Author Topic: Dear stock agencies, time for you to take control (Read 15632 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** August 21, 2014, 11:09 »

It's fine to suggest that we just stop contributing to sites that don't pay enough. I've definitely done that. It's also fine to suggest that we instead contribute to sites that do pay something reasonable. Done that too.

And there it sits. I get a tiny trickle of money for my photos, and I don't do any new ones. The sites that pay fairly make hardly any sales. From my perspective, microstock is dead.

If you're happy with the way things are, that's fine. Presumably whatever you shoot either sells so well, or costs so little to produce, that the current business model works for you.

But the topic of this thread is: what would have to happen for things to really change, such that the rest of us would want to get involved again?

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** August 21, 2014, 11:25 »

Quote from: Audi 5000 on August 21, 2014, 10:51

Quote from: ShadySue on August 21, 2014, 10:50
Quote from: Audi 5000 on August 21, 2014, 10:43
The problem isn't the stock agencies. It's contributors uploading premium images to sites that license them for next to nothing. The only way a change happens is if it is lead by contributors.
The trouble is no control.
iS had a system whereby you could nominate files to S+. I chose to nominate some images which at the time were unique or rare not just on iS but on other agencies too. But iS demoted some, randomly, even which had sales at S+, while retaining others with 0 sales.
Certainly, little point in producing low-supply, low demand images now, when we can't promote and risk enormous undercutting by indies.

Same on other sites - you can't 'protect' files on SS from being sold as subs, and on Alamy it all depends on the buyer's negotiated discount, nothing to do with the file.
If you don't like what a site is doing with your images, don't contribute there. Simple.

Indeed. I've all but stopped submitting to iS.

Ava Glass · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2014, 18:03 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 21, 2014, 09:07

Yes, I agree. But that doesn't answer the question of who decides the pricing and how to determine which images should be priced higher. If we leave it up to the contributors themselves it will be chaos.

When pixels.com started licensing, a photographer priced her photo of the moon for $30,000. Heh.

Amazon prevented this with self-published authors by offering its sweet 70% cut only to books priced between $2.99-$9.99. Outside that range, authors only get 35%. It gives authors a big incentive to stay within a certain range, yet gives them plenty of room to fiddle with their prices and find a book's "sweet spot."

And authors talk to each other about pricing. Norms have been established.

So it's not impossible to have a large picture site with varied image pricing. Contributors just need guidelines.

ETA: now Amazon has introduced Kindle Unlimited. Subs. So far the return to authors has been about $1.60-$2.00 per borrow. It's still new, but from what I've seen authors are putting in short books, old books, loss-leaders, etc. Not too many are opting-in a new 100,000-word novel because they can charge $3.99 and up and get more.

ETA2: I forgot to mention that Amazon is now beta-testing an algorithm that suggests a price based on different factors and sales data. I wish Amazon got into image licensing.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #28 on:** August 22, 2014, 21:02 »

I think that covers it. FBN = fly by night, take the money and scram. Milk the cow dry and sell it for stew meat.

On the other hand:

Buyers will pay a premium for better and high quality content. What we have now is marketing at the lowest level and the people who work hard and produce the best quality are being shorted.

How do we know premium? 1) larger size 2) professional lighting and models 3) Well thought out concepts and content 4) Careful editing and the obvious one 5) You'll know it when you see it!

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2014, 15:40

Completely agree, they have slit their own throats. I think the suits are in it for the short term. They will milk it for all it is worth and take the money and run.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2014, 04:24 »

I think there's a bit of talking at cross purposes in this thread. Most seem to agree what the problem is, but are some people saying "well just stop uploading to agencies that have a model you don't like" as if this is somehow arguing against the purpose of the thread.

My point is this is exactly what is already happening, creatives stopping upload to the micros or uploading inferior content in volume, more so than before. The discussion is where do we go from here. If any of the agencies wanted to reverse this trend what could they do.

It's not necessarily bad for us, a lot of us are moving on to other outlets outside micro. My point is it would be a win win if we had more decent outlets for our work by some of the agencies changing their model to a more sustainable one for us, before they lose our best work.

stockastic · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2014, 21:03 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 23, 2014, 04:24

My point is it would be a win win if we had more decent outlets for our work by some of the agencies changing their model to a more sustainable one for us, before they lose our best work.

They've already lost my best work - because it's in the future.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2014, 23:03 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 23, 2014, 21:03

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 23, 2014, 04:24
My point is it would be a win win if we had more decent outlets for our work by some of the agencies changing their model to a more sustainable one for us, before they lose our best work.

They've already lost my best work - because it's in the future.

+1
I hear this more and more. Skilled people who won't make any more pictures for micro. Some day maybe they will notice?

Hobostocker · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2014, 13:23 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 21, 2014, 11:09

From my perspective, microstock is dead.

of course, the idea was to sell the images for a pittance but many times.
this is not happening anymore because of oversupply.

but hey, oversupply will decrease sales also in RM agencies if that matters, it's the business model that is de facto unsustainable, it's math !

the only solution is to stop oversupply for instance setting a limit of xxx million images on sales and automatically removing the low-sellers.

you can see the same on web pages and also in music and many other industries.
the only way to stay afloat is to "feeding the beast" continously but for photos this can work with huge volumes, it's not working in many many niches.

in short, stock (micro or not) is not for everybody.

the micro agencies managed to cover this obvious truth because of the slow migration of buyers from RM to micro RF but it was obvious that it could not last forever.

even agencies like alamy have just way too many images on sale and unless you've tens of thousand images you can't expect decent steady results and of course it will get worse over time.

unfortunately, agencies have no reason to stop the oversupply, actually they see it as their main selling point !

having a constant fresh supply of new content is what all agencies are about nowadays, if we leave in droves they don't care, Yuri left for Getty and the industry hasn't given a sh-it, we're all worthless as long as new chumps keep joining every day.

it's a rigged game and they're fully aware of this, as they're aware that the entire industry could pretty much disappear soon because of whatever new ground breaking technology.

again this is not just about micro or stock, it's exactly the same sh-it for anyone selling digital products, people selling ebooks for instance cannot even dream about making a steady income with their books, they know it's a just a hobby from the start unless they hit the jack pot with a best seller !

we're in such a better position in my opinion, we're having it bad but it could be a lot worse.
and you know why, because ultimately it takes a wide range of skills to produce a big portfolio, it's laughable that so many here are scared by the snapshots on Flickr or whatever, yes they will steal a few sales but if your port if big enough you'll compensate for it, it's always a numbers game.

Tror · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2014, 13:56 »

There are so many great posts in this thread! Looks like many people here are finally growing up

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 24, 2014, 13:23

unfortunately, agencies have no reason to stop the oversupply, actually they see it as their main selling point !

Yes and no. They still think they do not have any reason. But quality and variety will decrease as fast as our revenue. As many of my long term friends (or people I`m in contact with), I already totally stopped uploading any sort of niche material to Microstock. The Agencies just see pure numbers, but this is what will doom them on the long run.

They would have all the power to stimulate new investments through prices, collecetions, workshops, community, etc. and secure revenue for those who are a bit more creative by e.g. rejecting all the low quality duplicates and waaaayyytoosimilars to that successful shot of the original guy. (don`t get me wrong, I`m ok with replicating concepts. But their quality should be better or at least ok and it should be not a 100% copy like nowadays).

I guess 50% of nowadays databases are just duplicates from another "me too!!!" guy nobody really needs and which are just cannibalizing the originals with their handful of sales. This is the perfect strategy if you want to kill off a) creativity b) originality c) put yourself as an agency in the position of having to face rough competition
d) if you as an agency do not want to have any unique selling point and just want to grab money today no matter what happens tomorrow.

Through oversupply they doom themselves to fail on the long run IMHO.

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 24, 2014, 13:23

having a constant fresh supply of new content is what all agencies are about nowadays, if we leave in droves they don't care, Yuri left for Getty and the industry hasn't given a sh-it, we're all worthless as long as new chumps keep joining every day.

I do not give a s**t if a company goes bankrupt if I leave or if they do not even notice it or if they do not give a s**t. My content is my content. I decide which is worth to distribute it. The first step is that we have to learn to value ourselves first. I do not care what happens afterwards. Honor and pride are words which are looked at as old fashioned but are used way to rare nowadays IMHO. The problem are the sheeps who have no respect for themselves and others and continue to upload to shady companies like IS or DP...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2014, 14:48 »

prior to any sale , be it rental property, stock agency, anything...
you will see the artificiality/superficiality/window-dressing . it's to give potential buyers, shareholders,etc.. the impression it is doing better than ever
- in this case, as mentioned by our colleagues here, approval of apples and pretty woman,etc..
lots of fillings all flash no substance stuff, in order to inflat the bottom line.

they don't care about the specifics, so long as the numbers impress.
no one is going to ask how many of these come from long-time contributors or top-selling contributors,
or contributors who made the agency what they are. notice the same thing happened to IS
when they let go of their exclusive superman,etc.. ie. everyone is expendable.

that's what business does. like the takeover corporations who replaced highly-paid middle management
and placed minimum-waged wet behind the ears assistant/interns in their place, to report a
remarkable profit.
last year .

stockastic · « **Reply #35 on:** August 24, 2014, 14:52 »

Hobostocker, your analysis assumes that photos are a commodity - like paper clips - and are all of equal value. That's not true, some images are obviously much more valuable than others. The problem as I see it is one-size-fits-all pricing, which inevitably becomes lowest-common-denominator pricing, and sinks to the level of the very large number of images having the lowest value.

Next time you see an "Everything's $1" store in a strip mall, go in and look around. You will not find many actual bargains in those stores today. Most of the products on their shelves are produced to sell at that price.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #36 on:** August 24, 2014, 14:53 »

Quote from: Tror on August 24, 2014, 13:56

The problem are the sheeps who have no respect for themselves and others and continue to upload to shady companies like IS or DP...

no , not sheep, ... lemmings
and pls don't forget to include SS too ...lately with their (quote) shenanigans (unquote) ... remarkably a new class act

Tror · « **Reply #37 on:** August 24, 2014, 17:46 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2014, 14:53

Quote from: Tror on August 24, 2014, 13:56
The problem are the sheeps who have no respect for themselves and others and continue to upload to shady companies like IS or DP...

no , not sheep, ... lemmings

Hehe, true... lemmings fits much better

Favete · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2014, 03:19 »

In general idea is good, but I don’t see it working in a real world. Because if agencies give contributors right to decide by themselves on where to put images, it will result in «premium category» looking not so premium after all. Because everyone has it’s own feeling of what is great and I think you know that now everyone is honest to themself in detecting it.

raclro · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2014, 14:41 »

It seems to me that iStock did exactly as the OP is suggesting. They created Vetta which was a much higher priced/ higher quality offering to buyers looking for just that. They have also used Signature and Signature +. I am not privy to sales/revenue figures from higher priced categories but suspect most buyers are NOT looking for or buying professional studio/model/quality lighting shots but "snapshot" type files. If buyers are wanting "crap" we better be providing it or suffer. Microstock is not an outlet for artistic creative efforts unless they sell. I have said it before, if Ansel Adams had all his work on microstock, he would be earning about $200 per month. I look at all kinds of print and web stock photography and they are mostly what many of us consider lower end.

goober · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2014, 18:18 »

Justanotherphotographer - I totally agree with your initial post. After nearly a decade full-time stock contributing I'm leaving the industry. I haven't uploaded for a few weeks. I said I was done. Unless something changes, I'm done.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2014, 18:31 »

Quote from: raclro on August 25, 2014, 14:41

if Ansel Adams had all his work on microstock, he would be earning about $200 per month.

heavens, mentioning Ansel Adams and ms in the same sentence

that's like the late great Luciano Pavarotti singing at the street corner for small change.
sacrilege

EmberMike · « **Reply #42 on:** August 25, 2014, 18:42 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19

...But this trend is very real, creatives that had been producing for micros are actively searching for other outlets for their best content...

And those outlets now exist. More of them are popping up, and we have more options to distribute our work with companies that that can pay well and generate sales volume. I get multiple sales daily at places like Creative Market, which is currently my #3 earner and rapidly approaching #2.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19

...The ripples have started. Some of you have to show initiative and take control now, before it is too late...

So why should I care enough about these other companies to try persuading them to offer something similar? I don't care if they take control of anything. I'm doing well enough elsewhere. They can continue on doing what they're doing and paying us our 30% or whatever. Or they can come up with some other product that pays a little more, but even then what's the best I can expect... 40% or 50% on prices that I have no control over and are generally unfavorable to artists already? I'm still not impressed.

So no thanks, I don't care if these companies "take control" and try to nudge their way into this higher-end market. They don't deserve my concern, nor do they deserve a piece of what these smaller yet far more innovative companies are doing. They made their choices years ago and I think they should get to live with those choices. It's time for some new thinking in the stock business and I'd much rather see it come from new companies.

For the old ones, I hope it is too late already.

gbalex · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2014, 09:17 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 25, 2014, 18:42

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19
...But this trend is very real, creatives that had been producing for micros are actively searching for other outlets for their best content...

And those outlets now exist. More of them are popping up, and we have more options to distribute our work with companies that that can pay well and generate sales volume. I get multiple sales daily at places like Creative Market, which is currently my #3 earner and rapidly approaching #2.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 20, 2014, 03:19
...The ripples have started. Some of you have to show initiative and take control now, before it is too late...

So why should I care enough about these other companies to try persuading them to offer something similar? I don't care if they take control of anything. I'm doing well enough elsewhere. They can continue on doing what they're doing and paying us our 30% or whatever. Or they can come up with some other product that pays a little more, but even then what's the best I can expect... 40% or 50% on prices that I have no control over and are generally unfavorable to artists already? I'm still not impressed.

So no thanks, I don't care if these companies "take control" and try to nudge their way into this higher-end market. They don't deserve my concern, nor do they deserve a piece of what these smaller yet far more innovative companies are doing. They made their choices years ago and I think they should get to live with those choices. It's time for some new thinking in the stock business and I'd much rather see it come from new companies.

For the old ones, I hope it is too late already.

Completely agree

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2014, 09:56 »

Tiered pricing to de-commodify professionally shot work is the next big challenge for micro stock and the only way it will work is with an exclusive programme. iS blew its chance to control the market, the only other agency in that position is SS.

My guess is SS will keep pilling the pressure on iS until most of its exclusives throw in the towel, then they might surprise us all with their own exclusive programme.

Its lucrative for sure, when iS first introduced Vetta my money nearly tripled over night.

Photominer · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:04 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 09:56

Tiered pricing to de-commodify professionally shot work is the next big challenge for micro stock and the only way it will work is with an exclusive programme. iS blew its chance to control the market, the only other agency in that position is SS.

My guess is SS will keep pilling the pressure on iS until most of its exclusives throw in the towel, then they might surprise us all with their own exclusive programme.

Its lucrative for sure, when iS first introduced Vetta my money nearly tripled over night.

I'd love to see it (exclusive at SS) but only by an image by image kind of things. They could do it easily by allowing the option to submit HCV images to Offset, and if they don't pass, then go into SS.

gbalex · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2014, 10:52 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 09:56

Tiered pricing to de-commodify professionally shot work is the next big challenge for micro stock and the only way it will work is with an exclusive programme. iS blew its chance to control the market, the only other agency in that position is SS.

My guess is SS will keep pilling the pressure on iS until most of its exclusives throw in the towel, then they might surprise us all with their own exclusive programme.

Its lucrative for sure, when iS first introduced Vetta my money nearly tripled over night.

IS exclusives would be wise to observe how shutterstock has treated the contributors who made it possible for them to be successful in the first place.

I will never put my exclusive material with shutterstock. They have shown their true colors in the way they treat contributors who have been loyal to the business long term.

They will milk IS exclusives as long as they are useful and after that expect a huge push for new contributors via skillfeed.

Paying out .25 cents over .38 for shutterstock, amounts to a 35% increase in earnings for each sub file sold. Talk to a large number of shutterstocks long term contributors. By taking note in the changes in their bottom line, it is not difficult to see that shutterstock values money over the welfare of it's contributors.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2014, 13:21 »

I don't buy the conspiracy theories.

The amount of high standard work being ingested has increased, many ex iS exclusives dumping years of work into SS, contributors improving their skills, macro shooters dumping their work in there, pro shooters from outside taking a punt. Lots of high quality ports floating around looking for a place to earn income.

I've hit the top tier at SS and the downloads are remarkably stable, I haven't noticed any penalisation in the search results. Income fluctuates depending on whether subs or image packs are being used.

Like I say, if they increase the RPD everyone will be much better off. If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS.

SS need to evolve into a more mature agency if they want to be around in 10 years time. If they don't you can guarantee Getty will start a price war with them.

EmberMike · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2014, 13:54 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 13:21

...If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS...

I'm not sure I can ask this without it coming across as snarky, but... if it worked so well at iStock then why aren't you still exclusive there?

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 13:21

...SS need to evolve into a more mature agency if they want to be around in 10 years time. If they don't you can guarantee Getty will start a price war with them.

I think Offset is Shutterstock's more mature "agency" (collection).

I can't see what sort of price war Getty could bring to Shutterstock's doorstep. Shutterstock is already cheaper than iStock. What can Getty do? Match SS prices? Not sure that will do much damage.

The only price war I see happening is Fotolia/DPC vs. everyone else.

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2014, 14:16 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 27, 2014, 13:54

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on August 27, 2014, 13:21
...If they do it with an exclusive program then fine by me, I've seen it work very well over at iS...
I'm not sure I can ask this without it coming across as snarky, but... if it worked so well at iStock then why aren't you still exclusive there?

He said "I have seen", not "I see".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dear stock agencies, time for you to take control (Read 15632 times)

stockastic

ShadySue

Ava Glass

Uncle Pete

Justanotherphotographer

stockastic

PixelBytes

Hobostocker

Tror

etudiante_rapide

stockastic

etudiante_rapide

Tror

Favete

raclro

goober

etudiante_rapide

EmberMike

gbalex

stock-will-eat-itself

Photominer

gbalex

stock-will-eat-itself

EmberMike

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors