As HSI points out - the two agencies that generate the most income for most people pay the lowest per sale.  But they both invest heavily in marketing to generate customers.  That benefits them, and it benefits the artist.

Istock does a huge amount of marketing and it costs them a lot and they pay us 20% or so. 

I understand the arguments for the 80/20 split - namely the intense marketing iStock puts forth which certainly generates sales for contributors. 

I have heard many people talk about how much marketing IS does, but I have never seen any proof of this.  Does anyone have facts about how much money IS is spending on marketing (vs the competitors)?  I'm just wondering why everyone seems to think that IS does so much marketing, but have never read any stats on this.

Just because they give us 20%, doesn't mean they are using the other 80% for marketing.  They could just be reaping the benefits.

Wow!

I am simply amazed that this is still happening almost two months later.

I am even more amazed that nobody else seems to care.

I find it interesting that you see this as a race to the bottom - when you could also see it as the opposite.  Granted we are asked to pay to get the images in the sideshow (but i do have several thousand credits i don't have anything else to do with so it is basically free for those of use who uploaded when luckyoliver started out) ....
So - the opposite part i was talking about is that when an image is in the sideshow it gets the photographer 50% commisions, and a better price for the image.  if the photographer wants to keep the pricing as microstock or low midstock then i feel it would also still be a 'fair' buy.

leaf:

Yes, a contributor can do as you said.  They can use their tokens to "buy into" the Sideshow and sell images at the same price as in the Circus (or whatever it is called).  This would allow a contributor to "buy" a higher royalty (50% vs 30%).

But that is not the original intent of the Sideshow.  If you read Bryan's comments on Midstock, you will find that it was supposed to be an area for unique images at a unique price point (between microstock and macrostock).  But that is not how they have implemented it.  They have implemented it as an overpriced area for microstock images.

If they had implemented it as you have discussed, then it would have been better.  I would have also recommended allowing everyone to participate, and not just those with over 100 sales (which is a very small and elite group).  The current system just creates a larger gap between those that have sales and those that don't.  In other words, if you didn't have many sales before the Sideshow, then you probably have even less now.  That's because there is less room in the search results for normal microstock images.  As we all know, the further back your images show in the results, the less sales you will probably have.  So if you image used to be on page 3, then it is now probably on page 5 or 6.  And if you had good sales before, then you probably have better sales now (because of higher royalties and better search engine placement).  So it essentially becomes a snowball effect.

I understand why some people like it (because they benefit greatly from it), but I don't think that it is good for the industry - at least the way it is currently implemented.

Well, you completely ignored my point of previous posts and that's what i expected. I gave you a scenario that is almost identical to the thing you're upset about with LO, but you managed to try to twist it another way. It seems to me you have some kind of issue with LO and no matter what is said, they will just be the bad guy.

I haven't ignored anything.

You first made comparisons between microstock and other industries (the oil industry and coffee industry to name two).  It didn't make sense to me to compare other industries, but I went along and showed that there were inconsistencies with your argument.

Now you have chosen an example that is clearly not an apples-to-apples comparison.

First, you chose an image that has sold well at one agency but not at others.  That skews the results (in your favor of course).  At DT, the image you chose sold 132 times.  At FT, the image sold 1 time.  At IS, the image sold 3 times.  So, yes, at DT the image will have a higher sale price because their business model is to increase the sale price as the image achieves higher sales.  By the way, having buyers pay more for big selling items is a pretty common practice in the business world.  The image that I chose in the example above sells about the same at all of the sites.

Second, you chose an image that doesn't sell in the LO Sideshow.  As a matter of fact, I don't believe it sells at LO at all (at least I couldn't find it).  Kind of weird that you would choose an image that isn't even on LO isn't it?  The image that I chose sells on all of the sites, except for IS (but I still put in stats for IS).

Third, I don't have a problem with DT selling some images for higher prices because these are proven, top-shelf images.  I believe that an image that sells over 100 times should have some benefits.  Like I stated a few other times in this thread already, I wouldn't have a problem if the images in the LO Sideshow were special in some way.  But the images that are in the LO Sideshow are not special.  On top of that, LO calls these images "midstock" as if they are something special (which they aren't).

