pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Living from Stockphotography  (Read 16622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: April 04, 2014, 05:04 »
+6
In answer to the OP's question: Yes. However, as you will gather from this thread, there are various factors and varying degrees of success but the old "y" words work in this business just as well as any other:

Profligacy,originality,efficiency (cost) etc etc.

And remember to do something about it instead of talking about it and if something isn't working or sales are seemingly out of your control, try something else, measure it and if it proves successful, wring it out and use it up. Then move onto the next thing. Look forwards - the good old days are not a measuring stick for the present.

Good Luck.



shudderstok

« Reply #76 on: April 04, 2014, 05:17 »
-2
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional

yeah the joke is on you ;)

great!!! i love it :)

« Reply #77 on: April 04, 2014, 07:31 »
+4
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2014, 07:39 »
0
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)
But also sheer luck, with regards default search position.

shudderstok

« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2014, 07:45 »
+1
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)

and diligence - Amen. live the dream man and make it happen. it can be done. trust me on this.

« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2014, 07:51 »
+2
To the OP: Another factor, and an important one, is how many images are being added to each micro stock site each week.  I haven't checked lately but I think Shutterstock is adding around 200,000 new images per week. You, me, Sean, Luis, Ron.....all micro stockers are all competing against this.  It's one of the core reasons around uploading volume together with usability, technical quality and uniqueness.  You also need to look at current trends.  For example, in the USA gold investing is a big trend right now as is our crummy political system.  I've shot both and have success in both from a sales perspective. But they probably won't last forever, so you have to keep shooting and understanding current trends/affairs. Remember, what works in the USA, however, won't necessarily work in other countries. But a lot of stuff, like much of what Sean Locke shoots, is cross country compatible for the most part and he does (or used to) do well with these.  He is very good as are a few others here like Joanne and Tyler and Mike Ember for illustrations.  If they chime in with advice, listen to them.

« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2014, 08:01 »
+7
I have about 800 - 1000 stock photos on all major agencies. My earnings is about of >100 $ / month. The time that I spend for photos is very short because, unfortunately, I must go to a "classic" job that I don't like it to much but the salary is more consistent (600 $). In March, on SS with my 800 images I sold more than 100.
Do you think that it deserve to make only stock pictures and, let say, in 4 -5 month, if I will produce more and more similar images like I did till now, I'll rich my actual incoming from job?

I think it's important not to forget that "making money from a job" is not the same as "making money on your own" in several aspects. I don't know the systems in your country but being an independent business usually means you do not only have to consider replacing your employment income but also consider: Taxes, insurance, pension plans, health plans etc. In most countries you would need to earn about 50% more from being self employed than from being employed.

You also need to consider that while you have been buying your equipment from "spare money" in the past, you will have to consider this as investments in the future, with the need to refinance each new camera, lens, light, prop and travel from the money you earn.

The point here is that as long as you treat stock as a "hobby" on the side of an employment, every cent you earn is "additional income". Once you become a self employed stock contributor, all those "income" turns into "revenue" and you might need to make double the revenue to achieve the same income at the end.

Good luck with your decisions.

« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2014, 08:06 »
+1
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)

You appear to be choosing to focus on the more optimistic comments, rather than the more realistic (and, I feel, useful) ones.

If you can earn money through photography in ways other than stock, I advise you to diversify and build on that.

All the best - Ann
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 08:08 by ann »

« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2014, 08:36 »
+3
Quote
To the OP: Another factor, and an important one, is how many images are being added to each micro stock site each week.  I haven't checked lately but I think Shutterstock is adding around 200,000 new images per week. You, me, Sean, Luis, Ron.....all micro stockers are all competing against this.

It's been actually 250,000/week for SS lately. Other agencies are not that much further behind.
That's one million per month, 12 millions per year, 24 millions in two years which will bring SS in 2016 to 60 millions images, in 2019 to 100 millions. A portfolio with 10,000 images will constitute a very tiny slice of 0.0001 of the total inventory (.01%).

In other words, in three years, SS image inventory will double - from 35 millions to at least 70 millions. In order to maintain your 2014 earnings, you will need to double also your portfolio. It's hard to imagine that the agencies will raise their royalties, so in the best case scenario, even if you'll double your portfolio and earn in three years the same amount of 2014's dollars, the actual value will be diminished by the inflation rate. And that's the best case scenario.
 

« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2014, 09:58 »
+4
Whilst I agree the collections are growing exponentially, so is the market. Twenty years ago people read magazines and newspapers. They still do. We all know that the advent of PCs, laptops and especially tablets and smartphones has been a big bang event for business and the need for imagery. We have yet to see widespread billboard technologies implemented but five years from now you could be standing at a bus stop in Nepal and there will be images moving across an LCD strip trying to sell you something.

In the near future, you will have moving images, stills, animations in 2D and 3D on just about every surface marketeers, politicos, evangelists and vendors can buy up. Portable technologies will become cheaper and cheaper as advertising and click through revenue negates production costs. We will be able to buy stuff almost by thinking about it. I could go on but I'm in need of tea. All I would add is:

There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.


Rinderart

« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2014, 11:29 »
0
In answer to the OP's question: Yes. However, as you will gather from this thread, there are various factors and varying degrees of success but the old "y" words work in this business just as well as any other:

Profligacy,originality,efficiency (cost) etc etc.

And remember to do something about it instead of talking about it and if something isn't working or sales are seemingly out of your control, try something else, measure it and if it proves successful, wring it out and use it up. Then move onto the next thing. Look forwards - the good old days are not a measuring stick for the present.

Good Luck.

Absolute best answer. Going forward, theres gonna be bigger changes coming especially the "Getting Buried quicker" Syndrome. It all comes down to CV and your work ethic.

Rinderart

« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2014, 11:33 »
+1
Quote
To the OP: Another factor, and an important one, is how many images are being added to each micro stock site each week.  I haven't checked lately but I think Shutterstock is adding around 200,000 new images per week. You, me, Sean, Luis, Ron.....all micro stockers are all competing against this.

It's been actually 250,000/week for SS lately. Other agencies are not that much further behind.
That's one million per month, 12 millions per year, 24 millions in two years which will bring SS in 2016 to 60 millions images, in 2019 to 100 millions. A portfolio with 10,000 images will constitute a very tiny slice of 0.0001 of the total inventory (.01%).

In other words, in three years, SS image inventory will double - from 35 millions to at least 70 millions. In order to maintain your 2014 earnings, you will need to double also your portfolio. It's hard to imagine that the agencies will raise their royalties, so in the best case scenario, even if you'll double your portfolio and earn in three years the same amount of 2014's dollars, the actual value will be diminished by the inflation rate. And that's the best case scenario.
 

Agree.

lisafx

« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2014, 22:13 »
+1


Clearly I am not in this for the money.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha. So you are spending all this time on MSG, pissing and moaning about shutterstock's sub model, when you are not even in this for the money. Hahahahahahahahahaha. I have one word for you.

FLICKR

Is it just me? I had read that statement as sarcastic.   ???

Uncle Pete

« Reply #88 on: April 05, 2014, 07:51 »
0
Which statement?  ??? I thought both were pretty funny, considering the history of each of them.



Clearly I am not in this for the money.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha. So you are spending all this time on MSG, pissing and moaning about shutterstock's sub model, when you are not even in this for the money. Hahahahahahahahahaha. I have one word for you.

FLICKR

Is it just me? I had read that statement as sarcastic.   ???

« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2014, 08:08 »
0
Whilst I agree the collections are growing exponentially, so is the market. Twenty years ago people read magazines and newspapers. They still do. We all know that the advent of PCs, laptops and especially tablets and smartphones has been a big bang event for business and the need for imagery. We have yet to see widespread billboard technologies implemented but five years from now you could be standing at a bus stop in Nepal and there will be images moving across an LCD strip trying to sell you something.

In the near future, you will have moving images, stills, animations in 2D and 3D on just about every surface marketeers, politicos, evangelists and vendors can buy up. Portable technologies will become cheaper and cheaper as advertising and click through revenue negates production costs. We will be able to buy stuff almost by thinking about it. I could go on but I'm in need of tea. All I would add is:

There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.

Even if this has some truth to it, it's not happening at nearly same rate (bolded above).  This means that the experience contributors are feeling from uploading content and seeing flat sales will get worse because the delta between the collection sizes and demand will continue to widen.   

« Reply #90 on: April 05, 2014, 09:22 »
0
Whilst I agree the collections are growing exponentially, so is the market. Twenty years ago people read magazines and newspapers. They still do. We all know that the advent of PCs, laptops and especially tablets and smartphones has been a big bang event for business and the need for imagery. We have yet to see widespread billboard technologies implemented but five years from now you could be standing at a bus stop in Nepal and there will be images moving across an LCD strip trying to sell you something.

In the near future, you will have moving images, stills, animations in 2D and 3D on just about every surface marketeers, politicos, evangelists and vendors can buy up. Portable technologies will become cheaper and cheaper as advertising and click through revenue negates production costs. We will be able to buy stuff almost by thinking about it. I could go on but I'm in need of tea. All I would add is:

There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.

Even if this has some truth to it, it's not happening at nearly same rate (bolded above).  This means that the experience contributors are feeling from uploading content and seeing flat sales will get worse because the delta between the collection sizes and demand will continue to widen.

I see your point but if the market is not growing fast enough my strategy in any business has been to look for where the market is and what it wants. Some of this information is put out by agencies of course, in their "wants" and articles on market trends/styles in vogue etc. In any event, I work hard not to be in a position where my last sentence above in bold becomes a problem - by ensuring as much as possible that my supply is tuned to ever changing demand.

« Reply #91 on: April 05, 2014, 10:24 »
+3
There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.

You can't actually quantify supply in a business that does not sell a tangible object. If anything, the supply exceeds the demand the moment any file is created because a billion copies of it can be created.

Two key issues that affect suppliers (and there are probably others that haven't sprung to mind) are falling market share, given the ever increasing number of suppliers generating material, and falling perceived value of images as their range and availability continues to expand and everyday camera-phones are seen as adequate for their creation.

Combining these factors, we seem to be in a situation where the value of images sold by the industry has multiplied three or four times over in the last decade, the actual number of images used has probably multiplied ten or twenty-fold and the number of active suppliers has multiplied from probably just a few hundred a decade ago to tens of thousands now.

Consequently, the prospect of rapid market growth is very good for agencies (perhaps explaining how SS's share price took off) but is much less likely to translate into earnings growth for suppliers, who are victims of dilution between an increasing pool of suppliers, the falling average value of a download and the rapid growth in the number of available files.


« Reply #92 on: April 05, 2014, 12:24 »
+4
Two key issues that affect suppliers (and there are probably others that haven't sprung to mind) are falling market share, given the ever increasing number of suppliers generating material, and falling perceived value of images as their range and availability continues to expand and everyday camera-phones are seen as adequate for their creation.

Combining these factors, we seem to be in a situation where the value of images sold by the industry has multiplied three or four times over in the last decade, the actual number of images used has probably multiplied ten or twenty-fold and the number of active suppliers has multiplied from probably just a few hundred a decade ago to tens of thousands now.

Consequently, the prospect of rapid market growth is very good for agencies (perhaps explaining how SS's share price took off) but is much less likely to translate into earnings growth for suppliers, who are victims of dilution between an increasing pool of suppliers, the falling average value of a download and the rapid growth in the number of available files.

This is true now and is what many of us have been saying will happen for a long time, but we're just about to get to the next interesting stage of crowdsourcing where the likelihood of any return for occasional contributors is so small they will no longer bother. Crowdsourcing is a input-reward system after all, whether that be money in this case or compliments on 500px. No reward, no input. Presumably the agencies will have to improve the reward to continue receiving content before we recycle back to oversupply again.

« Reply #93 on: April 05, 2014, 12:56 »
0
Or maybe the agencies have enough files already and can get by with established people who keep trying to hang on to their earnings by uploading more and more.

I've said for a long time that I don't reckon there's much hope for newbies (though I am surprised by the results in the "experimental year in stock" thread).

lisafx

« Reply #94 on: April 05, 2014, 14:24 »
0
Which statement?  ??? I thought both were pretty funny, considering the history of each of them.


I assumed the "clearly I'm not in this for the money" statement was sarcastic, but I seem to be the only one who took it that way.

lisafx

« Reply #95 on: April 05, 2014, 14:30 »
+2
I see your point but if the market is not growing fast enough my strategy in any business has been to look for where the market is and what it wants. Some of this information is put out by agencies of course, in their "wants" and articles on market trends/styles in vogue etc. In any event, I work hard not to be in a position where my last sentence above in bold becomes a problem - by ensuring as much as possible that my supply is tuned to ever changing demand.

Those articles by the agencies are a double edged sword.  For every one of those articles about what people should be shooting, there are a few folks for whom that was a yet-undiscovered niche.   If it's your niche that's the subject of the next article on what to shoot, there goes a big chunk of your sales. 

I can see how those articles benefit the agencies, but they are of very little use to contributors.  If you run around shooting according to what the agency is putting out there en masse, then you will only get a tiny fraction of sales in an incoming flood of the same subject matter.  And as explained above, if you already were shooting that niche  your photos are practically valueless overnight. 
« Last Edit: April 05, 2014, 14:32 by lisafx »

« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2014, 15:36 »
+1
Which statement?  ??? I thought both were pretty funny, considering the history of each of them.



I assumed the "clearly I'm not in this for the money" statement was sarcastic, but I seem to be the only one who took it that way.


I am not surprised that you spotted my intent Lisa. Trying to communicate with a few contributors here leaves me feeling like Anderson in this absurd flick  http://tinyurl.com/prdy6b9

Yes my comment was frustrated sarcasm.

« Reply #97 on: April 06, 2014, 11:19 »
0


I never ever experienced any 'sudden overnight drops'. Only the regular fluctuations according to season/holidays, etc. I suspect you are taking your hints from certain 'SS forum superstar' contributors, who's portfolios don't seem to be noticed by their fans for actually being a piss-poor collection of photography "don't do"-s. :)


I don't think the search penalizes ports for anything, I think the search simply doesn't do anything to 'ports', becasue it only works on individual images.... regardless of their source. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. Just doesn't make any sense.

Exactly. Agree on everything said by Topol.

But to be honest, $100 for 1,000 images is very low. You should already be hitting $600 a month with that many images, or at least be in the ball park. It's hard to give advice on what needs to be done to get to $600 without seeing the images you have now. I don't consider myself to be the best photographer in the world, but I'm making about $2,000 a month off 1,850 images on all sites with most of the earnings coming from a core group of images. I'd say about $1 per image in your port per month would be about average.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 11:27 by robhainer »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #98 on: April 06, 2014, 14:07 »
+1
But to be honest, $100 for 1,000 images is very low. You should already be hitting $600 a month with that many images, or at least be in the ball park. It's hard to give advice on what needs to be done to get to $600 without seeing the images you have now. I don't consider myself to be the best photographer in the world, but I'm making about $2,000 a month off 1,850 images on all sites with most of the earnings coming from a core group of images. I'd say about $1 per image in your port per month would be about average.
Not speaking of you/your port, but it's far more important how much profit you're making than your gross.
Someone who makes $500 with few expenses is doing better than someone who earns $2000 but has $1501 of post-tax expenses. Unless the latter is going to keep earning the same for many months ongoing, which is by no means certain nowadays.
Vide how Yu-know-who apparently nearly went bankrupt more than once, despite all that sponsorship.
Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

« Reply #99 on: April 06, 2014, 14:38 »
0
I have no "post tax" expenses other than my time, and I only do stock in my free time. It did take me three years to build up my port to where it is now doing it that way though.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
7711 Views
Last post March 27, 2006, 12:29
by leaf
35 Replies
17791 Views
Last post January 26, 2007, 20:10
by phildate
18 Replies
10275 Views
Last post November 07, 2015, 23:38
by PeterChigmaroff
50 Replies
17787 Views
Last post April 08, 2009, 20:24
by vonkara
Living in the Florida Keys

Started by WarrenPrice Off Topic

9 Replies
3099 Views
Last post January 26, 2013, 16:27
by trek

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors