Quote from: obj owl on April 04, 2019, 10:01

Point is that our competitors, other contributors, choose to sell at 15%. I can't compete with that.

Yes, but you don't compete on %, but on final price of the product. If you mean IS, then, as I remember, their subscription is more expensive for a customer than SS.

You did just say that the lower the royalty rate for us the better the agencies can market.  Prices and royalty rates matter and both are the reason there is a race to the bottom.   

A long but interesting take on the state of photography

https://medium.com/@Zimberoff/disrupting-stock-photography-fffe1c7d5b99

Thanks for the reminder, read this article a while ago and it was very insightful.
But as I understand, the author suggestion is to build one mega agency which will include all photography content that exists...

"There can�t be three Facebooks or six Googles. Those companies became institutions because, ultimately, there remained only one of each in its class. Right now, there is no �go-to� platform, no home for the worldwide community of commercial photographers and publishers to congregate."

Having one entity to control it all, sounds like Getty's dream come true It can lead to a total lose of control.

Quote from: tickstock on April 04, 2019, 10:13

You did just say that the lower the royalty rate for us the better the agencies can market.  Prices and royalty rates matter and both are the reason there is a race to the bottom.

Yes, I agree with you.

You do?  I thought you said there was no race to the bottom.

You do?  I thought you said there was no race to the bottom.

I agree with the logic of what you're saying, it should work like that, but practically I don't know where IS spends those money because it doesn't help them. And they sell at 15% for few years already, other big agencies didn't follow it.

I can't compare RPD etc, because I was exclusive, so my old images sell for higher prices there. But seeing the dynamic of my fresh new portfolios on other sites, I expect IS being just a few % of total income in the future.

Quote from: obj owl on April 04, 2019, 09:50

Agencies and buyers are not the problem, it's contributors who undervalue their work, they could sell at 50% at a reasonable price, but they choose not to.

Really? Are the laws of supply and demand suspended from this marketplace?

I don't follow.  If everyone chose to put their work on the highest paying sites then the lower paying sites would go out of business.  For the most part they don't own any of the supply, we do.  And to add to this, not all content is equal.  If there are 1,000,000 images of apples but none of oranges what does supply and demand say about the price of oranges?

Quote from: tickstock on April 04, 2019, 10:41

I don't follow.  If everyone chose to put their work on the highest paying sites then the lower paying sites would go out of business.  For the most part they don't own any of the supply, we do.

In theory. It really sounds great.

But you can't have one perfect store where every customer would be happy to shop forever and the management won't go crazy next month for whatever reasons.

It's an utopia.

I'm not saying that.  If lots of people move to a higher paying site then other sites will pay more to stop losing content, a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 04, 2019, 10:34

Quote from: obj owl on April 04, 2019, 09:50

Agencies and buyers are not the problem, it's contributors who undervalue their work, they could sell at 50% at a reasonable price, but they choose not to.

Really? Are the laws of supply and demand suspended from this marketplace?

I don't follow.  If everyone chose to put their work on the highest paying sites then the lower paying sites would go out of business.  For the most part they don't own any of the supply, we do.  And to add to this, not all content is equal.  If there are 1,000,000 images of apples but none of oranges what does supply and demand say about the price of oranges?

They won't all put their photos on the highest priced site will they? Over supply will drive down prices in any market. You could try and choke off supply but I doubt it will happen.

Quote from: tickstock on April 04, 2019, 10:53

Quote from: swisschocolate on April 04, 2019, 10:51

Quote from: tickstock on April 04, 2019, 10:41

I don't follow.  If everyone chose to put their work on the highest paying sites then the lower paying sites would go out of business.  For the most part they don't own any of the supply, we do.

In theory. It really sounds great.

But you can't have one perfect store where every customer would be happy to shop forever and the management won't go crazy next month for whatever reasons.

It's an utopia.

I'm not saying that.  If lots of people move to a higher paying site then other sites will pay more to stop losing content, a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom.

The risk is that buyers will find the content they need from lower paying sites and move there. That seems to be the more likely outcome based on the evidence.

Yes, because contributors keep supplying them, I don't deny your pessimism, but it's not the lower paying sites that are to blame it's contributors and the answer is in their hands.

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 04, 2019, 11:40

Quote from: tickstock on April 04, 2019, 10:41

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 04, 2019, 10:34

Quote from: obj owl on April 04, 2019, 09:50

Agencies and buyers are not the problem, it's contributors who undervalue their work, they could sell at 50% at a reasonable price, but they choose not to.

Really? Are the laws of supply and demand suspended from this marketplace?

I don't follow.  If everyone chose to put their work on the highest paying sites then the lower paying sites would go out of business.  For the most part they don't own any of the supply, we do.  And to add to this, not all content is equal.  If there are 1,000,000 images of apples but none of oranges what does supply and demand say about the price of oranges?

They won't all put their photos on the highest priced site will they? Over supply will drive down prices in any market. You could try and choke off supply but I doubt it will happen.

Not necessarily the highest priced, what I said was "highest paying".  I meant sites that pay higher royalty rates.  Supply is harder to define here not all content is a commodity maybe images of apples are but other subjects aren't.  Just because there are millions of apples doesn't mean that will be useful for people looking for oranges.

I tend to think we all make a decision based on what works for us. (or should). If I had images that were hard to produce and therefore scarce I wouldn't be putting them on Microstock.  Microstock is just one sales channel.

Yes, because contributors keep supplying them, I don't deny your pessimism, but it's not the lower paying sites that are to blame it's contributors and the answer is in their hands.

I wouldn't call it pessimism, rather understanding of the law of supply and demand. Laws of economics work because they operate within large groups of people with different interests. Just because one person's interests aren't met doesn't mean that there isn't a huge group of people whose interests are fully satisfied.

Quote from: UIcomments on April 04, 2019, 18:24

Quote from: obj owl on April 04, 2019, 11:55

Yes, because contributors keep supplying them, I don't deny your pessimism, but it's not the lower paying sites that are to blame it's contributors and the answer is in their hands.

I wouldn't call it pessimism, rather understanding of the law of supply and demand. Laws of economics work because they operate within large groups of people with different interests. Just because one person's interests aren't met doesn't mean that there isn't a huge group of people whose interests are fully satisfied.

Well if contributors are following the gibberish you call the Laws of Economics no wonder they are in a mess.

They are not in a mess. Maybe people you know are, but that's just a percentage.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2019, 17:47

A serious buyer with serious money, isn't going to come to even the top agencies as a regular source for images.

Who is a serious buyer for you?

For years I find my images used by global brands and publishers, like Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Nivea, ELLE, Danone, found images in Hollywood tv shows, etc.

They don't use stock for their commercials obviously, but for other purposes they are the main clients in the industry (in my experience). This is for whom "Premium Access" and other special deals were invented, agencies fight for them offering the best deals, because they have a huge continuous daily volume of demand.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2019, 17:47

"Why is the passive capture of digital image files important? Because the commercial class of pro photographers categorically refuses to contribute their valuable assets to the stock photo pipeline, let alone to do so proactively."

They were paid for their work already and they rarely have rights to upload it to stock, since it was exclusive for the client. And even if they can, there is no garantee that their "valuable assets" would sell. Making work for a specific client isn't the same as making stock for a broad range of different customers.

I create images just for stock and wouldn't exchange it for client's work. I want to shoot and sell what I want, not what some brief told me to do.

These are two different styles of work and philosophies behind it and absolutely different markets.
And that's why they don't intersect. (And I hope never will.) Which is a great thing

I find my work used in all kinds of places, some major publications. Yes a Shutterstock image, at least once, has been a magazine cover, such as on Time. But that's not what he's writing about. Not the one off or the uncommon sales, because Microstock is full of trash and realistically disorganized, under priced and unattractive to established pros.

His point that the new agencies didn't disrupt, but they just bought the competition, is pretty much true. Yes, there's the other side, where the majors couldn't compete with the Micro prices. That's for general consumers and the broader market, especially the web.

Enterprise-level photo publishing, is a much higher value, more demanding and pays better. That's the point. Microstock has ignored that market. The top professionals have ignored Microstock. And there we are? Anyone with a camera can make any photos they want and put them up for sale. Sometimes we make a sale. I'm part of the we, as I'm not an elite media or art photographer. 

We are missing out on the higher value contracts, and being underpaid to do that. Somewhere, in the future, there will be other sites that vet the images, have higher standards and demands and pay us more. Microstock will survive just fine in the low pay area. But don't expect the enterprise-level photo publishing business to come to Microstock for their images. They will keep sourcing from known professionals.

Yeah, the briefs are bogus. Who's going to go out, invest and shoot, so a client can pick the winner. Or as many saw with Image Brief, pick through the submissions for ideas, then pay a pro to shoot.

I'd have to watch those magazines you list or TV shows to know if my images have been used. I don't. I have had friends tell me I was in a magazine. This is microstock, I agree with you. I'm not fine art or exceptional and I don't have much that's not reproducible in some form, by someone else.

But... if we are all missing a major part of the market, there's opportunity and income that's being missed. That only applies to people who want to get paid. Otherwise we can post on Instagram and FB for exposure and admiration.

Show Me The Money