Yes. Still the drop from $1,000 to $0,25 is worse. Fortunately it's a small drop from $0,25 to $0

Quote from: stockastic on February 22, 2013, 14:44

The 'fasten seat belt' light is on.

Companies like Getty and Google have determined that the correct purchase price is 0, with the money  to be made from ads presented during search,  and 'fees' which are not visible to the photographer and hence not subject to a straightforward commission.   What will remain will be arbitrary token payments to photographers - which is how subscriptions basically work already. 

We all focus on what the agencies are doing and how they're changing, but the real change is happening in the mind of the buyer.  Thanks to the fine work of these agencies, and predatory companies like Google, the buyer's idea of what an image is "worth" is being steadily eroded and is rapidly approaching zero.

It can only really go so far. Content is still king. So, as soon as something becomes unprofitable to the contributors, they will look elsewhere. Microstock is already sitting on that line, so they really can only flex so far until their content/contributors leave. As we have seen with IS, it doesn't take too much to reach that tipping point. Also, the competition is always growing and waiting to accept their new and disgruntled content producers with promises of greener pastures.

That's all true.  Although the agencies increasingly obsess over mechanical aspects of quality (i.e. ridiculous standards for focus) there has to be a falling off in the subjective aspects - originality and composition.  In time the market will react.  But the change will be very slow because these agencies are now able to blare out "Choose From 20 Million Images" and surely, in that 20 million, is something I could use for my current assignment, and even though I spend 30 minutes searching, the price will be insignificant....  it will be a long time before search fatigue finally takes its toll and the sophisticated buyer says "I'm not going there anymore".  And by that time, these buyers might be starting to turn away from stock photos entirely, as photo-realistic vectors become easier to spin out on demand.

Such extreme pessimism may be unwarranted, but it's depressing that we're now in a situation where one agency seems to be steadily cornering the market while the others melt down in various ways, and it's one that's just completed an IPO, which usually means that internally it's being completely re-directed to short-term profits.

if the price drops any further it will unprofitable for the professional level photos to be produced.

There will be plenty of part timers/hobbiest who don't rely on the money "to feed the family" that will continue to provide the easy, cheap to produce photos.

I'm sure that it is more effecient for the agencies to have the factory outlets with 95% acceptance rate than relying on part timers. If they drop the price too much they'll lose the top end photos that sell alot and keep buyers on the site.

You'll still be able to find a picture of an apple on microstock but you won't get anywhere near as many of those 15 model shots with perfect makeup etc.

content is not king.
Keywords are.
what use are 100.000 pictures of apples if they cannot be found, or if they are mixed with pears and nuts?

Not to mention computers.

Aren't keywords, titles and descriptions part of the content?

content is not king.
Keywords are.
what use are 100.000 pictures of apples if they cannot be found, or if they are mixed with pears and nuts?

Not to mention computers.

pretty much we get a dictionary and we are rich why don't we focus on important stuff instead of talking 1800 stuff

So if I take a picture of a tree falling in the forest, but no one ever sees the picture...

I'm sure this will go over like a ton of bricks...but I have to share...


http://blog.johnlund.com/2013/02/getty-sales-and-numbers-for-thought.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+johnlund%2FUkbR+%28The+Stock+Photo+Guy+-+John+Lund+Stock+Photographer%29

edited....after posting this, I noticed that the next topic in this part of the forum is the same link LOL

microstock is not killing the industry - there will always be a large demand for ridiculously cheap photography. it is making the industry unsustainable for individual photographers to produce quality imagery and make a living from doing so, and it is also enabling the sellers of our work to make tons of money from the volume of sales. it is not killing the stock industry in terms of sales, but it is killing it for the photographers who produce the work.

microstock is not killing the industry - there will always be a large demand for ridiculously cheap photography. it is making the industry unsustainable for individual photographers to produce quality imagery and make a living from doing so, and it is also enabling the sellers of our work to make tons of money from the volume of sales. it is not killing the stock industry in terms of sales, but it is killing it for the photographers who produce the work.

As a comparison, a friend of mine is on the children book business, he draw illustrations and writes the text and also edits the whole product (which is a PDF file that will need further editing by the publishing company).

He's usually paid 10% of the retail price, each book will be printed from 1000 to 5000 copies and sent to the national distributor, but the publishers tend to give him some money in advance as it can take even 1 year to see the book in the stores.

Further payments are made every 12 months and include royalties from other books and eventual distribution agreement in other countries (a one-time fee of 3000 to 6000$ depending on several factors, spit 50/50 between authors and publisher).

Once he get paid, he will have to pay taxes, from 30 to 50%, again depending on several factors.

Conclusion ? He cannot do this full time as the book publishing business is now in deep sh-it and he would either have to publish a new book every month or become a famous and expensive illustrator, so that at the moment and for the foreseeable future he keeps book publishing just as a hobby and as a way to make some bucks.

IS THIS the same fate waiting for microstock photographers ? stock as a Hobby ? maybe.

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.

Good grief, it's already a hobby, we're there.  The few people making a living at it started very early and are hanging in despite declining returns.

According to the recent survey:
Average hours per week: 18.5
Full time: 21%
Exclusive: 26%
Sell to Alamy: 31%
Sell to macros: 21%

You could say those are unrelated facts.  Or you could draw the conclusion that 70-80% of people doing microstock are doing it as a hobby.

According to Microstock Time there are 33,230 contributors on SS.  Of those only 4,300 have more than 1,000 images. and only 7,500 have more than 500 images, which is 22%.  While I will not argue that the total size of the portfolio is the only consideration, I will suggest that very very few people are making a living in stock (any type of stock) with 500 images.  The conclusion is again that 70-80% of contributors are doing it as a hobby.  With 500 images on micros you MIGHT be making enough money for equipment, but you cannot possibly be covering your time, even if it is that 18.5 hours per week.  18.5 hours at US minimum wage is $8,000+ depending on the state.  How many are making that with 500 images?