MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Graffoto on March 11, 2009, 20:39
-
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2009-03-10-online-stock-photos_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2009-03-10-online-stock-photos_N.htm)
Does no one read USATODAY?
In today's tech section they feature IS exclusive nico_blue aka Nick Monu, touting his six figure income from this part-time job!
Oh boy, I can smell the throngs of new applicants to IS as we speak ::)
"Brown University medical student Nick Monu supplements his income by selling photographs online.
He uses the "stock" photography service iStockphoto.com, offering generic photos of people and places that can be used in brochures, magazines, websites and billboards.
Monu — known as "nico_blue" on iStockphoto — pulls in a six-figure income from his part-time gig. One photo even earned him $5,000. It's a feel-good image of two senior women, one African American and one white, smiling for the camera"
-
Yea that's silly they didn't mentioned the several thousand dollars of investment and hours of work. Look at the Istock forum for tons of rejection threads in the next months.
Also it's way harder to start today than 2 years ago, or even earlier. I still can't believe how poor have been some of my first accepted submissions. There's no way this would pass a second time today.
A great journalism job again ::)
-
Lee's been quoted in USA Today! Very Cool for our bloggin friend.
-
Yea that's silly they didn't mentioned the several thousand dollars of investment and hours of work. Look at the Istock forum for tons of rejection threads in the next months.
Exactly. "Why am I not making 6 figures with my pictures of flowers from my backyard?!?!"
-
What I want to know is, how does a university medical student find time to put thousands of shots on line and still get his studies done?
My hats off to him. This guy must really have energy to burn!
I'll be willing to bet that he slows down on his IS activities when he starts his residency though.
-
I also like the section that says "HOW TO SUBMIT IMAGES TO STOCK PHOTO SERVICES"
I can't wait to see all of the posts on Istock whining nicely pointing out that the inspection times mysteriously doubled.
-
Yea that's silly they didn't mentioned the several thousand dollars of investment and hours of work. Look at the Istock forum for tons of rejection threads in the next months.
Exactly. "Why am I not making 6 figures with my pictures of flowers from my backyard?!?!"
You can tell the truth and give advise on this one Sean, it will take someone new, until 2014 before they could have 3000 photos up on IS, as a non-exclusive. If every photo is accepted and they submit the Max. 15 per week, for 3.8 years. ;D
An exclusive would take less time, but first one must qualify by having 250 downloads, which should take about half a year, to reach that level at 15 photos a week. Then only another year and a half, 100% acceptance, and there's your easy money for 3000 photos. It only takes two years for an exclusive.
Nico_Blue started in Oct 2004 which is about 4 1/2 years. That's 12 accepted photos a week...
Six figure in what currency? We're back to those inflated or inaccurate claims that some people toss around loosely. Not that I'd turn down $30,000 to $40,000 a year selling stock photos. But that's not six figures! That's also assuming that it's the Brown University in the USA, and we're talking dollars not yen or something else. ;D
-
yeah, nice to see Lee get a mention.
The article also stated this
Stock photography is more science than art, says Jon Oringer, CEO of Shutterstock, the No. 2 online stock photo service. You have to have a commercial eye for what will sell, he says. And there are legal hurdles you must clear.
Where do they get that stat? Or how are they measuring that shutterstock is No. 2
-
I see any kind of promotion valuable even if it's aimed on potential new contributors. As you all mention, it's not easy to make decent money, so those with less talent or less patience will give up eventually. But they will all know iStockphoto, microstock in general and the idea that just grabbing an image from the internet is not the right way to go.
So I guess all of those articles that I've seen recently will do some good for the whole market in the long term, even if we will have to deal with a lot of new contributors.
-
yeah, nice to see Lee get a mention.
The article also stated this
Stock photography is more science than art, says Jon Oringer, CEO of Shutterstock, the No. 2 online stock photo service. You have to have a commercial eye for what will sell, he says. And there are legal hurdles you must clear.
Where do they get that stat? Or how are they measuring that shutterstock is No. 2
That may be my fault. He had a LOT of questions for me and I gave him very long answers for each one. I mentioned rankings in terms of turnover/sales volume from both contributor and agency perspective, plus generalisations on which agencies contributors found most lucrative. It's not difficult to believe that a gross over-simplification such as "Shutterstock is No.2" came out of that.
Generally, the article isn't the worst mainstream journalist attempt we've seen, just disappointing that it gives the impression that microstock is still an untapped opportunity for enthusiasts. It's not fun thinking about all the time and effort that will be wasted by people trying out microstock over the next few months as a result. Maybe it's time for a new blog post, "microstock not for hobbyists anymore". Come to think about it, there's likely quite a few old posts I need to update. Doh.
-
I wonder if they get new buyers from stories like this? Likely not many, but maybe the ratio is similar once all the MWC's are rejected.
-
As more people lose jobs we can probably expect a lot more articles touting untold riches from the snapshots sitting on your hard drive.
Everybody wants to get rich quick with little or no effort - stocks, real-estate, ebay, and of course microstock... ::)
-
You can tell the truth and give advise on this one Sean, it will take someone new, until 2014 before they could have 3000 photos up on IS, as a non-exclusive. If every photo is accepted and they submit the Max. 15 per week, for 3.8 years. ;D
An exclusive would take less time, but first one must qualify by having 250 downloads, which should take about half a year, to reach that level at 15 photos a week. Then only another year and a half, 100% acceptance, and there's your easy money for 3000 photos. It only takes two years for an exclusive.
Nico_Blue started in Oct 2004 which is about 4 1/2 years. That's 12 accepted photos a week...
That's exactly why I am not trying to hard to upload there. They made it too ridiculous to even bother with them. I stick to my top 5 performers, earning something is better than feeling hopeless all the time with IS.
-
You don´t need a LOT at IS. You need Stuff that sells. I´ve seen contributors with 50 images and 25000 dl:s
-
As more people lose jobs we can probably expect a lot more articles touting untold riches from the snapshots sitting on your hard drive.
Everybody wants to get rich quick with little or no effort - stocks, real-estate, ebay, and of course microstock... ::)
That's actually excellent point. I have been seeing more ads like that recently, nothing is required and you get thousands of dollars just because you sign in. It's scam ;)
-
Does no one read USATODAY?
Nope, all the graphics and photos make it too much like a tabloid for my taste.
Congrats on the feature Monu!