Xanox, writing books almost always starts as a hobby, but there are other forms of writing that you can make money from. Same with photography. And when you talk of stock photographers being "creatives", we're about as creative as an advertising copy-writer or political speech writer. One or two may stand out as having real creativity and flair, most are just workmanlike.  That's the problem, the bulk of stock photography is easily copied and sometimes better than the original. Even the very best microstockers are just exceptionally good and hardworking technicians, they are not great creative artists, we don't have any Leonardo da Vincis,  or Jane Austens among our ranks or, as Tror rightly points out, if there are then they aren't using their creativity in this field.

Let's remember that neither stock nor microstock were created with the intention of creating full-time jobs for photographers. Stock started as a way for photographers to make a bit of extra cash from stuff they happened to have left over from jobs. Microstock began as a swap-shop for designers. Maybe they are drifting back to their roots.

This has been coming on for a few years now. I think I've had it with stock altogether. The relationships with these agencies is abysmal. In the last 2 years I have had my commissions cut by iStock twice, and now with the new pricing program I barely make 50 cents per download. Bigstock turned most of my on demand sales into very low paying subs, and 123RF made a similar move. Fotolia made so many anti-contributor moves that I removed my portfolio 18 months ago and haven't considered ever doing business with them again.

Who's next? SS? DT? Should I even care?

On one hand I could keep my ports up and let the money continue to flow in at a reduced rate every month as commissions keep getting slashed. But I'm pretty much getting raped every month. I don't see the agencies I supply images to working hard enough on my behalf to justify keeping 70%, 80% or more of the profit.

Sure this is just a rant, but I'm pretty serious about it. My heart isn't in it. I feel like I'm getting swindled. I certainly can't say I enjoy "shooting stock." So maybe it is time to just be done with it and let somebody else take the abuse.

A lot of people told me a few years ago, "Just walk away from it for a while." Well I did. From January until April of this year, I barely ever checked my sales. Stopped shooting stock altogether. Only made a few posts here. Then I came back after spring and made one last go of it, and I realize now that I simply detest most of these agencies and don't find anything about stock to be interesting or enjoyable. And the commission cuts just keep coming, and coming.

Thoughts? Anyone feel the same?

Quote from: palagarde on July 17, 2013, 15:18

1 stop submitting images to crap and low commission microstocks
2 upload our new images only on fair commission microstock, 50% minimum (pond5, GL,...) and to your own website stock images.
3 talk to everyone what you are doing, customers have to know where new images are going.
4 delete portfolio on crap microstocks, stay with some good earner for a while but don't upload new content.
5 yes you are losing a few money, wait few months, when customers will understand than new images are on other microstock.

Very easy to change the done, we have only to do the same thing, together. We just have to choice the best fair microstocks.

I second that. It will take time. Especially since many contributors are financially tied. But I am sure the current situation and self-respect will drive the mass towards 1-5

This thread, and others of a similar subject before it, has gotten to an interesting place.  BTW, there is nothing new here.  Those in the trenches for a long time understand the implications of crowd sourcing.  To the point, in looking at the sidebar to my immediate right in this column SS ranks way higher than all the rest by a considerable %.  Can it really be true that some of you derive 76.5% of your earning from them?  That is bazaar, BUT, I'm not here to say how brilliant and knowledgeable I am, rather, to share.  For whatever reason, I make considerably more from that company in London and also from DT.  AND, I'm so disgusted by who's on top, it's my latest plan to leave them.  Of course, I may not shoot what you all do.  My work tends to be still-life and some people stuff, but usually conceptual and requiring a headline...not lifestyle or "simply" pretty pictures...so I know there's a lesser need for my work.  Frankly, I'd be better served had I stayed a RM photographer with one good agent rather then falling into the trap of MS.  But that's just me and my work.

Quote from: kentannenbaum on July 16, 2013, 17:31

I too have tumbled down from a fairly lofty perch.  I was in advertising in NYC for a long time...4000sqft studio...and all that it entailed including fat assignments.  I segued to stock a very long time ago when it produced results.  Now, lucky for me, my wife still works, I'm semi retired and all my earning from stock are icing... but not much.  I have a collection of pics that keep selling and remain fairly industrious because I like to be, but starting over...from where we are now?  Not on your life...certainly not on mine.  The power brokers,  such as the esteemed newly minted billionaire of Silicon Alley in NY are vultures, not good people as my grandma used to say. Yes, they deserve credit for good ideas...but c'mon, pigs are pigs by any standard.  I left a few of these awful places and will another fairly soon.  Been a little lazy about it for obvious reasons to me...the dribs and drabs are MY dribs and drabs.  They do accumulate but in reality it's not oo funny a joke.  The thing is that talent and cameras are everywhere so the many think they'll make a living from this.  It won't happen for the vast majority but don;t try to convince anyone, it's not worth your time.  Worse is true of the art community.  I see huge man-hours spent there too...much more than in stock and it produces the same result: if you enjoy the process, great.  But don't for a split second think you'll be paying your bills with the proceeds.  If you have another thing that tickles you AND you have responsibilities like family, you're better off leaving this nonsense being.   As I said, I'm mostly retired so it's no doubt easier for me to say.  Just steer clear of the vultures if possible.  They don't give a hoot.

I, too, have 'tumbled down from a fairly lofty perch'.  I was fortunate to be in the midst of the RM 'boom' back in the 80's and early 90's and made enough to make a big dent in my mortgage and my daughter's college tuition. 
And, like you, I am semi-retired with a wife that is still working.  Which puts me in the comfortable postition of being able to be very picky with whom I work.  I've left a few agencies who treated their contributors like dirt and will be leaving another one soon.  I also have the luxury of working with a new startup knowing that sales are a ways off yet feeling like I belong there.....good for the blood pressure, too.
Very difficult to make a living in this business any longer but some do and my hat's off to them.  I see more and more pros who I came to know during the 'good old days' that are turning away from stock and finding other avenues within the profession to put food on the table; leading workshops being one of the more popular ones now.  Diversification is critical with stock being a (now) small part of a successful business plan, for most.
I feel for those who have no choice but to put up with the 'vultures'; just glad I'm not one of them.

It is a percentage.  It's a percentage of $500.  Exclusives make on average 342% of $500 or $1710.  Contributors to Shutterstock and Istock make 108% of $500 or $540 per month.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 18, 2013, 00:43

Quote from: tickstock on July 17, 2013, 18:26

It is a percentage.  It's a percentage of $500.  Exclusives make on average 342% of $500 or $1710.  Contributors to Shutterstock and Istock make 108% of $500 or $540 per month.

That's not what Leaf said at all, I don't know where you get that from. It's measured against some time when SS was 100. Since the survey does not deal in actual earnings, only in earnings bands, it can't even pretend to give an accurate cash figure, or even an accurate comparison of cash, come to that. It's really little more than a ranking system but it does give some idea of the direction things are going in.

Nope.  This is what Leaf said:  "Yeah, the magical number is 500 for whatever that's worth... so the average photographer on MSG is saying he is making just under $500 on SS"
http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore
What you are referring to is how it used to be before it was changed to a constant number of $500.
"previously I had it set that whatever was at the top of the poll would set the standard at 100 and the rest of the results would be something relative to that." and "Now I've set the top value at an arbitrary constant amount so that Shutterstock isn't at 100."

It is a real number of earnings based on what the average contributor says they make, whether or not the amount of answers is sufficient or how truthful the respondents are is a separate issue.  The numbers are the percentage of the constant of $500, the number was chosen arbitrarily but it's a real dollar value.