Great post, thanks!

Interesting but I disagree with most of it.  Lots of people still make a good living from stock.  

That's how I see it too. The best and the most financially efficient will survive although almost certainly they will need to work harder for less than they have done before. The market has been in turmoil with the emergence of the new technologies but it will eventually level out with a balance between supply/demand and prices. I'm not planning a move to Eastern Europe any time soon.

I think the 'photo factories' will be amongst the first casualties, if indeed there are any, but they're still churning their stuff out at the same volumes as before. They have to stump up significant cash for their production so if/when they don't see a return on their investment they'll be forced to scale things down.

Unsurprisingly, he's making the appearance to promote his new service to make money off of photographers:
"We are on the verge of launching a new online information service � PhotoLicensingOptions � that will expand beyond stock photography and deal with the business side of photography and every possible way that photographers can earn money from the pictures they produce."
"Readers pay a small fee to read stories of interest. "

"The next stage of communicating with images may be moving more toward video and away from stills. My advice to photographers coming out of school is to throw away the still camera and focus on video. "
Oh come on, not another "Get A Red" thread.

Sean, this is a well known fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

I strongly believe that claims have to be countered based on arguments and not fallacies. Said that, I don't have the knowledge to counter or agree on any claim regarding stock.

Uh, sure, ok.  Because we've seen so many public articles and blogging from Mr. Pickerell before this one that claims the end of stock as we know it, and conveniently enough, a new website by said author with many articles for those who are about to be destitute.

I'd have to agree with this. He's claiming the sky is falling and then sprinkles in stuff about selling anti-sky-falling advice.

This "interview" comes accross like a sales pitch or commerical. Show credentials to build credibility, detail an urgent problem, offer a fix to the problem for a fee.

The info is kind of hard to believe when presented like this.

Well said SharpShoot,

I agree with your perspective.

Best,
Jonathan

Quote from: Zeus on March 07, 2010, 12:37

I find it at odds that many here object to someone, with years of industry experience and many high profile contacts, selling information. I see no difference to this than buying a magazine at a grocery store so you can gain some information. Or buying a text book for a given class. If everyone stops paying for information there will likely be no need for images. There are are some seriously suspicious people here.

I don't have a problem with people selling information. And I'm not questioning his experience or knowledge.

But if you have something to sell, sell it. Don't disguise it as an interview or analysis.

It's better than the one a year ago where the new site basically interviewed them self and then posted it all over the websites as news about a new site.

I don't agree with him all the way. There's always a market for still photos and people don't always want video. In fact for me video is a PITA because I can't just get to sections I want without the whole big production. Space may seem limitless but video is bulky and consumes resources.

Sure the demands may shift somewhat but there will reain a demand for good still photo materials.

Anyone see a B&W photo used anywhere lately? Anyone read a book or keep notes and files, not on a computer? I don't care how many PDAs or pads there are in everyones pocket, sometimes a scrap of paper or a notebook will be more efficient.

I rest my case...

As for micro I think he did hit some good points about the sheer volume and redundancy where the agencies are marketing to different levels and requirements. I think prices should match the use, which often means the size is relative to the price. They are interwoven, it's not just one or the other.

Remember the predictions of the "paperless" office when we got the first computers? :-)

Of course things change. We can't stop it. Some will win, some will lose.
I don't think that there's anybody who can tell where we shall be in about two years.

About what he says on "digital learning at the university:
Relying on "digital" alone will also makes us vulnerable.
It is possible to study a book by candle light if needed, but what to do when there is no energy?
Use digital, but don't ban the books!

But you can be a chicken and pick from the article what is useful for you...

Quote from: sharpshot on March 07, 2010, 03:52

Interesting but I disagree with most of it.  Lots of people still make a good living from stock.  

I think the 'photo factories' will be amongst the first casualties

Yea, I think too. And this can only make us happy.

I agree with Sean's take on it, I stopped reading his advertisement interview when I got to what I think is the real point of his ramblings, here's the way I read it (I've added the blue text)

"We are on the verge of launching a new online information service � PhotoLicensingOptions � that will expand beyond stock photography and deal with the business side of photography and every possible way that I can make money from photographers can who want to earn money from the pictures they produce."

Sadly were seeing more of these 'experts' spreading their wisdom on the future of stock photography which under closer inspection appears nothing more than a thinly veiled way to promote their next venture on making money from other photographers - hey maybe that is the future.

I suspect monitor resolutions will increase significantly, especially with the kind of zoom technologies that have developed recently. After all, if sensor resolution is in the 1000ppi range, why not screen res?

One thing in the article I agree with is pricing based on usage. New licensing needs to be created. Like Micro RM.

I agree in principle, but its just so difficult to police. For example, should an image which is used on a website for a special promotion for less than a week cost the same as the same size of image which is on a website for over years? What counts as commercial, what as 'editorial'. (Example of both previous: I know of a few photos I've had on 'information' pages of commercial travel sites for over two years - based on the date I did the screendumps) If not, how could you (as in the compliance enforcement team) check up on this on a consistent basis?

Quote from: sharply_done on March 07, 2010, 13:39

I find the fact that he's not active here - the premier forum/clearinghouse for the microstock industry - to be among the most telling things he has to say.

In fairness, he may be posting here under an alias, so I wouldn't assume he's not active here.

That is part of the problem with sites like this. Too many aliases.