Author Topic: Dear stock agencies, time for you to take control (Read 15639 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **on:** August 20, 2014, 03:19 »

Dear stock agencies,

You may not realize it yet, but there has been a seismic shift in the stock industry in the last six months or so. FL's DPC has been a road to Damascus moment for many of us.

As much as many of us hate to admit it, Yuri was right when he spotted the turning point months ago. We can argue about his response, but the underlying issues he identified and tried to bring to your attention were there.

Since its humble start microstock photography has attracted more and more professionals creating better and better images, often with very high production costs in terms of time or financial investment. Some of these filling quite specific niches. These high value images coexist side by side with less professional snap shot images in the libraries, which none the less also have a market.

Up to a point the massive increase in customers offered by micro-pricing offset the high cost of producing these images, but now as the size of libraries has caught up with the demand the return is not there for producing this content.

The result is that you are losing your high quality content. This isn't obvious yet. Many of us reacted initially by trying to produce a higher volume of work for you, sacrificing variety and quality for numbers. But this trend is very real, creatives that had been producing for micros are actively searching for other outlets for their best content. The ripples have started. Some of you have to show initiative and take control now, before it is too late.

My suggestion (for what it is worth) is to have a simple two tier model. One price for most content, one for premium. Let the contributor opt in a certain percentage of their portfolio, perhaps up to thirty percent in a similar way to 123RFs Faved selection. We can decide in which tier the work will make the best return for us and for you. High quality but very generic work can be priced lower to maximise our downloads, high quality niche work priced higher to counter lower download numbers. You want to offer subs? Then brand the two sides differently, sell subs from the lower priced site and upsell to the sister site.

I know the opinion of one anonymous small time contributor doesn't amount to much, in fact the opinion of the worlds best selling contributors didn't amount to much either, but for me the writings on the wall, make use of it while you still can.

heywoody · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2014, 14:02 »

How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

Valo · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2014, 14:14 »

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02

How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

You said it better than I could

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2014, 15:00 »

Indeed something's gotta give.
I've completely stopped spending any money on shoots and just working through my back catalogue. I know many other photographers doing the same.
Agencies are in denial about sustaining new quality work, something's gotta give.
Thank god for clients!

Cesar · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2014, 15:36 »

first we have to stop uploading to DP, 123rf, dpc. Warn istock to stop shity practises. We need to block bad agencies. it is our work. first we must respect ourself.

why we did not set date d day for DP?

gbalex · « **Reply #5 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.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2014, 16:08 »

Quote from: Valo on August 20, 2014, 14:14

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02
How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).
You said it better than I could

i think that applies to most things in life, really. like fast food outsells your cordon bleu restaurants, garbage reading outsells good books, lady gaga outsells ella fitzgerald,etc..
what did someone say a long time ago re the same problem... something about the mass appeal of mediocrity to the proliterian majority. paul simon and sting said the same thing quoting this guy in the 60 s or something.
maybe someone here can help me with that.

and today , nothing's changed. wooly booly outsold round midnight ... crap sells.

Ava Glass · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2014, 17:09 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 20, 2014, 16:08

i think that applies to most things in life, really. like fast food outsells your cordon bleu restaurants, garbage reading outsells good books, lady gaga outsells ella fitzgerald,etc..

Yup. "Premium" images should be a lower-volume, higher-price business model with a defined market. "But what about rights-managed," you ask? There are lots of price points between $10 and $600+. Plus, rights-manged sites aren't very accessible to markets like self-publishing.

Last weekend, I posted a link to a photographer's port on Solid Stock Art on a popular self-publishing forum. You can see the very positive reaction here:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,192510.msg2713108.html

The images are perfect for book covers. Solid Stock Art doesn't do subs or credit packs, but these authors didn't seem to care. The price point of around $40 seemed just fine because the images are very useful.

I know some of you have issues with Solid Stock Art because of the EL thing. My point still stands. If it was Pond5 instead of Solid Stock Art, the result would have been the same. There should be certain types of images for the sub sites, and certain types of images for other sites.

FYI: book covers don't need ELs, just SLs.

cthoman · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2014, 18:35 »

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02

How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

I'd define premium as anything or anyone that can sell at premium prices.

roede-orm · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2014, 18:52 »

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

Dear stock agencies,
You may not realize it yet, but there has been a seismic shift in the stock industry in the last six months or so. FL's DPC has been a road to Damascus moment for many of us.
...

I would say, the agencies did realize the changes faster than most contributors

Hobostocker · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2014, 02:32 »

we told you so !

and by the way, the agency's role is to provide buyers and making sales.
if they don't make sales they cease to provide their only reason to exist as far as we're concerned.

oversaturation and oversupply should NOT be our problem, it's the agencies the ones who should be concerned and who should find a solution.

either that, or the suppliers will go bankrupt, it's not a matter of IF but of WHEN.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2014, 03:38 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 20, 2014, 18:35

Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02
How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

I'd define premium as anything or anyone that can sell at premium prices.

Precisely how I would describe it. High quality high volume selling content we could struggle to price as premium as there is such a big supply, we may make more pricing it lower to maximize sales. High quality more niche content would do better as premium. A less well shot image of a very rare bird may do better being priced as premium. Let us do the experimenting, we can micro analyse the market far better than the people running the agencies from the top down.

A while ago I had to source some images of engineers working on specific type of rail track, I ended up having to pay hundreds of pounds for some terrible grainy snap shots from a niche site because the content had to be right. Premium in my example refers to the pricing rather than the quality.

My point is that one solution to the un-sustainability of the current model for content providers is to let us make the decisions, which I think would be a win win. Two flat simple prices, or only one price for each site ("premium site" and "standard site")

The solution is just a suggestion, the underlying problem I would say is a fact. Maybe the an agency can come up with a different solution that makes this business sustainable for us. At the moment they are losing control of their content stream. To be in this long term they have to step up and take positive action.

I disagree that they spotted this first, we are still at the stage where only we down in the trenches have felt the vibrations. As far as they're concerned they are still seeing huge volumes of content uploaded, they haven't realized it's an act of desperation by many of us to pump out as much stuff as possible in the short term.

Have a conversation with some of the producers who are aware of DPC but have left their work in there. Most of them will tell you it is because they have thrown in the towel on micro altogether and it is part of an exit strategy.

Tror · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2014, 04:29 »

Very well said. You speak out what I observe since a little more than one year. Nothing left to say than that I fully agree and I could not have said it better. For me personally it is even painful to watch how little some of the microstock agencies understand their own business and how blindly they move towards that hard wall.

Personally, I continue to produce high value shoots. I just do not upload them anymore on the typical subscription/micro sites. The content goes to other sites :-) And no, this is not ill will, this is the strategy which secures my revenue. Simple business. I even would have preferred to stick with the micros, they just left me no other choice due to lack of incentive (in terms of revenue as well as sustainability).

robhainer · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2014, 05:16 »

Shutterstock, the top site, has already done what you're asking for. It sells subs on the main site and higher priced niche content on Offset. This has even led to the occasional big sale for contributors on the main site when buyers can't find what they need on Offset.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2014, 06:17 »

Do you think that every one of “us” will make the right decisions for separating our work into “one price for most, one for premium”? The sites have tens of thousands of contributors, all with different views of their own work. Buyers will still search for the image, not the price. I’m not sure this is a good idea, some agencies have tried this and it makes buying images confusing.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2014, 08:31 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on August 21, 2014, 06:17

some agencies have tried this and it makes buying images confusing.

because buyers have the arrogance to expect any kind of image to cost the same while we all know that this is not the case at all.

i don't see the same prices for apps and games on smartphones, nor in the other desktop softwares, nor in clothes, food, drinks, burgers, whatever ...

but for whatever reason stock images have to be all priced for a pittance and this has no connection with the reality of our job, it has been tolerated so far because of course it's easy for the buyers and less confusing, but two wrongs dont make a right.

if buyers think buying images is too cumbersome, well then what about hiring somebody on assignment, signing a contract, meeting him face to face, etc ? how's that any easier and cheaper ?

we already provide the absolute cheapest way to get the product they need in real time and with the least effort and yet they keep complaining and treating us like dogs, how long is this sustainable ?

find me another industry where the ROI is so bad and where there's a de facto monopoly and where the buyers are so entitled and full of sh-it.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #16 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. That might work on sites with fewer images but we are talking millions of images. The word "premium" was mentioned but everyone has a different definition of what that means. Raising the price on an image because it sells a lot doesn't work. If those images are everywhere are they worth more, or worth less because they are not unique?

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2014, 09:28 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 21, 2014, 08:31

because buyers have the arrogance to expect any kind of image to cost the same while we all know that this is not the case at all.

i don't see the same prices for apps and games on smartphones, nor in the other desktop softwares, nor in clothes, food, drinks, burgers, whatever ...

but for whatever reason stock images have to be all priced for a pittance.....
............................
treating us like dogs, how long is this sustainable ?

find me another industry where the ROI is so bad and where there's a de facto monopoly and where the buyers are so entitled and full of sh-it.

+1
awhile back, way back someone here used the word, "bend over" . ie. agency keep thinking of pleasing "our clients" and expecting the contributors to bend over, and then shove something up our
u know where.

yes, only in ms does the bend over continued until today there is the whole business is full of sh*t, as u say so profoundly.
until what happens? (see other thread Designer slamming showtime... for exposure or whatever) .[/b]

JPSDK · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2014, 09:33 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 21, 2014, 03:38

Quote from: cthoman on August 20, 2014, 18:35
Quote from: heywoody on August 20, 2014, 14:02
How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).

I'd define premium as anything or anyone that can sell at premium prices.

Precisely how I would describe it. High quality high volume selling content we could struggle to price as premium as there is such a big supply, we may make more pricing it lower to maximize sales. High quality more niche content would do better as premium. A less well shot image of a very rare bird may do better being priced as premium. Let us do the experimenting, we can micro analyse the market far better than the people running the agencies from the top down.

A while ago I had to source some images of engineers working on specific type of rail track, I ended up having to pay hundreds of pounds for some terrible grainy snap shots from a niche site because the content had to be right. Premium in my example refers to the pricing rather than the quality.

My point is that one solution to the un-sustainability of the current model for content providers is to let us make the decisions, which I think would be a win win. Two flat simple prices, or only one price for each site ("premium site" and "standard site")

The solution is just a suggestion, the underlying problem I would say is a fact. Maybe the an agency can come up with a different solution that makes this business sustainable for us. At the moment they are losing control of their content stream. To be in this long term they have to step up and take positive action.

I disagree that they spotted this first, we are still at the stage where only we down in the trenches have felt the vibrations. As far as they're concerned they are still seeing huge volumes of content uploaded, they haven't realized it's an act of desperation by many of us to pump out as much stuff as possible in the short term.

Have a conversation with some of the producers who are aware of DPC but have left their work in there. Most of them will tell you it is because they have thrown in the towel on micro altogether and it is part of an exit strategy.

We CAN take decisions. We can choose to not sell on all agencies but only on those few, where volume makes up for price. Thats what I have done.

robhainer · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:08 »

Agree. I don't understand. If you want to sell your images at a higher price point, then choose to submit to sites that sell them at a higher price point. What's the frustration about? It's your choice where you sell your images.

stockastic · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:11 »

The OP gave a good summary of the situation. This is exactly what the agencies have to do, if they want me to start contributing again. I'm not expecting it to happen.

Specifically, this is what Shutterstock has to do - they're now the biggest and will increasingly control the market. They need to give us some control over our pricing - at minimum, a premium tier with the decision up to the contributor, not the agency.

Until then, they'll never get another photo from me. And my photos are pretty good, and they sell.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:27 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 21, 2014, 10:11

The OP gave a good summary of the situation. This is exactly what the agencies have to do, if they want me to start contributing again. I'm not expecting it to happen.

Specifically, this is what Shutterstock has to do - they're now the biggest and will increasingly control the market. They need to give us some control over our pricing - at minimum, a premium tier with the decision up to the contributor, not the agency.

Until then, they'll never get another photo from me. And my photos are pretty good, and they sell.

stockastic, ... but SS did introduce a premium ie. Offset
except it also announced microstockers need not apply

tickstock · « **Reply #22 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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 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.

tickstock · « **Reply #24 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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dear stock agencies, time for you to take control (Read 15639 times)

Justanotherphotographer

heywoody

Valo

stock-will-eat-itself

Cesar

gbalex

etudiante_rapide

Ava Glass

cthoman

roede-orm

Hobostocker

Justanotherphotographer

Tror

robhainer

cuppacoffee

Hobostocker

cuppacoffee

etudiante_rapide

JPSDK

robhainer

stockastic

etudiante_rapide

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors