MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Im ...after 13 years getting the feeling....  (Read 21430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 22, 2017, 00:07 »
+5
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???


« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2017, 02:26 »
+5
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

No!

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2017, 02:30 »
+1
Been doing stock since 88 and micro since 2006!  the old Rm agencies are quite stable actually but Micro-agencies are just going down and down. Problem is obvious. They dont care so why should we?? ever since the bean-counters moved into SS its been a matter of just keeping the shareholders happy and screw the contributors and pretty much the same with Adobe/FT.
I dont really care anymore I earn more then enough from my own library and the RM-agencies but its a pity its gone this way. Although not surprised.

« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2017, 03:01 »
+10
Also been doing this for more than 10 years. This year will be my best. Second best? Last year. Third best? Year before that.
Here's what works for me. Discriminate against the agencies. Don't give your work to the worst paying sites in terms of rpd. Of the rest give your work to the best rpd sites first giving it a few months to bed down in Web searches maximising your chances of getting more high rpd sales while not missing out on buyers that are subscribed to a specific site.
Or just keep saying 2c is the same as 38c and something is  better than nothing and keep complaining while you watch your income slide. It's really up to you.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2017, 04:25 »
+4
That's why I've always treated it as side income. Although the idea seems nice, I'd hate to be dependent on a couple of agencies who only listen to their shareholders (and not to their contributors). It's an unstable road.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2017, 04:42 »
0
That's why I've always treated it as side income. Although the idea seems nice, I'd hate to be dependent on a couple of agencies who only listen to their shareholders (and not to their contributors). It's an unstable road.

Exactly! spot on!  treat it as a side income because thats really what it is! in effect all stock shoots. Add it to commissions and asignments and the total can be very good!

niktol

« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2017, 05:02 »
+14
My results get better every year. I use two strategies to ensure that. The first strategy is: don't disclose important information.

« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2017, 05:07 »
0
I dont really care anymore I earn more then enough from my own library and the RM-agencies but its a pity its gone this way. Although not surprised.

Derek, can you tell me (if you want to) about your own library?   Which images do you put there (your very best exclusively, or the same as microstock?).  And how do you get clients to visit your site (or better said : to buy from your site) ?  Do they buy licenses or something else (like prints) ?  Sorry, but you made me curious.  Always thought having your own library would cost a lot in marketing (effort and money).

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2017, 07:18 »
0
I dont really care anymore I earn more then enough from my own library and the RM-agencies but its a pity its gone this way. Although not surprised.

Derek, can you tell me (if you want to) about your own library?   Which images do you put there (your very best exclusively, or the same as microstock?).  And how do you get clients to visit your site (or better said : to buy from your site) ?  Do they buy licenses or something else (like prints) ?  Sorry, but you made me curious.  Always thought having your own library would cost a lot in marketing (effort and money).

haha! no I cant! I havent got a clue how to make buyers visit. I only supply existing clients from commissioned work with fill-outs etc, etc annual reports company profiles etc and it all happen off-line. Only clients from commissions.

I thought one of the main reasons for joining a stock-agency is to let them stand for all advertising promotion and pay for it. Very expensive. I know the guys starting visco-images and they had one of the best experts helping them and yet got nowhere.

« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2017, 07:30 »
0
haha! no I cant! I havent got a clue how to make buyers visit. I only supply existing clients from commissioned work with fill-outs etc, etc annual reports company profiles etc and it all happen off-line. Only clients from commissions.

Oh I see, I thought you had found a way to be a private stock agency all on your own haha!  To be honest, I think the only way that would work, is to have a true niche in an area you have access to because of your job or hobby.  Like a pilot who sells areal city views, or a zoo keeper who sells birth images of all animal species ...  As a Belly&Baby photographer, I don't have a niche, as everybody has access to babies!!!

« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2017, 08:21 »
+9
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???
I do care because I have a lot of skin in the game.  10 years of work, opening accounts, closing accounts, seeing where my work gets traction, moving to video to boost sales.....just a lot of time invested.  I think a lot of us are certainly disappointed, but I bet we all care what happens.  Frustration is driven by the vast amount of work we've all put in, and to see it go down is indeed disappointing.  I would say a better way of phrasing this is frustration. 

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2017, 08:54 »
+2
haha! no I cant! I havent got a clue how to make buyers visit. I only supply existing clients from commissioned work with fill-outs etc, etc annual reports company profiles etc and it all happen off-line. Only clients from commissions.

Oh I see, I thought you had found a way to be a private stock agency all on your own haha!  To be honest, I think the only way that would work, is to have a true niche in an area you have access to because of your job or hobby.  Like a pilot who sells areal city views, or a zoo keeper who sells birth images of all animal species ...  As a Belly&Baby photographer, I don't have a niche, as everybody has access to babies!!!

Forming your own stock-agency? its been tried here over the years and its failed every time. Setting up your own platform have also been tried here and also failed. Now we have supplied established agencies for almost 15 years since Istock first came about and I recon its all too late to go on your own.

« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2017, 10:33 »
+7
We always knew supply growth was going to outstrip demand growth in the end, we talked about it way back. 14 years is a pretty good run and it still delivers a significant return but it's no longer possible for me to upload and know that it's going to deliver a worthwhile return on effort. I do still upload some stuff but only when I've nothing better to do.

« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2017, 10:33 »
+4
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

Oh, I do care! And I'm pissed as hell!

« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2017, 11:05 »
+12
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

If you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately try to
scramble out. But if you place the frog in room temperature water, and don't
scare him, he'll stay put. Now, if the pot sits on a heat source, and if you
gradually turn up the temperature, something very interesting happens. As
the temperature rises from 70 to 80 degrees F., the frog will do nothing. In
fact, he will show every sign of enjoying himself. As the temperature
gradually increases, the frog will become groggier and groggier, until he is
unable to climb out of the pot. Though there is nothing restraining him, the
frog will sit there and boil. Why? Because the frog's internal apparatus for
sensing threats to survival is geared to sudden changes in his environment,
not to slow, gradual changes.

We are frogs!

« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2017, 12:21 »
+3
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

Certainly many of us are in that category.  I no longer have any interest in microstock and don't even bother to read about new sites - they'll either be clones of existing ones or they'll die.

What I care about now is POD, although that's deteriorating too, for some of the same basic reasons: a handful of middlemen control the market and are relentlessly driving down the contributor's share, and the market is being flooded by big corporate sellers.   It is somewhat harder, though, to force 'art' into one-size-fits-all pricing model.  People still understand that some work is worth more than others.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 12:24 by stockastic »

niktol

« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2017, 12:51 »
0
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

Oh, I do care! And I'm pissed as hell!
and we're back in 1976 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMVMbmQBug

JimP

« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2017, 13:19 »
0
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

What took you so long to figure this out. We might care about ourselves, but the future of stock art is going to be more disappointing forever. There are no rapidly expanding markets like there were in 2007. Now the business is contracting, declining and becoming unprofitable for most of us. That's not doom and gloom, that's facing the facts.

Change and adjust or find something else, don't think that what worked before will work now, that goes for you and Derek and the rest who are stuck in the old days instead of looking for new opportunity in the future, that means change and adjusting.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2017, 13:30 »
0
Same here uploading when nothing else to do and no more high commercial content with releases and everything just ordinary mediocre stuff. :)

« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2017, 13:31 »
+1
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

What took you so long to figure this out. We might care about ourselves, but the future of stock art is going to be more disappointing forever. There are no rapidly expanding markets like there were in 2007. Now the business is contracting, declining and becoming unprofitable for most of us. That's not doom and gloom, that's facing the facts.

Change and adjust or find something else, don't think that what worked before will work now, that goes for you and Derek and the rest who are stuck in the old days instead of looking for new opportunity in the future, that means change and adjusting.

Looks like you too are stuck in the old days... the business is expanding hugely, the demand for images is expanding at a rapid pace and will continue to do so in the future.


« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2017, 13:32 »
0
just ordinary mediocre stuff. :)

And microstock was born ;)

dpimborough

« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2017, 15:08 »
+2
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

What took you so long to figure this out. We might care about ourselves, but the future of stock art is going to be more disappointing forever. There are no rapidly expanding markets like there were in 2007. Now the business is contracting, declining and becoming unprofitable for most of us. That's not doom and gloom, that's facing the facts.

Change and adjust or find something else, don't think that what worked before will work now, that goes for you and Derek and the rest who are stuck in the old days instead of looking for new opportunity in the future, that means change and adjusting.

Looks like you too are stuck in the old days... the business is expanding hugely, the demand for images is expanding at a rapid pace and will continue to do so in the future.

Really? You know this how?

Stock market (shares) analysis reports that supply of stock images by the likes of SS are in fact outstripping demand and they have over saturated the market.

« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2017, 15:41 »
+2
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

What took you so long to figure this out. We might care about ourselves, but the future of stock art is going to be more disappointing forever. There are no rapidly expanding markets like there were in 2007. Now the business is contracting, declining and becoming unprofitable for most of us. That's not doom and gloom, that's facing the facts.

Change and adjust or find something else, don't think that what worked before will work now, that goes for you and Derek and the rest who are stuck in the old days instead of looking for new opportunity in the future, that means change and adjusting.

Looks like you too are stuck in the old days... the business is expanding hugely, the demand for images is expanding at a rapid pace and will continue to do so in the future.

Really? You know this how?s

I know this because it is common sense, if you have an understanding of the industry.

For example the SS annual report states their paid downloads increased 14%. I am presuming this is fairly standard industry wide.

I am clear the usage of visual content will only increase. Also the market will be further saturated with content thereby reducing the overall sustainability and profitability to the individual contributor.

The winner here is the "agency" and the loser is the "contributor". Sales are expanding for the agency and sales at the same time are contracting for the supplier.





« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 15:43 by Clair Voyant »

« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2017, 15:49 »
+1
...

« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2017, 15:57 »
0
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

What took you so long to figure this out. We might care about ourselves, but the future of stock art is going to be more disappointing forever. There are no rapidly expanding markets like there were in 2007. Now the business is contracting, declining and becoming unprofitable for most of us. That's not doom and gloom, that's facing the facts.

Change and adjust or find something else, don't think that what worked before will work now, that goes for you and Derek and the rest who are stuck in the old days instead of looking for new opportunity in the future, that means change and adjusting.

Looks like you too are stuck in the old days... the business is expanding hugely, the demand for images is expanding at a rapid pace and will continue to do so in the future.

Really? You know this how?s

I know this because it is common sense, if you have an understanding of the industry.

For example the SS annual report states their paid downloads increased 14%. I am presuming this is fairly standard industry wide.

I am clear the usage of visual content will only increase. Also the market will be further saturated with content thereby reducing the overall sustainability and profitability to the individual contributor.

The winner here is the "agency" and the loser is the "contributor". Sales are expanding for the agency and sales at the same time are contracting for the supplier.

You might want to look at the last two SS quarterly reports, the first said downloads had declined for the first time the latter was a small increase, all in all stagnant.  On the other hand it looks like there is increasing demand for premium content.

« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2017, 16:28 »
+1
I must say that I am very happy with the result I have had so far and I have only been in this business less than 3 years.
Now I am concentrating on other things, but still I get a very, very nice stream of income from microstock

« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2017, 19:06 »
+5
Microstock kept my daughter through an expensive out of state college for the past 4 years, preventing me and her to go for one if those predatory 7% interest loans.
I can't be more grateful for this nice and steady flow of income!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 19:12 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2017, 20:28 »
+3
Sales are expanding for the agency and sales at the same time are contracting for the supplier.

I'm not sure anyone is disputing that.  The agencies have essentially no unit cost of production for images they already have - so they can just continue cutting prices, which increases sales - while also cutting royalties, either outright or by the subterfuge of so-called 'subscriptions'.   The only fixed cost the agencies face is storage, which is a cost that declines over time.   Basically, they've got it made, it's a money machine for years to come.

« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2017, 02:41 »
+1
Sales are expanding for the agency and sales at the same time are contracting for the supplier.

I'm not sure anyone is disputing that.  The agencies have essentially no unit cost of production for images they already have - so they can just continue cutting prices, which increases sales - while also cutting royalties, either outright or by the subterfuge of so-called 'subscriptions'.   The only fixed cost the agencies face is storage, which is a cost that declines over time.   Basically, they've got it made, it's a money machine for years to come.
I see plenty of posts from some quite seasoned veterans predicting the imminent collapse of shutterstock and have done for quite a few years.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2017, 02:42 »
0
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.

« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2017, 04:52 »
+3
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.
Not sure what you mean by sustainable. I have seen consistent gains over the last 10 years and my income is still increasing year on year. It is a full time job like any other though, so if you are doing it as a side line then of course you aren't going to see gains, you're going to be out-competed by people who are doing this full time and taking it seriously.
I am careful about the agencies I work with and understand that 38c is 19 times more than 2c. Those who don't care/ don't complain/ don't pay attention anymore are obviously not going to make it pay no matter how good their content is. How is this any different from any other business? even if you have good products you wont turn a profit by not paying any attention to how your market works, who you partner and so on.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2017, 05:14 »
+1
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.
Not sure what you mean by sustainable. I have seen consistent gains over the last 10 years and my income is still increasing year on year. It is a full time job like any other though, so if you are doing it as a side line then of course you aren't going to see gains, you're going to be out-competed by people who are doing this full time and taking it seriously.
I am careful about the agencies I work with and understand that 38c is 19 times more than 2c. Those who don't care/ don't complain/ don't pay attention anymore are obviously not going to make it pay no matter how good their content is. How is this any different from any other business? even if you have good products you wont turn a profit by not paying any attention to how your market works, who you partner and so on.

example: Getty has been in business since 93 thats 23 years. Takings have fallen DRASTICALLY and I mean that just ask anybody from the old school. In microstock todays earning is nothing compared with 8-14 years back. Of course as in everything there are exceptions but they are very very few.

My hunch is that in another 5-10 years most of the agencies you see in the right column wont even exist. Same with the traditional agencies before the digital era came about there was like 50-60 agencies just in the UK!  today well I think there's about 12 proper ones that is. Very few businesses involving Arts, creative and  freelancing is ever sustainable. :)


namussi

« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2017, 06:29 »
+5
It is somewhat harder, though, to force 'art' into one-size-fits-all pricing model.  People still understand that some work is worth more than others.

Art? Good grief. You are getting ideas that are au dessus ta gare.


« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2017, 09:20 »
0
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.
Not sure what you mean by sustainable. I have seen consistent gains over the last 10 years and my income is still increasing year on year. It is a full time job like any other though, so if you are doing it as a side line then of course you aren't going to see gains, you're going to be out-competed by people who are doing this full time and taking it seriously.
I am careful about the agencies I work with and understand that 38c is 19 times more than 2c. Those who don't care/ don't complain/ don't pay attention anymore are obviously not going to make it pay no matter how good their content is. How is this any different from any other business? even if you have good products you wont turn a profit by not paying any attention to how your market works, who you partner and so on.

example: Getty has been in business since 93 thats 23 years. Takings have fallen DRASTICALLY and I mean that just ask anybody from the old school. In microstock todays earning is nothing compared with 8-14 years back. Of course as in everything there are exceptions but they are very very few.


Theres a big difference between earnings for individuals and total earnings for the market the latter having gone up hugely I would imagine. I am surprised though how many tiny agencies seem to stagger on but yes I think in 5 years there will be many less.

« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2017, 09:52 »
0
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.
Not sure what you mean by sustainable. I have seen consistent gains over the last 10 years and my income is still increasing year on year. It is a full time job like any other though, so if you are doing it as a side line then of course you aren't going to see gains, you're going to be out-competed by people who are doing this full time and taking it seriously.
I am careful about the agencies I work with and understand that 38c is 19 times more than 2c. Those who don't care/ don't complain/ don't pay attention anymore are obviously not going to make it pay no matter how good their content is. How is this any different from any other business? even if you have good products you wont turn a profit by not paying any attention to how your market works, who you partner and so on.

i don't understand your point...uyou sell few and for 0,02 cent on stock...persoanlly i have this year a rpd of 0,97...compared to some agency you probably consider better like fotolia where i have 0,5 and earn 20% of what i earn on stock.

« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2017, 11:36 »
0
Are you counting all your thinkstock and subs earnings in these calculations? I am at a loss as to how people have RPDs so much higher than mine on IStock

niktol

« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2017, 12:37 »
0
Are you counting all your thinkstock and subs earnings in these calculations? I am at a loss as to how people have RPDs so much higher than mine on IStock

yours is 0.02? ouch...

« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2017, 12:58 »
0
Are you counting all your thinkstock and subs earnings in these calculations? I am at a loss as to how people have RPDs so much higher than mine on IStock

yours is 0.02? ouch...
Not quite! ;D but it is not far above DP and BS and has dropped again this month. I expect to see more drops as the discounted packages continue.

niktol

« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2017, 13:04 »
0
Are you counting all your thinkstock and subs earnings in these calculations? I am at a loss as to how people have RPDs so much higher than mine on IStock

yours is 0.02? ouch...
Not quite! ;D but it is not far above DP and BS and has dropped again this month. I expect to see more drops as the discounted packages continue.

That's not very good, I agree. I guess it's portfolio-dependent. I see 0.02 sales very rarely. My average is the same as with SS.

« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2017, 13:32 »
0
How are you finding your rpd? Are you doing it manually or using third party software? I use microstock analytics and would like to see if I get a different result using whatever other people are using.

niktol

« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2017, 13:36 »
0
How are you finding your rpd? Are you doing it manually or using third party software? I use microstock analytics and would like to see if I get a different result using whatever other people are using.

Just using excel macros I created.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2017, 13:38 »
+4
I wonder how Smith Corona get on in the typewriter business
I wonder how Blockbuster get on in the video rental business
I wonder how Kodak get on in the photo film business

People complaining Microstock business is declining need to understand that they probably put a lot of people out of business as well.

Now the tide has turned and the Microstock photographer feels the pain. Just like anyone else who's business is bust because the market has changed.

No one should be surprised at this.

JimP

« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2017, 21:50 »
+1
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.
Not sure what you mean by sustainable. I have seen consistent gains over the last 10 years and my income is still increasing year on year. It is a full time job like any other though, so if you are doing it as a side line then of course you aren't going to see gains, you're going to be out-competed by people who are doing this full time and taking it seriously.
I am careful about the agencies I work with and understand that 38c is 19 times more than 2c. Those who don't care/ don't complain/ don't pay attention anymore are obviously not going to make it pay no matter how good their content is. How is this any different from any other business? even if you have good products you wont turn a profit by not paying any attention to how your market works, who you partner and so on.

example: Getty has been in business since 93 thats 23 years. Takings have fallen DRASTICALLY and I mean that just ask anybody from the old school. In microstock todays earning is nothing compared with 8-14 years back. Of course as in everything there are exceptions but they are very very few.

My hunch is that in another 5-10 years most of the agencies you see in the right column wont even exist. Same with the traditional agencies before the digital era came about there was like 50-60 agencies just in the UK!  today well I think there's about 12 proper ones that is. Very few businesses involving Arts, creative and  freelancing is ever sustainable. :)

Too bad it's going to take that long. I would have been happy if the list on the right, anyplace below 10 should be gone already. I'm not supporting them. I'm still surprised that so many people do. That just hurts our own interests and the general market, mostly our earnings.

« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2017, 00:03 »
+1
Too bad it's going to take that long. I would have been happy if the list on the right, anyplace below 10 should be gone already. I'm not supporting them. I'm still surprised that so many people do. That just hurts our own interests and the general market, mostly our earnings.

Why? Some of those are the best ones. Small agencies that actually cater to a smaller number of contributors. Some of them are down there because they don't get 50 votes (or whatever the minimum is).

« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2017, 00:39 »
0
Too bad it's going to take that long. I would have been happy if the list on the right, anyplace below 10 should be gone already. I'm not supporting them. I'm still surprised that so many people do. That just hurts our own interests and the general market, mostly our earnings.

Why? Some of those are the best ones. Small agencies that actually cater to a smaller number of contributors. Some of them are down there because they don't get 50 votes (or whatever the minimum is).

And while the ranking order is more or less right, the returns from different site will vary from contributor to contributor. If you've spent a decade putting thousands of files on Dreamstime why close your account there, just because of a ranking list? If you're on the "bridge to bigstock" why close your account when you get files added to that site with no effort at all and pick up a few payouts a year from it?
Added to which, I'm not on Adobe because of the problems I had with Fotolia, I'm not increasing my portfolio on iStock because I don't like what they're doing and, in any case, new files there weren''t even getting seen, Pond 5 is for video, not stills, so I'm not on that, and my stuff on 123 doesn't sell as well as what I've got on Bigstock, probably because 123 rejected all my best-sellers as low commercial value because they didn't think the Middle East was a market.  So if I were to dump all the sub-10 sites I'd be left with SS, Alamy and nothing else.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 00:47 by BaldricksTrousers »

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2017, 02:20 »
0
Too bad it's going to take that long. I would have been happy if the list on the right, anyplace below 10 should be gone already. I'm not supporting them. I'm still surprised that so many people do. That just hurts our own interests and the general market, mostly our earnings.

Why? Some of those are the best ones. Small agencies that actually cater to a smaller number of contributors. Some of them are down there because they don't get 50 votes (or whatever the minimum is).

And while the ranking order is more or less right, the returns from different site will vary from contributor to contributor. If you've spent a decade putting thousands of files on Dreamstime why close your account there, just because of a ranking list? If you're on the "bridge to bigstock" why close your account when you get files added to that site with no effort at all and pick up a few payouts a year from it?
Added to which, I'm not on Adobe because of the problems I had with Fotolia, I'm not increasing my portfolio on iStock because I don't like what they're doing and, in any case, new files there weren''t even getting seen, Pond 5 is for video, not stills, so I'm not on that, and my stuff on 123 doesn't sell as well as what I've got on Bigstock, probably because 123 rejected all my best-sellers as low commercial value because they didn't think the Middle East was a market.  So if I were to dump all the sub-10 sites I'd be left with SS, Alamy and nothing else.

The bigger they are the harder they fall!  The smaller ones are happy go lucky and perhaps dont care too much. I was actually thinking more of the big ones and they often fall because of internal problems politics etc. After what I've heard SS is full of that and you wake up one day and find its gone. One of my smaller Boutique agencies RM only constantly outsell SS and Getty and have done so for the past 4 years.

Size of agency dont matter the slightest but as you say it varies from contributor to contributor. Quite right so.

« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2017, 15:31 »
+2
The microstock market is just like any other market. It's over-saturated, but there are always opportunities. It just means you have to be ready to compete against the best and find your audience. There competition will always be there and there's nothing anyone can do anything about it.

The key to success in microstock is hard work, dedication and research. There are secrets, but most of it is just common sense. Upload content that has commercial value and put some effort into keywording.


JimP

« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2017, 17:27 »
0
Too bad it's going to take that long. I would have been happy if the list on the right, anyplace below 10 should be gone already. I'm not supporting them. I'm still surprised that so many people do. That just hurts our own interests and the general market, mostly our earnings.

Why? Some of those are the best ones. Small agencies that actually cater to a smaller number of contributors. Some of them are down there because they don't get 50 votes (or whatever the minimum is).

No, I mean below 10 when you look at the real numbers not just the ones with enough votes. Read what I wrote literally.
Stocksy
ClipartOf
Canva
Envato
Self-Hosted
EyeEm
Dissolve
storyblocks

stay,

while,

Dreamstime    6.9
DepositPhotos    4.6
Bigstockphoto    3.8
Canstockphoto    

are a waste of time. IMHO

500px and down are already dead.

« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2017, 06:40 »
+3
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 06:45 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2017, 23:03 »
+6
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.

1) Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. You defend the people who take advantage of you for low pay and steal from all of us.

2) insecurity/low self-esteem, abuser is  the source of income, abused person is in denial. You support agents that don't deserve our work, because you wasted your time in your desperation for scraps, leftovers and bones, instead of the meat you deserve and earned.

3) The sum total of the wasted effort is less than if these thieves were gone and you make a steady percentage from agents that sold more and dealt with us more fairly than the tiny abusive blood * parasite agencies that drain the entire market into the sewers.

You want a drink of water and someone spits at you, so you defend them and wish the sum total of more spit, would help your thirst. Water is income. You would be better off going to the fountain and streams and avoiding the dribbles and rude mist.

People get angry about website changes, get angry about reviews and complain about slow or no support, then defend sites that pay us "spit" for our work and are abusive. I'll never understand that contradiction. Stop supporting the agencies that take advantage of us! That's more important. 50% of nothing is still nothing. An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month , and the rest of us nothing, is breaking the back of the market for everyone else.

Of course if this whole thing is about supporting 25 agencies that pay $10 a month and that's your way of working, feel free. But never complain again about low sales, partners, search, or anything, because you defend the abusive relationship that these agencies depend on to stay in business. You enable them.

« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2017, 03:16 »
+2
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2017, 08:53 »
+2
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

namussi

« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2017, 09:01 »
+3
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.

1) Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. You defend the people who take advantage of you for low pay and steal from all of us.

2) insecurity/low self-esteem, abuser is  the source of income, abused person is in denial. You support agents that don't deserve our work, because you wasted your time in your desperation for scraps, leftovers and bones, instead of the meat you deserve and earned.

3) The sum total of the wasted effort is less than if these thieves were gone and you make a steady percentage from agents that sold more and dealt with us more fairly than the tiny abusive blood * parasite agencies that drain the entire market into the sewers.

You want a drink of water and someone spits at you, so you defend them and wish the sum total of more spit, would help your thirst. Water is income. You would be better off going to the fountain and streams and avoiding the dribbles and rude mist.

People get angry about website changes, get angry about reviews and complain about slow or no support, then defend sites that pay us "spit" for our work and are abusive. I'll never understand that contradiction. Stop supporting the agencies that take advantage of us! That's more important. 50% of nothing is still nothing. An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month , and the rest of us nothing, is breaking the back of the market for everyone else.

Of course if this whole thing is about supporting 25 agencies that pay $10 a month and that's your way of working, feel free. But never complain again about low sales, partners, search, or anything, because you defend the abusive relationship that these agencies depend on to stay in business. You enable them.

Yeah. Yeah.

You're really going to win people over with nasty insults, aren't you?


dpimborough

« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2017, 14:53 »
+4
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.

1) Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. You defend the people who take advantage of you for low pay and steal from all of us.

2) insecurity/low self-esteem, abuser is  the source of income, abused person is in denial. You support agents that don't deserve our work, because you wasted your time in your desperation for scraps, leftovers and bones, instead of the meat you deserve and earned.

3) The sum total of the wasted effort is less than if these thieves were gone and you make a steady percentage from agents that sold more and dealt with us more fairly than the tiny abusive blood * parasite agencies that drain the entire market into the sewers.

You want a drink of water and someone spits at you, so you defend them and wish the sum total of more spit, would help your thirst. Water is income. You would be better off going to the fountain and streams and avoiding the dribbles and rude mist.

People get angry about website changes, get angry about reviews and complain about slow or no support, then defend sites that pay us "spit" for our work and are abusive. I'll never understand that contradiction. Stop supporting the agencies that take advantage of us! That's more important. 50% of nothing is still nothing. An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month , and the rest of us nothing, is breaking the back of the market for everyone else.

Of course if this whole thing is about supporting 25 agencies that pay $10 a month and that's your way of working, feel free. But never complain again about low sales, partners, search, or anything, because you defend the abusive relationship that these agencies depend on to stay in business. You enable them.

Yeah. Yeah.

You're really going to win people over with nasty insults, aren't you?

No insults in that piece at all Yada is just pointing out the blindingly obvious

You really should stop with the passive agressive stuff

« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2017, 15:13 »
+3
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

By this logic you should be exclusive with Istock.

farbled

« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2017, 15:56 »
+2
One of the "small" agencies for me is my number 2 earner out of all the agencies. Small is relative. You can be small and successful.

« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2017, 16:39 »
+5
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.

1) Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. You defend the people who take advantage of you for low pay and steal from all of us.

2) insecurity/low self-esteem, abuser is  the source of income, abused person is in denial. You support agents that don't deserve our work, because you wasted your time in your desperation for scraps, leftovers and bones, instead of the meat you deserve and earned.

3) The sum total of the wasted effort is less than if these thieves were gone and you make a steady percentage from agents that sold more and dealt with us more fairly than the tiny abusive blood * parasite agencies that drain the entire market into the sewers.

You want a drink of water and someone spits at you, so you defend them and wish the sum total of more spit, would help your thirst. Water is income. You would be better off going to the fountain and streams and avoiding the dribbles and rude mist.

People get angry about website changes, get angry about reviews and complain about slow or no support, then defend sites that pay us "spit" for our work and are abusive. I'll never understand that contradiction. Stop supporting the agencies that take advantage of us! That's more important. 50% of nothing is still nothing. An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month , and the rest of us nothing, is breaking the back of the market for everyone else.

Of course if this whole thing is about supporting 25 agencies that pay $10 a month and that's your way of working, feel free. But never complain again about low sales, partners, search, or anything, because you defend the abusive relationship that these agencies depend on to stay in business. You enable them.

Good god, what nonsense! I scarcely know where to start. Nobody's holding me hostage so the Stockholm syndrome jibe is nonsense; talk about agencies "not deserving our work" applies just as much to iStock and Shutterstock as it does to Deposit Photos, or Feature pics .... how do you determine that they're "deserving"? Istock used to send me 10 times per month what I get now, which hardly speaks of a caring personal relationship; there is no reason to suppose that if I remove all my pictures from agencies that deliver low returns I will get a single sale from anywhere else as a result, and if I do it might be a special 2c sale from IS rather than a 35c sale from DT, what a marvellous achievement that would be: none of the agencies (except Fotolia, who I  subsequently dropped) has ever done anything remotely like "spitting at me". Sure, the terms and conditions have deteriorated in some places, notably on iStock/Getty (which is ironically supposed to be a "good" agency according to the "dump those with less than 10 in the poll concept), but that's not a personal insult.
An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month is not affecting anybody's sales; unless, of course, it is selling 10 millon photos for every cent it pays out .... which is rather what iStock is doing.If it's paying 50c an image and paying out for 800 sales it isn't making the slightest dent in the richer end of the market.
If you're going to avoid being taken advantage of in microstock, then justs avoid microstock pure and simple, because EVERY agency is taking advantage. So if you're still in the micros, stop lecturing against agencies that you aren't in, because characterising low earners as dangerous to your income from the good guys really does sound like a Stockholm complex.

« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2017, 16:44 »
+3
DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365?

Most of the work is not agency specific, it's getting and processing the shot. Once the processed shot is in hand then the uploading effort is minimal, in some cases maybe as little as clicking a single button. If the images had to be shot and processed separately for every single agency then the equation would be very different.

namussi

« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2017, 22:58 »
+1
Some of these complaints sound like they're from traditional stock photographers in 2004 complaining about RF microstock, and how it was ruining their earnings.

My feeling is that there's a shift going on in the market. Photographers will probably lose out. But there's not much that can be done about it.


JimP

« Reply #59 on: November 28, 2017, 09:14 »
+3
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

By this logic you should be exclusive with Istock.

If you think about what you just wrote, the people who defend iStock are the worst in denial of the problems we face in Microstock. I suppose the other part, I'd agree, exclusives there are making their best money by ignoring all others. I'd bet the same who attack IS and say no one should be uploading there are often defending places like 500px for the commission rate, or saying the small pay from the little places adds up, to something.

Myself, I like the idea of picking the places that make the most for my effort, and ignoring the rest. That's not being an IS exclusive Getty which I detest, and that also means not supporting the parasite sites. More like the middle area that pays. Some people do well with 50 agencies, take what small change we can get. Some seem to like iStock exclusive, because of the favorable commissions and one site to feed.

I know there are others who have a small selection of favorite agencies, in the middle and top, and that's where they work. I find it best for my work or level of efforts.

None of us are held hostage or forced to do this. Why more people don't leave after what I read about the low sales, bad treatment or screwed up policies, I don't know. Why would anyone waste time on Panther or Crestock? $1 a month. Is that really of any value compared to the electricity it takes to upload.  :) And I'd agree with those who say, we are competing against ourself based on price, when we supply places like that. How many years does it take to reach payout?

I do Micro because I want to. If I was as tortured by the agencies and needed money, as some of the posts I read here, I'd quit and do something else. I'm not going to defend a business model that takes advantage of the artists and pays us slave wages.

« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2017, 00:51 »
0
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

By this logic you should be exclusive with Istock.

If you think about what you just wrote, the people who defend iStock are the worst in denial of the problems we face in Microstock. I suppose the other part, I'd agree, exclusives there are making their best money by ignoring all others. I'd bet the same who attack IS and say no one should be uploading there are often defending places like 500px for the commission rate, or saying the small pay from the little places adds up, to something.

Myself, I like the idea of picking the places that make the most for my effort, and ignoring the rest. That's not being an IS exclusive Getty which I detest, and that also means not supporting the parasite sites. More like the middle area that pays. Some people do well with 50 agencies, take what small change we can get. Some seem to like iStock exclusive, because of the favorable commissions and one site to feed.

I know there are others who have a small selection of favorite agencies, in the middle and top, and that's where they work. I find it best for my work or level of efforts.

None of us are held hostage or forced to do this. Why more people don't leave after what I read about the low sales, bad treatment or screwed up policies, I don't know. Why would anyone waste time on Panther or Crestock? $1 a month. Is that really of any value compared to the electricity it takes to upload.  :) And I'd agree with those who say, we are competing against ourself based on price, when we supply places like that. How many years does it take to reach payout?

I do Micro because I want to. If I was as tortured by the agencies and needed money, as some of the posts I read here, I'd quit and do something else. I'm not going to defend a business model that takes advantage of the artists and pays us slave wages.

Well said.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2017, 02:41 »
+1
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 02:54 by derek »

JimP

« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2017, 14:24 »
+1
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.

Any proof or just somebody whos seeing a pattern because they want to see one? Show me so I can watch my own or show me proof of the claim. People have been claiming blackout since the map first went live and they sat watching downloads every hour. Remember the software that read live and sent notice as soon as we got a download. Obcessive or what? SS blocked it from slowing down the whole site. How do I watch this and see the Dl getting cut off?

« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2017, 20:39 »
+4
The business has kind of gone full-circle for me. Stock was a cheaper answer for people looking for vector graphics, icons, logos, badges, etc. Now stock is so common-place and recognizable, people don't want stock because they see the same stuff everywhere. I have clients who I design trade show graphics for who are coming to me saying "We need to do a custom photo shoot, we can't show up and have the same image as one of our competitors." 10 years ago it was "Custom shoots are dead, stock is great!"

I expect that trend of more custom work and less stock income to continue. I still submit to stock a little, but at some point (maybe within the next year), I'll have to just stop altogether because it's not worth it anymore. Being a vector guy, the cost of production for me is minimal. I use the same hardware and software I'd need to have for custom design work, so there's no added expense there. But if I were a photographer, and I had to invest in shoots for microstock, I'd have quit by now for sure. I can't imagine it's cost-effective for very many people anymore to sink money into this and have high hopes of a return on that investment.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 20:41 by EmberMike »

JimP

« Reply #64 on: December 07, 2017, 13:20 »
0
The business has kind of gone full-circle for me. Stock was a cheaper answer for people looking for vector graphics, icons, logos, badges, etc. Now stock is so common-place and recognizable, people don't want stock because they see the same stuff everywhere. I have clients who I design trade show graphics for who are coming to me saying "We need to do a custom photo shoot, we can't show up and have the same image as one of our competitors." 10 years ago it was "Custom shoots are dead, stock is great!"

I expect that trend of more custom work and less stock income to continue. I still submit to stock a little, but at some point (maybe within the next year), I'll have to just stop altogether because it's not worth it anymore. Being a vector guy, the cost of production for me is minimal. I use the same hardware and software I'd need to have for custom design work, so there's no added expense there. But if I were a photographer, and I had to invest in shoots for microstock, I'd have quit by now for sure. I can't imagine it's cost-effective for very many people anymore to sink money into this and have high hopes of a return on that investment.

You've got it right.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #65 on: December 07, 2017, 13:27 »
0
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.

Any proof or just somebody whos seeing a pattern because they want to see one? Show me so I can watch my own or show me proof of the claim. People have been claiming blackout since the map first went live and they sat watching downloads every hour. Remember the software that read live and sent notice as soon as we got a download. Obcessive or what? SS blocked it from slowing down the whole site. How do I watch this and see the Dl getting cut off?

Oh dear! nope just mentioning it. No big deal and no conspiracy theory. I personally quite agree with the guy though. I'm seeing a pattern there but you and others might not.

« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2017, 17:21 »
+1
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

What took you so long to figure this out. We might care about ourselves, but the future of stock art is going to be more disappointing forever. There are no rapidly expanding markets like there were in 2007. Now the business is contracting, declining and becoming unprofitable for most of us. That's not doom and gloom, that's facing the facts.

Change and adjust or find something else, don't think that what worked before will work now, that goes for you and Derek and the rest who are stuck in the old days instead of looking for new opportunity in the future, that means change and adjusting.

Jim....trust me. I can adjust very well. I asked that question to get folks to talk and you did. I make peanuts with Micro. I make a very good Living with many,Many other things. you would be surprized. I wrote 10 Years ago that stock cannot be my source of Income. at best it "WAS" 25% Now it's 15%. I simply Moved My priorities to Other things 5 Years ago. Not many have those Options. Im 75 Man. Been On my own since 15 when My dad took Me out of school. I did pretty well. I saw the entire world and 4 EX wives.....LOL Merry Xmas man. If ever near Beverly Hills, we should talk over drinks. I am Famous for my Martinis.

I still own a Major amount of copyrights man. Im doing great.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 17:25 by rinderart »

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2017, 17:50 »
+5
Yo this microstock industry is amazing.  I was introduced less than 3 years to an industry where I can shoot what I want, when I want, and make money uploading it from home.  Unstable?  If you say so... after 3 years of working at it part time I'm making thousands of dollars a month and that just keeps going up.  Common sense tells me not to put all my eggs in this basket, but my growth and sales numbers tell me to go all in. 

With all the negativity on the internet, this forum is still where I see the most complaining and negative comments.  Sometimes I wonder about these people complaining and what the percentage of time spent creating new content is compared to time spent complaining on this forum about an industry that is nothing but a great opportunity to work for yourself.

Summary:  Quit wasting time complaining about low sales and start creating content worth selling!

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2017, 18:17 »
+9
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2017, 18:35 »
0
Yo this microstock industry is amazing.  I was introduced less than 3 years to an industry where I can shoot what I want, when I want, and make money uploading it from home.  Unstable?  If you say so... after 3 years of working at it part time I'm making thousands of dollars a month and that just keeps going up.  Common sense tells me not to put all my eggs in this basket, but my growth and sales numbers tell me to go all in. 

With all the negativity on the internet, this forum is still where I see the most complaining and negative comments.  Sometimes I wonder about these people complaining and what the percentage of time spent creating new content is compared to time spent complaining on this forum about an industry that is nothing but a great opportunity to work for yourself.

Summary:  Quit wasting time complaining about low sales and start creating content worth selling!

Exactly!!!




JimP

« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2017, 22:56 »
0
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

Twice in one day. You've got it. +

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #71 on: December 13, 2017, 03:14 »
0
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

Hey maybe you're right and I'll learn my lesson.  I still think that if my sales decrease over the years, the least productive thing I could do is get on here and complain.  This website has a lot of knowledge to pick up on about this industry... just so much negativity to look through to find it.

« Reply #72 on: December 13, 2017, 04:22 »
0
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

Hey maybe you're right and I'll learn my lesson.  I still think that if my sales decrease over the years, the least productive thing I could do is get on here and complain.  This website has a lot of knowledge to pick up on about this industry... just so much negativity to look through to find it.
Those three years is money in the bank who knows what will happen in the next three.

JimP

« Reply #73 on: December 13, 2017, 09:46 »
0
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.

Any proof or just somebody whos seeing a pattern because they want to see one? Show me so I can watch my own or show me proof of the claim. People have been claiming blackout since the map first went live and they sat watching downloads every hour. Remember the software that read live and sent notice as soon as we got a download. Obcessive or what? SS blocked it from slowing down the whole site. How do I watch this and see the Dl getting cut off?

Oh dear! nope just mentioning it. No big deal and no conspiracy theory. I personally quite agree with the guy though. I'm seeing a pattern there but you and others might not.

I'm just mentioning that you see a pattern and claim others do, but don't show anything of this imaginary pattern. I don't see it, thousands of others don't see it, but you can't stop saying that there's cutting off. You reply therre's no conspiracy? Xfiles does better, with a little sceptical investigation of unsupported claims. What I mean is spreading rumors and lies isn't a very good way to be professional as you claim to be.

Shelma1

« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2017, 09:51 »
+3
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.
the least productive thing I could do is get on here and complain.

Yet here you are...

« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2017, 10:00 »
+5
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.
the least productive thing I could do is get on here and complain.

Yet here you are...

New Flash- He is not complaining at all, quite the opposite he is being very positive and optimistic. It is only your sour puss mood, negativity, and overall bitterness (which is normal) that is trying to bring him down.

 


JimP

« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2017, 12:15 »
+2
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.


Laurin isn't in Vegas, and SS doesn't cut off European photographers to make Americans more money. Where do you come up with these off the wall claims?

check this post saved from Alamy forums
Quote from: christain58
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13889&p=3
"Well for starters, no way are you going to make a living here alone, this is not the sort of place for that ( with respects). I know a heck of a lot of people making a living in micro and Im not talking about the, MSG bunch, thats all mouth and no money ( yeah I also used to be there but it gave a bad rep ). I also know lots of people, including myself making a solid living in the Getty RM house collection."


But you come back again and again.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3937 Views
Last post February 27, 2008, 18:19
by sensovision
65 Replies
19075 Views
Last post November 01, 2009, 16:01
by borg
45 Replies
9704 Views
Last post June 30, 2012, 19:08
by oxman
4 Replies
2044 Views
Last post November 23, 2012, 11:35
by oxman
7 Replies
1832 Views
Last post January 01, 2013, 06:08
by uvox4

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results