pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Pickerell

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
76
E+ and Vetta prices have increased a lot over the last couple of years - as well as the basic exclusive prices. Offsetting the drops in downloads with sales at those higher prices is fine at the beginning, but truly isn't sustainable over time - without more price increases, how are you going to grow in the future? Tripling your portfolio each year?

You're exactly right about that.  This was one of the factors that kept me from going exclusive a couple of years ago. Can't keep raising prices forever to cover loss of sales. 

In fact, it's a self-feeding loop.  Sales drop->raise prices->buyers leave->sales drop more->raise prices more.... Eventually it's just going to be a ghost town.
 

It is interesting that Getty did exactly the same thing with macrostock RF back around 2001. At that time the average price of an RF image on Getty was about $97. In two and a half years they had pushed the average price up to $240. During that period Getty acquired several RF distributors and production companies and in general added a lot more content, but the total number of images licensed remained flat.

Meanwhile meanwhile many RF users started saying, "stock photography is too expensive" and "I need cheaper images." They started trading images among themselves and microstock was born.

What will be next? Don't ignore history.

77
Sorry for the problems with the link. Thanks to jm for fixing it.

It is also that these 193 contributors are also adding a lot of new images -- 47,313 since the beginning of 2012. Although 25 have added no new images in the period and another 30 added less than 10. What happens when the most productive shooters stop contributing? And where do those shooters go to continue to cover their costs and make a living?

78
Ive just completed an analysis of the downloads of 193 of iStocks leading contributors.  As of June 30th these people had a total of 30,449,000+ downloads, or about 24% of iStocks total downloads since they the company was founded. On average this contributor group had 22% fewer sales in the first half of 2012 than they had during the same period in 2011. This doesnt necessarily mean revenue was down. Customers may have purchased higher priced images. But a drop of this magnitude in the number of images licensed is cause for concern. To see how I arrived at my conclusions check out http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/trends-at-istockphoto-unit-sales-decline. What do you think?

79
General Stock Discussion / Check Out PicturEngine
« on: April 25, 2012, 13:00 »
Non-exclusive microstock photographers whose images sell frequently on the current microstock sites may want to take a hard look at PicturEngines new portal and marketing strategy.. (www.picturengine.comn)

This portal has five primary goals:
1 To make it possible for customers to review, in a single search, all the images included in the major RM, RF and microstock collections as well as images from individual direct contributors to PicturEngine.
2 To answer customer complaints about finding the same images on multiple sites. To accomplish this they remove all duplicates from every search and only showing each unique image once.
3 - To give individual contributors priority over distributors.
4 To allow individual photographers to set the price for the use of their images.
5 To pay photographers 100% of the fees collected for the use of their images.

For more information check out my Selling-Stock.com article (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/picturengine-a-unique-portal-for-microstocker) which is available for free for microstockers to review.

80
General Stock Discussion / Photography vs. Illustration
« on: February 14, 2012, 11:00 »
I just did an analysis of the top 500 iStock contributors in terms of career downloads. This 1/200th of iStocks contributors have 46% of the companys total downloads. Only 70% of these contributors are photographers. 30% list themselves as Designers, Illustrators, IT or Other. Is the demand for illustration relative to photography growing?

Shutterstock says they licensed 16 million vector illustrations in 2011 which represented 32% of all the images they licensed. Most of the people commenting on this site seem to be photographers. Are we hearing from designers and illustrators? What do they think? If customers are tending to use more illustration and less photography how should that change what you shoot?

81
iStockPhoto.com / What's Your Experience With Photos+
« on: July 22, 2011, 13:16 »
Three months ago iStock launched Photos+. Initially there were some predictions that the increased prices would be offset by lower sales. Has that happened? Maybe the number of units licensed are down somewhat, but revenue is still growing due to the higher prices. What's your experience? Is this benefiting non-exclusive photographers?

82
A non-exclusive photographer who has a lot of good recreation photos on both iStock and Shutterstock contacted me today with the observation that in the last six weeks his images on Shutterstock have been outselling those on iStock 3 to 1. (This is not because of new uploads on Shutterstock.) For the previous two years iStock was outselling Shutterstock 3 to 1. Is anyone else seeing this trend?

It seems to me that there might be at least three reasons for this switch.
1 - iStock has raised its prices, particularly with their exclusive collections and they may have priced a lot of their former customers out of the market.
2 iStock seems to be pushing more exclusive images to the top of the search return order. This makes sense from iStock's point of view because the images sell for higher prices. They also keep their exclusive photographers happy and encourage more to go exclusive. However, because there are not as many low priced images available on the early pages customers may be getting the idea that all of iStock's images are now much higher priced.
3 - Many of the non-exclusive contributors who are also buyers are upset by the reduction in their royalty percentage and when they need to purchase images they may be going to Shutterstock in an attempt to send iStock a message.
 
Any other idea? What do you think?

83
Hi RT,

 I know Tom very well and I swear I have never met a person more on the ball when it comes to stock. He ran Comstock for 20 years and is an increadibley open and willing to share with individuals. He can make a photo out of anything and he knows what and how to shoot it to create the greatest profit. I remember when I was talking with Tom once, he asked me " so how many sock images did you create last year " I was pretty happy with our results and boldly said " over 1,000 ". He didn't drop a beat and said " why not 4,000? " That next year we produced over 4,000 images for Macro. It was like watching someone complete the mile in under 4 minutes. Once I was told it could be done that was the fire that got me started really producing. To this day I owe him a great deal from those early lessons. I will say if you ever have a chance to speak with him I would look upon him as a sort of Yoda in stock, listen and learn. If he were a race horse I would bet the bank on him ;)

Best,
Jonathan


There have been several posts about Tom Grill. He has been a highly respected member of this industry for decades and a mentor to many, He has always been on the forefront of trends. Some of you might be interested in where he thinks the industry will be in five years.

After a friendly discussion in October at Photo Expo in New York Tom and I decided to do separate articles which I published on www.PhotoLicensingOptions.com on our opposing points of view of where the industry will be in five years.  Links to the two articles are below.

Looking Ahead Five Years: Tom Grill
http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=TOM1002
 
Looking Ahead Five Years: Jim Pickerell
http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2289

Sorry, but youll have to pay a few dollars is you want to read either of these articles. I will give you a hint. Tom is much more positive and upbeat than I am.:)

84
...One issue that has been touched on here, but not explored in any great depth is how it is possible to upload so many images in one year. Are there certain exceptions that allow some exclusive photographers to post more images than others? Or have the rules been changed?...

The upload limits change, but I think for much of the year they were 120 per week for gold and 150 per week for diamond exclusives. That's 6240 and 7800 per year. I think Daniel went from gold to diamond some time in 2010. Given the quality of his images, I don't think he'd need any special rules to have ended up with 5,500 approved images during 2010.

Thanks for explaining that.

85
Id like to give all of you some information about how this article came about. At the beginning of the year there was a thread on Microstock Group that asked how 2010 had been. While many reported so-so years, Daniel Laflor reported that he had added 5,500 images to his iStock exclusive collection and that he had a 1461% increase in income. These two numbers seemed fantastic. I thought it would be interesting to know a little more about the photographer who could post such numbers. It would be particularly interesting to my macro readers who keep saying you cant make a money in microstock.

The first thing I did was go to iStock and look up Laflor. If he had started the year with a couple hundred images a 1461% increase would have been interesting, but not all that surprising. But he has had over 96,000 total downloads. Doing the math that means he had over 89,000 downloads in 2010. That is impressive. Only a handful of iStock photographers exceeded that number. Going to his blog, I discovered that he didnt start shooting microstock until the beginning of 2009.

At that point I emailed a series of questions to Daniel to try to get a better understanding of his business. I also expressed an interest in doing a story on him for Selling Stock. He responded cordially, acknowledged that he was good friends with Yuri, that Yuri had helped him get started in microstock and that they sometimes shoot together. He also said, I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'. (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)

I felt this story was important. I had enough information from publicly available sources, even if I had no quotes, to supply some important information to the photo community and particularly the macro community. I felt Daniel had left the impression with his earlier post on Microstock Group that it is easy to be successful (generate significant income) shooting microstock. I thought a little balance was needed. I told Daniel that I could not honor his request not to do a story, but I did send him a draft of the story I had written asking for comments and corrections and told him that if I didnt hear from him I would publish the story later in the week.

I have the greatest respect for what Daniel and Yuri have been able to accomplish, separately and independently. The comments made by both Daniel and Yuri on this thread are a very important addition to what I had to say and I only wish I had been able to integrate them into my story. I urge everyone to flip back, find those comments and read them carefully.

One of the things we learned from the comments is that while Daniel has certainly earned a lot of money his business is not yet profitable and he expects it to take another year to break even. We also learned that Daniel was a very experienced photographer before he got into microstock and that he has studied the business very carefully before jumping in.
 
One issue that has been touched on here, but not explored in any great depth is how it is possible to upload so many images in one year. Are there certain exceptions that allow some exclusive photographers to post more images than others? Or have the rules been changed? Does iStock need to change its exclusive requirements given what it is doing with the Agency collection? Is there any logical reason why a photographer should not be allowed to have other images (not those on iStock) in other royalty free collections?
Isnt image exclusive better than photographer exclusive for all involved.

Another thing which a few who have made comments here seem to have missed is how significant the income per download increase is for exclusive photographers compared to non-exclusive photographers. The higher prices for Exclusive, Exclusive+, Vetta and Agency make a big difference. People with images in these categories may make somewhat fewer sales, but the revenue increase per download seems to more than make up for the lost sales. I have information from one exclusive photographers who averaged $4.95 per download in 2010 and another who averaged $8.60. That is a big difference from $2.40 to $2.80.

86
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 09, 2010, 15:53 »
I don't understand Kelly's statement:

"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, its simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.

"Last year we proposed changes to canister levels designed to stave off, but ultimately not solve, this problem. In the end, we chose to scrap those. The royalty changes we released yesterday are not a band-aid solution, they are a permanent fix. They ensure a viable, long-term future for iStock and its community."

A couple weeks ago they said they were paying out $1.7 million a week in royalties. At the first of the year I believe it was $1.2 million. Let's assume $1.7 million for the whole 52 weeks. That's about $88 million paid out to contributors in a year. Is he saying it costs $212 million a year to operate that web site? What is the staff being paid? Sure money is spent on advertising, but really how much "profit" do they need?? They expected to grow revenue 50% in 2010. The payout to contributors sure hasn't grown by 50%. I don't see any way that he could argue that the business has "become less profitable with increased success."

87
Microstock News / Re: Microstock has reached a plateau...
« on: July 13, 2010, 09:33 »
How long will it be before people who want visuals to use on the Internet stop looking for still images and only want video?


Never.  I hate video on the internet.  It's a waste of time.  I prefer imagery and text.  For instance, Leaf did a video here on photoshop shortcuts.  Why would I waste 60 seconds watching it, when a text listing would do?  And skipping through longer videos trying to find the important parts wastes even more time.

Printed imagery will be strong for many years, imo.  This is not the world of Minority Report.


One thing this macro photographer has learned is to Never say Never. Glad to hear you hate video on the Internet. Simon Krzic, leading videographer is probably glad to hear that because that means less competition for him. In about 4 years he has produced 15,000 clips for iStock and 3,500 clips for Getty. Many of the clips that are on iStock Getty would not accept.  At one point 10% of the clips on iStock were his. Now, his ratio is about 5%. Currently, his earnings from iStock are 4 to 5 times what he receives from Getty on a monthly basis, despite the fact when Getty sells a clip it is for a much higher price. It sure looks like the Internet customers want something they cant find on Getty and that there is some Internet demand for video.

You could have read about this at http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2217. If you ever get interested in video you might want to take a look at www.turnhere.com and you can read more about it at http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2203.

Goodby for now. I've got to do some work.

88
Microstock News / Re: Microstock has reached a plateau...
« on: July 13, 2010, 09:09 »

I do not believe that you can usefully extrapolate total sales from your 198 (or any other incomplete sample). For starters you are assuming that x% of images = some factor of x% of sales. That seems logical at first sight but there is no way of determining whether this assumption stands up to scrutiny. It's an unknown.

I'm not assuming x number of images = some x factor of sales. The number of downloads (sales) is listed for each photographer on iStock and on iStockcharts. Fourteen months ago it was an exact number. Today, it is a range (>75,000 but <76,000) so by subtracting the May 2009 number you can get a pretty accurate ballpark.

Only 198 out of 100,000 does seem a terribly small sample until you realize that these 198 represent 8% of the images on the site and 29% of the total downloads in the last 14 months. The person who was 198th on my list when I started collecting data now has over 47,000 total downloads and is 347th on the iStockcharts list. Unfortunately, I dont have comparative data for all those other 149 in the top 347, but it seems reasonable to assume that the top 347 contributors (lots of them are illustrators, not photographers) are responsible for over half of all iStockphotos total downloads in the last 14 months. Does that tell you anything about other 99,653 contributors chances of making sales?

If the only goal of most of the 99,653 are to say, "I'm part of the long tail" then they are achieving that and I'm sure they are all happy. On the other hand, if their goal is to make a profit from their efforts many of them may not be so happy.

89
Microstock News / Re: Microstock has reached a plateau...
« on: July 13, 2010, 08:27 »
I think it's a bit silly to state that a particular industry has reached its peak while we're in the middle of one of the worst global enconomic recessions in recent history.  Buyers have scaled back their purchases in ALL areas, including microstock.  Yes, large companies and ad agencies have gone from macro to micro to cut costs, but consider the case of small businesses, which have taken the biggest hit during the recession.  They have scaled back to survival levels, cutting marketing and advertising completely, or have gone out of business altogether.  Considering all this, it's shocking that microstock isn't completely in the toilet.

Now think about a global economic recovery, which will happen someday, hopefully soon.  Companies large and small will ramp up their communication efforts very quickly, and as their budgets return, they'll have learned from the lean times to spend it very wisely.  Microstock will be the big beneficiary from this. 

No, microstock has not already reached its plateau.  Tomorrow people will still need images to help their businesses communicate, and they'll want to pay as little as possible for those images.   For the forseeable future, until another business model emerges that makes sense to contributors (free? that's an argument for another thread) microstock will prosper, and will become much larger than it is today.

Is the decline in sales due to the recession, or other factors? When the economy recovers will the use of images in print recover? I dont think so. Newspapers and magazines are getting smaller and failing. Direct mail is declining because postage is too expensive and in many cases customers can be better targeted using the Internet. In five to ten years, textbooks (big users of photos) are likely to be a thing of the past as all instruction goes to the Internet, iPads and powerpoint presentation on whiteboards. A surprising number of those images you license are used on some type of printed product. I think were seeing a paradigm shift in the need for printed products that will not recover with the economy.

OK, but the answer of many is everyone is going to the Internet and that is where microstock is strong. But, the Internet is a video deliver system. How long will it be before people who want visuals to use on the Internet stop looking for still images and only want video?

90
Microstock News / Re: Microstock has reached a plateau...
« on: July 13, 2010, 08:20 »
Although the data and the statistics quoted are somewhat suspect, to say the least, I think most of us know that microstock will eventually plateau. With supply growing faster than demand it is inevitable.

What we don't know is what will happen next __ and neither does Jim Pickerell. I guess the 'photo factories' may act as early indicators of the marketplace. All those shoots cost money and once they find that the return is declining they'll be less inclined to invest in them. The next 5 years should see a good shakeout of contributors who decide their money and time are better spent elsewhere.

We sure dont know what till happen next, but I think it useful to gather enough data to try to anticipate what will happen next. Particularly, if youre going to spend time and money betting that someone will want to buy what you produce. More and more the early adopters seem to be the winners. If you wait until a strategy is proven, it probably no longer makes sense to invest in it. I try to give my readers the data and insight they need to anticipate the next new thing.

91
I charge $.25 a read for using my statistics to write articles that make you money.

Where do I go to read these useful statistics. I'll be happy to pay $.25.

As one of the top 198 iStock shooters, I assumed you already used them.  (That's $.25 an article read though.  I'll need a audited list of article accesses please :) )

I use istockcharts.multimedia.de and, of course, your portfolio information on iStock. If you publish other statistics, I would sure be interested in reading them and would be happy to get them for $.25 ;)

One thing I have trouble figuring out is why photographers think anyone should pay anything for photos -- even iStock prices -- if all information has to be free. Granted, if the information is worthless then you certainly don't want to pay for it. But, if it saves you some time and research maybe it is worth something??? :)

92
Microstock News / Re: Microstock has reached a plateau...
« on: July 12, 2010, 15:48 »
Quote
A combined total of 567,324 images on the iStock site belong to these 198 individuals and they represent about 5.2% of iStocks total collection.

567,324 is not 5.2% of 7m.

Quote
in the past 14 months approximately 29% of all the downloads iStock has made were of images belonging to these 198 individuals

If the total number of downloads could be calculated from public data then that would be the number to puzzle over.
[/quote]

You're absolutely right. 567,324 is about 8% of 7.1 million. I made a mistake in my calculations.

As to calculating from public data, I can be done -- at least to get a ballpark -- but it is a little harder if you tried to start today than if you started before June 2009. In May 2009 I started recording the total downloads for my 198 photographers at the beginning of each month. At that time the actual number of downloads was listed on the photographer's page on iStock and on istockcharts.multimedia.de. After June 2009 iStock changed the game and is only reporting ranges.

Anyway, now I have an actual beginning number and a range (>75,000 but <76,000) of the ending number. I can't tell the exact number, but when you're looking at people with more than 50,000 downloads even the range provides some interesting trend numbers.

93
I charge $.25 a read for using my statistics to write articles that make you money.

Where do I go to read these useful statistics. I'll be happy to pay $.25.

94
Hi SIFD:

I would suggest that you examine your needs very closely before you make the big decision to quit the job you hate. At $42,000 a year you are doing quite nicely with microstock (assuming your production expenses arent huge). But your total gross income is $64,000. How much of that do you need to live on? Can you live on $42,000, or do you need all the $64,000?

I would also look at how sales have been in the last year. Are they steadily rising, or are they leveling out? How many images have you added in the past year? Where RPI can be helpful is to compare what is was a year ago with what it is today. That will give you some idea of how many images you need to add to your collection just to stay even. With all the images that are being added to all the sites the odds of making sales are declining.

I just completed an analysis of sales of 198 of the top iStock shooters and the indications are that units downloaded have not been growing over the last year. A lot of these top people have seen some serious declines in the numbers of images they have been licensing through iStock. Revenue, may still be growing for all of them due to price increases, but how long will they be able to continue to raise prices. You can see details for each of the 198 contributors by going to http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2230. (Full disclosure: it will cost you a couple dollars to read this story, so if you are only interested in free information dont bother going to the site.)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors