Author Topic: iofoto interview on John Lund (Read 27533 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **on:** December 06, 2010, 11:53 »

Interesting read that Ron has pretty much stopped submitting micro...
http://blog.johnlund.com/2010/12/photographer-ron-chapple-interview.html

lisafx · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2010, 12:27 »

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.

Here are a couple of statements I found particularly notable, especially since the long term sustainability of the image-factory model has been debated so often here:

All of our cost reduction measures were to no avail- revenues continue to drop, and microstock is no longer profitable for our business.

and:

With Change being our studio mantra and discovering that microstock was not sustainable in the long term, we looked for new opportunities.

grp_photo · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2010, 12:35 »

Wonderful interview! Thanks for posting!

grp_photo · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2010, 12:39 »

And my favourite quote:
"1. Do not rely on stock as your sole revenue source."

Well some people here rely even on one agency

Maui · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:09 »

Quote

The most creative photographer will always lose out to the better business person.

grp_photo · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:17 »

Quote from: Maui on December 06, 2010, 13:09

Quote
The most creative photographer will always lose out to the better business person.

Yes I liked this one also very much - hard but true. I'm still not a good business person but not that lousy anymore than 10years ago - I learned it the hard way

ichiro17 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:20 »

Ron's business model is about producing really expensive images. It makes complete sense that he wouldn't be able to put it into microstock and that he's looking for better returns elsewhere. Its how he does his business. If I had the resources/know-how, I'd love to do what Ron does - its awesome

pancaketom · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:25 »

lots of interesting info in there even if he is really on the other end of the stock spectrum from me.

It is clever to get into a field with a $600,000 barrier to entry, that should keep competition out for a few years (until radio control airplanes can get the same footage for a few grand).

I wonder if if his speculation about the percentages to photographers will come about and how that upheaval would effect the industry. It sure would be nice to see some pressure in the photographers favor for a change.

gostwyck · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:26 »

Thanks for posting this Sean.

That's the most informative, business-like and unemotional assessment of the stock business I've ever read __ by a very long way. Lot's of food for thought.

Interesting in particular that Ron has largely given up on producing stock still images as not being 'sustainable'. That word again.

grp_photo · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:32 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2010, 13:26

'sustainable'. That word again.

lol

molka · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:39 »

another whining 'trad', huh?

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2010, 13:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2010, 13:26

Interesting in particular that Ron has largely given up on producing stock still images as not being 'sustainable'. That word again.

Good word, even if it has gotten a bad rep lately

I have wondered for a long time how the image factories could manage their overhead at micro prices. Looks like, at least in this case, they can't. If someone with Ron's skill and business expertise has found microstock unsustainable, what does that mean? Is it unsustainable for all of us, or just the folks with high production costs and overhead?

Seems like, based on this interview, getting into more assignment work is the smart way to go, for long-term security.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2010, 14:08 »

Thanks for posting this Sean - very interesting read.

My pick for the quote to note is this one "My only conjecture is that once a search engine gets involved in licensing images, many of the current distributor channels will be challenged to offer a compelling reason for customers to visit their web site."

I can understand Ron's issues with being unable to make the numbers work with higher cost shoots, but even for those of us with very low costs would experience a little speed bump if there's a huge shift in who's the big dog in the microstock end of the market. I guess we all need to keep our eyes on new entrants - Google being the big dog in the search engine business - to see when it's time to jump.

Fortunately (I say with reluctance) there's no issues of loyalty to many of the existing micros given how poorly they've been treating contributors in cutting the portion of the income we receive. Being treated like a disposable Kleenex is pretty dispiriting, but it does simplify decisions if and when something new arises

nruboc · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2010, 14:11 »

Great read, thanks

helix7 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2010, 14:43 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2010, 13:46

...If someone with Ron's skill and business expertise has found microstock unsustainable, what does that mean? Is it unsustainable for all of us, or just the folks with high production costs and overhead...

What Ron has said, alongside hints from some of the other high-overhead shooters like Yuri, seems to suggest that microstock is indeed an unsustainable venture. Not sure Yuri has any plans to get out of the business or reduce his involvement, but he has suggested that he plans to reinvent himself as a photographer. Where microstock fits into that, if at all, is not yet known to anyone but him.

One thing is for sure. Today it's harder to make a living in this business than it was a year ago, and a year from now it will be even harder. I think we'll always have a few folks around who can live very well off a microstock-only income, but for most people microstock will need to become an increasingly smaller part of our overall business strategies.

My favorite part of the interview with Ron was his comments on ending up doing things he didn't ever expect to do. Not that video is that much of a stretch from photography, but the fact that he's embraced change as it comes and is now doing something as wild as helicopter-based ariel video is pretty awesome. Ron could have very well been another one of the dinosaurs who frequently lament the good old days of stock photography and refuse to shift their business as the industry changes. Instead, he embraced the change and is doing very well for himself because of that. Maybe microstock didn't work out for him, but by constantly moving and looking ahead, he found something better.

cthoman · « **Reply #15 on:** December 06, 2010, 14:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2010, 13:46

If someone with Ron's skill and business expertise has found microstock unsustainable, what does that mean? Is it unsustainable for all of us, or just the folks with high production costs and overhead?

It sounded like part of his problem was high operating costs, but the other part was diminishing sales numbers due to competition. I think that part affects everyone. Our number of sales have steadily decreased, but price increases haven't necessarily kept pace. I thought it was interesting he mentioned setting your own prices and direct sales. Controlling more aspects of our business would be nice. As opposed to leaving it up to an agency that doesn't necessarily have our best interest in mind.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #16 on:** December 06, 2010, 14:51 »

Hi All,

John Lund is one of the great creators of the past two decades of conceptual work that is funny and sells really well. The nicest guy you will meet and so humble considering his immense talent and standing in the industry. I would suggest following his blog to anyone in stock. He was a big influence on my career.

Best,
Jonathan

gostwyck · « **Reply #17 on:** December 06, 2010, 15:06 »

Quote from: cthoman on December 06, 2010, 14:50

It sounded like part of his problem was high operating costs ...

I remember Sean once quoting Ron as having spent $600K on his initial 15K images for microstock. He's probably just about recovered his expenditure by now but it has taken all of 3 years and that's a long payback for microstock images. Microstock is simply not stable or predictable enough to justify a 3 year payback for virtually any image let alone for an extensive portfolio.

Sure, you can hire professional models, MUA, wardrobe, assistants, etc and fly them all off to exotic locations but the results aren't necessarily going to outsell those of someone using a couple of photogenic friends at a local beauty spot __ and there's always going to be plenty of those contributors to compete against.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 06, 2010, 19:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2010, 15:06

Quote from: cthoman on December 06, 2010, 14:50
It sounded like part of his problem was high operating costs ...

I remember Sean once quoting Ron as having spent $600K on his initial 15K images for microstock. He's probably just about recovered his expenditure by now but it has taken all of 3 years and that's a long payback for microstock images. Microstock is simply not stable or predictable enough to justify a 3 year payback for virtually any image let alone for an extensive portfolio.

Sure, you can hire professional models, MUA, wardrobe, assistants, etc and fly them all off to exotic locations but the results aren't necessarily going to outsell those of someone using a couple of photogenic friends at a local beauty spot __ and there's always going to be plenty of those contributors to compete against.

That's It! When Yuri Arcurs and Andres Rodriguez spoke 3 years ago at the PDN photo show, one point I remember ( although I can't remember whom to credit), is that when you shoot locations, you're competing against someone who lives there, and went out on the morning of the most beautiful sunrise in 10 years and took a picture. Throw in a couple of local real but great looking people and you are toast.
If there is one thing I would be wary of for his new venture is making sure he pays off that camera before I can buy one at BestBuy for $600.

Smiling Jack · « **Reply #19 on:** December 06, 2010, 22:14 »

Thanks for the post
this is one of the most informative and business-like assessments I have seen in a long time. His statement that"change is the only thing that remains constant" is so true. I have been in the aerial photo and Mapping business off and on for many years and I know it sure has changed. I can now do with my digital camera and my home computer what use to take a room full of large plotters and a 50lb 9"X9" aerial camera.
While Ron's approach is to go the expensive high tec. end of the business,mine is to be at the low tec end of a high tec. business. I think the term is KISS (keep it simple stupid).Not that Ron is stupid- we are just not playing in the same court.
Also microstock for me was always a fill in for my main aerial photo business.I don't think there is enough demand for aerial photos in microstock to make it a full time business.
Smiling Jack

RacePhoto · « **Reply #20 on:** December 06, 2010, 23:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2010, 12:27

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.

Here are a couple of statements I found particularly notable, especially since the long term sustainability of the image-factory model has been debated so often here:

All of our cost reduction measures were to no avail- revenues continue to drop, and microstock is no longer profitable for our business.

and:

With Change being our studio mantra and discovering that microstock was not sustainable in the long term, we looked for new opportunities.

And if I may add my favorite business viewpoint "When we started, most micro sites only had 1,000,000 images. Now those same sites have over ten million images! The statistical chance of making a sale has decreased by 90%." Competition and dilution, small wonder that sales are down for individuals. Not only that, the new images are better than the old ones in many cases as competition gets newer equipment and more sophisticated. Here's the true unsustainable.

donding · « **Reply #21 on:** December 06, 2010, 23:58 »

Thanks Sean...that's a very interesting interview

I think what it all boils down, with the ever increasing high quality standards of the microstock sites, photos any more have to be perfect in every way which a lot of time means more expensive equipment in order to meet those standards and they expect it to be done for a buck....which is really unsustainable

molka · « **Reply #22 on:** December 07, 2010, 05:49 »

Quote from: donding on December 06, 2010, 23:58

Thanks Sean...that's a very interesting interview

..photos any more have to be perfect in every way...

was?? : ) You mean technically. If they had the ability and 'inspected' for aesthetical and style virtues, there wouldn't be diluted sales, because they wouldn't have 10 million pictures... maybe 1,5 mil... or less. I always said their dilettant inspection - acceptance policy is the death of microstock, very few understood.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #23 on:** December 07, 2010, 10:25 »

Fascinating stuff, thanks for posting the link.

Direct licensing via search engines rather than through agencies ... there's a thought to conjure with.

asiseeit · « **Reply #24 on:** December 07, 2010, 13:02 »

Quote
"The most creative photographer will always lose out to the better business person."

I think this is what separates the top microstockers from the rest. It would be hard to find a top microstocker who wasn't a good business person.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iofoto interview on John Lund (Read 27533 times)

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

grp_photo

grp_photo

Maui

grp_photo

ichiro17

pancaketom

gostwyck

grp_photo

molka

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

nruboc

helix7

cthoman

Jonathan Ross

gostwyck

jbarber873

Smiling Jack

RacePhoto

donding

molka

BaldricksTrousers

asiseeit

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors