I think your first point highlights the fundamental concept which produces our difference in opinion on whether you’ll succeed or not. Agencies are not “screwing over” photographers. Again, I reference my post on why it’s easier to create photos than sell them. Stock photos are in oversupply, so there’s little value and no scarcity. *Successful* agencies which can produce a high level of sales for their contributing photographers are scarce and subsequently they provide a lot of value.

You can’t “screw someone over” with an offer. If the recipient has no choice but to accept the offer (like taxes and other laws, or in cases of blackmail) then that statement would be accurate. If I offer to buy your car for $20, you wouldn’t say I’m screwing you over. I’m just making you an offer that’s not attractive to you.

This is a key concept to understand as it highlights that power follows value. Agencies are only “screwing over” photographers if the photographer have no option to refuse their offer. If all the agencies with a strong buyer base pay low commissions, then perhaps that why you see them as forcing photographers to accept – their monopoly on buyers forces photographers to contribute if they want to sell their photos. But these agencies built these buyers bases, so they’re providing more value. As money follows value, the agencies get more money (pay lower commissions). If you want your agency to be successful for both yourself and photographers, stop doing everything that photographers want and start doing what the buyers want. Buyers are the scarce resource, not photographers.

Your assertion that photographers haven’t had much choice in the past is incorrect. Alamy has been open to public submissions and with traditionally priced stock photos for longer than all microstock agencies. Photographers have always had the option to sell photos directly via their own websites (agencies don’t have a monopoly on the Internet) and there are now a large number of ‘midstock’ agencies which sell above microstock pricing levels. Photographers have always been spoiled for choice in selling photos online.

I’m glad to hear you’re not in it for a quick buck and that you’re profitable and debt free. This is obviously not an insignificant advantage!

Here’s another thought. I’m not jaded at all. You are. Let me explain why. I’m content with the current market conditions and with the service that the agencies who sell my photos provide. I understand that things are the way they are for logical reasons. I’m also excited by all the changes that are going on in the market – if I wasn’t I wouldn’t have this blog which focuses on just that. I also know that changes both big and small will continue, I just don’t think they’ll come from you or your current business model. Your statements about agencies “screwing over” photographers reflect that it is you who is jaded, though I totally respect that you’re doing something about it.

Cutcaster have an original business model where prices are dynamic, based on supply and demand. That ‘could’ change the industry.
Vivozoom have a business model that removes the crowdsourcing aspect from microstock and they guarantee their images. That ‘could’ change the industry.

From what I’ve seen of your business model, it’s higher prices, higher commissions, no subscriptions and easy uploads. None of these are new nor common among successful agencies. So I repeat my question: How do you see your business model changing the industry?

FInally, as you say you don’t know, I’ll explain to you why photographers are more keen to submit images to agencies that pay “pennies per sale” than to your agency: Return per Image. I put my little and not-so-great portfolio on iStockphoto and they send me $200 – $300 each month. Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia usually send me $100 – $200 (you can see the exact figures each month in my earnings reports). Your agency might pay me $7 per sale, but you couldn’t currently pay me the same as any of those agencies I’ve just named because you don’t produce enough sales. And the only assurance that you will be able to do so in the future is your word and a totally unconvincing business model.

-Lee

Of course, nobody is twisting their arm to accept a few cents on a sale but at the same time they really haven’t had much choice in the past. Now they will.

I think the fact that we have been around so long shows that we aren’t in this for a quick buck and we aren’t about selling millions of products for pennies. I’d much rather sell less for more money per sale. In the end, our model puts more money in your pocket. As we build up our stock photo sales those numbers will increase by huge margins over those other sites.

Yes, we have been running in profit for years now, have no debt as a company, own our own data center and server equipment. Everybody that works here is family and has a true interest in making sure we succeed.

I am okay with you not believing that we will change this industry, I’ve seen many jaded folks like yourself who just think that change is impossible and things have to remain the way they are. It’s okay, at one point people thought the world was flat, human flight was impossible, and that landing on the moon was crazy talk

We’ll get there Lee. It’s not an overnight change, but we are in this for the long haul. Those that want change will give us a try and add their photos, those that just want to accept pennies per sale (and complain about getting pennies per sale) will continue to do so. I guess it’s easier to complain that actually stand up and make a change!

NOTE: That comment at the end is NOT directed at you Lee (I realize your post here is not a complaint), just pointing out what I have seen on many blogs and forums.

-Matt

The reason I won’t be giving you a try yet is because you’re too kind to photographers and not kind enough to buyers. You won’t change the industry by charging higher prices, paying higher commissions, refusing subscriptions and making uploads easier. Those who have already changed the industry did exactly the opposite. Those who continue to dominate the market still do the opposite, to varying degrees. As a photographer I think it’s great that your offer is so contributor friendly, but I also think these will be the reasons you fail.

We photographers are in massive oversupply. Buyers are spoiled for choice and can easily compare offers. Selling an oversupplied product at a premium price in an open market is not a business model to change an industry.

I also don’t see the fact that you’ve been around for a long time as a positive aspect of your business. You’ve done less than your competitors with much more time. If your business is running at a profit, I can respect that, but I “guarantee” you won’t change the industry with your current business model. I’d be interested to hear what about the industry you expect to change. How will the industry look different when you succeed?

…always happy to be surprised.

-Lee

I agree with your other point, there is no point in worrying about the money if the sales aren’t there which is how it is with many of the newer and smaller stock sites. But, that can and will be changed by us. We’ve been in the general stock business (model, textures, and more) for 13+ years now so this isn’t new to us even though stock photography is.

Of course, we have to start somewhere and I don’t intend on matching the sales iStock is providing you right away (that takes time, but we have a plan to get there). Fortunately, we pay SO MUCH more than they do that you’d really only need 42 sales to match their 1000 sales to have the same money in your pocket. We have a bunch of big name photogs already backing us and several others that are signing on now (along with tons of smaller collections being added).

I guess the bottom line is this: We are stepping up to answer the #1 complaint amongst photogs (which is making pennies per sale) with a solution to change that. By adding your collections to The3dStudio.com you have the power to help make this change. As we get more and more collections added we will have more and more customers buying.

So, instead of just sitting back and settling for crappy pay rates and terrible upload and approval systems why not give us a try? You have nothing to lose but some time, and not even much of that with our fast uploader and creation tools.

And again, we WILL change the way this business work regardless of what you might believe. I’m sure you’ve seen others make similar claims and then run themselves out of business. We’ve been around a long time and we know what we’re doing. I guarantee that we will surprise you!

PS – Love your site, you have some excellent information here.

-Matt

I like a lot of what you’re doing with the3dstudio, but all that you’re doing well is easy compared to delivering a high rate of sales. I wrote about this in this post where I tried to explain why contributors put up with laborious upload processes and low commissions. The only measure that determines success is how much money each agency sends to the contributors account at the end of the month. At 60% – 80% commission and nothing revolutionary about your business model, you will not catch the entrenched leaders nor “change the way photos are bought and sold”. But I still wish you luck and will monitor your progress closely.

-Lee

It’s a common complaint and one that we (those of us here at The3dStudio.com) have answered. We are changing the way stock imagery is bought and sold…no joke, no marketing BS.

First, upload and adding your photos with us is easy and takes just seconds per photo. Our entire process is designed around what photographers told us they wanted. No more waiting for images to be approved (which can take weeks with some of those sites).

As for the money, which is what really matters, you get 60% of every sale with us and our average photo price is $12. You can set your prices higher as well if you prefer but the lowest image price we have (for our smallest sizes) is $4.

Not trying to spam here or self promote too much, but I see this issues coming up everywhere and I think it’s important to know that there are alternatives. Take a look at what we have and consider adding your photos…

http://www.the3dstudio.com/product.aspx?id_category_0=290

-Mat

Lucky for us we’re not all trying to make a living. However, many full time microstockers don’t have a problem making a comfortable living. Microstock isn’t suitable for everyone or every style of photography. If you can sell photos for 150 pounds it sounds like that’s a better way for you to go.

-Lee