MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What would it take to bring back this industry to the golden days?  (Read 7603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bad Company

« on: August 24, 2017, 16:46 »
+1
Okay, I hoping to hear what the artists, buyers and some of the companies feel would restore this industry? 

I've noticed that some companies have removed images (supposedly low end) and even artist (Envato-Photodune).  Now some of the remaining artists are claiming their income is going up just like it was a few years ago! Do the other companies need to follow this trend? Anyway love to hear (actually read) your thoughts on turning this business around... 8)



« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2017, 17:51 »
+3
Putting my money for photos on GraphicStock Marketplace opening on Sept. 18, 2017. Why because I minimum I will be getting $3.50 per download, I can live with that and I am hoping buyers will come there! I am done with 38cents. If I can't sell an image that can pay for something on Taco Bell menu then I am not going to sell it!

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2017, 19:38 »
+4
I have high hopes for Graphicstock too. Please let this agency restore some respect to photographers. I didn't mind .38 cents when I was getting a lot of downloads but now that SS is tanking it doesn't seem worth it anymore.

« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2017, 19:46 »
+4
Same thing that will take to bring back coal mining to its golden days. Or film photography. Or newspapers...

« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2017, 19:51 »
+1
Putting my money for photos on GraphicStock Marketplace opening on Sept. 18, 2017. Why because I minimum I will be getting $3.50 per download, I can live with that and I am hoping buyers will come there! I am done with 38cents. If I can't sell an image that can pay for something on Taco Bell menu then I am not going to sell it!

I sure hope they fix their search because it is awful.

Bad Company

« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2017, 20:22 »
+2
Same thing that will take to bring back coal mining to its golden days. Or film photography. Or newspapers...

All these things evolved to something better but our MS is evolving to what?

« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2017, 20:33 »
+6
Same thing that will take to bring back coal mining to its golden days. Or film photography. Or newspapers...

All these things evolved to something better but our MS is evolving to what?

I would rather say that these industries disappeared (or are about to), as technology evolved.
Technology is also driving down the cost of photos. Everybody is a photographer these days.

Despite populist claims, coal mining will not be brought back to its golden days. Same goes for microstock, newspapers, etc
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 20:41 by Zero Talent »

wds

« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2017, 21:18 »
+4
Putting my money for photos on GraphicStock Marketplace opening on Sept. 18, 2017. Why because I minimum I will be getting $3.50 per download, I can live with that and I am hoping buyers will come there! I am done with 38cents. If I can't sell an image that can pay for something on Taco Bell menu then I am not going to sell it!

Is there a reason to be hopeful for this agency? POND5 sells images where you can set the price, but seemingly virtually no buyers.

« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2017, 22:38 »
+5
Nothing. It's not coming back. That doesn't mean that some new better opportunities won't happen, but what emerged 10 years or more ago is a moment in time that can't come back.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2017, 00:22 »
+6
A global virus that killed 90 to 99% of all stock producers? That should do the trick. Or some kind of 'carousel' like on Logan's Run, where anyone who has been producing stock for 5 years has to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the next generation. 

Run runner!


« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2017, 00:35 »
+6
The supply/demand balance being shifted WAY too far in the oversupply direction is killing microstock.  Will it become re-balanced as many contributors get sick of working for nothing and give up?  I sure hope so, but I have a bigger worry...

I haven't seen data on this but my gut says the people paying for microstock images today are the older generations - Generation X and older - who remember the pre-Internet days when intellectual property was respected and you had a legal and moral obligation to pay someone for his or her work.  The millennials I've encountered have an attitude of "just grab it off the Internet, because it's there and why not?"  Not sure if it's laziness, a sense of entitlement or lack of respect for others' time and effort.  But if these are the people we're counting on paying us for our work in the years to come, it doesn't matter if half of all contributors give up.  There will be nothing left for those of us who remain.

« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2017, 01:54 »
+4
The millennials I've encountered have an attitude of "just grab it off the Internet, because it's there and why not?"  Not sure if it's laziness, a sense of entitlement or lack of respect for others' time and effort.  But if these are the people we're counting on paying us for our work in the years to come, it doesn't matter if half of all contributors give up.  There will be nothing left for those of us who remain.

Illegal use is even more expensive than buying the footage. This is a good business opportunity for lawyers.

« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2017, 02:03 »
+2
The millennials I've encountered have an attitude of "just grab it off the Internet, because it's there and why not?"  Not sure if it's laziness, a sense of entitlement or lack of respect for others' time and effort.  But if these are the people we're counting on paying us for our work in the years to come, it doesn't matter if half of all contributors give up.  There will be nothing left for those of us who remain.

Illegal use is even more expensive than buying the footage. This is a good business opportunity for lawyers.
This may be true but increasingly there is more and more content that people seem happy to give away. I'd like things to change but sadly I think trends are clear across all internet media related industries. Seems to me there's more more money in tutoring/tours etc......I find the charges made for photography courses eyewatering especially considering its never been easier to take decent photos.

« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2017, 02:11 »
+1
Putting my money for photos on GraphicStock Marketplace opening on Sept. 18, 2017. Why because I minimum I will be getting $3.50 per download, I can live with that and I am hoping buyers will come there! I am done with 38cents. If I can't sell an image that can pay for something on Taco Bell menu then I am not going to sell it!
The point is not how much an agency pay us.
The point is how much a photo costs to the customer.
You can be happy to get $3.50 per download instead of $0.38.
But will the customer be happy to pay more (I suppose that on GraphicStock it will cost more, but in fact I don't know) for the same images that he could find elsewhere for less price?

« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2017, 02:14 »
+1
Same thing that will take to bring back coal mining to its golden days. Or film photography. Or newspapers...

All these things evolved to something better but our MS is evolving to what?

Probably it is evolving in something (very) better for the microstock agencies.
We should stop to think that these companies work for our own satisfaction.
Our wishes are not the reality.

« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2017, 02:25 »
+1
Same thing that will take to bring back coal mining to its golden days. Or film photography. Or newspapers...

All these things evolved to something better but our MS is evolving to what?

Probably it is evolving in something (very) better for the microstock agencies.
We should stop to think that these companies work for our own satisfaction.
Our wishes are not the reality.
Its not really better for them either its not in their interest to sell images for less. Its a buyers market and its the buyers that are benefitting.

« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2017, 03:01 »
+1
Same thing that will take to bring back coal mining to its golden days. Or film photography. Or newspapers...

All these things evolved to something better but our MS is evolving to what?

Probably it is evolving in something (very) better for the microstock agencies.
We should stop to think that these companies work for our own satisfaction.
Our wishes are not the reality.
Its not really better for them either its not in their interest to sell images for less. Its a buyers market and its the buyers that are benefitting.

What is the sense companies to go on with a business that is not good for them at first?
I don't think that their main purpose is not to satisfy the contributors or even the customers.
Of course it is not easy to gain more for them, and more they earn more it is difficult to earn more.
But you cannot make me believe that companies like Shutterstock or iStock make what they make, and how they make it (I mean bad for us), if it is not for their maximum benefit.


« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2017, 03:38 »
+2
Same thing that will take to bring back coal mining to its golden days. Or film photography. Or newspapers...

All these things evolved to something better but our MS is evolving to what?

Probably it is evolving in something (very) better for the microstock agencies.
We should stop to think that these companies work for our own satisfaction.
Our wishes are not the reality.
Its not really better for them either its not in their interest to sell images for less. Its a buyers market and its the buyers that are benefitting.

What is the sense companies to go on with a business that is not good for them at first?
I don't think that their main purpose is not to satisfy the contributors or even the customers.
Of course it is not easy to gain more for them, and more they earn more it is difficult to earn more.
But you cannot make me believe that companies like Shutterstock or iStock make what they make, and how they make it (I mean bad for us), if it is not for their maximum benefit.
Yes of course they want to much $$ as possible if they could charge $1000 for a picture they would but in a buyers market they can't as someone will undercut them. Hence the "race to the bottom" basic market economics.

« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2017, 04:33 »
+3
What would it take?

Well, first of all you would have to bankrupt every single technology company on the planet.

Lower and lower prices, supply exceeding demand etc. are all results of technology advancements. Almost anyone can afford equipment to produce material that can sell. That is the reason.

« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2017, 04:52 »
+2
What would it take?

Well, first of all you would have to bankrupt every single technology company on the planet.

Lower and lower prices, supply exceeding demand etc. are all results of technology advancements. Almost anyone can afford equipment to produce material that can sell. That is the reason.


A little old as statistics, but probably the figures did not change in better
http://www.pewglobal.org/interactives/global-population-by-income/
15% or the world population earns less than $2 a day
71% of the world population earns less that $10 a day (poor + low income)
I am not sure that "Almost" anyone can afford any equipment

« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2017, 04:53 »
+4
Okay, I hoping to hear what the artists, buyers and some of the companies feel would restore this industry? 


A time machine. Some natural processes are irreversible.

« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2017, 05:55 »
+3
Things would soon change if contributors didn't supply sites that sell for low prices and pay less than 50%.  It looks like my highest earning site this month will be Alamy, my 50% cut from one sale is almost $100.  Imagine how much we could earn if we only supplied sites like them and Pond5 for video.  Shame that will never happen.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2017, 06:01 »
+3
To go back to the "good old days", it will take WW3 and the eventual nuclear fallout which would wipe out 99% of the Earth's population. The few survivors will spend the remainder of their lives scrounging the Earth for whatever resources are left.

After a few generations, the Earth's population should recover to a few million, probably in the South Pacific and high-altitudes (less affected by radioactive fallout). Standards of living will slowly improve and in 2103, Internet 2.0 will re-emerge.

More advanced forms of digital commerce will take off and businesses will need to promote their products and/or services. Then, they will turn to Microstock and since there will be few photographers left and technology will be relatively primitive, those contributors should earn more than the equivalent of 36 cents an image in today's currency.

« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2017, 06:06 »
+3
To go back to the "good old days", it will take WW3 and the eventual nuclear fallout which would wipe out 99% of the Earth's population. The few survivors will spend the remainder of their lives scrounging the Earth for whatever resources are left.

After a few generations, the Earth's population should recover to a few million, probably in the South Pacific and high-altitudes (less affected by radioactive fallout). Standards of living will slowly improve and in 2103, Internet 2.0 will re-emerge.

More advanced forms of digital commerce will take off and businesses will need to promote their products and/or services. Then, they will turn to Microstock and since there will be few photographers left and technology will be relatively primitive, those contributors should earn more than the equivalent of 36 cents an image in today's currency.

Wow, that sounds a bit extreme.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2017, 06:47 »
+2
Quote

Wow, that sounds a bit extreme.   


I'm going to buy the domain www.nuclearstock.com

« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2017, 07:54 »
+1
To go back to the "good old days", it will take WW3 and the eventual nuclear fallout which would wipe out 99% of the Earth's population. The few survivors will spend the remainder of their lives scrounging the Earth for whatever resources are left.

After a few generations, the Earth's population should recover to a few million, probably in the South Pacific and high-altitudes (less affected by radioactive fallout). Standards of living will slowly improve and in 2103, Internet 2.0 will re-emerge.

More advanced forms of digital commerce will take off and businesses will need to promote their products and/or services. Then, they will turn to Microstock and since there will be few photographers left and technology will be relatively primitive, those contributors should earn more than the equivalent of 36 cents an image in today's currency.

Sad to say, but with the population growing very fast and the available resources not growing at all, there is no other solution than a massive exode to other planets, massive control of the fertility or a massive destruction of the humanity :(
We can speak of any other problems, but this is the only real problem.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 08:03 by Chichikov »

« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2017, 07:56 »
+4
This week I bought (the right to use) 4 medium sized images from Stocksy at $30 each. That's certainly not a typical buying week for me (I wish it was) - I am not going to rescue the industry. But I am very pleased with the content and it is good to know that this is a fair-trade model. I very much appreciate the hard work which has gone into making and selecting that content. $30 is, frankly, cheap for such good content.

I used Stocksy because:

1. The content and locations have exactly the look and feel I was after - but  I could not find content with the same feel elsewhere
2. The other sites were ridiculously spammy - it's depressing and a waste of time to be presented with thousands of mostly irrelevant images

--

Microstock is no more coming back than the era which it was part of - when fast broadband suddenly became ubiquitous but only a few people had DSLR quality cameras. In those days there was no Facebook - lots of little businesses thought they needed a website and there was a much greater demand for cheap content.

ETA: I actually like looking for content at Stocksy. I enjoy looking into their world.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 08:14 by bunhill »


wds

« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2017, 08:27 »
+1
When does it get to the point that the top quality producers feel that it just isn't worth it anymore? If/when that time comes, that would be a turning point. Yes cameras are "cheap", but models, locations, time and other production costs aren't.

« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2017, 08:47 »
+2
Aren't these the golden days?

« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2017, 08:50 »
+2
Aren't these the golden days?

For some of us, yes ;)

« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2017, 08:57 »
+2
To go back to the "good old days", it will take WW3 and the eventual nuclear fallout which would wipe out 99% of the Earth's population. The few survivors will spend the remainder of their lives scrounging the Earth for whatever resources are left.

After a few generations, the Earth's population should recover to a few million, probably in the South Pacific and high-altitudes (less affected by radioactive fallout). Standards of living will slowly improve and in 2103, Internet 2.0 will re-emerge.

More advanced forms of digital commerce will take off and businesses will need to promote their products and/or services. Then, they will turn to Microstock and since there will be few photographers left and technology will be relatively primitive, those contributors should earn more than the equivalent of 36 cents an image in today's currency.

Sad to say, but with the population growing very fast and the available resources not growing at all, there is no other solution than a massive exode to other planets, massive control of the fertility or a massive destruction of the humanity :(
We can speak of any other problems, but this is the only real problem.

They always said that!
First they predicted coal reserves will end soon. Then an oil based economy emerged and doomsday got delayed.
Then they predicted oil reserves will be exhausted soon. But deep drilling technologies appeared, and doomsday got delayed.
Then they said again that oil resources will be exhausted soon. But fracking appeared together renewable energies and doomsday got delayed again.
Then you predict a new doomsday. But new technologies will always emerge to delay doomsday.

So don't worry, we will be fine for the next million of years and more, unless some unstable and narcissistic man with access to nuclear codes has different ideas
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 09:02 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2017, 09:14 »
+1
To go back to the "good old days", it will take WW3 and the eventual nuclear fallout which would wipe out 99% of the Earth's population. The few survivors will spend the remainder of their lives scrounging the Earth for whatever resources are left.

After a few generations, the Earth's population should recover to a few million, probably in the South Pacific and high-altitudes (less affected by radioactive fallout). Standards of living will slowly improve and in 2103, Internet 2.0 will re-emerge.

More advanced forms of digital commerce will take off and businesses will need to promote their products and/or services. Then, they will turn to Microstock and since there will be few photographers left and technology will be relatively primitive, those contributors should earn more than the equivalent of 36 cents an image in today's currency.

Sad to say, but with the population growing very fast and the available resources not growing at all, there is no other solution than a massive exode to other planets, massive control of the fertility or a massive destruction of the humanity :(
We can speak of any other problems, but this is the only real problem.

They always said that!
First they predicted coal reserves will end soon. Then an oil based economy emerged and doomsday got delayed.
Then they predicted oil reserves will be exhausted soon. But deep drilling technologies appeared, and doomsday got delayed.
Then they said again that oil resources will be exhausted soon. But fracking appeared together renewable energies and doomsday got delayed again.
Then you predict a new doomsday. But new technologies will always emerge to delay doomsday.

So don't worry, we will be fine for the next million of years and more, unless some unstable and narcissistic man with access to nuclear codes has different ideas

Resources are not only energetic resources.
What will happen when the capacity of food production of the earth will not be enough to feed all the humanity?
Already millions of people don't have enough to eat and the population is growing every day.

This year, from the first of August humanity lives on credit. Since this date we have consumed all the natural resources that the planet can produce in one year. And this "day" always comes earlier every year.
So, what will you do then??

(But we are off-topic, sorry)
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 09:23 by Chichikov »

« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2017, 09:19 »
+2
Is this conversation about stock photos, or is it people pedantically arguing about oil reserves? No wonder there is such a problem with keyword spam.

« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2017, 10:00 »
0
Is this conversation about stock photos, or is it people pedantically arguing about oil reserves? No wonder there is such a problem with keyword spam.

As far as I'm concerned this thread is about bringing back the "golden days". Photography is heavily impacted by technology advancements, same as coal, oil, newspapers, etc ...

Maybe you should take a step back and look at the big picture. It is better to understand what is impacting the forest, before trying to save a single tree.

So no spam here, only analogies.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 10:05 by Zero Talent »

Bad Company

« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2017, 10:13 »
0
When does it get to the point that the top quality producers feel that it just isn't worth it anymore? If/when that time comes, that would be a turning point. Yes cameras are "cheap", but models, locations, time and other production costs aren't.

I know a few top end producers (use to make over $100K a year) that are gone now- they want back to their day time jobs.

Bad Company

« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2017, 10:15 »
0
How many of you wake up hoping that Shutter's poor sales is just a nightmare and will go away? I know I have. I keep telling myself this will pass and sales will come back- but deep down inside I know they will not.  SS will only account for 10% of my overall sales now... :-\


« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2017, 10:35 »
0
Maybe you should take a step back and look at the big picture. It is better to understand what is impacting the forest, before trying to save a single tree.

I am really only looking at stock from a buying perspective these days - I have not uploaded any RF stuff for at least a couple of years now*. But I use stock photos.

As I posted above, keyword spam and too much irrelevant content is a big issue when looking for content to buy. Another reason I haven't been using Shutterstock, iStockphoto etc is that they stopped accepting Paypal. I mostly prefer to use my credit card via Paypal. Or else I am sometimes using money received via Paypal to buy stock.

* ETA: A lot of my old stuff has been up for over a decade. A lot of it I wonder what I was thinking. And yet during the boom it did used to sell. No wonder the economy went **** up! Good content today needs to be very stylish - and yet the microstocks seemed to mostly go the other way. Even as the market was obviously contracting.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 10:45 by bunhill »


« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2017, 10:51 »
+1
Model released stock is the key to eat! most people give away work but do not provide a model release. Most of my video and images are model released or property released or both! At Graphic Stock the buyer will pay $4.00 for an image if they are a subscriber, artist gets 100% after banking fees so around $3.50 now you can just buy an image for $9.99 and not be a subscriber as well. I don't mind their free/subscriber library as they bought those images at a fair price for their subscribers it is a great advertising tool!

« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2017, 10:58 »
+1
At Graphic Stock the buyer will pay $4.00 for an image if they are a subscriber etc

Another one which doesn't accept Paypal. It's as if they don't want to sell your stuff.

There are very few sites which I am going to allow to use my credit card number.

Also - subscription is a no no.

« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2017, 11:01 »
0
Maybe you should take a step back and look at the big picture. It is better to understand what is impacting the forest, before trying to save a single tree.

I am really only looking at stock from a buying perspective these days - I have not uploaded any RF stuff for at least a couple of years now. But I use stock photos.

As I posted above, keyword spam and too much irrelevant content is a big issue when looking for content to buy. Another reason I haven't been using Shutterstock, iStockphoto etc is that they stopped accepting Paypal. I mostly prefer to use my credit card via Paypal. Or else I am sometimes using money received via Paypal to buy stock.

I see! I thought you are an active contributor!
From a buyers' perspective you should enjoy the abundance and the low prices these days. It is a buyer's market, indeed.

But I fully agree with you on the spamming and garbage a customer has to weed through, before finding what it is needed.
I also guess people like you will certainly welcome a faster access, through curation, to the quality content already available, or even pay a premium for it.

We already see movement in this direction from a few agencies. I believe this can be a good improvement, both for customers and contributors producing quality material.

« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2017, 11:13 »
+1
From a buyers' perspective you should enjoy the abundance and the low prices these days. It is a buyer's market, indeed.

Abundance of content is not really a bonus. It generally just means more useless stuff to go through. Which is a waste of time. See what I posted above about finding the content I wanted at Stocksy.

Cheap might be an issue if there was still a huge demand for cheap paid content today. There isn't. Remember that the microstock boom pre-dated Facebook and largely pre-dated everyone having a phone in their pocket. Today many businesses are mostly on Facebook rather than a website and the content they consume is often shot on their phone or shared by their customers ('friends').

So when it comes to actually buying content - that's more rare. Quality is the thing. It's much more like the days of print again. My benchmark is - I don't want to be looking at stuff I could have done better or just as well myself. Content wants to be contemporary and stylish.

« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2017, 12:35 »
0
Back to just film would do it nicely. As long as digital exist forget it!

Bad Company

« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2017, 13:45 »
+2
Back to just film would do it nicely. As long as digital exist forget it!

I have few friends that use to work for Kodak and I am sure they feel the same way towards digital  8)


« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2017, 14:52 »
+1
Back to just film would do it nicely. As long as digital exist forget it!

I have few friends that use to work for Kodak and I am sure they feel the same way towards digital  8)

Digital is great and PP is great fun!!  but its turned photography into a mass hysteria. Its sort of taken away the charisma it once had. It used to be associated with art and professionalism but today you might as well say youre a stall-holder in Petticoat-Lane, selling jumble stuff. :)

Bad Company

« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2017, 14:57 »
0
Back to just film would do it nicely. As long as digital exist forget it!

I have few friends that use to work for Kodak and I am sure they feel the same way towards digital  8)

Digital is great and PP is great fun!!  but its turned photography into a mass hysteria. Its sort of taken away the charisma it once had. It used to be associated with art and professionalism but today you might as well say youre a stall-holder in Petticoat-Lane, selling jumble stuff. :)

a few years back Yuri mention that the 41 MP cell phones would become a major player in photography. In a sense you either have a professional d SLR or a cell phone-  no more middle cameras anymore.

« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2017, 19:41 »
+2
A global virus that killed 90 to 99% of all stock producers? That should do the trick. Or some kind of 'carousel' like on Logan's Run, where anyone who has been producing stock for 5 years has to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the next generation. 

Run runner!


I have been, first escape was stop feeding the parasite agencies and keep supplying the good ones that pay. But at that point, people here are all deaf, and can't hear the message. Anyone with one photo on DP, 123RF, Panther, DT, BS or anything below that, is killing their own sales, with their own price cutting low value desperation to make a few more dollars. STOP! If you have integrity and your work is artistic or out of the ordinary, stop driving your own value down.

Micro will never be the way it was. The world economy has people who live from this work, to survive. There are collective agencies that pay them per image. There are managers who own all their work, for the loan of a camera. We can't compete with that. And those same people are feeding the price cutting agencies to keep them in business, competing with those of us who have some integrity and value.

An easier answer is, world of over supply, limited demand for the product. We will all make less. Nothing will ever be the same and it will never be the way it was. Now it's all about finding a smarter way to make your product available and desirable to buyers. The nobrianer days of Micro are well past, and history. I have high confidence that the agencies will never care about us as individuals when they have suppliers begging to be taken advantage of for less and less pay.

« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2017, 20:10 »
0
A global virus that killed 90 to 99% of all stock producers? That should do the trick. Or some kind of 'carousel' like on Logan's Run, where anyone who has been producing stock for 5 years has to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the next generation. 

Run runner!


I have been, first escape was stop feeding the parasite agencies and keep supplying the good ones that pay. But at that point, people here are all deaf, and can't hear the message. Anyone with one photo on DP, 123RF, Panther, DT, BS or anything below that, is killing their own sales, with their own price cutting low value desperation to make a few more dollars. STOP! If you have integrity and your work is artistic or out of the ordinary, stop driving your own value down.

Micro will never be the way it was. The world economy has people who live from this work, to survive. There are collective agencies that pay them per image. There are managers who own all their work, for the loan of a camera. We can't compete with that. And those same people are feeding the price cutting agencies to keep them in business, competing with those of us who have some integrity and value.

An easier answer is, world of over supply, limited demand for the product. We will all make less. Nothing will ever be the same and it will never be the way it was. Now it's all about finding a smarter way to make your product available and desirable to buyers. The nobrianer days of Micro are well past, and history. I have high confidence that the agencies will never care about us as individuals when they have suppliers begging to be taken advantage of for less and less pay.

Why are those the bad ones compared to the rest?


Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2017, 22:13 »
+2
The industry will never go backwards to this "golden era" people speak of.  I do like the idea of much higher standards from curators and deleting old, low quality content... even whole portfolios.  I started in 2015, apparently after this "golden era", but my monthly income keeps going up as I keep adding clips to my portfolio.  Last month (July) was actually my best month ever on Shutterstock.  I guess just keep up with modern trends and work your ass off!

« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2017, 00:41 »
0
Back to FILM!!

« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2017, 01:11 »
+2
The complaints of today's microstock photographers sound remarkably like the complaints of traditional stock photographers in the early 2000s when microstock started to take off.

« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2017, 01:21 »
+1


They always said that!
First they predicted coal reserves will end soon. Then an oil based economy emerged and doomsday got delayed.
Then they predicted oil reserves will be exhausted soon. But deep drilling technologies appeared, and doomsday got delayed.
Then they said again that oil resources will be exhausted soon. But fracking appeared together renewable energies and doomsday got delayed again.
Then you predict a new doomsday. But new technologies will always emerge to delay doomsday.


You are assuming that the future will resemble the past. That's a big assumption.





« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2017, 03:34 »
+1
The complaints of today's microstock photographers sound remarkably like the complaints of traditional stock photographers in the early 2000s when microstock started to take off.

Only then we had abot 20K pro photographers!  now we have half a million and half a mimillion wanna bees!

« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2017, 04:13 »
+3
The industry is at it's golden day already. More photographers and customers than ever before. You are talking about an individual photographer's income that is lower than it used to be. Well demand used to be huge and supply was limited, now demand is huge and supply is huge as well. Stock photography has been around since the 30's and closing on becoming a century old business. So it's not going anywhere.

As for competition between us contributors, for sure there is. Our income is costantly on the decline because of each other. And there is a lot of new talent getting added everyday, so no one can escape the natural way of things.

Staying productive and keeping a certain ammount of edge in your individual style will bring sales to your own library. The most probable outcome though is that you can't make it solely on stock photography but you should use it as supplumentary income and a stepping stone to learn more commercial photography and be able to handle bigger client accounts in the future.

« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2017, 08:49 »
0
The industry is at it's golden day already. More photographers and customers than ever before. You are talking about an individual photographer's income that is lower than it used to be. Well demand used to be huge and supply was limited, now demand is huge and supply is huge as well. Stock photography has been around since the 30's and closing on becoming a century old business. So it's not going anywhere.

As for competition between us contributors, for sure there is. Our income is costantly on the decline because of each other. And there is a lot of new talent getting added everyday, so no one can escape the natural way of things.

Staying productive and keeping a certain ammount of edge in your individual style will bring sales to your own library. The most probable outcome though is that you can't make it solely on stock photography but you should use it as supplumentary income and a stepping stone to learn more commercial photography and be able to handle bigger client accounts in the future.

If contributors aren't contributing or going off to pursue more profitable endeavours, then isn't it shrinking and not growing?

« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2017, 17:24 »
0
The industry is at it's golden day already. More photographers and customers than ever before. You are talking about an individual photographer's income that is lower than it used to be. Well demand used to be huge and supply was limited, now demand is huge and supply is huge as well. Stock photography has been around since the 30's and closing on becoming a century old business. So it's not going anywhere.

As for competition between us contributors, for sure there is. Our income is costantly on the decline because of each other. And there is a lot of new talent getting added everyday, so no one can escape the natural way of things.

Staying productive and keeping a certain ammount of edge in your individual style will bring sales to your own library. The most probable outcome though is that you can't make it solely on stock photography but you should use it as supplumentary income and a stepping stone to learn more commercial photography and be able to handle bigger client accounts in the future.

If contributors aren't contributing or going off to pursue more profitable endeavours, then isn't it shrinking and not growing?
I think  there are so many more contributors so even if individually they are contributing fewer images overall contributions are still increasing. As I think has been said before bigger cake but cut into smaller slices.

« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2017, 18:09 »
0
I think  there are so many more contributors so even if individually they are contributing fewer images overall contributions are still increasing. As I think has been said before bigger cake but cut into smaller slices.
Sounds right. I guess nobody has really left yet either.

« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2017, 18:49 »
+3
In the golden days, people can sell Fart Apps for $.99 and make thousands doing it. In the golden days, there is little to no competition. The market was immature. It grew up. To some contributors, the present is golden and there is still good money to be made.


« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2017, 19:40 »
+1
In the golden days, people can sell Fart Apps for $.99 and make thousands doing it. In the golden days, there is little to no competition. The market was immature. It grew up. To some contributors, the present is golden and there is still good money to be made.

I've always found poop themed sells better than fart themed.

There's been healthy competition the whole time. Bars got raised. Amazing artists entered the market, and I never felt threatened. It just pushed me more, and I encouraged it. The market moved forward and grew with changes and innovations.

The moment I started to get worried was when a lot of that innovation and positive changes stopped. Companies reduced royalties, prices stagnated and even affiliate programs were scrapped. It seemed to get hostile overnight when companies realized that money was going to make them a lot more happy than us. There also seemed to be a trend of dumping as much low quality images on the market as possible. Honestly, places that have kept stricter review standards have changed very little or a lot less.

One of the other changes that personally hit me hard was with Google and search engines, it seemed to kick some of the smaller and boutique shops in the shins. Which is a shame because they were the part of the market that was trying to keep the rest of it honest.

So, yeah, there's still plenty of money out there, but it is not the same friendly landscape regardless of competition.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 20:15 by cthoman »

« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2017, 00:29 »
+1
I've always found poop themed sells better than fart themed.

There's been healthy competition the whole time. Bars got raised. Amazing artists entered the market, and I never felt threatened. It just pushed me more, and I encouraged it. The market moved forward and grew with changes and innovations.

The moment I started to get worried was when a lot of that innovation and positive changes stopped. Companies reduced royalties, prices stagnated and even affiliate programs were scrapped. It seemed to get hostile overnight when companies realized that money was going to make them a lot more happy than us. There also seemed to be a trend of dumping as much low quality images on the market as possible. Honestly, places that have kept stricter review standards have changed very little or a lot less.

One of the other changes that personally hit me hard was with Google and search engines, it seemed to kick some of the smaller and boutique shops in the shins. Which is a shame because they were the part of the market that was trying to keep the rest of it honest.

So, yeah, there's still plenty of money out there, but it is not the same friendly landscape regardless of competition.

Shutterstock's commission schedule hasn't changed much in a decade. The only thing that changed a lot was the amount of images in their portfolio...from a 1.8 million to over 160 million. There is an oversupply and demand for large SODs went down...or may it stayed the same or went up, but distributed to more contributors.

Istock turn to crap, but that's just Getty and their terrible business decisions. FT has been consistently good and if you can't make it on FT, you won't make it anywhere. There's the competition of 2007 and there is the competition of 2017...it's a lot different. Large studios with large high quality portfolios are eating up the search results these days because they realize how much they can dominate the inexperienced contributors.

Google's algorithm ranks search results by a number of factors. One of them is relevance. If people clicks on a Shutterstock link instead of a small agency, then Shutterstock is more relevant and it moves up the search results. It's the nature of Search Engines.

The biggest change over the years is competition. It has always been competition. I just talked a friend who said a lot of sellers on Amazon are forced to lower prices because the competition is so fierce from other products and Asian sellers. It easy to blame the 'landscape' instead of the competition, because we don't want to believe the competition is good enough to eat into our sales.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 01:06 by Minsc »

« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2017, 03:05 »
+3
I am quite convinced that SS plays a big part in ruining this business, first and biggest subs site. The others follow like lemmings!  most long and full time stock shooters would agree that the golden era was in the 80's up to 2005. Thats when most of them made their monies and it was possible to make oneself a name as well.

« Reply #60 on: September 07, 2017, 03:33 »
+4
Might as well blame the inventor of the digital camera and the internet.  Once it became easier and cheaper  to produce and distribute high quality images it was always going to happen. Just like any comparable industry.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 03:50 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #61 on: September 07, 2017, 04:09 »
+5
Might as well blame the inventor of the digital camera and the internet.  Once it became easier and cheaper  to produce and distribute high quality images it was always going to happen. Just like any comparable industry.

I would blame the development of civilization, allowing more and more people to not have to work as farmers so they can focus on unneccessary artistic endeavours.

There will always be the good old conservatives, "back in the day, it was so much better". Every decade it's the same. You can be bitter, even angry, but the only thing that works is adaptation.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #62 on: September 07, 2017, 04:13 »
0
Luddite (lʌdaɪt  )

If you refer to someone as a Luddite, you are criticizing them for opposing changes in industrial methods, especially the introduction of new machines and modern methods.
[disapproval]

The majority have a built-in Luddite mentality; they are resistant to change.

Luddite in British (ˈlʌdaɪt  )
noun English history
1. any of the textile workers opposed to mechanization who rioted and organized machine-breaking between 1811 and 1816
2. any opponent of industrial change or innovation
adjective
3. of or relating to the Luddites

Derived forms
Luddism (ˈLuddism) noun
Word origin of 'Luddite'
C19: alleged to be named after Ned Ludd, an 18th-century Leicestershire workman, who destroyed industrial machinery

« Reply #63 on: September 07, 2017, 06:25 »
+1
Might as well blame the inventor of the digital camera and the internet. 

I bet Kodak sometimes wishes it hadn't invented the digital camera.

« Reply #64 on: September 07, 2017, 07:54 »
0

The majority have a built-in Luddite mentality; they are resistant to change.


I think it's a bit of a simplification. Luddites weren't opposed to technology per se. They were opposed to the fact that with the emergency of new inventions what required skills at some point now only needed an "unskilled" laborer (machine operator).

« Reply #65 on: September 07, 2017, 15:31 »
+4
Might as well blame the inventor of the digital camera and the internet.  Once it became easier and cheaper  to produce and distribute high quality images it was always going to happen. Just like any comparable industry.

 I can't really blame technology for advancing and happening.  And I don't think anyone can blame shutter stock for what happened because it would've happened anyway someone else would've done the same thing.

Your answer is more thoughtful.

 Someone shallow and not very thoughtful would say shutter stock caused all this?  Without shutter stock we have no subs? Is that the contention? Without Edison we have no lightbulbs. Without the Wright brothers we wouldn't have an airplane. Without Bell we wouldn't have a telephone?

There will never be a return to the so-called golden age.  I don't expect anything to get any better either.  My sales are up because I create new works and keep uploading. Someone who says they don't upload and their sales are down I think that's missing the work needed, but  then that person goes on to  blaming the agency?



« Reply #66 on: September 07, 2017, 16:13 »
0

The majority have a built-in Luddite mentality; they are resistant to change.


I think it's a bit of a simplification. Luddites weren't opposed to technology per se. They were opposed to the fact that with the emergency of new inventions what required skills at some point now only needed an "unskilled" laborer (machine operator).

Yeah, where are those cobblers? That was a skill replaced by NO machine, because nobody is repairing their shoes anymore, today. The abundance of shoes and their quality made this job virtually obsolete!
Long time ago, I used to be very good at repairing TVs! Luckily, I didn't pursue a TV repair carrier, because nobody is repairing their TV anymore, today! TVs are so good, you just replace them with newer model, before they break.

So ask yourself: what would it take to bring back the shoe repair industry to the golden days? What would it take to bring back the TV repair industry to the golden days?

PS. I know one or two presidents who should know better than claiming, all day long, they will bring back golden days back to obsolete industries.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 17:47 by Zero Talent »


« Reply #67 on: September 07, 2017, 17:28 »
0
It will never be like before!

Globalization make labor cheaper, and contributors are labors.

There is many contributors from countries which have bad economy, and they will almost always be satisfied with money from microstock.

« Reply #68 on: September 07, 2017, 17:32 »
0
Unfortunately, I think that photography in the future can only be cheaper

« Reply #69 on: September 08, 2017, 01:44 »
0
Might as well blame the inventor of the digital camera and the internet. 

I bet Kodak sometimes wishes it hadn't invented the digital camera.
I bet they wish they knew what they had like many big industries they didn't see the threat/opportunity staring them in the face as its outside their world view. Like IBM virtually giving away their micro operating system.

« Reply #70 on: September 08, 2017, 01:55 »
0
Lets stop innovation all together and go back to the days of taking a dump over a hole in the ground and bloodletting  ;D


« Reply #71 on: September 08, 2017, 02:50 »
0
Lets stop innovation all together and go back to the days of taking a dump over a hole in the ground and bloodletting  ;D

A path to that was proposed earlier in the thread. It involved a nuclear approach.

« Reply #72 on: September 08, 2017, 02:54 »
+1
Lets stop innovation all together and go back to the days of taking a dump over a hole in the ground and bloodletting  ;D

You have a hole? Civilized rich snob!

« Reply #73 on: September 08, 2017, 09:06 »
0
Lets stop innovation all together and go back to the days of taking a dump over a hole in the ground and bloodletting  ;D

You have a hole? Civilized rich snob!


LOL ;D

« Reply #74 on: September 08, 2017, 12:48 »
+3
I've got it! Set quotas. New upload minimums and percentage sales minimums. People who don't upload or people with terrible materials that don't sell get dropped. The result will be getting rid of the weak competition that takes a few sales here and there, and then that means more for us. The agencies need to start closing accounts, like Canva did.

Of course when it's one of the people here who gets cut, then we'll hear the screaming and crying. But that's my answer. Remove the weak, survival of the best and strongest. Produce or perish. I'm all for the higher standards plan. Don't people here complain about standards and other peoples junk that passes. Here's the answer.

That's how we can all earn more and make it more like the good old days.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #75 on: September 09, 2017, 22:42 »
0
Lets stop innovation all together and go back to the days of taking a dump over a hole in the ground and bloodletting  ;D

Go back to last week?!

« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2017, 12:03 »
0
These days you even have Abobe working against creatives with their free Adobe Spark.  It eliminates the need for graphic designers and offers free photos and video to use.  Nothing like a company screwing over its own customer base.


« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2017, 12:14 »
0
Well, P5 did it yesterday by introducing editing services. it's the new way. Cut in to what creatives are doing.

« Reply #78 on: September 14, 2017, 13:38 »
+2
These days you even have Abobe working against creatives with their free Adobe Spark.  It eliminates the need for graphic designers and offers free photos and video to use.  Nothing like a company screwing over its own customer base.

I feel like we're just finding things to complain about right now. Spark is an experiment by Adobe to test adoption. If it becomes a useful tool for design, and they integrate Adobe Stock, people will complain about their search rankings.

Apple is going to release the iPhone 8 and iPhone X with a portrait mode that mimics studio lighting by using 3D mapping on your face. There's a number of companies using AI to design page layout. Google is using machine learning to create millions of bad drawings. It's only a matter of time before they get good at it and reduce reliance on creatives.

You can't fight progress. The only thing we can do is adapt.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 13:46 by Minsc »

« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2017, 04:16 »
0
These days you even have Abobe working against creatives with their free Adobe Spark.  It eliminates the need for graphic designers and offers free photos and video to use.  Nothing like a company screwing over its own customer base.

Adobe is getting its retaliation in first.

Better to screw over your customers yourself, rather than letting a start-up or Apple steal them from you.



« Reply #80 on: September 15, 2017, 05:22 »
0
A modified DeLorean DMC-12

« Reply #81 on: September 15, 2017, 05:45 »
0
To go back to the "good old days", it will take WW3 and the eventual nuclear fallout which would wipe out 99% of the Earth's population.

Honestly, this is probably about the only way the golden days could return.

The only hopeful (for a small percentage of people) scenario would be a massive self-culling of contributors.  Everyone's piece of the pie becomes so tiny that the vast majority of contributors realize the return on investment is nearly zero and they don't bother creating new content.  This would have to be coupled with the big agencies realizing that more than half of their overall collections have never received a single sale and they drop this content.  Those of us who remain could see our revenue start climbing again.

Though, thinking about the two scenarios, I think the nuclear war might be the one more likely to happen.

« Reply #82 on: September 15, 2017, 07:07 »
0
To go back to the "good old days", it will take WW3 and the eventual nuclear fallout which would wipe out 99% of the Earth's population.

Honestly, this is probably about the only way the golden days could return.

The only hopeful (for a small percentage of people) scenario would be a massive self-culling of contributors.  Everyone's piece of the pie becomes so tiny that the vast majority of contributors realize the return on investment is nearly zero and they don't bother creating new content.  This would have to be coupled with the big agencies realizing that more than half of their overall collections have never received a single sale and they drop this content.  Those of us who remain could see our revenue start climbing again.

Though, thinking about the two scenarios, I think the nuclear war might be the one more likely to happen.
I suspect the exponential growth of new content will slow but nowhere near enough to herald a new golden age as the cost of production is getting lower and more practical in poorer countries where the returns are relatively more attractive.

« Reply #83 on: September 15, 2017, 17:11 »
0
A modified DeLorean DMC-12
I was going to say a consult with HG Wells was in order but thought maybe that's exactly what's happened.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #84 on: September 15, 2017, 20:44 »
+1
For every contributor that calls it a day, there will probably be two more waiting to take their place, so I can't see it slowing that much.

Milleflore

  • Australia
« Reply #85 on: September 17, 2017, 04:36 »
0
When it becomes too unprofitable for the big factories, such as A. Studio, to keep uploading. That should level the playing field considerably.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1384 Views
Last post May 28, 2007, 07:25
by rjmiz
Golden Ratio

Started by WarrenPrice « 1 2  All » General Photography Discussion

28 Replies
7225 Views
Last post September 21, 2011, 03:00
by rubyroo
59 Replies
7494 Views
Last post August 31, 2013, 20:02
by shudderstok
81 Replies
8788 Views
Last post May 06, 2014, 02:59
by shudderstok
6 Replies
1705 Views
Last post April 27, 2016, 09:42
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors