Author Topic: Gradual Slowdown? (Read 11677 times)

Leo Blanchette · « **on:** September 04, 2008, 12:15 »

Hi people,

I remember this time last year was when my portfolio took off. I'm noticing that although I add a lot of new content, of decent demand, things stay rather consistent. I've humored the idea that my output has offset the slowdowns of summer. If only this biz wasn't so hard to analyze!

I'm still of the assumption that eventually this business will be overstocked.

Thoughts?

Perry · « **Reply #1 on:** September 04, 2008, 12:40 »

Quote from: Leo Blanchette on September 04, 2008, 12:15

I'm still of the assumption that eventually this business will be overstocked.

It already is. The RPI has dropped significantly and keeps dropping. I have already moved my efforts toward macrostock and niche photography. The micros are already full of isolated objects, handshakes and call center women. Other sort of content is either impossible to shoot with current RPI and other kinds of images does not sell on micros (or they will be rejected in the first place)

I think we have gone a circle here... the wonders of microstock have vanished in the air... $:-\$

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #2 on:** September 04, 2008, 12:47 »

If this business wants to retain the interest of contributors, its time to start dumping the stuff that doesn't sell, or has dropped out of its glory days. Simple solution.

I've turned my interests to other horizons as well, since the destinations of this business are becoming clear.

stock shooter · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2008, 19:32 »

I thought this might interest some of you. These don't happen often but it's because of sales such as this that I don't just upload everything to the micros.

http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=2901

here is the image:

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-search-results.asp?qt=AAE65H&ns=1&nu=0&lic=6&lic=1&archive=1&size=0xFF

my biggest macro sale was for $1000 of which I got $500, nice.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2008, 20:29 »

There's a sucker born every minute...

DanP68 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2008, 21:57 »

Quote from: Perry on September 04, 2008, 12:40

The micros are already full of isolated objects, handshakes and call center women. Other sort of content is either impossible to shoot with current RPI and other kinds of images does not sell on micros (or they will be rejected in the first place)

I know how you feel Perry. Trying to find subject matter to shoot these days is like pulling teeth. (Hey, there's an idea for a shot) I still see a ton of isolated objects being uploaded everyday in the New Images sections. In almost every case, it is the 100th or 1000th or 10000th version of a pre-existing picture.

It makes me wonder who exactly we cater to. Who wants isolated pictures of cell phones anymore? How many handshakes are enough? Do we really need more images of smiling girls wearing headsets?

I've had a great last month, but I can already see diminishing returns compared to this time last year, or even 6 months ago. Pictures on Shutterstock seem to last about a week these days, if that. DT and FT liberally use the "overabundant" rejection, and who can blame them. IS? Well, that is where I send new images to be ignored forever.

stock shooter · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2008, 22:10 »

Sean…

You know your little sarcastic quips all over the different forums are getting old dude. You're not nearly as witty or in insightful as you think, just obnoxious.

I know, without question, from 3.5 years with the micros, that my one image that licensed for $1000 (that I was referring to in my previous post) would have never sold on the micros more than a few times, so earning $500 for it was infinitely better than the few bucks it would have earned on the micros. I carefully select certain images to be licensed as RM for traditional stock markets and have had many of those images licensed for hundreds of dollars, images that would never have been licensed on the micros more than a few times. Someone who doesn't understand the different markets and just blindly uploads everything to iStock is the sucker.

And knowing people who only upload to "traditional" markets I know firsthand how much more, potentially, can be earned, and just how NOT infrequent these kinds of large sales are. I'm not arguing in favor of traditional stock agencies over the micros, they're not for everyone, or for every image, however by calling me a sucker because I don't blindly upload everything to istock is unnecessarily insulting, vulgar, and certainly suggests a lack of comprehensive knowledge about the stock industry on your part. Yes I know about you, your 358,000 downloads for 5000+ images, your one of the iStock guys who was accepted to Getty, well I’m on Getty too and I didn’t have to be an iStock sweat shop slave machine for the privilege. I also know you have a number of images uploaded in 2004 and 2005 that have been only downloaded a few times.

$600.00 $1000.00 even $8000.00 dollar license fees do not happen as infrequently as you think Sean. You've made these comments before, referring to these larger sales as playing the lotto, but for arguments sake, how many times would that image (that I provided the link to in my previous post) have been downloaded on the micros? Not many I would think. So by uploading images to Alamy that wouldn't earn more than a few bucks on the micros anyway in hopes of the "big sale" is a safe bet IMO, better than having hundreds of images that have been downloaded 2 or 3 times sitting on iStock for years with no chance of every making any real money from them. You’re free to slave away to make Bruce a rich guy but don’t call me a sucker because I know there are other avenues for licensing imagery than iStock.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2008, 22:50 »

Quote from: stock shooter on September 05, 2008, 22:10

You know your little sarcastic quips all over the different forums are getting old dude. You're not nearly as witty or in insightful as you think, just obnoxious.

how many times would that image (that I provided the link to in my previous post) have been downloaded on the micros? Not many I would think...You’re free to slave away to make Bruce a rich guy but don’t call me a sucker because I know there are other avenues for licensing imagery than iStock.

First I find Sean to be funny the majority of the time. Second, he wasn't calling you a sucker. He was calling the person that paid $8,000 for a tourist snapshot a sucker. Third, you're correct it wouldn't have been downloaded on the micros very often and it is highly likely that it would have been rejected by many of them as "not stock". Finally, Bruce sold iStock for $50 million a few years ago and is now a salary worker at Getty (which is now owned by a hedge fund), so Sean's sales aren't really making Bruce richer.

Freedom · « **Reply #8 on:** September 05, 2008, 23:25 »

Either the photogs make money for Bruce or the hedge fund is not the point. The point is there are alternatives.

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 05, 2008, 22:50

Quote from: stock shooter on September 05, 2008, 22:10
You know your little sarcastic quips all over the different forums are getting old dude. You're not nearly as witty or in insightful as you think, just obnoxious.

how many times would that image (that I provided the link to in my previous post) have been downloaded on the micros? Not many I would think...You’re free to slave away to make Bruce a rich guy but don’t call me a sucker because I know there are other avenues for licensing imagery than iStock.
First I find Sean to be funny the majority of the time. Second, he wasn't calling you a sucker. He was calling the person that paid $8,000 for a tourist snapshot a sucker. Third, you're correct it wouldn't have been downloaded on the micros very often and it is highly likely that it would have been rejected by many of them as "not stock". Finally, Bruce sold iStock for $50 million a few years ago and is now a salary worker at Getty (which is now owned by a hedge fund), so Sean's sales aren't really making Bruce richer.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2008, 00:28 »

Quote from: Freedom on September 05, 2008, 23:25

Either the photogs make money for Bruce or the hedge fund is not the point. The point is there are alternatives.

For those of us that have day jobs and are not professional photographers, what are they?

Freedom · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2008, 00:37 »

Sean goes, "Don't tell them, we don't need competitions!"

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 06, 2008, 00:28

Quote from: Freedom on September 05, 2008, 23:25
Either the photogs make money for Bruce or the hedge fund is not the point. The point is there are alternatives.
For those of us that have day jobs and are not professional photographers, what are they?

sharply_done · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2008, 03:16 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 06, 2008, 00:28

For those of us that have day jobs and are not professional photographers, what are they?

Isn't it obvious?
Personal: weddings, families, senior high school students, babies, ...
Commercial: fashion, accessories, real estate, newspapers, magazines, ...

It's up to you, really. A main difference between the traditional and stock markets is the approach - in stock we shoot speculatively: there is no guaranteed/pre-arranged payment. The traditional world revolves around contacts and contracts: who you know plays the most significant role.

FWIW, I've done the first two things - stock photography is by far the most stress-free and rewarding.

Phil · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2008, 07:12 »

A while back I read an interview with a guy who ran a traditional macro stock agency (from memory nature / or agriculture specialty but not sure). Obvisously one person's opinion but his view was that there were too many stock photogs by about the early 90's

(he made the more interesting point though that it was roughly the same amount being spent on stock photos at the end of the 80's as was being spent early 00's, basically the industry grew only very little)

and finally cheaper prices didn't increase sales, just increased profits for the customer as the customer didn't buy any more images (which could be argued for / against with subs - but I'm not going into it

(as I said one person's view)

Phil

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2008, 07:19 »

I looked at my cumulative RPI on 10 agencies recently.May was my BME
April (0.91)
May (1.11)
June (1.02)
July (0.93)
August (0.78)

Probably the summer slowdown, September seems better so far

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2008, 07:41 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 05, 2008, 22:50

Quote from: stock shooter on September 05, 2008, 22:10
You know your little sarcastic quips all over the different forums are getting old dude. You're not nearly as witty or in insightful as you think, just obnoxious.

how many times would that image (that I provided the link to in my previous post) have been downloaded on the micros? Not many I would think...You’re free to slave away to make Bruce a rich guy but don’t call me a sucker because I know there are other avenues for licensing imagery than iStock.
First I find Sean to be funny the majority of the time. Second, he wasn't calling you a sucker. He was calling the person that paid $8,000 for a tourist snapshot a sucker. Third, you're correct it wouldn't have been downloaded on the micros very often and it is highly likely that it would have been rejected by many of them as "not stock". Finally, Bruce sold iStock for $50 million a few years ago and is now a salary worker at Getty (which is now owned by a hedge fund), so Sean's sales aren't really making Bruce richer.

Exactly. Thanks. You should put tourist snaps like these on RM, because you'll never make any money from them on the micros, and you should hope there's a sucker out there who wants to spend 8 grand on it

.

Sorry "stock shooter", who are you again? A couple of links, please?

DanP68 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 06, 2008, 07:41 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 05, 2008, 22:50

Quote from: stock shooter on September 05, 2008, 22:10
You know your little sarcastic quips all over the different forums are getting old dude. You're not nearly as witty or in insightful as you think, just obnoxious.

how many times would that image (that I provided the link to in my previous post) have been downloaded on the micros? Not many I would think...You’re free to slave away to make Bruce a rich guy but don’t call me a sucker because I know there are other avenues for licensing imagery than iStock.
First I find Sean to be funny the majority of the time. Second, he wasn't calling you a sucker. He was calling the person that paid $8,000 for a tourist snapshot a sucker. Third, you're correct it wouldn't have been downloaded on the micros very often and it is highly likely that it would have been rejected by many of them as "not stock". Finally, Bruce sold iStock for $50 million a few years ago and is now a salary worker at Getty (which is now owned by a hedge fund), so Sean's sales aren't really making Bruce richer.

Who are you, and why are you speaking for Sean? And who are you to call a buyer a "sucker?" Or to make the call on what is, and what is not, stock? I'm looking at your iStock portfolio right now. You've been there a few years and I don't see a whole lot of downloads. It just amazes me when someone with industry knowledge posts something cogent, and is immediately followed up by a rebuttal from someone who really hasn't done much of anything in stock.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** September 06, 2008, 11:17 »

Relax, Dan!

yingyang0 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 06, 2008, 14:22 »

Quote from: DanP68 on September 06, 2008, 07:41

Who are you, and why are you speaking for Sean? And who are you to call a buyer a "sucker?" Or to make the call on what is, and what is not, stock? I'm looking at your iStock portfolio right now. You've been there a few years and I don't see a whole lot of downloads. It just amazes me when someone with industry knowledge posts something cogent, and is immediately followed up by a rebuttal from someone who really hasn't done much of anything in stock.

Thanks for you thoughts Dan. Unfortunately I've never claimed to by a photographer, I just don't have the time. I uploaded to iStock for research purposes for my day job. It is the same reason I monitor the forums, I get to bill for reading the posts here.

Now to respond. I wasn't speaking for Sean, I was correcting stock shooter's misinterpretation of what Sean said. I also didn't call the buyer a sucker, you should go back and read what was actually posted before going off on people you don't know. As for who I am, I've been around the stock photography business since the early 80's and have represented some of the biggest names in the industry. What amazes me is when someone that is new to the industry makes judgments of a person based on a link to one website, and then interjects with personal attacks. Please take Sean's advice and relax.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #18 on:** September 06, 2008, 21:06 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 06, 2008, 14:22

It is the same reason I monitor the forums, I get to bill for reading the posts here.

Wow, what kind of job is that? Are they hiring?

yingyang0 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 06, 2008, 22:49 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 06, 2008, 21:06

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 06, 2008, 14:22
It is the same reason I monitor the forums, I get to bill for reading the posts here.
Wow, what kind of job is that? Are they hiring?

IP attorney, though I've been switching over to more patents in the past year or so. It's not a 1 for 1 billing (I'd be retired by now), but it is important for my client to keep up with the constantly changing micros.

DanP68 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 06, 2008, 22:52 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 06, 2008, 14:22

As for who I am, I've been around the stock photography business since the early 80's and have represented some of the biggest names in the industry.

If Stockshooter had written the above statement, there would have been an immediate follow up for him to "prove it" with links. There has been at least one other useful contributor run off the boards in the last month with his credibility questioned from Post #1. And it seems to be the same people arguing with these contributors and coming to each other's defense time and again.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #21 on:** September 07, 2008, 06:54 »

yingyang0 has been making sensible posts here and on iStock for quite a while. He isn't coming out of nowhere with grandiose claims.

grp_photo · « **Reply #22 on:** September 07, 2008, 07:39 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 07, 2008, 06:54

yingyang0 has been making sensible posts here and on iStock for quite a while. He isn't coming out of nowhere with grandiose claims.

That is just your opinion.

leaf · « **Reply #23 on:** September 07, 2008, 08:14 »

Quote from: grp_photo on September 07, 2008, 07:39

Quote from: sjlocke on September 07, 2008, 06:54
yingyang0 has been making sensible posts here and on iStock for quite a while. He isn't coming out of nowhere with grandiose claims.
That is just your opinion.

well he has been here for 2 years. He isn't exactly some stranger who dropped from the sky saying he knows all the answers.... but this topic isn't about yingyang.. it is about the gradual slowdown in microstock

if the thread keeps on it's derailed course it will be locked

DanP68 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 07, 2008, 10:44 »

Unfortunately it is difficult to discuss the gradual slowdown in microstock when reasonable responses are countered with challenges to contributors to "prove who they are," as if that somehow will validate the response.

I became a paid member of this group because I believed in the pursuit of knowledge here. Since doing so, the level of discussion has been on a downward slope and bizarre cliques have been forming. If I wanted to go back to high school, I might enjoy what is happening here. As an adult with a side business, I find it annoying and distracting.

I've gotten all that I can out of this forum. I'm more interested in learning what I need to do to improve my work, and also where to direct my efforts in the future. It may or may not be microstock. Regardless, I cannot hear over the noise in this room. I'll need to discuss these topics elsewhere from now on. Good luck to everyone.

grp_photo · « **Reply #25 on:** September 07, 2008, 12:14 »

Quote from: leaf on September 07, 2008, 08:14

Quote from: grp_photo on September 07, 2008, 07:39
Quote from: sjlocke on September 07, 2008, 06:54
yingyang0 has been making sensible posts here and on iStock for quite a while. He isn't coming out of nowhere with grandiose claims.
That is just your opinion.

well he has been here for 2 years. He isn't exactly some stranger who dropped from the sky saying he knows all the answers.... but this topic isn't about yingyang.. it is about the gradual slowdown in microstock

if the thread keeps on it's derailed course it will be locked

As you quoted me the thread derailed as someone out of the blue and without any reason called another person "sucker" (it doesn't matter to me which person was meant) and another person found this "funny".
And i don't find posts like that "sensible".

leaf · « **Reply #26 on:** September 07, 2008, 14:02 »

no, well you are right.

Anyhow, we are not really discussing much useful in this thread anymore so...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Gradual Slowdown? (Read 11677 times)

Leo Blanchette

Perry

Leo Blanchette

stock shooter

Sean Locke Photography

DanP68

stock shooter

yingyang0

Freedom

yingyang0

Freedom

sharply_done

Phil

MicrostockExp

Sean Locke Photography

DanP68

Sean Locke Photography

yingyang0

PaulieWalnuts

yingyang0

DanP68

Sean Locke Photography

grp_photo

leaf

DanP68

grp_photo

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors