|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Will
26
« on: June 01, 2014, 15:14 »
Down by $300 from March but up from April by $250, close to the same as May 13 without many additions. So, pretty much steady as she goes...
27
« on: May 31, 2014, 10:38 »
The easiest upload process in the business and 52% commissions are enough to keep them on the upload list for me...
Agreed. With so many companies doing wrong by contributors, it's pretty painless to keep supporting one that is doing right, even if sales there are dismal. We can at least hope that things eventually pick up.
Or we could help it pick up... if every submitter posted a tweet or facebook like it may help. Let's support the good guys.
Attractive website, easy upload and one of the best royalty rates. Doesn't make sense to only bash the "bad guys" without supporting the "good guys"! There are still a few "good guys" but if they disappear because of the lack of support, our options will become extremely limited. Continuing to upload to GL amounts to a positive push back against the nastiness elsewhere.
28
« on: May 28, 2014, 10:30 »
Opted out. No agency gets freebies from me anymore!
29
« on: May 23, 2014, 16:20 »
Help for buyers to find the cheapest price for your images... made easy!
http://microstock.photos/
So... please explain why we photographers would want to use that service?
Well... it simply shows that it will become easier over time for buyers to identify the cheapest available deal and by extension, usually the least return for the photographer. For example my work mostly shows up as Photodune or Canstock being the cheapest. I'll now re-examine the royalty on those sites and decide if I still want to upload to them. They can't sell at rock bottom prices what they don't have! It is still in Beta version so the search and other functions will probably improve over time. Again, for me it just means submitting new files only to the best fair trade options available.
30
« on: May 23, 2014, 15:37 »
Help for buyers to find the cheapest price for your images... made easy!  http://microstock.photos/Guess my post was too subtle, had to add a couple of frown emoticons so more visually inclined people will catch my drift. 
31
« on: May 22, 2014, 23:44 »
I feel like there is this constant inter-mingling of opposing logic here when it comes to the "best" agencies. Some people see "best" as "wherever I make the most money". Others (myself included) see "best" as "fair-trade with potential".
Shutterstock is a must-have agency, no doubt about it. It's pretty hard to make a go of it in this business if you're leaving Shutterstock off of your roster. But if this supposed "deadlist" is agencies that are constantly up to no good and should be boycotted, shouldn't the "live list" be agencies that do the most good and should be supported above all others in an effort to hopefully see them grow? I don't think this should be about the company that makes us the most money in total, but the company that does the most good in terms of fairness to contributors, fair pricing, fair royalties, all-around good service and ethical business practices.
I like Shutterstock, but I don't love them. With mostly subscription royalties and 30% (or less) of on-demand sales, there are quite a few companies I can think of that beat them in terms of what they offer.
Wouldn't we all be better off if a 50%-royalty company were in the Top Tier?
I agree! If a dynamic rating system of agencies that offer "fair-trade with potential" was posted, it might encourage people to build their portfolios with those agencies to the point where they have the possibility to become competitive. And likewise, if the DPCs of the industry were rated at the bottom it would tend to discourage people from contributing to the downward spiral. Yes, I get the need for aggressive marketing but they can't market files they don't have.
32
« on: May 22, 2014, 18:31 »
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.
A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.
Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.
Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!
Shutterstock spent $56,738,000 USD on sales and marketing in 2013. Get yourself educated please.
Edit: voting down facts doesnt make it go away. Fact is fact. You may not like the answer, thats your problem.
Okay, okay so they spend some money on sales and marketing, mea culpa. However, being quite cynical when it comes to corporate and institutional motives I somehow doubt the veracity of the above figure. There are after all many types of expenditure that could be labeled "sales and marketing". Part of that figure might well be creatively manufactured to maintain a myth about operating costs in order to hide the enormous level of profit. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the substantial sales I get with Shutterstock and do not wish them ill. I would however prefer to receive a fair slice of the value that the market is still willing to pay. Wouldn't you? You are correct, facts are facts and I don't argue with them when I've confirmed them. I can however make adjustments that change the facts for me as an individual and am starting to do so by first sending my best work to RM agencies, fair trade micro RFs and then as time permits, dump the leftover work to the micro RFs that pay a lower percentage. By the way, I didn't vote your comment down if that's what you mean by voting down the facts.
33
« on: May 21, 2014, 23:03 »
For video the SS earnings schedule says I get a flat 30%
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
I dont see how I can get 12% this way?
pond5 is the better deal, I agree.
Didnt Fotolia have an extremely low royalty and then they raised it to 30%?
So I think istock can pay out more than 15%. Of course I am being realistic, so I am focussing on pond5 and SS. They have the best sales anyway.
Pond5 has been the better deal for quite a while. They seem able to make it work very well by paying a fair trade royalty of 50%. Obviously with the other agencies we are leaving at least 20% on the table for no good reason!
34
« on: May 21, 2014, 17:57 »
Upload your files to reputable sites ... Pond 5 / Revostock / Shutterstock .. anywhere but here
Don't give places like this a chance ... The sooner business models like this disappear the better for everyone
(Except the Illegal Pirate sites who will suddenly notice a massive dip in FREE files if they go)
They are killing the Industry & Sales from legitimate Sites ...
Smithore summed it up perfectly
Envato group is just a leech, forget them or they will kill you, they are not human. To help protect the market the best thing to do is to withhold your hard work from sites that sell below market value and encourage other shooters to do the same.
35
« on: May 21, 2014, 11:25 »
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread. A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.
Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates. Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!
36
« on: May 21, 2014, 10:01 »
For me the solution is to send content suitable for the risk or the price point. I would never send the same files everywhere.
But there is always dry leaves, flower images,simple and especially really old holiday files that can find a home on a risky agency.
If all my work was expensive to produce or I was able to only create high quality bestsellers, I would stay away from microstock alltogether.
Sensible strategy.
37
« on: May 21, 2014, 09:52 »
Once again we need to thank those who had the courage to facilitate this change, it just goes to show a few people can and do make a difference.
I am sick to the gills with the mantra we can do nothing to change the micro situation, we have been telling this to ourselves so long we believe this business fallacy. It is absolutely not true. More of us need Russian balls, the entire industry would change for the better.
More change is needed and we should not stop until pricing and royalties are sustainable for contributors. Shutterstocks long term pricing strategy brings about changes like DPC, because it is the only way other sites can compete. We need to put pressure on all sites to raise prices. The 9 years at shutterstock without price increases is having a very negative effect on the industry. And they fully admit that they are doing it to gain market share.
I agree, but what do we do? People seem too reluctant to transition to fair trade agencies because they lose so much of their present income. Simply advocating for better terms seems a weak strategy. Boycotting a nasty Fotolia may hurt and hopefully cripple them but in the end doesn't really improve our circumstances, since other lowlife agencies will try to fill the gap. Somehow... we have to come up with our own solution if we want to stay in this game.
38
« on: May 20, 2014, 10:12 »
And I also wish there was a poll about which agencies people consider as the most fair-trade ones.
That might be very useful. Even such a modest push back in support of producer interests would be good to see! Perhaps it could be a positive "disruptive" influence in the market.
39
« on: May 20, 2014, 09:10 »
By default, all Fotolia content is opted in for sale at the Dollar Photo Club (DPC), but sales there do not count towards your Fotolia level. The contributor receives a subscription royalty (according to level) on each sale.
The part about "DPC sales not counting towards the Fotolia ranking level is not true.
One DPC sales counts like a regular sub sale at Fotolia (1/4).
"...is not true." .... - harsh word - you could say : "... it is not correct."
Call it as you like.
I just wanted to say that if you reach out to other photographers you should stick to the facts, because otherwise it looks strange.
Whoopee.... what a relief for the clubbers! Another thing that looks strange to me is professionals staying opted in to the DPC.
40
« on: May 18, 2014, 16:33 »
You are wasting your time! I was trying to explain people here that we all need to promote agencies with better deal for us, but people like more "regular" money from big houses...
What does it mean promote? I upload the same pictures at the same time to all the agencies. I gave them all chance to earn me money. Some made it, some didn't. What's wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with it, but you can also try to stack the deck and upload to places that make you more money per sale first (and delay those uploads at other sites for a few months or more). It gives some of the smaller sites that pay better a chance to compete with the larger sites with larger marketing budgets (budgets that you pay for). If you can find a couple good paying sites or start a site to sell your own work, it is worth experimenting with.
If a lot of us would do just that it might be noticed and prompt a positive change.
41
« on: May 18, 2014, 16:29 »
I'm good with SS.
Why?
Imagine if you took the sales volume you have at SS and had that at an agency that pays 50%. Or even just the on-demand sales. SS pays 20-30%. We can do a lot better.
You mean SS amount of sales with 50% for me? Cool!
In my opinion that's what it should be! Why can't it be?
42
« on: May 18, 2014, 16:26 »
So far, a good number of people also think that Pond5 would give us the best deal if their sales numbers would increase. Agreed, the photo and illustration parts of the site are in serious need of a make over!
I remember that it took them 2-3 years to get on track with the video side but when they did, it very quickly grew into a top selling site. The competition is much more entrenched on the photo and illustration side of the market so I expect it would take longer to make inroads. It has only taken them about two years to grow the photo numbers to over seven million and with the acquisition of Pixmac it seems they are serious about the photo side of the business. Here's hoping they do start to gain more market share!
I too thought that Stockfresh would be good, but their prices are quite low, they offer subscriptions which are never great for the contributor.
Self hosting might be a great alternative if you have the skills to pull it together and can attract buyers. I have the impression though that it is very time consuming relative to the amount of return.
Shutterstock sales are great, and it seems partnership with them is the largest percentage of income for many. I have to admit though, it irks me a lot to see us media creators forced to leave such a large percentage of the market value on the table for the corporate types.
Slim pickens huh?
43
« on: May 17, 2014, 14:53 »
In order to protect a viable market and in consideration of your own best long term interests;
Which RF microstock agency would you like to see at the top of the earnings poll and why? Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.
I would say Pond5.
A successful and apparently thriving agency
You set your own price, after all not all subjects or aesthetic image quality are equal.
Flat no nonsense 50% royalty.
Efficient website with reasonably good search functions.
Pretty responsive to contributor concerns.
To date no crappy subscription plan or other underhanded ploys.
Just so you know, I have no connection to Pond5 other than being a long time video contributor with a modest photo and audio portfolio as well.
Which agency do you think would best serve your interests if they were a top seller?
44
« on: May 17, 2014, 13:18 »
Fotolia is like an abusive partner and the sooner we just accept that and move on without them the better we will be.
Abusive is certainly the correct description for Fotolia and the DPC. If we now just continue to be passive we will lose any hope of earning decent money in the micro market and it will rapidly be destroyed especially for the single contributor. If anything we should be pushing for much better returns from all subscription sites and a minimum of 50% for any other type of sales! Years ago when agency marketing and distribution was much more expensive and harder to do the standard royalty was 50%. We accept so much less today, because collectively we've been far to passive.
45
« on: May 14, 2014, 10:07 »
Get real, a "HUGE" increase of a tiny amount is still a tiny amount.
46
« on: May 12, 2014, 17:05 »
They are counting on stupid (or desperate) contributors not to bow out of these ridiculous schemes. The argument that they are targeting jerks who would steal it anyway is just more self serving pap aimed to confuse the ignorant.
I don't know how long you have been in this game but we contributors aren't given the opportunity to bow out -at least at Istock - without closing our accounts altogether. Many of us rely on that income to make a living. So I'd appreciate if you didn't call me and other stupid or desperate.
Sorry if I've offended. I was simply using the language in the OPs heading and reflecting that sadly some version of that language also applies to contributors vainly hoping that a company with Getty's track record is somehow going to change their stripes. Briefly, since you brought it up. I'm primarily a video producer but involved as a part time photographer in the stock industry since the late 1970's. Was with an agency that staved off a nasty corporate take over bid and subsequently became a shareholder (privy to inside information) with the management team that built a great RM agency. In the late 90's I sold my shares and then with the advent of the micros dropped stock altogether for a few of years. Now and since 2006, have been contributing video clips and a smaller number of photos only to agencies that I consider to be reasonable. I think I have a fairly informed perspective of the industry. Why are people still actively submitting to an agency like istock/Getty? For a nonexclusive, there are better choices than IS, FT, DP. Whatever material I still have on those sites Ill just leave for the time being in interest of some transition income but I no longer upload fresh material to them. I did opt out of the DPC though. Why not upload your new work just to fair trade sites like Pond5 for example? Ive been with them for video since their early days and they been great! Open market, set your own price and flat 50% royalty, no subscriptions and to date no shady deals. What more do you want? Stills arent my main focus so I havent tried Stocksy yet but I will. I think small fair trade sites like GL, Picfair or Macrografiks deserve more support. After all, the large corporates running the market now all started small. If most contributors would begin uploading new material only to decent agencies like these, it would eventually help starve the greedy corporates out of existence.
47
« on: May 11, 2014, 16:21 »
They are counting on stupid (or desperate) contributors not to bow out of these ridiculous schemes. The argument that they are targeting jerks who would steal it anyway is just more self serving pap aimed to confuse the ignorant.
48
« on: May 08, 2014, 14:29 »
Just throwing the hounds a bone to stop the barking! When they start paying their non exclusive contributors 50% it might be worth an accolade.
49
« on: March 27, 2014, 14:15 »
ClipCanvas has been a good agency for me. Granted sales and payments have slowed a bit in the last half year, however they have always paid up in the end and I trust them, which is more than I can say for some others that I deal with. I like the fact that they pay a decent royalty percentage and are based in the European market. I sure hope they can overcome their recent difficulties!
50
« on: March 03, 2014, 01:39 »
As I see it, there are only a few options to hedge against lower royalties; Only place your work with fair agencies to begin with. Stop uploading if an agency cuts royalties. Develop your own site. Pack a parachute now to jump off the microstock hot air balloon when the time comes.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
