Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 434002 times)

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #1550 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:13 »

Here is a link to the most recent example that I can find:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/business&id=8616762

cathyslife · « **Reply #1551 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:29 »

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 09:50

Quote from: cclapper on May 13, 2012, 07:38
Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 05:32
We don't have to guess about that one, it's a hard fact. Even with 2000% price increase (as gostwyck stated), the price is still absurd. Nobody realizes either how much it would cost him to hire a tog or buy from a trad agency, which have lowered prices many times during the MS era, so in reality even the macro prices are to low.

Regarding the prices, IS is the only one going in the right direction. I just hope for more hikes. I really do. And that the competition wakes up and does the same (without any further commission cuts), or else we're all doomed

I don't know why you wish for that. It doesn't mean contributors are going to make any more money. And it does seem at first glance ridiculous to complain about the low price of photos, but if anything else doubled overnight, let's say the price of gas, I'm pretty sure I'd be complaining about it too.

I don't have a problem with prices moving up if I get a larger cut of the pie, but that hasn't been what's happening. The greedy ba$tards raise prices then cut our commissions (or find some other bull$hit way to cheat us out of money, like changing search algorithms, or having a bunch of "credit card fraud" happening, or some other such nonsense.) And istock is the worst. I totally see why buyers are bailing.

I've bolded another important part of my post, it'll make more sense to you now, without a doubt

I read that bolded part the first time.

And your statement still doesn't make sense, because it's not happening the way you say. There are price hikes, and there are commission cuts.

wut · « **Reply #1552 on:** May 13, 2012, 11:34 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:05

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 09:54

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren! there is no law against this,

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.
[/quote]

Are you going to do it? You think you're a know it all person, even that good that you could be taking better photos with a phone than pros or talented amateurs do with good equipment and more importantly knowledge and mileage? I don't know who's arrogant after all you said...

Yes, it happened before and they got bailed out

lagereek · « **Reply #1553 on:** May 13, 2012, 11:37 »

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 11:34

Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:05
Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 09:54

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren! there is no law against this,

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.

lagereek · « **Reply #1554 on:** May 13, 2012, 11:40 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 11:37

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 11:34
Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:05
Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 09:54

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren! there is no law against this,

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.

Something is wrong with this posts, I never answered it, yet its in my name. Tyler should perhaps have a look?

wut · « **Reply #1555 on:** May 13, 2012, 11:48 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 11:40

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 11:37
Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 11:34
Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:05
Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 09:54

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren! there is no law against this,

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.

Something is wrong with this posts, I never answered it, yet its in my name. Tyler should perhaps have a look?

Caspixel didn't quote it properly, he/she should correct it and everything will fall in its right place

gostwyck · « **Reply #1556 on:** May 13, 2012, 13:06 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 09:39

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly. I'm genuinely shocked by the short-sighted attitude being displayed by some posters. Microstock prices aren't too low, it's just that the agency's commissions are too high. Microstock came into being by supplying a 'good enough' product at an affordable price. It exploited a gap in the market that was simply not being catered for by the traditional agencies. History could obviously repeat itself __ then where would we be? (answer: back to 2004)

Fortunately SS don't appear to be as greedy and stupid as many other agencies so the worst case scenario should not happen. SS aren't going away and all these price rises by other agencies are simply gifting them the entire industry.

wut · « **Reply #1557 on:** May 13, 2012, 13:20 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 13, 2012, 13:06

Exactly. I'm genuinely shocked by the short-sighted attitude being displayed by some posters. Microstock prices aren't too low, it's just that the agency's commissions are too high. Microstock came into being by supplying a 'good enough' product at an affordable price. It exploited a gap in the market that was simply not being catered for by the traditional agencies. History could obviously repeat itself __ then where would we be? (answer: back to 2004)

Fortunately SS don't appear to be as greedy and stupid as many other agencies so the worst case scenario should not happen. SS aren't going away and all these price rises by other agencies are simply gifting them the entire industry.

Yes, but are we still supplying only "a good enough" product? Surely not, I mean most of the images still are mediocre, but any buyer can find great stuff at any MS agency. For a buck!

I also explained why I think prices should rise and I could say the same about all of you that are all for super low prices, that you're shortsighted. Since the quality of libraries is rising, we have to work hard on improving our work and that in most cases means spending more on shoots. Soon we won't be able to make a profit anymore. AFAIK your earnings are falling, don't you think this could be the reason for that? You not spending enough for your shoots to look (even) better so you could compete with ppl in your rank (let's say ppl out of the top 1%, but within the top 5%, regarding earnings of course). And if you did, you would net less anyway. If costs of production goes up, so should the prices. We're not selling some BS Chevys here, we're (the top contributors anyway) selling Mercs (and macro shooters are selling Rollses). So our products should be priced accordingly. That may be a bit of exaggeration, but we all know the starting price point of MS was way too low, I'd say at 25% of what it should be. If they were at the same level as they're today, they'd be ok, a bit low, but that's how it is if you want to start selling something in huge quantities. So if they were and the prices would go up as they went, we'd be selling our photos at 4x the price now (or more, especially at IS). And nobody accounts for inflation, it's ridiculous.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1558 on:** May 13, 2012, 13:28 »

It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.

And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

lisafx · « **Reply #1559 on:** May 13, 2012, 13:43 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 13, 2012, 13:28

It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.

And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

Yep.

I don't think low prices are the problem either. When prices were low, buyers bought more images. They paid for images, rather than using comps, they sometimes bought pictures just because they liked the picture, not necessarily because they needed it for a current project.

The fact remains that in 2008-2010, when prices and RPD were considerably lower than they are now, I made more money.

Wut is absolutely right that production value is way up these days, and there should be some compensation for that, but a lot of micro stuff is still boiler plate. Separating out the high production value stuff from the average stuff is a good idea, and the different levels at the sites seem to take this into account. However dropping commissions on the higher priced collections, as Istock has done, seems to defeat the purpose - at least from a contributor's perspective.

Also, locking Istock non-exclusives out of the higher priced collections was short sighted. When Vetta and later TAC were first introduced, I would have happily placed some of my higher production value stuff in those collections EXCLUSIVELY if that had been an option. But it wasn't, so instead my best stuff is competing with those collections, at much lower prices both on Istock and elsewhere.

cthoman · « **Reply #1560 on:** May 13, 2012, 13:55 »

Different pricing models work for different contributors. The problem is that it's a one size fits all model and we don't have much choice or say in how our files are priced. Which is a shame because I think most of us know more about selling our images than most agencies do.

lagereek · « **Reply #1561 on:** May 13, 2012, 14:06 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 13, 2012, 13:28

It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.

And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

Yep! and thats the entire problem, all in it for a quick buck, thats it.

wut · « **Reply #1562 on:** May 13, 2012, 14:10 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 13, 2012, 13:28

And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

1. But then again, macro sites use the same technology and sell images at 20x the price

2. I was talking about 10$ for an XS (might be in another thread, because we're discussing this today in 2 different threads), but the main thing is if this was true, macro sites would have closed their doors at least 6-7 years ago, when they were selling images for 100x the MS price, not 20x like today (on average, I know there are 3$ sales over there, but there are also 4 digit sales;). And if this was true, than IS would be long overtaken by sites like PD, 123RF which are leading the race to the bottom. But they don't even care about them and their 1% market share

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1563 on:** May 13, 2012, 14:35 »

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 14:10

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 13, 2012, 13:28
And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

1. But then again, macro sites use the same technology and sell images at 20x the price

2. I was talking about 10$ for an XS (might be in another thread, because we're discussing this today in 2 different threads), but the main thing is if this was true, macro sites would have closed their doors at least 6-7 years ago, when they were selling images for 100x the MS price, not 20x like today (on average, I know there are 3$ sales over there, but there are also 4 digit sales;). And if this was true, than IS would be long overtaken by sites like PD, 123RF which are leading the race to the bottom. But they don't even care about them and their 1% market share

Yes, but what percentage of your sales come from Alamy?

If buyers weren't price sensitive then the macros would be selling as many images as the micros ... and we'd all be millionaires. It galls me at DT where I constantly see "subscription sale, size maxiumum, 35c" but when it comes to credit sales they are mostly medium, small or XS. People are happy to grab the largest file they can as long as they don't pay extra for it. Once they have to pay more they instantly start counting the pennies and take the smallest size that will do.

wut · « **Reply #1564 on:** May 13, 2012, 15:01 »

I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you

lagereek · « **Reply #1565 on:** May 13, 2012, 15:01 »

Many of us have done this for 6, 7, years, even longer and many of us have earnt a small fortune. Times are changing, at first it was a glass of champaigne, now its white wine and we dont like it, pretty soon its water. Soon we have had our 10 years in this venture and thats that.

Fortunately there is another stock-world outside micro and thats the world of proper stock photography, the way it should be and should be executed, where contributors and agencies work towards long-term goals and where pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges are not welcome.

Mantis · « **Reply #1566 on:** May 13, 2012, 15:07 »

Quote from: antistock on May 12, 2012, 22:31

they also probably think after work we booze around and sh-ag a couple hookers"

You don't partake?

wut · « **Reply #1567 on:** May 13, 2012, 15:09 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 15:01

Many of us have done this for 6, 7, years, even longer and many of us have earnt a small fortune. Times are changing, at first it was a glass of champaigne, now its white wine and we dont like it, pretty soon its water. Soon we have had our 10 years in this venture and thats that.

Fortunately there is another stock-world outside micro and thats the world of proper stock photography, the way it should be and should be executed, where contributors and agencies work towards long-term goals and where pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges are not welcome.

I'd like for MS to make a step closer to that. I'd be just happy with it. But then again as you said in another thread, macros (or at least Getty) have also sliced your commissions from 50 all the way down to 20%. Regarding cuts, it's the same thing, prices also went down, RM sales are going down, but at least the service, relations and attitude are professional, not a joke like on most of the micros, especially 123RF, Zoonar etc

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1568 on:** May 13, 2012, 15:18 »

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 15:01

I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you

It's very simple. The P+, E+ and other prices already exist at iS, so the buyers who stayed there are used to those pricings. But you will also see a lot of posts from people complaining that sales of the files they put in E+ simply collapsed and they regretted having them stuck in there. Whether a file deserves to be at a high or low price point depends on the quality and subject matter. There's no point in trying to make "apple isolated on white" a Vetta file but it might do well at TS.

wut · « **Reply #1569 on:** May 13, 2012, 15:56 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 13, 2012, 15:18

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 15:01
I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you

It's very simple. The P+, E+ and other prices already exist at iS, so the buyers who stayed there are used to those pricings. But you will also see a lot of posts from people complaining that sales of the files they put in E+ simply collapsed and they regretted having them stuck in there. Whether a file deserves to be at a high or low price point depends on the quality and subject matter. There's no point in trying to make "apple isolated on white" a Vetta file but it might do well at TS.

If that's true I hope for some more price rises, evenly introduced every 6 months or so. So that at least one agency is going to be selling my photos at a half decent price. I'm saying that because I've seen no decline in sales, on the contrary, I've seen constantly rising sales. The ratio between SS and IS is locked for me. I also think that P+ proves that buyers are willing to pay more, at least some and at least for some stuff. Indies are also reporting how this price rise has helped their RPD go up and consequently, earnings. We all know, as you said, that the agencies are not going to collectively rise the prices and that there's no way they're going to be quadrupled (like I hoped for), but at least they could sync the XS and S prices with exclusive (e.g. 2 cr for XS, 4 for P+ XS etc). I'm sure I'd earn more, I'd probably get a bit less sales, but my cut for XS and S files would be double, so I'd at least get 50%+ more for those sales (not 100%, because I'd get less sales)

lisafx · « **Reply #1570 on:** May 13, 2012, 16:33 »

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 15:01

I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you

I can see how it looks contradictory. Personally, I am not against all price rises. I am against steep ones coming so close together that it alienates buyers and negatively affects my earnings.

I also see a big difference between putting my P+ images and FT images at prices starting at 2 credits, vs. starting images at 20-50 credit base price - in the microstock model. Those prices, and even higher, are usual and expected at traditional stock agencies. Their buyers aren't going to freak out. But micro buyers still expect micro prices. Prices of P+ and FT emerald are still in line with what buyers expect from microstock, so there is less resistance.

wut · « **Reply #1571 on:** May 13, 2012, 16:59 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 13, 2012, 16:33

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 15:01
I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you

I can see how it looks contradictory. Personally, I am not against all price rises. I am against steep ones coming so close together that it alienates buyers and negatively affects my earnings.

I also see a big difference between putting my P+ images and FT images at prices starting at 2 credits, vs. starting images at 20-50 credit base price - in the microstock model. Those prices, and even higher, are usual and expected at traditional stock agencies. Their buyers aren't going to freak out. But micro buyers still expect micro prices. Prices of P+ and FT emerald are still in line with what buyers expect from microstock, so there is less resistance.

So we at least agree on something, to a degree. That being said, I have to say, again!, that I was talking about 10 cr for an XS (and I know it's a bit exaggerated, but it's a starting point, so that we'd at least get to 4 or 5). So what you're saying about P+ and Emarald, you are for slight price rises. And if you look at it, that's what IS has been doing. I know 2 rises within a couple of month seem too much for you. But if they were spaced 6 months apart, they probably wouldn't be. All that being said, recent IS price rises should bother us indies, it's not about our files anyway. Or better said it should bother you in ppl that disapprove of the recent rises. But it bothers me that indie files didn't get rises. And if I get back to you, you should be glad that they upped the prices twice, that will make your files more saleable, if anything

caspixel · « **Reply #1572 on:** May 13, 2012, 17:36 »

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 11:34

Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:05
Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 09:54

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren! there is no law against this,

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera, that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.

Are you going to do it? You think you're a know it all person, even that good that you could be taking better photos with a phone than pros or talented amateurs do with good equipment and more importantly knowledge and mileage? I don't know who's arrogant after all you said...

Yes, it happened before and they got bailed out

[/quote]

Whatever. What do you think people were doing before microstock? They weren't buying macro.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1573 on:** May 13, 2012, 17:50 »

I remember the 1970s, when we cut up bits of Adverkit drawings to put in adverts and the small town companies were very happy with that. "Wow! You've got a frame to put my advert in? Let me get my cheque book".

We actually sold whole broadsheet pages on the basis that there were slots in the pretty borders where people could put their words.

I guess it was cool back then (shucks, I remember waiting for the next Adverkit bundle to give us an idea to sell on). Who knows what people would settle for today, if pictures weren't cheap any more?

caspixel · « **Reply #1574 on:** May 13, 2012, 18:12 »

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 15:56

If that's true I hope for some more price rises, evenly introduced every 6 months or so. So that at least one agency is going to be selling my photos at a half decent price. I'm saying that because I've seen no decline in sales, on the contrary, I've seen constantly rising sales. The ratio between SS and IS is locked for me. I also think that P+ proves that buyers are willing to pay more, at least some and at least for some stuff. Indies are also reporting how this price rise has helped their RPD go up and consequently, earnings. We all know, as you said, that the agencies are not going to collectively rise the prices and that there's no way they're going to be quadrupled (like I hoped for), but at least they could sync the XS and S prices with exclusive (e.g. 2 cr for XS, 4 for P+ XS etc). I'm sure I'd earn more, I'd probably get a bit less sales, but my cut for XS and S files would be double, so I'd at least get 50%+ more for those sales (not 100%, because I'd get less sales)

Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection?

That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices. You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock (Read 434002 times)

WarrenPrice

cathyslife

wut

lagereek

lagereek

wut

gostwyck

wut

BaldricksTrousers

lisafx

cthoman

lagereek

wut

BaldricksTrousers

wut

lagereek

Mantis

wut

BaldricksTrousers

wut

lisafx

wut

caspixel

BaldricksTrousers

caspixel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors