Question about new flickr marketplace

[FlyingSquirrel]

I have been invited to join the new flickr licensing / marketplace. They claim that my "beautiful and genuine photos could be in high demand in the global market." Anyway, it is currently by invite only, and I am one of the chosen ones to be a founding member of the new licensing set up they have created (things like this have happened to me in the past, so I take it with a "grain of salt" that I've been "selected"...I'm sure thousands and thousands of other photographers have also been selected, probably at random)

While it sounds tempting to offer my photos for sale, since I've never sold a photo in my life but have been wanting to make some money off my passion, I am feeling extremely wary about it. The main thing is that I only get 51% of the net sales. That sounds like a crap deal to me, even though they tout it as a fair share. Not only that, but I have other reservations and concerns. I don't know.

I'd like input from someone that knows about what good terms are, what share is really fair, and other things to consider; hopefully coming from someone that has sold photos or done stock photography as a professional.

Thanks for any advice

[IzzieK]

I wish I can help you. I am on Flickr too but I only use it to show my photos or videos to a very limited few then take it down after a week or two. I do not know that "fair share" means 51% -- they only want to give you 1% above their take -- their reasoning being you do the hard yakka and the use of their site is advertising for you? 60-40 should be my thinking...

[Donald]

The main thing is that I only get 51% of the net sales.

That, I would suggest, is a total rip-off. Is there any other dealer/trader that would say, "My rate of commission is 49%"?

You don't make any mention of them saying that they will increase your exposure to the market place or will do anything in particular to promote your work. So, what would they be getting 49% for?

[ashcroft]

Matt

I just looked at your Flickr page. Your images are really very good, and I would have thought that you shouldn't have too much trouble selling them anywhere. A cut of 49% is silly, but then that's Flickr for you. Do you have local outlets such as galleries/shops that might be interested in your work? I've been in two local places selling photographs in the last week, and neither of them were as good as yours.

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure about how the image industry works or sets prices, but I did spend a number of year supporting the sales department of a large multi-national company; back before the internet. Typically a retailer does take about 50% of the selling price, i.e. if the retailer buys a product from a supplier for $50; it will be sold for $100. This may be higher for lower priced items (i.e. something that sells for a few dollars) and less for something that has a very high retail value (think for instance a car). So the 51% that Flickr is offering does not sound out of line.

Second point to consider, an author typically gets 15% of the retail price of a book, with the publisher and retailer spliiting the rest.

[Polar01]

Yes 50% is around the usual, you sell for$200.00 to retailer they sell for $400.00, much better to sell direct that is why a lot of established photographer have their own galleries cuts out the middle man. I know that most galleries take 50% of set price for original pieces, I know of one painter whose work regularly sells for between $5000.00 and 10,000.00, now the gallery provides all the hanging space, ads, opening party and any other promotion needed. Now if you are an artist that basically sell out then you might be able to get a higher percentage of the profit.
The publishing industry is interesting in that it is setup for the publisher not the author or retailer. Say the book run is 100M books, the publisher will have covered all costs + small profit, based on selling half that many 50M that includes the percentage for the author based on 50M and cost to retailer for selling. If they sell more than 50M that is pure profit less the author's and sellers costs as all other costs have been covered off.
Now here is where is really gets interesting, the publisher does a second run of 100M as the book sold out Best Seller, again all cost are covered on 1st 50M of second run, however the cost to manufacture is less so more profit. Lets say the original book was hard covered and cost $11.00 to manufacture as all the front end (prepress) has been done book now costs $8.00 to manufacture is the saving including mark ups passed along "no" it goes to the publisher as profit, however the author may get a higher percentage however the retailer still get the same. Well come to the world of books and publishing.

Cheers: Allan

[Brownbear]

Hi Matt,

The commission for commercial images with Microstock companies such as Istock by Getty Images, Shutterstock, Dreamstime ranges from 15-45%, and up to 60% (for exclusive contributors who have achieved a certain level of sales). If images are purchased via individuals with a subscription the commissions can be very low for small sized images.

My limited experience with selling prints at shops is that a commission of 50% seems to be standard, and depending on the shop's clientele and price point, one may find that they wish to outsource the printing of your images so they may sell your images at their ideal price point. (lower)

I'm not familiar with Flicker but your images are gorgeous, so why not give it a try. (51% sounds fair to me.) It's not a lifetime commitment and will likely provide you with a very good idea of which images of yours are more popular (oftentimes quite the surprise), standing you in good stead for future endeavours.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Hey everyone, thanks so much for the replies. Really helpful, and enlightening as to the way things seem to work in general in the market. Let me address a few things and give my thoughts as well:

Donald mentioned:

You don't make any mention of them saying that they will increase your exposure to the market place or will do anything in particular to promote your work.

Well shoot, that was something I obviously overlooked...and indeed it seems they do offer much value in that area (listed below), which I am assuming changes things quite a bit. And the fact that 51% is on par with industry standards (at least based on the input from CiC members here), I am leaning toward strongly considering this offer.

Quoted from their "advertisement page" which is intended to sell me on their offer...

Opportunities for visibility across multiple platforms
Photo agencies, such as Getty Images
Yahoo and Flickr editorial placements
Influential blogs, industry press, global media outlets and more
We share fairly
You get 51% of the net sales
No membership fee
No hidden costs
We do the heavy lifting
We’ve already reviewed your work — you’re approved!
We make your photos discoverable by adding keywords and metadata
We have streamlined the process to make it easy


Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to get myself known a bit...a big step in my future professional photography career and "living my dream"....

And yet, at the same time, this is a scary prospect, because I have always been of the mindset that I would strongly prefer to "be myself / be true to my craft and style" and "be independent" ..in other words, to keep my name and work in a more pristine and exclusive light, as opposed to strewn about in stock agencies and to "sell my soul" by shooting masses of photos that I have no passion for. More of a specialized / exclusive / collector's art / fine art type of business. Perhaps this is naive or too idealist, but then again, when has being different ever stopped me in the past?

Well, one day I will have my own physical gallery / shop where I will be selling prints, books, etc. And I will be selling directly to the market via a website and so on...

I'm a little ashamed to admit it, but another aspect of fear that is holding me back, is feeling overwhelmed by the idea of starting and running a business...so much to learn and think about, and so many chances to do something wrong which could lead to an IRS audit...I'm not the type to jump into selling things and then rushing to figure out what needs to be done to do things legally...I have business books but have not read much...fear is holding me back..and also the feeling that I should focus on getting more field experience and expanding my portfolio more as opposed to spending time running a business...

I'm open to advice and comments on my points above, and thanks again for helping me on this. I've always loved the CiC community, and you all have been a huge part and can take much credit for my progress over the past few years!

[russellsnr]

Hi, Just my ten cents worth.
Firstly you say that " thousands and thousands of other photographers have also been selected" so really it's like the lottery and when I say that I mean no disrespect to you or your images it's just that no matter how good your images are they are still in a big mix.
" I have other reservations and concerns." then don't do anything unless ALL of those have been put to bed.
They claim that my "beautiful and genuine photos could be in high demand in the global market."
Main word there is 'COULD'
Now and again IMO it seems like what is only a few very big concerns on the web, another being Google they are just trying to get money from you and others with a promise of nothing except MAYBE!!!
As I say just my 10 cents worth.

[Manfred M]

Don't get too excited yet, Matt. Look at the actual $$ that they are going to offer you and see if it truly is worth your while.

Check out what comparable works are going for and set your prices accordingly. Also look at what additional costs might have to be offset; for instance does your insurance cover your equipment / home you use it for commercial purposes or is there a clause in the policy that means it is not covered if you use it / them for business purposes.

I had a quick look at my costs and risks when I was approached because (a) the price offered was about half of what I would have considered selling the works for and (b) the income from sales would not cover the incremental costs of going commercial. I expect I could have gotten the price I wanted (it was obviously a lowball starting offer), but the additional costs would mean I would have had to sell a lot more to recover all of the costs I would incur, and frankly I'm not in the business of losing money.

Do your homework before you say yes or no to this deal. The field is flooded with individuals that do not know the value of their work nor the effort and costs associated with being a commercial photographer. A good "acid test" would be to ask yourself, "if I went to the bank for a loan to set up a photography business based on what I could make doing this?". If the bank looks at this as an acceptable risk, i.e. they are going to get their money back and make a profit on it, then sure, go ahead. On the other hand, if a bank would find this proposition too risky for them; why would you take a risk with your own hard-earned money?

We know what's in it for Flickr, but what about for yourself?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Don't get too excited yet, Matt. Look at the actual $$ that they are going to offer you and see if it truly is worth your while.

Check out what comparable works are going for and set your prices accordingly. Also look at what additional costs might have to be offset; for instance does your insurance cover your equipment / home you use it for commercial purposes or is there a clause in the policy that means it is not covered if you use it / them for business purposes.

I had a quick look at my costs and risks when I was approached because (a) the price offered was about half of what I would have considered selling the works for and (b) the income from sales would not cover the incremental costs of going commercial. I expect I could have gotten the price I wanted (it was obviously a lowball starting offer), but the additional costs would mean I would have had to sell a lot more to recover all of the costs I would incur, and frankly I'm not in the business of losing money.

Do your homework before you say yes or no to this deal. The field is flooded with individuals that do not know the value of their work nor the effort and costs associated with being a commercial photographer. A good "acid test" would be to ask yourself, "if I went to the bank for a loan to set up a photography business based on what I could make doing this?". If the bank looks at this as an acceptable risk, i.e. they are going to get their money back and make a profit on it, then sure, go ahead. On the other hand, if a bank would find this proposition too risky for them; why would you take a risk with your own hard-earned money?

We know what's in it for Flickr, but what about for yourself?

Manfred, all excellent points which are very helpful. Thanks a lot for your professional knowledge and point of view.

I had not thought of the other costs involved with this particular opportunity (which clearly supports my claim that I have a lack of business knowledge and have legitimate fears). I guess the thought of "stock photography" didn't register as something that would incur costs, but your point of the fact that it indeed is still a business proceeding and I would need to consider insurance had gone over my head. Thankfully, I have excellent equipment insurance which covers everything in that area. However, my apartment insurance does not cover anything related to business, and would probably go up in cost if I were to tell them I am running a business from my apartment...

And the thought of the money from this kind of thing not being a significant amount (which I would think is probably accurate) does concern me. I like your point that "The field is flooded with individuals that do not know the value of their work..." ...I would agree with you there, and feel like these microstock situations do not do these people justice. I will now make a statement that may sound arrogant, cocky, etc, but frankly, I believe my photos are excellent, and I feel my work is more artistic than "stock" which is partially why I think my aim would be to sell directly to consumers, from my own website, in the form of prints and books, etc. I feel I would get a greater ROI in this case, while accomplishing other goals and staying true to my philosophy and personal feelings.

All great things to think about...I have a lot of research to do. However I'm afraid they may pull back the offer if I don't respond in a timely fashion...it would be unfortunate to determine later that I should have taken the chance when I had it, only to realize that I'd missed out. The exposure I could get from this opportunity might be worth it, in itself.

Life can be a challenge! (But it is well worth it)

[dan marchant]

This is a long tail venture for Flickr and as such it will likely go the same way as most other similar ventures. A good example would be the Online stock photo industry or the indie (video) game industry of 5-10 years ago. Both of these started out by collecting together product that has previously only been available from diverse small operations and put them into a larger catalogue. Initially the suppliers (game developers/photographers) were happy because they got a relatively large slice of the pie and handed off all the non-creative work involved (server set-up, tagging, advertising/marketing, payment processing, customer service etc).

However things soon changed. Firstly it became easier to learn how to make games/take photos and the cost of the equipment necessary to do so also dropped. In other words the barriers to entry dropped, more suppliers moved in and the supply soon began to increase. In addition the first to market publishers started to face competition from new companies who, needing to differentiate their service, opted to compete on price. The result was that the prices charged were pushed down and, due to increased supply, the % paid to suppliers (you and I) also dropped. As the catalogue of available products grew the business morphed into, what is now known as a Long Tail business (a term popularised by an article in Wired magazine about Amazon.com, iTunes etc.) where the company has a huge catalogue of digital products that effectively cost them nothing (they are just data on a server) and so can profit from selling just a small number of each one. Or to be more precise they sell a large number of a few products (the head) and then a rapidly declining number of an awful lot of products - the loooong tail.

For the suppliers this meant that a few of the best ones developed a sustainable business. People knew who they were and recommended their work and so it sold in numbers sufficient to provide an income. In addition the publishers would choose those products to promote when doing marketing. However the amount of work those suppliers had to do to generate that income also increased substantially either from having to marketing their own businesses or by increasing the quality/amount of output. The rest of the suppliers however dropped into the long tail where a product may generate only a handful of sales per month or year. This is fine for the publisher. They have to have the servers anyway to sell the popular titles so having data on it that only sells a few times a year doesn't cost them anything and, when added together, all the long tail sales add up. I don't know what the figures are today but at the time of the Wired article I mentioned above I think Amazon.com was making 25% of its revenue from long tail sales. A great business for them but not so much for the suppliers down in the long tail. What Flickr are proposing here is no different. It is the stock photography of print sales. If it is successful others will do the same thing and more photographers will join the service and the prices that can be commanded (and the % earned) will decrease. In short it is fine for an amateur who wants to earn a few $ with no additional effort, but not really for anyone seeking to make significant money or build a business.

In addition you need to be very aware of the negatives (yes, all the above were the "positives"). One of the previous posters flagged up the fact that Flicker used the word "could" in their email invitation. I would strongly echo that warning. The reality of these businesses is that, unless you are one of the handful of top sellers, you will get nothing in the way of support from Flickr. I have seen this first hand having worked for years in the video game industry and closely with Sony (PSN), Microsoft (Xbox Live) and Apple (iTunes App store for games). Any marketing they do will be brand marketing - promoting their service. They may do this by highlighting some of the available products but they will be either products they own or the handful of already top selling products. Any press releases they send out will likewise focus on the successes of the system and those same products/people. As a result any press coverage will focus on those same products. In addition, I very much doubt that you will get any access to your customers, which makes this pretty worthless as an avenue to build up your own business. By that I mean that, when Flickr sell a print, they get the buyers contact details, which they are very unlikely to pass on to you. They will have an ever growing database of customers that they can market to, while you have the money from one sale. Unfortunately, even if someone did buy one of your prints you have no way to try to sell them more. In fact the likelihood is that the next images marketed to them will be one of Flickrs already top selling images.

The alternative, unfortunately, requires a lot more effort. You need to build or cultivate sales outlets for your work (make a website/web shop, contact galleries, promote yourself through photography related publications and networking etc). You need a marketing plan by which to promote yourself/your work and you need a body of work that is large enough to make the effort worthwhile. Although I don't have a large enough body of work I have recently decided to follow this route, in large part because I think it will be fun to try. I already had a website where I showed off my photography and I was already becoming much more interested in the local gallery/photography scene so adding a web shop and starting to promote myself with the local market wasn't too much of a burden.

[Mike Buckley]

You need to build or cultivate sales outlets for your work (make a website/web shop, contact galleries, promote yourself through photography related publications and networking etc). You need a marketing plan by which to promote yourself/your work and you need a body of work that is large enough to make the effort worthwhile.

Lacking that, retaining 51% of the sales seems like a good deal to me. However, lacking that, I suspect there will be very little sales.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi Matt, I don't know if you are still pondering this or not, but it's an interesting topic to me, as I too am interested in photo/art business. I don't really have a conclusion to offer, but a few thoughts.

I think your photos would belong in the upper level the stock industry. Have you looked at many stock websites? There are low-end ones; photos go for dollars and cents, and there are upper end ones, where photos are licensed in different ways, or the licenses are quoted to the buyer individually based on what they will use the content for,and how long, how big, where, so on and so forth. Photos there, go for many times more. Just do a couple quick searches for animal stock photos, and you can probably find both kinds. So, what is Flickr's market like? How much will they sell stuff for? That would be something to consider, I would think. Rights managed or royalty free? Just beware of Exclusive Rights, then you loose your rights to your photos- but may get a good deal for them.

Have you seen the website Fine Art America?

The legal aspects of "going commercial" do sound like a headache, I respect that you would like to make sure you're doing things properly, but I have been involved in some art-type business done very casually. Do what you need to do, but I wouldn't see any reason to try to find legal-related fussing and expenses that you don't need to do. Obviously.

I also understand your wanting keep your business your own, like have your own gallery and keep your photos at the level of fine art, however; who that is at the top of the industry has always been at the top of that industry?


There are lots of wildlife photographers who have their own websites, and they have a tab for ordering prints, but I never suppose they are making 50K /year doing that. The fact is, as it seems to me, there are many more excellent wildlife images than there are uses for them, not that some of them are not used, because obviously many are. I haven't heard of too many artists who are just living out their passion doing what they like... (and nothing else) and making a good living off it. Most of them seem to have also another job, also teach art, or at least offer a slew of other art and design services to make up their business. Alternatively they may simply be hired by some company and in that case not even be self-employed.


If I had other things to say I can't think of what they were right now, so I'll leave it at that.


-
Nick

[FlyingSquirrel]

I want to thank everyone for responding and offering great advice and information. I've sat on this for a while, and at this point I think I'm going to hold off and pass on flickr's offer. It just doesn't feel right for me. I've been working on some other ideas and am taking a different approach to my goals. I've learned a lot from this thread, so, thanks!

[Macropod]

Did you stick with your guns and not join the Flickr Marketplace? I'm curious to know. I was also invited to join and accepted their request. I will be happy to share my experience once I know more. I received a message from them today that new information is soon to come. Cheers.

In addition, I joined cambridgeincolour to respond to this post and am new. How did you add your signature?

My gallery can be found at https://www.flickr.com/photos/107963674@N07/

[rpcrowe]

Do you still own the images? Can you also sell these images other ways or are you locked into an exclusive deal with Flickr...

49% commission is way-way out of line. However to be Devils Advocate: isn't it better to get 51% of some sales than 100% of no sales?

Are they selling prints or digital images. If they are paying for the printing, the large commission is not that bad (IMO). Printing display images can get to be darned expensive...

I visited your Flickr site and your images are awesome.

[rpcrowe]

Mark... your macros are also awesome!

[jcuknz]

>>> The main thing is that I only get 51% of the net sales. That sounds like a crap deal to me,<<<
I agree as it is not 51% of the sale price as suggested above several times but 51% after expenses ... unspecified!
And that is only for the 'sales' to honest people who do not simply just pirate your image.

[Shadowman]

>>> The main thing is that I only get 51% of the net sales. That sounds like a crap deal to me,<<<
I agree as it is not 51% of the sale price as suggested above several times but 51% after expenses ... unspecified!
And that is only for the 'sales' to honest people who do not simply just pirate your image.

Scary thought, have a lawyer go through the small print of the offer.