The Great Washing Out

null

« on: January 24, 2009, 12:30 »

#link

From Lee Torrens' MicroStockDiaries an anonymous comment of an "old school" guy a while ago on the entry Microstock Talking Points in 2009.

As not everybody can read everything, a repeat here of that comment, as food for thought (paragraphs added for readability).

Quote

Here are the facts!

Microstock does not pay enough for a real photographer with a studio and or professional equipment to submit images with the intent of earning a living and running a successful business. The photographers that submit to micro now and get good enough will find that they need to move to better sources of income to develop their hobby into a business. As well the pros that try to make a living at micro will find that it doesn’t pay enough to survive. The only people making money with microstock are the agencies.

The two best examples of this are Yuri Arcurs and Ron Chapple. Yuri, the king of micro is now shooting RF for one of the top RF distributors in the world. He doesn’t say much about this on his blog, but the facts are there. Just search for his last name on Getty.

Why is he shooting RF? Well let’s put it this way. He shoots with the best equipment available he is renovating a new huge daylight studio in Denmark, and he has several full and part-time employees. He has to progress into a business model that will allow him to continue growing his business ideas. Not to mention that he is a seriously talented photographer and businessman.

Ron Chapple a long time RF shooter and founder of Thinkstock has been running his own Micro agency(Iofoto) for the past two years and in a recent article said this “Overall, I am no longer bullish on the opportunity for individual photographers within the microstock licensing sector. The distributors will make money, but with the ever increasing supply, statistics do not favor the contributor.” After two years of Micro he is just now predicting that he may be able to break even on his investments.

I’m sorry if some of you microstock photographers are pissed off at us photographers that have the talent and business sense to make a successful living at photography, but that’s just the way it is. If you want to be a serious photographer you need to step up to the plate and prove yourself. It takes a hell of a lot more than just a few pretty pictures to make you a pro photographer.

Now I don’t usually participate in these forums because I honestly don’t have the time to sit around chatting about this crap. But I was searching around for some info on Micro and saw this little discussion and thought I’d drop a line to back-up Don and Saxon. I’m not planning on sticking around to read half witted comebacks from some pissed off amateur that spends half their day blogging and chatting about the evils of RF and RM, I’ve got better things to do.

But I will let you know this. The stock as well as photo industry needs a good washing-out. And when it’s over, the good photographers will still be here to produce quality work. And agencies don’t choose photographers. Photographers find the best partners to distribute their work. If you are good enough no door is closed.

Oh! One more thing. Micro is the redistribution of wealth? Come on!
Even Obama ain’t that stupid!


	Ignore \| Logged

e-person

« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2009, 12:47 »

#link

I have always agreed with this. Microstock does not pay enough by the hour.


	Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2009, 13:35 »

#link

I agree. Real photographers should stay out. No money to be made.


	Ignore \| Logged

m@m

« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2009, 13:52 »

#link

I agree with you sjlocke 100%...specially egotistic, self proclaimed real great photographers, god's gift to photography should stay out Wink


« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 13:56 by m@m »	Ignore \| Logged

shank_ali

« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2009, 14:04 »

#link

If a person earns a living as a photographer and chooses not to submit his work to a micro site for whatever reason that's there choice.
Seems a bit silly though as making images for a buyer/designer is quite easy and enjoyable and you can make money.


	Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2009, 14:09 »

#link

To some degree I hope this guy is right. There is a decent living to be made in microstock, but only if production values are kept low.

I doubt there are many making six figures (much less seven!) but probably several hundred are able to eke out a living in the mid five figures.

I am not surprised that some of the high production folks like Yuri and Ron Chapple are discovering that micro doesn't pay well enough to justify their expenses.

Overall this industry will probably work best for everyone once price points match the amount of effort and expense put into creating the work.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2009, 15:03 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on January 24, 2009, 14:09

I'm amused that you call a mid-five-figure income 'eke[ing] out a living'.
A poor choice of words, perhaps?


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2009, 15:09 »

#link

Quote

"I’m sorry if some of you microstock photographers are pissed off at us photographers that have the talent and business sense to make a successful living at photography, but that’s just the way it is. If you want to be a serious photographer you need to step up to the plate and prove yourself. It takes a hell of a lot more than just a few pretty pictures to make you a pro photographer."

"Now I don’t usually participate in these forums because I honestly don’t have the time to sit around chatting about this crap. But I was searching around for some info on Micro..... "

So here we have a photographer that has "the talent and business sense to make a successful living at photography" searching for some info on micro.

Obviously their existing talent and business sense isn't working out to be as successful as they'd like.


	Ignore \| Logged

Lee Torrens

« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2009, 15:10 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on January 24, 2009, 14:09

Overall this industry will probably work best for everyone once price points match the amount of effort and expense put into creating the work.

I don't expect that will ever happen. There's now too many photographers and no barriers to entry. There will always be a photographer willing to do more for less, whether because it's worthwhile in their country, because they're just getting started, or because they're doing it for fun.

Jim Pickerell wrote a post on the relationship of price and production costs recently (subscription required: http://www.selling-stock.com/?p=3756) and I'm sure he won't mind me paraphrasing his main reasons why they will never be related: 1. Buyers make buying decisions based on the value of the image to them; 2. The value to a buyer is completely unrelated to the production costs; and 3. Buyers' perception of value is affected by other choices (competition). (he also qualifies that this relates only to stock, not assignment photography)

What do you think?


	Ignore \| Logged

null

« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2009, 15:36 »

#link

The value of every good is in principle only related to what a buyer wants to give for it. In IP (unless RM), a good can be sold several times. You can't sell a pair of Nike shoes several times, so there is a lottery factor involved. Probably 80% of shots never makes what it did cost, but 20% yields a 10 or 100 fold. It's that lottery aspect that keeps people motivated since we are all gambling addicts basically, at least the small shooters.

But who says Microstock has to be full-time, cost efficient? If so, we would all be doing models over white in a studio. 3,000 per year at least, given the shelf life. How long does it take for a market to be oversaturated with business teams shaking hands in all possible poses and ethnic mixtures?

Stock photography started long ago with the unsalable left-overs of assignments. Then, the first mice like Yuri Arcurs got the cheese, but soon perhaps, we're back to the old days. For me, the past 9 months have been mostly assignments, band shoots, wealthy people's parties, fashion, glorifying fat ladies with pimples in photoshop, emo/goth for fun. No time for waterfalls and sunsets any more.

Although those are my best sellers, they don't make up for the travel and inn costs involved if you just do it for that. But if you have a studio, equipment and a workflow for assignments, making some extra creative shots for stock just requires a marginal cost.


	Ignore \| Logged

cdwheatley

« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2009, 15:40 »

#link

I'm just guessing here but at some point when we reach 500,000 contributors..lol..The pie will be so small that no one will make a living. You would just have mostly people doing it for fun. Quality would suffer because it would not be cost effective or worth the effort. Full time talent will move up stream or to some other venue where they can survive if possible.

At some point the sites will need to put barriers in place or they will slowly start to suffer, maybe were just not there yet.

I consulted "the bones" and this is what they told me


	Ignore \| Logged

tan510jomast

« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2009, 15:58 »

#link

Every business takes time to grow, whether you're in accounting, or making wedding cakes,etc. 6 years is a time factor that IRS or RevCanada allows for a fledgeling business before they (IRS, RC) expect to see some income . Having spoken to some of you (long timers) through personal emails when I first started in micro (still starting,for all that matters), you told me that your success was all via consistent UL over the years.
Therefore, the washing out will come, but I feel, it will take care of itself, like the ozone layer, lol.. when newfies who expect quick profit in microstock (hyperbole here, i think, lol), drop out as quickly as they came in.
Do i see it as a career? No, not at this time. Simply because I do not put enough time nor effort to it. I accept the little sales I get gladly, no complaints. But if I find some more discovered images in the course of my travels and work that could sell in stock, I will submit there. It's more or less my sunday hobby.

That's it, my nickel worth of insight . cheers.


« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 16:40 by tan510jomast »	Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2009, 16:00 »

#link

Most of the current contributors provide little competition because they have tiny portfolios and have stopped uploading. The average portfolio size on shutterstock is 41. It doesn't matter if there are a million contributors if they are as unproductive as they are at the moment. In addition to this, a lot of the images available are poor copies of the best selling images. I think those that have a bit of talent and put in the work will still make money in years to come and those that don't will keep complaining about poor sales.


	Ignore \| Logged

MikLav

Premium Member

« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2009, 16:16 »

#link

To extend the previous post - another point that Lee has mentioned in his blog is that if quality standards increase will continue at microstock, this will push many amateurs out of this business. The entry to top agencies is already much more difficult than it was a year or two ago...


	Ignore \| Logged

Jam

New Member

« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2009, 16:44 »

#link

Quote from: shank_ali on January 24, 2009, 14:04

What? Do you ever read or try to understand the posts here, you are now polluting another forum with your comments. some professional photographers earn several £1000 pounds per day and have little time, why would they risk damaging their brand by diluting it with microstock. It really depends on what type of business you have. I like the the reoccurring business model of stock but some of the top guy simply do not need it nor do they have the time.

Angry


	Ignore \| Logged

uploaderz

« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2009, 17:24 »

#link

Quote from: Lee Torrens on January 24, 2009, 15:10

Quote from: lisafx on January 24, 2009, 14:09

Overall this industry will probably work best for everyone once price points match the amount of effort and expense put into creating the work.

I think you´re too negative there Lee.
There are barriers and that is skill. It has been proven that there is a definite market for microstock priced imagery. Business and people need / want pictures that are cheap. But wether the picture costs $.50, $3.00 or even $10.00 is pretty insignificant, they are all cheap. The photographers working as pro microstock photographers are going to upload to the sites selling their pics for $5.00 and the buyers are going to go to the sites that get all the pro photographers images. Those $5.00 sites will get picky with their pictures acceptance and the amateur will be pushed out and the market will be mature.

Sure there will always be amatuers and part timers.. that is the beauty of stock, but they will mostly be active on the sites that accept their images,.... perhaps the same sites that sell images for $.50 .. people will buy there, but most people will buy from the sites that get all the good images even though they are sold for a (very modest) premium.

... This is another thread that will be fun to look at in about 5 years time


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2009, 19:36 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on January 24, 2009, 15:03

I'm amused that you call a mid-five-figure income 'eke[ing] out a living'.
A poor choice of words, perhaps?

No, you're absolutely right, I misused "eke". Just looked it up and it seems that "eke out a living" has a much more dire and poverty oriented meaning than I thought.

Let's say: "I doubt there are many making six figures (much less seven!) but probably several hundred are able to earn a living in the mid five figures. "


	Ignore \| Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

crazychristina

« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2009, 20:11 »

#link

I think as content producers that we can get a bit precious about our images. The enormous effect on sales that best match has (on istock at least) suggests that many buyers are not actually very discriminating, and prefer to be guided by someone elses choice. Sure, professional designers on tight budgets will look for quality, but what percentage of microstock buyers are they (except on SS because of its volume sales model)?


	Ignore \| Logged

Susan S.

« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2009, 20:21 »

#link

It's always going to be hard work to make a full time living from microstock (let's face it making a full time living from most things is hard work, especially as a free lancer) I suspect most photographers don't have the necessary mind set and skill set to do it - it requires the research, the imagination and an ability to get a decent number of photos out at a relatively low production cost, yet still have them looking happy and shiny and professional. You need to ba able to combine quality and quantity of output and not get stale churning it out week after week. Certainly not for everyone. And harder now for newcomers to get a critical mass of good images put there to build up a base where their sales are consistent enough to rely on.

For most professional photographers, I suspect the best role for microstock is shooting at the margins - extra income for shots where the production costs are already effectively covered for other purposes - then the marginal cost of the shots is low. I know of a few who use different names for microstock to avoid "diluting the brand" of their high end work (and annoying fellow members of the professional organisations) - it's effective market segmentation to increase profits.

For the rest of us microstock is a hobby to cover camera costs, which it does very effectively without too much hard work.


	Ignore \| Logged

tan510jomast

« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2009, 21:09 »

#link

Susan S., you are so right.
I remember some 7 ,8 months ago when a local artist suggested I try microstock, to my surprise how time consuming it is , to be truly successful . I was lucky to meet a long timer in the business (name withheld) . she was very active in this forum at that time, and she more or less took me under her wing. taught me what to look for, get me critical on noise, showed me photoshop techniques,etc.
her final words to me was shoot, keep abreast with what buyers want, shoot, shoot even more!. i told her i don't think i have the time to do so much.
her simple answer was, "well, if you cannot be a shooting machine, i don't think you will be able to succeed in stock photography, to make enough , and to make it worth your while. you are competing with people who are putting 110% into it, you cannot just do it over the weekend .
harsh reality, perharps, but till this day, I realised she was not only being helpful ,she was telling it like it is.


« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 21:15 by tan510jomast »	Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: The Great Washing Out

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results