Author Topic: Lessons from worlds most successful investor and how its relevant to Microstock (Read 5957 times)

michealo · « **on:** May 25, 2009, 06:08 »

Warren Buffett the worlds most successful investor bought a textile mill called Berkshire Hathaway.

The manager of the mill came to him excitedly because newer faster looms had been developed and he wanted to purchase them for the mill, Warren Buffett thought about and opted not to invest the capital.

Why? Because any advantage to Berkshire Hathaway was also going to be available to each of its competitors. Ultimately he decided to exit this business altogether. It turned out to be a wise decision.

The parallel to microstock - take for example the purchasing a 5DMk2, it can produce larger images which should in theory help increase ones revenue, unfortunately they are also available to all ones competitors.

So in essence it becomes something like an arms race, whereas at one stage one could use a point and shoot and upload to the major sites and make significant money.

Thoughts

?

epantha · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2009, 06:31 »

I think if you understand stock photography and what sells best, you don't need to have the best camera in the world . . . just a decent one. And the most expensive camera won't make you a better photographer.

Milinz · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2009, 06:39 »

Quote from: epantha on May 25, 2009, 06:31

I think if you understand stock photography and what sells best, you don't need to have the best camera in the world . . . just a decent one. And the most expensive camera won't make you a better photographer.

+1

I shoot with D300 and it is more than great camera for what I do ;-)

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2009, 06:44 »

Interesting story...I don't know if that the fact that technology is available to competitor is the only reason of the exit in this case, often other things have to be taken into account.

Generally speaking in strategy, the five-forces Porter framework is often used: the following 5 forces have to be minimized to have above than average returns: bargaining power of suppliers,bargaining power of buyers,threat of subsitutes,threat of entrants, rivalry among competitors.

When you refer to MKII it is a way for a photographer to raise the barrier of entry to the others and a way to protect his revenue on the long term.
Making money with P&S is long time gone in microstock due to the increase in quality so investing 2500 euros in a body is certainly a good strategy.

Also another barrier of entry is the know how require to enter the microstock industry (the market itself and the technical workflow).

For video, a barrier of entry is certainly a high speed internet connection for example....

willie · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2009, 10:34 »

Upon looking at what sells in the past and present, I think knowing how to use the right KEYWORDS is the basis of stock photography. As someone once mentioned here , "you won't sell if the buyer don't find it".
As for owning the best machine, the person behind the machine still accounts for 99% of the success. If you know the sweet spot, limitations of any camera/lens , you can make stock worthy images with any camera today. Having a camera of a higher res also increases the chance of your inability to be magnified.
It's like giving a gremlin the coolest and most expensive surfboard/skateboard, and that would not make him/her a great surfer/sk8boarder.

Graffoto · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2009, 10:54 »

"Why? Because any advantage to Berkshire Hathaway was also going to be available to each of its competitors. Ultimately he decided to exit this business altogether. It turned out to be a wise decision."

So what you are really saying is we all should quit because there is too much competition and no one has an advantage anymore?

Photography, the auto industry, the fashion industry etc, etc. All of these enterprises and many more are very competitive.
The winners are those that can innovate. Make a more interesting photograph, build a car that gets better mileage, create a garment that everyone wants to wear.... these are the challenges.

But I think the OP is correct. There is too much competition and the playing field is too even.... he should quit.

patballard · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2009, 12:53 »

Everyone has made some valid points. Except that we all should exit the field. That's a personal decision based on earnings plus how enjoyable doing micro is for the individual photographer. The bar for quality and technique is constantly getting raised. What I've been wondering lately is what will be the next popular style in micro photography? The market for isolated objects on a white background and models in business suits with soft lighting on a white background seems saturated. Who is going to be the next innovator who comes up with that unique look that catches on? The style that all the designers want, and that we all imitate.

Pat

Old Hippy · « **Reply #7 on:** May 26, 2009, 11:56 »

all you need is a camera to make pictures "good enough" to be sold.

anything else is pure feticism.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2009, 10:29 »

but with the decline of the print media, and the rise of the digital media - surely the megapixel advantage will be eroded?

Im sticking with my d400 for a while. lenses for me are the best investment.

I really don't see my 10mp limit being a bar to very nice money.

Camera companies seem to be investing in ways people interact with the media - they don't seem massively focussed on making amazing technological advances (like focusing in the dark!) with their bodies.
x

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Lessons from worlds most successful investor and how its relevant to Microstock (Read 5957 times)

michealo

epantha

Milinz

MicrostockExp

willie

Graffoto

patballard

Old Hippy

luceluceluce

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors