Snapvillage -- New Place to Sell Your Pics

[Brad Bireley]

I sell through three stock agencies. They range from penney a stock site to mid-market — maybe $250 for an image. I have been running a "contest" among the three for about a year and a half to see which one will prevail and make the most money. Interestingly, so far it's a dead heat between the cheap site and the expensive site!

I go way back to when transparencies were sent to agencies and they split revenues 50/50 with the photographer (and also sent tear sheets). Ah, those were the days. But that is no more. I need to make a little money in my retirement, if for no other reason than to support my habit. No apologies, but I certainly understand the imapct of technology on all the media and arts.

What's an artistic creation worth?

How does the artist make a living?

These have always been the questions, but when the technology is changing then they become more critical and immediate.

Rather than nailing the exposure in today's world, maybe we should be perfecting our mid-range jumper!

Dick,

Which penny stock agency are you with?

Brad

 

[rogue_designer]

The previous system was based on a shortage of supply and artifical constraints on distribution. Those are all gone now.

Silly me. I thought it was based on fair value for work done. Skill, investment in equipment, time, expertise and problem solving.

But that was just my take on it. *shrug*

 

[Pinphot]

Anyone read this article.
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/2837/25-cent-fortunes.html

Some folks are making money at it.

And what is the commercial value to the end users of this ladies 600 downloads a day? A great deal more than the 20% she is getting from any $1, $5 or even $50 download fees she is earning, and for that matter, well above the fees charged to the end user. It's a numbers game that only the corporations can win. What is she gonna do when the whole world is saturated with her product?

Some posters have mentioned the detrimental effect that globalisation and offshoring is having in all areas of commercial life. This poor sap is allowing her work to be essentially offshored and then shipped straight back to her. She might be making money, but she's nothing more than a sweatshop worker, albeit a very efficient one.

I won't even lend legitimacy by indulging further the pernicious nonsense in this link by posting a more detailed response.

Mark

 

[Pinphot]

"Do we really want to live in a world where our window on that world is mediated by the interests and agendas of big business?"

Isn't just the opposite happening? Doesn't the commoditization of photography mean that everyone has a camera, so that no wrong goes unphotographed or unrecorded? Think of the Rodney King video or the countless other videos/photos of police malfeasance that have resulted in better justice for the little guy. Sure, us little guys will never go to Iraq but that's where the traditional photojournalist can still shine.

/T

As Sion Touhig asks in his article on The Register: "You won't see any mobile phone images from Darfur any time soon"

Additionally "True 'citizen journalists' are people like Iraqi news journalists working where western photographers dare not go, to document the destruction of their homeland. Despite putting themselves and their families in peril 24 hours a day, most if not all of them earn a pittance and many relinquish their copyright on images and stories which make the front pages of the worlds newspapers. Just this year alone, 32 have died.
Baghdad has a mobile phone network, but mobile phone image gathering is virtually unknown (unless it's execution footage), as it would be tantamount to a death sentence for most residents. Instead, another form of journalism keeps us passively 'informed' from only one perspective - embedding."

Yes, there is a plethora of imagery, but one has either got to know where to go to or wade through so much junk to find it, that it may as well not exist.

Mark

 

[Pinphot]

Aha, a scalp

Aha, a scalp

I knew better than to join this thread.

Aha, a scalp! 😀

 

[Tuolumne]

Silly me. I thought it was based on fair value for work done. Skill, investment in equipment, time, expertise and problem solving.

But that was just my take on it. *shrug*

Rogue,
You were right, but the march of technology has changed the value of skill, investment, expertise and problem solving. How do I know this? It's simple - if it weren't so, then a stock photo would still be selling for $250. Since it's not, and since I don't think the values of editors have changed much, it must be that those formerly highly valued skills can be provided in a different and cheaper way.

I see it in my own photography. There are things I can do now with the click of a button that I could never do in a chemical dark room. Sometimes I had no idea how those things were done; sometimes I knew how to do them but didn't have the skill to do them well. So, yes, those skills can be embodied in the expertise of a button of a computer program now.

I look around the Web and see how many astonishingly good photos there are. I won't say great. But they are damn good. It is those photographs that are finding their way onto the penny stock sites. Anyone who can do better should do better by selling their photographs in a different way. There are plenty of sites like this wher5e photographers can demand and get a premium for stock photos. They offer something different and diffrentiated. If you don't you're just going to get a quarter for your trouble.

/T

 

[Pinphot]

You suffer from delusion of grandeur. 😉

Good to see you back! 😉

 

[doitashimash1te]

Some Martin Parr quotes:

“All the boundaries are collapsing. One of the things that’s interesting about flickr, is that it’s probably emerged as the most intelligent photo-sharing site - it’s become the brand leader. And what will happen with flickr is that within five years it will start licensing pictures. In other words, they’ll be part of the Getty Corbis machinery…the agencies are concerned about this. It’s something we discuss at Magnum…”

“…within five years flickr will emerge as one of the major sources for licensing imagery…”

“…the other point about flickr, is I can’t tell you how bad the most of the pictures are. I mean, we see this in the site up there (at Musee de L’Elysee) the noise of this contemporary photography is relentless and ultimately, nullifyingly boring.”

