Author Topic: Possible general drop in the Micro income to all? (Read 13319 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #25 on:** January 20, 2010, 19:15 »

I don't think enough buyers are price sensitive to make this a big issue. Some of the sites with lower prices have struggled while those with higher prices are doing really well. That wouldn't be happening if enough buyers were looking for the cheapest prices.

stockastic · « **Reply #26 on:** January 20, 2010, 19:53 »

It's impossible to know how well this particular spider-site actually works because it's in 'closed beta' and I doubt the service will ever be free. So how will we really know if we're getting hurt?

gostwyck · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2010, 20:14 »

The danger from this concept is relatively minor in comparison to the threat to our incomes from static cheap subscription package prices.

willie · « **Reply #28 on:** January 20, 2010, 20:17 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 20, 2010, 19:15

I don't think enough buyers are price sensitive to make this a big issue. Some of the sites with lower prices have struggled while those with higher prices are doing really well. That wouldn't be happening if enough buyers were looking for the cheapest prices.

or it could finally be sinking in with buyers that the ones with the lowest prices do not always have the best images.
we already see a slight shift in some of the top sites both getting more strict and pickier to get new ideas and doing away with the same old same old, even to the wrath of some old top sellers.
perharps there was a growing sense of complacency from the top sellers that they don't need to change with the changing demographics and the new decade.

more so, trends change, and what was cool last ten years is now old hat or passe, or blase at worst, to a growing generation that has not been weaned on shopping where the cheap stuff is.

lastly, i know i am for one saving the better images for where the price are higher and i am not going to placate to the sites that continue to plan on giving away my work. and i am sure i am not the only one thinking like this.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #29 on:** January 20, 2010, 20:41 »

Before anyone goes running off the cliff, take a look at one of their sample results. What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.spiderpic.com/preview?provider=2&id=5027131

It compares the largest size and highest price for each site. It's a bit misleading. But CanStock is winning the race to the bottom if that's something good?

willie · « **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2010, 21:03 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 20, 2010, 19:08

EDITED..
The good selection part is the fault of the contributors. If the site was cheapest and had a bunch of crap then buyers are getting what they're paying for.

The good selection part is the fault of the contributors. If the site was cheapest and had a bunch of crap then buyers are getting what they're paying for.

amen . one heart again to PW

sharpshot · « **Reply #31 on:** January 21, 2010, 06:12 »

I hope it sinks in with all the sites that the cheapest prices wont attract buyers. Canstock and Crestock don't sell much compared to the more expensive sites. It could be because they have less images or it could be because buyers don't mind paying a bit more at these low price levels. I hope Getty raise prices with their microstock subs sites and pay us a reasonable commission, I wont use them until they do.

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** January 21, 2010, 06:33 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 21, 2010, 06:12

I hope it sinks in with all the sites that the cheapest prices wont attract buyers. Canstock and Crestock don't sell much compared to the more expensive sites. It could be because they have less images or it could be because buyers don't mind paying a bit more at these low price levels. I hope Getty raise prices with their microstock subs sites and pay us a reasonable commission, I wont use them until they do.

The cheap agencies don't make enough money from sales to undertake effective marketing, usually I think because they were absurdly under-funded from the start. So many seem to think that they can start a 'stock agency' from their bedroom with a few $K's in savings or borrowed from family.

RT · « **Reply #33 on:** January 21, 2010, 06:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2010, 06:33

The cheap agencies don't make enough money from sales to undertake effective marketing, usually I think because they were absurdly under-funded from the start. So many seem to think that they can start a 'stock agency' from their bedroom with a few $K's in savings or borrowed from family.

Totally agree and yet more and more keep trying despite the track record of failed attempts each year. I blame it on dumb people believing the "if you build it they will come" get rich quick mentallity, when all they need to do is follow the 'if you build it you need to tell them you've built it' basic fundamentals of marketing strategy.

IMO it isn't helped by the number of contributors that fall for the 'hey we've built it and are going to do a huge marketing campaign once you've uploaded all your stuff but we can't tell you anymore because it's top secret' approach. Followed of course by the inevitable threads here about how they made $3 with them six months ago "so I'm sticking with them" and then when they collapse the "do'h I never saw that one coming, shame they treated us so nicely" threads.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #34 on:** January 21, 2010, 06:59 »

Quote from: RT on January 21, 2010, 06:46

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2010, 06:33
The cheap agencies don't make enough money from sales to undertake effective marketing, usually I think because they were absurdly under-funded from the start. So many seem to think that they can start a 'stock agency' from their bedroom with a few $K's in savings or borrowed from family.
Totally agree and yet more and more keep trying despite the track record of failed attempts each year. I blame it on dumb people believing the "if you build it they will come" get rich quick mentallity, when all they need to do is follow the 'if you build it you need to tell them you've built it' basic fundamentals of marketing strategy.

IMO it isn't helped by the number of contributors that fall for the 'hey we've built it and are going to do a huge marketing campaign once you've uploaded all your stuff but we can't tell you anymore because it's top secret' approach.

That may be changing. If stuff like Picscout catches on with buyers that's instant free advertising through the world's highest traffic search engine. But does Picscout or Spiderpic have any marketing money?

willie · « **Reply #35 on:** January 21, 2010, 12:57 »

Quote from: RT on January 21, 2010, 06:46

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2010, 06:33
The cheap agencies don't make enough money from sales to undertake effective marketing, usually I think because they were absurdly under-funded from the start. So many seem to think that they can start a 'stock agency' from their bedroom with a few $K's in savings or borrowed from family.

Totally agree and yet more and more keep trying despite the track record of failed attempts each year. I blame it on dumb people believing the "if you build it they will come" get rich quick mentallity, when all they need to do is follow the 'if you build it you need to tell them you've built it' basic fundamentals of marketing strategy.

IMO it isn't helped by the number of contributors that fall for the 'hey we've built it and are going to do a huge marketing campaign once you've uploaded all your stuff but we can't tell you anymore because it's top secret' approach. Followed of course by the inevitable threads here about how they made $3 with them six months ago "so I'm sticking with them" and then when they collapse the "do'h I never saw that one coming, shame they treated us so nicely" threads.

good point both
but i also think that many of us are now truly putting the knife to cut off these excess "useless fattening" this year, and focusing our attention to the top 5 which have been consistently giving results or showing increased interest by approving our new works.

yes, it's also due to the frustration of spending so much times wasted in uploading to those new sites to "show them support", but with their laxity in QA, that too drives me nuts,
and make me reconsider whether this is a quick $$$ scheme to get traffic, then close down in a couple of years.

they will still get many who will flock to them, but hey, this dude is closing shop too...

also, re what gostwyck said about borrowing from family. i think i see some sites like that too. my friend told me this, "
submitting festive images 4 months prior, to only see them approved one month (yes, seriously), one month after the festive season ended . ridiculous but true. that site is also on my chopping block."

(looks like the CEO runs a site out of a closet, took a season off, came home after that to approve the backlog) (not funny).

sharpshot · « **Reply #36 on:** January 21, 2010, 13:11 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2010, 06:33

Quote from: sharpshot on January 21, 2010, 06:12
I hope it sinks in with all the sites that the cheapest prices wont attract buyers. Canstock and Crestock don't sell much compared to the more expensive sites. It could be because they have less images or it could be because buyers don't mind paying a bit more at these low price levels. I hope Getty raise prices with their microstock subs sites and pay us a reasonable commission, I wont use them until they do.

The cheap agencies don't make enough money from sales to undertake effective marketing, usually I think because they were absurdly under-funded from the start. So many seem to think that they can start a 'stock agency' from their bedroom with a few $K's in savings or borrowed from family.

True for most of them but Crestock must of spent loads on marketing. I often saw big adverts for them in design magazines. It still didn't get them in to the top 6, perhaps because they were more strict with rejections and paid us less for subs, reducing the size of their collection.

Pheby · « **Reply #37 on:** January 21, 2010, 13:17 »

What if the agencies got rid of the affilliate programmes? Such search engines wouldn't have any earning potential then, and the agencies wouldn't have to compete with each other to achieve the lowest price. Also, they'd be saving the percentage they have to pay to their affilliates for each sale. Or are these affilliate programmes an absolutely necessary marketing tool?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** January 21, 2010, 13:47 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 21, 2010, 13:11

True for most of them but Crestock must of spent loads on marketing. I often saw big adverts for them in design magazines. It still didn't get them in to the top 6, perhaps because they were more strict with rejections and paid us less for subs, reducing the size of their collection.

They even got that good looking guy with the great smile to do all those videos for them! Or maybe that wasn't about marketing to buyers...

willie · « **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2010, 13:54 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2010, 13:47

Quote from: sharpshot on January 21, 2010, 13:11
True for most of them but Crestock must of spent loads on marketing. I often saw big adverts for them in design magazines. It still didn't get them in to the top 6, perhaps because they were more strict with rejections and paid us less for subs, reducing the size of their collection.

They even got that good looking guy with the great smile to do all those videos for them! Or maybe that wasn't about marketing to buyers...

roflmao

btw is that judge whatisname still there?

borg · « **Reply #40 on:** January 21, 2010, 16:16 »

When I notice that I have more sales on the cheapest small sites, but also less in total earnings, I will remove my portfolio from " the cheapest" sites...
If someone really need my photo, he would pay little bit more, micro prices are still low everywhere...

So, we saw what happening with small sites (LuckyOliver,etc.), they can't struggle with big marketing such as of SS,IS,DT...

For survival should be more money for investing in promotion, that mean: for higher earnings should be higher prices...

Cheap agencies risk also "departures" of photographers...

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** January 21, 2010, 19:35 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2010, 13:47

They even got that good looking guy with the great smile to do all those videos for them! Or maybe that wasn't about marketing to buyers...

I didn't see the videos, but "that guy's" testimonials about them roped me in.

I was VERY disappointed to learn much later that there was some paid sponsorship going on

jvoetsch · « **Reply #42 on:** February 04, 2010, 00:48 »

Some artists look at this as if "its bound to happen" I see it as "YOU, the artist, are letting it happen"

All you have to do is leave those sites that are treating the artists like dirt and under pricing your work. The only reason why these sites are successful is because the artists are contributing to them. If you REALLY value your artwork and you REALLY want to make it alive out of this mess, YOU have to make a choice and stand up for your values.

I find it interesting that ClipartOf is listed as one of the most expensive. We give the artists control over their pricing. What does that mean? That means that the artists price their images at what THEY think they are worth. They can change their prices at any time, with the minimum being $10 and the changes take effect IMMEDIATELY. An artist can price at a $10/11/12/13/14 tier if they want.

SpiderPic is NOT going to take over the world. Eventually customers are going to catch on that there is missing and important information. Its a trick, a gimmick.

One thing that they leave out is the license terms. ClipartOf for example seems really expenses, but we dont have any tricky extended licenses with an extreme difference between the displayed image price and the extended license price, or with super fine print that is too confusing for customers. There is ONE straight up, TRUE royalty-free license, no bull. Period. So yes, customers ARE willing to pay for the no-nonsense license that IS cheaper than most extended licenses. I, in fact, today heard directly from a customer that she will never license from anyone else due to the confusion and legal issues that arose from an "extended license" that she misunderstood. I often hear "thank you for being straight up and simple!" from our customers.

These "extended licenses" are confusing the customers! They end up paying the cheapest licenses, then get in trouble for not being able to read or understand the endless fine print and using the image in the wrong manner.

In the end, the customers want a fast, friendly and honest service. Extended licenses and "fake" cheap pricing are not honest and are misleading.

Jamie Voetsch
ClipartOf.com
All about the artists!

FD · « **Reply #43 on:** February 04, 2010, 02:23 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 20, 2010, 13:44

It is yet another argument in favor of IS exclusivity, IMO. On a comforting note, my sales at Canstock (the lowest priced agency listed) are still dismal. If they don't raise their prices to be more competitive, I may have to pull the plug there. I already dropped Veer and Crestock.

1. IMHO, correct diagnosis, wrong therapy. Why exclusive at IS? If they change their policy overnight, or their best match, you're done. They are obviously (over)ruled by "managers", a corporate breed that runs away with loads of bonuses just before their enlightened decisions turn out sour, off to ruin another great company.
IS was run by photographers before. Shutterstock and Dreamstime are run by photographers, and it shows.

2. CanStockPhoto totally died, after ELs last year. Upload is easy though.

3. Crestock, YAY, Veer, Snaphamlet, LO, I dumped in time. ZYM and SX failed me. I was uploading till the last days and I lost time on them. There is not much left. DT is still my favorite, not for earnings, but for respect.

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** February 04, 2010, 03:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 21, 2010, 19:35

Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2010, 13:47

They even got that good looking guy with the great smile to do all those videos for them! Or maybe that wasn't about marketing to buyers...

I didn't see the videos, but "that guy's" testimonials about them roped me in.

I was VERY disappointed to learn much later that there was some paid sponsorship going on

I'd never have imagined otherwise.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Possible general drop in the Micro income to all? (Read 13319 times)

sharpshot

stockastic

gostwyck

willie

RacePhoto

willie

sharpshot

gostwyck

RT

PaulieWalnuts

willie

sharpshot

Pheby

Sean Locke Photography

willie

borg

lisafx

jvoetsch

FD

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors