LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,919
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Rant warning
I feel a little bit cornered by the microstock. Alamy and Getty are now giving in to the dirt cheap pricing, that seems to be dictated by the powerful corporate customers.
Alamy are offering dead cheap low resolution downloads (as low as £15-39 for any 'web' use). I know 450px is not a big deal - but certainly enough for some web adds and I can't believe they didn't limit this to at least editorial use only.
The are now preparing a special volume purchase scheme for the biggest players - how about a big calendar company, or newspapers?
I've got some fairly average shots with them, and a few really good ones. The sales figures were poor so far. All are RM - I am not sure if RF would have helped for 'duck shots' or my floral collection. I still have to keyword a few so could adjust these ones.
Getty on the other hand is taking it a step further. They have launched THINKSTOCK (pack of 5 images for £39). With 20% commission rates the payout will be around £1 per image. Flickr OPEN (RF) collection is heading straight in to it - so think before submitting. They have also reserved rights to move any RF into micro, or RM to RF. I am not giving them my best images to be given away for next to nothing, and then be left with second-hand stock I can't use.
The striking thing is the two collections themselves. I am sure plenty will disagree with me, but to me it looks like the the big agencies have some really excellent work and some really average snaps. Both come with the same price tags (within individual collections).
The next thing I did was to have a look at the culprit - the microstock. How bad does it really look in terms of stock quality? iStockPhoto, did obviously contain just as much or more of very average content (depending on the search phrase). However they do have some really striking photos, and some go for peanuts. My understanding is that one has to upload a photo and give away hundreds or thousands to increase the ranking to start charging more. The commission is as low as 15%, but increases to around 40% on exclusive basis (not great). The premium Vetta collection is something of jewel - every shot looks very special.
I managed to find many of Anthony Spencer's best works for sale on istockphoto (and Vetta, also mirrored through Getty) http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/3603763/?facets={"25":"6"}#1027e1c4 . I truly admire his works and I am just a bit shocked he took this path. One could actually start a pretty good business from licensing his photographs and selling calendars, postcards, etc. That's how affordable it is even through 'premium' vetta - the more you buy the cheaper it gets.
So I guess I need to either find a smaller agency that cares about the photographer (photoshot any good?), or try to get comfortable with the big two.
What do you think about micro and how do you approach photo licensing?
I feel a little bit cornered by the microstock. Alamy and Getty are now giving in to the dirt cheap pricing, that seems to be dictated by the powerful corporate customers.
Alamy are offering dead cheap low resolution downloads (as low as £15-39 for any 'web' use). I know 450px is not a big deal - but certainly enough for some web adds and I can't believe they didn't limit this to at least editorial use only.
The are now preparing a special volume purchase scheme for the biggest players - how about a big calendar company, or newspapers?
I've got some fairly average shots with them, and a few really good ones. The sales figures were poor so far. All are RM - I am not sure if RF would have helped for 'duck shots' or my floral collection. I still have to keyword a few so could adjust these ones.
Getty on the other hand is taking it a step further. They have launched THINKSTOCK (pack of 5 images for £39). With 20% commission rates the payout will be around £1 per image. Flickr OPEN (RF) collection is heading straight in to it - so think before submitting. They have also reserved rights to move any RF into micro, or RM to RF. I am not giving them my best images to be given away for next to nothing, and then be left with second-hand stock I can't use.
The striking thing is the two collections themselves. I am sure plenty will disagree with me, but to me it looks like the the big agencies have some really excellent work and some really average snaps. Both come with the same price tags (within individual collections).
The next thing I did was to have a look at the culprit - the microstock. How bad does it really look in terms of stock quality? iStockPhoto, did obviously contain just as much or more of very average content (depending on the search phrase). However they do have some really striking photos, and some go for peanuts. My understanding is that one has to upload a photo and give away hundreds or thousands to increase the ranking to start charging more. The commission is as low as 15%, but increases to around 40% on exclusive basis (not great). The premium Vetta collection is something of jewel - every shot looks very special.
I managed to find many of Anthony Spencer's best works for sale on istockphoto (and Vetta, also mirrored through Getty) http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/3603763/?facets={"25":"6"}#1027e1c4 . I truly admire his works and I am just a bit shocked he took this path. One could actually start a pretty good business from licensing his photographs and selling calendars, postcards, etc. That's how affordable it is even through 'premium' vetta - the more you buy the cheaper it gets.
So I guess I need to either find a smaller agency that cares about the photographer (photoshot any good?), or try to get comfortable with the big two.
What do you think about micro and how do you approach photo licensing?