Author Topic: More bad news on economy (Read 22925 times)

WarrenPrice · « **on:** October 14, 2009, 12:46 »

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???

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** October 14, 2009, 13:23 »

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 »

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.

pet_chia · « **Reply #3 on:** October 14, 2009, 14:04 »

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 »

Quote from: pet_chia on October 14, 2009, 14:04

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2009, 17:13 »

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 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2009, 17:13

... 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".

gostwyck · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2009, 18:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 14, 2009, 17:39

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

eppic · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2009, 18:33 »

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...

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2009, 18:57 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2009, 18:18

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.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2009, 19:51 »

Yep Zeus,

Timing is everything in life : )

Best,
Jonathan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2009, 21:51 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2009, 17:13

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 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 14, 2009, 21:51

Quote from: gostwyck on October 14, 2009, 17:13
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. :-)

fotografer · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2009, 23:27 »

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.

litifeta · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2009, 00:38 »

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.

stock shooter · « **Reply #15 on:** October 15, 2009, 08:54 »

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 »

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 »

Quote from: litifeta on October 15, 2009, 00:38

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.

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.

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.

Perry · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2009, 11:02 »

Okay, the print is going down... I think the micros should raise the prices for small sizes to "compensate" in a way.

stockastic · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2009, 12:11 »

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.

melastmohican · « **Reply #20 on:** October 15, 2009, 12:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 15, 2009, 12:11

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?

louoates · « **Reply #21 on:** October 15, 2009, 12:42 »

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #22 on:** October 15, 2009, 12:48 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #23 on:** October 15, 2009, 14:23 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 15, 2009, 12:48

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #24 on:** October 15, 2009, 15:17 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: More bad news on economy (Read 22925 times)

WarrenPrice

stockastic

RacePhoto

pet_chia

lisafx

gostwyck

lisafx

gostwyck

eppic

PeterChigmaroff

Jonathan Ross

RacePhoto

WarrenPrice

fotografer

litifeta

stock shooter

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

Perry

stockastic

melastmohican

louoates

stockastic

Sean Locke Photography

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors