|
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 - Hobostocker
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 29
501
« on: September 17, 2014, 04:08 »
once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
Thats already happening and has been for a while. I think there are a very small percentage of stock shooters with stock as their only income. Stock has become supplemental income and is probably becoming a less significant part of people's earnings. Up until a couple years ago stock was my only photography income. Now it's less than 50%.
there's nothing wrong about this, ultimately the customers will need to pay for assignments or being stuck with old stock images that have been used over and over by their competitors. what were they expecting cutting off photographers ? their customers probably won't notice, but any company advertising using micro images just screams "cheap" a mile away.
502
« on: September 17, 2014, 04:02 »
once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
Agencies are in denial about an endless supply of high production images, pro shooters will move on out of necessity. I'm already finding my client work is far outstripping my stock work which was the opposite only 2 years ago.
All they'll be left with is the endless hobbyists shooting their backyard, cheap objects on white, goofy looking relatives with terrible locations and props.
Agencies are out of their mind if they think I'm spending another $20,000+ I previously spent building my port. The return is not guaranteed like it used to be, these days it could take 3 to 4 years to pay for the time and expense just to break even, far too risky while every agency is busy slitting each others throat on price.
The SS subs model has succeeded in pulling in large amounts of quality work and it's rapidly becoming economically impossible to produce any further work to keep the library fresh. They have already become a victim of their own success, they just don't realise it yet as everyone is still dumping every image they've ever taken into the libraries (me included).
It will take the agencies a few more years to fully experience the long term damage that's going on right now.
I left iS exclusivity to weather the storm, what I didn't realise in hindsight is that dilution and ultra low prices were the nub of the problem, unfortunately for many of us is there's no real shelter from it in todays climate.
well, pro shooters like Yuri already left the building and he's certainly not the only one. yes, the more they lower the bar the more they'll be left with random hobbyists, but they will soon realize there's no point to work so hard if there's no ROI. if i was an amateur i would just stick to Flickr or 500px or similar sites, what's the point of having a small micro portfolio ? nowadays you need 1000s of images just to see some results. but yeah, it will take a few years for the agencies to realize it, this is unavoidable as long as the sales are steady and there's no sudden drop in revenue. agency use the logic "if it ain't broken don't fix it".
503
« on: September 17, 2014, 03:55 »
Oh, stop being so melodramatic. There are lots of people who would like to pay for an image they can use, just like people want to pay $1 for a song on itunes, to be legal.
i know but customer demand cannot meet supply if the prices they're willing to pay are too low. even the actual prices are already too low in my opinion, agencies are making profits just because they undercut photographers.
504
« on: September 16, 2014, 06:05 »
Hobostock: On the previous site, you probably missed one fact. Agencies are not our employers, they are our business partners and without us, they are dead. So they better behave like in partnership and not corporate b*** trying to squeeze us more and more on each step. This is what got IS down and what made big trouble to Fotolia this year - its harder and harder to earn even that $10 a month with stock and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs. Only serious folks are in microstock now and they are fed up with screwing by agencies.
I think we are heading towards the change in whole stock photo industry. As you said, there is no lower price to go. IS made double kill with repelling XS buyers while screwing all XL/XXL and premium collection authors. We shall see in a few months, Im curious where this goes. I do not upload to IS since January 2012, their "improvements" were simply too much for me.
action vs reaction .... the more they scre-w us the more people will stop uploading as there's no decent return on investment, of course it will take some time for the agencies to notice. and yes, at this point they played already all their cards, it can't get any lower and cheaper than subs. so what's next ? even the wire agencies doing news are selling with monthly subs (AP/AFP/Reuters) and guess what, news photographers are paid a pittance and nothing is going to change, even the top war photographers are having it rough and find it difficult to sell their photos after risking their neck, lots of photographers died recently in Ukraine and nobody gives a sh-it, they're considered dime a dozen or "they were asking for it" ... what we're witnessing now is global devalueing of photography on every front, not just in stock. because of the internet an entire world of suppliers selling digital products is just one click away and accepting credit cards for payments, nothing will ever be the same. once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
505
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:57 »
Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images. "
if they can't afford micro images i'm sorry but there's no reason for them to stay in a business where they require stock images, simple as that, and good riddance. pursueing cheaper options ? where ? how ? the other agencies will move in the same direction sooner or later. web resolution ? 1024px screens are the minimum even on cheap smartphones nowadays.
506
« on: September 15, 2014, 13:41 »
But they don't want a Ferrari, they want the Fiat, which is now priced as a Ferrari.
not my problem. this world is full of monopolies and price fixing, the stock industry should do the same and raise the bar if it wants to survive. photography has never been cheaper and never been easier to buy as today, there's absolutely nothing the buyers can complain and they should better shut the F up. in many countries 10$ per hour is below the minimum wage and they're talking nonsense about credits and prices, it's all BS and shouldn't be even discussed among professionals, if they've no budget for even the cheapest micro photography they're just a failed business and they cease to be potential buyers as far as i'm concerned. it's time to stop begging to these critters once and for all.
507
« on: September 15, 2014, 13:36 »
That's a total non-sequitur. In my time I've voluntarily edited a charity newsletter and a website for a local environmental cause (among others). The charity and the cause not having 10$ for each and every photo has no relevance whatsoever to my personal choice of phone.
ok, good, but charities have no rights to get things they can't afford, they had it easy with microstock so far but it ain't gonna last forever, no serious shooter will keep feeding the agencies if there's no return on investment and if cheap buyers have these needs it should not be our problem, there are billions of CC licenced images on Flickr alone ... newsletters and web sites can be made text-only as far as we're concerned, they can be a charity but we're not. microstock and subs in particular are the very last step for the stock industry, there will be nothing after subs as they can't get any cheaper than that.
508
« on: September 15, 2014, 09:53 »
Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro. IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.
and then stock is not for them. simple as that, and good riddance. i feel no pity for this kind of "buyers", they all cry about having to pay 10$ for a photo and the next day they're happy wasting 5-600$ for the latest smartphone. by the way, now that the explosive growth reached its apex, what's next apart new draconian cuts in our fees and even more devalueing of our work ? it would be time to raise the bar for the agencies and kick out anyone with less than 5000 pics, doubling or tripling the prices, and delete a good 90% of the cr-ap in their archive that doesnt sell anyway. and finally, we must ask ourselves, is this an industry worth our time and money ? is there still people valueing our work or we're condemned to beg for 1$ downloads ? as if there was any certainty that the downloads will keep coming ... things can change overnight in stock, usually for the worse.
509
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:26 »
Also keeping prices unreasonably low are photographers who continue to supply outlets that offer unreasonably low prices....I've been guilty of that myself and am taking steps to 'correct' that.
there will be soon a natural selection because while our fees are stalled or decreasing the cost of life keeps increasing, even and especially in third world countries, so in one way for another many niches it will become impossible to cover the production costs even if you live in Haiti or Bangladesh and your studio is in a bamboo hut. there's never been less incentives to join a stock agency like today.
510
« on: September 14, 2014, 20:40 »
buyers pretending to buy a 200px thumbnails are just cheap-as-s scroungers.
you need a small thumbnail for your project ? well, then you need a photo, and that photo comes 6000px wide, simple as that ... it shouldn't be my business if you need it small and don't have money for it ... i want a Ferrari too but i can't afford it ...
low budget buyers had it too easy since the advent of micro, these guys must go out of business.
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.
511
« on: September 14, 2014, 20:35 »
Personally, I think charging the same price for a 600 pixel wide image as a 6000 pixel wide image is crazy."
From twitter: "*Improved* @iStock photo prices raise my monthly a la carte stock photo costs from $54.90 to approx. $300. Loyal customer since 2006 = Done"
yeah but for us it costs the same to produce a 6000px or a 600px image. for anything else, wait for the other agencies to follow suit and remove different pricings based on size. and talking about size, the market is already selling 4K TV sets with 4000px resolution, many laptops have already come with a 1920px display, smartphones are already running on screens larger than 1280px, a photo large 6000px is absolutely no big deal, even google images is showing resized thumbs as large as 3-400px.
512
« on: September 14, 2014, 20:30 »
why is business making purchasing so difficult? iStock needs to learn "Make it work for the customer not just yourself!"
it's called "maximizing profits", marketing 101. by the way, credits are one of the oldest tricks to "lock in" a customer and making him think in terms of credits instead of real dollars, same as in gambling, videogames, and much more. it's not difficult to buy a stock image, actually it's never been easier especially if you compare with 20 yrs ago !
513
« on: September 14, 2014, 20:25 »
Never, ever sell your work by competing on price. Creative works should never be marketed on price.
this is your personal opinion but the market says otherwise, there's a place for RM and a place for RF and subs, to each his own and if you're selling your best images as cheap subs you can only blame yourself. by the way, find me an industry where creatives are treated and paid fairly ... moreover, in stock what matters is the size of your portfolio and your distribution, anything else comes later. unless you're famous or unless you're shooting a unique niche there's no way to leverage your price and in that case you're better off selling on your own. if the customers think your image is not worth more than 10$ who are we to judge ? there's such an abundance of good images today for free or for 5-10 bucks, there are so many good photographers around, most of them actually amateurs who are not in for the money and are doing it for fun or exposure. it's only creatives who keep ranting all day about being a creative, anyone else don't give a sh-it and rightly so.
514
« on: September 14, 2014, 20:12 »
It just isn't worthwhile to pay $8 or $24 for one picture that I only need 200 pixels wide. Personally, I think charging the same price for a 600 pixel wide image as a 6000 pixel wide image is crazy."
but on the other side if his product isn't even worth 10 bucks of production costs maybe he's got no rights to stay in business. how much is he paying for the fonts, for the text, for the copywriting, for the layout ? there's billions of free RF images around for those on a tight budget, have fun !
515
« on: September 13, 2014, 22:40 »
hahaha.
if something ever changes, it's for the worse.
516
« on: September 03, 2014, 11:05 »
They want to sell the premium content at low prices. It's the reverse of all the moves done in the past that were applauded that more correctly valued the content.
it's just another price correction, there's no need to make a storm in a teapot. what matters is if they'll be able to keep their promises : more sales due to lowered pricing and subs. i mean, suppliers can move to greener pastures but the IS management are the ones in the sinking ship, if it all fails it's going to hurt their as-s more than it hurts my pocket. in any case even this price correction proves once again that the whole industry has no intention of keeping the actual business model photographer-friendly in terms of revenues.
517
« on: September 03, 2014, 11:03 »
Thanks Hobostocker! I'll have a beer with you and the other hobos later under the bridge now that we're all poor. * those rich Getty agency photographers and their fancy sets!
hahahaha cheers to you !
518
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:54 »
This looks like a big kick in the teeth for the high quality images.
high quality and microstock should never be in the same sentence. it will force people shooting expensive sets to move to Getty or higher paying agencies, which is where they belong actually. the microstock's perimeter should not invade their other business, i see the logic in this move and i agree 100%.
519
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:51 »
i think this is a change in the right direction.
one price for each file size : just like any other RM agency, where's the big fuss ?
2 collections only : thanks god, it was too confusing before, and buyers don't give a sh-it about collections or even at agency name if that matters, and definitely give zero fuc-ks about photographer's name.
520
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:45 »
I removed most of my portfolio a long time ago. Left enough to get an occasional payout. Never regretted it, I hate feeling that I have to put up with anything a site does to me. Just wish everyone felt the same. I think the vast majority of contributors will carry on uploading until the sites pay them nothing. There's probably some that would pay them to sell their images 
this is true for any other digital product unless you're famous. are you expecting to sell the same mp3 songs for the next 20 years ? or the same video of the Tour Eiffel ? or your self-published ebooks ? stock images in particular have a limited shelf-life and window of opportunity depending on your specific niche, the actual oversupply is just shortening the shelf-life but it's not the single root of all evil.
521
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:46 »
I have had news images on other agencies (not micros) sell many months after the event to illustrate a newspaper or magazine article so the shelf life can be longer than many think. A few people i know have covered the same events as me and have had sales from placing some of the images with micro agencies,they sold as editorial well after the event but still sold.
good, but unless you give us a bit more details how can we understand what you're talking about ? there will be always exceptions to the rule, but they're still exceptions, not the rule.
522
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:29 »
Something like images from Ferguson last week or a similar event that is garnering national/international attention might be a great seller but that is about it.
exactly. either that or you won't sell, there's no demand on their channel for local or minor news.
523
« on: August 27, 2014, 13:24 »
you won't make a single sale ever unless you upload images of national/international interest.
what's selling in News has nothing to with the stuff you see on micros and the shelf life of a news image is very very short.
524
« on: August 26, 2014, 04:06 »
It would not surprise me if the article writers are paid according to how much commentary traffic they can generate (certainly the editors will know that certain writers are particularly good at generating response and therefore traffic).
The best content IMO is going to be from sources which do not have any advertising (and advertising includes underwriting and sponsorship - which is still advertising and which inevitably affects editorial decision making).
in case you don't know, many of the bloggers writing for Huffington Post and AOL are NOT paid positions, they get zero apart the so called "exposure", no matter if they cr-ap receives 5000 comments. good sources without advertising ? where ? how ? even this forum has dozens of ads and affiliate links.
525
« on: August 25, 2014, 23:05 »
selling digital images online is getting tougher and tougher, the most agile and smart stock agency (SS) is making 20-30% net profit, all the others are probably in the 10-15% range and some are struggling to stay afloat.
we can blame agencies as long as we want but it's up to us to pack our bags and move to greener pastures when the game becomes totally rigged in favor of agencies and buyers and we're treated like dogs.
we must be realistic and accept the eventuality that the stock industry will soon be unable to provide a steady income even to the top sellers, in other words stock will become a hobby just like for ebook writers and part time indie musicians.
and agencies will not care if this happens, because they'll be still in biz and making their 20-30% net income so as long as this trend doesn't change we're the only factor in the equation that is going to pay the price for their profits and for the oversupply.
i don't think they give the slightets sh-it about us, it would be like bloggers complaining they can't make a living, and in fact nobody is helping full time journalists to survive, even the ones working for the top brands in the news medias and working in war zones for a pittance, go figure if they care about us.
do you know there are journalists earning as low as 10-20$ per article in national newspapers ? and you think we're having it bad ?
it's not just photography, ALL the creative fields are going to be destroyed by the internet and digital, we're seeing the last steps of the domino effect started in the 90s.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 29
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
