MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: jim123 on May 17, 2009, 02:12
-
Hi,
I've only been at this for about 6 months and am beginning to get concerned....
I am on SS, DT, FT, StockXpert, 123, and BS.
I have a total gallery of about 600 images and am making $800-$1000 per month.
I have noticed that 3 months ago, with half the # of images I would be getting DOUBLE the sales (if not more) - now they seem to have dropped DRASTICALLY, especially at SS.
I wonder if others are experiencing this and what the reasons and future look like.
I'd like to write this off to recession, but wonder if that's really it, or is it just seasonal, or what.
Any thoughts, validation, or reality check comments are very appreciated and THANKS FOR THIS BOARD - nice to find it!
-
There are ups and downs but each year I have made more than the previous year. Spring and Autumn have the most sales and mine fall off a bit in the summer and winter. Last month was my best so far and this year looks much better than last year. I think the economic downturn has boosted microstock sales, perhaps more buyers have moved from the higher priced agencies?
-
3 months ago I had a big down down down. Last months was my BME. This one even better it seems.
You draw the conclusion ???
-
If you don't upload regularly to SS you can be sure you have drop of sales because of it. You have to upload there every week, about 10 photos per week to have regular sales.
-
I'd like to write this off to recession, but wonder if that's really it, or is it just seasonal, or what.
Any thoughts, validation, or reality check comments are very appreciated and THANKS FOR THIS BOARD - nice to find it!
Attribute part of it to the number of "Make money with your images" websites and "classes" that have appeared in the last year or so.
-
I'd like to write this off to recession, but wonder if that's really it, or is it just seasonal, or what.
Any thoughts, validation, or reality check comments are very appreciated and THANKS FOR THIS BOARD - nice to find it!
Attribute part of it to the number of "Make money with your images" websites and "classes" that have appeared in the last year or so.
Plus the people who believe:
500 images = $500 a month
1000 images = $1000 a month
5000 images = $5000 a month
and not just that. They expect this to stay like that for eternity ;D
Here is the reality check:
Improve you work, learn, research, talk to professionals in the industry and most importantly: shoot, shoot, shoot as much as you can.
Also upload those shots of course.
Only a steady growing portfolio and increasing quality will pay off. Otherwise you'll be disappointed sooner or later.
-
Thanks for all the replies - they do help.
I am then alone, in this observation?
I do continue to upload on a very regular basis, but have just noticed that downloads are HALF of what they were (with more images). Is this normal, or something unusual?
-
Thanks for all the replies - they do help.
I am then alone, in this observation?
I do continue to upload on a very regular basis, but have just noticed that downloads are HALF of what they were (with more images). Is this normal, or something unusual?
No, you are not alone.
Some people who previously did pretty well years ago are now struggling. It's not the same for everyone. A part of these people also have a studio and do other work besides stock, so it's not their only source of income though.
It depends on what you deliver. If you produced 100% stock you didn't feel a huge drop in sales. If you're having more fun doing what you like (and also having a "real" job) you might not always hit the spot and suffer a loss of income.
The remedy is quite "simple". Do better, produce more.
-
I don't think it is just about how many quality images you can produce. There are areas that are saturated with great images and those are probably not worth bothering with now. Find the less well covered subjects. I have had the only image available sometimes, until someone comes along and copies it :) The sites have big collections but they do not have a big variety, there are millions of similar images. Produce something different and there is little competition.
-
The remedy is quite "simple". Do better, produce more.
If everybody is doing that, it won't help :P
Imagine everybody soon having a 65Mp Hasselblad, shooting with 10 4000w lightboxes in a 50,000$ studio, with Claudia Schiffer as business model with headset, shaking hands with Brad Pitt, and selling those shots for 0.35$ on CheaperStock - what would change?
-
The remedy is quite "simple". Do better, produce more.
If everybody is doing that, it won't help :P
Imagine everybody soon having a 65Mp Hasselblad, shooting with 10 4000w lightboxes in a 50,000$ studio, with Claudia Schiffer as business model with headset, shaking hands with Brad Pitt, and selling those shots for 0.35$ on CheaperStock - what would change?
Haha. I know what you think but that's not what I meant.
Obviously you have to use your brain too!
First of not too many could afford what you mentioned above...
Secondly if you're smart you have to go into a niche market.
BUT
if you decide to go into a market that is saturated only make sure you do it better. Then you won't have to worry. It works.
There are still saturated areas with quite lousy images. Just because a lot of people do them means that the images are great. ;)
If you have an eye what sells and know what your skills are you will know which areas to cover. Like I said, use your brain.
Some people believe it's a no-brainer to sell photos online. And just because some people have 3000 or more images on there doesn't mean that they do well or have outstanding images...
You can make a living with 600 exceptional photographs/illustrations. There are people who do that. But they won't talk because then you would really see where the money is ;)
Keep browsing through popular portfolios. You'll see.
-
The remedy is quite "simple". Do better, produce more.
... with Claudia Schiffer as business model with headset, shaking hands with Brad Pitt, and selling those shots for 0.35$ on CheaperStock - what would change?
Angelina would get mad, that would change... ;D
-
Hi,
I've only been at this for about 6 months and am beginning to get concerned....
I am on SS, DT, FT, StockXpert, 123, and BS.
I have a total gallery of about 600 images and am making $800-$1000 per month.
I have noticed that 3 months ago, with half the # of images I would be getting DOUBLE the sales (if not more) - now they seem to have dropped DRASTICALLY, especially at SS.
I wonder if others are experiencing this and what the reasons and future look like.
I'd like to write this off to recession, but wonder if that's really it, or is it just seasonal, or what.
Any thoughts, validation, or reality check comments are very appreciated and THANKS FOR THIS BOARD - nice to find it!
Actually, if you are making $800 - $1,000/month on 600 images I would say you are doing exceptionally well.
But yes, in addition to everybody and their cousin flooding the micro sites with their images and expectations, there is also the summer slowdown coming. It usually starts in late may and lasts until September. Designers go on vacations and also seem to have less demand during the summer months.
-
i'm afraid the very ones who need a reality checks are the microtards excited to give away their photos for 0.25$ each.
there's obviously a huge market for cheap images but at the very least the price should be a minimum of 5-10$ per picture.
it's just insane to crank up 1000s of pics on micros and then complain you lost money and time.
on top of this, the requirement to pass istock and others QC is just ridicolous, they even rejected some pictures i sold more than once on macros !
now, i can understand micros are not the right place for editorial images but my pictures were razor sharp and technically more than OK, yet they said "lack of focus" and yadda yadda.
-
on top of this, the requirement to pass istock and others QC is just ridicolous, they even rejected some pictures i sold more than once on macros !
now, i can understand micros are not the right place for editorial images but my pictures were razor sharp and technically more than OK, yet they said "lack of focus" and yadda yadda.
Ah, so here's your frustration. You're not able to pass QC. 99% of images that owners say are "razor sharp", aren't.
-
Earnings go up and down every month, so it gets hard to see if your average is increasing sometimes.
As far as the difference between selling images for 25 cents versus 5 to 10 bucks, I can look at my monthly results and say there isn't much difference. I sell images at Shutterstock for 36 cents a piece and images at iStock for $5 and up. At the end of the month, I earn about the same amount at both agencies.
Yeah, getting a few cents per image seems pathetic, but I don't look at it as individual sales. Instead, I view my monthly earnings as what people pay to have access to my catalog of images.
-
they were sharp enough to be sold on macros and that's all that matters in the real world.
micropayments : it's the same logic of micropayments and black hat sites as well... but it's still scratching the bottom of the barrel.
for editorial images, i don't know anybody making the same with micros.
-
Why don't you post a few of your quality shots so we can see them? Or point us to your portfolio?
-
i'm afraid the very ones who need a reality checks are the microtards excited to give away their photos for 0.25$ each.
there's obviously a huge market for cheap images but at the very least the price should be a minimum of 5-10$ per picture.
it's just insane to crank up 1000s of pics on micros and then complain you lost money and time.
on top of this, the requirement to pass istock and others QC is just ridicolous, they even rejected some pictures i sold more than once on macros !
now, i can understand micros are not the right place for editorial images but my pictures were razor sharp and technically more than OK, yet they said "lack of focus" and yadda yadda.
I just love reading stories like this! They always give me a good chuckle.
It never fails to amaze me how many old trad sellers cannot pass the quality threshhold for microstock. Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
-
they were sharp enough to be sold on macros and that's all that matters in the real world.
micropayments : it's the same logic of micropayments and black hat sites as well... but it's still scratching the bottom of the barrel.
for editorial images, i don't know anybody making the same with micros.
Just wondered why you are telling us all this? Or even why you are here!
-
privacy reasons.
-
privacy reasons.
How about if we promise not to send you any postal mail or come knocking at your door?
-
Last time I checked a macrosite after someoneŽs rant about micros I found a whole lot of exactly the same as in micro. I even saw some snapshots of a coffecup between the keyboard and a shot from inside the fridge. Razorsharp probably...
-
better appreciate what your getting now,it could get worse.
-
micros' QC is a good indicator of the whole rip-off :
if their concept is selling junk for few cents there's no reason to raise the quality bar.
micros were created for third rate images, that's their place and that's the place they should stick.
by opposite raising the bar forces photographer to submit good pictures and therefore making micros in direct competition with macrostocks.
the problem here is not the micros but the photogs willing to sell their picture for peanuts.
-
We sell LICENSES for peanuts - And we sell them thousands and thousands of times... get it?
-
on top of this, the requirement to pass istock and others QC is just ridicolous, they even rejected some pictures i sold more than once on macros !
now, i can understand micros are not the right place for editorial images but my pictures were razor sharp and technically more than OK, yet they said "lack of focus" and yadda yadda.
So given the obviously low opinion you have of micros, can you explain why you attempted to sell your images via one or more microstock outlets?
Oh, I get it... "Hippy" must be short for "Hypocrite"
-
...I have noticed that 3 months ago, with half the # of images I would be getting DOUBLE the sales (if not more) - now they seem to have dropped DRASTICALLY, especially at SS...
There's sort of a honeymoon period at SS, and after a few months there your sales definitely seem to fall off. Happens to everyone. You can't make realistic projections or assumptions based on your first several months in microstock, but after about a year you will have a better idea of what a normal few months should look like for you.
-
i just wanted to see if i could sell on micros the images i'm ashamed to sell on macros.
p.s.
@magnum :
fine, but for how long will they sell as long as they add 1000s of pics every day in their database and now they even allow free photo section for promotion, subscription, flat-fees, and who knows what more tomorrow ?
the only ones making money with micros are the owner of the micro companies.
-
no, my idea was simply to sell my good images on macros and the remaining junk on micros.
but now it's harder to sell on micros than on macros, fact !
ask yourself : is your work really worth 0.25$ ?
and who told you that picture you spent hours to make will sell in the hundreds ?
what about if it makes one single sale ?
with RM you know exactly who's gonna use your images, where, how, and for what purpose.
with RF you're screwed.
what if tomorrow Time magazine or Newsweek like your pic and make it a cover frontpage ?
all you've got is 0.25$ !
because that's how you price, value, and consider your work.
no wonder more and more clients use microstock, for buyers it's a bargain, and they'll soon
ask for more, as recently some micros have even a FREE photo section !
that's the future of micros, and they'll tell you it's good for promotion ! haha !
-
I bet youŽre some old member just wanna pick a fight here for some past reason. IŽll ask Leaf ;)
This is too good to be true...
-
after the closing of the Alamy forum i needed to rant somewhere against the micros.
and who knows, if micros will bankrupt the macrostock agencies i'll have to join the micro
bandwagon as well so it's better to know what's going on and stay ahead of the new trends.
-
Old Hippy, I haven't been doing microstock long enough to have an expert opinion, but I think the sharpness expectations have been steadily creeping up and sometimes reviewers go over the top. Remember that the people at these microstocks are a generation younger than we are (I'm an old hippy too) and have grown up in a world of CGI and vector illustrations which are basically infinitely sharp. They are starting to see "photographic" looking images as dated and second rate. There is little to no acceptance of shots with selective DOF - they seem to expect everything in the photo to be sharp, even if that looks dumb and distracting to someone with more of a film sensibility.
There is also an expectation that these big digital images be totally sharp at 100%, even though 99.9% of the time they won't be printed at anything like that size, and should be resharpened at the published resolution anyway for best appearance.
In short I'm seeing a sort of simplistic concept of "sharpness" in microstock.
-
microstocks sell the sort of "microstock images", very very different from what is selling well on macrostocks.
i wouldn't sell well on micros with my actual pictures.
-
microstocks sell the sort of "microstock images", very very different from what is selling well on macrostocks.
i wouldn't sell well on micros with my actual pictures.
OK, then you don't need to hang around here any longer. Do you ::)
-
well said.
i'm off for another s-hit.
-
Old Hippy, come back and deliver a rant anytime. This place needs some serious cage-rattling. Personally I'm not reconciled to the idea that microstock is a Good Thing, I still see it somewhat as the equivalent of an offshore sweatshop, in a place where labor is too cheap and collective bargaining is impossible.
-
...the only ones making money with micros are the owner of the micro companies.
You are right, there is no money to be made with the micros. Don't know how many times we have to say this before people start believing it :) And it is impossible to sell a photo more than once and the most you can make is $0.25, 99.9% of photos get rejected, the sites have too many photos already, they automatically reject photos uploaded on weekends. Please let all your colleagues know.
-
You are right, there is no money to be made with the micros. Don't know how many times we have to say this before people start believing it :) And it is impossible to sell a photo more than once and the most you can make is $0.25, 99.9% of photos get rejected, the sites have too many photos already, they automatically reject photos uploaded on weekends. Please let all your colleagues know.
[/quote]
^^...is the right answer :)
-
so it's better to know what's going on and stay ahead of the new trends.
I doubt you'll have problems staying ahead with an open mind like yours.