MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 7 Reasons Why Microstock Photography is (Probably) a Waste of Your Time  (Read 3461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« on: March 19, 2021, 04:13 »
+6
Interested to know your thoughts if you believe that there's any reason to be optimistic in regards to the future of the microstock photography industry as a viable business opportunity.

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2021/03/18/7-reasons-why-microstock-photography-is-probably-a-waste-of-your-time/

Just checked my February 2021 iStock earnings results making me even more pessimistic.

Looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

Best regards,

Alex


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2021, 06:02 »
+2
The model you mentioned in the article (suing Getty) was apparently awarded $125K.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/model-hiv-campaign-brooklyn-avril-nolan-advertising-aids-a8680621.html
I'm slightly confused, though as this article quotes the same amount but that it was from the Human Resources Dept which used the image:
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/01/nyc-used-womans-photo-hiv-ad-campaign-sued
Still, from the article you quoted, the photographer bore some responsibility. Though I thought the Getty MR precluded sensitive use, certainly without a 'posed by model' disclaimer.

« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2021, 09:54 »
+2
No reason at all. Agencies are giving away the images for free or they have arrangement where they pay nearly nothing to contributors and get their piece of the cake. Worst offenders are without a doubt Getty/Istock and Shutterstock but the pressure is nearly everywhere. On the other side there might be an opportunity in the future. Many videos are already flowing to Pond5 exclusive and if tomorrow Adobe offered a 40% forever for exclusive images (not contributors) I think Shutterstock and Getty would loose half or more of their pro photographers in a year.
Maybe a large player outside of the known name like Google Instagram will enter the market.

Right now it is a total disaster and as you said selling your images at micro prices only gives you a very bad rap as a photographer.

« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2021, 12:13 »
+8
Interested to know your thoughts if you believe that there's any reason to be optimistic in regards to the future of the microstock photography industry as a viable business opportunity.

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2021/03/18/7-reasons-why-microstock-photography-is-probably-a-waste-of-your-time/

Just checked my February 2021 iStock earnings results making me even more pessimistic.

Looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

Best regards,

Alex

Hi Alex,

I appreciate your insight. While it would be inappropriate for me to get into a philosophical debate about your talking points, I would like to ask you a question. Without a doubt, the entire world has been disrupted the past year with the Covid-19 pandemic. As we all know by now, the stock industry was no exception. Sales continued to grow overall, but generally speaking, the type of content that was in demand had dramatically changed. Portfolios that had great success even as recently as two years ago may not have faired so well this past year if the content didn't reflect the current trends. With lifestyle and business images in particular we saw a dramatic shift in what customers were buying. They were, and are looking for content with a Covid filter on it...people living their lives but with masks and socially distanced for example or working or attending school from home as opposed to a traditional office setting or classroom for another. It's a massive understatement to claim the pandemic created many challenges for creatives but on the flip side, the pandemic also revealed huge content gaps creating massive opportunities for pro-active contributors intentionally shooting ahead of the trends. Those that started creating quality content specific to the pandemic right away did very well.

My question to you and anyone on this thread is this...Did you do anything different this past year to keep up with the evolving trends and to maintain a relevant portfolio? Or did you continue to shoot and submit the same kind of content you always have created? Or, did you stop or reduce your production hoping to maintain the status quo with minimal effort? No judgement regardless of your answer..there were so many obstacles to overcome as creatives in 2020.

My follow up question is this...now that we are slowly coming out of the pandemic, that's going to create an abundant supply of new opportunities in stock..businesses re-opening, families reuniting, etc. What do you have planned for 2021 for production of stock content?


-Mat Hayward

« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2021, 12:42 »
+1
Well... there is always the solution in the form of Wirestock. Upload once, no keywording and have images online at 7 agencies happening all in from one place. Plus many extra earning channels.

My upload process is like 5 percents as it used to be.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2021, 14:03 »
+2
Well... there is always the solution in the form of Wirestock. Upload once, no keywording and have images online at 7 agencies happening all in from one place. Plus many extra earning channels.

My upload process is like 5 percents as it used to be.

Actually I keyword before upload to WS because their words and data are seriously weak and generic. After that, interesting point. I'm lazy... I'll give the 15% to do the work.

To answer Mat, I couldn't do the same, no access. Did I try some current issues images, yes, but I can't call what I did a serious attempt. Did I do more of the same, in some cases yes.

What I don't believe Mat stated in an obvious manner was this, every year we have to adjust and find trends and interests that match with the buyers changing interests. Not just because of Covid, all the time. New colors, new trends, new social issues, the world changes, we need to change with that.

No I don't do a good job of that myself, but for someone who cares and is working for the money, you need to adapt to the most current market and stay in tune with the times.


« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2021, 14:14 »
+11
I truly believe the biggest obstacle and threat to shooting stock and making it a viable entity is the decreasing valuation of an image and low royalty rates all agencies offer in addition to the costs to produce content overall.

I have been shooting stock since before Getty images and have had an amazing career both in the old school way and in the current rapid fire shoot upload and repeat school of today. I can't think of one reason why I would go out and spend time or money to create new content as it is no longer sustainable in any way.

I simply would not be able to do what I have done in the past in today's current climate or the current valuation of creatives. Photography and stock photography has always been competitive in every way, but it had a value attached to quality and skill set. Simply not the case today.

In the past to be selected to be included in an agency was more often than not a badge of honor whereas today every and any agency will accept you and you can use applications to upload to every site in the click of a button.

I am not intending to create a pissing contest argument of then versus now, but I can confidently say then was sustainable and now is not.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2021, 14:17 »
+2
The model you mentioned in the article (suing Getty) was apparently awarded $125K.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/model-hiv-campaign-brooklyn-avril-nolan-advertising-aids-a8680621.html
I'm slightly confused, though as this article quotes the same amount but that it was from the Human Resources Dept which used the image:
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/01/nyc-used-womans-photo-hiv-ad-campaign-sued
Still, from the article you quoted, the photographer bore some responsibility. Though I thought the Getty MR precluded sensitive use, certainly without a 'posed by model' disclaimer.

And the devil is in the details as well: "Cumbo never received authorization from Nolan to sell the photo after the fashion shoot two years ago" She had a release for a fashion shoot, not for stock resale. That's going to hurt.

Good Blobg post Alex. Instead of a book, consider a YouTube channel?  :)

Lower returns, lower sales, this is "unsustainable"!

« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2021, 14:22 »
+5
Mat as you ask. You are right that the content need have changed and that now everybody has to wear a mask and "travel" "tourism" images are out of fashion but surely they will return once the pandemic is over. I truly think that those that produced lots of covid related content for sure did better but they will also pay a price for it because once the pandemic is over and it seems it will be sooner than expected now that so many vaccines are on the table that content will become stale very quickly and "regular content" has a much longer shelf life and hopefully will keep selling for years to come.

But the biggest problem I see now are the ridiculous nanostock prices everywhere. Today i received my Getty statement and I can tell you I have thousands of sales for 0.01$ thats right 0.01$ expensive lifestyle shoots that are given away. I don't supply anymore nor Getty nor Shutters in their race to become a free site. So what I have done is to concentrate in the few well paying sites that are left like Arcangel, Pond5 Envato (not element the regular one where I can set my prices) and Adobe , those last ones mainly in video as they still pay a reasonable amount of money for every sale. All the other receive 0 content from me and it is going to stay that way. If all the market becomes like Getty Shutter pretend it to be so be it . I will be out and doing something more profitable. I supply agencies for the money not for fun , ego or wasting my time.

I am happy that your agency is still resisting the urge to follow the other two gorillas that only take stain with mud a wonderful way to be creative. No respect at all for them and I really wish more artists take notice and begin kissing goodbye all those blood suckers.


« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2021, 14:37 »
0
Quote
different this past year to keep up

already before the pandemic it was getting hard to cover the costs.
+no one can say if the "covid filter" is still needed next year



Quote
with a Covid filter on it...people living their lives... quality content...

DEAR MAT, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS:

What costs do YOU calculate for this kind of content,
lets say a conceptual work with 3 to 10 models,
clothing, background and location?

thank you

« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2021, 15:20 »
0
Interested to know your thoughts if you believe that there's any reason to be optimistic in regards to the future of the microstock photography industry as a viable business opportunity.

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2021/03/18/7-reasons-why-microstock-photography-is-probably-a-waste-of-your-time/

Just checked my February 2021 iStock earnings results making me even more pessimistic.

Looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

Best regards,

Alex

Well checking my February IS earnings just made me optimistic, they are constantly rising month after month, moving my new uploads, currently they are by far my best earner. That's it from me about IS right now.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2021, 20:23 by qunamax »

« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2021, 15:55 »
+2
Quote
different this past year to keep up
DEAR MAT, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS:

What costs do YOU calculate for this kind of content,
lets say a conceptual work with 3 to 10 models,
clothing, background and location?

thank you

I typically pay $50 per hour for models with a minimum of 2 hours per shoot. If they are very experienced and have a unique look I really want to work with, I'll pay up to $100 per hour. I have models bring their own wardrobe after asking me to send photos of options prior to the shoot. I've only paid for a location once, usually I work in places free to me. It's very rare for me to use more than 2 models on one shoot specific for stock that I am personally financing. I'm typically all-in for a cost of between $200-$300 for a formal stock shoot.

-Mat

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2021, 16:03 »
+4
Interested to know your thoughts if you believe that there's any reason to be optimistic in regards to the future of the microstock photography industry as a viable business opportunity.

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2021/03/18/7-reasons-why-microstock-photography-is-probably-a-waste-of-your-time/

Just checked my February 2021 iStock earnings results making me even more pessimistic.

Looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

Best regards,

Alex
My question to you and anyone on this thread is this...Did you do anything different this past year to keep up with the evolving trends and to maintain a relevant portfolio? Or did you continue to shoot and submit the same kind of content you always have created? Or, did you stop or reduce your production hoping to maintain the status quo with minimal effort? No judgement regardless of your answer..there were so many obstacles to overcome as creatives in 2020.

My follow up question is this...now that we are slowly coming out of the pandemic, that's going to create an abundant supply of new opportunities in stock..businesses re-opening, families reuniting, etc. What do you have planned for 2021 for production of stock content?


-Mat Hayward

Hi Matt,

Thanks for contributing to this thread and asking these two questions which I'm happy to reply.

As you've read my post, you'll see that I took some stabs at Shutterstock, iStock and Alamy...thus leaving out Adobe Stock which is yet to been awarded the coveted Turd of the Month. This wasn't an accident as I remain cautiously bullish that Adobe Stock has what it takes to be a leader in this industry and personally, I would be more than happy to see the crown being taken away from SS, who have become a cancer in this industry.

In reply to your first question: Yes, I began creating content even before the pandemic hit in January 2020 - https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2020/01/31/jan-2020-brutally-honest-earnings-report/. I do try to predict trends with varying degrees of success. During, I mainly ventured out in Madrid and then Lisbon to capture the usual (mainly unreleased) concepts: social distancing, hand sanitizers, mask concepts...almost all sold for subs.  https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexandreRotenberg?searchterm=covid&sort=newest

Also, some breaking news at protests and even outside a hospital in Lisbon. I look to upload those at Alamy Live News and Shutterstock Editorial (formally Rex Features).
Always researching trends: https://www.stockstudio.io/post/covid-related-stock-opportunities-in-2021-using-google-trends-analytics-part-i

Otherwise, Ive been migrating more towards videos and book covers (Arcangel) which seem to have more longevity and higher returns than my usual bread and butter microstock photos.

Looking at my earnings stats it does seems that I rely mainly on my more established older portfolio of travel content for earnings. Newer stuff just isnt selling regularly and when it does its for peanuts. I dont usually work with models and shy away from creating studio work so its partly my fault that Im not producing content that buyers need at the moment. 

As for your second question, indeed there are many new emerging opportunities for new normal travel content and I look forward to fully taking advantage. I havent thought so much yet about what to create as it depends more about where I hope to travel, shying more away from big cities as most tourists will do. Im at the back of the queue in terms of obtaining my vaccine so may take a while before Im wanderlusting (hopefully by late-September).

Nevertheless, the concepts Im thinking about are more sociological than practical at this stage. Humans are incredibly resilient and there is an inherent need to travel and connect. There should be roaring 20s (100 years on from the roaring 1920s) once the epidemic is brought down to more manageable levels. Perhaps something related to the generational gaps, old and young mixing again mask-less and drinking beers on the street.

One concept in particular that interests me is related to those professionals that have continued to work from home during the pandemic have amassed considerable savings (no commuting nor travel and less eating out/entertainment for a year), while millions have been laid off / been put on furlough schemes which have long expired. This newfound inequality in itself could be interesting to show as stock content, somehow. Back to the drawing board.

Thanks again for reaching out to contributors and I fully support Adobe Stock in its quest for microstock hegemony. 

Alex

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2021, 17:02 »
+4
Interesting questions, Matt, and thanks Alex, for the article. Alex and I did have some discussions before the article was published as I was not seeing the decline in anywhere near the terms that Alex was. In fact, in my end of 2020 earnings review: https://backyardsilver.com/annual-review-of-stock-photography-2020/ showed that I reported a small increase in 2020 over 2019 because I refocused and produced new images that were in demand. In that article I did try to explain my thinking and how I approached the different scenarios we face. Even now, I am getting sales because I made some silly IRS checks to represent the new Biden stimulus payments (and some for the change of the tax date in the USA. Simple stuff, but it sells.

I'm doing a bit of a reset myself by seeing if I can build some more consistent Print on Demand sales by becoming a heavy Pinterest creator. Who knows - but if you don't try, you don't succeed!

Steve

« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2021, 17:50 »
0
As I only started 4 years ago I haven't suffered like most, my monthly earning grow $100 a month each year, currently around $450 a month and I only spend 3 hrs a week doing this, uploading 25 photos a week, no more and never any less. 3hrs work for over $100 isn't too bad.

« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2021, 01:45 »
+4
I started microstock in late 2018 and my experinece so far is a bit different.

There is no downwards trend for me, even with SS's pay cut.  I keep submitting content and on most agencies my earnings keep rising. One year ago I made around $450-500  a month, this year I am at around $1000 per month. (All agencies combined, only photos, no footage) Some months are better than others, but on most agencies the trend is clearly onwards. I know it's not "big money", but it's enough to make a noticable difference in my overall income and is not a waste of my time.
On Shutterstock and iStock the upwards trend is most noticale.
There is also one on Dreamstime, though there it is less noticable, because my overall earnings are much smaller.
I only started submitting to Depositphotos and Bigstock at the end of last year, so I can't say anything about trends here yet.
The only two agencies without any real upwads trend are Alamy and Adobe for me, though there is also no downwards trend.
Alamy is generating sales for me only once in a blue moon. Has always been like this and still is like this.
Adobe was having an onwards trend for the first 1,5 or so years, but for the past year it has been stagnating, no matter how many new images I submit. That's actually the most puzzling to me, because within a year I rose by over 20.000 ranks on Adobe. So what does it mean that my overall rank there keeps improving, while my sales don't?

What has proven a good tactic for me is to "not put all my eggs in one basket" and by that I don't mean to not only stick with one agency, but to not stick with one topic of photography. My portfolio is all over the place. I do a lot of dogs, but also food, flatlays, plants, travel, news concepts, if I have an idea for one and so on. I feel like by this, if something like Corona happens, and one thing like travel photos almost stop selling completely, I still have a great amount of other topics to offer. And something will always be in demand. I would like to expand my portfolio with footage and people, but I am not really good at videos yet and obviously I don't make that kind of money to be able to afford models.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2021, 11:08 by Firn »

Tenebroso

« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2021, 01:51 »
0
I started microstock in late 2018 and my experinece so far is a bit different.

There is no downwards trend for me, even with SS's pay cut.  I keep submitting content and on most agencies my earnings keep rising. One year ago I made around $450-500  a month, this year I am at around $1000 per month. (All agencies combined, only photos, no footage) Some months are better than others, but on most agencies the trend is clearly onwards.
On Shutterstock and iStock the upwards trend is most noticale.
There is also one on Dreamstime, though there it is less noticable, because my overall earnings are much smaller.
I only started submitting to Depositphotos and Bigstock at the end of last year, so I can't say anything about trends here yet.
The onyl two agencies without any real upwads trend are Alamy and Adobe for me.
Alamy is generating sales for me only once in a blue moon. Has always been like this and still is like this.
Adobe was having an onwards trend for the first 1,5 or so years, but for the past year it has been stagnating, no matter how many new images I submit. That's actually the most puzzling to me, because within a year I rose by over 20.000 ranks on Adobe. So what does it mean that my overall rank there keeps improving, while my sales don't?

What has proven a good tactic for me is to "not put all my eggs in one basket" and by that I don't mean to not only stick with one agency, but to not stick with one topic of photography. My portfolio is all over the place. I do a lot of dogs, but also food, flatlays, plants, travel, news concepts, if I have an idea for one and so on. I feel like by this, if something like Corona happens, and one thing like travel photos almost stop selling completely, I still have a great amount of other topics to offer. And something will always be in demand.


There is the possibility that it is the type of client differentiated in each agency. AS clients may be increasing in variety, but perhaps, its largest sector is software professionals and with a certain demand for their images.


« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2021, 07:34 »
+1
Quote
different this past year to keep up
DEAR MAT, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS:

What costs do YOU calculate for this kind of content,
lets say a conceptual work with 3 to 10 models,
clothing, background and location?

thank you

I typically pay $50 per hour for models with a minimum of 2 hours per shoot. If they are very experienced and have a unique look I really want to work with, I'll pay up to $100 per hour. I have models bring their own wardrobe after asking me to send photos of options prior to the shoot. I've only paid for a location once, usually I work in places free to me. It's very rare for me to use more than 2 models on one shoot specific for stock that I am personally financing. I'm typically all-in for a cost of between $200-$300 for a formal stock shoot.

-Mat

How long will it take you recoup that money Mat (assuming you will) and go into profit?

« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2021, 10:34 »
+2
Quote
different this past year to keep up
DEAR MAT, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS:

What costs do YOU calculate for this kind of content,
lets say a conceptual work with 3 to 10 models,
clothing, background and location?

thank you

I typically pay $50 per hour for models with a minimum of 2 hours per shoot. If they are very experienced and have a unique look I really want to work with, I'll pay up to $100 per hour. I have models bring their own wardrobe after asking me to send photos of options prior to the shoot. I've only paid for a location once, usually I work in places free to me. It's very rare for me to use more than 2 models on one shoot specific for stock that I am personally financing. I'm typically all-in for a cost of between $200-$300 for a formal stock shoot.

-Mat

How long will it take you recoup that money Mat (assuming you will) and go into profit?

It varies completely. Sometimes a couple of weeks, sometimes months, sometimes years. I can't think of a shoot that I haven't recovered my initial investment. I'm at a place in my portfolio where my archived content can fund new shoots which is nice. When you are first starting out, that's not as easy of course.

When I shoot specifically for stock as opposed to captured stock secondary to either a personal shoot or an editorial assignment, I find consistent results that justify the expense.

-Mat

« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2021, 10:51 »
+2
Quote
different this past year to keep up
DEAR MAT, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS:

What costs do YOU calculate for this kind of content,
lets say a conceptual work with 3 to 10 models,
clothing, background and location?

thank you

I typically pay $50 per hour for models with a minimum of 2 hours per shoot. If they are very experienced and have a unique look I really want to work with, I'll pay up to $100 per hour. I have models bring their own wardrobe after asking me to send photos of options prior to the shoot. I've only paid for a location once, usually I work in places free to me. It's very rare for me to use more than 2 models on one shoot specific for stock that I am personally financing. I'm typically all-in for a cost of between $200-$300 for a formal stock shoot.

-Mat

How long will it take you recoup that money Mat (assuming you will) and go into profit?

It varies completely. Sometimes a couple of weeks, sometimes months, sometimes years. I can't think of a shoot that I haven't recovered my initial investment. I'm at a place in my portfolio where my archived content can fund new shoots which is nice. When you are first starting out, that's not as easy of course.

When I shoot specifically for stock as opposed to captured stock secondary to either a personal shoot or an editorial apssignment, I find consistent results that justify the expense.

-Mat

Thank you Mat. Much appreciated.

« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2021, 13:32 »
0
Quote
all-in for a cost of between $200-$300

thanks,
you forgot in your calculation:

-your own working hours (shooting, culling, postproduction, keywording, uploading,taxwork etc)
-transportation
-running costs for gear, lightning, software, hardware etc
-internet, electricity, rent ..
+consider Taxes, Fees(transactions,currency,paypal,etc), insurances...

+all costs are on rhe rise

just some thougths, no offend

« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2021, 13:35 »
0
Quote
My question to you and anyone on this thread is this...Did you do anything different this past year to keep up with the evolving trends and to maintain a relevant portfolio?


Hi Mat,

I haven't done anything differently but still uploading quite actively. I deal exclusively with travel photography and don't complain about Adobe performance. Being able to maintain pre-covid levels on Adobe is impressive these days.
This brings me to a follow-up question.
What in general can be done differently in travel photography niche that can make it more relevant to today's demand and trends?
(besides doing covid-related travel images).
Here is my port for reference https://tinyurl.com/3krwjk62

Elijah
 
« Last Edit: March 20, 2021, 13:45 by TaxcoBoy »

« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2021, 13:48 »
+1
Microstock photography would be a complete waste of time for me if I didn't already have a lot of images up. As it is, I haven't seen much return on my investment (of time) in the few times in the last years where I specifically shot stuff for stock as opposed to photos I would be taking anyway. I was never particularly good at predicting what would sell well, but I used to get a few hits every few months. It seems that has dried up lately and certainly doesn't motivate me to put a lot of work into trying some new ideas (unlike years ago where there was a decent chance some of the pasta would stick to the wall). Some of the old stuff still sells, but others have stopped. RPD, number of downloads, and RPI are all down pretty much across the board. I can understand and accept the dilution of my sales as the total number of assets for sale climbs faster than the total number of sales and the drop in sales from the pandemic. What pisses me off more is the agencies taking a bigger chunk of each sale for as best I can see just propping up their bottom line and cutting prices in the hopes that they can steal market share from other sites that might pay better. The only time an agency took a bigger cut and I actually made more was when Alamy opened the N America office, but that also coincided with me getting a better camera and submitting a lot more to them - which probably accounts for at least some of my better sales there. Their latest 20% more for them change certainly didn't seem to help me at all. Sadly I don't have any reason to believe that next time a site has problems with their income they will try to prop it up the same way - cut our take again. Sadly enough contributors will put up with it.

It doesn't help me at all that 2 of the biggest earners have gotten to the point that they take more than I am willing to give from every sale.

I still think if you are good and clever and hard working you can make $ at this, but you could also probably make more doing something else. It certainly would be hard to go full time somewhere with a higher cost of living.

« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2021, 14:44 »
0
And for me photo income increased year after year since my first submissions to agencies more than 10 years ago. The decline started 3 years ago with reduction in commissions so while my portfolio may increase, my income is down 75% from 3 years ago. Some of that income is, in part, due to the marketplace moving from HD to 4K. I sell far fewer clips than I once did. It's my view that if agencies wanted to make cuts they should have reduced HD and kept images where it was - in the minimum $0.30 - $0.36 range. Videographers/Photographers would have remained motivated to submit images and motivated to upgrade equipment to 4K. 6K digital is just around the corner. How many of us are motivated to once again purchase new equipment for the new marketplace? Especially when we now know agencies are foaming at the mouth to reduce commissions?

« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2021, 14:49 »
+5
I think the question  "Should I continue to shoot stock?" is very different from "Should I start doing stock". The first can be answered by analysis of costs and a projection of income the second is more of a gamble. I'm pretty sure also that its getting progressively harder to make a good income. For the best it will remain a decent source of income for a while but for the more average/less committed its probably not worth it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3601 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 13:11
by Microbius
35 Replies
14937 Views
Last post October 22, 2008, 16:20
by a.k.a.-tom
11 Replies
5948 Views
Last post January 29, 2009, 21:54
by Elenathewise
14 Replies
4560 Views
Last post May 29, 2017, 19:07
by Pixart
50 Replies
18855 Views
Last post August 03, 2019, 00:36
by rinderart

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle