Microstock Unsustainable According To iStockphoto

"business model unsustainable"

http://www.aphotoedito​r.com/

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=rOMk5GWvlks



Seriously though.... all those photographers bragged about being published on the cover of Times Magazine or have their photo used in a worldwide ad campaign and got some 25 cents for it when they really should have cashed thousands of dollars.

They only realize that they have bent over to get f********* NOW?

Not much sympathy here, sorry.

harroz wrote in post #10908291
"business model unsustainable"

http://www.aphotoedito​r.com/

Funny how this comes just 1 year after a very long thread in which one side argued that microstock was bad for photographers while the other side said how great it was for photographers. That thread was closed with the immortal words "This thread is just a long winded whine by photographers who also think they know how to run a business. <snip> Micro stock is here, it has been around long enough that is proven to work, it fills a need in the market, and if you happen to be suffering because you can't compete with, it tough ****. Welcome to the world of actually running a business, rather than just charging people money for your photos."

It seems that the microstock model doesn't work after all, not for photographers anyway. Read the anger of those photographers who have just had the rug pulled from under them while the guy that runs the company has just bought a $10M pad in New York.

http://www.istockphoto​.com/forum_mes...=2535​22&page=1

Haven't read all of the comments on there, but is sounds like Ebay. Minimizing seller profits to maximize it's own.

I read this the other day. Those forums are livid!

I never got into Stock, seemed like begging for change on the street corner would make money faster. And with the percent of income dropping... Why bother?

There was a quote I read in their forum went something like "Nobody makes 85% off of my hard work" and I have to agree. If keeping 85% of the profit on digital content is not a sustainable model long-term, then management is messed up more than we thought.

It's so much fun to watch the implosion of stock

The thing I hate most about stock is the culture that arose around it. There are a lot of horrible photographers that get encouragement by having their work accepted by a stock agency. Then they think that they are real photographers when all they are really doing is "shooting every hamburger that they ever ate"

^^Shooting stock is like visual tweeting....The quality of the avg tweet is like the quality of the avg stock photo

exile wrote in post #10912686
It seems that the microstock model doesn't work after all, not for photographers anyway. Read the anger of those photographers who have just had the rug pulled from under them while the guy that runs the company has just bought a $10M pad in New York.

Unless it shrinks to virtually nothing, or goes away completely, I don't think that's a correct conclusion. Like pretty much any other industry, it's merely tweaking itself to adjust to ever-changing market conditions. See below, I think that comment sums it up.

Biffbradford wrote in post #10913151
...sounds like Ebay. Minimizing seller profits to maximize it's own.

I think we have a winner.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #10920030
Unless it shrinks to virtually nothing, or goes away completely, I don't think that's a correct conclusion. Like pretty much any other industry, it's merely tweaking itself to adjust to ever-changing market conditions. See below, I think that comment sums it up.

It was the conclusion that iStock came up with, and when they changed their model and pulled the rug from under the photographers the photographers also had the wool pulled from their eyes. Microstock is about the intermediary taking the profits, not the people who produce the product. In the purchaser-intermediary-seller chain it is a win-win-lose proposition. Where in the big book of good business practices does it say that we should be aiming for a win-lose solution in our business dealings?

Disintermediation is the buzz in the publishing industry for those with a quality product. Smart photographers with a quality product should consider disintermediation in this industry. For those that haven't come across the term, in economics disintermediation simply means cutting out the middle man.

exile wrote in post #10923229
It was the conclusion that iStock came up with, and when they changed their model and pulled the rug from under the photographers the photographers also had the wool pulled from their eyes.

...this is completely incorrect: and you are twisting what was said and done to fit your agenda. Here is the quote in full and in context:

http://www.istockphoto​.com …hp?threadid=252​322&page=1

Thompson is clearly not talking about the overall microstock model, but the iStockphoto business model. Do you have a cite to say otherwise?

banquetbear wrote in post #10923371
...this is completely incorrect: and you are twisting what was said and done to fit your agenda. Here is the quote in full and in context:

http://www.istockphoto​.com …hp?threadid=252​322&page=1


Thompson is clearly not talking about the overall microstock model, but the iStockphoto business model. Do you have a cite to say otherwise?

My agenda is to encourage photographers to work for win-win, not win-lose.

exile wrote in post #10923378
My agenda is to encourage photographers to work for win-win, not win-lose.

...so you agree that the statement "It was the conclusion that iStock came up with" is incorrect?

banquetbear wrote in post #10923407
...so you agree that the statement "It was the conclusion that iStock came up with" is incorrect?

Nope and quite frankly I'm not going to discuss it with you further. Why don't you take it up with all the microstock contributors that are venting their fury on the iStock forums at how they've been screwed over.

exile wrote in post #10923456
Nope and quite frankly I'm not going to discuss it with you further. Why don't you take it up with all the microstock contributors that are venting their fury on the iStock forums at how they've been screwed over.

...yes, there are many microstock contributors venting their fury. Yes, in my opinion, they have every right to vent. iStockphoto screwed up big time and deserve all the ire they are getting at the moment.

However that doesn't get around the fact that your statement is incorrect, and the basis of this thread is incorrect. iStockphoto has never stated that microstock is unsustainable. They stated that their own current business model is unsustainable. If your argument against microstock is so strong then I see absolutely no reason why you need to stand behind such an obvious mistruth. If you can back up your position that iStockphoto has claimed microstock is unsustainable I will gladly conceede my position.

Do you conceede that the statement "It was the conclusion that iStock came up with" is incorrect?

banquetbear wrote in post #10923520
...yes, there are many microstock contributors venting their fury. Yes, in my opinion, they have every right to vent. iStockphoto screwed up big time and deserve all the ire they are getting at the moment.

However that doesn't get around the fact that your statement is incorrect, and the basis of this thread is incorrect. iStockphoto has never stated that microstock is unsustainable. They stated that their own current business model is unsustainable. If your argument against microstock is so strong then I see absolutely no reason why you need to stand behind such an obvious mistruth. If you can back up your position that iStockphoto has claimed microstock is unsustainable I will gladly conceede my position.

Do you conceede that the statement "It was the conclusion that iStock came up with" is incorrect?

isn't istockphoto paying the least to contributors, at least of the major microstock companies? If so that says something, either about greed and mismanagement, or about its feasibility.