I just replied to you on the other post, but never mind.

I think we better open new thread - Lisa and Dook matter.

I can't decide if people are just on edge because of all the changes to microstock or if there is just an inordinate number of new people signing up to push their referral links, blogs and keywording services. I know both of those things are making me cranky.  

ETA: Is it just me  No not just you

Lisa, I think your post pretty much repeats what was discussed recently (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what-has-happened-to-this-forum!!!/), even though phrased differently.

I think forum got some mass of new members, and there is occasionally some turbulence. I hope it will not develop into anything seriously unpleasant.

It will calm down and then it will heat up again. It seems to come and go in cycles. What is it they say at IS?

Heart Heart Unicorn Rainbow?

Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

Yes and it's all your fault  

there seem to be an increasing number of posters who want to accuse people of "blaming" "hating" and "whining". 

Yes, people seem to be accusing others of things that aren't there.

Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

I don't think it's just you. I think it's a mixture of several things though.

One is tougher times - people are struggling to keep their income growing. Standards at the micros have risen, management at a number of agencies have taken hard nosed approaches to dealing with contributors, the economy's been rocky.

Another is that we're no longer all newbies together - at one point everyone was a newbie at the micros. Now we have more constituencies in the group - the more established micro contributors, newbies to micros, old line trad agency contributors who've decided to contribute to micros and the influx of people wondering what all this is about who are looking at business prospects (blogs, referrals, services, advertising, etc.) rather than becoming a contributor.

There are a few people who have more posts here than images in their portfolios and for the most part I think the best way to deal with incivility from this group is just ignore them. If people don't have any stake in the game, why feed the trolls by arguing with them?

Anonymity is another problem, and by and large FT is to blame for that. Their vindictive behavior has led a number of people - entirely rationally - to remain anonymous to avoid having their accounts closed. Other than this unfortunate need for anonymity, I'd otherwise have suggested ignoring all anonymous posters without portfolio links. How can you have any sort of intelligent exchange when you have no idea who you're talking to?

Size is the other thing - micros have been successful and the group has become quite a bit larger. It's harder to know everyone when the group is large.

For the most part, most people most of the time have been civil and constructive. That's what has made this group a very useful resource.  It isn't that tough to disagree without getting into a personal slugfest with those who hold other points of view. I expect that things will simmer down again, and if they don't, perhaps some discussions with Leaf about having some sort of time out from posting for those who can't stay civil?

Quote from: lisafx on March 03, 2010, 17:18

Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

Yes and it's all your fault  

Priceless! 

Newbie  ... Is that a derogatory name?  

I don't think newbie is derogatory, but 'newb' (or more correctly 'noob') certainly is - a noob is someone who's been at it long enough to know how to avoid the mistakes a newbie would make, but somehow just can't make that leap. In the context of microstock, I'd say you're a noob if you've been at an agency for, say, one year and are still earning an entry-level commission.

Newbie  ... Is that a derogatory name?   

I personally like FNG.

Thank you for starting this topic, I for one am thankful for this forum even though I am new - Its a fun read, very informative!


I also have a perhaps-related quesion:
it seems that people are differentiating "less-pro" (to avoid derogatories) people versus pros by the size of the portfolio.
Shouldn't we be measuring the user's level by something like RPI (or your favourite similar stat)...?

It feels a little silly to call someone with 10,000 images and 1,000 dloads/year more pro than a person with 100 images and 100 dloads/year... or am I wrong (honest question)?
Yes, they're putting more work into it, but ...

adijr

p.s. About me --- yes, I am new, and will likely remain "new" by some definitions - I've been uploading to IS for 5 months, and by that I mean I am uploading about a pic a month since my first batch of 10.
I like to try very new things (new to me... I'm sure others have done it). Its fun, and I apologize if anyone feels like this robs the industry in some way, but I don't think it does if my few images
are good quality.

p.p.s. thanks for the ignore feature, leaf!

I think there is a bit too much focus on 'who is pro' and 'who is not' and where the line should be drawn.  I do agree that it is nice to know when someone posts about a 100% increase in earnings when they have a portfolio of 20 images, but to shun people who are 'not pro', however you define the term, or if we take the attitude that they don't have anything to ad - I think is narrow sighted.

For some reason there seems to be some sort of vibe that microstock shouldn't be for people who are new - that you need to be a seasoned pro before you can submit to the micros.  Perhaps this is part of the negativity seen?

I think that is forgetting what microstock IS and how it started.  Microstock is crowd sourced and can be contributed to by everyone.  If the images aren't good enough they won't get past the review process.  Micro is one the stock arena where everyone is allowed to play no matter how many images you have or how long you have been involved in the industry.  Being so tightly reviewed it allows everyone to at least try submitting.  Some people are happy making $50 a year - that should be fine.  For those who want an arena which is an exclusive club and only pro's can submit - they should apply to Getty or Corbis or one of the big macro agencies.  

I'm not for drumming up hype that microstock is any sort of unopened treasure chest, but to discourage someone simply on the basis that they are 'new' or don't have top notch images, I think is unfair.

edited for clarity - .. hopefully it is clearer.

I also have a perhaps-related quesion:
it seems that people are differentiating "less-pro" (to avoid derogatories) people versus pros by the size of the portfolio.
Shouldn't we be measuring the user's level by something like RPI (or your favourite similar stat)...?

Speaking generally, there are always certain tendencies typical for certain groups of people; and there are always some individuals within these groups who don't follow these tendencies.

What we see quite often in this forum is that "new" contributors argue very hard and make very strong conclusions about microstock market being there only for a short time and having very little portfolio. Of course "new" here is just a label, some people remain such "new" for years. And not all "new" behave like that. And no, portfolio size isn't a bulletproof indicator of a "pro" but it gives some idea about the person, and how reasonable his/her judgments are.

I like how jsnover explained that:

There are a few people who have more posts here than images in their portfolios and for the most part I think the best way to deal with incivility from this group is just ignore them. If people don't have any stake in the game, why feed the trolls by arguing with them?

For some reason there seems to be some sort of vibe that microstock shouldn't be for people who are new - that you need to be a seasoned pro before you can submit to the micros.  Perhaps this is part of the negativity seen?

I don't get that vibe at all, the vibe I get and certainly the one I try to put out is that there's nothing wrong with being new (we were all new at some point) but don't expect to have things handed to you on a plate, anybody that's had any success in microstock has done it by hard work, long hours, learning the craft and doing the research. I will and do support people who want to do the work but need a little guidance but I won't support or respond kindly to the one's that come here with questions like "what should I shoot" "how much do you earn" "what's your best seller" and I have even less patience for the one's who sole aim is to get info to put on their blog for enticing referrals to make an easy buck.

When all is said and done it is the buyer who decides who has their finger on the Zeitgeist of commercial imagery.  Those who are successful are successful for that reason and that will always be a truism, no matter what competition exists.  As to the �value� of this craft, well, when you invite the world to compete then the premium for exclusiveness is eliminated.  Thats the microstock concept . . . . like it or not.

But what must be frustrating is the copying of someone's point of view or concept.  Years ago I had a one man show of my paintings in New York.  Some other artist copied  one of my works,  the next month it was on the cover of Art In America (the artist obviously had financial backers since that is the easiest was to get on the cover of an important magazine), I was not pleased.

There's been a few threads recently discussing upcoming events where one of the topics is 'the future of photography' and in our case the future of stock photography, as somebody who does this for a living I face the same dilemma as many others in my position and that is we need to justify our production costs against our income, and those production costs involve a very important factor and that is our time.
 Selling images via microstock puts us up against many amateurs for whom time is not an important factor, years ago before I took this up for a living I was into wildlife photography and would think nothing of "stalking' a subject for two or three days, I have a photo of a wild rabbit in my port that took me four mornings of lying on my stomach covered in camouflage waiting for the right moment, it sells well enough but I could not commit to doing that now for the microstock market as I'd go bust, my point being that even though I like to go for the quality rather than quantity approach in my port I still need to produce a fair number of images each year to make a living, and to make a living I need to get a justifiable amount for the work I put in.

 Buyers searching for images do not differentiate between the guy doing this for a living producing 1000 images a year and the guy doing this for fun producing 10 images a year, and they don't care how long or how much it cost all they want is the best image, the microstock sites themselves don't seem to care either as there is no discernable recognition and this is what I feel will lead to the microstock sites own self harm because in time the full timers won't be able to justify selling via microstock because the return is not sufficient enough, the microstock sites will still get quality shots from part timers but not in the quantity they'll require.

So my own interest regarding the future of microstock photography is how can a person doing this for a living compete against someone who is prepared to sell at a loss if the sites do not recognise that we need sales volume or commission to match our level of input, and my question to the microstock sites would be " Who do you consider more valuable 500 full time photographers producing 1000 quality shots a year, or 20,000 amateurs producing 10 quality shots a year? " and "What are you going to do to keep me producing for you and not concentrating my efforts on the RM macro market"

So for me the 'blame' does not fall on the amateurs but the sites for not supporting the full timers appropriately.

We can't blame the sites because there is nothing to stop us creating our own site and using it exclusively.  That would soon put our site at the top of the microstock poll results.  We don't need to spend any money on advertising, just use twitter, myspace, facebook etc.  I know people will find all sorts of reasons why we can't do it and that is a shame because I think it would be more positive than constantly reading threads about how bad the future could be for us.  If it is impossible, there must be other options.  I refuse to believe that we just have to sit back and watch sites cut commissions.

We can't blame the sites because there is nothing to stop us creating our own site and using it exclusively.  That would soon put our site at the top of the microstock poll results.  We don't need to spend any money on advertising, just use twitter, myspace, facebook etc.  I know people will find all sorts of reasons why we can't do it and that is a shame because I think it would be more positive than constantly reading threads about how bad the future could be for us.  If it is impossible, there must be other options.  I refuse to believe that we just have to sit back and watch sites cut commissions.

selling direct works fine for those selling something special, like news reportage, wildlife, rare animals, rare food, and anything hard to find elsewhere.

how do you hope to sell generic microstock photos at premium price when it can be found anywhere else for 0.25$ ?

it reminds me of one citizen journalism agency i joined months ago, called Demotix, they accept anyone and they think using Twitter and Facebook
sales will come but despite all their bells and whistles i've got not a single sale so far ... losers !

as far as i know the only decent sales they had in 1 year were the photos in Iran taken from Twitter.

and to top it off when you upload a new story they'll tell you the upload went fine and then they encourage you
to link the story to all your twitter and facebook friends..

* that's the last thing i wanna hear from an agency that's supposed to sell and promote my images getting its 50% fee.

Surely they already do, at least to some extent, in that you get increasing commissions based on your sales at most agencies. I'm pretty sure that on some agencies it is also more difficult to get images accepted until you have the sales record to justify their confidence in you. What more would you have them do to 'support' full-timers?

Yes you get an increase on some sites, but that applies to everyone irrelevant whether you upload 1 or 101 images a month, there's no incentive to upload other than what would be the result of your own skill. When you or I upload our images to a site they sit in the queue the same as the next person, they're reviewed by a reviewer same as the next person and on some sites reviewed by someone who may have only been doing this for six months and has a tiny amount of sales, when approved they go into the bin along with the thousands of others some of which may never see a sale.
FT changed the cannister thing a while ago so now you're competing against people on a higher cannister level who have produced and sold less than you, DT cut's it's extended license commissions and your images get flagged by people who haven't got a clue how the system works and model releases get rejected depending which way the wind blows, I get the same commission rate on iS as a guy with ten images and two sales, I'm top tier on SS but that's it there's no higher incentive, BigStock have a ridiculous upload system that requires wasting time to correct their system errors.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that's seriously considering whether microstock is financially viable anymore, or as in a lot of cases going exclusive with iS to get that little bit extra treatment (yes I know it's the same for all exclusives full or part time)

We can't blame the sites because there is nothing to stop us creating our own site and using it exclusively.  That would soon put our site at the top of the microstock poll results.  We don't need to spend any money on advertising, just use twitter, myspace, facebook etc.  I know people will find all sorts of reasons why we can't do it and that is a shame because I think it would be more positive than constantly reading threads about how bad the future could be for us.  If it is impossible, there must be other options.  I refuse to believe that we just have to sit back and watch sites cut commissions.

