MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Microstock is killing the stock industry  (Read 14039 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2013, 12:31 »
0
How many are making that with 500 images?

Don't forget about us vector peoples. You can do pretty well with a small targeted portfolio. I don't know much about video, but I assume they might have similar stories.


« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2013, 12:34 »
0
microstock:
- 500 pics
- 500 hours (lets say you need 1 hour per pic, myself sometimes not even 15 minutes)
- 8k $
- 16$ / hour

min wage job:
- 18.5 hours (which is like 2x less than a full time job)
- 962 hours (52 weeks) (more 462 hours)
- 8k $
- 8.3$ / hour

if you spend 962 hours per year you would do more than 8.3$ per pic? impossible to answer but if its good stuff, why not?

I have worked for sure less than a FULL TIME month (150 hours) in 2012 (not including uploading/submitting, I do that while doing a ton other things) and made over 16k $, there is still a lot of passive income in microstock, don't think that buyers will leave it tomorrow...

« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2013, 12:45 »
0
Quote
That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.
Exactly my point, so we have in micros at least 70% (probably more) that are only hobbyist right now.  And as you pointed out this is only going to be more true as revenues decline and contributors doing this for a living can no longer make a living and move on.  This is certainly true of micros but how much will this affect other areas of stock as well?

Take another industry for example: landscaping.  There are many firms that invest $100,000's of dollars in trucks,  equipment and skilled staff, designers and landscape architects.  They produce impressive and professional work and get paid very well because they have skills.  Then the economy goes poor and anyone with a pickup truck is now advertising as a 'landscaper'.  Their work is generally poor and unimaginative, but they drive the perceived value of a job down so much that the professionals are being put out of business.  Is the quality of work the same? No, but to many it is good enough and costs 10% of what a professional would have to charge.  Are they making money?  Short term, yes if making money is defined as extra cash while collecting unemployment benefits.  Long term?  Of course not.

In some states now you must get a license and take classes and tests to prove you have the skills.  This raises the bar of entrance and helps assure the public that a contractor they hire has proven to at least have the minimum skill set.  Work without that license and you can get a big fine.  Maybe this is what will be needed for photographers?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2013, 12:54 »
+2
How many are making that with 500 images?

Don't forget about us vector peoples. You can do pretty well with a small targeted portfolio. I don't know much about video, but I assume they might have similar stories.

I've seen in the past, and have no idea who it was so don't ask for links, vector artists with a low number of files yet huge sales. I used to 'wish I could draw', but the sad truth is that even if I could, I have no imagination.

« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2013, 13:09 »
+1
How many are making that with 500 images?


Don't forget about us vector peoples. You can do pretty well with a small targeted portfolio. I don't know much about video, but I assume they might have similar stories.


I've seen in the past, and have no idea who it was so don't ask for links, vector artists with a low number of files yet huge sales. I used to 'wish I could draw', but the sad truth is that even if I could, I have no imagination.


You just have sing the Imagination Song.  ;D

South Park- The Imagination Song

« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2013, 13:48 »
0
That's exactly what I do before every illustration! :D

Poncke

« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2013, 14:05 »
0
Quote
That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.
Exactly my point, so we have in micros at least 70% (probably more) that are only hobbyist right now.  And as you pointed out this is only going to be more true as revenues decline and contributors doing this for a living can no longer make a living and move on.  This is certainly true of micros but how much will this affect other areas of stock as well?

Take another industry for example: landscaping.  There are many firms that invest $100,000's of dollars in trucks,  equipment and skilled staff, designers and landscape architects.  They produce impressive and professional work and get paid very well because they have skills.  Then the economy goes poor and anyone with a pickup truck is now advertising as a 'landscaper'.  Their work is generally poor and unimaginative, but they drive the perceived value of a job down so much that the professionals are being put out of business. Is the quality of work the same? No, but to many it is good enough and costs 10% of what a professional would have to charge.  Are they making money?  Short term, yes if making money is defined as extra cash while collecting unemployment benefits.  Long term?  Of course not.

In some states now you must get a license and take classes and tests to prove you have the skills.  This raises the bar of entrance and helps assure the public that a contractor they hire has proven to at least have the minimum skill set.  Work without that license and you can get a big fine.  Maybe this is what will be needed for photographers?
Exactly what happened to my mate. Very skillful high quality garden architect. Won prices with his gardens, and was the top garden business in the Netherlands. Went banktrupt, and now only does garden designs.

« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2013, 14:13 »
+1
How many are making that with 500 images?

That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever.


It used to be perfectly possible in microstock, even with photos.  I'm not sure about anymore.

Poncke

« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2013, 14:29 »
0
Xanox what is your suggestion? we all dump micro?

If the trend keeps going on, micro will dump you as the sales will not be enough to cover the production costs.

Said that, many things can happen in the industry in 2-3 years, nobody is in the position to say that micro is dead or that micro will prosper forever.

If we look at the numbers, the ones at risk of getting out of business are the photographers with small portfolios, not the top sellers.

They will be the ones to eventually keep micro as a hobby or to leave stock altogether.

On the other hand, oversupply will force top sellers to feed the beast more often than now but i guess the agencies will have to change something in their fees in one way or another.

In a typical scenario, 20% of the contributors make up 80% of the sales.
So, agencies have no reason to keep the small portfolios apart rare cases.

Being a cut-throat business it's logic that agencies will shake the fees in favor of the top sellers, or maybe give bonuses or whatever other incentive, i can't think of the whole micro industry remaining stale forever.

Getty itself could launch some new evil ideas to monetize their micro collections and they've no reason to give it away for free, if it works the other agencies could follow the same path.

All we can do is keeping out eyes open, something big could happen soon.
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue? LOL. Surely the ones that are accountable to their shareholders? Dont talk nonsense.

« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2013, 14:35 »
0
That's exactly what I do before every illustration! :D

Me too, but they usually ask me to stop when I'm drawing on a plane or public area.  ;D

« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2013, 14:54 »
0
Quote
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue?
Not sure this follows.  The 80% with tiny portfolios are also the easiest to replace.  Now I'll give that some of those are also creating new and different that the herd is not, but if they are they don't stay in the 80% all that long.

Look what 123 has done, made it much harder on the smaller contributors.  I think even the micro agencies have realized that adding 100's or 1,000's of new contributors every year is not as cost effective as encouraging those that produce 1,000's of great images every year (or every month).

It is harder to replace a 20,000 image portfolio from a contributor that has a good eye and creativity than it is to replace 100 contributors with 200 images each.  Look in the critique forum at SS or other where, newbies every day trying to break in.  A certain amount of new is required to keep from getting stale and to replace those that burn out or drop out.  But a new contributor has to cost the agency far more than a seasoned one if in review costs alone.  What is the acceptance ratio of a newbie (or hobbyist) compared to someone who has been doing this for years?  What is the sell through ratio of a newbie (or hobbyist) compared to a pro?

I am frankly surprised that agencies still make it so easy to get accepted.  Maybe they figure enough people start and never make a payout that it covers the costs?  I think going forward it will be harder to get accepted, and the difference in returns between upper tier contributors and hobbyist will get even farther apart.  Crowd sourcing worked for awhile but the standards are much higher now and the body of work available in micro is now so large that being selective is a better business model than accepting everyone in order to build image count.

« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2013, 21:50 »
-1
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue? LOL. Surely the ones that are accountable to their shareholders? Dont talk nonsense.

It's a matter of TCO (total cost of ownership).
You forget that this 20% of revenue makes up for 80% of the running costs in servers, support, billing, etc.

How do you know they make any profit from this ?

In other news only 0.5% to 1% of the average users ever click on ads, 99% of your server costs are wasted unless you monetize it with other upsells or you keep it for "brand awareness" or "visibility".

The 20/80 rule holds true in pretty much any market, and many economists suggest to drop the bottom 5% of your worst clients leaving it to the competition (hahaha).

It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2013, 05:05 »
0
It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.
Have iStock/Getty ever shown any sign that they give a flying f*ck about bad feeling by contributors being disseminated all over the web?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 09:56 by ShadySue »

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2013, 09:45 »
+1

It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.

I see you can tell how good someones work is, by counting their photos? You're amazing!

Are you related to ClaridgeJ by any chance?

The title of the thread should have been "Microstock is killing the Microstock industry" Price cutting, commission cutting, poor treatment for artists... the race to the bottom is building up momentum and speed.


« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 09:50 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2013, 09:50 »
0
Tell me which company can or will drop 20% revenue? LOL. Surely the ones that are accountable to their shareholders? Dont talk nonsense.

It's a matter of TCO (total cost of ownership).
You forget that this 20% of revenue makes up for 80% of the running costs in servers, support, billing, etc.

How do you know they make any profit from this ?

In other news only 0.5% to 1% of the average users ever click on ads, 99% of your server costs are wasted unless you monetize it with other upsells or you keep it for "brand awareness" or "visibility".

The 20/80 rule holds true in pretty much any market, and many economists suggest to drop the bottom 5% of your worst clients leaving it to the competition (hahaha).

It's a fact IS can barely make any serious profits on all these bottomfeeders with 50 or 200 photos on sale.
Waste of time for both parties and potentially bad for reputation as well as they might expect to make quick bucks with such small portfolios and spreading their anger all over the web.

Nine years scratching the injury. Yo must have the body full of scars.

« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2013, 11:11 »
+1
The title of the thread should have been "Microstock is killing the Microstock industry" Price cutting, commission cutting, poor treatment for artists... the race to the bottom is building up momentum and speed.

I'm still far from an expert but the more I learn about this business, the more I realize that the real problem is that these agencies, in pursuit of short-term gains, are steadily devaluing the product in the long term - reducing its perceived value.  And once it's gone they won't get it back.  That's what "race to the bottom" really means. 

They want to sell search services, not images per se.  They don't own the images and have to pay commissions on actual sales.  So if the value of the actual product (image) goes to zero, but they make their money off of fees for search, ad revenue and other services, that's fine with them.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 11:13 by stockastic »

Microbius

« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2013, 11:38 »
0
I'm still far from an expert but the more I learn about this business, the more I realize that the real problem is that these agencies, in pursuit of short-term gains, are steadily devaluing the product in the long term ....
If you want the most extreme example look at Getty. Getting asset stripped by the owners for short term gain to make the books look good for a company sale.
Drastically, and directly for the images involved, stripping the collection of its worth by making a one off sale to Google for a pittance, when they must know the industry is based on volume. Disgusting.


« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2013, 01:09 »
-1
I'm still far from an expert but the more I learn about this business, the more I realize that the real problem is that these agencies, in pursuit of short-term gains, are steadily devaluing the product in the long term - reducing its perceived value.  And once it's gone they won't get it back.  That's what "race to the bottom" really means. 

They want to sell search services, not images per se.  They don't own the images and have to pay commissions on actual sales.  So if the value of the actual product (image) goes to zero, but they make their money off of fees for search, ad revenue and other services, that's fine with them.

Bingo.
Agencies don't "own" nor produce the images.
WE DO !

They've nothing to lose if what they "resell" lose value, especially if they've no exclusivity and the same product is sold in dozens of other smaller agencies as well, and they've nothing to lose if we go broke and end up grilling burgers to pay the bills as the oversupply of cheap images keeps growing.

Pricing is also just one side of the whole business, the real deal is how to "monetize" this ocean of images, no matter if they're good or bad, now the new frontier is about monetizing the millions of images that for whatever reason never sold much in the past .. so they offer subscriptions, bulk packs, and soon nanostock or "paid by advertising" ...

Yes, it's still fine for them if images become worthless, as they play on big numbers and dont have to shoot or buy expensive gear nor to edit and keyword and upload, and when it will become impossible to sustain for photographers they will just stick with hobbyists, after all nobody ever promised contributors they could make a living out of microstock, isnt it ?

And dont worry, there will be always people telling you that 0.30$ for a photo is better than 0.00$ !


 

« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 01:11 by Xanox »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
63 Replies
18070 Views
Last post January 30, 2014, 10:54
by Goofy
73 Replies
27476 Views
Last post June 18, 2017, 13:25
by niktol
27 Replies
7386 Views
Last post April 26, 2022, 15:28
by fotoroad
453 Replies
61270 Views
Last post March 30, 2023, 06:04
by DiscreetDuck
22 Replies
4358 Views
Last post May 30, 2023, 17:08
by cobalt

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors