Author Topic: Im ...after 13 years getting the feeling.... (Read 45917 times)

Brightontl · « **Reply #25 on:** November 22, 2017, 16:28 »

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

Zero Talent · « **Reply #26 on:** November 22, 2017, 19:06 »

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!

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** November 22, 2017, 20:28 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on November 22, 2017, 15:41

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.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 23, 2017, 02:41 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 22, 2017, 20:28

Quote from: Clair Voyant on November 22, 2017, 15:41
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 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 23, 2017, 02:42 »

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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #30 on:** November 23, 2017, 04:52 »

Quote from: derek on November 23, 2017, 02:42

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 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 23, 2017, 05:14 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 04:52

Quote from: derek on November 23, 2017, 02:42
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 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 22, 2017, 12:21

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.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 23, 2017, 09:20 »

Quote from: derek on November 23, 2017, 05:14

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 04:52
Quote from: derek on November 23, 2017, 02:42
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.

jonbull · « **Reply #34 on:** November 23, 2017, 09:52 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 04:52

Quote from: derek on November 23, 2017, 02:42
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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #35 on:** November 23, 2017, 11:36 »

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 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 11:36

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...

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #37 on:** November 23, 2017, 12:58 »

Quote from: niktol on November 23, 2017, 12:37

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 11:36
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!

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 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 12:58

Quote from: niktol on November 23, 2017, 12:37
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 11:36
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! 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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #39 on:** November 23, 2017, 13:32 »

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 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 13:32

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 »

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 »

Quote from: derek on November 23, 2017, 05:14

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 23, 2017, 04:52
Quote from: derek on November 23, 2017, 02:42
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.

cthoman · « **Reply #43 on:** November 24, 2017, 00:03 »

Quote from: JimP on November 23, 2017, 21:50

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).

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #44 on:** November 24, 2017, 00:39 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 24, 2017, 00:03

Quote from: JimP on November 23, 2017, 21:50
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.

derek · « **Reply #45 on:** November 24, 2017, 02:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 24, 2017, 00:39

Quote from: cthoman on November 24, 2017, 00:03
Quote from: JimP on November 23, 2017, 21:50
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.

Minsc · « **Reply #46 on:** November 24, 2017, 15:31 »

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 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 24, 2017, 00:03

Quote from: JimP on November 23, 2017, 21:50
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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #48 on:** November 25, 2017, 06:40 »

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.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #49 on:** November 26, 2017, 23:03 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 25, 2017, 06:40

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Im ...after 13 years getting the feeling.... (Read 45917 times)

Brightontl

Zero Talent

stockastic

Pauws99

derek

Justanotherphotographer

derek

namussi

Pauws99

jonbull

Justanotherphotographer

niktol

Justanotherphotographer

niktol

Justanotherphotographer

niktol

Semmick Photo

JimP

cthoman

BaldricksTrousers

derek

Minsc

JimP

BaldricksTrousers

YadaYadaYada

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors