My 60-year old ad agency shut down 2 days ago (worked there for 5 years) so yesterday I was interviewing at a small marketing company here in town and was talking about working as a part time stock photographer. The two people were concerned that we, as microstock photographers, might not make much money selling our photos for so cheap. But on the other hand, the owner of the company was mad at IS for raising the prices on the exclusive content making it harder to find cheap photos. Anyway, it was interesting to get feedback from buyers.

I wish I was making enough from microstock to live on but don't have enough photos online yet. Maybe in a couple of years.

I don't know yet. Fortunately Knoxville has a good graphic arts community so something should come up soon. I would love to work at home. May try freelancing for awhile.

Good luck getting the right job soon

Your prospective employer's opinion of microstock is really interesting.  On the one hand they think it is too cheap for contributors to make a living and on the other resent price increases.  I bet that is a prevailing opinion among a lot of buyers.  Wonder if they ever stop to think about the contradiction there...?

I guess the really good news is that they are aware of microstock and buy it on a regular basis.  A few years ago when I started micro nobody knew what it was.  Now it seems like most designers and other marketing people are using it.

They know about microstock but aren't aware of how many agencies they can download from. For example, they knew about IS and SS, but never heard of DT and probably all the other smaller agencies.

Well, microstock agencies spoiled these buyers with extremely cheap prices.  There was never a need for such cheap prices, but that's what they enjoyed and got used to.

For most commercial uses prices are still absurdly cheap relative to the costs of the projects they are to be used for. If the image was wanted for purely private or non-commercial use though, say a one-off personalised greetings card for example, then the images are getting quite expensive.

A 2Mpix image - good enough for greeting cards - costs about US$5-6.  Still very affordable.

even too much affordable.

i still see prices as too low compared to the production costs.

the owner "getting mad" at exclusive prices ?
hahaha tell him to go with Getty RM and see what happens...

in the history of photography images have NEVER been so cheap as today !
how can these dorks complain about prices ?

you can buy an entry level DSLR for 400$ ... why they don't go out and shoot
wasting a whole afternoon and realizing how much time and energy it takes
to make a decent image..

they really think it's all about pressing buttons...
do they think the camera makes the composition as well ?

crazy !

Canon and Nikon are also to blame for their stupid marketing and the many BS like
"you press the button, we do the rest", yeah right !

making good pictures and making tons of them is HARD.
either buyers realize the cost involved or they'll have to realize it the hard way.

i'm browsing in this moment images of Tibet on Istock.
many shots of the usual Potala palace, doors, monks, etc
same crap as elsewhere.
not a single image of Barkhor, of indoors, or real people, nothing.

but there's a good reason, that stuff is selling at high prices on RM agencies
exactly because it's harder to shoot than walking in the central square
and shoot at the most touristic temple and the pilgrims around as any
other tourist with a camera would do.

and there's plenty of even cheaper alternatives than istock if the issue
is just about price.

but they also want quality and quality costs !
weren't they the ones telling us to adapt or die and yadda yadda ?

and so we did.
good pics on RM, the others on RF.
there you have it.

Quote from: madelaide on February 25, 2010, 16:10

Well, microstock agencies spoiled these buyers with extremely cheap prices.  There was never a need for such cheap prices, but that's what they enjoyed and got used to.

For most commercial uses prices are still absurdly cheap relative to the costs of the projects they are to be used for. If the image was wanted for purely private or non-commercial use though, say a one-off personalised greetings card for example, then the images are getting quite expensive.

The way I see it is that it's human nature and basic business for buyers to want quality for less!    It's the same way as clients wanting to pay the cheapest price for a quality service and still demand top dollar service!   It might be too late now but going forward I believe us contributors should seriously consider the value of our work and submit images to the various agencies where you can acquire a fair return! Exam.:  I can create elaborate vectors but don't have any in my portfolios for microstock!    My photographic work is suitable for microstock but as my skill level increases I will submit those images to other markets that pay better!

A friend of mine over in Boston works for a printing and design company - they finish and print specs from clients....leaflets,news sheets, promotional materials, dvd covers,cd covers etc He says the number of clients sourcing their images from SS and IS is increasing every day and they are dropping (in some cases completely) commissioned shoots as a source. I've read this elsewhere but it's encouraging (for microstockers) to hear it from someone in the business.

Quote from: Red Dove on February 28, 2010, 16:27

A friend of mine over in Boston works for a printing and design company - they finish and print specs from clients....leaflets,news sheets, promotional materials, dvd covers,cd covers etc He says the number of clients sourcing their images from SS and IS is increasing every day and they are dropping (in some cases completely) commissioned shoots as a source. I've read this elsewhere but it's encouraging (for microstockers) to hear it from someone in the business.

how can it be good for business in general ?

of course it's bad, but they've no other alternatives after all.

microstock is to blame for this.
quality is actually too good over there, often better than photos
you find on RM agencies, and all this for a pittance.

microstockers are indeed shooting their own foot accepting
such low prices but who am i to judge now ? it's too late already,
there's no turning back, clients are used to micros and will never
go back to Getty or Alamy or whatever in the middle.

and the next step will be buyers sourcing from Flickr or Wikipedia (!!),
weren't you all telling me to "adapt or die" ? 

Buyers are already sourcing from FLICKR - Getty saw that hence the FLICKR/Getty collection, providing the more realistic/creative work that Yuri and others are always banging on about as the way forward.

But I can't see a way back, with SS (for example) now sitting on 10m images and counting