“…we have this amazing interest, resurgence in photography, a renaissance, but boy do we have to wade through a lot of rubbish in order to get to anything half-decent.”

“…the best business model is to have fantastic pictures, that have a unique vision and say something different. And you get away from the turgid quantities of cliches and propaganda which we see not only surrounding our lives, but we also see in the exhibition here.”

“…I’m totally in favor of flickr. I haven’t spent enough time trawling through flickr to find the new stars who may be emerging on flickr itself…”

“… but the last thing I’m going to do - is looking at flickr for my stars of the future.”

“I come back to this individual voice in homogenized times. Connecting with a subject matter, doing it with passion, resolving a set of pictures, coming out with a personal statement - there’s always going to be room for that, because we still, whatever the process, whatever the method, we still need stories that touch us as human beings.”

The complete interview: http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=189

 

[Tuolumne]

As Sion Touhig asks in his article on The Register: "You won't see any mobile phone images from Darfur any time soon"

Additionally "True 'citizen journalists' are people like Iraqi news journalists working where western photographers dare not go, to document the destruction of their homeland. Despite putting themselves and their families in peril 24 hours a day, most if not all of them earn a pittance and many relinquish their copyright on images and stories which make the front pages of the worlds newspapers. Just this year alone, 32 have died.
Baghdad has a mobile phone network, but mobile phone image gathering is virtually unknown (unless it's execution footage), as it would be tantamount to a death sentence for most residents. Instead, another form of journalism keeps us passively 'informed' from only one perspective - embedding."

Yes, there is a plethora of imagery, but one has either got to know where to go to or wade through so much junk to find it, that it may as well not exist.

Mark

I don't see what any of this has to do with the commoditization of stock photography. The situation in Iraq would prevail regardless of whether everyone shot with a pinhole camera or a digital camera phone. You would have to show that the state of publications that use stock photographs has precipitously declined since the institution of penny stock sites. Has it? Doesn't seem so to me, but I could be wrong.

/T

 

[Pinphot]

Rogue,


I see it in my own photography. There are things I can do now with the click of a button that I could never do in a chemical dark room. Sometimes I had no idea how those things were done; sometimes I knew how to do them but didn't have the skill to do them well. So, yes, those skills can be embodied in the expertise of a button of a computer program now.


/T

Yes, but you still ignore the fundamental issue which is the commercial value to the end user, in either selling newspapers or product. It's not as if the global corporation needs charitable status, just look at the rise in the global stock markets over the last couple of years. The rich get richer....blah blah. The fact is, in this race to the bottom, we all suffer, democracy suffers as corporations and governments feel that they can act carte blanche away from independent scrutiny and the quality of the media and imagery suffers as we are dumbed down by a media who's imperatives are controlled by the bean counters and technocrats to whom culture is nothing more than a commodity. Never mind the quality, feel the width.

Mark

 

[Kevin]

If I were to program a clustered, multi-tiered service-oriented webapp like Snapvillage (which I easily could, with a team of experienced developers) I would give the photographers 80% of the stock revenue.

A 20% cut would, beyond a certain scale, cover expenses, including salaries.

A 70% take, however, is cold-blooded theft. I suggest you carefully read the contracts (PDF files online) before locking into this particular company. You might not be able to change stock providers at a later date, which should be a possibility for you at any time. Somebody please confirm those terms of the contracts.

It has already been mentioned before that if you just wish to showcase your art, then do so without supporting these con-artists. A friend of mine, who displays some absolutely brilliant work on Flickr, is frequently contacted by nickel-and-dime companies from here and abroad, trying to license his best work for pennies. He consistently says NO (after researching an figuring out just how much money they DO have to spend on marketing).

In all likelihood Flickr will hack out a quick and dirty response to this business threat and offer their members stock-selling functionality as well. Then they will improve the software later while ironing out the bugs.

In order to keep their members (and keep them happy), Flickr will have to initially offer them more % than Snapvillage. I am trying to remain distrustful and patient and gain an understanding of the entire business model. You should too. This isn't an artistic competition anymore.

Peace

 

[Tuolumne]

As an example of a real star who has emerged on Flickr take a look at Solea, who has been written up internationally.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Culture is nothing more than a commodity, as far as price goes. Just ask Shakespeare who had to actually entertain all of those groundlings. 😉 If he hadn't done that we'd have no Shakespeare to perform today. Then there is the price of an Ansel Adams or of a Picasso. Those are commodities, too, i.e. their price is set by the market. If you don't like the price, don't buy or sell. That is always anyone's perquisite.

/T

 

[Pinphot]

I don't see what any of this has to do with the commoditization of stock photography. The situation in Iraq would prevail regardless of whether everyone shot with a pinhole camera or a digital camera phone. You would have to show that the state of publications that use stock photographs has precipitously declined since the institution of penny stock sites. Has it? Doesn't seem so to me, but I could be wrong.

/T

I think that you misunderstand my, (and Sions), point. Yes, Iraq has happened, but are you prepared to risk getting shipped home in a box for a pittance, or run the risk of being wiped out in some act of sectarian score settling if you don't have the luxury of being able to leave? The issue is around the market forces that are impacting on the whole industry and helping to destroy the culture in which independent views are represented.

No, microstock is not the sole reason for this decline in pluralism, but is a pretty big nail in it's coffin.

 

[Al Patterson]

If I were to program a clustered, multi-tiered service-oriented webapp like Snapvillage (which I easily could, with a team of experienced developers) I would give the photographers 80% of the stock revenue.

A 20% cut would, beyond a certain scale, cover expenses, including salaries.

A 70% take, however, is cold-blooded theft. I suggest you carefully read the contracts (PDF files online) before locking into this particular company. You might not be able to change stock providers at a later date, which should be a possibility for you at any time. Somebody please confirm those terms of the contracts.

It has already been mentioned before that if you just wish to showcase your art, then do so without supporting these con-artists. A friend of mine, who displays some absolutely brilliant work on Flickr, is frequently contacted by nickel-and-dime companies from here and abroad, trying to license his best work for pennies. He consistently says NO (after researching an figuring out just how much money they DO have to spend on marketing).

In all likelihood Flickr will hack out a quick and dirty response to this business threat and offer their members stock-selling functionality as well. Then they will improve the software later while ironing out the bugs.

In order to keep their members (and keep them happy), Flickr will have to initially offer them more % than Snapvillage. I am trying to remain distrustful and patient and gain an understanding of the entire business model. You should too. This isn't an artistic competition anymore.

Peace

A 70% take sounds like a pimp rather than an agent...

 

[Pinphot]

Then there is the price of an Ansel Adams or of a Picasso. Those are commodities, too, i.e. their price is set by the market. If you don't like the price, don't buy or sell. That is always anyone's perquisite.

/T

Unfortunately, the price is being distorted downwards by the amateur/hobbyist who's only real payment is the warm glow that comes from knowing that somewhere their work is being seen, (often uncredited), and maybe a bit of pin money to help them indulge their hobby. Getty, Corbis etc, know this and the bean counters running these corporations exploit this mercilessly.

And what of us lesser mortals, who really just want to earn an honest crust.
I could knock you out a perfectly passable 'Ansel Adams' in two days from now, (I'd need the travelling time from the UK), but it wouldn't be an Ansel Adams. You'd know that, I'd know that and so would the collector we tried to pass it off to. If the truly great became the only people allowed to make a crust from the value of their intellectual property then overpopulation and global warming would be solved overnight, the rest of us would have simply starved, and Picasso would have to pay a ludicrous amount to get a shirt dry cleaned.

 

[Pinphot]

I know of a guy in Issaquah, WA that makes over $2M a year off his stock photography. He does NOT work through an agency.

Is he in need of a desciple?

 

[Kevin]

If the truly great became the only people allowed to make a crust from the value of their intellectual property then overpopulation and global warming would be solved overnight, the rest of us would have simply starved, and Picasso would have to pay a ludicrous amount to get a shirt dry cleaned.

:bang: The truth hurts.

 

[Pinphot]

well, business is the secret to success, far more than is the quality of your work. THis guy has plenty of talent in both business AND photography.

Agencies exist because they offer the business solution to talented or volume gifted photographers.

If you feel the need for a leader, go study business. There are photography business classes around. I just finished my MBA studies, and I know that what I have learned would be very useful if I were to pursue professional photography on my own.

Sorry, I was being glib. Unfortunately, like most others, I just want to earn a living. Yes, I run a business, but at the end of the day me and many of my my colleagues are photographers first and business-people second. Like you, we made choices, in my case i studied photography rather than business. I won't question the right of business to exist, I only wish that those busineses representing monopoly capitalism would have the grace to afford my community, (and many other communities, both social and commercial), the same compliment.

 

[ebolton]

I work in manufacturing for a small USA company that is doing quite well making highly ruggedized computers for dangerous environments.

We are thriving because our management and sales team knows the market segment intimately, and our operations team is dedicated to continuous improvement from the customers point of view. We do things others don't know how to do, and we monitor every expense while doing it.

This is globalization and free markets. It is kind of like "economic combat". Nobody is paid for potential anynore, at least long term. It's now pay for performance, and performance is measured relative to everybody else's performance, world-wide.

You need to remain curious enough to learn everything you can, then flexible enough to apply it.

As a photographer, you could shoot for a success in a stock market by really analyzing your costs, cutting them to the minimum, thus increasing your margin at what the maket is willing to pay. Or, you could sell fewer images better than anybody else can make for as much money as your customers will pay.

As somebody earlier said, it is cruel but that is the way things are now and will be for the duration.

Ed