I've encouraged a couple of my friends to try it. After I went through a quick shoot and workflow with one of them, they gave up pretty much immediately after seeing the effort. The other was/is a pro who is getting back into photography and submitted a few images but doesn't seem to have committed to continuing it.

If someone asked me I would say to even have a chance at doing well with this that, in addition to photography, the more of these qualities you have the better you will do:

• A sales and marketing background (to understand what buyers need and also promote yourself)
• A business background (to run a profitable business)
• Graphic editing skills (to process photos with Photoshop and also understand how designers work)
• Search Engine Optimization skills (to understand how buyers search and how keywords work)
• Several thousand dollars to get started (yes you can get a starter camera for $300 but you also need several lenses, lighting, software, computer upgrades, and plenty of other stuff. If you don't spend it immediately, after you add everything up after a year you will have spent at least a couple thousand dollars)
• At least 20 hours per week to commit because this can be a second job
• A blind passion for photography
• Be single or have a very understanding family
• Be able to quickly learn from errors and overcome obstacles
• Have thick skin and humility

I think what most people overlook is that this is a business. Those who have the right skills, mentality, and "get it" will do okay.

Find niche market subjects and long-tail themes that they can shoot to fill holes in the collections.

The thing with micro is that the images still shouldn't be "too niche". A photo with an unique concept or object is a failure if it's downloaded only once or twice (In a macro agency that might be a good image)

I usually have to explain what stock is first, because when folks hear I'm a stock photographer, they usually respond with a blank stare.  To those folks I explain that stock is similar to a library, but instead of providing books, we provide images with numerous concepts and ideas.  Invariably the next question is always "How do people use stock photos?"  So I explain that, too.

Today is my first day of a two semester stock photography college course.  After four years as a stock photographer, I thought I'd take the class in part so I can learn how to accurately explain it to people.      If that's all I get out of the class, it will be well worth the money! 

Great answer!  There's a great way to supplement the income - marketing ourselves as "photography career consultants". 

On a serious note, it does seem like some of the best money is in promoting stock (blogging, book writing), or providing support services to aspiring photographers (classes & seminars, keywording & uploading services, etc.).  Maybe that is really where the smart money is these days....?

Like Jack Hollingworth
Massive following on Twitter

There is the 'smart money'?

David 

Hi Adeptris,

 Yep Jack is definitely one to follow. He has been on the cutting edge of stock for almost 30 years and he knows the business as well if not better than anyone I know. I'm glad you hooked up with him. He is spending a great deal of time learning and teaching the use of social media to improve your stock business and especially how to diversify. I might be a a bit biased because he is a dear friend but only after he spent countless hours helping me learn a great deal about the business of the stock industry. He for sure is a giver not a taker.

Best,
Jonathan

Is it just me, or is everyone constantly getting questions about stock from friends, acquaintances, etc. who are either studying photography or know someone who is?

For example, at church Sunday a couple I know only slightly came up and wanted advice about getting started in stock for a friend of theirs who is studying photography at community college.  She doesn't have any idea whether she wants to do commercial work, weddings & portraits, photojournalism, or stock.  This happens all the time.  I should have a better prepared speech I guess.

So my choice is be really positive and encouraging or tell the truth.  Which as I see it is that microstock is not the way to go for someone starting out as a photographer and wanting to make a living.  IMO this field has just become way over-saturated with content and the odds of a newbie just starting out being able to make a living at this is beyond minimal.  Even some of the early entrants into micro appear to have thrown in the towel, or at least branched into other fields of photography.  The recent and continuing influx of macro stock pros just makes the competition even more fierce.

I would probably seem much nicer if I chose the positive and encouraging route, but I generally opt for telling the truth

I ended up suggesting that while their friend is still in school she should take some business and marketing classes.   In the portrait & wedding market, anyway, it seems like success is more dependent on business and marketing skill than photographic artistry.

I assume others of you get the same type of thing - people figuring that there are buckets of money on the table waiting to be grabbed for any eager novice photographer.  How do you handle it?  My response could use some polish, for sure

 

I have been getting the same thing - lots approaching me, even random strangers that found my blog.  I'm very honest with them right off the bat that it isn't as easy as it looks, and it's even tougher to get started in it now than it used to be.  The bar has been raised, and there is a lot more competition now.  You used to have 1000 images and it was like having 5000 today.  I used to be all for the education of how to get started to try and grab referrals and get something in return, but in the end I'm just spending a lot of time and getting nothing back.  Helping others is cutting into my own time to work, probably just breeding new competition to the ever growing crowd of microstockers.  That's why I've decided to offer one on one training for a price if they want it.  I can't tell you how many of my friends I've personally had over my home and walked them through every inch of this business on my own home computer.  Did any of them stick to it?  Not one - they realized how much work it was.  So at least if I'm going to help people get started, I won't be wasting my time.  This could be a business in itself for someone that is interested in teaching.  Seminars, workshops, etc.  A lot of photographers have embraced the whole "workshop" strategy in their businesses.

Quote from: photoshow on August 25, 2009, 23:57

Find niche market subjects and long-tail themes that they can shoot to fill holes in the collections.

The thing with micro is that the images still shouldn't be "too niche". A photo with an unique concept or object is a failure if it's downloaded only once or twice (In a macro agency that might be a good image)

I agree if the niche is to unique or narrow then it would maybe not make sense to pursue it. Yet if that unique object has little of no cost associated with the production of the image and it is downloaded once or twice a year from a dozen different locations and you have a multitude of these nominal earners working for you are boosting your bottom line. Regardless there are still a ton of holes in strong niche categories that can be filled and that will offer successful performance. Typically they are small holes in larger categories. It takes time searching and sorting through the massive pile of imagery that is the current collection of the agencies but the holes are there. Just because something is a specialized niche does not mean that it might not have a significant demand attached to it. Many of the holes today have to do with ethnicity, age and or cultural diversity. Even in the classic business themes that are isolated over white there are still cultural and age related niches that are poorly represented but have significant demand. This is a global marketplace, The US and Europe may be the strongest markets but there are still many markets around the world that are undeserved or that are just beginning to come on line.

As a newbie and when I was first enquiring, I would like to have been given the harsh facts as well as the positives. A lot of the bloggers put a rosy glow on the business along the lines of "I shot this in my kitchen with a reflector made from tin foil and a standard desk lamp" - I suppose it ramps up their visit counter and encourages more sponsorship for them.

Some of the big boys and girls are more upfront about the hard work, adaptability, skill levels and self learning required. But it took me some digging to find out the drop-out rate (more than 75% I reckon) or to get any idea of the numbers of people who take months if not years to reach their first payout.

Its only due to the generosity and kindness of some members of this site that I have any idea if this is a viable business. I still believe it is but now have a more balanced view of what it takes to earn some lolly. So the harsh facts if you please - in a kind way.

True story: when Michael Caine was a delivery driver he dropped off some boxes at EMI Film Studios, took a look at all the flash cars outside and when he recognised a minor actor, grabbed him by the arm and said. "How do you get into this bleeding acting lark then?.


Cheers

<...
>...
You'd like to think that reviewers would do a search to see if your image is exploiting an existing hole, or is just the 10,000th shot of an overcovered subject - and let you know when you're getting "warm", i.e. homing in on something that sells.

Too much to ask of a company calling itself an "agency"?

At $0.05 an image I don't think they have the time to reference the library, just about enough to to pick a rejection reason from a list, tell them that they have to work as a reviewer first and when they have reviewed 1 million images they will know what makes a good stock image.  

David  

As a newbie and when I was first enquiring, I would like to have been given the harsh facts as well as the positives. A lot of the bloggers put a rosy glow on the business along the lines of "I shot this in my kitchen with a reflector made from tin foil and a standard desk lamp" - I suppose it ramps up their visit counter and encourages more sponsorship for them.

Some of the big boys and girls are more upfront about the hard work, adaptability, skill levels and self learning required. But it took me some digging to find out the drop-out rate (more than 75% I reckon) or to get any idea of the numbers of people who take months if not years to reach their first payout.

Its only due to the generosity and kindness of some members of this site that I have any idea if this is a viable business. I still believe it is but now have a more balanced view of what it takes to earn some lolly. So the harsh facts if you please - in a kind way.

True story: when Michael Caine was a delivery driver he dropped off some boxes at EMI Film Studios, took a look at all the flash cars outside and when he recognised a minor actor, grabbed him by the arm and said. "How do you get into this bleeding acting lark then?.


Cheers

Really interesting perspective Red Dove.  I hadn't thought about it from the newbie point of view.  I always feel like a meanie when I give people the harsh realities of this business.  But you are right, it is probably unfair to waste their time by not presenting the bad with the good.

FWIW, with the exception of Yuri most of the bloggers who paint an unrealistically rosy picture of micro aren't actually supporting themselves in it.  Otherwise they wouldn't have time to blog

Love the Michael Caine quote!  Proves that for everyone who gives up or doesn't have what it takes, there is the occasional person with a natural gift that will succeed against the odds!

PowerDroid did a very interesting posting. The first answer I would give to a person asking me about this would be that this market was easy for a newbie in the past, but it is not anymore, and explain it is not just about shooting some photos, but technically sound images.