|
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 - macrosaur
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13]
301
« on: February 08, 2010, 10:29 »
"It's insulting selling at 0.25$ but what should i say when i make a 5$ sale for
an image printed on The Guardian sold as RM ?"
Hello there Macrosaur!
I'd be a bit annoyed, their minimum rates is around 70 for a small head shot. Then, having got over my annoyance I'd have realised I'm small fry, my picture wasn't exclusive, and their budget for pics is shot to pieces.
I can't blame them, however as yet I don't believe the Uk newspapers have taken to using lots of Macro - deals with Alamy, yes, but not large volume macro. Why not?
Rgds Oldhand
It's quite random at the moment : sometimes they pay 50, 70, or 100$, and sometimes as low as 5$. Your only option is opting out but when you opt-in you're locked in the newspaper deal for 12 months. I'm unsure about what to do.
302
« on: February 08, 2010, 08:40 »
RM prices will soon become "mid-stock" if this trend keeps going.
And microstock will reach the bottom of the barrel and start digging...
Only if people keep believing that "the inevitable is going to happen and we can't do anything about it" and keep taking less and less for their work, while the agency takes more and more.
They've the buyers, we don't. That's why we are getting screwed. There's no way i can invest millions in marketing to find the buyers myself. What do you suggest ? A photographers' strike ? A boycott ?
303
« on: February 08, 2010, 08:17 »
What did you expect ? Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
But the golden days of stock are gone forever and small agencies are
closing the doors one after the other.
This is totally what I expected from istock/Getty. That's why I have been independent up until this point. Which is proving to be a smart decision on my part.
I'm not convinced that the golden days of stock are gone forever...people still need to buy images for print and web. What's gone is respect from big business for the person who is generating the income for them...they are trying to starve us and push us down so that we will be grateful when we are offered $.25 for an image. After all, we're in a recession, we should consider ourselves lucky we even have a job/micro sales at all!
The only thing that will close the doors of the smaller-than-Getty agencies is for people to keep falling for the crap the Getty's are dishing out.
Getty has the long-term vision we often lack. They know their job and they know there's nowadays an infinite supply of cheap images and new contributors willing to get back only 20% of a 1$ sale. Who can blame them ? Photographers are to be blamed, not Getty. It's insulting selling at 0.25$ but what should i say when i make a 5$ sale for an image printed on The Guardian sold as RM ? RM prices will soon become "mid-stock" if this trend keeps going. And microstock will reach the bottom of the barrel and start digging...
304
« on: February 08, 2010, 08:01 »
Macro was a closed shop. No access for people unlike yourself to enter.
Not completely true. It was hard to get in because years ago they requested to send a CD with at least 500 edited images, it took months to get a reply and months to make a single sale and agencies were usually elitist and snotty. Nowadays everything changed, it's all in real time, anyone can compare prices, competitors portfolios, buy anywhere in few clicks and receive the image they need in few minutes. If microstock start being more selective with new contributors there's a chance only the ones really wanting to get into the business will get a foot in the door. Why should they accept any guy sending them 4 decent images ? Anyone can do that. Try asking for a 500 images portfolio and see the difference. But they're not gonna do it, because they make too much money on the shoulders of small photographers who can't even reach the minimum payout. I'm curious also to see what evil plans they have in store with Flickr...
305
« on: February 08, 2010, 07:46 »
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ? Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers. But the golden days of stock are gone forever and small agencies are closing the doors one after the other. Now it's all about producing industrial quantities of images and hope they sell well. RM agencies are doing the same but at least they let you decide if you want to join or not their special deals, discounts, and distribution sales. For instance the very same image can sell for 500$ in USA and for 5$ in China or Bolivia, up to you to opt-in or opt-out. Alamy has deals with UK newspapers paying peanuts, it's not unusual to get paid less than 10$ when making a sale this way and we're talking about national newspapers selling millions of copies.
306
« on: February 08, 2010, 07:34 »
The concern isn't so much about what happens if Getty goes bankrupt, the concern is what happens when the current owners sell Getty and the new owners realise that its quite feasible to increase profits further at the expense of contributors. Canisters will have been moved once without any hitch - whats to stop them from changing the % that's attached to them?
Unfortunately similar moves by the competition mean that there's nothing stopping IS now anyway.
Personally I think its time that contributors had a good discussion about developing more contributor friendly alternatives - not just another discussion thread on here, but something face to face.
And who's stopping iStock from paying new contributors just 5% of a sale ? Nobody, and i'm sure contributors will still apply anyway as 5% of a 1$ sale is still better than 5% of zero sales. It's an endless rat race to the bottom. People will stop contributing once they spend more than what they earn, but there's still an infinite supply of amateurs and Flickrs willing to join micros at ANY price.
307
« on: February 08, 2010, 06:05 »
what happens when they change the requirements for the next level, or cut the commission, or change the meaning of "credits.?"
I think the only way to keep the agencies honest is diversity. Why do you think DT is pushing so hard for exclusivity? Or, why is iStock making it so much more lucrative?
All rules and calculations are subject to change.
The way I have started to look at it all is that it's all a crapshoot. There are pitfalls if you do go exclusive and there are pitfalls if you don't. You just have to pick one and go with it and hope for the best.
How much time it takes to feed 6 or 7 agencies ? I would go exclusive and spend time shooting more photos. As for the putting all eggs in one basket : this is the last thing to worry as istock is owned by Getty ... if Getty goes bankrupt than the whole stock industry will follow, so with istock you're pretty safe and you know they pay on time.
308
« on: February 08, 2010, 05:52 »
I opted out as soon as it was announced. This really is looking like the year I will all but stop contributing to microstock and start seriously working the RM Agencies instead.
Good luck. RM is in big crisis because of microstock and because of the economic downturn. Many RM shooters lost 40-50% of their sales in the last 2 years, many agencies went bankrupt, many others are just surviving slashing prices and offering subscriptions and cheap deals for newspapers. If you think moving your micro portfolio on RM will pay well, think again : the sort of imagery selling fine on micros will not sell on RM for the simple reason the price is too hgh compared to micros, even if sold as RF. And because of micros RM shooters are diversifying and me too. I'm willing to put the good ones on RM and the rest on micros at least to have a comparison.
309
« on: February 08, 2010, 05:40 »
This sounds very much like the Macro whiners when they said this Micro crap is B.S. and will ruin our business. Be careful what you wish for  It's a bitch isn't it. If you didn't see it coming you are either new to business or you have your head in the clouds. Wake up peoples I have been screaming this from the roof tops for over a year here. More eggs in more baskets, the more diverse the balance of power in several agencies the better it is to the photographers.
I'm a former macro whiner but i can tell you i'm not at all surprised by istock's move. Microstock's only reason to exist is CHEAP PRICES, so where else do you think the micro market is heading if not to more subscription deal, promotions, dollar bins, all-you-can-eat deals, photo-packs, etc ? It's obvious once the only big factor is the price, it happened everywhere not just for micros and that's also the reason microstock is "locked in" in its own race to the BOTTOM. What's cheaper than 0.25$ ? 0.10$, for instance ! and who knows what's next ... Will it go like for hosting companies offering "unlimited bandwidth, unlimited space, unlimited whatever" ? Because this is the clear direction the market has taken.
310
« on: February 08, 2010, 05:32 »
3. Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size? Make it an RM hybrid. $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use. $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use. $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.
This so much appeals to me, but it would be very difficult to police.
RM is still cheaper than hiring a photographer on assignment. That's why RM is still popular. So, custosters are saving a lot of money with RM but yet they want to pay less and less and switching to microstock. How is it possible nowadays is accetable to sell for as low as 0.25$ ? And reading the istock forum i see also buyers complaining it's getting expensive.  What's next ? Do they really expect we work for free ?
311
« on: February 07, 2010, 20:51 »
Hello, my first post.
I'm following the micro market and i'm not surprised by iStock's move into subs and i think it can also go worse in the future because Getty's goal is the complete monopoly of microstock and they'll have it in one way or another but i'm afraid it will be photographers to pay the price for it.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
