What sells, and what doesn't

[bgbs]

I know this is a million dollar question, but more specifically what I would like to know is this:
If I run around snapping random whatever and upload for sale, does this random sort of fluff sell much worse than say images that I actually took some thought into making?

[tickstock]

Yes.

[marthamarks]

Yes. And good luck getting that randomly shot stuff up on decent sites.

[StanRohrer]

For what would the buyers use your random shots? If they don't fit a buyers need they won't sell.

[PaulieWalnuts]

Unless you're running around snapping random photos on military bases, oil rigs, or other extremely difficult to access places, yes random ordinary stuff doesn't sell as well as thought out concepts.

Where do I collect my million dollars?

[Timbo]

It's more like a 25 cent question.

[stockastic]

Yes, I think that's the first thing you learn in business school: the real money is in cr@p that anyone can produce. Don't waste your time trying to do anything that's unique and original, or that requires skill and patience.   Leave that to clueless old people.

 

[EmberMike]

The misconception that people can make money with very basic, low-skill images continues to exist because people still have lots of those images and they do sometimes still sell. I've got junk in the back of my portfolio that still pops up in the sales reports from time to time. But that doesn't mean that anyone could show up with that kind of low-skill work now and get it accepted or see any sales.

I think if someone new is coming into this, they need to show up with a bit more skill and creativity than we could get away with 7 or 8 years ago. I got into this on junk that would absolutely get rejected today.

[Justanotherphotographer]

Yes, I think that's the first thing you learn in business school: the real money is in cr@p that anyone can produce. Don't waste your time trying to produce anything that's unique and original, or that requires skill and patience.   Leave that to clueless old people.

In a way you are right. There's too much second to market advantage in the Stock game now. It used to be that people would get images removed or not accepted to the big sites for "abusive inspiration" and the like so it made sense to try and come up with something new.

There was an advantage to being first to market that outweighed all the creative attempts that didn't quite hit the target. Now the people who just imitate the style of the moment make more. How many of those simple uniform stroke icons are there on the sites now? before that how many flat shadow icons? before that how many vintage style icons and badges? 

I remember when you could tell which artist had created an icon set or design element by their distinctive style. Now that distinctiveness lasts just long enough for them to rack up a couple of sales before 1000 other "artists" are doing the same thing.

[bgbs]

For what would the buyers use your random shots? If they don't fit a buyers need they won't sell.

Right, but what I mean by random is stuff is, you walk around, say, in a farmers' market. You snap a few pics of this and that, and anything that seemed interesting to you at that moment, and then you pick out the best or most useful shots  for stock. Although you shoot random stuff, but you don't upload randomly, you choose shots that, A) have hight chance of  acceptance, and B) that you think might sell.

[bgbs]

If I run around snapping random whatever and upload for sale, does this random sort of fluff sell much worse than say images that I actually took some thought into making?

If you had asked this in 2004, you might have been in a position to snap "random whatever" and sell some, but not a prayer today. I doubt you'd even get accepted at the major sites (there are admissions tests for many).

Did someone tell you there was easy money in stock photography? If so, go back and tell them they're an idiot

No, nobody told me there was easy money.  I sell in the top 4 stock places, however, the stuff I sell is randomly shot because stock is not my main business.  I don't shoot stuff in the studio, or hire models, I just carry my camera to places and snap stuff.   I have some images (and my portfolio is small, well, because I upload like 1-2 images a month) that sell very well, and some that don't sell at all. Since I don't have first hand experience with shooting strategically for stock sites, I wanted to find out from others what they think about random vs strategic shots.

[cascoly]

For what would the buyers use your random shots? If they don't fit a buyers need they won't sell.

Right, but what I mean by random is stuff is, you walk around, say, in a farmers' market. You snap a few pics of this and that, and anything that seemed interesting to you at that moment, and then you pick out the best or most useful shots  for stock. Although you shoot random stuff, but you don't upload randomly, you choose shots that, A) have hight chance of  acceptance, and B) that you think might sell.

as you've probably realized, those random shots may get some sales, (altho going to a farmers' market & looking for 'interesting' stuff is hardly random), but it will take 10x the number of images (or higher) to start showing a decent income

[Semmick Photo]

   
What sells, and what doesn't

27

[etudiante_rapide]

If I run around snapping random whatever and upload for sale, does this random sort of fluff sell much worse than say images that I actually took some thought into making?

If you had asked this in 2004, you might have been in a position to snap "random whatever" and sell some, but not a prayer today. I doubt you'd even get accepted at the major sites (there are admissions tests for many).

Did someone tell you there was easy money in stock photography? If so, go back and tell them they're an idiot

these days it's so easy to take a picture with a smart phone or PNS,
so why not find out for yourself if randomly shots actually sell
...
by lending your smartphone to a chimp at an animal farm
or a kid at kindergarten
and ask them to take some random shots.

submit both to ss and see which portfolio sells.
you could surprise the world with the results
...

just make sure to reward the chimp and kid when they do make a sale

[Pauws99]

I think "opportunist" rather than random may be a better way of putting it. I usually go out with some shots in mind but some of my best sellers have been things I've seen when planning to take something else. Maybe I don't make as much as those that are more single minded but I still enjoy taking pictures 

[ComfortEagle2095]

For a while I was concentrating on HCV type work but the cost of production was just too high.  I would spend money on a model shoot with solid commercial appeal from which I'd get a few images that would sell quite well.   It still took more than two years to pay back the costs of production.  On the other hand, I could take some photos of a piece of cheese I bought for a couple dollars that sold less than the model shoot but that paid back the cost of production in a month.  Turns out LCV shots of cheese are more profitable in the long run than HCV studio shots with models--at least for me.

These days I upload a lot of landscapes.  They're not big sellers but they don't cost me anything to produce either since I'd be shooting them anyway for fun.  It's more profitable for somebody like me.  I still do model shoots and more complex stuff sometimes for fun -- but I don't expect to do much better than break even on them.

Once I thought stock would allow me to retire early from the day job.  Now I just see it as a way to pay the costs of an expensive hobby.  Still, maybe someday I'll quit the day job and just concentrate on my photography business.  If so, it won't be stock that pays the bills.

[Pauws99]

whoops double post

[pixel8]

Take some photos upload and see what happens.

[unnonimus]

when I started, I filmed everything I saw. I sold a lot of videos.

I also learned what people are looking for.

now I only film videos that I think have a high chance of sellability.

- videos should clearly convey a concept that someone might want

- reduce as much as possible anything that is not related to the video (audio tracks, background content, logos, etc)

- pick a location that matches the concept, and actions that match the concept

- use the right angle, the best equipment, the correct lighting, the correct zoom, the correct focus, etc

- use the best matching keywords and descriptions

- make sure the videos use the correct codes, file formats, and bitrates

- make the content available on every stock footage site, in order from highest earnings to lowest

[unnonimus]

I went on a date with a woman many years ago, late 1990's, who was a photographer. she bragged about how she was an 'art' photographer. she used the example of a photo she took of a family who owned a pet pig, and they were watching "Charlotte's Web" on TV.

I would have added to it: the family was eating bacon, the father was a cop, a stuffed animal of Kermit the frog, etc. it makes the image more sellable and interesting.

[Uncle Pete]

And I might add, things that people buy also sell. Things they don't download or license will not.

Yes.

[PaulieWalnuts]

   
What sells, and what doesn't

27

Incorrect. It's 42.