Steve-O

I'm reading the responses and trying to find a reason to join, but I see no realistic incentive to play the game. Please tell me (us) what we're missing. What makes this deal "good" because no one (self included) is getting the pitch. Historically you've been a voice of reason on the site, please enlighten us as to what we're overlooking. It has the feel of someone I don't know offering me money to take my 18 year old sister on a date (creepy).

Please chime in my brother.

AAA

Leaf,

You say it's risky, but in what sense?

If a buyer gets that image from one site, unless he gets it with exclusive rights (do sites do that without prior consultation to the photog?), can he complain if it is sold to someone else? 

Regards,
Adelaide

I am not 100% sure on this but I think offering RM images on two different sites is a bit of a risky thing....Basically if an image is listed at RM on a site - it should be exclusive.

I answered this in the other thread where it was referenced, but Alamy's Licensed model (which is what I use) does not require exclusivity - they ask you if someone wants to buy exclusive rights.

@paddy_ji  You explain why DG wants exclusive rights, and how we might be confused about what exclusive means. However, I don't think this addresses the concerns many of us have expressed.

From the contributor's point of view it's all the same - we cannot sell the image anywhere else for 2 years. That only becomes attractive if the returns from that 2 year commitment are great. Saying that 200 distributors will have the image means very little (there are a number of internet stock sites many of us have sold through that don't actually generate many sales).

I realize companies don't want to divulge private sales figures, but you're asking us to just sign up for a 2 year exclusive commitment with zero data on what might be in it for us. If you drop the exclusivity requirement, I'll bet many more people would be willing to give it a try to see what sort of sales it generates...

There is no intent to delude or misreprensent this opportunity. We have communicated and clarified the DG opportunity in a very public forum and clarified what we are offering. As I mentioned in the earlier post, this opportunity is about exposure and getting in the door. Not for everyone but for some, it is worth the effort.

StockXpert has one of the best royalty rates of all the micropayments at 50%. We are proud of that and have no intentions to change.  Not every opportunity is going to be the same.  The idea is to give you options to pick and choose what you want to participate in.

In response to jsnover and her feedback about..."saying that 200 distributors will have the image means very little (there are a number of internet stock sites many of us have sold through that don't actually generate many sales).

The internet stock sites that are not currently working for you may not be the same ones that we would be distributing through. We partner with image suppliers around the world who are able to promote our content and sell it.

What is it worth to you? According to industry pundits, the average return per image in microstock ranges from $3/image to $5/image. Check out one article here: newbielink:http://rising.blackstar.com/will-adding-more-photos-bring-getty-more-sales-3.html [nonactive]

In traditional RF channels, the return per image is significantly higher as noted in this article.

Fuel for thought.

Paddy, in this article it says the average photographer is making less than $2/image/year on iStockphoto. This is a very low number and I guess for most who might be interested in the Jupiter deal and  who Jupiter wishes that they join, make considerably more.
 I would be really interested what the average of Jupiter is. Would it be possible to post this?

Or lets assume a "very good"microstocker makes $30 / image a year on microstock. Would this microstocker make more per year at Jupiter? Or what about those who make $50 a year/image at microstock?
 
This article also says Getty is giving 30%. What is in for us, that Jupiter only gives 15% commission? More marketing more sales? I am just curious, because apart from the 15% I really like the move of Jupiter. Great work there!

Forgive us our questioning an doubt about the 15% being a good deal, but for 2 years these images will be locked to Jupiter. Depending on the photographer and images a good image can earn a few hundred $ a year at microstock. Of course everywhere is risk involved I understand that, but a little more numbers would be helpful in this decision.

Thanks!

My view:

The 'old school' style of image distribution is in decline.  That decline appears to be accelerating.  Recent announcements from Getty and Jupiter confirm the decline.

The 'new school' of microstock and on-line delivery is growing rapidly and will continue to grow.

Prices for 'old school' delivery are falling.  Prices for microstock are rising.

The print industry (the traditional buyer of RM and exclusive images) is in long term decline.  It is being replaced by on-line content and other electronic media.  Such media needs a regular change of content to keep users interested and active.  Hence demand for images for short term use will grow and demand for long term use will decline.

The 'old school' agencies need to invest heavily in developing their microstock and on-line offerings.  The market is dominated by iStock who sell 16 million images a year (and growing).  Even at an average of just $5 a shot, that's turnover of nearly $100 million per annum.  And if statistics are correct, only 8% of the image market is presently served by microstock.  That gives scope to increase turnover to somewhere between $300 and $500 million in the years ahead.

There are only about 2,000 serious microstock photographers worldwide (by serious I mean photographers producing excellent content and achieving buoyant sales).  As usual, 80% of the income will be earned by 20% of the players (or less).

There is a serious shortage of top class microstock talent.

80% of 'old school' photographers will fail in the microstock market - they cannot produce the quality and imagination needed to compete in the competitive and aggressive microstock market, and have been too reliant on getting business because 'they are a member of the club'.

Jupiter already recognises these problems, which is why it has diversified heavily into music sales, and why it launched StockXpert.

If I was an executive at Jupiter I would ask myself some simple questions: should I throw money at trying to sustain a business model that has been outgrown by advances in technology?  Should I try to sustain that business by reducing prices, cutting photographer commissions and cutting staff and overheads (which Jupiter is already doing, along with Getty)?  Or would it be better to invest to grow that part of the business which is exposed to and well placed in a rapidly growing market?

Anyone with any sense knows the answers to these questions.

My advice to you, Paddy, is to invest to grow StockXpert; StockXpert is already widely respected and gains good comment from some of the microstock industry's most important photographers (andresr's recent comments on the StockXpert forums, for example).  There is a potentially huge market out there of which StockXpert could gain a large slice.  Take whatever action is needed to grow and become even more successful, and you'll find that the microstock photographers will support you.

is it me or is there an irony here that the micros have long been critisiced for 'ripping off' the photographers compared to the traditional agencies, in particular, Istock's 20%, now a traditional agency offers 15% for exclusive, half of what istock pays a good stockist for exclusivity?

This was my first thought, and there are traditional stock photographers who will not be happy about this development. Even if this is an offer to a limited group of contributors, it reflects an attitude, and news spread very fast these days.

anyone sign up to this offer?

I got in contact with them in the beginning of october and exchanged a few e-mails. I am ready to upload a few sample images, but their ftp-adress was not working for me. So in the end of november I contacted them again and asking if they can help with it and since then I never heard something again from them. Very very slow process (However I must admit I was not the fastest too.) So now its three month and they have not even looked at my sample images I want to send them. So this images, but only a very few, are just sitting on my harddisc and I am beginning to consider to cancel that with Jupiter Images and put them on Alamy or Microstock if they do not answer soon. Right now its lost money, they could have earned me in the last 3 month.

I send them an email long time ago (2 months), no response. I'll not fight for 15% commision...