Update on Zymmetrical
It's time to post an update about Zymmetrical who I first wrote about in March. I am especially motivated by 3 sales last month at this mid-priced agency that have earned me a commission of $49.70. (Only my top 3 sites earned more than that last month).
Keith Tuomi sent me a nice note to let me know that each inspector hand picked a favourite submission for the homepage, and Keith picked this shot of a typical Canadian grain farmer.
I must note at this point that one of my 3 sales was for the shot on the screen capture below. Did I receive a sale because a buyer liked it, or did Zym pay everyone who has a photo on their front page? I expect the latter, but in March I didn't receive payment for a front page photo (perhaps they've changed this policy).
(more after image)
Some quick updates since my last post.
- They are still in beta and are very responsive to suggestions to help grow their site.
- Yes, they're new, but no, they aren't desperate. Zymmetrical is not trying to artificially plump up their collection by approving everything you've got. Be selective with your submissions; you will get rejections.
- Put "Buy Stock Photos" in any search engine and Zymmetrical will appear on the first page.
- I was wrong about referrals in my last post. You only receive a commission for new purchasers, not new photographers. You can still use my referral link though, I just love to be popular.
but... - Zymmetrical pays 70% commission. WOW.
- Like Shutterstock, you are not privy to details about views or sales. I would find these numbers useful to help determine future price updates.
- Flash uploader is FAST, but...
- I'm finding the submissions area a pain in the butt when I try to edit out of order. You apply descriptions and are taken back to the top of the page.
- You don't have to apply categories. If you can't find an appropriate category, leave it blank and they may create a new one.
- If you are confused about setting your own prices, leave that field blank. Zymmetrical will apply a price.
- Photographers hate describing photos, and Zymmetrical has omitted descriptions: but I truly think the lack of a descriptive field will hurt them as a midstock supplier. Sites with higher pricing, like Alamay or the macros, normally require a very detailed description. At Zymmetrical my Hard Kerneled Red Spring Wheat is just another wheat photo. If my Durum Wheat was to appear in ad for bread, any farmer who saw it would say right away that "That's Durum and (insert something about the amount of protein here) so you can't make bread with it."
- Keith mentioned that they will accept editorial content in the future.
Yes, there seems to be room for a midstock agency in this market. Out of all the new microstock sites that have appeared recently, it seems that Zymmetrical is getting a lot of things right. Hopefully they don't deploy recent tactics of the microstock agencies by introducing subs or forging bad partnerships.
What blows my mind about Zymmetrical (actually, most stock sites) is I see no reason for designers to use the site. For instance, your wheat image above is on most of the big six sites, right? And it costs probably 20% of what it would cost on Zymmetrical.
Why would a designer ever buy from Zymmetrical over Dreamstime, for example?
I've got to say, in some ways I think the microstock model is deeply flawed and not good for the photographers. Yes, we can sell more by spreading our images around on multiple sites, so we are silly if we don't. But, since all our images are available on all sites, the competition forces sites to keep their prices low and our profits low too!
Reply to this
Er, uhm. LOL, the wheat in that photo is actually canola. (See my point about the necessity of descriptions).
I'm not entirely sure why buyers would go to a mid-priced site.
- Zymmetrical is certainly focusing on quality rather than random content and satisfied buyers will return.
- If you do want purchase a photo on Dreamstime, you must purchase a whole credits package, even if you will only need 1 photo.
- Zymmetrical also sells fonts and will have editorial content in the future. More reason for buyers to stay.
- They have certainly been one of the most responsive sites I have dealt with. I'm sure they are treating customers very well.
With the news that Photoshelter is pulling the plug today, I hope these guys can hang in there and come out of beta.
Reply to this
Yeah, the wheat vs canola mistake really drives home your point about needing descriptions. Sorry about that, I had a mental glitch
Definitely, requiring bulk purchases helps the big sites keep their prices low. But I feel like the quality difference between the micro-stocks and macro-stocks (or even medium-stocks like Zymmetrical) isn't big enough to warrant the difference in price. And furthermore, the microstocks generally have more images anyway, which makes them that much more useful.
Honestly, I don't see how a company like Zymmetrical can survive. From a photographers perspective, I hope they do.
Reply to this
Istock is the undisputed King of micro and they charge between $9.40 and $10.40 for a 10mp shot (Large) out of my D200. That isn't exactly a bargain. The differenct between Istock and mid-stock isn't as big as you might think. It's the fact that Istock shares only 20% with me that makes it seem so micro.... Note: An XXL is 20 credits for which the purchaser would have to buy at least $35 for a package.
But, on the other hand, sales at Istock seem to be a little slower of late. Has the surge of subs totally destroyed the future of micros?
Reply to this
You've mentioned 'subs' a lot -- what do you mean by that?
I've heard that summer is generally a slow time for microstock anyway -- is the decline you've seen been beyond the typical summer decline?
Honestly, I've been so focused on getting images submitted and accepted that I've kind of ignored the whole payment issue. 20% commission is really, really bad though, even if the volume makes up for it. The problem is, there really is no reason not to use the sites that give crappy commissions, since some money is better than no money.
Again, the whole system is skewed against the small-volume photographer. But we knew that.
Reply to this