Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: A veri interesting article in the Times today  (Read 18718 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14705
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #80 on: April 05, 2010, 04:57:47 AM »

This isn't intended as a direct response any particular post, so please don't take it as such.

I was sitting having lunch the other day when a chap I know asked if he could join me. During the conversation we got on to the topic of sales strategies - he was a professional salesman back in Britain - and out of interest, I asked him about methods of moving merchandise in quantity, my mind on stock pix. It was illuminating to hear how simply these things get done in supplier/supermarket land. Since the numbers are probably kind of similar, I suppose that parallels might be drawn, but the principal thing I came to understand was this: a total lack of interest in the nature of the product you are offering is taken for granted. In other words, you simply don't get involved in tryig to claim you have a superior product: you just make quantity/convenience offers that the store can't refuse, and you offer promotional backup via advertising on TV or wherever local it matters. The retailer cares as little about it, in the intrinsic sense, as you should: it IS just an item that needs shifting.

Maybe if all we photographers looked at it that way, as some seem able to do, we might be happier people.

So just disown your children; life will then sparkle.

Rob C
« Last Edit: April 05, 2010, 04:59:36 AM by Rob C »
Logged

AldoMurillo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 30
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #81 on: May 06, 2010, 11:30:39 AM »

    Instant classic!    I wish every designer or editor on the planet could see this article, but It's stock fault or designer/editor of that ad?

It's obvious that the #1 disadvantage of using microstock is the lack of exclusiveness on the image, but designers and editors keep forgetting.     Microstock it's a great tool, but not for everyone or every job and blaming microstock for this it's like blaming the hammer for hitting your own hand...  
Logged

Aldo Murillo

H4D-40, HCD 4-5.6/35-90, HC 2.2/100, HC 4/210
Nikon D700, 2.8/24-70, 2.8/70-200, 1.4/50, 2.8/60

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14705
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #82 on: May 06, 2010, 02:42:35 PM »

No, basically one blames it for cutting off what used to be the imaginary pension fund for the snapper's old age.

There is nothing good that can be said of it for the pro; that some are reputed to make a living from it doesn't alter the greater reality that it has put many more right out of business.

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14705
Re: A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #83 on: September 15, 2010, 05:11:18 AM »

Hi Keith

Thought you were back in Greece - maybe you were just working!

Thanks for the link - it's what I always imagined was going to happen one day, but probably too late for me. Even in the 'real' days of Getty is wasn't all roses: whilst some of my work sold (for no apparent reason I could see) in the thousand + quid (to me) area, the majority of it that sold at all breaststroked along at around fifty to a hundred. As you know, I once floated a model trip as an exercise in finding out how the economics worked without the safety net of commissioned work as source material. It took me over two years of stock (RM) to get my money back. No profit, just getting the outlay back. There never was profit from that shoot, ever. Of course, should my website now create a sale to every LuLa faithful, then I might be in a position to replace the Escort after twelve years of ownership, even float another shoot... so you see, dreams never die, they just dissolve a bit around the edges.

;-)

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14705
Re: A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #84 on: September 15, 2010, 09:54:55 AM »

Hi Rob

I know there are those who invested serious money in producing stock and those who did well in doing so, but it was always a risk. I spent very little on the small amount of dedicated RM stock I produced, hence the risk was minimal, but I do appreciate that this approach wasn't possible for all.

May RF and micro-stock burn in hell.



If it's not sacrilege: Amen to that!

Rob C

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2903
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #85 on: September 15, 2010, 12:10:45 PM »

Yet again, more royalty free woes.

http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/2010/09/13/istockphotos-unsustainable-business-model-from-crowd-sourcing-to-crowd-shafting-2/

That was a great article, thanks! That quote from a "traditional" pro photographer is priceless. A bit light on the unsustainability claims, but the details are understandably not disclosed by iStock. I wonder how much of iStock's income comes from part-time amateurs; I assume it's the ones who are semi-pro or pro iStockers are the ones who are livid, while the rest don't care or even know (see below). If pros are only a minor portion, the traditional pro is probably right: iStock contributors just have to suck it up or pack their bags.

But what most shocked me is that the new royalty scheme was announced only on iStock forums, and contributors were not asked to sign a new contract or even informed of the changes directly! IANAL and I haven't read iStock's contract, but "meeting of minds" and actually accepting (signing) changes in a contract are some of the most basic tenets of contract law.

Oh, and from the forum quotes: “You can’t survive on 60-80% of the profits from a product that you have 0% ownership in? Sad. Pathetic.” ;D
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up