Quote from: Microstock Posts on July 21, 2011, 13:06

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.

Quote

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.

As you and I both probably know there are 2 types of India (the same like there are 2 types of Indonesia, which is where I live) which makes this conversation a little confusing. There's the Indian who will never own a dslr or even pick up a dslr in his/her life and there is the Indian who can afford to upgrade his/her equipment on a regular basis and wants and can afford the latest in thing, the tech-savy middle class that you referred to. The first kind which is the majority, won't be doing microstock. The second kind could do it but wouldn't see the point. They wouldn't be too impressed seeing 25 cents or $1 attached to their downloads. I was mainly referring to the second kind. Yes I know that in microstock you can make decent money and all the small amounts add up, but it takes time and I just don't see too many of them being able to see that far. I may well be proved wrong though.

How's the monsoon for you? 

There are no monsoons here. I live in a country with the most idyllic weather (for me anyway). The temperature is around 28 - 32 c, all year round. In the past there were definite rainy seasons, but now noone can figure out what months they are in and it doesn't really rain like the monsoons in India.

Quote from: sjlocke on July 21, 2011, 08:42

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

You added up five sites and counted everyone as a different photographer, when the probability is, all of them are the same people on the top five sites. (minus a few like me who are on only two of them) No matter, the next number would be if the sites have 30,000 contributors, how many are active, how many are full time/serious?

I don't think there are "thousands" or maybe not 1000 people in the world, making a full time living with microstock. But again, someone who lives on $400 a month and is living off micro would be "making a full time living on micro", just like someone making $100,000 and spending $80,000 a month, making that money. I also assume that there are many people making a good second income or MWC that bring in a good wage with Micro.

I'd guess under 1000 but have no evidence or proof to support my opinion. It's just an opinion based on a feeling. The real answer might be 300 and I'm an optimist or 1300 and I'm estimating it low?

The whole assumption that Micro is the reason people steal images is totally flawed and ridiculous.

Here's what I don't like and the discussion doesn't come close to addressing it. People can steal and use our pictures for free, until we discover them and then write a DMCA removal request. Then they say, "gee sorry" and remove them, and nothing happens.

Why wouldn't people steal and use images. There's nothing stopping them and when they are caught, no penalty.

That Bothers Me more than worrying about other peoples business and how much they make. If there are 1000 people making a living with microstock, best wishes to them.

I don't think your 20 pictures a day at low cost, and having five sell five times a month is realistic either. Unless you meant 5 of the total 600 pictures a month, instead of someone making five sellers a day? Which would be 150 images a month that sell at least five times on a major site? That's so pretty good shooting! Also your numbers would mean 600 new pictures a month, or 7200 new accepted images a year. Hey look at how many you can get accepted on some sites a month. You are a bit high on that too.

Did I read that right. 20 new salable images a DAY? (My formula to live off of microstock income would be to produce at least 20 salable stock images per day at very low cost. You must be accepted on at least three of the biggest sites. You must also make sure that at least 5 of those daily images will produce a minimum of 5 downloads per month on at least one major microstock site.)

I don't know the total number of micro-stock contributors. Istock photo says they have "tens of thousands". I'll assume that the other, say, big five sites also have tens of thousands of contributors. Add in the other 3 or 4 dozen sites and subtract out the duplicate folks and I think that there could easily be 70-90,000 contributors. It wouldn't be a stretch to believe a few thousand make living at it.  

Thousands of people producing 20 images a day? That would be 20,000 new images a day, accepted.

Did I take this all to literally?  

I decided long ago not to try and "convert" anyone.  Who needs the additional competition?

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.

It would have to depend on the type of photographer.  A wildlife photographer would be spending heaps on travel expenses and they probably wouldn't sell as much on micro.

I decided long ago not to try and "convert" anyone.  Who needs the additional competition?

Well I do agree in principle, there is no point in me trying to convince them (and it is an impossible task in the first place) but sometimes it is just too entertaining and I can't help myself.

^
I'm not with IS so I have no idea really but I'm sure there was a discussion on this a year ago that made me believe it was a mix of both.  Or maybe they just assumed like I did.  If it's just buyers, that's a pretty impressive list.

Wow, just buyers.  Now I have a new found respect for Sean.  Prior to this moment I was holding him almost solely responsible for the rate of increased competition and our diminishing returns.


EDIT:  Okay I'm still confused... lack of sleap.

So does a referral automatically appear on the referring contributor's list when they sign up (whether they're a buyer or contributor), or do they appear on that list only once the contributor is paid $10 after a buyer makes a purchase?

Quote from: luceluceluce on July 21, 2011, 15:08

How's the monsoon for you? 

There are no monsoons here. I live in a country with the most idyllic weather (for me anyway). The temperature is around 28 - 32 c, all year round. In the past there were definite rainy seasons, but now noone can figure out what months they are in and it doesn't really rain like the monsoons in India.

I always fanced living in kathmandu valley for that reason... some places are just spooky like that. I do my fair share of complaining about the monsoon but for skyscapes and landscapes it's wild and insane.  And so often you get those black skies with sunlight breaking through - the kind of light that makes post-processing a crime. The only problem is the rain danger : S We had an elephant working next door a couple of days ago - in the drizzle - and I don't think i scored any coolness points the way I had a tea towel draped over the top of my camera.

Quote from: sjlocke on July 21, 2011, 22:26

I decided long ago not to try and "convert" anyone.  Who needs the additional competition?

Well I do agree in principle, there is no point in me trying to convince them (and it is an impossible task in the first place) but sometimes it is just too entertaining and I can't help myself.

Yeah, that's true

"Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the royalty free business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided

Those who believe that there are anything like thousands earning their living from micro-stock are misguided."

Lol, I'd say, "those who think they know it all are misguided"...

It's hard to bite your tongue when people are talking BS but there's a lot to be said for perpetuating the dribble these guys are spouting.
I can see no downside to a lot of pro image makers thinking micro is a waste of time, and quite a lot wrong with convincing them otherwise.

If they we're "pro image makers" you wouldn't need to convince them, as usual in these cases the one's arguing against microstock and in most cases RF in general are the wannabee happy travel snappers who have had a few good RM sales in the past and think they're the big guns of the stock industry.

Quote from: Microbius on July 22, 2011, 05:37

It's hard to bite your tongue when people are talking BS but there's a lot to be said for perpetuating the dribble these guys are spouting.
I can see no downside to a lot of pro image makers thinking micro is a waste of time, and quite a lot wrong with convincing them otherwise.

If they we're "pro image makers" you wouldn't need to convince them, as usual in these cases the one's arguing against microstock and in most cases RF in general are the wannabee happy travel snappers who have had a few good RM sales in the past and think they're the big guns of the stock industry.

Good point, maybe I should have said:
"It's hard to bite your tongue when people are talking BS but there's a lot to be said for perpetuating the dribble these guys are spouting.
I can see no downside to a lot of people with cameras thinking micro is a waste of time, and quite a lot wrong with convincing them otherwise."