Quote from: sjlocke on February 07, 2010, 14:29

...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion.  This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.

Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.

If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.

According to his success and impressive number of downloads, I would say that customers value much more the "fancy" images of Sean than others cheap stuff.

Quote from: loop on February 07, 2010, 16:20

According to his success and impressive number of downloads, I would say that customers value much more the "fancy" images of Sean than others cheap stuff.

You need to pay closer attention, loop: I was talking about Getty, where he's remarked that his RPI has been a disappointment.

Oh, it isn't just me.  We all pretty much report disappointing uneven results.  As I said earlier, my Getty submissions are certainly not a high priority for me, at this point.

Of course, I'm not sure why you're so interested to give your work away: "whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market".  You're just going to be one of a bunch of people uploading the same content, but now with the chance to get $.25 instead of more.  No chance to move up in the world even if you sell a lot, like the can system or the DT multiple sales bump.  This is a Getty site, with no forum, no communication with others, no recognition of success (either with an icon or actual royalty increases) that we've come to enjoy and rely on.

Look, I'm not saying there's not a place for a subscription plan, but why does it have to be so one sided?  And I'm used to the idea of a blog sized image costing $2.  Here's a few ideas:
1. Make it like the IS plan.  It's a credit subscription, not an image subscription.  With an RF license (unfortunately), the one thing that can provide value to the buyer is use flexibility, and that comes from pixel resolution.  Why give away XXL files for a quarter?  Equipment to produce isn't free.  Why should the result be?  So, for $250 a month, you get X credits to spend a day.  Need a lot of smalls, then buy a lot of smalls.  Need XXLs, buy a larger package or spread it out.  The contributor is compensated fairly for the investment it takes to create usable imagery
2. Want an all you can eat buffet of images?  Limit the value of the download to Small for $250.   Need Larges?  Up the price to $500.  You want flexibility, you pay for it.
3.  Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size?  Make it an RM hybrid.  $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use.  $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use.  $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.

I'm not giving details on person X actually downloads Y a month to make it work, or worrying about the cash payment, but you get the idea.

3.  Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size?  Make it an RM hybrid.  $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use.  $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use.  $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.

This so much appeals to me, but it would be very difficult to police.

Quote from: sjlocke on February 07, 2010, 14:29

...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion.  This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.

Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.

If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.

Thinkstock's subs packages are more expensive than photos.com but non-exclusives were earning 20% more commission with photos.com.  This isn't really about lower subs prices, it is lower commissions for contributors.  Buyers seem to be perfectly happy paying more for pay per download each year but subs prices have remained low.  I think this is just while the sites fight over subs buyers, when they have enough hooked, they will raise prices.  I will wait until subs commissions go over $0.30 and decide if they are worth using then.  At the moment, I will supply the sites that pay me the higher subs commission.  $0.25 has failed for crestock and they spent lots on marketing.  Thinkstock might have a better chance with Getty behind it but I remember thinking snap village would do well with the backing of Corbis and look how that turned out.  Thinkstock are going to be supplied through istock, it looks like lots of us will opt out and even if people opt in, they are stuck with the low upload limits.  Shutterstock will have lots more fresh images each week, subs buyers seem to love that.

A friend received this (or maybe it's something StockXpert said and I missed):

If you do not want to go forward with the Thinkstock program through StockXpert, are under 50$ and want to cash out, please delete all of your images and then email our customer support team and they will submit your payment as well as close your account.

So even if I was opted out from subs (therefore, as I understood, my images would not migrate), do I hve to delete them from StockXpert before asking for my last payout?

They also said:

StockXpert is not shutting down. Your images have been migrated to Thinstock but you will still use StockXpert as your main account for those images and sales.

A friend received this (or maybe it's something StockXpert said and I missed):

Quote

If you do not want to go forward with the Thinkstock program through StockXpert, are under 50$ and want to cash out, please delete all of your images and then email our customer support team and they will submit your payment as well as close your account.

So even if I was opted out from subs (therefore, as I understood, my images would not migrate), do I hve to delete them from StockXpert before asking for my last payout?

They also said:

Quote

StockXpert is not shutting down. Your images have been migrated to Thinstock but you will still use StockXpert as your main account for those images and sales.

Madelaide...I just e-mailed support and ask them if I could close my account and receive my payout, even though it was below $50.00. They e-mailed me back and said they would close the account on Feb 11..or 12..don't remember exactly, but then they would send me my payment in case any more royalties were earned before that date.

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 07, 2010, 22:59

...
How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
...

If it doesn't seem like much of an argument to you, Jonathan, maybe it's because you're not taking into account the much larger numbers of downloads that subscription sites can afford. It's not uncommon to have a download-per-image (DLPI) ratio greater than 2:1, and for even a modest portfolio of 2000 images the difference of only a few pennies per DL can really add up. On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock. I don't really 'get' that logic either.

I don't think it's uncommon to have a DPE of more than 2:1 on iStock either. Heck I'm a miniscule player and my dls are 4:1.

Also your second argument doesn't make sense. If you're selling your imagery for 38c on SS, you clearly aren't iStock exclusive, and non-exclusives are getting 25c from Thinkstock.

Quote from: sjlocke on February 07, 2010, 16:51

3.  Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size?  Make it an RM hybrid.  $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use.  $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use.  $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.

This so much appeals to me, but it would be very difficult to police.

RM is still cheaper than hiring a photographer on assignment.
That's why RM is still popular.

So, custosters are saving a lot of money with RM but yet they want to pay less and less
and switching to microstock.

How is it possible nowadays is accetable to sell for as low as 0.25$ ?

And reading the istock forum i see also buyers complaining it's getting expensive. 
What's next ? Do they really expect we work for free ?

Hi All,

 This sounds like some pots calling the kettle black. How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.

Best,
Jonathan

Sorry Jon, it's completely different.  Macro was a closed shop.  No access for people unlike yourself to enter.  As new entrants into the industry, I was certainly happy to get what I got, and over time, content to better my work (and others), so that iStock was able to increase prices to better reflect the talent, equipment costs and quality of the content coming in.  Now, they want us to just belly up and take less.  This is not a new wave of people coming into a new industry who haven't participated until Thinkstock magically appeared.  These are some of the same people already in the industry who have accepted the current standard (which does keep moving up a bit), and are suddenly willing to scramble for whatever new scraps are tossed to them just because someone puts up a site with the word "stock" in the title.

Macro was a closed shop.  No access for people unlike yourself to enter.  

Not completely true.

It was hard to get in because years ago they requested to send a CD with at least 500
edited images, it took months to get a reply and months to make a single sale and
agencies were usually elitist and snotty.

Nowadays everything changed, it's all in real time, anyone can compare prices,
competitors portfolios, buy anywhere in few clicks and receive the image they need
in few minutes.

If microstock start being more selective with new contributors there's a chance
only the ones really wanting to get into the business will get a foot in the door.

Why should they accept any guy sending them 4 decent images ?
Anyone can do that.

Try asking for a 500 images portfolio and see the difference.

But they're not gonna do it, because they make too much money on the shoulders of small
photographers who can't even reach the minimum payout.

I'm curious also to see what evil plans they have in store with Flickr...

Quote from: macrosaur on February 08, 2010, 08:01

If microstock start being more selective with new contributors there's a chance
only the ones really wanting to get into the business will get a foot in the door.

Why should they accept any guy sending them 4 decent images ?

Is that a rhetorical question?

If that happened - someone else would set up a site which people could get on with 4 decent images. And before long they would have a nice chunk of content to sell cheap.

As long as the market wants cheap usable images somebody is going to supply them.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.

It's not about 25c or 30c or 10c. It's about the %age.

What i mean is the pie is not big enough for everybody.

Booting out the small contributors is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious shooters.

Let the small fishes free to join the third-rate micro agencies
selling for 0.10$/download.

The market wants high cost images and is willing to pay 0.25$ ?
Then I'm afraid the only solution is outsourcing to India or China.

How can they want more for less ?
Nobody's gonna shoot for less than 0.25$ and the market will
realize it the hard way i hope.

Quote from: alias on February 08, 2010, 10:06

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.

I have been thinking the same... http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-midstock/why-does-midstock-not-work/

Midstock doesn't fly because it can't compete with microstock, not because it's a bad idea.

It's not the market "wanting" cheap price and expensive images, the market was happy to
pay RM prices until few years ago, it's because of Getty that nowadays they expect to pay
peanuts for images that they were used to pay 100$ a pop.

And guess what ? Now they want more ... cheaper images, higher quality ... well i'm afraid
soon they'll have to shoot the pics themselves as many contributors will give up.

Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 00:42

On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.

Thinkstock is 0.25$ for independents, no growth path. That's where it all started. If they had announced 0.30$, there would hardly have been this kind of opposition.

Exactly!

What Getty doesn't understand is, that for a small increase, instead of poor artist and contributor relations, they could have given us 35 cents and had photographers flocking to them, (via IS) adding all kinds of better content.

They missed out on having the good content and potentially a knock out punch in the fight against the new sub sites.

Getty with ThinkStock is playing down to the level of the lowest competition. That's what they will get from contributors as well.

Booting out the small contributors is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious shooters.

Let me paraphrase that into what I've been saying for a couple of years.

Cutting out the small agencies is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious agencies.

Stop cultivating the fly-by-night subscription places that pop up like mushrooms on rotting fallen trees.