In response to a tidal wave of negative microstock comments on another photography blog site I said that there were still thousands of folks who were making a living at microstock. This, of course, let loose a barrage of attack comments on all things microstock. I can't find any actual numbers to rely on to back up my estimates. I had said that I thought there were some 70-90,000 microstock contributors and that it wasn't a stretch to estimate that several thousand were "making a living at it".

What's your opinion?

Since everyone's idea of 'making a living' is different, I'm not sure any random number would mean much. 

Whats the other site?

Let's say that making a living means doing microstock full time and not starving.

Here's a link to that other site. The discussion is interwoven with the Google image search topic.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55686.0

I love the comment about degrading the value of photography to where people are stealing images. Like everyone knows the cheaper something is the more likely someone is to steal it.

Whats the other site?

I was thinking of iStock once there is one quite recent but not that negative..

Well today it doesnt matter anymore, gone is the exclusivity of RM, etc and so are the high RM prices. Stock photography in general has decreased and degenerated however you look upon it. Just stupid of some "old timers" to sit and ride high about something that in a few years could be, just history.

As far as earnings, well all in all I recon Im doing pretty well, taking RM, RF and micro into account but ofcourse, it all depends where you live? Sweden is probably one of the most expensive countries in the world, also with the heaviest taxes in the world and say 3K dollars per month here, just about pays for your survival, no more.

I love the comment about degrading the value of photography to where people are stealing images. Like everyone knows the cheaper something is the more likely someone is to steal it.

lol 

Everytime I click on an interesting thumbnail it seems to come with an eastern european name attached. The cost of living in some countries makes microstock really worthwhile. I reckon it's in the thousands...

And soon enough there'll be a lot more because the amount of indian contributers is going to shoot up. The infrastructure and training is there (and then some). Young indians are highly digiliterate - they're just not yet fully aware of the opportunities.

It's the same old drivel. Those clowns are still tossing around the same old line about most microstock artists operating at a loss and being happy about it. Which may be true, in a sense. But it's assuming that most microstock artists intend to make a living at it or are at all concerned about profits and losses.

More interesting would be stats on how many of the folks doing this full-time are operating at a loss.

I'd suspect that the percentage of folks making a living in microstock as it relates to the number of microstock artists actually attempting to make a living at it (doing it full-time, investing in their business, etc) isn't all that different from the numbers you'd see on the traditional stock side of things. There are just far fewer hobbyists over there.

I think the "far fewer hobbyist" argument is a point in "their" favor.  It probably is quite true.  I don't consider myself a hobbyist, but certainly am not pursuing this as a career.  Wasn't microstock built on the concept of thousands of "little guys" vs "a few" real photographers?

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just sayin.  

I hope that everyone trying to make a living in microstock will continue to do well.  I don't, however, plan to abort my minimal subsidy to make it easier for them.  

the question regarding microstock remains on how far will agencies go? (and yes I am talking about royalties %)

I am saying that�s the question once regarding contributors it will never stop, some will leave but a few more will appear but overall the volume of pictures will never end and will go until agencies say we are closed for new contributions (which will never happen)

some top contributors have said here that they have reached a max regarding earnings and some talk about stepping back too, some maybe because lack of uploading but other kept it.. the real problem is "newbies/less pro" that have uploaded some pictures and are actually taking other sales, that is what we are doing everytime we do another picture (everybody knows it) we are screwing others business, and we have the idea that it won�t damage us and we will keep on increasing, which might be true but for how long? how far will we go regarding royalties %? to almost 0%?

I am sure by that time other business would appear but until then we will keep on feeding their pockets, I am not saying we should cut top agencies, of course not.. my guess is that agencies should be more strict and watch every upload even more close.. but what for?? better to have new contributors submitting more stuff, thinking that other might leave later and they have their back covered.. stock is great!

I would say there are a lot of similarities between starting out in microstock and, say, opening a restaurant.

In both ventures, most people will fail unless they:

- Know their customers very, very well
- Have something extremely unique to offer
- Understand core business principles: what need isn't being met, or how can I meet needs in a better/cheaper/faster way than others are currently doing

Many people will open a restaurant because it's been their dream to do so all their lives.  But most will fail because having a dream isn't enough.  The same goes for microstock.  

It's extremely difficult to do this and succeed if you don't define the core marketing principles: who is my customer, what are his/her needs, how can I meet those needs better than anyone else?   If you're uploading some Grand Canyon or puppy or rainbow photos tonight, you should first yourself those questions, and if you truly want to do this for a living.

How can you be doing micro at a loss  only cost involved is equipment and I presume most serious photographers have the equipment anyway. Operating micro at a loss is impossible.

The only place you pay for uploading is the photographers-choice and everyone knows thats a scam anyway.

Some photographers have to pay for: models, props, studio time, transportation and other off-site, shoot-related costs, etc.  That stuff could quickly add up, and would be tough to cover with microstock sales unless you're established or extremely savvy about what you're shooting and how you're shooting it.

Everytime I click on an interesting thumbnail it seems to come with an eastern european name attached. The cost of living in some countries makes microstock really worthwhile. I reckon it's in the thousands...

And soon enough there'll be a lot more because the amount of indian contributers is going to shoot up. The infrastructure and training is there (and then some). Young indians are highly digiliterate - they're just not yet fully aware of the opportunities.

This may be true, but my feeling is that Asian mentality is often different. Asians, living in Asia often believe in getting reward quickly for work done (which isn't such a bad thing). Microstock is a long slog and it can take years to create a decent income. There are a lot who live in the West who try microstock and give up quickly, as the reward they were seeking didn't come quick enough, but I think that there is more chance for a Western artist to see this as a long term thing. Although India and Asia have huge populations, I just don't see a large proportion of them trying microstock with the intention of making a living. If they had the means, they are more likely to look at the profits of microstock sites and invest money in making one themselves. There are already quite a few Indian stock sites (not really microstock though) springing up.

This may be true, but my feeling is that Asian mentality is often different. Asians, living in Asia often believe in getting reward quickly for work done (which isn't such a bad thing). Microstock is a long slog and it can take years to create a decent income.

I'm not sure if that's true in India, or at least not in Kerala - one of the most highly educated states.  I've seen too many people slogging for little or nothing in the hopes of having some kind of  position in the future.

Also microstock isn't a long slog for India. At all. They could easily make a decent living off shutterstock alone in just the first year.

And don't forget that they'll get as hooked as us by seeing sales everyday. Except that the money attached to their DLs will be a lot more meaningful: salaries are really, really low here compared to the west.

Although India and Asia have huge populations, I just don't see a large proportion of them trying microstock with the intention of making a living. If they had the means, they are more likely to look at the profits of microstock sites and invest money in making one themselves.

That's possible. Entrepreneurship here is huge. But that only suits certain types of people. Don't forget -  there's a highly educated, highly tech-savvy middleclass demographically exploding - all with laptops and internet access and a hunger for something new.