DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Wow...Three Cents!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/12/2005 09:08:19 AM · #1
I was just over at istock browsing through the forums like I do every time I'm really bored...On the front page, someone was getting all jumpy because their account jumped three cents overnight. Apparently, they sold a print, and that's what they get from it is three cents.

Then like four other people chimed in on how they sold THREE PRINTS and got nine cents. That just really makes me sick. It's not necesarilly the fact that these people are being taken advantage of that gets to me...it's the fact that they're being taken advantage of, and they are absolutely thrilled by it!

Think about it...the owner(s) of iStock have to be climbing out of their chair, jumping over tables, and dreaming of the new BMW they're going to purchase...they sit there, rip people off, make MILLIONS, and watch how excited these people are about it all...like I said, absolutely sickening.
11/12/2005 09:49:49 AM · #2
3 cents?!?!?! Yikes. I am glad I never joined over there. I was considering it when I thought it was 20cents per image...LOL
11/12/2005 10:07:34 AM · #3
Unfortunately, the stock photo market is SATURATED! I mean, the explosion of digital has totally screwed the stock photo market.

I work for a photo services company. We are a 20 year old company and started off years ago mainly as a lab, high resolution photo studio. Roughly 25% of our income came from stock photo sales. Our images were in Getty, Corbis, well..every major stock site.

Today, less than 2% of our income comes from stock! I was at a conference in New York about a year ago when I worked for The Washington Times and it was an advertsing seminar for all the national advertisers and magazine publishers.

The word on the street was, advertising venues (the publishers and ad agencies) should move away from stock and more to original photography. Advertisers want photos that are personal to their business. Royalty Free and Digital has killed a lot of the value out of stock. I mean. Just look around here. Do you think 5 years ago anyone here would have imagined selling stock images? What with? A 2 megapixel digicam?

I applaud anyone making good money selling stock but you gotta sell A LOT of stock stuff to make a good living. My current company sold thousands of stock images a year (years ago) and averaged about $100 an image. Today? Forget it :-/

Message edited by author 2005-11-12 10:17:13.
11/12/2005 10:10:37 AM · #4
...and over here we get excited about 3/100's of a point...

No, it's not quite the same as iStock and their ilk. But for the person who is seeking validation of their photo skills it says the same thing: "Someone liked my work. Whoot!"
11/12/2005 10:38:56 AM · #5
Originally posted by KaDi:

...and over here we get excited about 3/100's of a point...

No, it's not quite the same as iStock and their ilk. But for the person who is seeking validation of their photo skills it says the same thing: "Someone liked my work. Whoot!"


Completely un-related...I am not taking a stab at someone because they need their work 'validated' or because they think their photo is worth three cents. I am just trying to make the point that there is someone getting rich off these people's photos. And I don't mean a little rich...I mean-buy-three-houses-in-three-states, drive-a-different-car-every-day-of-the-week rich.
11/12/2005 10:49:34 AM · #6
Originally posted by deapee:

I am just trying to make the point that there is someone getting rich off these people's photos. And I don't mean a little rich...I mean-buy-three-houses-in-three-states, drive-a-different-car-every-day-of-the-week rich.


Ain't America Great!!! :-D

Seriously, though. Nowadays it's the stock sites making the money..not the contributors. But not all stock sites are like that. But..there are a LOT of stock sites.

We are begged (I'm talking hands on knees begged) from at least 2 dozen stock sites each month to buy stuff. They know we move a lot of images a month and our customers can afford whatever they need (Bank of America, Advil, Hanes, etc) I just tell em we shoot our own stuff.

We also trade with other photogs but that is hard cause of liability and license issues.

Bottom line, I wouldn't be too quick to take sides for or against stock sites just because a few hobby photogs seem to be giving their stuff away.

You should be angry at the photogs for lowering the market value of stock photography. >:-(

Message edited by author 2005-11-12 10:50:45.
11/12/2005 10:55:33 AM · #7
Originally posted by hokie:

You should be angry at the photogs for lowering the market value of stock photography. >:-(


See, I felt that way once also...but you can't blame the photog's when they don't know what they're doing. Sure, they are a big part of the problem, but it's easy to get sucked into the micro stock site thinking you're going to make enough money to support your hobby...and I'm sure quite a few people do.

It's like the drug dealer tempts your kid with some drugs and he OD's and dies...do you blame your kid for taking the drugs or do you blame the drug-dealer that gave your kid the drugs?

--

I cannot answer that for certain, and I would imagine that some amount of fault lies on both parties involved, but I intend to do my part by attempting to open up the eyes of as many people as I can. Someone is getting rich...and it's not going to be you.
11/12/2005 11:17:25 AM · #8
Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by KaDi:

...and over here we get excited about 3/100's of a point...

No, it's not quite the same as iStock and their ilk. But for the person who is seeking validation of their photo skills it says the same thing: "Someone liked my work. Whoot!"


Completely un-related...I am not taking a stab at someone because they need their work 'validated' or because they think their photo is worth three cents. I am just trying to make the point that there is someone getting rich off these people's photos. And I don't mean a little rich...I mean-buy-three-houses-in-three-states, drive-a-different-car-every-day-of-the-week rich.


Originally posted by deapee:

It's not necesarilly the fact that these people are being taken advantage of that gets to me...it's the fact that they're being taken advantage of, and they are absolutely thrilled by it!


Huh?
11/12/2005 11:28:02 AM · #9
It seems to me that anyone whose photos are popular enough, and making a decent ($100 or more) income per month from those sites could probably be making $1,000's per month on a macro stock site instead. Unfortunately, once the image has been available on micro stock site it isn't worth as much to someone looking for a rights-managed image.
11/12/2005 11:32:10 AM · #10
Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by KaDi:

...and over here we get excited about 3/100's of a point...

No, it's not quite the same as iStock and their ilk. But for the person who is seeking validation of their photo skills it says the same thing: "Someone liked my work. Whoot!"


Completely un-related...I am not taking a stab at someone because they need their work 'validated' or because they think their photo is worth three cents. I am just trying to make the point that there is someone getting rich off these people's photos. And I don't mean a little rich...I mean-buy-three-houses-in-three-states, drive-a-different-car-every-day-of-the-week rich.


Originally posted by deapee:

It's not necesarilly the fact that these people are being taken advantage of that gets to me...it's the fact that they're being taken advantage of, and they are absolutely thrilled by it!


Huh?


If you're having a problem understanding something I wrote, try quoting what it is that you don't understand instead of nearly two paragraphs.
11/12/2005 12:00:43 PM · #11
Originally posted by deapee:


If you're having a problem understanding something I wrote, try quoting what it is that you don't understand instead of nearly two paragraphs.


I'm sorry. That was rather lazy-minded of me.

It seems in the first instance you said that what bothers you isn't that someone is being taken advantage of, but that they are "thrilled by it".

I know it's not all you said. But it is a part. I agree with you that work is being priced cheaply. (There have been other threads discussing the impact of these practices on the market.) But what struck me in your first post was your apparent disgust at people who announced their excitement over earning three cents.

All I said, is that DPC'rs get excited by points going up or down by a similar, insignificant amount.

If all you wanted to say was that people are being taken advantage of by the folks at iStock, then the dig at people being thrilled about their 3 cents earnings could have been left out.

So when you said that my post was "completely un-related" I lazily quoted the part of your original post that seems to contradict your second statement. I had hoped by putting the two things next to each other you would see that your were saying two things that were in opposition to each other.

As for the free marketplace, it's a funny business. There's a story we used to pass around when I was running my own crafts business:

Two guys set up at a flea market selling socks. The one fellow was having a slow day while the other was taking in money hand over fist. So the first guy had to check it out. He went over to the fellow making all the sales and said, "I see you're doing quite a business!"
The man replied, "Sure am!"
"Let me ask you," said the first man, "how do you do it?"
"Well," said the second man, "it's all in the prices. Gotta keep 'em low, ya know!"
"I see your prices are a dollar less per pair than I can buy socks for...what are you paying?"
"I pay the same as you, $2 per pair and sell them for $1--but I make it up in volume!"

Or, if you prefer this one about the free market:
Prostitutes should unionize and strike against marriage, since wives give it away for free....
11/12/2005 12:26:21 PM · #12
It's kind of the chicken or the egg- it the fault of the photographers to accept 3c, or the capitalist pig stock sites for offering 3c?

From your own vantage point, if you want to make money the easy way (take all those pics on your hard drive and let them make money for you on micro stock) then you get what lazy people get, a pittance. If you really want to work at it - find out what the market wants in content and style, then go make those images, you can probably get reasonable fees for your work.

So how hard to you want to work to make money at photography? The harder you work, the more you make.

Dave - start a micro stock sit eof your own, offer 5c an image and you should have lots of takers. So you can only afford 2 houses in 2 states and 3 different cars a week. You'll be seen as generous!
11/12/2005 12:34:03 PM · #13
I don't know the details of the print transaction, but let's say it's a 4x6 print. The cheapest I can get those bulk-printed is 10 cents, so I assume that's close to what it costs this company to print one up. So 3 cents is about 30% of the "cost of production" -- a royalty rate which seems not too inconsistent with what recording artists receive on tracks sold.

If you have more details about the actual print transactions then please clarify : )
11/12/2005 12:43:40 PM · #14
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I don't know the details of the print transaction, but let's say it's a 4x6 print. The cheapest I can get those bulk-printed is 10 cents, so I assume that's close to what it costs this company to print one up. So 3 cents is about 30% of the "cost of production" -- a royalty rate which seems not too inconsistent with what recording artists receive on tracks sold.

If you have more details about the actual print transactions then please clarify : )


I don't know the size, but I believe the amount the purchaser paid was $4.00 for the print...in terms of 'credits' or whatever system it is that iStock uses...although I didn't look into it so I cannot be sure.
11/12/2005 12:47:44 PM · #15
OK, thanks. My degree of outrage would be pretty dependent on the numbers involved ... maybe I'll look into it further.

For comparison, I'll make about 35-50 cents if you buy one of my 4x6 prints ... : )
11/12/2005 12:48:43 PM · #16
Originally posted by KaDi:

If all you wanted to say was that people are being taken advantage of by the folks at iStock, then the dig at people being thrilled about their 3 cents earnings could have been left out.


Well, it's not that...it's like I said earlier, let me try to elaborate.

People are being taken advantage of, unknowingly, and then celebrating as if they are coming out on top. It's like they're blind to what's going on here.

--

Here's an example, short and simple...

You're playing poker...you bring $1000 to the casino with you. You're down to $300 and go to bed for the night...you wake up the next morning and before you leave, you play some more, and you turn that $300 into $500. You're all estatic about it and can't stop celebrating because you just won $200!

I know it's quite a bit different, but it just seems like it's along the 'same page' to me. You get $.03 for selling a print, that is nothing, someone is making a huge income off of your lack of patience and lack of self-worth.
11/12/2005 12:52:51 PM · #17
Originally posted by GeneralE:

OK, thanks. My degree of outrage would be pretty dependent on the numbers involved ... maybe I'll look into it further.

For comparison, I'll make about 35-50 cents if you buy one of my 4x6 prints ... : )


OK let's use DPCprints as a reference. While their payout structure is a tad bit on the greedy side, it's still not that bad.

So I buy a 4x6 of yours from dpchallenge (I'm estimating here)...

Cost: $1.00
Cost of printing $.06
Difference: $.94
You get: $.47
DPC gets $.47

From iStock (again, estimating)...

Cost: $4.00
Cost of printing: $.06
Difference: $3.94
You get: $.03
iStock gets: $3.91

--------------------------------------

Now I have no way to tell how many prints or anything any of these businesses are selling, but I am quite sure that in both cases, the business is making a lot of money...iStock, however, is making a KILLING.
11/12/2005 01:15:03 PM · #18
No, at DPC Prints the "base price" for that print is 35 cents, so DPC Prints and I split the remaining 65 cents either 50/50 or 75/25 in my favor; I can make at most about 50 cents.

Plus, I can change that price myself -- and everything above base price is profit. I just choose to keep the prices on the small prints really low so people might be more tempted to add one to their order, either to use like a card, or as a sample to help decide whether or not to order an enlargement.
11/12/2005 01:31:19 PM · #19
Sorry for the lack of formatting. This is the table from iStock's announcement of print availability. 50% of $9.95 is more than 3 cents -- I wonder where that latter figure came from?

Photographers can now individually select images or default their entire portfolio to be available for print purchase - the choice is up to you. Available in the following sizes, for the following costs, with a 50% profit payout:

Print Size Min. Width Min. Height Unit
Price Print Process Paper Delivery Time: US N. America (non US)
11 X 14 1600 1200 $9.95 Traditional RA-4 Kodak Royal 4 business days 10 business days
12 X 18 2000 1500 $12.95 Traditional RA-4 Kodak Royal 4 business days 10 business days
16 X 20 2000 1500 $26.00 Inkjet Epson Premium 6 business days 14 business days
20 X 30 3072 2048 $39.00 Inkjet Epson Premium 6 business days 14 business days
11/12/2005 01:33:53 PM · #20
so it's 50% no matter what?

They were saying in the thread how their accounts went up $.03 and $.09 and another at $.03 --

and they also said there was no way to know what print sold or when that print sold as it doesn't keep track of it.
11/12/2005 01:42:34 PM · #21
Originally posted by deapee:

so it's 50% no matter what?

They were saying in the thread how their accounts went up $.03 and $.09 and another at $.03 --

and they also said there was no way to know what print sold or when that print sold as it doesn't keep track of it.

I haven't read any of the discussion threads -- I pulled that info from an announcement to which I was referred by iStock staff. Either those posters were mistaken, or they have information we don't.

Just as a hypothesis, I wonder if those are for some kind of electronic greeting card or something, where a low-res version is sent.

Another possibility is that they are looking at "referral" royalities, for referring someone who buys a print which is not their image. We have a similar (25%) referral royalty at DPC Prints. At Shutterstock, if a photographer signs up with them through your referral link, you get a 3 cent payment for each of their images downloaded ... maybe it's something like that.

I assure you, I have no objections to getting 3 cents every time someone else sells a picture ...: )
11/12/2005 02:01:16 PM · #22
[quote=deapee] It's like they're blind to what's going on here.

They suffer from OOS.

Oblivious to the Obvious Syndrome.
11/12/2005 02:51:57 PM · #23
Originally posted by dsmeth:

[quote=deapee] It's like they're blind to what's going on here.

They suffer from OOS.

Oblivious to the Obvious Syndrome.


Or, as P.T. Barnum used to say, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Thanks, deapee, I think I understand your point better now. I do apologize for not being clear in my second post, it was flip of me. Sorry.
11/12/2005 02:52:44 PM · #24
Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by deapee:

It's not necesarilly the fact that these people are being taken advantage of that gets to me...it's the fact that they're being taken advantage of, and they are absolutely thrilled by it!


Huh?


Huh? (squared)
11/12/2005 02:56:58 PM · #25
I'll take the devil's advocate position here because, well, I completely disagree with all this crap about how these people are taken advantage of. I would guess that the .03 comes from download of electronic images, so all the hypothetical numbers posted throughout this thread, which were guesstimates anyway, are even more pointless.

I estimate these are adults making a free will choice to sell their images at istock. I also estimate that they are mostly all of sound mind. I further estimate that these folks are not making a living at photography, so the excitement likely stems from the "validation" aspect as someone pointed out.

This is a free market. I run a business that is at least as vulnerable to competition from everything from $2/hour programmers in India to talented kids in high school creating websites for a fraction of what I charge. Hmmm, what should I do? Whine because those Indians or those high school or college kids are being taken advantage of and ruining my business?? I don't think so.

Are any photographers making a living?? I think so. What about stock photographers? Less and less probably because of this terrible "exploitation" - maybe. Bull-oney. It is because the consumers of stock images (of which, I am one) are less and less willing to pay $100-$4,600 for a picture of a glass of water. Sure there are some who still pay - hooray for them - unless I am a stockholder in their company.

Face it - it is as simple as supply and demand. If the supply is saturated, then you either better come up with something very unique and find a niche market that will pay thousands or even hundreds for an image or find a different line of work.

No market is immune to obsolescence, market saturation, competition, etc. - and like I said, I face the same issues and when my skills and products are no longer market-viable, I'll move on to something else and/or continue to do it for fun (like my photography).

My biggest point of contention about what is said in this thread is that these people are idiots being taken advantage of [paraphrasing]. If you told me istock is selling MY images for $1000 and I was getting .03, I could care less. I worked for a Consulting company who charged $350/hour for my time, of which I received... well, a fraction of that. Did I know it? Yes. Was I still willing to do it? Damn straight. Am I an idiot? ...jury's still out. ;-)

Agree, disagree, whatever. It's my opinion take it or leave it. I am always willing to listen to other opinions that present facts, relevant facts, and reality. So some might say "boo hoo, I used to make a living selling stock photos and it is all because of istock and the like that I am homeless and eating out of a trash can." Then you would tell me "You think like a capitalist pig until it happens to you!" to which I reply that I would STILL think like a capitalist pig and I would take responsibility for my situation.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 09:39:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 09:39:06 AM EDT.