MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Isn't it technically an underpaid job?  (Read 23143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 26, 2011, 14:39 »
0
Shooting or illustrating for microstock is useful for an extra little income (for most of us) but isn't in reality and extremely underpaid job? Aren't we all better off taking a standard job at minimum wage? I read in another topic about an income of $10/image/year, which is extremely low imho.

I myself have around 60 vector images in my port now. They have generated plenty of sales, but little money (around $300) in a couple of months. Yet the hours I spend on them are much much more.

So, with that in mind, why do you keep on microstocking? Is it really worth all the effort? I'm curious.


lisafx

« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2011, 14:49 »
0
In the beginning, as you are building your portfolio, it is a hideously underpaid job.  I don't do illustrations, but I can imagine I would be quite frustrated with the time it takes to do them, vs. the return. 

As time goes on, though, and your older stuff is still selling, and you are doing new stuff, the income can build to a more respectable level.

I do think it's much harder now than a few years ago to get enough sales to make it worthwhile.  I wouldn't want to be starting in microstock now. 

« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2011, 15:52 »
0
Yes, you should just take a minimum wage job ;)...

I'll just say I was making more than my day job 4 years ago after 2+ years of work, which is why I quit 3 years ago.  Agree with ^ that you could not start today and expect that.  For once I timed something correctly.

On the other hand, I have some ValueUsa and Pets.com stock from 99 to sell you.

« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2011, 16:37 »
0
true, nothing to see here, move along

gbcimages

« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2011, 16:44 »
0
u bet your life it is  ;D but oh the fun we're  having

« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2011, 16:53 »
0
Would you like to Super Size that illustration, sir?

« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2011, 16:54 »
0
Someone recently asked for my advice about whether he should enter microstock, and I had to share with him some hard truths.  Most people simply won't make it.  The majority of stuff that is uploaded these days simply isn't needed by today's buyers... either because the subject matter is so oversaturated, or the images have nothing unique to offer in terms of style or perspective, or even if the images are unique they're just not marketable.

You can be a great photographer or artist in terms of technical quality, but that doesn't matter anymore.  Technical quality is a commodity now.  It simply gets you in the door, but quality alone won't make you any money.

The only way to succeed now is to think of this as a business.  What is selling today, and what will sell tomorrow?  And I don't mean be a copycat.  It doesn't work... may have tried and failed, because you're simply following the pack that has made its money and already moved on to new subject matter and styles.  If you're attempting to compete in subjects that are oversaturated (and just about everything is), what is going to make a buyer choose your images and not the best sellers?  Sadly, most will never figure out these answers.

« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2011, 17:17 »
0
  • No boss
  • Freedom to work/sleep when I like
  • No commute
  • No annoying people
  • Passive earnings mean if I want a day off, I have it.
  • Creative outlet
  • Intellectual stimulation
  • Happiness

But hey, anyone who can even imagine working a 9-5 (or more often at minimum wage, a 7am-9pm job) after spending 3 years out on your own, then maybe it would be the right move for them.

This lifestyle is hard at first, but every bit of hard work you do today, is one bit less to be done tomorrow ;)

« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2011, 17:33 »
0
  • No boss
  • Freedom to work/sleep when I like
  • No commute
  • No annoying people
  • Passive earnings mean if I want a day off, I have it.
  • Creative outlet
  • Intellectual stimulation
  • Happiness

But hey, anyone who can even imagine working a 9-5 (or more often at minimum wage, a 7am-9pm job) after spending 3 years out on your own, then maybe it would be the right move for them.

This lifestyle is hard at first, but every bit of hard work you do today, is one bit less to be done tomorrow ;)

You could make this same pitch if you were selling a network marketing scam.  Sure, those are the selling points, the dream we're all chasing.  But how many will actually achieve this?  Probably the same number who fall for a pyramid scheme.

How many people have all of the above, and enough money to pay the bills?  The number as a percent of total contributors is shrinking every day.

« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2011, 17:49 »
0
I bet the talented people here could make more than minimum wages.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2011, 17:56 »
0
I bet the talented people here could make more than minimum wages.
Yeah, but they're probably the ones who'd be promoted after a week at the minimum wage job.

« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2011, 18:35 »
0
Talk about being underpaid... Check out some photo freelance jobs here. Have your chains secured firmly to your desk.  http://www.odesk.com/jobs/photography

Here's one of their latest offerings with 11 applicants no less:

Job Description

I have a list of tips on how to take better photos on specific topics. I need you to find a photo that matches each tip. These photos must be available for use in commercial work, so they should be either from your own collection, or from a source such as Flickr (and licensed under the Attribution License).

There are approximately 220 total tips for this job, all for different types of sports photography. I do not expect photos for all of the tips, but around 75% or more would be good. The photos should be of a high standard, and illustrate excellence in photography.

You will need to return to me a spreadsheet with the list of tips and image file names. I will also need the original image, the source (eg. Flickr), the name of the photographer for attribution, and a link to the original image.

Please see attached sample tips, with the first item filled in.

Those with photography experience and/or their own collection they can source from will be highly regarded. I have more work across other categories for interested candidates.
Open Attachment

Skills Required:
Photography
Employer Activity on this Job:

Last Viewed  :
    Today
Applicants:
    11 (avg $186.87)
Interviewing:
    0

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2011, 18:41 »
0
I'm sorry, perhaps I am reading that wrong.  Are they offering to pay $186 for 165 images done to their specs??  For commercial use??  Or is it $186 per image?  The latter might be doable.  The former is sheer masochism. 
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 18:43 by lisafx »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2011, 18:41 »
0
Those with photography experience and/or their own collection they can source from will be highly regarded.
Whoops, I first thought he meant 'highly rewarded', but I guess not!

OM

« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2011, 18:55 »
0
Talk about being underpaid... Check out some photo freelance jobs here. Have your chains secured firmly to your desk.  http://www.odesk.com/jobs/photography

Here's one of their latest offerings with 11 applicants no less:

Job Description

I have a list of tips on how to take better photos on specific topics. I need you to find a photo that matches each tip. These photos must be available for use in commercial work, so they should be either from your own collection, or from a source such as Flickr (and licensed under the Attribution License).

There are approximately 220 total tips for this job, all for different types of sports photography. I do not expect photos for all of the tips, but around 75% or more would be good. The photos should be of a high standard, and illustrate excellence in photography.

You will need to return to me a spreadsheet with the list of tips and image file names. I will also need the original image, the source (eg. Flickr), the name of the photographer for attribution, and a link to the original image.

Please see attached sample tips, with the first item filled in.

Those with photography experience and/or their own collection they can source from will be highly regarded. I have more work across other categories for interested candidates.
Open Attachment

Skills Required:
Photography
Employer Activity on this Job:

Last Viewed  :
    Today
Applicants:
    11 (avg $186.87)
Interviewing:
    0


Offer of penal servitude now cancelled.

« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 18:58 »
0
I'm sorry, perhaps I am reading that wrong.  Are they offering to pay $186 for 165 images done to their specs??  For commercial use??  Or is it $186 per image?  The latter might be doable.  The former is sheer masochism. 

If you are into masochism you might want to put in a bid. Look at the other postings on that site and you'll see bids for original photography plus sizing them for web sites for LESS THAN $2 EACH.

After reading through a bunch of those postings I feel that I'm being overpaid at FT.

OM

« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2011, 19:32 »
0
I'm sorry, perhaps I am reading that wrong.  Are they offering to pay $186 for 165 images done to their specs??  For commercial use??  Or is it $186 per image?  The latter might be doable.  The former is sheer masochism. 

If you are into masochism you might want to put in a bid. Look at the other postings on that site and you'll see bids for original photography plus sizing them for web sites for LESS THAN $2 EACH.

After reading through a bunch of those postings I feel that I'm being overpaid at FT.

Mail FT about it and I'm sure that they will oblige by cutting your percentage yet again within the first half of this year. ;D

On second thoughts, probably better not. Support (aka HAL 9000) wouldn't appreciate the irony and either delete your entire portfolio or award you ruby status.


« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2011, 20:18 »
0
  • No boss
  • Freedom to work/sleep when I like
  • No commute
  • No annoying people
  • Passive earnings mean if I want a day off, I have it.
  • Creative outlet
  • Intellectual stimulation
  • Happiness

But hey, anyone who can even imagine working a 9-5 (or more often at minimum wage, a 7am-9pm job) after spending 3 years out on your own, then maybe it would be the right move for them.

This lifestyle is hard at first, but every bit of hard work you do today, is one bit less to be done tomorrow ;)


I love this life.  :D

The beauty of licensing images, whether through the micros or traditionals or even through your own specialty stock site, is the long-term income they generate.  I don't invest in the stock market...instead I invest my time and money in my own stock image portfolio.  The concept is essentially the same.  It just takes time and energy to build a self-sustaining portfolio.  In five years, my own small portfolio (around 3,000 rather ordinary images) has seen me through losing my job, which is when I decided to go pro, a broken ankle that sidelined me for several months, a volunteer project that lasted six months, and an apartment fire that sidelined my business for the next three months after the project ended (9 months total that I didn't or couldn't work last year).  Did I mention I'm the sole income earner, too?  Don't get me wrong...I'm not making a lot of money...it's definitely tight around here...but no longer am I at the mercy of unexpected events or health crises or a J-O-B or a tyrannical boss, and that's priceless!!!

An important thing to remember, too, is that the images we create today have the potential to generate income literally forever.  I've heard countless photographers and illustrators ask about an image's "shelf life," but what they and many others fail to understand is at some point today's image becomes an historical record, and there are plenty of buyers interested in the history of their subject. Of course, most income is in the current stuff, but as Lisa pointed out, by the time my images become vintage, I will have already built a self-sustaining portfolio and won't have to worry about how little income they generate.

I know a guy named Tom Myers who has been a stock photographer for over 35 years and has a portfolio of *gasp* over 500,000 images created solely by himself and two members of his family.  His portfolio not only continues to support Tom and his wife Sally in their later years, but his son and his family as well, despite the fact that the bulk of it is now vintage, still on slides and is built almost exclusively with images of California.  One of his favorite stories is about a town that had been destroyed in the 1989 San Francisco Earthquake.  As town officials made plans to rebuild, they discovered much to their horror that they did not have any photographs of the center of Main Street prior to the earthquake.  No one from the town had thought to take one...but Tom did!  Tom saved the day...and made some money on an otherwise stale photo.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 20:28 by Karimala »

« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2011, 01:19 »
0
  • No boss
  • Freedom to work/sleep when I like
  • No commute
  • No annoying people
  • Passive earnings mean if I want a day off, I have it.
  • Creative outlet
  • Intellectual stimulation
  • Happiness

But hey, anyone who can even imagine working a 9-5 (or more often at minimum wage, a 7am-9pm job) after spending 3 years out on your own, then maybe it would be the right move for them.

This lifestyle is hard at first, but every bit of hard work you do today, is one bit less to be done tomorrow ;)

agencies are another form of bosses and annoying people. think about it, they cut your commission whenever they like

« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2011, 03:23 »
0
agencies are another form of bosses and annoying people. think about it, they cut your commission whenever they like

They can't tell you when to work, when you are allowed to take holidays, whether or not you are allowed to wear this or that, or what your targets are, they can't shout at you or threaten you, they can't push so much work on you that you have to do hours of overtime. They're not bosses, they are businesses that you have to deal with.

« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2011, 05:56 »
0
threaten you

hmnnn... i don't think they threaten ,they just cut whenever they like.

« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2011, 06:33 »
0
They can't tell you when to work, when you are allowed to take holidays, whether or not you are allowed to wear this or that, or what your targets are

That thing with "targets" sounds quite familiar...

RT


« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2011, 07:06 »
0
They can't tell you......what your targets are........

Well except for telling you that despite your sales numbers going up in order to get the same percentage of commission that you did last year you need to sell 500%+ more, now there's a target  >:(

« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2011, 08:28 »
0
I think, this work must be seen as a return on equity, not as a return on work!

« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2011, 08:30 »
0
agencies are another form of bosses and annoying people. think about it, they cut your commission whenever they like

They can't tell you when to work, when you are allowed to take holidays, whether or not you are allowed to wear this or that, or what your targets are, they can't shout at you or threaten you, they can't push so much work on you that you have to do hours of overtime. They're not bosses, they are businesses that you have to deal with.

They can't tell you......what your targets are........

Well except for telling you that despite your sales numbers going up in order to get the same percentage of commission that you did last year you need to sell 500%+ more, now there's a target  >:(

If you don't like it, you have the free choice not to work with them, and doing so does not require sacrificing your entire income as it would if your boss in a 'real' job was a four-letter-word.

Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)

RT


« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2011, 09:20 »
0
They can't tell you......what your targets are........

Well except for telling you that despite your sales numbers going up in order to get the same percentage of commission that you did last year you need to sell 500%+ more, now there's a target  >:(

If you don't like it, you have the free choice not to work with them, and doing so does not require sacrificing your entire income as it would if your boss in a 'real' job was a four-letter-word.

Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)


My comment was to point out that agencies can and do set targets, not quite sure why you pointed out the obvious fact that we have a choice to sell there or not.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2011, 09:30 »
0
They can't tell you......what your targets are........

Well except for telling you that despite your sales numbers going up in order to get the same percentage of commission that you did last year you need to sell 500%+ more, now there's a target  >:(

If you don't like it, you have the free choice not to work with them, and doing so does not require sacrificing your entire income as it would if your boss in a 'real' job was a four-letter-word.

Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)


My comment was to point out that agencies can and do set targets, not quite sure why you pointed out the obvious fact that we have a choice to sell there or not.
Plus for some people stock shooting, and maybe only iStock (or other) is their entire income.


« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2011, 09:39 »
0
Plus for some people stock shooting, and maybe only iStock (or other) is their entire income.

All eggs + 1 basket = certain doom ;)

« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2011, 09:41 »
0
Plus for some people stock shooting, and maybe only iStock (or other) is their entire income.

All eggs + 1 basket = certain doom ;)

Not at all. if the basket breaks, your eggs are still alive and can always upload them to other MS sites.
So in our case: All eggs + 1 basket = good business decision.

« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2011, 09:55 »
0
Not at all. if the basket breaks, your eggs are still alive and can always upload them to other MS sites.
So in our case: All eggs + 1 basket = good business decision.

I'll grant, bad analogy but you see my point, there's a reason 'most' of the biggest earners are non-exclusive (even more so after the recent changes at is), but I guess that's a topic already been well covered on msg (and several times on my blog) so won't get into it here.

It's more work of course, but as the OP raised the point of how 'low paid' micro is I just wanted to highlight that money isn't the only driving factor, and for those whom it is, there are other options :)

« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2011, 14:12 »
0
They can't tell you......what your targets are........

Well except for telling you that despite your sales numbers going up in order to get the same percentage of commission that you did last year you need to sell 500%+ more, now there's a target  >:(

They're not "targets" because the micros couldn't care less if you hit them or not. In fact, they don't really want you to. They are (in the case of Istock) points on the bell curve of contributor performance that iS happens to be using to maximise the amount of cash it can squeeze from the business model.

At SS the earnings level "targets" have no time limits attached to them, you can reach them (or not) at a pace that suits you.

An employee with "targets" to meet has the team leader breathing down her/his neck demanding more effort because the company wants those targets met. The micros simply say - "do what you like but if you want more cash this is what it will take to get it". It's completely different.

« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2011, 14:42 »
0
I think this work must be seen as a return on equity, not as a return on work!

Exactly!!!   ;D 

lagereek

« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2011, 15:09 »
0
Oh, dont know about that??  100K/ month, better then a smack in the gulies, isnt it. ;D

RT


« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2011, 15:46 »
0
An employee with "targets" to meet has the team leader breathing down her/his neck demanding more effort because the company wants those targets met. The micros simply say - "do what you like but if you want more cash this is what it will take to get it". It's completely different.

 We're not employees but if you run your business correctly you will find you have targets to reach, whether you like it or not agencies like iStock and Fotolia that have recently changed the commission structures have by the very way they've done it changed your targets for you, unless of course your business model is to make less money than you did before.

The old argument "if you don't like it walk away" is a naive one, of course we could all walk away but then again so could an employee, the result is the same for both - no income. You can dress it up however you like it, but the fundamental fact is agencies set targets.

« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2011, 16:21 »
0

I'll just say I was making more than my day job 4 years ago after 2+ years of work, which is why I quit 3 years ago.  Agree with ^ that you could not start today and expect that.  For once I timed something correctly.


I did the same 3 years ago, and I had a well paying corporate job. However, it's absolutely true that you can't start today and expect the same results. We were in the right time in the right place when demand was still way bigger than supply and were able to get to the level of quitting the day job fairly fast - in 2-3 years.
IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY NOW. Yes you still can get to the level of reasonable income in microstock starting from zero, but it would require investing tons of money into production. There is no place for amateurs or semi-pros anymore. That time is over.

« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2011, 16:54 »
0
Plus for some people stock shooting, and maybe only iStock (or other) is their entire income.

All eggs + 1 basket = certain doom ;)

Not at all. if the basket breaks, your eggs are still alive and can always upload them to other MS sites.
So in our case: All eggs + 1 basket = good business decision.

If the basket breaks you lose your position in searches and will have to spend time to reupload your portfolio to other sites. Where your position in searches will be not nearly as good because there will be much more (already established) competition. Don't see how is this good business decision. I think you guys know this and it this is what makes you nervous. But - hey - whatever floats your boat.

lagereek

« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2011, 17:03 »
0

I'll just say I was making more than my day job 4 years ago after 2+ years of work, which is why I quit 3 years ago.  Agree with ^ that you could not start today and expect that.  For once I timed something correctly.


I did the same 3 years ago, and I had a well paying corporate job. However, it's absolutely true that you can't start today and expect the same results. We were in the right time in the right place when demand was still way bigger than supply and were able to get to the level of quitting the day job fairly fast - in 2-3 years.
IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY NOW. Yes you still can get to the level of reasonable income in microstock starting from zero, but it would require investing tons of money into production. There is no place for amateurs or semi-pros anymore. That time is over.

Very, very true!!!  the days of the dilletants and weekend snappers are over and yes, you can still make it but only with specialized images, only with niche material and to find that nowdays?? difficult.


« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2011, 19:30 »
0
I think this work must be seen as a return on equity, not as a return on work!

Exactly!!!   ;D  

I do not know whether you agree with me or not (because of the laughing smiley), but as you said something similar in your previous post... We can't take most of our usual jobs into hospital room, but our portfolio can be very close with stock (shares) portfolio which gives a good dividend every month... That was veeery similar to capital not to work...
Of course, the work creates equity like any other work or bussines ...
So our pictures are our capital as a consequence of the work in past, and will be paid in the future...

Sorry on my English, I hope you understand me...
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 10:37 by borg »

« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2011, 21:14 »
0

Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)

My definition of partners.

- someone who you can trust
- they don't make decisions for you
- fair share of profit

My definition of boss

-someone you try not to trust
-someone who force some decisions on you
-bad share of profit.



if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)

sounds like quitting a job.

« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2011, 03:45 »
0
Talk about being underpaid... Check out some photo freelance jobs here. Have your chains secured firmly to your desk.  http://www.odesk.com/jobs/photography



This just made my day :D I know of sites like these, but this one is about the worst I've seen yet.

Well, thanks for all the replies so far. I guess I'll just stick with it. Still have that dream of building a sustaining portfolio that provides enough passive money to quit my day job. I just hope the return on investment is big enough in the long run. :D

grp_photo

« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2011, 05:32 »
0
Hi bobbigmac, a frank question do you really live from Microstock looking at your portfolio I doubt it (not that it is a bad one it's actually nice but...).
I think you are dreaming and you are enthusiastic about your dream, but reality and dreams always differ. Sure it is a cool lifestyle but the agencies are shafting us and will even do more in the future. And many people which rely now solely on their Microstock-income wont make it in the next few years.

RacePhoto

« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2011, 06:47 »
0
I'm sorry, perhaps I am reading that wrong.  Are they offering to pay $186 for 165 images done to their specs??  For commercial use??  Or is it $186 per image?  The latter might be doable.  The former is sheer masochism. 

If you are into masochism you might want to put in a bid. Look at the other postings on that site and you'll see bids for original photography plus sizing them for web sites for LESS THAN $2 EACH.

After reading through a bunch of those postings I feel that I'm being overpaid at FT.

I thought it was a research job, not a photo job. You find images to match the list and identify them. Not providing anything but the list. If that's not it, then I agree.

You will need to return to me a spreadsheet with the list of tips and image file names.


Didn't bother reading the others. Waste of time.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2011, 06:56 »
0
I thought it was a research job, not a photo job. You find images to match the list and identify them. Not providing anything but the list. If that's not it, then I agree.

You will need to return to me a spreadsheet with the list of tips and image file names.

Reminded me of the time my sister went for a job as a sous chef at a Glasgow hotel which had just been taken over. Just about the only thing she was asked at the interview was how the kitchen should be set out, which she thought was extremely odd, but as it was just thrown at her, she answered as best she could.
Of course, the interviewer was taking copious notes.
She subsequently met two other people who had been similarly interviewed without getting the job.
Quick, easy and free kitchen planning hints from the practitioners before even bringing in a kitchen specialist!
That's exactly what this scam looks like.

« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2011, 09:54 »
0
An employee with "targets" to meet has the team leader breathing down her/his neck demanding more effort because the company wants those targets met. The micros simply say - "do what you like but if you want more cash this is what it will take to get it". It's completely different.

 We're not employees but if you run your business correctly you will find you have targets to reach, whether you like it or not agencies like iStock and Fotolia that have recently changed the commission structures have by the very way they've done it changed your targets for you, unless of course your business model is to make less money than you did before.

You really think I am seriously planning to get back to 20% at iStock, from my present 17? You think that is a "target" I accept, and that if I don't do it, my "business model" is to make less money than before?

Even to get to 18% would involve me doubling my sales at iStock.... but, hang on, I could end this year one credit short of the 18% limit and I would still be making 80% more than I did last year.

If my Fotolia "target" is to get back to my previous percentage, I will need to multiply my sales rate five-fold to achieve that by the end of this year.

These aren't targets, they are nothing to do with targets. It's nonsense to call them that.

If my business plan is to increase my earnings by 20% this year over last, I can do it without getting anywhere near my old commission percentages.

So I am getting scr*wed by the agencies like everyone else but I haven't been given any targets by them.

helix7

« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2011, 12:28 »
0
I did the same 3 years ago, and I had a well paying corporate job. However, it's absolutely true that you can't start today and expect the same results. We were in the right time in the right place when demand was still way bigger than supply and were able to get to the level of quitting the day job fairly fast - in 2-3 years.
IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY NOW. Yes you still can get to the level of reasonable income in microstock starting from zero, but it would require investing tons of money into production. There is no place for amateurs or semi-pros anymore. That time is over.

I guess I fall under the category of semi-pro (microstock made up about 1/3 of my total income for 2010), and I'm finding it harder and harder to imagine microstock being any significant part of my income by 2012. I've pretty much stopped creating new work for microstock and am focusing entirely on my design business. A few years ago, I was under the very real and reasonable assumption that I could make my living entirely from microstock. Today that's simply not possible. Even if I was doing microstock full-time, it's hard to imagine ever getting it to a point where microstock alone would keep me afloat financially.

A few years ago I think there was a much broader income demographic in microstock. Today, the gap between amateur and pro is far greater, and it's much harder to transition from amateur to pro.

RT


« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2011, 12:44 »
0
You really think I am seriously planning to get back to 20% at iStock, from my present 17? You think that is a "target" I accept, and that if I don't do it, my "business model" is to make less money than before?

No, go back and actually read and try to digest what I wrote.

I'll break it down using myself as example:

I run my own business producing stock, obviously as part of that business I have targets to reach based on various factors including running costs, depreciation, wages etc etc and of course I want to make a profit, basing figures on previous years I get an idea from the production rate what sort of profit I should be running and what to aim for this year taking into account what I have planned.
As part of my planning I have to take into account the targets that iStock and Fotolia have recently set to receive the commission rate I got last year, now I can either do that by way of working to reach their targets OR I can look at other ways to reach my targets without involving them, either way the targets they have set have a direct result on the targets I have set my business.

Back to your answer:
 No I don't think you have to "accept" their targets, but you do have to accept they have set them and choose to either work with them or around them, either way if you sit back and take the self denial route then you will find you're making less money than before, whether that was your business model or not.
 And yes you are getting scr*wed by the agencies like everyone else, and if it makes you happy OK they haven't given you any targets, instead let's just say - "they've given you a sales figure you need to reach if you want receive a certain level of commission" - there's a word we could use to describe that sentence but I can't for the live of me think what it is. ;)

« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2011, 13:09 »
0
You could also say they put a target on themselves by saying, "hey competition, here's your chance". Or you could say they pay us like we work at Target.  ;D


lisafx

« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2011, 13:51 »
0
Nevermind.  Complete waste of time.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 13:53 by lisafx »

« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2011, 13:53 »
0
Why is it all the most opinionated people are always the ones with 52 images and 400 sales in 5 years?   As JoAnn has suggested before - No skin in the game.   ::)

That kind of talk will get you called elitist.  ;)

lisafx

« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2011, 13:54 »
0
Why is it all the most opinionated people are always the ones with 52 images and 400 sales in 5 years?   As JoAnn has suggested before - No skin in the game.   ::)

That kind of talk will get you called elitist.  ;)

You were too fast for me :D

Guess my point was that I (and probably other full time stock photogs too) am tired of being lectured by people who have absolutely no idea what it takes to be successful in this industry.  Nor, most likely, in any other. 
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 13:56 by lisafx »

« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2011, 14:30 »
0
I think this work must be seen as a return on equity, not as a return on work!

Exactly!!!   ;D  

I do not know whether you agree with me or not (because of the laughing smiley), but as you said something similar in your previous post... We can't take most of our usual jobs into hospital room, but our portfolio can be very close with stock (shares) portfolio which gives a good dividend every month... That was veeery similar to capital not to work...
Of course, the work creates equity like any other work or business ...
So our pictures are our capital as a consequence of the work in past, and will be paid in the future...

Sorry on my English, I hope you understand me...

I'm in total agreement.   ;D  In fact, I've adopted your word "equity," because it describes what I was saying perfectly.  I used to think in terms of how much money I was earning in terms of an hourly wage...now I think in terms of stock and building equity for the future.

helix7

« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2011, 14:31 »
0
Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)

Right, it's just that simple. Sure.

::)

« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2011, 14:34 »
0
No I don't think you have to "accept" their targets, but you do have to accept they have set them and choose to either work with them or around them,

Oh, okay. Fair enough. So I adjust to circumstances. But it doesn't mean they get more work out of me, the way a boss setting a target likes to. They are actually pushing me into exploring different ways to  market my work.

« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2011, 14:53 »
0
Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)


Right, it's just that simple. Sure.

::)


I figured the person who originally posted that was just spoiling for a fight - or a long discussion about the nature of free markets and the imperfect, power imbalanced markets that are more typically what we encounter.

I found last Sunday's New York Times article about the guy who's negotiating for the NFL players association with the owners (I don't think the word sustainable was used, but lots of similar dynamics were at play) a very interesting read.

Similar battles - people with a successful business want more; players who theoretically are free to walk if they don't like conditions in practice stay because where else can they play professional ball; both sides framing the terms of their dispute very differently. The interesting thing is that even with a strong players union, they're still having a hard time getting the deal they're looking for.

Perhaps recent events at IS have left me more than usually interested in the nature of power struggles and decision making in situations where one of the parties holds much more of the power :)

« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2011, 15:06 »
0
I found last Sunday's New York Times article about the guy who's negotiating for the NFL players association with the owners (I don't think the word sustainable was used, but lots of similar dynamics were at play) a very interesting read.

Similar battles - people with a successful business want more; players who theoretically are free to walk if they don't like conditions in practice stay because where else can they play professional ball; both sides framing the terms of their dispute very differently. The interesting thing is that even with a strong players union, they're still having a hard time getting the deal they're looking for.

Perhaps recent events at IS have left me more than usually interested in the nature of power struggles and decision making in situations where one of the parties holds much more of the power :)


Just last week I found an old blog post of Dan Heller's about the orphan works controversy that deals with the same economic issues.  It highlights how photographer demands can harm the industry.  Interesting reading.

RT


« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2011, 15:18 »
0
No I don't think you have to "accept" their targets, but you do have to accept they have set them and choose to either work with them or around them,

Oh, okay. Fair enough. So I adjust to circumstances. But it doesn't mean they get more work out of me, the way a boss setting a target likes to. They are actually pushing me into exploring different ways to  market my work.

Exactly

« Reply #56 on: January 28, 2011, 19:50 »
0

Just last week I found an old blog post of Dan Heller's about the orphan works controversy that deals with the same economic issues.  It highlights how photographer demands can harm the industry.  Interesting reading.


Your link didn't bring up the blog post for me - but I think I've found the two parts here and here. Are these the posts you were thinking of?


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2011, 00:03 »
0
Why is it all the most opinionated people are always the ones with 52 images and 400 sales in 5 years?   As JoAnn has suggested before - No skin in the game.   ::)

That kind of talk will get you called elitist.  ;)

You were too fast for me :D

Guess my point was that I (and probably other full time stock photogs too) am tired of being lectured by people who have absolutely no idea what it takes to be successful in this industry.  Nor, most likely, in any other. 

Wow, Lisa puts on the boxing gloves!  Well said.

« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2011, 01:38 »
0
I choose to give up my high paying career as a scientist to become a wildlife photographer.  That microstock is paying so low is part of my expectations when I gave up that life.  I try to get a bit extra from other sources, such as writing articles with photos or selling my images in other outlets (galleries, business cards, etc)

I have many friends that work full-time at some job they are not thrilled at just to put food on the table.  I do what I love; just can not afford a table and some times, can not afford food.

I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job.  There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings.  I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2011, 13:44 »
0
I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job.  There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings.  I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

Well put.

« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2011, 22:58 »
0
I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job.  There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings.  I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

I had a baby poop on a shag carpet in the studio last week .. it stunk .. it was messy .. because .. well it was poop in shag carpet .. but it was 30 mins of work behind the camera, 5 mins in photoshop and 10 minutes of showing their pictures .. and they walked out after writing a check for $450 .. at $10 a minute I can deal with the occasional poopy. LOL

Oh and to stay on track of the topic .. do I make that much selling micro? BWAHAHAHAHA ... no. So yes it's an underpaid job for me. But it helps with the tax deductions so it makes up for it in the end ... sorta LOL

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2011, 11:49 »
0
"Isn't it technically an underpaid job?"

no, it isn't

technically, we're not employees and as long as we're happy about total earnings (over many years) compared to total time spent (initially), it's not underpaid - regardless of low sale prices and ridiculously low percentages

unfortunately, I find new pictures are less and less profitable lately so it may become underpaid if this trend continues
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 11:54 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #62 on: February 17, 2011, 13:24 »
0

Just last week I found an old blog post of Dan Heller's about the orphan works controversy that deals with the same economic issues.  It highlights how photographer demands can harm the industry.  Interesting reading.


Your link didn't bring up the blog post for me - but I think I've found the two parts here and here. Are these the posts you were thinking of?


Just now seeing this, and yes...those are the articles.  Thanks Joann!

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2011, 22:12 »
0
I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job.  There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings.  I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

I had a baby poop on a shag carpet in the studio last week .. it stunk .. it was messy .. because .. well it was poop in shag carpet .. but it was 30 mins of work behind the camera, 5 mins in photoshop and 10 minutes of showing their pictures .. and they walked out after writing a check for $450 .. at $10 a minute I can deal with the occasional poopy. LOL

Oh and to stay on track of the topic .. do I make that much selling micro? BWAHAHAHAHA ... no. So yes it's an underpaid job for me. But it helps with the tax deductions so it makes up for it in the end ... sorta LOL

Did you take a picture of the poop and submit it somewhere? That's gotta be a best seller right there. Especially poop on shag.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2011, 22:16 »
0

I'll just say I was making more than my day job 4 years ago after 2+ years of work, which is why I quit 3 years ago.  Agree with ^ that you could not start today and expect that.  For once I timed something correctly.


I did the same 3 years ago, and I had a well paying corporate job. However, it's absolutely true that you can't start today and expect the same results. We were in the right time in the right place when demand was still way bigger than supply and were able to get to the level of quitting the day job fairly fast - in 2-3 years.
IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY NOW. Yes you still can get to the level of reasonable income in microstock starting from zero, but it would require investing tons of money into production. There is no place for amateurs or semi-pros anymore. That time is over.

Very, very true!!!  the days of the dilletants and weekend snappers are over and yes, you can still make it but only with specialized images, only with niche material and to find that nowdays?? difficult.

I disagree. I had a bunch of snapshots just collecting dust on my computer and now I'm filthy rich! Thanks microstock.

RacePhoto

« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2011, 04:03 »
0
Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides ;)


Right, it's just that simple. Sure.

::)


Someone is stealing my naive Pollyanna argument! I did it for contrast and mockery. There isn't really someplace else.

But I do agree with the facts of the situation. Someone can either sell with the two largest, best earning agencies, one that has the best sales, even after cuts will potentially sell the most, bottom line, make the best commissions, and the other that pays a paltry sum per download, sells subscriptions and brings in income with the volume of sales. All the rest are pretenders or trying to be the top two.

If people want to just run off about IS day after day, making idle threats, complaining, whining, or bashing out of anger and revenge I say, if you don't like it go someplace else. Please just STFU it's getting boring and senseless. Come up with something new!



I didn't like some of the agencies, I dropped them. My suggestion is for people who can't stand IS and can't get though a day without some fault finding, or anguish, please leave them and make your life better. Mine too!  :-* Get a divorce and get over it. Stop the abuse, remove yourself from the situation. Complaining never changed anything!



Anyone notice how many people here are making their own sites and changing distribution channels? No longer relying on the blood * agencies to market their artistic efforts. Branching out on their own. I like it! Here's to everyone who's doing something to change things and make their futures brighter and better. Take action, make a difference for the better future.

« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2011, 07:00 »
0
I believe money should not be a primary motive for newbie photographer, but building a large and reputable portfolio or resume...with time the money would naturally flow with the quality of your work.


lisafx

« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2011, 13:13 »
0

I disagree. I had a bunch of snapshots just collecting dust on my computer and now I'm filthy rich! Thanks microstock.

ROFLMAO!!  Good stuff Paulie :D

« Reply #68 on: February 19, 2011, 04:40 »
0
I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job.  There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings.  I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

I had a baby poop on a shag carpet in the studio last week .. it stunk .. it was messy .. because .. well it was poop in shag carpet .. but it was 30 mins of work behind the camera, 5 mins in photoshop and 10 minutes of showing their pictures .. and they walked out after writing a check for $450 .. at $10 a minute I can deal with the occasional poopy. LOL

Oh and to stay on track of the topic .. do I make that much selling micro? BWAHAHAHAHA ... no. So yes it's an underpaid job for me. But it helps with the tax deductions so it makes up for it in the end ... sorta LOL

Did you take a picture of the poop and submit it somewhere? That's gotta be a best seller right there. Especially poop on shag.

LMAO nope no poostock .. I make it a rule never to involve my paid clients in stock including their poo poo

graficallyminded

« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2011, 01:17 »
0
Talk about a crappy job Randy :D But hey, at least it paid enough to pay the groceries for your family and kids, for the entire month!  In what, under an hour?  LOL

Microstock is underpaid for those that think this is going to be some get rich quick scheme.  It's not; it's just as much of a business as a portrait photographer's business, or a wedding photographer, or a basket weaver, or a plastic surgeon, or a hairdresser.  Building a business takes time, effort, skill, and perseverance.  All of those bullet points Bob Davies mentioned earlier are right on the money. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
6075 Views
Last post May 23, 2014, 04:27
by emicristea
2 Replies
3085 Views
Last post September 05, 2014, 18:24
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors