We all know that if you throw an object into the air it will come down, but does this apply to business too? If a business reaches the pinnacle of success can it continually be innovative, adapt to changing circumstances and stay on top of its game, or is it inevitable that a time will come where wrong decision making, increased competition or simply its own complacency will eventually lead to it falling.

If an object can achieve sufficient upward velocity though, the shackles of gravity can no longer restrain it and it can continue to rise. In businesses this would be to achieve continuous growth. It seems that most businesses, even those which seem out of reach to their competitors, can only do this for a certain duration.

Below are some recent articles which discuss this. Further below is some news on redundancies at iStockphoto, and at the end of this post there is a link to an article with some good news for microstockers.

Can a company live forever?

Excerpt: The past few years have seen previously unthinkable corporate behemoths – from financial firms such as Lehman Brothers to iconic car manufacturers such as Saab – felled by economic turmoil or by unforgiving customers and tough rivals….The average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century, from 67 years in the 1920s to just 15 years today..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16611040

The last Kodak moment?

Excerpt: Unlike people, companies can in theory live for ever. But most die young, because the corporate world, unlike society at large, is a fight to the death. Fujifilm has mastered new tactics and survived …Kodak, along with many a great company before it, appears simply to have run its course. After 132 years it is poised, like an old photo, to fade away.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542796

Gone in a flash

Excerpt: Kodak’s fate ought to be a lesson for today’s technology powerhouses such as Google, Microsoft and Facebook. No firm, however strong, can count on continued success: market dominance is only a snapshot in time.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/kodak-files-bankruptcy-protection-1

Layoffs at iStockphoto

This week Getty Images announced that approximately 30 employees of iStockphoto will be made redundant in the coming months. The confirmation came after some of iStockphoto’s employees voiced their discontent on Twitter and Facebook. Coincidentally, Kelly Thompson the former Chief Operating Officer at iStockphoto, who a few months ago moved from Calgary to New York for a position at Getty Images will be leaving Getty today, “to pursue other interests”.

iStockphoto, which was once the darling of the microstock industry, at the time of announcing that royalties for contributors would begin at 15%, declared that their business model was “unsustainable”, a word that hardly breeds confidence. Since then many buyers and contributors have fallen out with the company and site traffic comparisons show that traffic, which largely consists of buyers, is shifting away from iStock whilst its main competitor Shutterstock is experiencing a rise. Can iStock remain at the top of its game? There are many who believe that it is already well past its heyday.

Good news for Microstockers

The Microstock concept has already surpassed 10 years, it still has a lot of opposition and many may want it to fall, but right now it is still in ascendancy and consistently increasing its share of the market. Here’s an interesting article by Jim Pickerell which discusses this and some differences between microstock and traditional sites.

Excerpt: More and more customers are going to the microstock sites to find most of the images they need. Microstock prices, while still low, are going up. Prices for RM images are going down as the sellers of these products try to compete with microstock. Many RM images are now being licensed for prices lower than microstock. The proportional share of images licensed as RM relative to the share licensed as microstock is declining steadily.

http://rising.blackstar.com/rights-licensing-is-all-about-visibility.html

Related posts:

1. iStockphoto makes all the wrong moves
2. Microstock agencies are like girlfriends

.

In the thread some of the contributors point out that up to half of their revenue now comes from non-subscription downloads. I’m not sure if  this will be the case for most contributors, but I would think certainly a sizeable portion of contributors earnings will now come from downloads other than subscriptions. My own stats show that just over one third of my revenue from Shutterstock comes from downloads which aren’t subscription downloads. So what does this mean? Well for a start it pushes revenue per download up, plus if a site has many ways of licensing images, this should help to attract the different types of buyers, maybe also buyers who’ve had enough of the antics at iStopped.

You sell your images for 25 cents, hahaha!

There are still people who dislike or don’t understand microstock. When they critisise it they are usually eager to mention Shutterstock’s lowest earning rate for a download which is 25 cents. They always either purposely don’t mention or are simply unaware that there are so many different other rates too, with the highest being $28 which comes from an extended license purchase.

Extended License Sales

Surprisingly ELs on Shutterstock when first introduced could only be bought via subscription packages, where buyers could download 25 a month. Shutterstock have since increased the prices of ELs and reduced the minimum amount that can be purchased to just 2, as well as reducing the royalty percentage given to contributors from 50% to as low as 28%. I’m sure there would be buyers who would like the option of buying one EL at a time also, as opposed to the minimum purchase of 2 at $199, especially given that it is now even possible to pay for a single image with a regular license, as long as you are lucky enough to be in a single download zone. $28 given to contributors for EL sales undoubtedly could be better and it is better on some other sites, the highest paying EL I’ve received to date was on 123rf which was $43. There is now a site however where contributors can receive less than $3 for an Extended License sale, they can receive higher amounts too but none of the rates are particularly attractive. The savvy contributors though are opting out of these Els, so as not to jeopardise their EL revenue elsewhere, after all buyers can easily find your images wherever they are. So although $28 for an Extended License sale on Shutterstock is by no means as good as it could be, it’s not a crazy low rate either and they are regular enough to add significantly to your overall earnings.

Volume

Subscriptions, for which earnings actually range from 25 cents to 38 cents per download, certainly account for the bulk of the downloads and I would still think the majority of most contributors earnings (maybe the poll will reveal this). When contributors first get accepted they immediately see sales, even from their initial 10 images and an image in a port can be downloaded by subscription purchases up to hundreds of times. I can’t say for certain, but I would imagine many images are even downloaded and never used. The subscription plans allows buyers to download 25 images a day, most people probably never need that much and it’s pretty easy for them to download a few alternative images for the ideas they have in mind, or just download images which they could potentially use in the future, whether they eventually end up using them or not.

With all the download sources on Shutterstock par Enhanced downloads, your pay increases as your total earnings increase. This is how it works for subscription downloads and the On Demand downloads that aren’t limited by size.

Check your stats

My revenue split on Shutterstock. Blue: Subscriptions, Yellow: On Demands, Red: Extended licenses

Pie chart automatically configured by Microstock Analytics

So just how much of your revenue comes from non-subscription downloads on Shutterstock? I’d like to get more of an idea, please take a couple of minutes to look at your Shutterstock stats and take part in the poll at the top of this post. Thank you

How to calculate: Total On Demand earnings + Total Single download earnings + Total Extended license earnings ÷ total lifetime earnings x 100

= percentage of non-subscription earnings.

Related posts:

1. Istock’s loss is Shutterstock’s gain
2. What goes up must come down?

This is on iStock’s Artist’s Suply Agreement (ASA) questions and answers page.

Q. How do I say no to the new ASA?
A. Contact artists@istockphoto.com to close your account.

On September 28 non-exclusive contributors of iStockphoto, will either have to accept the new ASA or leave. When the new ASA takes effect non-exclusive files are no longer allowed to be exempt from the ‘partner program’. I’ve read many comments of what people are doing or intending to do. Some will continue as normal, some are deactivating their files or their best selling files, some will keep their files online but won’t be sending new files, some will continue to upload but only several months after they have sent their stuff to competing agencies, some have already closed their accounts. Below are comments from several microstockers in regards to iStock’s new ASA, some are direct quotes for this blog, but most of the comments are from the forum Microstock Group (msg) with the permission of those who made the comments. The name Microstocker has been used for those who wished to remain anonymous.

The Reaction

“I’ll continue to delete my photos. I’ve been removing five a day since the assault on royalties, and this just encourages me to keep going. iStock represents 15% or my modest stock income over the past year, and is down to 13% this month. I’ll miss it, but I’d miss my dignity and sense of worth more.”
Hank Shiffman: Port on Shutterstock

“As soon as Bruce sold to Getty, I knew that at some point down the road I would not fit into their grand scheme. I just don’t ever see istock going back to the way it was before. As is most things nowadays, once it flipped over into a huge amount of money type of business, the fat cats rolled in and someone like me is crap out of luck. For me, it has pretty much run its course. I will leave my images up until they no longer earn anything, then will take them down.”
Microstocker

“After giving it a lot of thought, I decided to stay with istock and I accepted the new agreement. I’m not thrilled about having my work in the Partner Program, since obviously ThinkStock is designed to compete with Shutterstock and having my work on ThinkStock could potentially cannibalize my Shutterstock earnings. But right now I also don’t see ThinkStock posing any serious threat to Shutterstock. They don’t have anything significant enough to lure SS subscribers over to their site.

If that ever changes, and if I see increasing ThinkStock sales and decreasing Shutterstock sales, I’d have to reconsider my stance on the Partner Program. But for now, I’m not worried about it. Shutterstock is my top earning agency by a lot, and I’ll be careful to monitor how my earnings there look by comparison to ThinkStock, but right now I’m not convinced that ThinkStock is equipped to become any noticeable threat to my Shutterstock earnings.”
Mike McDonald: Port on Shutterstock

“I already left beginning of the year when the lowered royalties kicked in. These new changes don’t make me feel like I have to reconsider that decision.”
dirkr: Port on Zoonar

“I’m not happy but I’m staying. Too much of my income comes from iStock to leave (as I’m sure they realize). I won’t lift a finger to help them, but I’m not going to hurt my income any further by pulling out.

The less money they make me, the easier they make it to leave them, but at the moment, they haven’t cut my income enough to make it easy to walk away.

I just hope that like a good movie plot, at some future time all the bad karma will come back to bite Getty on the arse. Life doesn’t always oblige that way, but one can only hope.”
Jo Ann Snover: Port on Shutterstock

“A year ago I stopped uploading new images there. Now I’ve picked the images I’ll keep on there and I put them into p+ (if they weren’t already) – a mix of decent sellers that didn’t get accepted or never really sold much at other sites and smaller images and old crappy ones. As the 28th approaches I’ll start removing the rest. I’ll be sorry to lose all the work that it took to get them up and the shrinking income I still get there, but I am sick of their heavy handed approach and greedy ways. I have no reason to believe that things will get any better there, so I am going to make this move. I wish everyone would do the same, as it would make Getty and the others take notice, but I can understand why people don’t.”
Pancaketom: Port on Dreamstime

“So probably many of us will stay on IS… That may be OK for now. But we have to make plan on long period and on personal level, some kind of process through time how to bring customers on agencies with better deal for us.”
Sbotas: Port on 123rf

“I’m leaving – the only decision I have left to make now is whether I close my account completely, or disable most of my portfolio. I may leave a couple of old images active to keep my account open, just in case iStock management changes for the better someday (dream on). I expect that if I stay things will keep getting worse – earnings will continue to decrease over time, and the terms of the ASA will become even more unreasonable. I’m jumping off the sinking ship now, and plan on working very hard to create my best new images for iStock’s competitors. I see it as sacrificing short term gain for long term stability, both for myself and for the industry as a whole. The alternative is to give in to hopelessness and let iStock kick me around to the bitter end. Call me deluded, but I’m casting my vote in favor of hope.”
Microstocker

“I’ve joined a bunch of smaller sites I wouldn’t have bothered with a year or two ago as part of a strategy to maximize my earnings on my existing portfolio.

It’s all well and good for us to plan ahead and do what we can to support the industry for the long term, but developments in the last year have me questioning whether there is a long term for microstock – at least from the contributor perspective.”
Lisafx: Port on Dreamstime

It’s Just Business

“I know you non-exclusives are pissed and you should be.

You are getting F-ed again. How many ways does IS need to tell you  to piss off? Their business model does not include you.”
Microstocker

And he may be right. Or iStock may have determined that enough contributors will continue, no matter how many times they are hit or how much their revenue drops. As of January this year iStock reduced commissions for non-exclusive contributors to as low as 15%. The reason given was that their business model was “unsustainable” despite being one of the world’s most successful microstock agencies.

“When you start pushing commissions down to 15% that’s when people really start uprising. I have about 300 direct/regular buyers and they all say the same when we have talks and they get to know that the commissions are that low: “wow, I did not know that, I will stop buying from them”. When all platforms are offering the same images (more or less) fairness matters.”
Yuri Arcurs: Port on Shutterstock

Fairness should matter to both buyers and contributors. Many buyers are not aware of just how low commissions have become and for sure there will be buyers that will search for images elsewhere, if they know. If you bought something for your business from a business which has evidently questionable morals/tactics, this in turn could affect how your own business is seen. For contributors, most just see the dollars they receive and try not to think too much about what an agency has earned from their work, but a growing number of them, unable to stomach this fact any longer are dumping agencies like iStock, despite short term financial loss to their microstock income and some of them have quite large microstock incomes too.

An ‘unsustainable business model’, was the reason given for having to cut commissions, a far cry from what they were saying in April 2008:

“That our revenue and payouts have eclipsed those of many traditional stock photography companies confirms that microstock is a viable and profitable business model for contributors and clients. We wanted to share the sheer scale of how viable and profitable we’ve all become together. The supercharged growth we had in 2007 was orchestrated by an astounding management team that helped make iStockphoto the envy of the industry.”

iStock’s next step may well be to disallow exclusives from opting out of the partner program. Why not? If it’s now all about the bottom line, there are still many more possibilities I can think of. 15% commission isn’t 5% so there is still room for further adjustments. Shutterstock in comparison, keeps on doing what it’s always done, without changing anything and without upsetting the blood flow, and they seemingly go from strength to strength. Although, one noticeable thing is, although they haven’t decreased what they pay they’re not giving pay rises either, as they frequently did in the past. I guess when everyone around them are cutting contributor commissions, all they have to do is stand still and be seen as a knight in shining armour.

Sinking?

One person says in the quotes above, “I’m jumping off the sinking ship now..” There seems to be a lot of contributors who believe that iStock is sinking, these opinions may be because the percentage of contributors who are sinking is increasing (particularly non-exclusives), but iStock itself isn’t sinking. However, if current decision making is based on short term gain, this may not play well for long term prospects, which ultimately could be more of a worry for iStock exclusives. For now though, reports on decreasing revenues for non-exclusive contributors appear to be on the rise, and I’m not talking about those with small ports who can double their portfolio size in a short time. I’m talking about those that make a living, or at least a large part of their income coming from microstock. Only this week the world’s most successful microstock photographer started a thread on msg, stating that his sales were dropping and particularly for iStock.

Is ThinkStock A Threat?

For non-exclusive contributors who are used to travelling on several ships and are uploading as normal, and allowing their images to go in the partner program, in this particular case having one foot on one ship whilst at the same time having another foot on another, could potentially have negative consequences. Shutterstock has been virtually unrivalled in the subscription market ever since its inception, but with ThinkStock desiring to chip away at Shutterstock’s customer base and prospective customers, supporting another subscription model with the same files may well end up diminishing your revenue at Shutterstock, who never seem to take any severe measures in order to sustain a so called uhum, ‘unsustainable’ business for example. With credit package purchases, it’s easy to jump around from agency to agency and many buyers do. But for those who primarily buy large subscription packages, I’d imagine they would choose one or the other and one of the major factors in making this decision is the amount of choice available. Right now ThinkStock isn’t a threat to Shutterstock, but it could be easier for it to become a threat when all those who are sticking with iStock are no longer allowed to opt out of the partner program, and it could become more of a threat to Shutterstock, if one day iStock exclusives are told to either accept a new ASA or ‘contact artists@istockphoto.com to close your account’.

iStock may once have been the envy of the microstock industry, but all of them look at Shutterstock’s model and think, if only we thought of that first. Their leading position in the subs market though is of course not infallible.

Conclusion

iStock (or rather their owners) are continually trying to squeeze more and more out of the files they hold, in every conceivable way and seemingly focusing on short term gain, I’m not convinced that their decision making in the last few years will ultimately benefit them in the long term. Whatever the future holds for iStockphoto though, the glory days for so many of their contributors have long gone. And from looking at iStock’s traffic, it seems that many of their buyers have gone too. This still doesn’t mean that the company is making a loss, at the moment far from it, but the ever shortening tail made up buyers which was once very long could pose risks in long term prospects, especially if those falling off the tail are helping to make iStock’s competitors stronger.

Whatever you decide to do, to keep your head above water in the microstock industry is of course up to you, but with options continually diminishing and commissions diminishing too, there may be nothing you can do.

Related posts:

1. Istock’s loss is Shutterstock’s gain
2. Microstock agencies are like girlfriends

I thought I’d share this funny thread on msg with you. (With permission from the authors, the first two comments are posted here)

Microstock agencies are like girlfriends.
In the beginning it is grand,
show me your pixels, love your pixels,
I need your pixels,
I want your pixels, more, please more.
All is happy, all she talks about is your pixels.
You think everything is great and move-in with her.
It is so swell she is happy with your pixels,
she tells you your pixels make her feel good.
One night, you say, “let me show some new pixels.”
Suddenly, out of the blue
honey not tonight, “I have a headache!”
Your first rejection!
The next night, “honey not tonight, I have already seen your pix!”
Your rejection rate increases!
You realize your girlfriend is becoming old and tired.
She tells you, “I don’t want to see your pix, I already had your pix.
Total rejection, you lose all interest and quit submitting.
The final rejection, she says, It is just a “snapshot” and the final insult,
The new Photographer is a stud and his pixels are bigger.

©2011 C Buegeler

msg member jsnover responds to the above:

Or, they’re like boyfriends – full of flattery and wonderful promises, but once they’ve got what they want – your images – everything’s different.

They don’t reply to your customer support tickets, payments are late, promises for more promotion for your images just never materialize – but it’ll be happening “soon”, they’re seeing not one, but thousands of others…

In the end, there you are, alone on a Saturday night with just your hard drive full of wonderful images, crying into a large tub of ice cream which you’re eating furiously.

Related posts:

1. Poetry for the Struggling Microstocker
2. Why bother?

The graph below compares US visits stats between the two sites, from June 2007 to the end of April 2011. The green line is Shutterstock. In this graph Shutterstock overtakes istock for the first time in December 2010.

Why is Istockphoto losing traffic and Shuttertock gaining?

Here are a few probable reasons.

1. Istock’s prices have been increasing. Microstock appeals to the masses, quite simply because it’s cheap, much cheaper than macrostock and much cheaper than hiring photographers. Yes, the images and footage can be bought multiple times, which hardly make them unique, but that doesn’t seem to bother most people. Out of all the media out there, just how much do we end up seeing? A small fraction probably and how often do we see an image twice and if we do, would we remember? Maybe those who work as artists, photographers or in the media industry are more likely to notice the same images being used by different publishers, but I would guess that most people don’t notice. So although many buyers don’t worry too much about the uniqueness of images, they do worry about price, especially if they are buying large quantities. You can see examples of the same photos being sold on different sites on spiderpic, the difference in price between the sites is now becoming substantial.

2. Shutterstock’s prices remain stable and for buyers who need large quantities, this subscription site is by far the most cost effective. Shutterstock know they have a winning formula and there is no need to change it.

3. It is widely reported that istock’s site is bug ridden and has been for a while. It’s a grievance I see in forums all the time. Shutterstock and indeed all sites have a few bugs too, but the bugs on istock are said to be excessive, which doesn’t make for a pleasant online experience.

4. In September last year istock announced that they will be dropping commission rates, which were already very low, the drop in commissions became effective in January of this year. The internet is awash with blog posts and forum comments from contributors expressing their feelings about this move. See this post for examples. Has this gone completely unnoticed by buyers? I’m sure most buyers wouldn’t care what percentage is offered to those who make the images they download, but there will definitely be a proportion that do. I even read one forum thread of a contributor calling some of istock’s customers (i.e. various companies), informing them of what is happening and asking them to consider buying from other agencies, which is extreme to say the least, but sometimes people take extreme actions if they feel impassioned enough. Just a note, if you are thinking that if the contributors don’t like their commissions being cut, why don’t they just leave istock? Well when most of them started submitting, they were content with the conditions at the time. They then built up large portfolios and to build up a large portfolio on istock or any of the major agencies takes a lot of time. Make no mistake, it is work, it may be work that they enjoy but it is still work nonetheless and for many it’s work carried out after coming home from their day jobs. So to just get up and leave after spending so much time on the whole process isn’t the easiest of decisions, especially for those who are working exclusively with istock. Contributors never change the rules, they are subject to them and they hope that the agencies they work with will act honourably. But with regulation seemingly non-existent in this industry, the worst in human nature all too easily comes to the forefront, which is ‘lets take what we can get’. And with contributors being such an expendable asset, agencies seem to be able to get away with a lot.

I personally have seen significant increases in downloads on both Shutterstock as well as 123rf in recent months. I have small ports and I don’t upload much, but my downloads and revenue on these 2 sites have increased dramatically. On 123rf, my growth in sales started back in October 2010 and it doesn’t seem to be petering out. Whilst downloads on other sites remain steady. Below are my own download stats for Shutterstock so far this year, considering at the time of publishing this I only have 156 files online with them, the amount of downloads is impressive. May was the best month for me in terms of downloads by a long way and the way things are going so far this month, I may well end up getting as much by the end of June. Lots of new buyers maybe? I think so.

Bar chart by microstockanalytics.com (Click on image, to go to site)

If istock is losing traffic are they losing revenue?

Well, they are giving less to their suppliers and charging their buyers more. It seems that istock at some point made a business decision to get rid of the ‘little people’, in regards to buyers and I’m sure they don’t mind shedding a few non-exclusive contributors too. In contrast, Bigstock, which is part of Shutterstock is embracing the occasional buyers market, having recently introduced pay as you go purchasing. Istockphoto however, now seems to want to become the Porsche of the microstock industry. Porsche don’t make cheap city-runners as they don’t want to deal with all the ‘little people’, they would rather deal with the serious customers willing (and able) to spend $200,000 on a car. So buyers who could once afford istock’s prices have probably been seeking alternatives.

Istock may well not be missing them.

Related posts:

1. iStockphoto’s Opt in or Close Account Ultimatum
2. Just how much of a subscription site is Shutterstock?

Check out the video about the new way to buy images on Bigstock and look out for the cow which didn’t make it over the gate, which certainly got my attention. Here’s a link to the image if you can’t play the video. Link

Right. Time for bed!

Related posts:

1. Microstock Sites Spring Clean
2. Istock’s loss is Shutterstock’s gain

Prince Kelly was sitting in the garden of the King’s palace, with his good friend the Chancellor of Exchequer. He looked troubled. His Father King Getty watched him from the window of his palace and ordered a servant to summon him. The Prince met his Father. King Getty asked his son, “Why do you sit in the Royal gardens looking troubled?” Father I must confess, that I have become fond of a potion and when I drink it I feel so happy and get lost in delusional thoughts. But Father, this potion is exceedingly addictive and I just want more of it. King Getty, replies to his son, “son I know of the delights of this potion, for I have been consuming it for years and on these lands the potion can only be made by my workers and bought through my agents. Where do you think all my wealth comes from? Indeed the potion is in demand and very addictive, but if you take it, your mind quickly becomes full of delusional thoughts. Come hither and I will show you where I store this potion.” The King leads the Prince to a secret chamber.” Here son, I grant you access to this chamber and you can take the potion at anytime and no one but I will ever have the power to stop you. Prince Kelly, became transfixed on seeing this potion in bountiful amounts. “Oh Father, where did you find such a surplus of my favourite toxin?” “Are you completely unaware of who makes this potion my son? It is our subjects who make this potion.” “Oh Father, your generosity knows no bounds and I bow down before you.” “No son, do you really think you can take this for free, you will pay me son, I did not get to where I am today by being generous. But I warn you son, I do not accept late payments, also you must take the potion in limited amounts, as if you take too much you may not come back down from your delusional thoughts. “Yes Father, I will take it in small amounts”. “And..?” said the King. “Yes Father, I will pay you and pay you on time.” “Good boy, Kelly. You may yet learn ways that have made me so wise.” “Yes Father, surely thou lead the way in this glorious kingdom.”

Prince Kelly lost no time in summoning his servants to load barrels of the potion on to his royal carriages and then ordered the riders to take him and the Chancellor to his Castle. The Prince and the Chancellor drank their beloved potion to their heart’s content during the journey. Upon arriving at his castle, crowds of people were gathered. The Prince, climbed to the top of his carriage and confidently waved at the crowd. “Thank you my loyal subjects, but there is no need to wait for me to return to my castle, I can assure I am just fine”, the Prince said with a wide grin and lit eyes. One of the guards approached the carriage, “permission to speak Prince Kelly, the most noble the most wise.” “Well of course” said the Prince, “I have never stopped anyone speaking before, I am not my brother Prince Lobo.” The guard climbed the carriage and whispered into the Prince’s royal ear, “the crowds are here because they are complaining that they pay too much tax.” “But did I not only just reduce taxes in January of this year?” No Prince Kelly, the most noble, the most wise, you increased them.” “I increased them?” “Yes Prince Kelly, it was a decision you made during one of your parties last year.” “Was I drinking the special potion at this party?” “Yes Prince Kelly, you were as high as a kite and as high as you are now.” “Oh, I see, well it was probably a good decision then, as the kingdom does need to be sustained after all, we can’t live on bread alone you know.”

This was originally posted on http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20059972-264.html The text has since been altered and the quote about dramatically affecting only "0.1% of the more than 100,000 contributors" has been deleted. This article was also reblogged here http://breakingnews24hrs.net/techonology/expansion-istockphoto-makes-the-top-video-game-range/ with the original quote, but the article has since been removed (June 2011). Luckily I used a snipping tool at the time, which shows the original text and quote by Kelly. (jpg created in May 2011, but attached to this article in July 2011)

“I will address the crowd. I am your Prince and you are my subjects, now go home.” One man shouted from the crowd, “But we keep working harder and harder and are rewarded less and less.” “Reward? Reward?” shouted the Prince. “Surely it is not money that makes you happy, but the love of the Kingdom? Do you not think it pains me to take more money from you? But we do this for the greater cause. Your numbers may be many, but you are all individuals so you are weak and feeble. We as your royal family must lead you and make any necessary decisions regarding your welfare on your behalf, trust in your royal family, we know what is best for you. Do not think that the money is for us, the taxes levied are to sustain our Kingdom, surely you want our Kingdom to remain the most powerful on earth? Do not ever think of leaving our kingdom for that is the path to ruin and despair, in our kingdom you all have a chance of wearing a crown, no other kingdom gives it’s people this prestigious honour.” The man from the crowd shouted out, “But the taxes are affecting us deeply, we toil to make the potion, which is devoured by you and the King, yet we get little reward for our efforts.” The Prince leaned into the carriage and asked his Chancellor who was still swigging the potion, “Do the taxes really affect these peons substantially?” Upon hearing the Chancellor’s answer, the Prince addressed the crowd again and said “I have been reliably informed by the Chancellor of Exchequer, that the taxes only really affect “0.1%” (quote) of you, now get back to work and make some more potion.”

To which the entire crowd for the first time acted in unison as their jaws simultaneously hit the floor.

Related posts:

1. Istock’s loss is Shutterstock’s gain
2. iStockphoto makes all the wrong moves

Social networks as you probably know have become far more than finding long lost friends and making new ones. Most businesses use social networks as tools to promote their business and to communicate with customers or potential customers. Many microstock photographers use social networks to give updates of their latest work or blog posts.

Microstock agencies seem to be besotted with Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, often to the point that traditional methods of online communication have fallen by the wayside, such as sending updates via email or even announcing updates on their own sites. About a year ago 123rf revamped its site, but the site forum mysteriously disappeared, they later said that contributors can now ask questions on Facebook. But what about those who don’t have Facebook accounts and although it may seem unimaginable for Facebook users, there are still plenty of people who don’t and there are those who don’t use it that much. To be fair on 123rf, they do answer your emails and participate in independent forums such as msg, infact participate much more than they ever did when they had their own forum. Again though, not everyone uses independent forums, but we all log in to our microstock accounts and we all check our emails.

Last month both Yaymicro and Cutcaster announced that Facebook ‘likes’ will play a part in determining the positions of images in search. As Yaymicro puts it, “The more “likes” your image gets, the more it gets boosted. Get your friends to help you promote your images!” Blimey! It was already difficult to sell anything on these two sites and now I have to pester my friends to ‘like’ my images, to have any sort of chance at all. And what about buyers, will they easily be able to find the most suitable photos for their needs, or will the first photos they see be the photos of contributors who have the most friends?

Naturally though, having these agencies images appearing all over Facebook as being ‘liked’ is good exposure for both Yaymicro and Cutcaster, as well as their Facebook loving contributors. And with these agencies offering contributors good commissions, I would like to see them perform better. The first microstock site iStockphoto, now pays as little as 15% to their contributors and this 54 page thread is an indication of just how much this is disliked. I doubt though that most buyers know or even care about the size of commissions an agency offers its suppliers. They care about finding the right images and each agency tries to persuade buyers, that what they need can be found on their site and found easily. Newer agencies find it difficult to compete with agencies that established themselves in the first few years of microstock, and are probably run on much tighter budgets, so they have to try and find innovative ways of reaching as many buyers as possible. I just don’t think that making contributors compete for search placements, with the aid of a social network is the right way to go about it.

Related posts:

1. Microstock Sites Spring Clean
2. iStockphoto makes all the wrong moves

I was having a look at Shutterstock‘s new darkroom for contributors. It’s still in experimental phase, but looks pretty good to me already. In the Gallery View, we can view total earnings for individual images and these images appear in a list in order of total purchases, total earned or by the date uploaded. I clicked on total earned to see the order of my most lucrative images.

What are my earners?

I have a very small portfolio on Shutterstock, at the moment just 145 images. In a collection of 14.5 million images, it’s amazing that my images are found at all. However, my images are downloaded by buyers pretty much everyday and to date have been downloaded 1021 times. Looking at my top earning photos, I’m trying to see if there are any trends. 2 out of my top 10 earners are editorial images, 2 are landscapes (1 taken from a passenger plane), 1 is a cityscape (taken from a passenger plane), 4 are portraits and 1 is a still life shot, so a fair mix. Out of these 145 images, 52% of my earnings have come from just 10 images, which is just 6.9% of my portfolio and between them have been downloaded 434 times. If only there was a microstock clairvoyant plugin which could tell you what images you shouldn’t spend your time on. Could I have guessed that my top 10 shots would have done so well before I uploaded them? Possibly, but as much as I try to choose only winners to send to agencies, time and time again I guess wrong and it often surprises me that what I think may have great potential, often gets rejected by reviewers. But the reviewers don’t always get it right. More than 50% of my earnings are from just 10 images, but the reviewers had confidence in all 145 of them, many of which have just had a few downloads and 38 images haven’t had any downloads at all. So to a large extent it seems that they are guessing too.

Why are they winners?

Like many people who submit to microstock, I am not a full time photographer and take photos, edit and upload when I can. Until now, I haven’t spent too much time analysing my sales and just send the agencies images I like. But I want to start focusing more on what buyers like, so I will look more closely at what sells from now on. What is unusual about my own stats is that only 2 of my top ten most profitable photos on Shutterstock were shot with all seriousness, for me that mostly means going to an event with the intent of getting marketable images, but I also occasionally shoot models and still life. 8 out of my 10 most profitable shots were taken when I just had my camera with me (which is not always), without having any events to go to or ideas in my head, random pictures of people and places. So the images which I seem to be putting the least effort into are making me the most money. Maybe I should stop trying altogether.

I’m trying to find reasons to why these shots are doing so well. Walking around aimlessly and stopping if something or someone catches my eye is what I enjoy doing and what I have always done. I love to take portraits of ordinary people, but on the occasions I shoot models or still life, I find myself just wanting to get the shoot over with. The logic is, if you’re not enjoying it you’re not going to get the best results. Events I go to often just last a few hours, there is of course a certain pressure if you know that you have just a short time to get some decent shots. I’m not saying I don’t enjoy the events I go to or I don’t come out with anything good, but I still prefer to be walking around aimlessly and stopping if something or someone catches my eye. Also, often events that I go to have lots of photographers, with many of them being full time professionals, directly or indirectly this is my competition, which may be a much tougher competition than those who I’m competing with taking random photos of people and places.

I have experimented with all sorts of photography, but just don’t seem to enjoy it as much as what I already know and feel is second nature to me. And if I look at my top selling photographs on Shutterstock most of them represent what I feel I do best. Other images, although accepted by Shutterstock but of subjects I feel that aren’t my strongest, are competing with images by photographers who have more of a passion for these subjects, and it probably shows in their work. So although it may be good to diversify, the chances are that you are not going to be good at everything and it might be better to find what you’re good at and try to perfect it.

Shelf life

The nice thing about stock is that the work you do today can reward you for years and years. So it’s worth remembering when you shoot if the image you take has longevity. I have an image of passport stamps which sold really well for quite a while. However, sales of this image all but died out. The stamps date from 2006 to 2008, so the image looks outdated now. The image below though, of a Cambodian boy playing the flute, which I sent to agencies a couple of years ago, continues to sell consistently and I expect it to keep selling for years to come, well at least as long as there are boys in Cambodia selling flutes to tourists.

Get Big Headed

Ideally we would want a large revenue from each one of our images online. Although it may not be possible to have equal success with all our images, analysing our sales and images from time to time could help us to increase the size of our head and reduce the length of our tail, in other words being able to recognise and produce more of what sells and recognising also what doesn’t do so well. It seems I have a long way to go. Inevitably though, there will always be certain images which for whatever reasons just hit the right chord with buyers, whether we could predict it or not.

Your observations

These are personal observations and thoughts from my own portfolio, but I would be interested to know about winning images from your own portfolio. Why do they sell so well and how good are you at choosing winners?

Related posts:

1. Discover Microstock Analytics
2. Show Me the Money!

I want more of the cake!

Those of you who are Dreamstime contributors will now receive 100% commission on all sales. Exclusive Dreamstime contributors will get a whopping 110%, in celebration of the 10 millionth image online. Yay, Christmas has come early. Oh, I’ve just been informed by my imaginary white bearded friend, that it’s only for today and the commissions will go back to 30% and 60% respectively, after this momentous day is over.

Still, this is just astounding, I am fighting back the tears as I write this. Since the dawn of microstock, no successful agency has ever considered such an act of generosity to one of the fundamental ingredients of any agency, its contributors. The all important buyers too, are not being left out in this 24 hours of craziness. Any image that is purchased today, will be discounted by 20%. I can really feel the love coming from this agency. Kindness like this from a microstock site, well it just makes me feel all good inside!

I’m not unknown for being generous myself. Usually I’m able to muster up some generosity, maybe once a year. For the rest of the year however, I’m a mean son of a gun. Don’t even look at my chocolate cake!

Thank you Dreamstime. I’ve always wanted to know what it feels like to receive a decent commission and now I know. Tomorrow however, it’s back to dreaming.

Mmm this cake tastes good. Roll on 20 million!

Related posts:

1. Zoonar and Polylooks Upload Bonus Offer
2. Microstock agencies love to like Facebook