Fourth, I don't have a problem with different prices on different sites, as long as they are within the vicinity of each other.  An image that is 1 credit on one site or 5 credits on another is still within a few credits.  In the example that I gave, the largest size of the LO image was selling for 385 credits more than any other site.  Now that is a huge difference that would matter to me.

Fifth, Bryan (from LO) has stated many times that the Sideshow is supposed to hold special images, but that has not proven to be true. 
Here is one statement from Bryan: "The Sideshow has been created specifically to appeal to those photographer who may have been 'holding back' some of their best images from the microstock market, simply because they knew the images were ones that should earn them a higher margin."  You asked previously "Where is there any deception going on?".  Well, when the top dog at LO states that the Sideshow is supposed to contain images that are not on microstocks and then it contains just the opposite, that (to me) is deception.

The images that are in the Sideshow (for the most part) are not special in any respect.  They can be found on other sites for much less.  And the images that are in the Sideshow are already chosen from the Circus (or whatever you call the regular microstock area on LO).

Finally, and probably most importantly, I have a problem with the Sideshow because it is an additional cost.  LO pays only 30% royalties, which is near an industry low.  Which means that we already pay LO 70% for their "services".  Now LO is asking for more money in order for our images to place better in their search results.  What next?

LO could have created the Sideshow for free, but they decided to charge for it.  They could have let everyone participate, but they decided to let only those few individuals with > 100 downloads participate.

(And for the record, I am a current contributor to LO)

The photo you've picked out was priced by the photographer. He/she decided to ask the price range you pointed out. They could have picked a lower price but that is the price that they've decided they want when purchased thru LO. Why don't you ask them why they are doing it that way?

I do get upset when contributors stab each other in the back.  I get upset when I see a new agency open which only offers 20% or 30% and contributors beat down their doors submitting images.  I get upset when other agencies try to undercut each other and contributors applause their efforts.  I get upset when subscriptions are offered on XLarge sizes and we only get a .25 or .30 royalty.

I believe that the Sideshow is something that we (as contributors) shouldn't be a part of.  I believe that it is bad for the industry (because it creates a race-to-the-bottom environment).  LO is the first in the industry with charging a fee for sort order placement.  I don't see that as a positive milestone.  Who will be next?  Pretty soon everyone will be doing it.  And who gains from this?  The agencies will definitely gain (because they now have an additional revenue source for image placement).  A very small amount of contributors will gain (from higher placement in the sort order).  But for the most part, the majority of contributors will lose.

Quote from: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 07:01

First, the images that are in the sideshow are marketed as "midstock".  But in reality they are just the same old microstock images with a different label. Almost all of the images in the sideshow can be found on other microstock sites at much lower prices.  What type of message does that give the buyer?

Gee, what message does a buyer get when they can buy gasoline at one station at 2.95/gal and another has it for 2.75? Gee, i can get coffee at any quickstop for $1 but i can go to starbucks and get coffee for $4 -- sure, buyers can shop around looking for the same image at a lower price point if they want, but in most cases they don't - they see what they need and if the price is right they buy it.

And how could anyone possibly define any difference between a midstock image and a microstock image? What's really the difference between starbucks coffee and stuff i can buy for 1/4 the price? (I don't drink coffee and i'm sure someone will tell me there's a difference, but gee, it can't be worth 4x the price - it is all about the atmosphere!)

Sorry, but there are a few things that you forgot in your analogy.

First, the difference in pricing is much more pronounced.  If the difference was only 0.20 (as in your gas price analogy), then there would be less of a problem.  But the truth is that it is more like buying gas for $1 at one gas station vs. buying gas for $10 at another gas station just down the block.  If you do a search, you will see that many of the images in the Sideshow start at $10 for a measly blog size.  The pricing then goes up from there.  So a buyer could be paying $100 or more for an XLarge size, when they could be getting the same image on another site for $10 or less.

Second, Starbucks coffee has a different formula than other coffees, thus the reason for the higher price.  The reason Starbucks does so well is because they have good coffee.  If the same Starbucks coffee was available at $1 at one store and $4 at another store down the street, I'm sure there would be complaints from the customers.  Like I said, the images that are in the Sideshow are the SAME images that were previously NOT in the Sideshow.  They are also the SAME images that are available at other microstock sites which are just a mouse click away (in the majority of cases).  There is no difference between the images.  If there was a difference between the images in the Sideshow and images available elsewhere, then I would think that would be fine (because then the images would have a valid reason to be charged at a higher rate).

So, yes, I do think that it a slap in the face to the buyers.  And when buyers catch on to this switch-and-bait tactic, I guarantee that it will be the last sale from them at LO.

No. It's not allowed. I reported it, and the user was sent a warning. Guess it's time to follow up again. Sigh.

Well, it seems that this problem goes much deeper than anyone initially thought.  This contributor seems to have multiple aliases on StockXpert and seems to be spamming most of his/her other images.

For example, check out these two images, which are from two different contributors, but appear to be the exact same image (except for some slightly different coloring).  And both of the images contain 100s of keywords:

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=4951791



http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=6024091



Or how about these two images which look extremely similar (and might have the same model):

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=5141381



http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=766767



It also looks like one of the contributors has been removing his images from one account (to possibly close it out) and moving them to another account.

Come on. They're just six pictures. That's all.

Wow, I better roll up my pants because it's getting pretty deep in here.   

nobody said you had to make a political picture.  So something with the banana, or the frog, you don't have to choose bush.

Yes, the designer can take the high road (if they so choose), but it is pretty obvious what they are looking for.

All you have to do is spend a few seconds looking at the images that they provided to see what they are hoping for:

Heads up, guys.

Crestock is launching the biggest photoshop contest of the year. Read more at the link below.

http://www.crestock.com/blog/design/the-crestock-photoshop-contest-2007-101.aspx

The very best of luck to all contestants.

Josh

I think that it is exceptionally poor taste to try and make a political statement with a photo contest.

Shame on you and your company.

Soooo, I wonder if it's worth ditching/avoiding sites that require time periods in favor if selecting SR-EL. DT is my #2 in sales and seems to be picking up nicely. Anybody here have any SR-ELs and/or opinions on that approach?

Your statement is ironic, because DT requires images to be online for a minimum of 6 months.

If you have a high acceptance rating, you're probably a good photographer that consistently creates good quality images that buyers want. If you have a low acceptance rating you probably are a photographer that produces inconsistent quality which most buyers would prefer to avoid.

Sorry, but I have to whole-heartedly disagree with that statement.  There are too many factors that go into the acceptance rating to simplify it with such a statement.

First, contributors that joined DT earlier will more likely have a higher acceptance percentage than those that joined later.  It is a known fact that new sites want to build up their portfolio and therefore reject less images.

Second, contributors that submitted the first images in a category will also have higher acceptance ratios than those that submit similar images later.  For example, if you were the first contributor to upload "two business men shaking hands" or "woman talking on cell phone", you would have an easier time getting them approved than today.  One of the most popular issues that contributors have is getting the "we have too many of these" rejections even thought the images might be better in quality.

Third, if a contributor takes images that are not conventional and experiments with different styles, they will probably have a higher rejection rate than those that submit the basic conventional image that is submitted.  Images with creative lighting, or even images that have advanced Photoshop editing are more likely to be shot down than those that have standard lighting or less creative editing.

Fourth, there is no proven correlation between acceptance rating and sales (except on DT where they have forced a correlation).  While sites pretend that they know what sells, it has been shown time and again that images that get rejected on one site sell like crazy on another.  There are plenty of contributors that have low approval ratings that sell loads of images, and there are plenty of contributors with high approval ratings that have very few sales.

Finally, the images should speak for themselves.  A contributor might submit the most perfect image of "woman on cell phone", but if they don't have a high acceptance rating, then a buyer will probably never find that perfect image.  How does that help the buyer?  It doesn't.

steve-oh:

I just noticed that this image still has loads of keywords that seem to be irrelevant to the image.

As a matter of fact, this image has over 300 keywords!

Isn't StockXpert going to do anything about this???

I would like to say thanks to StockXpert for listening to our gripes about the subscription services.

It is a breath of fresh air to have a company listen to the concerns of the contributors.

The opt-in/out option alone is a big risk on their part, which is much appreciated.  And upping the royalty to 0.30 is enough to make some of us cross that gray line.

Once again, thanks.