Author Topic: Isn't it technically an underpaid job? (Read 26682 times)

RT · « **Reply #25 on:** January 27, 2011, 09:20 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 08:30

Quote from: RT on January 27, 2011, 07:06
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 27, 2011, 03:23
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 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 27, 2011, 09:30 »

Quote from: RT on January 27, 2011, 09:20

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 08:30
Quote from: RT on January 27, 2011, 07:06
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 27, 2011, 03:23
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.

bobbigmac · « **Reply #27 on:** January 27, 2011, 09:39 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 27, 2011, 09:30

Plus for some people stock shooting, and maybe only iStock (or other) is their entire income.

All eggs + 1 basket = certain doom

aeonf · « **Reply #28 on:** January 27, 2011, 09:41 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 09:39

Quote from: ShadySue on January 27, 2011, 09:30
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.

bobbigmac · « **Reply #29 on:** January 27, 2011, 09:55 »

Quote from: aeonf on January 27, 2011, 09:41

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

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #30 on:** January 27, 2011, 14:12 »

Quote from: RT on January 27, 2011, 07:06

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 27, 2011, 03:23
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.

Karimala · « **Reply #31 on:** January 27, 2011, 14:42 »

Quote from: borg on January 27, 2011, 08:28

I think this work must be seen as a return on equity, not as a return on work!

Exactly!!!

lagereek · « **Reply #32 on:** January 27, 2011, 15:09 »

Oh, dont know about that?? 100K/ month, better then a smack in the gulies, isnt it.

RT · « **Reply #33 on:** January 27, 2011, 15:46 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 27, 2011, 14:12

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.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #34 on:** January 27, 2011, 16:21 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 26, 2011, 15:52

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.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #35 on:** January 27, 2011, 16:54 »

Quote from: aeonf on January 27, 2011, 09:41

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 09:39
Quote from: ShadySue on January 27, 2011, 09:30
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 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 27, 2011, 16:21

Quote from: sjlocke on January 26, 2011, 15:52

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.

borg · « **Reply #37 on:** January 27, 2011, 19:30 »

Quote from: Karimala on January 27, 2011, 14:42

Quote from: borg on January 27, 2011, 08:28
I think this work must be seen as a return on equity, not as a return on work!

Exactly!!!

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...

yuliang11 · « **Reply #38 on:** January 27, 2011, 21:14 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 08:30

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.

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 08:30

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.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #39 on:** January 28, 2011, 03:45 »

Quote from: louoates on January 26, 2011, 18:35

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

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.

grp_photo · « **Reply #40 on:** January 28, 2011, 05:32 »

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 »

Quote from: louoates on January 26, 2011, 18:58

Quote from: lisafx on January 26, 2011, 18:41
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 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 28, 2011, 06:56 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 28, 2011, 06:47

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** January 28, 2011, 09:54 »

Quote from: RT on January 27, 2011, 15:46

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 27, 2011, 14:12
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 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 27, 2011, 16:21

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 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 28, 2011, 09:54

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #46 on:** January 28, 2011, 13:09 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #47 on:** January 28, 2011, 13:51 »

Nevermind. Complete waste of time.

cthoman · « **Reply #48 on:** January 28, 2011, 13:53 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 28, 2011, 13:51

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 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 28, 2011, 13:53

Quote from: lisafx on January 28, 2011, 13:51
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

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Isn't it technically an underpaid job? (Read 26682 times)

RT

ShadySue

bobbigmac

aeonf

bobbigmac

BaldricksTrousers

Karimala

lagereek

RT

Elenathewise

Elenathewise

lagereek

borg

yuliang11

Noedelhap

grp_photo

RacePhoto

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

helix7

RT

cthoman

lisafx

cthoman

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors