MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: More bad news on economy  (Read 15480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« on: October 14, 2009, 12:46 »
0
Since microstock has been a disappointment, I contacted an old motorsports outlet.  I was welcomed back with a suggestion that I call for personal update (things they didn't want in writing) ... pay for reports has been reduced.  The magazine page count has been reduced.  Advertising sales slumping.  Some welcome, huh?  :-)

A second point ... I was reading the part about feature article images ... the new requirement is 5400x3600 at 300dpi.  I read it several times.  Can that be correct??? 


« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2009, 13:23 »
0
5400x3600.  Sure. Hadn't you heard that magazine pages are now 18 inches wide?  :)

I've been worrying lately that at some point the microstocks will raise their minimum resolution for new images, and start putting old images at the rear, behind newer images at higher resolutions.  And I'll have to buy a new camera, wiping out everything I've made in microstock so far.   And they'll do this only because they think they can sell it to their customers, based on a lack of understanding, and because all the other agencies are doing it.



RacePhoto

« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2009, 13:58 »
0
Funny, that's 20 megapixels? Did someone read a number wrong. Bigger than Alamy's enhanced sizes 5100 x ####

Print media is going fast. Last time I posted a link, some people disagreed, which means they didn't follow the link to magazines like Gourmet and big names, that have left the market. One person projected growth. HUH? It is sad that newspapers and magazines are being pushed out by the Internet and free information. There's still something about packing a magazine for a trip and holding it in your hand. Can't swat a fly with a laptop either.  ;) Something comfortable about picking up the Sunday paper and reading the news. But I'll admit, I stopped my newspaper subscription back in the days before I had DSL (AKA dial-up) when I found I could get all the news I wanted for free.

http://www.magazinedeathpool.com/

Ebony, Entertainment Weekly, National Geographic Explorer, going soon. Gourmet, Cookie, Modern Bride and Elegant Bride, just bit the dust.

Jonathan Klein ...traditional creative stills continues to decline, and even if we see a bump in revenue here after the recession, we must expect that the trends will continue for it to be a smaller part of our overall business.

Stills are declining. Not three years growth before it levels off. We are on the decline already for traditional still photos on Microstock. Music, video and other things will be in demand and be growing markets. It all fits with Internet vs Print media.

Yes, I sympathize with you about the loss of market and downsizing of magazines. When I was editing the size of the publication was determined by the amount of advertising. More ads, more pages. Less adds? Stories and photos got cut, to bring the size down. Basic fact of life, subscriptions pay for nothing, they just make for numbers that advertisers look at for deciding who reads, how many and what they will pay to reach those people. Internet is out-reaching, so print publications are going dark.

A weekly magazine is out of date before it hits the street. Monthly is even worse. The internet can have the latest news story, sometimes with photos, out in minutes. Motorsports photos, if it hasn't sold by Midnight the day of the event or Noon the next day, for the late markets, it's already old news.

« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2009, 14:04 »
0
I was hesitating to get on here and start complaining because my port is very small, it's only at one microstock site, and I haven't added new photos for some time.

But since the topic of the bad economy came up ... right now I am experiencing the longest period that I have ever endured without a single download.  Like, three times as long as the previous record drought.  It's not much of a data point, but it is an anomaly compared to activity in the last 14 or so months.  Sales were ticking ... ticking ... ticking ... STOP.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2009, 16:48 »
0
I was hesitating to get on here and start complaining because my port is very small, it's only at one microstock site, and I haven't added new photos for some time.

But since the topic of the bad economy came up ... right now I am experiencing the longest period that I have ever endured without a single download.  Like, three times as long as the previous record drought.  It's not much of a data point, but it is an anomaly compared to activity in the last 14 or so months.  Sales were ticking ... ticking ... ticking ... STOP.

I haven't seen a similar drop off in sales numbers.  Sales are cracking along as usual.  Not as much of a pre holiday jump as I would like to see, but no decline.

I would suspect that not uploading in a long time is more to blame for your lack of downloads.  If you have a small portfolio it can be easily buried in searches if you aren't adding new content. 

« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2009, 17:13 »
0
This month is looking like a massive BME from my figures. FT in particular are going ballistic and strong sales at IS too. Certainly no sign of a decline.

NB: When Klein was saying this;

"... traditional creative stills continues to decline, and even if we see a bump in revenue here after the recession, we must expect that the trends will continue for it to be a smaller part of our overall business."

... by 'creative stills' he was referring to Getty's primary offering of high-end photography __ not microstock. It's clear if you read the full statement.

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2009, 17:39 »
0

... by 'creative stills' he was referring to Getty's primary offering of high-end photography __ not microstock. It's clear if you read the full statement.

I had wondered about that seeming contradiction.  Thanks for clarifying.

Apparently microstock stills don't count as "creative".  ;)

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2009, 18:18 »
0
Apparently microstock stills don't count as "creative".  ;)


No they don't. Bizarrely, to me at least, microstockers are still largely regarded as 'amateur photographers'.

When you look at what was considered to be 'high-end' professional stock photography just a few years ago it really puts it into perspective. Check out the wholly-owned content at JIU/PC for example. As one of their many acquisitions Jupiter bought Banana Stock just over 3 years ago. They paid $20M for a collection of about 15K images which works out at something like $1300 per image. You can check them out on the link below __ I wonder how much they'd be worth today?

http://www.jupiterimages.com/collections/BananaStock

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2009, 18:33 »
0
My sales have been cosistently good across the board for 2009.  Funny though how my 12.2MP DSLR almost feels obsolete Nd inadequate in light of the recent plethora of big mega-pixel DSLR's.  I guess some buyers still prefer the "bigger is better" image mentality, but fortunately I should be in a position to go FF DSLR next year assuming my sales continue along as they have.
Of course there's also this little matter of upgrading my desktop to accomodate 24.6MP files...

« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2009, 18:57 »
0
Check out the wholly-owned content at JIU/PC for example. As one of their many acquisitions Jupiter bought Banana Stock just over 3 years ago. They paid $20M for a collection of about 15K images which works out at something like $1300 per image. You can check them out on the link below __ I wonder how much they'd be worth today?

http://www.jupiterimages.com/collections/BananaStock


About a buck and half. The hallmark of a great business person is knowing when to sell.

« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2009, 19:51 »
0
Yep Zeus,

 Timing is everything in life : )

Best,
Jonathan

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2009, 21:51 »
0
This month is looking like a massive BME from my figures. FT in particular are going ballistic and strong sales at IS too. Certainly no sign of a decline.

NB: When Klein was saying this;

"... traditional creative stills continues to decline, and even if we see a bump in revenue here after the recession, we must expect that the trends will continue for it to be a smaller part of our overall business."

... by 'creative stills' he was referring to Getty's primary offering of high-end photography __ not microstock. It's clear if you read the full statement.

Nope wasn't clear to me or I wouldn't have thrown in that dead albatross. I must have gotten the mistaken impression that he was talking about Microstock, not Mother Getty.

Funny looking at the Bananastock after you mentioned it. Then I went and searched for my images that are selling on StockXpert through Jupiter and Photos.com. Funny thing, I couldn't find any of them. I wonder how buyers are finding them? I did a search by three keywords, taken from the images that sold yesterday. Nothing! In one case the results for Photos.com turned up only three matches. None mine. Very strange. Searching Jupiterimages "all" turned up nothing and I only searched for photos that sold in the last week.

Yes, looking at BME at StockXpert all subscriptions from the soon to be disconnected affiliate site Jupiter. I never did figure out why some show as JupiterImages Unlimited Subscription and other show as Photos.com Subscription. They are all the same 30 cents to me.  :)

Or maybe they pulled the plug today?


WarrenPrice

« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2009, 22:32 »
0
This month is looking like a massive BME from my figures. FT in particular are going ballistic and strong sales at IS too. Certainly no sign of a decline.

NB: When Klein was saying this;

"... traditional creative stills continues to decline, and even if we see a bump in revenue here after the recession, we must expect that the trends will continue for it to be a smaller part of our overall business."

... by 'creative stills' he was referring to Getty's primary offering of high-end photography __ not microstock. It's clear if you read the full statement.

Nope wasn't clear to me or I wouldn't have thrown in that dead albatross. I must have gotten the mistaken impression that he was talking about Microstock, not Mother Getty.

Funny looking at the Bananastock after you mentioned it. Then I went and searched for my images that are selling on StockXpert through Jupiter and Photos.com. Funny thing, I couldn't find any of them. I wonder how buyers are finding them? I did a search by three keywords, taken from the images that sold yesterday. Nothing! In one case the results for Photos.com turned up only three matches. None mine. Very strange. Searching Jupiterimages "all" turned up nothing and I only searched for photos that sold in the last week.

Yes, looking at BME at StockXpert all subscriptions from the soon to be disconnected affiliate site Jupiter. I never did figure out why some show as JupiterImages Unlimited Subscription and other show as Photos.com Subscription. They are all the same 30 cents to me.  :)

Or maybe they pulled the plug today?



Actually, I was talking about the decline in Media Publications ... some who use stock photos.  Figured if they were cutting back it might affect microstock, macrostock, midstock, ministock, multistock or just this hardup old events photographer.  :-)

« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2009, 23:27 »
0
All sites are doing very well for me this month except for SS.  I just can't seem to get my numbers up there and I'm making less than half there than what I was last year.  Before new uploads used to sell well for months now I'm lucky to get a few good days out of them.
Fotolia is on the way to having an amazing month breaking all records of any site that I upload to by a huge amount and that's without any ELs of yet. I've already made as more at Fotolia this month than I did at SS last month.

« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2009, 00:38 »
0
At one stage I was making close to a good living doing rural photography before I started stock. Back then, finished 2004, magazine sales were already plummeting, and advertising was way down. In the end I was lucky to get $400 for a front cover that took all day to set up. Inside pics were down to $30-50.

It is pretty tough making a living in any journalistic venture nowadays.

« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2009, 08:54 »
0
For me micros have been consistent or better than 2008 (especially iStock) with very few new photos uploaded. However, Alamy sales dropped like a lead weight. 2000 images, averaging two sales every month for all of 2007 and 2008, just totally dropped at the beginning of 09, now I get one sale every three to four months. Acclaim, nothing this whole year, whereas before I could count on around three sales a year from 300 images.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2009, 10:24 »
0
I guess the is a cloud to ever silver lining ...  ::)

On second thought ... maybe the signs do point to an upturn in Micro.  Could the loss in hardcopy profits indicate that more and more people are getting there news online?

How are advertising sales going at your site?


RacePhoto

« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2009, 10:53 »
0
At one stage I was making close to a good living doing rural photography before I started stock. Back then, finished 2004, magazine sales were already plummeting, and advertising was way down. In the end I was lucky to get $400 for a front cover that took all day to set up. Inside pics were down to $30-50.

It is pretty tough making a living in any journalistic venture nowadays.

Wow that was good. I was getting $20 for an inside photo and $50 for a cover. I'll admit it was a smaller specialty Mag. group. And they are all gone. Gone to the Internet and still in business, just the print versions are gone. Wasn't making a "good living" but the checks sure came in handy.  ;D

And yes, I was mentioning the decline in print media, all interest areas, all formats, all countries.

My contention is that while micro is taking away business and prices are changing, there's only so much to transfer over, before things level off again. Websize isn't as big or demanding or pricey. Macro loses 70% of it's business, while Micro growth is 25%. OK where's the other 45%? Former print media publications.  ;D

There's a limit to the rapid growth period of microstock, it's not going to be going on forever. In fact, with agencies going under, the big buying the small, we are already seeing a sorting out and the usual indications of market stabilization. Now it's time to watch slower long term changes. Some growth and some more agencies leaving the marketplace.

« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2009, 11:02 »
0
Okay, the print is going down... I think the micros should raise the prices for small sizes to "compensate" in a way.

« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2009, 12:11 »
0
A generation that grew up exchanging cell-phone photos doesn't care about high-res photos on paper. They don't look at National Geographic, and they're satisfied with 2 inch images on web sites.  And the micros are happy to give us 25 cents for them.

« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2009, 12:19 »
0
A generation that grew up exchanging cell-phone photos doesn't care about high-res photos on paper. They don't look at National Geographic, and they're satisfied with 2 inch images on web sites.  And the micros are happy to give us 25 cents for them.

Yep, paper is going away. News are read on cell phone screens. I wonder when iTunes start selling wallpapers for phones?

« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2009, 12:42 »
0
It indeed is a 72 dpi world. Couple that with the mega millions of new images coming on line and the slow death of print media and I wonder why I bought a new Mark III. Must be the play value.

« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2009, 12:48 »
0
In the short run I'm pessimistic, but in the long run, the human perceptual system still is what it is.  Right now people are infatuated with the novelty of watching Lord Of The Rings on an IPod screen the size of a postage stamp.  And being seen doing so.

When audio recording was new - 78 rpm Bakelite discs - fidelity was extremely low, and people went nuts anyway. But over time they've demanded ever-higher quality in recorded audio.

The limiting factor is today's PC displays.  In the future these LCD screens will seem like cr@p, and people will wonder why we thought looking at 300-pixel images was so cool.


« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2009, 14:23 »
0
In the short run I'm pessimistic, but in the long run, the human perceptual system still is what it is.  Right now people are infatuated with the novelty of watching Lord Of The Rings on an IPod screen the size of a postage stamp.  And being seen doing so.

When audio recording was new - 78 rpm Bakelite discs - fidelity was extremely low, and people went nuts anyway. But over time they've demanded ever-higher quality in recorded audio.

The limiting factor is today's PC displays.  In the future these LCD screens will seem like cr@p, and people will wonder why we thought looking at 300-pixel images was so cool.

Exactly.  I watch a movie on my phone, when I'm on the plane, and I've got nothing else to do.  It doesn't stop me from going to the theaters when something I really want to see comes out.  I buy magazines to read because reading on a phone sucks.  I like getting the paper.  It's part of my routine.

« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2009, 15:17 »
0
A big part of the technology business is logjammed behind today's LCD technology. Processing power is way ahead of what the can deliver.   Amazon Kindle - give me a break, compared to a bound book it's a toy. 

We've been stuck like this so long we've accepted it as normal.  Reflect on the fact that PC displays today have only twice the resolution they had in the late 80s.  It never even occurs to us that we should be able to show our photos in full resolution on a web page - it's an 800x 600 world . When we sell photos on the net, we're hoping buyers will try to imagine how nice the real thing looks.   To actually see it, you have to go to a gallery.   

In the future, all this will seem pathetic.  When we get small, affordable displays that look as good as paper, a lot of things will change.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2009, 23:14 »
0
It indeed is a 72 dpi world. Couple that with the mega millions of new images coming on line and the slow death of print media and I wonder why I bought a new Mark III. Must be the play value.


I figure having the best toys is always entertaining.  ;D

I had a website editor ask me for a photo, and I gave him seven to choose from. Stupid me, he just looked at me like, "I need a picture of the driver in a car, not some work of art!" Sure it's on the web page, it's slightly larger than a commemorative postage stamp. What was I thinking?

I used to joke that my camera and lenses are worth more than my car. Now I have one lens that's worth more than my car. I always say, keep the priorities in line.  ;)

Reviewers and agencies want perfect photos, they are viewed at 100%, inspected for the tiniest flaws, lighting and fringing. Then someone pays a dollar and we get 38 cents, they put it up on a website at 72 DPI 1.5 inches wide x 1 inch tall. Oh wow! It does seem silly. No wonder Micro is kicking butt on the traditional agencies when even an XL photo is one of thousands to choose from and costs under $10. Buyers market and that's life.

I going to force myself to shut up on the issue of print going down the tubes. It's been on a stead decline since the 80s. Just that we've reach the end of the line, accelerating with the last hold outs reaching free-fall speeds. Chicago Tribune files for bankruptcy, is there a message in that? Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Sun-Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune are in the midst of restructuring.

Any one of us can say how much we like to hold a book, magazine or newspaper. I still do. But the advertisers pay the bills and that's where the profit comes from. If the advertisers don't feel they can target the market they want and get the exposure, they spend elsewhere. That's the root of the decline.

I'm just wondering what waiting rooms will do to keep the people occupied in the future. I can't tear a recipe or article out of a laptop.  ::)

Done...
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 23:35 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2009, 12:12 »
0
 Hi All,

 I agree that print sales are way down compared to the web sized sales of images. As this trend continues for smaller image sizes and more photographers become stock shooters what might occur from this situation? Maybe less downloads each at smaller sizes for less sales each. I have always believed that the bottom two sizes are way under priced. If pulled by all the agencies or the bottom sizes prices where increased it could raise everyones revenue, the agencies and the photographers. As technology changes the product price has to adjust to keep up with those changes.

Best,
Jonathan


« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2009, 13:17 »
0
I have always believed that the bottom two sizes are way under priced. If pulled by all the agencies or the bottom sizes prices where increased it could raise everyones revenue, the agencies and the photographers. As technology changes the product price has to adjust to keep up with those changes.

Isn't it the market that ultimately sets the prices and determines the sizes that are required? If one agency tried to dictate to the customer as you suggest then there would be plenty of other agencies prepared to be more flexible. That's basically what led to the macro agencies being so rapidly undermined by micro.

What might help us would be the ability to set our own prices, similar to FT but with less restrictions, according to what we felt our work was worth and how much it cost to produce. It doesn't make much sense that a simple image of an apple is priced the same as an elaborate business team set-up or the capture of a unique moment in nature for example.

« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2009, 15:01 »
0
Isn't it the market that ultimately sets the prices and determines the sizes that are required? If one agency tried to dictate to the customer as you suggest then there would be plenty of other agencies prepared to be more flexible. That's basically what led to the macro agencies being so rapidly undermined by micro.

What might help us would be the ability to set our own prices, similar to FT but with less restrictions, according to what we felt our work was worth and how much it cost to produce. It doesn't make much sense that a simple image of an apple is priced the same as an elaborate business team set-up or the capture of a unique moment in nature for example.



Well said.
I have often been frustrated by the simple fact that an easy set up with inexpensive props (fruit and vegies for example) have been handled exactly the same way as a location shoot involving numerous models, assistants, property releases, insurance waivers etc, etc.

Of course one might point out that the number of downloads for such elaborate images mitigates the lost price.
I would venture to disagree with that, with the exception of the very few top shooters whose work is well known and always shows up on the the first few pages of every search.

The rest of us, might was well stick to shooting still lifes.

« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2009, 16:51 »
0
Well said.
I have often been frustrated by the simple fact that an easy set up with inexpensive props (fruit and vegies for example) have been handled exactly the same way as a location shoot involving numerous models, assistants, property releases, insurance waivers etc, etc.

Of course one might point out that the number of downloads for such elaborate images mitigates the lost price.
I would venture to disagree with that, with the exception of the very few top shooters whose work is well known and always shows up on the the first few pages of every search.

The rest of us, might was well stick to shooting still lifes.


Doesn't iStockphoto's Vetta collection address this issue somewhat?

« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2009, 17:24 »
0
Somewhat is correct.

Vetta is only open to exclusives and the number of files that one is allowed to nominate is fairly limited.
As a matter of fact at my low level, I can only nominate two files per 168 hour upload period.

Pretty limiting don't you think?

Unless all agencies do something similar to Vetta, most buyers looking for a web size shot will just purchase from the regular collection. BTW, there is no xs (ie web only) size available in Vetta.

« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2009, 17:25 »
0
Opening the floodgates would not support the "exclusivity" or 'specialness" of the collection.

« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2009, 18:07 »
0
I've hit upon the ultimate microstock concept that finally tips the scales in favor of the photographer.  No inspectors. No rejections. No categories. No keywords. No piracy. No expensive equipment investment. Easy search parameters. Plus lightning fast uploads. No underpricing for photographers efforts. Won't matter what the price is. I call it OnePixelStockPhoto.

« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2009, 19:17 »
0
Apparently microstock stills don't count as "creative".  ;)


No they don't. Bizarrely, to me at least, microstockers are still largely regarded as 'amateur photographers'.

When you look at what was considered to be 'high-end' professional stock photography just a few years ago it really puts it into perspective. Check out the wholly-owned content at JIU/PC for example. As one of their many acquisitions Jupiter bought Banana Stock just over 3 years ago. They paid $20M for a collection of about 15K images which works out at something like $1300 per image. You can check them out on the link below __ I wonder how much they'd be worth today?

http://www.jupiterimages.com/collections/BananaStock


Actually these are some of the best images ever.

Looking at their conceptual images, I can see that nothing says "eco friendly" like a $399 photo of an Empty fridge on the street. http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78155832
or maybe an Empty fridge with other appliances out of focus in the background? http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78155823

Clearly you guys have been going wrong by isolating things on white - that's so "microstock". If you want to sell a premium stock you really should just shove some random product out on the sidewalk and shoot it out there. That's edgy.

« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2009, 19:58 »
0
Opening the floodgates would not support the "exclusivity" or 'specialness" of the collection.

Sean, I actually agree with you on this.
I was just responding to Wiz's contention that somehow Vetta had addressed the issue of undervalued web size images.

Obviously that is not what Vetta was meant for.



« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2009, 21:36 »
0
 Yes the market does set the price but if the price is under paying the markets value then the industry are leaving money on the table. When the two small sizes where brought into the stock industry back with Macro RF 11 -12 years ago the amount of internet usage was way down compared to print media so the price was set very low.
 Now it is the highest sales point so an adjustment could be made to counteract this drop and raise opportunity for agencies and photographers to increase their revenue. This is in part why unions were formed years ago, so that the individual workers could not be controlled and under paid by the large industries. Unfortunately unions can be as much trouble for other reasons but talking about an adjustment is an important topic that should not be swept under the rug.
 If you want the market to establish the worth of our product they could easily run the costs down and there rejections up as they overflow with similars. How will that increase individuals sales and grow the market. Trust me the Micro world will meet maturation.
 I hear a lot about BME but that term means nothing until people start talking dollars and cents. If my sales last month were 10 dollars and this month they are 30 dollars well then I did have have a BME but I didn't make much money.
 When we used to use terms like RPI's or sell through rate they were always followed with the actual number. Not many people in Micro share numbers they just use terms like BME. I don't believe this is useful information to anyone. Are we just reinforcing sweat shop mentality in ourselves and the agencies as well? Just asking.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2009, 07:36 »
0
When we used to use terms like RPI's or sell through rate they were always followed with the actual number. Not many people in Micro share numbers they just use terms like BME. I don't believe this is useful information to anyone. Are we just reinforcing sweat shop mentality in ourselves and the agencies as well? Just asking.

No, we're keeping our numbers to ourselves, so as not to put too much information on the table for others to benefit from.  This isn't the closed door shop of a few years ago, where you knew everyone you were dealing with.


« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2009, 07:48 »
0
Yes the market does set the price but if the price is under paying the markets value then the industry are leaving money on the table. When the two small sizes where brought into the stock industry back with Macro RF 11 -12 years ago the amount of internet usage was way down compared to print media so the price was set very low.
 Now it is the highest sales point so an adjustment could be made to counteract this drop and raise opportunity for agencies and photographers to increase their revenue. This is in part why unions were formed years ago, so that the individual workers could not be controlled and under paid by the large industries. Unfortunately unions can be as much trouble for other reasons but talking about an adjustment is an important topic that should not be swept under the rug.
 If you want the market to establish the worth of our product they could easily run the costs down and there rejections up as they overflow with similars. How will that increase individuals sales and grow the market. Trust me the Micro world will meet maturation.
 I hear a lot about BME but that term means nothing until people start talking dollars and cents. If my sales last month were 10 dollars and this month they are 30 dollars well then I did have have a BME but I didn't make much money.
 When we used to use terms like RPI's or sell through rate they were always followed with the actual number. Not many people in Micro share numbers they just use terms like BME. I don't believe this is useful information to anyone. Are we just reinforcing sweat shop mentality in ourselves and the agencies as well? Just asking.

Best,
Jonathan


Definitely agree with this, however, you can always tell who is really making money.  First, they usually have a portfolio at IS, and so there stats are available (somewhat).  Also, you can look at the portfolio and you can weed out the people who say BME with 250 photos.  Unless they are a stellar 250 photos, I can't see that many making any real money.  Then again, it just depends...

But I prefer to keep my numbers to myself.  Too much information given may not in my best interests in the long-run

« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2009, 08:22 »
0
No, we're keeping our numbers to ourselves, so as not to put too much information on the table for others to benefit from. 

Exactly!

Jonathon __ feel free to share all your earnings details from each agency, together with links to all portfolios, with us though! We won't tell anyone else.

« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2009, 10:09 »
0
Yes the market does set the price but if the price is under paying the markets value then the industry are leaving money on the table.

I think the point of the "race to the bottom" metaphor is that it's something that got out of hand, and the optimum price point was overshot.  Microstock got going so fast - just a couple of years - and these companies were trying to make back their initial investments virtually overnight.  In other words they were classic dot-com startups.  They got ahead of themselves and drove the price down much further than necessary and now they can't easily bring it back up.

They launched into pricing by image size simply because that was technically possible with web sales and it seemed like the thing to do. They grossly underestimated how many customers would just shoot straight to the bottom tier and buy the smallest images.  And now they're stuck with that pricing plan too.

They battled for market share with ever-trickier subscription plans that now represent a big mortgage on the future.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 11:08 by stockastic »

« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2009, 11:01 »
0
gostwyck,

 I already have. Would you like me to do it again, will you join me. I understand some people like to keep things to themselves them why share BME at all. If you would like me to print my numbers again I am happy to do so. I was just saying that BME offers no useful information without numbers to back it up. I made over a 7 figures last year and would be happy to break down where my income came from. What agency, their return per image, the sell through rate. By sharing numbers we become more united against the agencies that control the pricing. Those numbers I share with you do not create a threat to my income they only let you what agency sells what the best.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2009, 11:04 »
0
Well put Stockasti,

There has to be a point where this approach is going to cost the agencies a great deal of profit just by chasing this industry to the lowest sales point. We just haven't got there yet, still party time.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2009, 12:03 »
0
I don't understand the "race to the bottom" because istock started out at the bottom, free images.  How can you get any lower than that?  Then they started charging 10 cents and the prices have gone up and up over the years.  Subs commissions were also much lower at one time but I don't think they have kept pace with pay per download and some sites are stopping the others raising their prices.  It is our fault for supplying those sites.

I also don't understand why some people get so many sales at the lowest size.  Mine are more frequent at the larger sizes.

« Reply #43 on: October 19, 2009, 12:13 »
0
Mine are mostly medium and large on IS - I now have many XL and XXL images and some XXXL images, but they are very infrequent. 

« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2009, 12:20 »
0
sharpshot, I can only speak from 9 months of experience with a small portfolio.  

During that time I've seen the percentage of 25 and 30 cent subscription sales steadily increase. It doesn't matter if they raise commissions for on-demand sales if at the same time they're actually herding their buyers onto subscription plans that pay us less.

I no longer get any OD sales on SS.  I stay there because once in a great while I get an EL. Everything else is 25 cent sub sales.  

I am not saying that small images are a majority of sales, but there certainly are a lot of them and I am sure they're increasing.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 12:30 by stockastic »

« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2009, 12:40 »
0
Here you go Gostawyk,

 Since this is just Micro I will share my Micro sales since you asked. This is sales over the last 10 months as we did not upload any real amount of imagery before that. I did add 50 images back in 07 to see what there was but that is a very small portion of my sales so I consider the beginning when we made our first big upload.

SS:   $ 21,086.27 from 2500 images making a monthly RPI of 84 cents a download per month or an annual RPI of $10.08 with 100% sell through rate/

IS:  $5570.33 from 454 images making a monthly RPI of $1.02 per download or an annual RPI of $12.26 with a much smaller sell through rate of 60% due to their uploading limits.Tough to get a number on the sell through since we upload every week and it takes a couple of months for us to start seeing real numbers at Istock. So the annual RPI per image on images sold was $20.55.

FT: $ 8,337 from 2705 images making a monthly RPI of 30.8 cents an image or an annual RPI of $3.69 with a sell through rate of 51%

DT: $ 5339.95 from 2582 images making a monthly RPI of 20 cents a month or an annual RPI of $2.40 with a sell through rate of 62%

StockXpert: $ 1169.00 from 2500 images but we just joined this company in the last 6 months so the numbers will be based off of that time frame. A monthly RPI of 5 cents an image with an annual RPI of 60 cents an image.

Total sales in Micro to date for 10 months is now $41,534 from the last ten moths with 2500 images available. Total cost for production $ 40k so in 10 months I am just starting to make money with another 1000 images to add from last years shoot. Actually I have another 3000 to add to Istock but that's going to take a while : )

Any Micro companies I am partnered with that are producing smaller returns ( 5 of them ) are not mentioned because we just brought them on and I do not have any real stats for them.

 The balance of my income comes from Macro RM / RF and RR motion and it isn't much use to break it down in to much detail for a Micro stock forum. I average $127 in sales per image a year from these combined as well as sales from direct buy outs on occasion. I have also become co-owner in two agencies that have a return when sold considering the small cost it took to become an owner and the return possibilities. I am also working on a brand new project that I hope will continue to increase my revenue, just to early to share yet.
 Check Getty alone you will see I have very close to 10,000 images there. The math is no secret and telling you does not threaten my business model. Please explain how the numbers I shared jeopardized my company by offering the information to other shooters and I will gladly listen. Many of you are secret with your stuff and that is cool but it is just what the agencies want to see. Playing the game the way they want you to.

Cheers,
Jonathan


ap

« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2009, 12:55 »
0
wow! that's really generous info for you to share. the only reason i won't be divulging mine is because it's still early days...

but, since macro is such a big part of your income, why are you spending so much on the micros to just break even? is this pretty unusual for a getty photog?


« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2009, 13:10 »
0
Images don't stop selling after the first year, I am sure Jonathan is going to make a nice profit over the next few years.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2009, 13:11 »
0
Here you go Gostawyk,

  Check Getty alone you will see I have very close to 10,000 images there. The math is no secret and telling you does not threaten my business model. Please explain how the numbers I shared jeopardized my company by offering the information to other shooters and I will gladly listen. Many of you are secret with your stuff and that is cool but it is just what the agencies want to see. Playing the game the way they want you to.

Cheers,
Jonathan



Exactly, Jonathan.  Divide and conquer.  Keep them arguing amongst themselves.  That way, they will never unite ... not just against us ... in any common cause.


« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2009, 13:23 »
0
Hi AP,

 Good Question. I am playing all fields because you don't know what tomorrow will bring. After being in this business for over a decade you start to see trends. Diversity is the key in all markets that will take you. Some Micro shooters don't know how to shoot for Macro and their returns show it that's okay but they at least tried and saw it wasn't for them. Before they tried they had no idea same goes for me and Micro.
 Also I have broken even in ten months the rest from here on with my Micro images is all profit and I spent 11 weeks producing the content. I could end up making another 50k or 100k more over the next three years you never know without trying all from a less than three months of testing. Remember I still have 3000 images to add to Istock that are all paid for. it was our R&D for last year so I could get a good grasp on the numbers. I am not focusing as strongly on Micro because I am still able to make a great deal more in Macro but you never know what tomorrow will bring. Get your foot in the door so you are positioned for shift and change in the industry that has always been my approach.
 Also I was speaking in terms of RPI where now we are following data by RPS return per shoot. I make 4 times more images on a Micro shoot day than I do for Macro RF so you have to multiply my Micro by 4 to compare it to my Macro RF. I also get more personal fulfillment and enjoyment with Macro images where I can show my skills and still sell creative images. I am not as limited to my subject and the approach as I am to produce well selling Micro images that serve a more general subject or topic. Helps stretch the creative wings a bit.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2009, 13:25 »
0
Hi Warren,

Oldest trick in the book but it still seems to be working after centuries of use. Pretty amazing.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2009, 14:50 »
0
Funny, I don't recall any site mailing me, asking me not to divulge anything.  Afaik, they couldn't care less.  We all know what various sites pay per download and for royalties.  These numbers are no grounds for battle or anything but a curiousity, as we're all curious what others make.

I see no need to post specific numbers I don't need others deciding to emulate me because they like my charts.

« Reply #52 on: October 19, 2009, 14:57 »
0
Total sales in Micro to date for 10 months is now $41,534 from the last ten moths with 2500 images available. Total cost for production $ 40k so in 10 months I am just starting to make money with another 1000 images to add from last years shoot. Actually I have another 3000 to add to Istock but that's going to take a while : )

Can you tell us how do you calculate RPI? If you need to spend 40K to earn 41K it means you really have profit of 1K with 2.5K images gives around .4 RPI. Also some Igencies show RPD numbers which takes into account only files that are download at least once.


ap

« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2009, 15:02 »
0
i think rpi is based on gross, not net  (accounting for expenses), revenues. just divide gross earnings by # of images.

i do wonder what the sell through rate means though? like how many photos in one's portfolio gets downloaded?

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2009, 15:13 »
0


Can you tell us how do you calculate RPI? If you need to spend 40K to earn 41K it means you really have profit of 1K with 2.5K images gives around .4 RPI. Also some Igencies show RPD numbers which takes into account only files that are download at least once.



That 40k was just his breakeven point.  Everything after that is gravy.  I am sure Jonathan will more than double or triple his initial investment.  

Jonathan, it's generous of you to share your exact figures - even more so if it helps someone else.

Lot's of us choose not to disclose this info for various reasons.  I don't see how any one photographer's figures are especially meaningful to any other photographer.  We all have different portfolios, skills, talents, and time to devote to stock, so one person's figures are in no way indicative of how someone else will do.  

FWIW my husband and I don't go around sharing our income figures with friends or family either.  And none of them go around telling me what they make.  Maybe it is because I am from the South, or something, but it's just considered kind of rude to go around talking about one's income or asking other people what they make.  

Not that I am accusing you of being rude.  You are a nice guy, as we all know, but there are reasons other than nefarious ones that many people prefer to keep their income numbers to themselves.  


ap

« Reply #55 on: October 19, 2009, 15:26 »
0
we're on the west coast and we really need to disclose, down to the penny, how much we earn.  ;D

joking aside, i thought jonathan's rpi comparison across the micro cos were really helpful. i mean, if anyone need to figure out which stock site to join or marry in exclusivity, you have a very scientific # to refer to. whilst rpd indicate how generous or well paying a site is, it doesn't really tell you now well you'll do there.

perhaps, a chart of everyone's rpi, averaged out, would be the NUMBER to rule over all the other #s.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2009, 15:27 »
0
I don't think any of us expected Jonathan to share exact numbers ... other than the person who seemed to be accusing him of lying.

The point I was making is that we all are here because we have a common interest.  Sharing information about that interest is what I came here for.  Isn't that the idea of a forum?

I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.


« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2009, 15:35 »
0
I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.

Paranoid?

ap

« Reply #58 on: October 19, 2009, 15:42 »
0
I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.

Paranoid?

paranoid that we have a rep of the agencies amongst our midst or that we think you're the rep?

« Reply #59 on: October 19, 2009, 15:56 »
0
I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.
Paranoid?
paranoid that we have a rep of the agencies amongst our midst or that we think you're the rep?

The first.  I'm certainly not any rep.  Although if you thought that, it would back up my "paranoid" assertion ;) .

« Reply #60 on: October 19, 2009, 15:57 »
0
I was curious what the formula is. I wish agencies could give contributors better stats. It would be nice to see what percentage of my images sell. I think Lookstat was trying to do that but they were shutdown by SS :-) All I know than my best images can get around $10 at most at SS. DT gives me also per download earnings. My guess is agencies do not want to show RPI cause it's extremely low for most of contributors.

ap

« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2009, 15:59 »
0

The first.  I'm certainly not any rep.  Although if you thought that, it would back up my "paranoid" assertion ;) .

i'm glad you're an independent thinker, sean.  :)

« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2009, 16:23 »
0
Here you go Gostawyk, ... snip ...
 Since this is just Micro I will share my Micro sales since you asked.

That is very generous of you Jonathan but to be honest I'm not particularly bothered by anyone else's earnings other than my own. Micro is so fantastically transparent (although getting a bit less so) that you can fairly easily work out any contributor's earnings anyway. Basically if someone has sold say 3x as many images as you have then it's a reasonable assumption that they've also earned about 3x as much. We don't tend to talk exact money because we already have a fair idea.

Reporting the BME's and monthly %'s on the other hand is useful because, when you compare them to your own, they can be good indicators of seasonal influences and movements in the market between agencies.

I wasn't actually being serious when I suggested you publish your own figures (and I certainly wasn't accusing you of lying as Warren has declared), it simply struck me as somewhat absurd when you said we should. In most places it is socially unacceptable to be so blatant about earnings and yes, I'm in no hurry to encourage extra competition by doing so. Isn't there enough already?

As others have said, one photographer's earnings are in no way representative of what another might earn, rendering such comparisons fairly meaningless.

If the agencies didn't want us to discuss/learn from each other's performance then how come they provide forums, ranking, badges and publish our sales numbers whether we want them to or not? They're not 'dividing and conquering' at all __ they could hardly be doing more to encourage a 'community' spirit of sharing information. If you have some best-selling images then they'll even put them on a list (whether you want them to or not) so that everyone else can copy them.

« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2009, 22:21 »
0
 Wow Folks,

 I feel sharing numbers is helpful and it is a business tool that is of use when you know what the average other guy bottom or top is making it helps us all figure out what is taking place, if you don't see the help in what I shared then no worries. If you see it as bragging that is your perspective but I can tell you it has helped me a great deal to have open free conversations over financial matters with other in this business a great deal.
 Photographers share numbers all the time, at least some do. When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense. If this is going to be approached like a neighborhood get together than I agree. I don't share my income with my friends and neighbors it is not helpful or relevant to our relationship. If it was then I would share it with them as well.
 I was asked a question and I answered, that is all.

Jonathan

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2009, 22:30 »
0
When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense.
I think this is a key point. What percentage of microstockers are in this for some extra equipment cash versus a serious business?


« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2009, 23:20 »
0
Good Point Paulie,

 There is a big difference and both have their place and should be equally respected.

Best,
Jonathan

WarrenPrice

« Reply #66 on: October 20, 2009, 09:36 »
0
When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense.
I think this is a key point. What percentage of microstockers are in this for some extra equipment cash versus a serious business?



Not so sure I agree.  Being a "real business" just means he has more to share.  We "pretend businesses" need all the knowledge/information/encouragement we can get.   I find it encouraging to read about success.  Maybe it will give me the incentive to get serious.   8)



lisafx

« Reply #67 on: October 20, 2009, 09:56 »
0

 I feel sharing numbers is helpful and it is a business tool that is of use when you know what the average other guy bottom or top is making it helps us all figure out what is taking place



Oh, I see your point.  Then check out this recent poll.  It should provide a much more comprehensive overview of incomes than anectodal postings :)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-much-are-you-making/
 
When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense.


I must be watching different business news channels than you.  My observations of the business world are that most businesses will be very cagey and close-mouthed about what they are actually making.  For example even in public companies it seems to be fairly common practice to inflate earnings when speaking to investors, but minimize them when dealing with auditors.   I don't see a lot of privately held companies posting their earnings for public consumption.

Open sharing is certainly an option, but there are obviously MANY business models and practices that don't involve publicly sharing one's income or other aspects of one's business plan.


« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 09:59 by lisafx »

« Reply #68 on: October 20, 2009, 10:15 »
0
My observations of the business world are that most businesses will be very cagey and close-mouthed about what they are actually making.

Open sharing is certainly an option, but there are obviously MANY business models and practices that don't involve publicly sharing one's income or other aspects of one's business plan.

Exactly. There's quite a bit of open sharing on the micros (mainly from the hobbiests it has to be said) but then we all pretty much know the numbers anyway as they are on display on most sites.

One thing I don't think I've ever seen is macro photographers being so open or so detailed about that side of the business __ including Jonathan for the most part. As the level of income rises then such talk gets quieter. That's what most people who consider themselves 'a business' do for obvious reasons. The only exception is when someone is bigging themselves up to sell their latest book, seminar or other services. That usually happens when they reckon there's more money to be made selling their expertise than continuing to produce content.

« Reply #69 on: October 20, 2009, 10:21 »
0
The only exception is when someone is bigging themselves up to sell their latest book, seminar or other services. That usually happens when they reckon there's more money to be made selling their expertise than continuing to produce content.

And there certainly is a lot of this going on these days - note all the "toginars" and phone conferences, etc.

« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2009, 11:26 »
0
You folks are funny : )

Best,
Jonathan

WarrenPrice

« Reply #71 on: October 20, 2009, 11:35 »
0
The only exception is when someone is bigging themselves up to sell their latest book, seminar or other services. That usually happens when they reckon there's more money to be made selling their expertise than continuing to produce content.

And there certainly is a lot of this going on these days - note all the "toginars" and phone conferences, etc.

Is that a bad thing?

« Reply #72 on: October 20, 2009, 11:48 »
0
Believe it or not I think its the Istock exclusives that do the most sharing of ideas etc. and generally those that participate in the various events that are set up benefit from it enormously.

I think its the open sharing of ideas that is what makes Istock quite competitive. Obviously they have a large exclusive base to draw from, but they seem to be keen to help those exclusives build their skills too.

On the occasions when I've met up with other microstockers I've learned an enormous amount, as I think have they. Its rare that learning is only a one way exchange.

« Reply #73 on: October 20, 2009, 11:51 »
0
Is that a bad thing?

Making money by "sharing" their knowledge?  It may be smart business for them to rake in the bucks from newbies, but it just grows your competition.

« Reply #74 on: October 20, 2009, 13:31 »
0
 Hi All,

 Not to change up the subject completely but there is a correlation here to what I was getting at you might find it not relative but I do. How many of you are getting a 50/50 split with your agency. That is what stock used to be before RF it was even 60/40 at some agencies in favor of the photographer. Why did it change when the cost of supplying those images dropped dramatically for the agencies during this same time thanks to the internet? I was of the understanding that a forum was for us to support one another about the industry and what we can offer each other to help move ourselves along and have some form of shared understanding, the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge is power and the knowledge I offered is power for anyone that can find it.
 Maybe ask yourself who are you aligning yourself with the agencies or are you just wanting to go it alone. I don't mind some of you not interested in the information but you should really read what some of you have said when I tried to help and offer up information that was asked of me.
 Even asked by an individual who shows no signs on this site as actually being a photographer, more an alter ego of someone else here on the site. No one has answered my question. How does me sharing those numbers which I have shared for 11 years with anyone that wanted to know hurt my business. I think I am doing pretty well.
 As for not offering information as we get bigger I have found the complete opposite the biggest players are the most generous with their knowledge because they are not of a threatened nature. Maybe that is why the are so successful.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #75 on: October 20, 2009, 14:19 »
0
Hi All,

 Not to change up the subject completely but there is a correlation here to what I was getting at you might find it not relative but I do. How many of you are getting a 50/50 split with your agency. That is what stock used to be before RF it was even 60/40 at some agencies in favor of the photographer. Why did it change when the cost of supplying those images dropped dramatically for the agencies during this same time thanks to the internet? I was of the understanding that a forum was for us to support one another about the industry and what we can offer each other to help move ourselves along and have some form of shared understanding, the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge is power and the knowledge I offered is power for anyone that can find it.

Well, royalty rates and such are public knowledge.  And we do discuss and complain about them already, yes?

Quote
Even asked by an individual who shows no signs on this site as actually being a photographer, more an alter ego of someone else here on the site.

Gostwyck is certainly a photographer.  No need to be paranoid.

Noodles

« Reply #76 on: October 20, 2009, 14:28 »
0
Hi All,

 Not to change up the subject completely but there is a correlation here to what I was getting at you might find it not relative but I do. How many of you are getting a 50/50 split with your agency. That is what stock used to be before RF it was even 60/40 at some agencies in favor of the photographer. Why did it change when the cost of supplying those images dropped dramatically for the agencies during this same time thanks to the internet? I was of the understanding that a forum was for us to support one another about the industry and what we can offer each other to help move ourselves along and have some form of shared understanding, the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge is power and the knowledge I offered is power for anyone that can find it.
 Maybe ask yourself who are you aligning yourself with the agencies or are you just wanting to go it alone. I don't mind some of you not interested in the information but you should really read what some of you have said when I tried to help and offer up information that was asked of me.
 Even asked by an individual who shows no signs on this site as actually being a photographer, more an alter ego of someone else here on the site. No one has answered my question. How does me sharing those numbers which I have shared for 11 years with anyone that wanted to know hurt my business. I think I am doing pretty well.
 As for not offering information as we get bigger I have found the complete opposite the biggest players are the most generous with their knowledge because they are not of a threatened nature. Maybe that is why the are so successful.

Best,
Jonathan


You say it yourself - "Knowledge is power"  mwah ha ha ha ha - I do like openness though but MS is full of wannabe's and leechers - its not such a good place to be open
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 14:30 by Noodles »


« Reply #77 on: October 20, 2009, 16:26 »
0
Maybe your right Noodles. Love the name.

Thanks,
Jonathan

« Reply #78 on: October 20, 2009, 16:31 »
0
I think when you are celebrity in any industry people already know you are making a lot of money so there is no reason to hide it. Besides if you so afraid of competitors you close yourself in your own world.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #79 on: October 20, 2009, 16:58 »
0


You say it yourself - "Knowledge is power"  mwah ha ha ha ha - I do like openness though but MS is full of wannabe's and leechers - its not such a good place to be open

Why do you bother coming here?  Isn't this a place for sharing --- openly?

« Reply #80 on: October 20, 2009, 17:16 »
0
Why do you bother coming here?  Isn't this a place for sharing --- openly?

Uh, no.  Unless you feel like it.  This is a forum for industry discussion.

« Reply #81 on: October 20, 2009, 21:49 »
0
Hi Warren,

 I do try to share openly but it is not always well received and quite often attacked as being a bragger or having some hidden agenda. There are some very good people here and only a couple of people that like to tell others what they offer is wrong. They don't offer solutions they just take and criticize in sometimes a very unpleasant manner.
 I realize that is part of the deal with offering info here and I am okay with it. I know that the real problem people are a small number in life as well as this site, they just make the most noise. I won't stop sharing information here. I have been doing so for over a year and I don't have a blog or anything to gain from it. Just like to help others down the path. The cream will always rise and what comes around goes around. Nature has a way of taking care of itself in the long run :)

Best,
Jonathan

ap

« Reply #82 on: October 20, 2009, 22:00 »
0

 Photographers share numbers all the time, at least some do.


that's true, a lot of high profile microstock bloggers religiously share their #s, so it's no shock there. but, it's probably a bit different from other industries where people are more obtuse about it. i think these absolute #s behind the ratios are of real benefit for other photogs to guage their place and how the industry is paying on the whole. but, i also respect those who would rather stay mum, simply because it's more the norm in society.

but, jonathan, what i think is really invaluable is your reportage of how a big macro stocker is venturing into microstock full heartedly and sharing all info. i think that's worthy of a blog, if you don't already have one.


« Reply #83 on: October 21, 2009, 11:55 »
0
Thanks AP,

 Maybe a blog someday I haven't approached the idea seriously to much shooting to do : ) But I do appreciate the kind words they mean a lot. I agree that people should be able to choose what they share with others, whatever they are comfortable with. I just don't think that sharing those numbers hurts my business, some people here do, that is their prerogative.

'Best,
Jonathan


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
5336 Views
Last post March 29, 2006, 01:57
by fintastique
9 Replies
4282 Views
Last post May 03, 2008, 23:39
by Graffoto
25 Replies
9186 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 15:54
by litifeta
30 Replies
9336 Views
Last post December 08, 2008, 17:13
by lagereek
12 Replies
4858 Views
Last post July 28, 2009, 16:12
by Moonb007

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results