It's a very good point and one I've thought of before. If a site suddenly appeared that consisted of only the top 1000 microstock photographers (and finger painters  ) selling their images exclusivly at microstock prices for a fair commission it would be goodnight SS, FT ,DT et al. You'll never see the figures but I'm pretty sure that the top 1000 produce over 90% of all microstock sales. Yuri you reading this

RT !!  youre a dangerous guy!  look now what youve started.

Hey Christian don't worry you'll easily make the top 1000 

How much is the microstock industry worth now?  If we ran the biggest microstock site, it shouldn't be hard to attract investment and pay decent wages for a team to run it.  If microstock is too small, why not do higher priced RM as well?

Back on topic.

I don't get that vibe at all, the vibe I get and certainly the one I try to put out is that there's nothing wrong with being new (we were all new at some point) but don't expect to have things handed to you on a plate, anybody that's had any success in microstock has done it by hard work, long hours, learning the craft and doing the research. I will and do support people who want to do the work but need a little guidance but I won't support or respond kindly to the one's that come here with questions like "what should I shoot" "how much do you earn" "what's your best seller" and I have even less patience for the one's who sole aim is to get info to put on their blog for enticing referrals to make an easy buck.

This sums up my feelings exactly. Everyone was a newbie (noob, newb, whatever term you want to use) at one time. I would like to think that my skills have improved over the years because there were helpful people on forums. There were also people who gave the standard "read the f**king manual" answers, and sometimes I actually did exactly that. On some occasions I am frustrated with people who can't grasp a concept or expect someone here to do their research for them, but I always try to remember that I was there once.

There is no need to exclude the person shooting 20 snapshots who expects to get rich. If the snapshots are good, they will sell and that person will learn and no longer be a newbie. If the snapshots suck, nobody buys them and the shooter gives up or learns to shoot better. I don't have to do a darn thing!

But I am going to share some common sense insights that I've figured out along the way, offer encouragement, and speak out in defense of a newbie's freedom to put his or her skills to the test.  And if that scares the veterans out there, you better step up your game.  God didn't grant you the position you hold today.  You worked hard to get where you are, but you can't deny others the right to do the same.

It's not scary.  But there's a difference between saying "Good luck on your next milestone" (being friendly) and providing a roadmap, which is what some people seem to want to do with their classes, books and such.

Doesn't this thread remind anyone of the outrage that REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS displayed in the beginning of MICROSTOCK?

By the way ... I am a late-comer to microstock.  But, I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera.

Doesn't this thread remind anyone of the outrage that REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS displayed in the beginning of MICROSTOCK?

By the way ... I am a late-comer to microstock.  But, I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera.

No not all all, most of that outrage was over the microstock model because they didn't understand the business specifics. In short they could only see an image selling for a very small amount without understanding that an image is a product and the idea of selling a product is to get as much return for it as possible. Of course there were some of these real photographers who realised that the 'quality' of their work would be held to bear.

I think there is a bit too much focus on 'who is pro' and 'who is not' and where the line should be drawn.  I do agree that it is nice to know when someone posts about a 100% increase in earnings when they have a portfolio of 20 images, but to shun people who are 'not pro', however you define the term, or if we take the attitude that they don't have anything to ad - I think is narrow sighted.

For some reason there seems to be some sort of vibe that microstock shouldn't be for people who are new - that you need to be a seasoned pro before you can submit to the micros.  Perhaps this is part of the negativity seen?

I think that is forgetting what microstock IS and how it started.  Microstock is crowd sourced and can be contributed to by everyone.  If the images aren't good enough they won't get past the review process.  Micro is one the stock arena where everyone is allowed to play no matter how many images you have or how long you have been involved in the industry.  Being so tightly reviewed it allows everyone to at least try submitting.  Some people are happy making $50 a year - that should be fine.  For those who want an arena which is an exclusive club and only pro's can submit - they should apply to Getty or Corbis or one of the big macro agencies.  

I'm not for drumming up hype that microstock is any sort of unopened treasure chest, but to discourage someone simply on the basis that they are 'new' or don't have top notch images, I think is unfair.

edited for clarity - .. hopefully it is clearer.

Thanks.

software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now?

don't worry, there's a chance a sort of "open source" photography is going to develop soon as
people will put online all the images they can't sell or get past QC.

Off-topic. I do not think this tells anything. I also was a PP long-long time ago. Let me give you an analogy from my other life - software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now?

Is this somehow relating to photography?  Are you equating punch cards to film photography?  Kinda like, "Yeah, you're a dinasaur but still a newbie."
[/quote]

Exactly, with one correction. Did you miss "I do too" part?
A little more serious - not to film photography as a class (it does not apply to anybody who did professional work on film continuously till recent years), but to any professional skill set that had a chance to get both obsolete and rusty.   

REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS displayed in the beginning of MICROSTOCK

Now that's funny.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 04, 2010, 11:40

I guess that pretty much sums it up.  I have nothing to offer.  My images must stand on their own.   

Sorry if you feel offended. I did not mean this at all - my comment was not about your photography skills, but about using "I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera"

This has gotten way off topic, Gene.  I am offering a Why for the conflict suggested in Lisa's initial post.  Donding tried the same post in slightly different wording and was skewered for simply being too new to have an opinion.  Lisa offers practically the same opinion with rave reviews.  That is what I see as the basis for a lot of the tension. 

My point was ... being new to MicroStock is no reason to assume the person is ignorant to the world selling images ... micro or otherwise.  As a famous comedian once said, "I get no respect."   

This has gotten way off topic, Gene.  I am offering a Why for the conflict suggested in Lisa's initial post.  Donding tried the same post in slightly different wording and was skewered for simply being too new to have an opinion.  Lisa offers practically the same opinion with rave reviews.  That is what I see as the basis for a lot of the tension.  

My point was ... being new to MicroStock is no reason to assume the person is ignorant to the world selling images ... micro or otherwise.  As a famous comedian once said, "I get no respect."  

Well, with respect, I didn't see Donna getting "skewered" and I don't see anything like "rave reviews" here.  

All I have seen in either thread is people genuinely offering their opinions on the level of civility (or lack) around here, and also theories as to why that is.

ETA:  I did not think my OP was redundant of Donna's, as she was expressing frustration about being personally bashed. Whereas I don't feel particularly attacked myself, but am more interested in the newbie vs. pro battle that seems totally counterproductive to me. 

I think there is a bit too much focus on 'who is pro' and 'who is not' and where the line should be drawn.  I do agree that it is nice to know when someone posts about a 100% increase in earnings when they have a portfolio of 20 images, but to shun people who are 'not pro', however you define the term, or if we take the attitude that they don't have anything to ad - I think is narrow sighted.
...

For me it's pretty easy to draw the line: if you earn a living through photography then you're a professional, if you don't then (at best) you're a semi-professional. Although I'm primarily interested in the opinions of my professional peers, I still value the opinion of the part-timers and newcomers, though not with the same weight. Each of these groups has a unique opinion to offer: pros tend to look at things differently than semi-pros/amateurs/hobbiests, and newcomers can sometimes provide a fresh perspective of the marketplace. By definition, I don't think anyone who is professional unjustly discards the opinions of people who don't do this for a living or have been at it for only a short time. Certainly not a successful one, anyway.

Quote from: macrosaur on March 04, 2010, 09:00

Getty Images already has the top 1000 RM shooters.

maybe one day iStock will follow with the best 1000 RF shooters ?

Would it surprise you to know that plenty of the Getty top RM shooters also shoot stock for RF agencies. Its no big deal anymore.

best.

i do the same.

good images on RM, the rest on RF.

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 04, 2010, 12:08

This has gotten way off topic, Gene.  I am offering a Why for the conflict suggested in Lisa's initial post.  Donding tried the same post in slightly different wording and was skewered for simply being too new to have an opinion.  Lisa offers practically the same opinion with rave reviews.  That is what I see as the basis for a lot of the tension.  

My point was ... being new to MicroStock is no reason to assume the person is ignorant to the world selling images ... micro or otherwise.  As a famous comedian once said, "I get no respect."  

Well, with respect, I didn't see Donna getting "skewered" and I don't see anything like "rave reviews" here.  

All I have seen in either thread is people genuinely offering their opinions on the level of civility (or lack) around here, and also theories as to why that is.

ETA:  I did not think my OP was redundant of Donna's, as she was expressing frustration about being personally bashed. Whereas I don't feel particularly attacked myself, but am more interested in the newbie vs. pro battle that seems totally counterproductive to me.  

Lisa...the bashing I was referring to wasn't directed at me when I made the original post and later on down the post I came back and clarified that and said what I was concerned about was that the forum was beginning to take the turn of alot of the stock forums. I wasn't refering to everyone on here. Here is what I said in the second post

"I just want to clarify things that I should have done when I originally posted and I apologize for that. The bashing that was going on, was not directed at me, but some others on the forum. As most of you have pointed out, this is the best forum to partake in and that is very true thanks to Leaf. He has done a great job. I have also been to the other forums and know what it is like there. They are not the friendliest places. That was the point I was trying to make. I just don�t want this forum to turn out like those and that is my main concern. The majority of people on here are considerate. Like I said before I�m not going to single out people and point fingers here. That is a lot of the problem that I was referring to. I didn�t post to provoke people....even though it seems like that is what I  have done. I just felt these problems need to be addressed and I hope you understand that."  

I really think your post here was alot better put than mine. But I did end up with 9 ignores because of mine. But that's alright I'm not going to dwell on it.

Quote from: donding on March 04, 2010, 14:02

But I did end up with 9 ignores because of mine. But that's alright I'm not going to dwell on it.

Don't sweat the ignores, Donna.  We all get them...  Only way to avoid it is to never have an opinion, and how dull would that be? 

If I was sweating them I'd be dehydrated by now....lol..

Actually I try to keep the same quality at both RM and RF. It doesnt seem to make much differance nowdays. Fact is an RF shot DLd say 30 times a month can easily match a couple of RM sales, sometimes much more.

best. Christian

i sell my best as RM because i price my work correctly.

if you see your images as something to be sold by its weight then by all means go with RF.

some of my shots are not cheap, and there's no reason on heart i would give them away
for 0.25$ a pop, and i don't care if they could theoretically sell 1000x times.

if you want that picture, it's at least 100 bucks, period.

the ones i sell as RF are there because nowadays some niches sell more
as RF, for instance food, fruit, vegetables, doors, road signs, symbols, etc

it's ok for me, my target is portraits and lifestyle, anything else comes later.

Quote from: stockastic on March 04, 2010, 14:39

I just checked my profile and found out I'm being ignored by 3.   I have no doubt they're "professionals".   

i'm ignored by 12 !
they love me ! 

I don't ignore anyone.  I enjoy the wild mix of opinions, the varying experiences, the rants and the venting of frustrations, even the sarcastic putdowns.  What else is an internet forum for?  If the "pros" want a place where they can chat amongst themselves and not be bothered by the lower classes, they should get someone to set up a "professional" forum with appropriate conditions for membership - invitation only, or verification of photographic income, or maybe proof that you "make your living" from microstock.   

Back in the day - in the music business - sure, we all wanted to define "professional" as "someone who really, really needs the money".    Unfortunately, customers didn't see that as a very good reason for hiring someone, and some "amateurs" were a lot better than many of the "pros".  In the customer's mind, a "professional" was someone who:

- charged money
- did a good job
- didn't act like a dope

The customer really didn't care if your musical income was 10%, or 100%, of your total.

I think this all started with the many threads asking for advices, free informations but also from threads asking for hidden psychological support. Also from blog updates and such. The only bad thing about this is they were all in the same period of time (week).

It's good to ask for opinions/informations, but also to search for the answers in the big thread database that MSG have. That could lower the rate of new threads first.

Then I don't think that advertising blogs almost each weeks is the best idea. Maybe we could have a blog section appearing at the end instead of having a forum section about this topic. I don't want to ignore boards at all, but spam, yes.

Everyone that start in microstock need encouragement, but forum members don't like it much most of times and it's the same in most forums. It need to keep being informative to the others IMO

Finally, I think that if you appear in the top poster / top thread starter many weeks and more in a row, you are exposing yourself at comments, that aren't often compliments. 

Well, this is all pretty funny.
I am not a professional, far from it, I have on average about 200+ pics at SS,DT,FT,IS,BigStock,123RF, StockXpert (oops - this is dead...) for the last 2 years, and I have not submitted a new image in over a year (in hospital most of the time). I am not complaining about sales - I make about $150/month.

But maybe I can put my $0.02 here.
The whole microstock business is a business - for the agencies. For most contributors - it is a dream about being a photographer (I haste to explain that I never had any illusions about what I can achieve there, with full-time job which gets me a decent 6-figure income).

For me the whole microstock adventure is just that - a bit of fun and a couple of bucks on the side.
It has been this way from day one - after I did initial analysis of potential prospects.

So - the equipment is couple of $K. A sellable image is on average about 1-2 hours of work (shooting, processing, etc. - YMMV, of course).
I may be able to put about 25 hours into photography a month - say 20 new pics/month, 250 new pics a year.

With current rates on most sites - these pics may earn (very optimistic here - I know) $5K, at the expense of 300 hours of work + initial investment.
This is about $17 per hour of work invested - before tax (which in my country is 43%).

In other words - a waste of time (again, YMMV, but I think that a similiar situation is applicable to most contributors).
Who is getting rich then ? The agencies who collect 50 to 80% of sales income. And some good, talented, hard working photographers who are prepared to work full-time on increasing their portfolios to get ahead of the competition.

And here it is - it is really a competition, not a business. It is like this in sport: the winner takes all, the second one is just the first of the losers.

 

It is likely a combination of issues.  Most of the long term submitters had little help when they started.  If they did not have an aptitude for photography and post process submitters were more likely to give up.  

The last several years some of the sites have submitters in the critique areas that help people who would have never been accepted before. They get considerable help to pass the initial submission test, right down to advice on which images to submit and how to shoot and process them. Some of these new submitters have come to expect that the process will continue and it is understandable that those who worked hard to build micro skills and ports on their own resent being asked to continually help those not willing to do the same.   It does not help when you see the people you have helped copy your best selling images.

As the economy deteriorated money became more of an issue so dwindling sales hurt a bit more.

Add to the above the sheer numbers of new submitters that are being generated because news spread that some of the hardest working submitters were making good money and the fact that micro info is now readily available to help new submitters get going and you have more new people on these boards.

And you have volumes of new images on the sites, burying even the best of images.

As the economy deteriorated money became more of an issue so dwindling sales hurt a bit more.

I think this is a big part of it.

When the economy is good and it's only a hobby it's not a big deal if the money dwindles.

But when things go bad a lot of people probably need every dollar. Survival instincts kick in.

Not to mention testosterone. 

Heh what about menopause?

Quote from: cclapper on March 05, 2010, 11:34

Not to mention testosterone. 

Heh what about menopause?

I'm still at the PMS phase, but if that's any indication menopause will be Hell....  On my husband

^^Great summation Gbalex! 

Thank you Lisa, nice thread!