Author Topic: Imagebrief - is this a start of the shift? (Read 6253 times)

Petr Toman · « **on:** February 04, 2015, 09:13 »

‘Founder’ Premium Members – Earn 100% on everything. Starting now.
It’s time to stop screwing photographers.
Today, photographers are owned by the stock libraries; companies that house the creator’s work and sell it for peanuts.
.....
http://blog.imagebrief.com/founder-premium-members-earn-100-everything-starting-now/?utm_source=ImageBrief+Photographers&utm_campaign=18b96dea10-Founding_Member_Emails2_3_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dedd52bfcf-18b96dea10-98496681

I know that based on the feedback on the forum the sales are not big for contributors here. But it is a positive message. Could this be the start of the shift from $$ race to bottom?

cobalt · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2015, 09:26 »

I think we are just seeing the market forces at work. When the microstock agencies had 2 million images the global demand for cheap imagery was so unbelievably high that it was possible to invest, say 1200+ dollars in a shoot every week and make that back in 18 months or less and then enjoy everything else that came for a few years to come.

But now with around 40 million+ images and the endless copying from new people coming in, who of course first copy successful portfolios before they find their own niche, it is very hard to predict how long it will take to get your investment back.

So at this stage in the photo market smaller, exclusive collections where your files will not compete with millions of others, are becoming financially more interesting again and the customers are ready to pay more to save time. Basically they are paying for the quality of the editing.

With video the market is in a different stage, hardly any content (only 500 000 files with a model release on pond5), huge global demand. In a few years and when there are 30 million similar videos in the market I am sure it will again become more interesting to work with smaller,niche agencies and exclusive collections with good editing.

What is missing in the market overall is an attempt to crowdsource curation. You can see with pininterest how many people enjoy "collecting" images and creating galeries about all kinds subject matters, or trend themes etc...if this kind of curational talent could be brought to the micros this would help to subdivide the huge databases. And if there is a financial reward for the best curators, then you would slowly grow a group of superstar curators who know the collections really well and can throw together interesting mixed media galleries for any theme. Computers cannot replace people, even the best search systems cannot replace a human editor.

Until somebody figures out how to do that well and incorporate that into their stock agency, the market will fracture into many smaller collections with higher prices and a few superlarge stock houses that have hundreds of millions of files, but nobody can find anything easily.

So the next few years, smaller exclusive agencies will be very interesting until someone figures out how to handle an agency that gets 1 million new files from smartphones every week.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2015, 10:39 »

"($60 per month, minimum 3-month commitment) or annually ($499 a year – save 30%)."

Yeah, no thanks. I'd rather they make money when my content sells. Gives them an incentive to do work instead of just harvesting my cash.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:06 »

As people have said before, soon we'll be paying to give away our images for free.

Not that the whole world is crooked but if I have to pay $500 a year, so people can click and copy my photos. I think it's reaching that point.

I'm sure some people do well on Imagebrief, and others have tried it and left. I'd like to read what both views are, not just the "everything is wonderful" reports. Maybe some people who tried and left could add some balance of what returns I'd get for my $500? (or not get?)

Also how long does it take to make back the $500 and start making a profit? What type and styles of content sell there? From real people here, not from some agency hype.

Red Dove · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:15 »

I don't believe in paying for results before they've actually happened unless it involves medication or sex. So I've passed them up.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:26 »

Would that include paying in advance for expensive Single Malts which are medicinal and could lead to the other?

Quote from: Red Dove on February 04, 2015, 11:15

I don't believe in paying for results before they've actually happened unless it involves medication or sex. So I've passed them up.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:35 »

Sounds like pay us 60$ per month to get 100% of nothing. Maybe this one takes the cake?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2015, 12:13 »

This is reminiscent of some history of the gold rush era I heard on a trip to California a few years back - in general, the only people who got rich were those supplying the prospectors. The rush was fueled by dreams of huge returns (like those tales of big sales in the blog) which were not the typical experience.

I'm willing to pay FAA $30 a year because I make that back (typically) with one sale. The first year, I thought $30 was small enough that running a one year experiment made sense. $500? Not a prayer - at least not unless I heard tons of stories of people regularly making sales through that site.

Deyan Georgiev Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2015, 13:23 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 04, 2015, 09:26

I think we are just seeing the market forces at work. When the microstock agencies had 2 million images the global demand for cheap imagery was so unbelievably high that it was possible to invest, say 1200+ dollars in a shoot every week and make that back in 18 months or less and then enjoy everything else that came for a few years to come.

But now with around 40 million+ images and the endless copying from new people coming in, who of course first copy successful portfolios before they find their own niche, it is very hard to predict how long it will take to get your investment back.

So at this stage in the photo market smaller, exclusive collections where your files will not compete with millions of others, are becoming financially more interesting again and the customers are ready to pay more to save time. Basically they are paying for the quality of the editing.

With video the market is in a different stage, hardly any content (only 500 000 files with a model release on pond5), huge global demand. In a few years and when there are 30 million similar videos in the market I am sure it will again become more interesting to work with smaller,niche agencies and exclusive collections with good editing.

What is missing in the market overall is an attempt to crowdsource curation. You can see with pininterest how many people enjoy "collecting" images and creating galeries about all kinds subject matters, or trend themes etc...if this kind of curational talent could be brought to the micros this would help to subdivide the huge databases. And if there is a financial reward for the best curators, then you would slowly grow a group of superstar curators who know the collections really well and can throw together interesting mixed media galleries for any theme. Computers cannot replace people, even the best search systems cannot replace a human editor.

Until somebody figures out how to do that well and incorporate that into their stock agency, the market will fracture into many smaller collections with higher prices and a few superlarge stock houses that have hundreds of millions of files, but nobody can find anything easily.

So the next few years, smaller exclusive agencies will be very interesting until someone figures out how to handle an agency that gets 1 million new files from smartphones every week.

+1

lewis larkin · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2015, 20:14 »

I am very resistant to paying in advance for unknown sales...

So far I have been shortlisted a handful of times but no sales...

I will continue to submit where I can fulfill a brief, as it only costs my time so far.

I do get suspicious of the number of briefs that never complete, with some excuse like "client changed their mind" etc etc I sometimes wonder if some briefs are just trawling for free ideas... the vagueness of some briefs is also a concern - do Imagebrief not vet them?

Still - wait & see...

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2015, 20:38 »

If it actually produced good sales it could be worth the money. I'm more than willing to invest where there's good return

But I looked at their Live briefs and there are only a couple dozen. None of them fit what I shoot so I can't see it being a good investment for me. And a couple dozen seems like pretty low activity. Especially when there seems to be anywhere from dozens to hundreds of participants for each brief. Not sure what a good number is but I would think a couple hundred live briefs would be needed to support hundreds of participants.

And on top of that they're actively recruiting more participants. What are they doing to attract more buyers?

wordplanet · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2015, 02:00 »

I certainly hope it's a sign of a shift back toward more traditional stock photo pricing - though I think the market is fractured and that micro pricing is also here to stay. For clients with normal budgets, I imagine it's worth it to pay traditional stock photo prices and have the photographers do the "searching" for you - I get the feeling some people will even shoot a brief on spec hoping for the best so it's a real win for buyers and hopefully for this reason they will continue to grow.

I got shortlisted a couple of times but nothing came of it - there do seem to be a lot not completed so conceivably some "buyers" could be trolling for comp photos for mockups and to get ideas, but the just found something elsewhere too. They have some top clients and decent to very good prices for the briefs that do go through.

They are fairly new and I imagine it takes time to build up their clientele - I hope they stick around and grow since they are fair to photographers and I like the concept. It's a great deal for their clients and reasonable prices for photographers with a deep RM portfolio.

If I recall correctly, there was a fairly recent brouhaha there over their starting to accept briefs looking for RF photos rather than RM - or maybe I just read about it recently - in any case, a lot of people on there are traditional RM shooters and some were against ever submitting any work as RF - and their response was that clients were asking for it - so they seem to be trying to expand their client base. The big push for contributors to pay to play can be seen as worrying - are they undercapitalized? -or it may be just smart business on their part. Too early to tell.

I pop in occasionally and submit stuff when I have something. I know a few photographers who've had some good sales there which is how I heard about them.

If it got you a couple of decent licenses, you'd make your $500 back with 1-3 sales. I'm not jumping on the pay to play bandwagon, but it's really not that costly if they can deliver on sales.
Like all the newbies on the block, time will tell.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2015, 02:17 »

Pay to play, this has been done before, in a far more onerous way: Getty Images Photographers Choice - if my memory serves me right on the name of it... last time I looked into it, $50 PER IMAGE listed. Not that's serious gambling.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2015, 03:14 »

Quote from: lewis larkin on February 04, 2015, 20:14

I do get suspicious of the number of briefs that never complete, with some excuse like "client changed their mind" etc etc I sometimes wonder if some briefs are just trawling for free ideas... the vagueness of some briefs is also a concern - do Imagebrief not vet them?

Still - wait & see...

I mentioned that to them once, and they said it is out of their control. They don't have any control over the time period or the decision-making process. They close the briefs as soon as they know from the client what their intentions are. They are subject to the real life review processes that take place within the agencies, companies and publishing houses. Closed images are marked as 'Ended'.

Petr Toman · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2015, 04:12 »

I have to agree with most of the comments. I also submitted few briefs, but never had anything from it and I am not a premium member. Also not willing to spent $2 / day. But I like the message and hope. Though I still provide standard microstock, I want to leave this year lot of good images or high prod. value ones to RM only. Lets see. You have to be believer