The Seedy Side of Microstock
November 25th, 2009
Published in
Business, Photography
15 Comments
Tags: blogging, microstock, opinion, scams, spam
This is the dawn of a new era in microstock photography. The sub-industry that destroyed the existing industry has now grown big enough, that microstock itself has a slew of sub-industries and businesses. For a while now, photographers have been able to get everything from software and consultations to retouching and keywording services.
But with all of this progress comes another side. A seedy, shifty side where one must tread carefully. There is good money to be made here, and we will inevitably see a rise in less-than-honest agencies, scammers and con artists. Such is the nature of business, and nowhere more so than online.
I think now is a good time, especially for budding photographers who might not know the industry that well, to start being extra careful when choosing where to sell their work. This all dawned on me, when I received a comment here on the blog which immediately raised a red flag. Obviously, the comment was never approved, but I will go through it anyway, to show what sounded my alarm.
First, the comment was a six paragraph long ad for a new microstock agency. As such, nicely placed on my blog, which has lots of microstockers reading along. But that was probably the only thing, these people did right.
I noticed right away, that the commenter had not bothered to leave a name but called himself “D_Promouter”. Yes, the word ‘promoter’ is spelled wrong, but that’s not the problem here. One thing I really enjoy about microstock, is that there are so many talented people, both photographers and agency representatives, that willingly help each other and share tips and information. So, when someone posted a shameless plug anonymously, it naturally felt a little off.
The person did leave what looks like a valid e-mail, and I briefly thought about sending him (or her) a note. But instead, I thought I’d put that energy to use for the greater good; this blogpost.
The second major mistake was a lack of connection between the content and the comment. The post where the comment had been left was actually not about microstock, and there was nothing in the comment relating to what I had written. In other words, it was a pre-written comment that had simply been copy/pasted in.
The commenter went on to describe the various plans and stuff his agency is offering. It’s a pretty standard setup, with royalty payouts in the higher end of the industry standard, plus a $.20 bonus per accepted image. Nothing revolutionary. If you’re going to spam my blog with a targeted ad, you had better blow me away with whatever you’re selling. Third mistake.
What D_Promouter should have done, was to contact me directly and ask if I would be interested in talking about his agency on my blog. At least then I would have given him a chance and probably politely declined, and he would’ve made a contact in me, that he could use again down the line.
The next logical step is to ask: Would you really want to have his agency representing you? I sure as hell wouldn’t want my name attached to any agency using this kind of marketing. I simply can’t trust someone like that to handle my business.
So we can conclude that D_Promouter is just as lousy a promoter as he is a speller, and that the agency he represents probably isn’t worth doing business with. However on a grander scale, at least to me, this represents the first signs of corruption on the agency side of the microstock industry. Which is good news for the established agencies, who can start marketing themselves as trustworthy. But it’s bad news for photographers. From now on, microstock contributors of all kinds would be wise to not only read the contributor agreement (which you should do regardless), but also research the history and general opinion of an agency, before signing up with them.
I am not going to dignify the spammer with a link, but if you really want to, you can google D_Promouter’s name and find other instances of the comment in question. If you get a comment like it on your blog, I suggest you do what I did and mark it spam.
UPDATE: The microstock agency referred to in this post sent me an e-mail apologizing for their behavior, referring to the “incompetence of our people who performed those awkward promotion steps”. While I appreciate the gesture, I still have to wonder why they would take the time to write me a personal apology and then not sign it? The e-mail is from ‘promotion’. Fail. Still, in the name of fairness, I wanted to relay the information about the agency’s follow-up.
Photo credit: Me
Related Posts
November 25th, 2009at 3:15 pm(#)
Sounds like iStock exclusivity has left you somewhat sheltered from the dodgy players until now, Ras. Lucky for you. :) There have been quite a few agencies with suspicious aspects and black-hat marketing techniques in the past.
I like that you’ve turned this experience into a helpful blog post, creating a positive out of a negative. I’ve had many similar experiences as you, though usually just reply with links to a few beginner Internet marketing blogs. It’s amazing how little some people understand about how to approach creating publicity for a new business when they get started. It’s just as amazing how some people think their tactics will work when they actually come across as particularly suspicious and ultimately counter-productive.
The same company that you write about here have approached me, but they didn’t do quite as poorly with me as they did with you – not sure why. I received a direct contact requesting article exposure, and they took out a paid advertising spot. I refunded their ad, canceling the subscription, and replied with a polite note saying I would accept their ad if they could clean up their reputation issues. It doesn’t look like they’ve taken the hint yet.
-Lee
November 25th, 2009at 3:33 pm(#)
Hi Ras, Hi Lee,
probably after contacting your site, they arrived on mine… the approach was certainly better and they are going to buy some adv space. Maybe your reactions have taught something to their “spammy” incipit. I’m going to give them a chance and try also their site… will let my readers know.
-|- roberto
November 25th, 2009at 3:37 pm(#)
Lee: You are absolutely right, that I have lived a somewhat sheltered life as an exclusive. That’s one of the perks. This isn’t the first example of a questionable agency I’ve encountered, but definitely the most blatant one, which is what prompted my reaction. It’s interesting to hear about your experiences with the seediness – both in general and with this particular company. I would imagine, you could write an interesting post on the topic as well.
Roberto: I promise, I won’t judge you for being more forgiving than me, but I will say this much: No amount of money could ever buy a company like that a banner-slot on this blog.
November 25th, 2009at 8:40 pm(#)
Leaving aside the ethicacy issues and purely from a practical point of view I think any new microstock offering really has big uphill task to get any meaningful market share now. Hence potential contributors need to consider if it is worth their while building a portfolio on new startups even with upload incentives.
November 25th, 2009at 9:36 pm(#)
It gets to the point where all of these new up and comer agencies are just a waste of time, anyway. Sure, maybe you’ll make a few sales here or there…but in the end ask yourself if it’s worth uploading to 30 sites when you could focus your time and energies on just 1/2 or 1/3 of that number of places. These new places approach me all the time, and I have begun ignoring most of them until my closest personal microstock friends tell me they are having amazing results.
Exclusives have it easy, and hey – I’m not knocking it, it works great for some. It’s the simplest way to sell stock…I wish I could do it. It would be a huge paycut for me, I just can’t afford to.
November 25th, 2009at 11:31 pm(#)
Hey Ras… no prob, you’re probably right. There is always something to learn from the Masters, thanks ;-)
I’m taking my time and asking some explanations to that company.
November 26th, 2009at 12:35 am(#)
Ras, yes, I could write an interesting post on it too. I’ve actually been working on one for a little over a year now. Maybe it’s time to get it out the door!
Roberto, that’s a wise attitude. While Ras and I obviously think alike on this one, everyone’s experience is valid. :)
November 26th, 2009at 12:48 am(#)
Nice post.
Well if nothing else the company has been thorough in making the microstock rounds :)
November 26th, 2009at 1:22 am(#)
I agree that it’s hard for new agencies to get established in today’s market. Still, that doesn’t excuse bad behavior.
Todd: It’s funny how the math is different for different photographers. For me, it pays to be exclusive (especially after the addition of the Vetta collection), but I am also not looking to do microstock full time. Though even if I did, I simply prefer the simplicity (keeping track of archives) and the perks of exclusivity.
Roberto: It’s like Lee says, everyone’s experience is valid. But it never hurts to be cautious, either.
Lee: You’re such a smart guy.
Tyler: You are such a smartass. ;P
November 29th, 2009at 2:24 pm(#)
Nice blog post. I actually read the blog post on Roberto’s site in my RSS feeder just before this, so if your aim was to discredit one of your own competitors, you did pretty well ;)
I’m pretty suspicious of any new microstock start-ups these days – I basically want evidence of sales and reasonable prospects of success before investing the time to upload my portfolio.
November 29th, 2009at 2:33 pm(#)
Holgs: Thanks! Though my aim is not to discredit, but rather to inspire people to do the research. :)
November 30th, 2009at 12:51 pm(#)
They also contacted me around 1-2 months ago, asking to write an extended review for their site. I’ve been contacted by a Russian-speaking guy. This is disgusting when a new agency wants to gain poppularity and visibility in a chip way.
I’m pretty sure that this will be yet another failure or fraud.
November 30th, 2009at 1:36 pm(#)
Hi again Ras,
@Natalia: Just to add a thing to the debate, I received a full – signed – explanation about the initial “embarrassing misdoing” of this agency. Of course, I can’t guarantee for them. I’m observing that they are crediting those famous 20 cents per accepted image and that their payed banner is live in one of the most popular and respected microstock blog. So, soon on my frequencies too. If anyone will advise of a reiterate “dirty” behavior, I will act of consequence.
Cheers, keep in touch,
roberto
November 30th, 2009at 5:59 pm(#)
It’s one of the reason’s I basically stopped blogging about micro – got tired of all the lowlifes emailing me and spamming the comments. I’m now focused on other things photo related. Thanks for the ost Ras.
December 2nd, 2009at 9:46 am(#)
@Roberto
However, Rasmus talks in the discussing post about non-transparent behaviour. A business proposals intended to promote a start-up should not be done in such a crappy way. Smells bad.