...still trying to figure this stuff out

I think you've figured it out pretty well. Microstock is difficult - and at times it doesn't make sense - but in the end those who persevere can make it. Not so bad.

Regarding new contributors, even when I started 3 years ago the large majority of newbies resigned after a few rejections - now it's even worse because acceptance criteria are stricter. I think the number of new wannabe contributors is growing but the % of success is falling. The only data available to me is what I see from my affiliates: lots of new subscribers to SS but no one actually passing the test.

It must be said that there's a lot of spam on the internet: many see this business as a get rich scheme or as a passive income. While it's partially true - the passive income, not the get rich part - it's a pretty active form of passive income (requires contant portfolio maintenance).

It would be nice to hear from new contributors directly, but I am afraid there aren't many here.

At OP: I hear ya! I've been a designer for many years and my ego is taking a hit with what I "thought" I knew. I also started about 3 months ago and still on a steep learning curve. I am enjoying the change of scenery though and plan on sticking with it.

  I can relate to your feeling that, after a successful career working with images, coming to the microstock world  and being shot down is very difficult to deal with. I've been doing this about 2 years, although I've been a studio still life photographer in NYC for about 30 years. When I first submitted to istock, i was shocked at the rejections. What I have to come to learn is that the technical requirements for microstock are much higher than in the regular macrostock, and advertising/design world. You will find that the average photographer in microstock has a pretty impressive command of the craft. The "look" of microstock is quite different as well. I think a contributor at this forum, FD-regular, put it the best: "In microstock, it's not about light and shadow, it's about light and light". ( or words to that effect.) The point that I take from this quote is that moody, rich images have a very hard time getting approved, and just as hard a time selling.
What got me started was seeing Yuri Arcurs and Andres Rodriguez at the PDN photo show talking about how much money they were making. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to have a lightbulb go off over his head at that seminar. I think there are always new people coming in to this business, just as others get burned out or get tired of the rejections. If I were to guess, I would think that the high end "professional model and prop" category will be squeezed much more than the "shoot every hamburger I ever ate" model in the future, because increased selectivity and rising costs of production will mean out of pocket expenses will take much longer to cover. The next year at the same photo show, Yuri and Andres were very cranky about the competition, and reduced return per image. This year i don't see the seminar on the schedule(!).
   My point of view on this business is this: There is a pretty substantial correlation between the effort you put into this and the return you get. Given the extremely uncertain future of the other business models in this industry, this seems like a good bet to grow,and I can't say that for the work I've been doing for the past 30 years. And here's the really good part: no art directors come to the shoot! ( sorry I couldn't resist )
 So anyway, yes, you can do this. If you survived as a Creative Director for all those years, you must have an eye for design and lighting. With the instant feedback from digital imaging, you can learn to make a proper image. The next level up for microstock will be to raise the bar of ideas and concept, as well as execution. Just keep the cost per image as low as possible, and you can make money at this. That 25 cents will come in from all over the globe, day and night. It's instant gratification ( at least compared to advertising).

I've been wondering if the new contributors have been fleeing the flock simply because of the dead sales lately and the increased rejections. The bar is rising higher and higher and I really think with the rejections and the next to nothing payouts, they are walking away. I think that may have been why iStock as well as Dreamstime increased the upload limit because of the shortage of new images.

Really great post Jbarber.  I agree with everything you said.  I found this particularly interesting:

 What got me started was seeing Yuri Arcurs and Andres Rodriguez at the PDN photo show talking about how much money they were making. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to have a lightbulb go off over his head at that seminar.
<snip>
 The next year at the same photo show, Yuri and Andres were very cranky about the competition, and reduced return per image. This year i don't see the seminar on the schedule(!).
   

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

...still trying to figure this stuff out

I think you've figured it out pretty well. Microstock is difficult - and at times it doesn't make sense - but in the end those who persevere can make it. Not so bad.

Regarding new contributors, even when I started 3 years ago the large majority of newbies resigned after a few rejections - now it's even worse because acceptance criteria are stricter. I think the number of new wannabe contributors is growing but the % of success is falling. The only data available to me is what I see from my affiliates: lots of new subscribers to SS but no one actually passing the test.

It must be said that there's a lot of spam on the internet: many see this business as a get rich scheme or as a passive income. While it's partially true - the passive income, not the get rich part - it's a pretty active form of passive income (requires contant portfolio maintenance).

It would be nice to hear from new contributors directly, but I am afraid there aren't many here.

excellent sum up of the situation but all these rejections and gave-ups are a good thing.

strict QC ? don't make me laugh.
certainly stricter than other agencies but see how many of the people complaining is actually
uploading crap taken with their iPhones from their balconies...

and by the way, the strict QC is there because Getty decided to squeeze the most they can
from microstockers, raising the bar high and paying crap because they know microstockers
have no other options and will agree selling their photos even for 0.1$/download, correct
me if i'm wrong.

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

One has to invest in a quality camera, lenses, strobes, soft boxes, props, lights, stands, quality laptop (if tethered), and Photoshop. Then you need to learn all the techniques for using your camera and software. And then you need to upload alot and that means spending alot of time shooting, editing, retouching, keywording, submitting... and then you marvel at the 25 cents you earned today. THAT IS if your stuff gets past the inspectors. ARRGG!

I think Rob Sylvan is very honest in his new book that things like this are true.

you don't need "photo gurus" , i was saying the same crap years ago in this forum but all i've got was getting banned
or ignored.

as i see it, the only issue is the meager payout.
rejections and bars raising higher come later, if ever, as if you're a serious photographer you should know what it takes
to pass QC.

the 25 cents factor is VERY important by opposite : microstock can only exist as long as you can seriously sell
photos many times, but nowadays this is not gonna happen for many new contributors so the very reason to
sell on micros CEASES to exist unless proven otherwise.

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on September 05, 2010, 15:10

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

...still trying to figure this stuff out

I think you've figured it out pretty well. Microstock is difficult - and at times it doesn't make sense - but in the end those who persevere can make it. Not so bad.

Regarding new contributors, even when I started 3 years ago the large majority of newbies resigned after a few rejections - now it's even worse because acceptance criteria are stricter. I think the number of new wannabe contributors is growing but the % of success is falling. The only data available to me is what I see from my affiliates: lots of new subscribers to SS but no one actually passing the test.

It must be said that there's a lot of spam on the internet: many see this business as a get rich scheme or as a passive income. While it's partially true - the passive income, not the get rich part - it's a pretty active form of passive income (requires contant portfolio maintenance).

It would be nice to hear from new contributors directly, but I am afraid there aren't many here.

excellent sum up of the situation but all these rejections and gave-ups are a good thing.

strict QC ? don't make me laugh.
certainly stricter than other agencies but see how many of the people complaining is actually
uploading crap taken with their iPhones from their balconies...

and by the way, the strict QC is there because Getty decided to squeeze the most they can
from microstockers, raising the bar high and paying crap because they know microstockers
have no other options and will agree selling their photos even for 0.1$/download, correct
me if i'm wrong.

2 thoughts about this:

1- Photography is about getting someone to look, and getting a message across. If there are people who can do that with an iphone, good for them. I can't, so my edge is an insane attention to detail and trying to make everything as perfect as possible. I am always open to a great idea, but my feeling is that an artist should first be a master of the craft.

2- With the numbers of images sold at any microstock site, there are always going to be those clients who complain, and for many people without any artistic ability, the easiest thing to complain about is some sort of measurable technical failing. The best place to minimize the complaints is to stop it at the source- that is- the original image. I think many images that would have made it in 3 years ago would be rejected now. The biggest problem for a microstock site is how to keep the entire transaction- from intake of image to sale of image- as free of human interface as possible. Humans responding to complaints costs money and computers are ( essentially) free. If you only take images that will cause the least friction, the whole process gets closer to the ideal- no humans- just bits going out and money coming in. This cuts out a lot of good images, but in the long run, it's the way to make the most money. (if you are a microstock website).

3- The original idea of microstock- people who love photography and just want the thrill of selling a few images- is gone. It's over. Now it's a very big and growing business, and the suits are running it.

well, hobbyists can still play with Flickr and DeviantArt, and eventually make the odd sale or print, who said
there's only microstock ...

and by the way, you can still monetize somehow your "kittie" images, just make a personal photo blog
and if you're good at promoting it there's some money to be made with advertising, certainly more than 0.25$ per
download and no need to upload full size images too, a 640px will suffice.

"Master the challenges and stay alive or die trying."

Well put!

That says it all.

Must say,  I dont find it all that differant from the Trad-photolibrary or Macro business philosophy,  you still have to produce great stuff and find some sort of a niche in order to stay on top and once there you will sooner or later hit "the wall"  no matter how much you upload or produce, exactly the same as with the Trads.

if you read my earlier posts in this forum i already predicted this a long time ago.

it wasn't possible for microstock to be so easy to join and make money, only a matter
of time before reaching implosion and saturation.

as i see it now, it must be very very hard to rank for specific keywords.

I see the industry adjust in the future due to the avalanche of ULed images with minimal commercial value. From my "art buyer" chair, it is a 20 page search in many cases to find the good stuff. I think SS is already doing  that more than IS. I sense the goal for the major microstock sites is less images of weak subject matter and poor execution equating to better relevant keyword searches. Ultimately, it is about ART.    The business model to accept their deluge of non-selling images will just bog down the system -- if it hasn't already. Getty isn't a fool. I suspect they are filling the corrals before they thin the herd. OX...future gazer

So how would you define "good stuff" and also stuff with minimal commercial value? What's the difference?

And do you feel the majority of buyers using micro feel the same way as you?

I see the industry adjust in the future due to the avalanche of ULed images with minimal commercial value. From my "art buyer" chair, it is a 20 page search in many cases to find the good stuff. I think SS is already doing  that more than IS. I sense the goal for the major microstock sites is less images of weak subject matter and poor execution equating to better relevant keyword searches. Ultimately, it is about ART. 

The business model to accept their deluge of non-selling images will just bog down the system -- if it hasn't already. Getty isn't a fool. I suspect they are filling the corrals before they thin the herd.

WOW did I call this right. I posted this the other day and IS did just what I suspected.