop pretending you are better then others. Why do you keep up with us mortals, dont you have better things to do, as heir to a fortune 200 company? I make 65000 dollar per year in my day job, dont you worry about me slaving for anyone.
I did not insult you or your job Ron, I did call you out on your ridiculous and false straw man assertions that companies do not compensate for inflation, nor do they give annual price of living increases each year.
So now you call me a liar and Xerox did give me raise? Xerox hasnt properly raised their salaries for almost 5 years now. I think they gave a 3% raise once, after I left, which didnt even cut the inflation at that time. Its the only reason I left them, because I was having less and less spending power. At SS my RPD has gone up and is still going up.
You live in internet truth, get out there in the real world and see that things are different. I am starting to think that you believe The Matrix was a documentary.
Your logical strawman fallacies are becoming illogical, even by your all over the map strawman standards. They are good for throwing the conversation off track and not much else.
Your projections, thoughts and fallacies are not my own!
Lets stick to the facts; only 4% of companies surveyed are NOT planning to give inflationary salary increases next year.
-
LOL. You win, lets give you your 2% inflation compensation and raise you from 0.38 cent to 0.3876 cent, rounded up, 39 cents per DL. I am sure I will see you again with snips and quotes, pissing and moaning about something else.
Why do you keep arguing with me anyways, after all the insults you have thrown at me its clear I am not at your level of intelligence. But I am done with your pretentious, disdain behavior. To me you are the perfect example of condescension.
Good luck with your sour grapes, I am heading for another BME.
Bye.
-
LOL. You win, lets give you your 2% inflation compensation and raise you from 0.38 cent to 0.3876 cent, rounded up, 39 cents per DL. I am sure I will see you again with snips and quotes, pissing and moaning about something else.
Why do you keep arguing with me anyways, after all the insults you have thrown at me its clear I am not at your level of intelligence. But I am done with your pretentious, disdain behavior. To me you are the perfect example of condescension.
Good luck with your sour grapes, I am heading for another BME.
Bye.
Again those are your own projections not mine. You are the one who consistently engages conversation with me. I merely respond to your remarks which are completely off base. The following link is a perfect example, I can not post a simple link to a positive article without you projecting your logical strawman fallacies regarding me into the mix http://tinyurl.com/ly2m734 (http://tinyurl.com/ly2m734)
-
I suppose you could get 2 or more successful artists on one website co-op style. The hard part is, as always, finding buyers. It would take a dedicated effort from everyone to have high quality, relevant commercial images plus people to tweet, cold call, email and flog the site. Not impossible, just a lot of work. You don't need to have a huge amount of customers, just enough for bread and butter. Then you work on growing it.
This was tried with Warmpicture. It was a great idea, good collection of material, and quite a bit of effort from Dan and a few others to promote the site, but ultimately the returns did not compensate for the time and effort.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be extremely difficult, because sincere and diligent efforts have already proven inadequate to the task.
-
This was tried with Warmpicture. It was a great idea, good collection of material, and quite a bit of effort from Dan and a few others to promote the site, but ultimately the returns did not compensate for the time and effort.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be extremely difficult, because sincere and diligent efforts have already proven inadequate to the task.
Fair point, I didn't know about that one. So I guess the question would be how to get some big clients on board to make it sustainable.
-
So I guess the question would be how to get some big clients on board to make it sustainable.
Definitely agree with this. Perhaps some of the symbiostock folks can manage it. Might even be worth paying someone to just focus on marketing and SEO. If it was a big enough collective it should be doable.
-
Definitely agree with this. Perhaps some of the symbiostock folks can manage it. Might even be worth paying someone to just focus on marketing and SEO. If it was a big enough collective it should be doable.
That's the plan. :) I think if you start small, pick your team (and it should be a team effort) there's no reason why it can't be done. There are tonnes of customers who have never heard of SS, IS and all the rest until they google "I need an image" and pick the first site that comes up.
So if it was your (you being the forum) co-op, what would your priorities be besides finding clients? Who would curate and how? How would you set pricing, payments, licenses, etc?
I could picture in true co-op fashion your work being peer approved (say you need 2 to agree), but that's me....
-
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
I disagree. As a group we hold all the power. But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it. And if there were I doubt we could get organized and agree to take any significant action.
It's up to each individual to decide if MS is right for them cuz it isn't going to change without us, collectively, forcing that change.
I agree. Most people seem to be fairly happy. I don't get it, but they are.
It is called learned helplessness [url]http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo[/url])
We do hold the power we just need to wake up to that fact. The site are hoping we don't and that is why they canned Sean, they know we hold the power and they knew we were listening to Sean. Yuri built a functional site and that changed the power dynamic for him as well.
you were listening to sean and some others, but to say "we" is nonsense. and the real reason they canned sean has nothing to do with the listeners site mailing some selected people trying to go private on facebook groups and accord stock etc to create a mutiny, or to create a script that was easy to delete all your images. it had nothing to do with that at all. sean shot himself in the foot he let his own ego get the better of himself.
i admire sean for being the voice of many, and he had balls for doing so, and for that i am thankful, but he was also working a few different angles while doing it, and getty found out. i don't think it was so much as what sean was saying openly on our behalf that got him canned, i think it was what was really transpiring in the background that got him canned.
were you invited to be in the secret facebook group? were you invited to the secret accord stock? if you saw what was being posted in both of those, specifically accord stock, then yes, if your were getty you would have canned him too.
-
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
I disagree. As a group we hold all the power. But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it. And if there were I doubt we could get organized and agree to take any significant action.
It's up to each individual to decide if MS is right for them cuz it isn't going to change without us, collectively, forcing that change.
I agree. Most people seem to be fairly happy. I don't get it, but they are.
It is called learned helplessness [url]http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo[/url])
We do hold the power we just need to wake up to that fact. The site are hoping we don't and that is why they canned Sean, they know we hold the power and they knew we were listening to Sean. Yuri built a functional site and that changed the power dynamic for him as well.
you were listening to sean and some others, but to say "we" is nonsense. and the real reason they canned sean has nothing to do with the listeners site mailing some selected people trying to go private on facebook groups and accord stock etc to create a mutiny, or to create a script that was easy to delete all your images. it had nothing to do with that at all. sean shot himself in the foot he let his own ego get the better of himself.
i admire sean for being the voice of many, and he had balls for doing so, and for that i am thankful, but he was also working a few different angles while doing it, and getty found out. i don't think it was so much as what sean was saying openly on our behalf that got him canned, i think it was what was really transpiring in the background that got him canned.
were you invited to be in the secret facebook group? were you invited to the secret accord stock? if you saw what was being posted in both of those, specifically accord stock, then yes, if your were getty you would have canned him too.
Sean is an honest and above board guy, who spoke out when many were afraid to and I respect him for that. If all of the sites conducted business with integrity they would have not have to worry about large groups of contributors talking about business as usual. They canned Sean as a result of their own business decision and the backlash those actions "finally" created among large groups of its contributors.
There will always be backlash if the micros do not choose to treat the contributors who power their success fairly. Fair treatment would include paying them a reasonable % of the profit that has been generated as a result of contributor resources and hard work. And it would include pricing those assets in a range that will bring returns that allows contributors a reasonable standard of life.
-
Nice shot at misrepresenting the reality. And for the other reply I never said anyone was happy, rather the opposite.
Somehow only part of my message was seen? Did you all miss this?
"We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers."
What is the power and bargaining tool that we have?
You see a Union needs to have something to leverage the employer with. Skill / Trained Workers, for example. They don't just come up and say "Hey we want more money..." There needs to be "Or Else"
"As a group we hold all the power."
How do you propose to harness and direct that power into something useful to bring about change.
I also disagree about the "But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it." Don't you read here? I'd bet that the majority of people are very disgruntled about the cuts and situation.
If this could be done: What is the power and bargaining tool that we have? Please tell me?
How do you get 30,000 artists (Number just for example) From around the world, different economics, to band together and force a change? Oh wait, you said we can't so we actually agree.
All that power is nothing at all but imaginary or theoretical power, if it can't be harnessed.
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
I disagree. As a group we hold all the power. But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it. And if there were I doubt we could get organized and agree to take any significant action.
It's up to each individual to decide if MS is right for them cuz it isn't going to change without us, collectively, forcing that change.
And in the Darn Right catagory:
There will always be backlash if the micros do not choose to treat the contributors who power their success fairly. Fair treatment would include paying them a reasonable % of the profit that has been generated as a result of contributor resources and hard work. And it would include pricing those assets in a range that will bring returns that allows contributors a reasonable standard of life.
I'd love it if that was the way it was.
-
I also disagree about the "But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it." Don't you read here? I'd bet that the majority of people are very disgruntled about the cuts and situation.
I read here. Maybe you don't read what I write or what I read.
You're obviously not too happy with the situation. What are you doing about it? I've dropped iStock and will be dropping SS when I reach payout. How about you?
Talk is cheap. Good luck getting the 'majority' organized to do something about it.
-
Can't disagree with that. Or the part about each individual makes their own choices.
Funny that we found the opposite solution, but to each their own. I dropped all agencies (in the process of a couple based on next payout) except SS and IS. Could be we have different ideas of the direction we wish to go, but that's not a problem. Free choice.
I'm still in favor of fair pay, for fair work. A fair percentage of nothing, is still nothing, so I'd say the agencies somehow need to raise the perceived value of our efforts. Instead they just keep chopping the values down, which creates a depression in the entire market.
I also disagree about the "But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it." Don't you read here? I'd bet that the majority of people are very disgruntled about the cuts and situation.
I read here. Maybe you don't read what I write or what I read.
You're obviously not too happy with the situation. What are you doing about it? I've dropped iStock and will be dropping SS when I reach payout. How about you?
Talk is cheap. Good luck getting the 'majority' organized to do something about it.
I'm not trying to organize, I'm saying that it's not possible, and that's why I say we are powerless. Some people want to say that's a weakness, I'm saying it's facing the facts.
-
Can't disagree with that. Or the part about each individual makes their own choices.
Funny that we found the opposite solution, but to each their own. I dropped all agencies (in the process of a couple based on next payout) except SS and IS. Could be we have different ideas of the direction we wish to go, but that's not a problem. Free choice.
I'm still in favor of fair pay, for fair work. A fair percentage of nothing, is still nothing, so I'd say the agencies somehow need to raise the perceived value of our efforts. Instead they just keep chopping the values down, which creates a depression in the entire market.
I also disagree about the "But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it." Don't you read here? I'd bet that the majority of people are very disgruntled about the cuts and situation.
I read here. Maybe you don't read what I write or what I read.
You're obviously not too happy with the situation. What are you doing about it? I've dropped iStock and will be dropping SS when I reach payout. How about you?
Talk is cheap. Good luck getting the 'majority' organized to do something about it.
I'm not trying to organize, I'm saying that it's not possible, and that's why I say we are powerless. Some people want to say that's a weakness, I'm saying it's facing the facts.
iS and SS are the only micros I am/have been with for any length of time and they are the last ones left for me to drop....unless you consider Macrografiks (and Stockbo) a micro, which I don't. Coming from the good old days of stock it's difficult to accept what is happening in today's marketplace; 33 cents for a hi-rez file....I've had enuf of that and in retrospect never should have participated in the first place.
I'll plug along with self-marketing, RM, and some of the higher priced/higher commissioned RF sites....just my way of 'rebelling' against what's happening....definitely not recommended for everyone....
-
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value? High resolution is easy enough to get with any new camera. Where is the inherent value in an image? Is an isolated apple (again, just an example) done by a pro more valuable than one done by a new shooter if they are (for all intends and purposes) the same image?
Is it scarcity of a popular subject? Concept? Artistic-ness (is that a word?)? Or is it just file size? When is an image actually worth 38 cents or 300 dollars? What is it for you (the forum)?
-
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value? High resolution is easy enough to get with any new camera. Where is the inherent value in an image? Is an isolated apple (again, just an example) done by a pro more valuable than one done by a new shooter if they are (for all intends and purposes) the same image?
Is it scarcity of a popular subject? Concept? Artistic-ness (is that a word?)? Or is it just file size? When is an image actually worth 38 cents or 300 dollars? What is it for you (the forum)?
I'm going with pure saleability. If you can sell them at that price consistently, then they are worth that price. That said, I don't know what the ceiling is on my images because I haven't really tried to push that far.
-
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value? High resolution is easy enough to get with any new camera. Where is the inherent value in an image? Is an isolated apple (again, just an example) done by a pro more valuable than one done by a new shooter if they are (for all intends and purposes) the same image?
Is it scarcity of a popular subject? Concept? Artistic-ness (is that a word?)? Or is it just file size? When is an image actually worth 38 cents or 300 dollars? What is it for you (the forum)?
You estabish/determine the value of your images.....by deciding where to market them. If you value your work at 38 cents then go with the subs, $300 go RM.
The buyer, in part, validates that determination by purchasing its use, or not.
-
We are powerless as a group, and that's probably what makes most artists angry when they look at the situation. Frustration out of the inability to actually make any significant change in how Microstock is run or how it pays the workers.
[/quo
I disagree. As a group we hold all the power. But, there aren't enough of us disgruntled to the point where we are willing to do something about it. And if there were I doubt we could get organized and agree to take any significant action.
It's up to each individual to decide if MS is right for them cuz it isn't going to change without us, collectively, forcing that change.
I agree. Most people seem to be fairly happy. I don't get it, but they are.
It is called learned helplessness [url]http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/l7frvvo[/url])
We do hold the power we just need to wake up to that fact. The site are hoping we don't and that is why they canned Sean, they know we hold the power and they knew we were listening to Sean. Yuri built a functional site and that changed the power dynamic for him as well.
you were listening to sean and some others, but to say "we" is nonsense. and the real reason they canned sean has nothing to do with the listeners site mailing some selected people trying to go private on facebook groups and accord stock etc to create a mutiny, or to create a script that was easy to delete all your images. it had nothing to do with that at all. sean shot himself in the foot he let his own ego get the better of himself.
i admire sean for being the voice of many, and he had balls for doing so, and for that i am thankful, but he was also working a few different angles while doing it, and getty found out. i don't think it was so much as what sean was saying openly on our behalf that got him canned, i think it was what was really transpiring in the background that got him canned.
were you invited to be in the secret facebook group? were you invited to the secret accord stock? if you saw what was being posted in both of those, specifically accord stock, then yes, if your were getty you would have canned him too.
Sean is an honest and above board guy, who spoke out when many were afraid to and I respect him for that. If all of the sites conducted business with integrity they would have not have to worry about large groups of contributors talking about business as usual. They canned Sean as a result of their own business decision and the backlash those actions "finally" created among large groups of its contributors.
There will always be backlash if the micros do not choose to treat the contributors who power their success fairly. Fair treatment would include paying them a reasonable % of the profit that has been generated as a result of contributor resources and hard work. And it would include pricing those assets in a range that will bring returns that allows contributors a reasonable standard of life.
i am not questioning sean's honesty. and i am also thankful he stepped up to the plate when nobody else did. understood?
i am however suggesting there were other factors at play in the background and that he got a little too big for his britches.
-
I'd say right, once you establish your personal ceiling, that's what you can get.
Also mlwinphoto is right. What you accept will establish what they are worth. There's also something else, the general perception of buyers, of the value.
How many of these popular photographers are making big BIG dollars because of their name or some fad styling. It's not easy.
But the marketplace has changed, and no matter how hard people work or how big their camera, many times, there are multiple people here with excellent skills and quality. The perceived value has decreased with the advent of digital and Internet. And of course with giant collections of Microstock.
But I won't blame Microstock for the change, I'd say the world and market and equipment changed that. If SS and IS, and the rest, didn't exist today, someone would invent them tomorrow. It's finding a need and inventing the product that meets that demand.
I might be wrong, but at this point, photography is pretty much a commodity. Illustrations are leaning more towards "art" But that doesn't say that a photographer can't be an artist, and sell RM, or limited edition prints... just that it's more difficult now to be distinctive or stand out from the rest.
That's correct farbled, picture value isn't just about quality or size. It's the buyers perception of the value for their needs. No one will pay $300 for an image that has 10,000 similar and quite equal images offered for $10. But someone will pay a high price for something that's unique or very distinctive.
Same holds true for pretty much every commodity or product in the world.
Economics Basics: Supply and Demand
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp (http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp)
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value? High resolution is easy enough to get with any new camera. Where is the inherent value in an image? Is an isolated apple (again, just an example) done by a pro more valuable than one done by a new shooter if they are (for all intends and purposes) the same image?
Is it scarcity of a popular subject? Concept? Artistic-ness (is that a word?)? Or is it just file size? When is an image actually worth 38 cents or 300 dollars? What is it for you (the forum)?
I'm going with pure saleability. If you can sell them at that price consistently, then they are worth that price. That said, I don't know what the ceiling is on my images because I haven't really tried to push that far.
-
Microstock certainly exposes the fallacy that there is "strength in numbers". In reality, there is weakness in numbers because it makes it easy to divide and rule. That's why we don't actually have the power, there are too many of us and not enough of us will act in concert in order to achieve an aim that is contrary to the interests/wishes of the agencies.
Even the idea that artists like Sean or Yuri are of huge importance to an agency has taken a tumble in the last year. Having seen the lack of impact the loss of Yuri has had on SS must have left Getty wondering whether it had been wise to give him special terms. Yuri's old SS sales may be spread among 100 different artists now, but if the buyers can still find something that does the job without chasing over the iS to find Yuri, then whether any "star" has real commercial leverage becomes a moot point.
-
Good to know, thanks for the replies on that.
-
What we believe to be true becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If we believe that we can not bring about change, that will most certainly be true. That is why it is never helpful to spread that mindset. If we say it often enough, eventually we start to believe that it is actually true.
Since the early 1500 & 1600's there have been untold groups of people that have been told the same things and a good many of them eventually formed uprisings and unions that changed and tipped the scales. Some of these people even gave up their lives for change, not just their incomes.
If large producers did not actually make a difference to the micros they would not be offering them special deals. And they would not see those who speak out about or make attempts to make changes in the face of unfair practices as a threat.
What they do discount is how their own actions change perception about them among contributors. You can see this on the site forums when the sites make various joyous announcements. The response is nothing more than a few whoooo yays with the majority choosing to keep their actual thoughts to themselves. Trust and respect have dropped more than a few notches and for good reason.
-
+1 well said
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
Microstock certainly exposes the fallacy that there is "strength in numbers". In reality, there is weakness in numbers because it makes it easy to divide and rule. That's why we don't actually have the power, there are too many of us and not enough of us will act in concert in order to achieve an aim that is contrary to the interests/wishes of the agencies.
It depends on what the majority actually wants and what is really good for them. If I got my way, it might not work for a lot of contributors. So, they are probably simultaneously protecting themselves and hurting me. I can't really blame anybody for that.
-
What we believe to be true becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If we believe that we can not bring about change, that will most certainly be true. That is why it is never helpful to spread that mindset. If we say it often enough, eventually we start to believe that it is actually true.
Since the early 1500 & 1600's there have been untold groups of people that have been told the same things and a good many of them eventually formed uprisings and unions that changed and tipped the scales. Some of these people even gave up their lives for change, not just their incomes.
If large producers did not actually make a difference to the micros they would not be offering them special deals. And they would not see those who speak out about or make attempts to make changes in the face unfair practices as a threat.
What they do discount is how their own actions change perception about them among contributors. You can see this on the site forums when the sites make various joyous announcements. The response is nothing more than a few whoooo yays with the majority choosing to keep their actual thoughts to themselves. Trust and respect have dropped more than a few notches and for good reason.
Well said.
Say _yes_ to self responsiblity and a sustainable, self assessed strategy.
Say _no_ to abusive corporate behaviour and false trust in entities which exclusively focus on their own interests.
Without that self-confidence which we doubtlessly deserve - we, as the origin of content which creates a billion dollar business - we are lost.
-
I think the best thing I've seen in a while is that #notlessthan50% tweet that went around a little. Might be nice to reply to any budding agency that approaches a contributor with it.
-
Microstock is like the US.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 (https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14)
-
Can someone please point me to the Microstock Artists Association? A lobby group, the membership place for this "union" or something besides a theoretical, power base.
No denying people are unhappy, or that we are under valued and under rewarded.
But write all day on the forums, how we are empowered and strong and nothing changes. It's just talk.
Will someone please do something or show me some real unity, organization or action group? That would be POWER. The rest is philosophy.
-
Or someone could just start an online petition (asking for something specific from someone specific) and fly it up the flagpole to see what kind of reception it gets.
-
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value?...
I think it's half personal value (what you believe your work is worth) and half market value (what the market will bear and what people will pay for your work).
I'm hearing that people are getting sales at Offset, so it does seem that not every apple photo is created equal. And I think we can see that. A microstock apple photo is certainly not (usually) the same as a $500 apple photo.
And herein lies the problem... That half-and-half criteria I mention for what makes an image valuable is, in part, determined by the artist, and so there will always be a lot of folks thinking their work is worth $500 when it is definitely not. So we end up with lots of people clamoring for these higher price points and more "fair" pricing, when really their stuff is truly worth a few bucks at most. And that makes it really hard to make the argument that microstock in general is undervalued.
I think if we're going to talk about fair value, we all need to be willing to take a look at our work and be honest about what it's worth. Or what percentage of our work is worth more. I can honestly say that I think absolutely nothing of what I have in microstock right now is worth Offset prices. If we're all being honest with ourselves and each other, I suspect that most folks here would have to say the same. None of us would be selling their stuff in microstock if it was really good enough to demand hundreds of dollars per license.
-
I'm hearing that people are getting sales at Offset, so it does seem that not every apple photo is created equal. And I think we can see that. A microstock apple photo is certainly not (usually) the same as a $500 apple photo.
This always seems to come up with the $1 versus $100+ dollars. I guess I've always seen it more as $1 versus $20 or $30. I guess some people might want to price higher though. Really, the only fair way to do it is let people set their own prices and let them fail or succeed on their own decisions.
-
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value?...
I think it's half personal value (what you believe your work is worth) and half market value (what the market will bear and what people will pay for your work).
I'm hearing that people are getting sales at Offset, so it does seem that not every apple photo is created equal. And I think we can see that. A microstock apple photo is certainly not (usually) the same as a $500 apple photo.
And herein lies the problem... That half-and-half criteria I mention for what makes an image valuable is, in part, determined by the artist, and so there will always be a lot of folks thinking their work is worth $500 when it is definitely not. So we end up with lots of people clamoring for these higher price points and more "fair" pricing, when really their stuff is truly worth a few bucks at most. And that makes it really hard to make the argument that microstock in general is undervalued.
I think if we're going to talk about fair value, we all need to be willing to take a look at our work and be honest about what it's worth. Or what percentage of our work is worth more. I can honestly say that I think absolutely nothing of what I have in microstock right now is worth Offset prices. If we're all being honest with ourselves and each other, I suspect that most folks here would have to say the same. None of us would be selling their stuff in microstock if it was really good enough to demand hundreds of dollars per license.
I'm amazed, honestly, that some of my files rake in hundreds of dollars per year, which means I'll make thousands from each of those files in my lifetime. And I am NOT a talented illustrator. So for me, microstock opened up an opportunity to make money I simply did not have before.
-
Here's a question (and not a poke at anyone). What establishes picture quality and value?...
I think it's half personal value (what you believe your work is worth) and half market value (what the market will bear and what people will pay for your work).
I'm hearing that people are getting sales at Offset, so it does seem that not every apple photo is created equal. And I think we can see that. A microstock apple photo is certainly not (usually) the same as a $500 apple photo.
And herein lies the problem... That half-and-half criteria I mention for what makes an image valuable is, in part, determined by the artist, and so there will always be a lot of folks thinking their work is worth $500 when it is definitely not. So we end up with lots of people clamoring for these higher price points and more "fair" pricing, when really their stuff is truly worth a few bucks at most. And that makes it really hard to make the argument that microstock in general is undervalued.
I think if we're going to talk about fair value, we all need to be willing to take a look at our work and be honest about what it's worth. Or what percentage of our work is worth more. I can honestly say that I think absolutely nothing of what I have in microstock right now is worth Offset prices. If we're all being honest with ourselves and each other, I suspect that most folks here would have to say the same. None of us would be selling their stuff in microstock if it was really good enough to demand hundreds of dollars per license.
For exactly the reasons you state, I think it would make sense for reviewers to nominate files for offset if particularly good and/or unique ones come through the Shutterstock queue. Sort of like Istock used to do with vetta back in the day.
Because image creators have such a hard time being objective about their work, I'd like to see the sites make an effort to assign more appropriate values. I know this is what Getty are attempting to do on some level, but they seem to have made a mess of it. For one thing, as long as they continue to keep ALL indie content on the lowest price, they will have trouble selling comparable exclusive content at much higher price points.
-
I think it would make sense for reviewers to nominate files for offset if particularly good and/or unique ones come through the Shutterstock queue. Sort of like Istock used to do with vetta back in the day.
If SS were smart they would do exactly this and wrap it up in an exclusivity program. It would be in their interest to move the higher production work over to Offset and away from the competition.
As it stands Getty still has the upper hand by a wide margin, they have all the best artists wrapped up in exclusive deals and all the best of the indy artists shunted out at prices to undercut any competition as they see fit.
SS need to be bold if they want to see their share price go up.
-
I think it would make sense for reviewers to nominate files for offset if particularly good and/or unique ones come through the Shutterstock queue. Sort of like Istock used to do with vetta back in the day.
If SS were smart they would do exactly this and wrap it up in an exclusivity program. It would be in their interest to move the higher production work over to Offset and away from the competition.
As it stands Getty still has the upper hand by a wide margin, they have all the best artists wrapped up in exclusive deals and all the best of the indy artists shunted out at prices to undercut any competition as they see fit.
SS need to be bold if they want to see their share price go up.
I agree.
And to add to the discussion as to what determines the value of an image I think exclusivity does....it certainly increases its value to the agency and, to a certain extent, to the buyer (more so in the case of RM than RF). Stocksy has it right in making their images exclusive and, I hate to say it, but iStock has it right with their exclusive content as well.
-
I like that, another good idea. Set our own prices.
I'm hearing that people are getting sales at Offset, so it does seem that not every apple photo is created equal. And I think we can see that. A microstock apple photo is certainly not (usually) the same as a $500 apple photo.
This always seems to come up with the $1 versus $100+ dollars. I guess I've always seen it more as $1 versus $20 or $30. I guess some people might want to price higher though. Really, the only fair way to do it is let people set their own prices and let them fail or succeed on their own decisions.
-
I like that, another good idea. Set our own prices.
I'm actually not a fan of setting our own prices. It makes pricing too random and frustrates buyers. We've always heard that buyers like simplicity. iStock buyers have expressed frustration over the years about finding a photo they want and then realizing that it's a $100+ photo when they were more accustomed to images costing $10-20 at iStock. Pricing at a particular site needs to be consistent.
But it can be consistent and better at the same time. I think most of us would be happy with pricing in the range of $10-50, so an agency with that kind of pricing would be pretty well received.
-
I agree, $10-20.00 is the sweet spot for micro stock a price range where buyers feel a good value and contributors feel compensated.
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
I like that, another good idea. Set our own prices.
I'm actually not a fan of setting our own prices. It makes pricing too random and frustrates buyers. We've always heard that buyers like simplicity. iStock buyers have expressed frustration over the years about finding a photo they want and then realizing that it's a $100+ photo when they were more accustomed to images costing $10-20 at iStock. Pricing at a particular site needs to be consistent.
But it can be consistent and better at the same time. I think most of us would be happy with pricing in the range of $10-50, so an agency with that kind of pricing would be pretty well received.
And a big danger with setting your own prices is that people would immediately set out to undercut you to get more sales.
-
I agree, $10-20.00 is the sweet spot for micro stock a price range where buyers feel a good value and contributors feel compensated.
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
Paying me $10-20.00 per download would be my sweet spot.
-
Mine too :)
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
We already have price competition, the setting your own would be a way to raise things back up a little. The race to the bottom is already being won by Dollar Photos and the latest Sub deal. ;)
This always seems to come up with the $1 versus $100+ dollars. I guess I've always seen it more as $1 versus $20 or $30. I guess some people might want to price higher though. Really, the only fair way to do it is let people set their own prices and let them fail or succeed on their own decisions.
Odd how the OP got dropped and it became my statement. I just agreed and now I'm King of the Hill? LOL
Oh yes, price confusion, how silly of me. Lets start with simple places like IS. Or all the different programs and ways to buy things on other sites. Someone please, tell me buyers aren't already confused? ::)
I like that, another good idea. Set our own prices.
I'm actually not a fan of setting our own prices. It makes pricing too random and frustrates buyers. We've always heard that buyers like simplicity. iStock buyers have expressed frustration over the years about finding a photo they want and then realizing that it's a $100+ photo when they were more accustomed to images costing $10-20 at iStock. Pricing at a particular site needs to be consistent.
But it can be consistent and better at the same time. I think most of us would be happy with pricing in the range of $10-50, so an agency with that kind of pricing would be pretty well received.
And a big danger with setting your own prices is that people would immediately set out to undercut you to get more sales.
Additional relevant news:
One of the most important elements for a company to have is what is known as a “moat” -- some characteristic or feature that separates and protects it from its competitors.
Staples... has a plan to combat its additional industry competitors, but it may only be a short-term fix. The company is planning to shutter upwards of 225 retail outlets by the end of this year, and make online sales its primary focus. This would make sense, at least initially, since almost 50 percent of the sales come from its online store
Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/04/4471235/staples-vs-office-depot-which-would-you-rather#ixzz2zLOxyo00 (http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/04/4471235/staples-vs-office-depot-which-would-you-rather#ixzz2zLOxyo00)
Moat = IS with exclusives and SS with a well constructed variety of plans and pricing, including their well received subs plan. What makes any other agency different from the rest of the "me too" agencies?
Ah yes, Stocksy is an exception, and looks positive.
But take your common Microstock agencies. What's the point? Same files, from the same people, same deals and most cases the only thing they try to offer and compete on, is price. Not value or benefits, just bottom dollar, lowest prices.
Lower price, lower commissions, lower income for the artists who produce the work.