Author Topic: At what point is this no longer worth it to you? (Read 13422 times)

noodle · « **Reply #25 on:** August 12, 2012, 09:10 »

I am already prepared to stop UL there if their proposed comm scheme carries through. Its already low, but that would be the last straw for me, and hopefully everyone else
When they tried to pull this sheet a year ago, their were getting flamed by everyone, and I think thats why they decided to back down for a year - that shows there is some power in OUR hands as the contributors. Now we will have to unite again when Jan 2013 rolls around, so be prepared...

sharpshot · « **Reply #26 on:** August 12, 2012, 09:48 »

Quote from: modviz on August 12, 2012, 09:03

Why do people always discuss pulling their images? If everyone simply stopped contributing to an agency like 123RF because they were dissatisfied with the new royalty rate scheme three things would happen within six months if everyone participated:

1. You would continue receiving revenue from 123RF.
2. 123RF would revert back to its' old formula because its' library is stagnant.
3. ALL other agencies would think twice before lowering their rates in the future.

The problem with the Microstock system currently is that the agencies are empowered and they know it. We are only empowered if we all stand in unison. Period. Everybody leave your portfolio intact but stop contributing to 123RF as of January, 2013 and the Microstock business will improve for the contributor.

That's how I used to think. I stopped uploading to istock for over a year when they cut commissions below 20%. There were people here complaining about them while still uploading their full quota each month. Since then, I couldn't care less about what anyone else does. I'm sure sites could cut commissions to 5% and there would still be people uploading. Hopefully it wont happen but I have no faith in contributors getting together and acting in unison.

A few years ago, the sites did seem to take notice when they upset too many of us and they sometimes made improvements but now they know they only have to wait and the majority will cave in. It's a shame but that's how it is and I don't see any way to improve things now.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #27 on:** August 12, 2012, 13:28 »

Quote from: heywoody on August 12, 2012, 09:05

Quote from: digitalexpression on August 12, 2012, 08:46
Quote from: cclapper on August 12, 2012, 07:14
Quote from: Lagereek on August 12, 2012, 06:47
Know exactly what you mean, one runs out of patience with all the ups/downs, paranoid search changes, bugs and glitches. Honestly, all it takes is one more of the big four to start messing and its goodbye.
Sometimes I almost get the impression they only want weekend snappers, they are easily fooled and dont make noise and only too happy to see their little pic as a screeen shot.
trouble is the governors of the major agencies have long ago already made their monies and by now they are probably pretty burnt out and just want to go really, so they dont care one bit. couldnt really give a hoot.

I don't think they care, either. They have enough photos and good photographers now that if some leave, they are ok with that.

When Tyler's DTrank.com was still in operation there were some important statistics displayed in the top left corner of the pages. Those stats said that 50% of sales came from a mere 800 contributors. That's out of 130,000+. If just those people decided it wasn't worth it anymore DT's sales would drop by 50%. I think they'd notice something like that. The other important stat was that 90% of sales came from something like 4800 contributors. Meaning 125,000 contributors account for only 10% of sales. Those would be your weekend shooters. I'm fairly certain those numbers apply to every agency.

I can see a stockpocalypse coming. I can see the govs of those agencies caring a bit when it happens.

Interesting...

I was extrapolating based on the impact of very low sales numbers on FT’s 7 day rank and very much in line with this. I’d expect that, even among the 800, there is a pretty huge variation with the top 10 – 15 % garnering 85-90% of that 50%.

I don’t doubt that sites would lose revenue if the cream of the crop stopped submitting but nothing like 50% as most subject matter would still be well covered so it would just mean that further sales would be shared among the great unwashed.

I wasn't talking about a permanent drop in sales. I was talking about staff coming into work one morning, looking at sales from the previous day, after the big contributors have pulled out, and $hitting their pants. Sales would recover (mostly) and life would go on but it would show them that they can only push it so far before they break it. There are other revenue streams for photographers to take advantage of and really only complacency and fear of the unknown keeping people from jumping ship already (I count myself among them so don't anyone take that personally. Finding new avenues for income is a lot of hard work and I'm not ready to do all that work yet either). But as the OP title asks, at what point is it no longer worth hanging on? Yuri started up his own site, not something very many of us could do, but I'll bet there were some stinky pants in the offices of all the agencies that morning.

Lagereek · « **Reply #28 on:** August 12, 2012, 13:51 »

Quote from: digitalexpression on August 12, 2012, 13:28

Quote from: heywoody on August 12, 2012, 09:05
Quote from: digitalexpression on August 12, 2012, 08:46
Quote from: cclapper on August 12, 2012, 07:14
Quote from: Lagereek on August 12, 2012, 06:47
Know exactly what you mean, one runs out of patience with all the ups/downs, paranoid search changes, bugs and glitches. Honestly, all it takes is one more of the big four to start messing and its goodbye.
Sometimes I almost get the impression they only want weekend snappers, they are easily fooled and dont make noise and only too happy to see their little pic as a screeen shot.
trouble is the governors of the major agencies have long ago already made their monies and by now they are probably pretty burnt out and just want to go really, so they dont care one bit. couldnt really give a hoot.

I don't think they care, either. They have enough photos and good photographers now that if some leave, they are ok with that.

When Tyler's DTrank.com was still in operation there were some important statistics displayed in the top left corner of the pages. Those stats said that 50% of sales came from a mere 800 contributors. That's out of 130,000+. If just those people decided it wasn't worth it anymore DT's sales would drop by 50%. I think they'd notice something like that. The other important stat was that 90% of sales came from something like 4800 contributors. Meaning 125,000 contributors account for only 10% of sales. Those would be your weekend shooters. I'm fairly certain those numbers apply to every agency.

I can see a stockpocalypse coming. I can see the govs of those agencies caring a bit when it happens.

Interesting...

I was extrapolating based on the impact of very low sales numbers on FT’s 7 day rank and very much in line with this. I’d expect that, even among the 800, there is a pretty huge variation with the top 10 – 15 % garnering 85-90% of that 50%.

I don’t doubt that sites would lose revenue if the cream of the crop stopped submitting but nothing like 50% as most subject matter would still be well covered so it would just mean that further sales would be shared among the great unwashed.

I wasn't talking about a permanent drop in sales. I was talking about staff coming into work one morning, looking at sales from the previous day, after the big contributors have pulled out, and $hitting their pants. Sales would recover (mostly) and life would go on but it would show them that they can only push it so far before they break it. There are other revenue streams for photographers to take advantage of and really only complacency and fear of the unknown keeping people from jumping ship already (I count myself among them so don't anyone take that personally. Finding new avenues for income is a lot of hard work and I'm not ready to do all that work yet either). But as the OP title asks, at what point is it no longer worth hanging on? Yuri started up his own site, not something very many of us could do, but I'll bet there were some stinky pants in the offices of all the agencies that morning.

It would mean deactivating existing portfolios or else they would earn money while stopping uploading and since money is their GOD! it wouldnt have any impact. It calls for at least 100 top contributors of which all have debts to pay, running homes and family, many of us are fulltime photographers who just wants a quiet life, being creative, not this kind of f###ing bollucks.

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2012, 15:17 »

Really good discussion you started Paulie. Great answers here.

I have been giving this a lot of thought lately. I have been seeing my year on year sales dropping for almost 2 years now, despite regular uploading (other than my extended break while my studio and office were being remodeled).

I am still making a better living than if I went back to secretarial work, so I hang in there and keep shooting and uploading hoping things will improve.

For reasons already discussed above, I don't ever think enough contributors will band together to have any real impact on the industry. Although I remain committed to my own site, and Warmpicture, and am open to new solutions like Picturengine, I do think we are each essentially on our own.

I think the change away from micro is going to be gradual, rather than a revolution. With each anti-contributor change the sites make, more people decide it isn't worth it for them and stop contributing, and/or pull portfolios. There have been people getting fed up and peeling away for the last year or so, and it will only accelerate.

Even among those of us who are staying, if the money continues to diminish, in spite of shooting and uploading new material, it has to dampen the desire to produce fresh work. Maybe you will be planning a shoot every other week instead of every week, or for me who used to produce one or two comprehensive all day shoots a month, now only a few of those a year.

All this erosion of enthusiasm among mid-top level contributors is having an impact. It's just too soon for the agencies to be feeling it. I really think this thing will be too far down the tubes to fix by the time TPTB at the agencies realize they have killed off their golden geese.

Ed · « **Reply #30 on:** August 12, 2012, 16:20 »

I got fed up at the end of June. It became no longer worth it when I sat down and put pen to paper. Bottom line is, I'm a supplier. If you want to treat your supplier like crap and you don't want to pay him what he's worth, then I'm not going to deliver - I'll just find different retail outlets or I'll go to the customer directly.

Hmmmm....some folks are doing the same (PeopleImages, Warmpicture, etc.)

I am currently non-exclusive with 6 RM/Traditional agencies and I am exclusive with one RM/Traditional agent. I have one agency that treats it's contributors (or at least me) in a less than desirable fashion...but I can deal with that ratio.

Since moving out of micro....there are some things that I have learned -

1) There has been a shift in licensing models in that starting in 2008, the traditional agencies started to see more buyers wanting RM images over RF images...that is a comment that doesn't relate to microstock at all - that is a comment from traditional agencies that sell under both RM and RF licensing schemes. People have been complaining about the "dinosaurs" that license images via RM and that complain about microstockers...I've been doing this for 7 years - those folks are still around (albeit their revenue has fallen as well) and they aren't going anywhere...and many of them still refuse to license images in an RF fashion. They've been around just as long...or LONGER...than any microstock agency. Microstock is only 8 years old folks...it's a blink of an eye. It still isn't tried and proven as a sales model. Think about that.

2) When people see their revenue decline, they look for other sources of revenue. I've seen at this at the agency level (Shutterstock and Getty and Fotolia) and I am seeing this at the contributor level (people trying to push other people into microstock through the use of Meetup groups - "Make Money From Photography" join our meetup group and I'll give you my referral links and do everything I can to get you started. False promises and false hope for new contributors. How many of those folks do you think are going to make payout at places like Crestock, Panthermedia, Canstockphoto?

3) The barriers to this industry are WIDE FRICKIN' OPEN. It doesn't matter if you're a hobbyist or a pro. It's like the wild west. The fact that you are contributing to agencies like Shutterstock (who per a PDN article license images at an average of $2.05 each leaving you with an average 12% commission) is your own choice. There is no reason why you can't take those images to an agency like Superstock, Blend, Inmagine, etc. and license those same images for much more money with the SAME effort or less as trying to get images into Shutterstock or iStock or even Crestock. Everyone has the choice to sell themselves short...and people will continue to do so. I can accept their decision, but I don't have to respect it. Cheap photographers in this day and age are only hurting themselves...not the industry as many believe.

Sorry guys for being so harsh. Someone has to say it.

That's my three cents. Someone pitch in another nickle to make 8 cents so it feels more respectable (like an iStock royalty).

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #31 on:** August 12, 2012, 16:43 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 12, 2012, 15:17

Really good discussion you started Paulie. Great answers here.

I have been giving this a lot of thought lately. I have been seeing my year on year sales dropping for almost 2 years now, despite regular uploading (other than my extended break while my studio and office were being remodeled).

I am still making a better living than if I went back to secretarial work, so I hang in there and keep shooting and uploading hoping things will improve.

For reasons already discussed above, I don't ever think enough contributors will band together to have any real impact on the industry. Although I remain committed to my own site, and Warmpicture, and am open to new solutions like Picturengine, I do think we are each essentially on our own.

I think the change away from micro is going to be gradual, rather than a revolution. With each anti-contributor change the sites make, more people decide it isn't worth it for them and stop contributing, and/or pull portfolios. There have been people getting fed up and peeling away for the last year or so, and it will only accelerate.

Even among those of us who are staying, if the money continues to diminish, in spite of shooting and uploading new material, it has to dampen the desire to produce fresh work. Maybe you will be planning a shoot every other week instead of every week, or for me who used to produce one or two comprehensive all day shoots a month, now only a few of those a year.

All this erosion of enthusiasm among mid-top level contributors is having an impact. It's just too soon for the agencies to be feeling it. I really think this thing will be too far down the tubes to fix by the time TPTB at the agencies realize they have killed off their golden geese.

I bolded a key point. This is a personal and selfish model regardless of the "community". If you're still making money and doing well you will tolerate the changes no matter how angry you are or what boycott is going on by other people.

But, the downward spiral in earnings hits contributors at the personal level. And if the majority of people continue to face a hefty earnings decrease and leave or stop contributing, then indirectly this will probably have a large impact on agencies. Maybe not immediately but over a period of time.

noodle · « **Reply #32 on:** August 12, 2012, 19:46 »

just wondering - if there were a dramatic decline in contributors uploading to ms sites, considering that the bigger ones have ~ over 20M pics in the database, wouldn't at some point this business be self-sustaining? I mean with 20M+ photos/illust that has got to cover just about any subject one could think of and have a huge number of images to choose from as well.

Just saying that at some point , when earning pennies for your time to produce and finish an image really is no longer of any profit, the agencies will still have their huge library that they can continually churn out profits from. For them I dont think they'll ever come a time when they will be pressured to raise comms for the contributors... it will either continue to drift lower until a static point is reached.

Of course thats just my $0.02

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** August 12, 2012, 20:07 »

Quote from: noodle on August 12, 2012, 19:46

just wondering - if there were a dramatic decline in contributors uploading to ms sites, considering that the bigger ones have ~ over 20M pics in the database, wouldn't at some point this business be self-sustaining? I mean with 20M+ photos/illust that has got to cover just about any subject one could think of and have a huge number of images to choose from as well.

Just saying that at some point , when earning pennies for your time to produce and finish an image really is no longer of any profit, the agencies will still have their huge library that they can continually churn out profits from. For them I dont think they'll ever come a time when they will be pressured to raise comms for the contributors... it will either continue to drift lower until a static point is reached.

Of course thats just my $0.02

If no-one was producing new images, the existing ones would sell for a while, but they'd go out of date in all sorts of ways, obviously the people first (make up, hair, fashion, glasses) but also props date. Even styles of shooting basic things change. Then they'd get a few retro sales, but fewer than now.

But yes, the big sellers would need to pull their ports, not just stop uploading, and they've got most to lose by doing so.

djpadavona · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2012, 22:35 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 12, 2012, 06:47

Sometimes I almost get the impression they only want weekend snappers, they are easily fooled and dont make noise and only too happy to see their little pic as a screeen shot.

Exactly. And the weekend snapper is more than happy to swallow a 15% or less commission, because they are already uploading like mad to Flickr for free just to get someone to notice them.

The problem with this theory is standards keep getting higher and higher. However if the trend goes toward mobile phone images, then the business model will completely change. Microstock will become low quality, very low cost, and probably obscenely low commissions. The bulk of the shooters will be weekend snappers, probably not too dissimilar to where microstock began.

But there will always be a market for something of a higher quality, which is well below the cost of RM and Getty/Corbis RF. It will be interesting to see if this scenario plays out, and the entire market fractures.

Ed · « **Reply #35 on:** August 12, 2012, 23:22 »

Quote from: noodle on August 12, 2012, 19:46

just wondering - if there were a dramatic decline in contributors uploading to ms sites, considering that the bigger ones have ~ over 20M pics in the database, wouldn't at some point this business be self-sustaining? I mean with 20M+ photos/illust that has got to cover just about any subject one could think of and have a huge number of images to choose from as well.

Just saying that at some point , when earning pennies for your time to produce and finish an image really is no longer of any profit, the agencies will still have their huge library that they can continually churn out profits from. For them I dont think they'll ever come a time when they will be pressured to raise comms for the contributors... it will either continue to drift lower until a static point is reached.

Of course thats just my $0.02

Alamy has almost 32 million images in their database....and doing some research last week, I found 6 topics that are not covered (and I'm not naming them).

Lagereek · « **Reply #36 on:** August 12, 2012, 23:45 »

Quote from: Ed on August 12, 2012, 16:20

I got fed up at the end of June. It became no longer worth it when I sat down and put pen to paper. Bottom line is, I'm a supplier. If you want to treat your supplier like crap and you don't want to pay him what he's worth, then I'm not going to deliver - I'll just find different retail outlets or I'll go to the customer directly.

Hmmmm....some folks are doing the same (PeopleImages, Warmpicture, etc.)

I am currently non-exclusive with 6 RM/Traditional agencies and I am exclusive with one RM/Traditional agent. I have one agency that treats it's contributors (or at least me) in a less than desirable fashion...but I can deal with that ratio.

Since moving out of micro....there are some things that I have learned -

1) There has been a shift in licensing models in that starting in 2008, the traditional agencies started to see more buyers wanting RM images over RF images...that is a comment that doesn't relate to microstock at all - that is a comment from traditional agencies that sell under both RM and RF licensing schemes. People have been complaining about the "dinosaurs" that license images via RM and that complain about microstockers...I've been doing this for 7 years - those folks are still around (albeit their revenue has fallen as well) and they aren't going anywhere...and many of them still refuse to license images in an RF fashion. They've been around just as long...or LONGER...than any microstock agency. Microstock is only 8 years old folks...it's a blink of an eye. It still isn't tried and proven as a sales model. Think about that.

2) When people see their revenue decline, they look for other sources of revenue. I've seen at this at the agency level (Shutterstock and Getty and Fotolia) and I am seeing this at the contributor level (people trying to push other people into microstock through the use of Meetup groups - "Make Money From Photography" join our meetup group and I'll give you my referral links and do everything I can to get you started. False promises and false hope for new contributors. How many of those folks do you think are going to make payout at places like Crestock, Panthermedia, Canstockphoto?

3) The barriers to this industry are WIDE FRICKIN' OPEN. It doesn't matter if you're a hobbyist or a pro. It's like the wild west. The fact that you are contributing to agencies like Shutterstock (who per a PDN article license images at an average of $2.05 each leaving you with an average 12% commission) is your own choice. There is no reason why you can't take those images to an agency like Superstock, Blend, Inmagine, etc. and license those same images for much more money with the SAME effort or less as trying to get images into Shutterstock or iStock or even Crestock. Everyone has the choice to sell themselves short...and people will continue to do so. I can accept their decision, but I don't have to respect it. Cheap photographers in this day and age are only hurting themselves...not the industry as many believe.

Sorry guys for being so harsh. Someone has to say it.

That's my three cents. Someone pitch in another nickle to make 8 cents so it feels more respectable (like an iStock royalty).

Good post ED, but really you are not telling us anything new here. I have been, still am with the Getty house-collection, since 93, 20 years you know and prior to the takeover in 93, I was with Stones and Image-Bank ( best and the classic days of stock) everyone made millions, buyers came in droves and paid just about anything.

Today its not a matter of wanting or chosing really, its a matter of that, if you are a photographer, you have to go with it. Ten years ago, when micro first started, most ppl, were sneering, laughing at it, right, well, they dont do that today, do they? long time Pros have realized they cant beat them, so they join them.
From the beginning of micro, it was a bunch of amateurs setting out, today, gradually the pros have entered the game and slowly they are brushing them aside.
What we are seeing here, in fact, is nothing more then dirt-cheap agencies relying on professional photographers, getting the stuff, the original amateurs cant get. Anybody can go out and shoot lots of generic material, no big deal.
You can not ignore the micro world, reason being, every single large ad-agency in the world, do sporadic purchases from micros. Only the other day I opend a glossy Land-Rover catalogue and sure enough, many fill-out shots came from micros, etc.
Today, a fulltime photographer, in anyways involved in stock, can not afford to ignore micro and one of the chief reasons being, All the big Macros, Getty, Corbis, Alamy, Image-Bakery, Age, Inmagine, etc, etc, are also heavily involed in micro.

best.

Ed · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2012, 00:14 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 12, 2012, 23:45

Good post ED, but really you are not telling us anything new here. I have been, still am with the Getty house-collection, since 93, 20 years you know and prior to the takeover in 93, I was with Stones and Image-Bank ( best and the classic days of stock) everyone made millions, buyers came in droves and paid just about anything.

Today its not a matter of wanting or chosing really, its a matter of that, if you are a photographer, you have to go with it. Ten years ago, when micro first started, most ppl, were sneering, laughing at it, right, well, they dont do that today, do they? long time Pros have realized they cant beat them, so they join them.
From the beginning of micro, it was a bunch of amateurs setting out, today, gradually the pros have entered the game and slowly they are brushing them aside.
What we are seeing here, in fact, is nothing more then dirt-cheap agencies relying on professional photographers, getting the stuff, the original amateurs cant get. Anybody can go out and shoot lots of generic material, no big deal.
You can not ignore the micro world, reason being, every single large ad-agency in the world, do sporadic purchases from micros. Only the other day I opend a glossy Land-Rover catalogue and sure enough, many fill-out shots came from micros, etc.
Today, a fulltime photographer, in anyways involved in stock, can not afford to ignore micro and one of the chief reasons being, All the big Macros, Getty, Corbis, Alamy, Image-Bakery, Age, Inmagine, etc, etc, are also heavily involed in micro.

best.

Ah yes...the "fill out spots". Was this part of the same spot that Zack Arias filled?

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/ummm-maybe-ummm-yes-fuji-x-pro-1-review/#more-3080

He recently did a Land Rover shoot...as well as other well named day rate commercial photographers - are they the ones choosing to contribute to the micros for these spots or are they the ones that are aggressively marketing themselves and their images (and promoting products) despite the people selling themselves short? Seriously...let's compare Zack Arias to Yuri Arcurs. Who has the bigger portfolio? Who markets himself more through classes throughout the world? Who gets the commercial work and who gets to create a commentary about stock photography? That's up to you to decide.

Here's the thing...the "good old days of stock" didn't last that long...maybe 5 years...8 at the most? Those were the days that everyone was making a ton of money licensing images and those are the days that are often remembered. Stock has been around for much longer than that. The micros have not been around for 10 years. They have been around 8 years....the micros have been around for about the same amount of time (give or take) as the "boom" years of stock. Don't lose sight of that.

True, the micro business model should not be ignored....and the "rights ready" model introduced by Getty shouldn't be dismissed as history either.

The fact of the matter is you have a handful of agencies that are treating contributors like crap in exchange for poor pay. Given the changes in search engine algorithms, changes in commission structure, etc., they are also treating their customers like crap. A business model like that is not going to succeed without some serious changes. In the grand scheme of things, it's only a handful of agencies doing this. Microstock is not the entire "universe" of stock photography...and all the big players are NOT involved in "micro". You say Alamy is - but even their cheapest licenses ($6 to the Daily Mail on editorial images for one day web usage) is better than an image license at a micro for the same use. AGE does not offer micro - they offer "low budget RF" which provide a better return than micro. Inmagine owns 123RF - but their IRIS brand does not allow micro images (or your contract is terminated).

Where you choose to market your images is your choice. I'm willing to bet that folks that have been doing this for a while that have not submitted to traditional agencies (there are a few on this forum) would be absolutely surprised at the results of having a 3,000 - 5,000 image portfolio spread out between five non-exclusive traditional agencies on a RM basis....and I'm willing to bet they will do better with a similar portfolio size at an exclusive agency.

My view is there is going to be a shift over the next 5 - 10 years in image licensing based on a customer push to more online content as opposed to print content. The decision to be made is do you want to be on the top of the price spectrum during that shift or do you want to be at the bottom of the price spectrum during that shift? True, there are some that will play both sides....but the fact of the matter is, there really isn't a differentiation in image quality at both sides of the spectrum....so why relegate yourself to the bottom?

Lagereek · « **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2012, 01:08 »

Quote from: Ed on August 13, 2012, 00:14

Quote from: Lagereek on August 12, 2012, 23:45
Good post ED, but really you are not telling us anything new here. I have been, still am with the Getty house-collection, since 93, 20 years you know and prior to the takeover in 93, I was with Stones and Image-Bank ( best and the classic days of stock) everyone made millions, buyers came in droves and paid just about anything.

Today its not a matter of wanting or chosing really, its a matter of that, if you are a photographer, you have to go with it. Ten years ago, when micro first started, most ppl, were sneering, laughing at it, right, well, they dont do that today, do they? long time Pros have realized they cant beat them, so they join them.
From the beginning of micro, it was a bunch of amateurs setting out, today, gradually the pros have entered the game and slowly they are brushing them aside.
What we are seeing here, in fact, is nothing more then dirt-cheap agencies relying on professional photographers, getting the stuff, the original amateurs cant get. Anybody can go out and shoot lots of generic material, no big deal.
You can not ignore the micro world, reason being, every single large ad-agency in the world, do sporadic purchases from micros. Only the other day I opend a glossy Land-Rover catalogue and sure enough, many fill-out shots came from micros, etc.
Today, a fulltime photographer, in anyways involved in stock, can not afford to ignore micro and one of the chief reasons being, All the big Macros, Getty, Corbis, Alamy, Image-Bakery, Age, Inmagine, etc, etc, are also heavily involed in micro.

best.

Ah yes...the "fill out spots". Was this part of the same spot that Zack Arias filled?

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/ummm-maybe-ummm-yes-fuji-x-pro-1-review/#more-3080

He recently did a Land Rover shoot...as well as other well named day rate commercial photographers - are they the ones choosing to contribute to the micros for these spots or are they the ones that are aggressively marketing themselves and their images (and promoting products) despite the people selling themselves short? Seriously...let's compare Zack Arias to Yuri Arcurs. Who has the bigger portfolio? Who markets himself more through classes throughout the world? Who gets the commercial work and who gets to create a commentary about stock photography? That's up to you to decide.

Here's the thing...the "good old days of stock" didn't last that long...maybe 5 years...8 at the most? Those were the days that everyone was making a ton of money licensing images and those are the days that are often remembered. Stock has been around for much longer than that. The micros have not been around for 10 years. They have been around 8 years....the micros have been around for about the same amount of time (give or take) as the "boom" years of stock. Don't lose sight of that.

True, the micro business model should not be ignored....and the "rights ready" model introduced by Getty shouldn't be dismissed as history either.

The fact of the matter is you have a handful of agencies that are treating contributors like crap in exchange for poor pay. Given the changes in search engine algorithms, changes in commission structure, etc., they are also treating their customers like crap. A business model like that is not going to succeed without some serious changes. In the grand scheme of things, it's only a handful of agencies doing this. Microstock is not the entire "universe" of stock photography...and all the big players are NOT involved in "micro". You say Alamy is - but even their cheapest licenses ($6 to the Daily Mail on editorial images for one day web usage) is better than an image license at a micro for the same use. AGE does not offer micro - they offer "low budget RF" which provide a better return than micro. Inmagine owns 123RF - but their IRIS brand does not allow micro images (or your contract is terminated).

Where you choose to market your images is your choice. I'm willing to bet that folks that have been doing this for a while that have not submitted to traditional agencies (there are a few on this forum) would be absolutely surprised at the results of having a 3,000 - 5,000 image portfolio spread out between five non-exclusive traditional agencies on a RM basis....and I'm willing to bet they will do better with a similar portfolio size at an exclusive agency.

My view is there is going to be a shift over the next 5 - 10 years in image licensing based on a customer push to more online content as opposed to print content. The decision to be made is do you want to be on the top of the price spectrum during that shift or do you want to be at the bottom of the price spectrum during that shift? True, there are some that will play both sides....but the fact of the matter is, there really isn't a differentiation in image quality at both sides of the spectrum....so why relegate yourself to the bottom?

No this was a Land-rover shoot, using the Norwegian alps as backdrops, I spent 4 days there, freezing bloody cold and yes, some 20 odd backdrop scenics came via micros.

Anyways. I dont see it anymore as relegate onself to the bottom, I did once upon a time but not nowdays. The big micro photographers of today, they were not around in them days we are talking about, they would probably have trebbled their incomes during the 80s and 90s but they were not around and dont really know much more then micro/macro?

Contrary to what ppl wish/want to believe, micro as it is now, wont last much more then a couple of years. It wont dissapear but it will fade out into just the average run of the mill, last resort.

Micro, is a most brillant business-model, really and they had it in the palm of their hands, world could have been their oyster BUT! the brains behind it, were clouded and intoxicated by short-term scheames, quick cash and a Napoleon complex and ofcourse, as proved throughout history, it all falls flat on its face. they managed to ruin it by themselves.

I would not say that the trad agencies is a solution here, nor a substitute. I mean lets face it, how many buyers really need rights, world-rights, etc? because of the Internet, most buyers and sellers really dont give a s##t anymore if the pic is exclusive, RM, RF, micro, as long as its cheap or within budget? pics are getting stolen, left, right and centre, nobody seems to care, right.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2012, 08:15 »

Quote from: Ed on August 13, 2012, 00:14

You say Alamy is - but even their cheapest licenses ($6 to the Daily Mail on editorial images for one day web usage) is better than an image license at a micro for the same use.

Don't imagine for a moment that that's a 'one day' web usage. It can be archived up there for ever. The date is just some reported date, which may or probably will not bear any relationship to the date of the use. Once it's on the DM or the Telegraph, you can guarantee it will be on several other websites within 48 hours, and you won't get any help in getting them removed from the thieving sites.

$6 gross is $3.60 to the contributor, so not much more than an exclusive image from iStock could be (46c credits notwithstanding), plus you can nominate images iStock to be photo+ or exc+.

But hey, I got $1.19 for a Getty sale from June, reported in July, so even the Newspaper Scheme (which you can opt out of) is better than that. I can't find what sort of deal lets people buy Getty images for $6.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #40 on:** August 13, 2012, 11:13 »

I'm still pulling in good cash from this. However, most of my money is coming from old, established stock, not from new stuff (even though it's better, it doesn't seem to matter). For some time now I've been in the mindset that uploading is more about maintaining a presence on the sites than expecting any reasonable return from those particular images.

You've got to move with the times and I think that the days when you could jump in and get a decent return from microstock are gone.

Pulling a portfolio from a trustworthy agency is folly but so is thinking that it is possible to grow the MS income from an established portfolio. I'll probably be down 20% this year on my stock earning but I'll be getting the equivalent of another 30% from a non-photographic venture the cash has allowed me to set up.

For me, the answer seems to be to diversify into different areas which generate a return without involving me in continuing effort, which generally means delegating to an agent (just as we do with photos) while I either have fun or look for additional earnings streams.

The main thing, of course, is to avoid having to have a "real job"!

stockastic · « **Reply #41 on:** August 13, 2012, 12:44 »

I reached "the point where it's no longer worth it" about a year ago. Now I submit only once in a while, if I come across something that would be interesting to photograph. I do mostly objects, and I could come up with many ideas that I know would sell, but they'd all require spending $10-25 and take an hour to produce, and I'd be lucky just to break even. So there are lots of good shots these agencies aren't getting, because commissions are too low.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 12, 2012, 20:07

If no-one was producing new images, the existing ones would sell for a while, but they'd go out of date in all sorts of ways, obviously the people first (make up, hair, fashion, glasses) but also props date. Even styles of shooting basic things change. Then they'd get a few retro sales, but fewer than now.

I'm sure we're in that phase already, at least for many sorts of subjects. There have to be many former microstockers who no longer participate in forums.

Ed · « **Reply #42 on:** August 13, 2012, 12:57 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 13, 2012, 01:08

No this was a Land-rover shoot, using the Norwegian alps as backdrops, I spent 4 days there, freezing bloody cold and yes, some 20 odd backdrop scenics came via micros.

Anyways. I dont see it anymore as relegate onself to the bottom, I did once upon a time but not nowdays. The big micro photographers of today, they were not around in them days we are talking about, they would probably have trebbled their incomes during the 80s and 90s but they were not around and dont really know much more then micro/macro?

Contrary to what ppl wish/want to believe, micro as it is now, wont last much more then a couple of years. It wont dissapear but it will fade out into just the average run of the mill, last resort.

Micro, is a most brillant business-model, really and they had it in the palm of their hands, world could have been their oyster BUT! the brains behind it, were clouded and intoxicated by short-term scheames, quick cash and a Napoleon complex and ofcourse, as proved throughout history, it all falls flat on its face. they managed to ruin it by themselves.

I would not say that the trad agencies is a solution here, nor a substitute. I mean lets face it, how many buyers really need rights, world-rights, etc? because of the Internet, most buyers and sellers really dont give a s##t anymore if the pic is exclusive, RM, RF, micro, as long as its cheap or within budget? pics are getting stolen, left, right and centre, nobody seems to care, right.

Those occasional sales still exist...but you're right, they aren't web use. Alamy had one last year related to a Harry Potter poster for (if I remember right) $7,000 gross - television sets being shot with shotguns, and there was a recent one at AGE that sold for $10,000 gross (last April - a stack of Polo Shirts licensed to the electronics/lighting industry).

I agree...there will be a change in licensing models soon.

louoates · « **Reply #43 on:** August 13, 2012, 13:00 »

I've been "retired" from uploading for about 1 1/2 years due mainly to the decreasing cash flow and the haphazard inspection process. I'm quite content to sit back and cash my payouts while staying in touch here hoping something new and exciting comes along.

StockBottom · « **Reply #44 on:** August 14, 2012, 07:53 »

i sold an awful 6MP photo on alamy a few months ago for 600$ gross, i can't complain.

10K gross ... hmmm you must be really really lucky to score such a single sale.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #45 on:** August 15, 2012, 14:02 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 12, 2012, 09:07

Ofcourse they dont care! Although without sounding pompus, I doubt very much they could find some of my imagery, I happen to know the other four photographers, on the entire globe, that get carte-blanche, to some of my places and none of them wants to even get close to micro, ( I must be the idiot here).

In general though its true, they couldnt care.

You said it...

cascoly · « **Reply #46 on:** August 15, 2012, 15:56 »

Quote from: Ed on August 12, 2012, 16:20

3) The barriers to this industry are WIDE FRICKIN' OPEN. It doesn't matter if you're a hobbyist or a pro. It's like the wild west. The fact that you are contributing to agencies like Shutterstock (who per a PDN article license images at an average of $2.05 each leaving you with an average 12% commission) is your own choice. There is no reason why you can't take those images to an agency like Superstock, Blend, Inmagine, etc. and license those same images for much more money with the SAME effort or less as trying to get images into Shutterstock or iStock or even Crestock. Everyone has the choice to sell themselves short...and people will continue to do so. I can accept their decision, but I don't have to respect it. Cheap photographers in this day and age are only hurting themselves...not the industry as many believe.

actually there's a HUGE barrier for a new photographer - sure it's easy to setup a website, or you can use the varipous print on demand sites, but if you can't get traffic it's not going to matter

which leads to one of my favorite shakespeare quotes

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man
But will they come when you do call for them?
Henry IV, Part 1

stockastic · « **Reply #47 on:** August 15, 2012, 16:55 »

"Superstock, Blend, Inmagine"?

Huh? Who are they? I've not seen any of these names discussed on this forum.

Ed · « **Reply #48 on:** August 15, 2012, 16:57 »

Quote from: cascoly on August 15, 2012, 15:56

Quote from: Ed on August 12, 2012, 16:20

3) The barriers to this industry are WIDE FRICKIN' OPEN. It doesn't matter if you're a hobbyist or a pro. It's like the wild west. The fact that you are contributing to agencies like Shutterstock (who per a PDN article license images at an average of $2.05 each leaving you with an average 12% commission) is your own choice. There is no reason why you can't take those images to an agency like Superstock, Blend, Inmagine, etc. and license those same images for much more money with the SAME effort or less as trying to get images into Shutterstock or iStock or even Crestock. Everyone has the choice to sell themselves short...and people will continue to do so. I can accept their decision, but I don't have to respect it. Cheap photographers in this day and age are only hurting themselves...not the industry as many believe.

actually there's a HUGE barrier for a new photographer - sure it's easy to setup a website, or you can use the varipous print on demand sites, but if you can't get traffic it's not going to matter

which leads to one of my favorite shakespeare quotes

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man
But will they come when you do call for them?
Henry IV, Part 1

Cascoly, I'm not talking about setting up a website. I'm talking about marketing images through agencies. Years ago, we had to jump through hoops to get accepted at an agency. Then, for submissions (after digital) you had to send TIFF files via CD or DVD (or even hard drives). These days, you apply to an agency via their online application, you send images either via FTP or their upload system. There is no mailing of images. If an agency doesn't like you, you move on to the next one. It was a very expensive and slow process. There are literally hundreds of agencies out there looking for photographers. The doors are literally wide open to new contributors.

In fact, I ran across an agency this morning based in Canada. They are currently accepting exclusive photographers for RM images only (40% Royalty for the photographer - not that great but better than the micros). I looked at the list of other agencies that sub-license images through them. I counted 96 agencies that market RF images for, and I counted 112 agencies that they market images from on an RM basis.

None of these agencies are microstock agencies.

Ed · « **Reply #49 on:** August 15, 2012, 16:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 15, 2012, 16:55

"Superstock, Blend, Inmagine"?

Huh? Who are they? I've not seen any of these names discussed on this forum.

I'm not going to run your business for you. You need to do the work. You can start by going over the list of agencies Alamy sub-licenses images to. You can go to the BAPLA website and research the agencies there.

Take some time to stop complaining about the micros on internet forums and instead, spend the time researching how you can expand your business.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: At what point is this no longer worth it to you? (Read 13422 times)

noodle

sharpshot

digitalexpressionimages

Lagereek

lisafx

Ed

PaulieWalnuts

noodle

ShadySue

djpadavona

Ed

Lagereek

Ed

Lagereek

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

stockastic

Ed

louoates

StockBottom

RacePhoto

cascoly

stockastic

Ed

Ed

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors