MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Harrington angrily predicts end of microstock  (Read 13445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

helix7

« on: April 29, 2008, 22:50 »
0
According to John Harrington via: http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/04/not-so-luckyoliver-shuttering.html

Quote
I am not convinced that there will always be a robust microstock industry. How many redundant servers can continue to run with a significant staff to take orders and collect $1 here, and $4 there? I expect that iStockphoto will, in some shadow of it's former self, remain. Jupiter will likely collapse under it's own weight - and the fickle demands of shareholders who no longer see this industry as meeting the growth that they want for their own return on investment. Further, the novelty will wear off for many of the amateurs, and the demands for releases and indemnifications of Corporate America by judgement proof individuals, followed by the lawsuits that inevitably will quash this field, will just poison the well.


And:

Quote
To those doing this industry harm, I shall applaud as you fail. If you are contributing images to these organizations, I can say that what goes around comes around, and, to be sure, karma's a bitch.


The claim that microstock will die needs no comment. Thousands of satisfied new customers and hundreds of contributors doing quite well say otherwise. What I found most amusing was his bratty little boy routine at the end, prematurely saying "Nah nah nah-nah nah," as if the closing of LO somehow marks the beginning of the end. The shutdown of LO was inevitable. Calling it the sign of the death of microstock so sadly over optimistic is just makes the guy look pathetic.

How is it that after several years of microstock growth, these guys are still sitting around saying, "Oh, it'll fall apart soon. We just have to keep waiting..."

???



jsnover

« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2008, 23:06 »
0
It seems it's much easier to get worked up into a froth when you don't really know very much about the subject - that being the various microstock sites. I don't doubt that folks involved in the traditional stock business are hurting as the industry changes, but he's directing his venom in entirely the wrong direction.

Microstock isn't a failing business model - Lucky Oliver failed, but I don't think many who contribute seriously to the major microstock sites were all that surprised.

They want microstock to go away, so I'm guessing they'll see any negative events as signs that the end is near. They'll be as right as all those groups that believe the end of the world is at hand every decade or so.

I don't think that Lise Gagne, Yuri, Andres Rodriquez etc. are "amateurs" for whom " the novelty will wear off". It's so much easier to demolish the opposition if it's the ill-informed fiction you dreamed up vs. the reality of microstock (flaws and all) in 2008.

« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2008, 23:31 »
0
the guy is a dolt-tard..will pass him on the highway with his flat tire and he doesn't know how to operate the jack...where's that Mr. T photo (I pitty the fool)????   ;)

bittersweet

« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2008, 00:10 »
0
He does realize that Jupiter is not a microstock site, right?  ???

« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2008, 00:52 »
0
Maybe he's bitter because he couldn't pass the 7/10 Shutterstock application.

« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2008, 01:09 »
0
Maybe he's bitter because he couldn't pass the 7/10 Shutterstock application.

 ;D LOL

grp_photo

« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2008, 01:35 »
0
He obviously doesn't know Microstock very well. Microstock as itself will remain forever. Nevertheless he is right that he sees a not so bright future for most of its contributors. There will be tough times for most contributors in the not so far away future (3-5 years) the "hundreds of contributors doing quite well" will  be a thing of the past.

« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2008, 02:37 »
0
It looks like karma has already got him :)  If it wasn't for microstock, a lot of us would still be doing boring day jobs.  I was rejected by a traditional agency with a 1 line letter and didn't know what images they wanted.  I was accepted to all the micros first try and now I can see what sells and what doesn't.  So how can the micros be a bad thing for me?

I do hope some of the traditional sites survive and I will try and get in to them again.  Most people seem to realize the fact that microstock isn't going away and can have some positives for the industry.  There must be millions of buyers that would never of been able to afford traditional site prices.

« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2008, 02:56 »
0
The mere fact of so many successful (some massively so) macro artists launching and preparing to launch collections inside micro seems to make his comments a bit off target. Lucky Oliver's success or demise can hardly be seen as an industry trend, as it wasn't typical of the industry, didn't invest in any form of marketing and probably paid too higher commissions of too little revenue.

With macro artists entering the microstock arena, I would expect rather than to see the end of micro or macro, there will just be increasing redefinition of the markets. Along with the increase in quality images, there will naturally be a niche for a slightly more select bunch of images. This is where Fotolia's infinite collection  and similar initiatives by other agencies will prove very interesting.



« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2008, 04:23 »
0
Microstock will not die, it will evolve into something better. There are so many customers and so many good images in the industry that sites are beginning to launch mid/macro stock models to sell the best images from contributors at higher prices. It makes sense, sell the normal "Ok" images for $1-20 and sell the really good images for $20-140.
Two sites already have come up with such models, Fotolia Infinite and EVO at 123rf; I know others have it in the works.

What will happen? microstock sites will have the quality, variety and quantity of both photographers and customers to actually become THE best place to buy photos.

« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2008, 06:09 »
0
If anything its macro-stock sites that are far more vulnerable. I suspect that in future their market will become limited far more to niche areas.

They might have had a place in times when there were far more barriers to entry due to the cost of equipment, processing and distribution, but through digital imaging, the market has changed irreversibly.

In my humble opinion, some photographers have a very over-inflated sense of their own talent - in the past they have been protected by agencies that nurture egos and deliberately maintain an air of exclusivity that is often unrelated to true artistic or technical ability. Hopefully to some extent microstock offers an alternative to this with a far more level playing field.

« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2008, 11:26 »
0
I remember when I moved away to the big city.. long distance was about $1 per minute to call home.  I had bills that were hundreds of dollars.

Then the big telecommunications companies heard about this new Internet phone thing coming along and introduced calling packages that seemed like a sweet bargain.

Now - saved by the digital revolution - it's unlimited long distance calls anywhere in North America at $40 per month (which includes the line and 911 service etc.) and 4 cents per minute to Europe.    It's just a fraction of what telephone cost just 10 years ago.

Industries change.  These phone companies aren't going out of business, they are evolving.   But, they cannot rape the customer anymore and survive.

If you are of the macro-state-of-mind you will need to evolve or slowly starve.  Let's see where microstock really is 5 years from now, and where the traditional guys are.

« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2008, 11:34 »
0
I remember when I moved away to the big city.. long distance was about $1 per minute to call home.  I had bills that were hundreds of dollars.

Then the big telecommunications companies heard about this new Internet phone thing coming along and introduced calling packages that seemed like a sweet bargain.

Now - saved by the digital revolution - it's unlimited long distance calls anywhere in North America at $40 per month (which includes the line and 911 service etc.) and 4 cents per minute to Europe.    It's just a fraction of what telephone cost just 10 years ago.

Industries change.  These phone companies aren't going out of business, they are evolving.   But, they cannot rape the customer anymore and survive.

If you are of the macro-state-of-mind you will need to evolve or slowly starve.  Let's see where microstock really is 5 years from now, and where the traditional guys are.

Don't forget Vonage, Broadvox and internet options like Skype!  And still the phone companies survive.  lol

« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2008, 12:08 »
0
I found the article funny because elsewhere on his site he shows a graph of Getty's predictions of the future and it clearly shows how wrong he is. Here is the graph:

helix7

« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2008, 12:39 »
0

Even funnier is that he's used that graph to support his wild idea that istock will eventually encompass everything Getty. Meaning Getty will no longer exist, all of Getty's assets will become istock (istock photo, istockvideo, istockaudio, etc) and then of course microstock will collapse, so Getty and istock will no longer exist.

Right. Sure. Of course.

(Now everyone slowly step away from the lunatic... )



« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2008, 14:51 »
0
Can someone explain why the business are going down for us from now on? Why would it.  Is that because subsription has drained the libraries or? Im new at this, and was hoping for something. And now everybody is preparing to throw in the towel...

We decide what happens in this business dont we?  We could basically tell the agencies or price. Without us their catcrap.

Theres always use for images, so I dont see whats going on.

« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2008, 15:11 »
0
Microstock will not die, it will evolve into something better. T
Amen


« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2008, 15:26 »
0
Microstock will live while photography lives. Servers will not crash, because they evolve even faster than photography. And buyers will always need new, fresh photos for their needs. The most logic explanation is often the right one.

« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2008, 17:39 »
0
Maybe he's bitter because he couldn't pass the 7/10 Shutterstock application.

If he were "bitter", he'd be sitting in his office laughing his hind end off at such a thing... *snerk*

« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2008, 05:55 »
0
Microstock will not die, it will evolve into something better. There are so many customers and so many good images in the industry that sites are beginning to launch mid/macro stock models to sell the best images from contributors at higher prices. It makes sense, sell the normal "Ok" images for $1-20 and sell the really good images for $20-140.
Two sites already have come up with such models, Fotolia Infinite and EVO at 123rf; I know others have it in the works.

What will happen? microstock sites will have the quality, variety and quantity of both photographers and customers to actually become THE best place to buy photos.


just another one having a bitch and complaining.  Of course the top 500 or so people in microstock will all of sudden find it boring and pull their images off every site.

But I think it will become as hard to get into microstock as traditional stock is.  I've had the rejections early on. While now I see why I was rejected, saying sorry we dont take images taken with your brand / model of camera is garbage,  Deliberately providing misinformation by some people, and being so elitist even when half you library is full of very average photos doesn't help your industry.

Every agency would say its not our job to provide advice or assistance to those aspiring people, but because then noone does those people go elsewhere or feel that maybe there images are only worth $1. 

Personally I see the traditional dying, I think we will see micro and midstock. the smarter traditional agencies getty, jupiter, corbis, inmagine see it too and have lowered traditional prices, and got involved in micro.  Alamy now has 'novel' use, essentially midstock which will start to come into effect soon.

camera relaed production costs are now too cheap and decent photography is too easy (decent, I didnt say brilliant) and there has been too many stock photographers for 10-20 years for the premiums being charged.  The only way i see macro's dying is because the entire stock industry has died. 

Phil 







« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2008, 07:19 »
0
John Harrington is a fool for thinking micro will go away.  Change...Yes!...go away "No way".


RT


« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2008, 08:15 »
0
There's loads of losers like this guy, why bother reading the hype he writes.

It's a fundamental certainty in life that people who are threatened by the competition will do everything they can to belittle it.

helix7

« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2008, 09:40 »
0
...It's a fundamental certainty in life that people who are threatened by the competition will do everything they can to belittle it.

All while watching the new business model pass them by, then kicking themselves 10 years from now for not getting on board.

Microstock is here to stay, and it really is one of those go-with-the-flow-or-get-out-of-the-way sort of scenarios.

Personally I don't see the value in complaining about it. If next year some other stock business model comes along that digs into microstock, I'll adapt and expand into that market. I could whine about it right here in this very forum, or I could evolve my business and make it work.

It is a fool who believes that any business will remain the same forever. Things will change, and you can cry about it or go with the flow.

Here's my macrostock prediction: Guys like Harrington are out of business in 4 years or less unless they adapt to the changing market.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 09:42 by helix7 »

hd

« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2008, 10:17 »
0
Has anyone seen the Digital Photo Pro article this month about stock photography? (I couldn't find it on the web...sorry)

Not a single mention of iS, SS, DT or any other micro site. It was a very interesting article in some ways, but I was still surprised to see micros completely ignored in the equation. There certainly seems to be some level of industry-wide contempt for these sites and those of us who have submitted to them.

It makes me wish those who have been very successful on both traditional stock sites and the micros (Ron Chapple comes to mind), would be asked how they see things evolving. I think their opinion probably has more merit than folks like Harrington.

« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2008, 12:01 »
0
...
There certainly seems to be some level of industry-wide contempt for these sites and those of us who have submitted to them.
...
Yep, there is.

I recently received a somewhat terse email from a non-micro site with a 'heavy recommendation we hope you'll heed' to remove my images from iStock. While they didn't come out and directly say it was their policy to exclude micro contributors at their agency, they appear to be holding my uploaded images in limbo until I decide which side of the fence I want to be on.

Whatever ...
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 12:03 by sharply_done »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
6751 Views
Last post December 21, 2007, 12:45
by sharply_done
4 Replies
6352 Views
Last post July 23, 2007, 19:11
by Suljo
0 Replies
2866 Views
Last post January 19, 2008, 10:34
by rosta
30 Replies
12683 Views
Last post June 09, 2013, 17:19
by cascoly
6 Replies
8079 Views
Last post January 17, 2009, 15:14
by Peter

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors