Author Topic: what was microstock like back in the day? (Read 3852 times)

Wilm · « **Reply #25 on:** April 21, 2024, 11:51 »

I've only ever done microstock as a hobby on the side because of my job. My portfolio has therefore always remained very small.

I started with Fotolia in 2009, with Shutterstock at the end of 2010 and with istock in 2012. I also started with 4 other agencies at that time. Things went uphill until 2015/2016, since then it's been downhill.

Back then, in the best phase, it looked like this for me per month per 1,000 images on average:

- Fotolia/AS: $460
- Shutterstock: $600
- Istock: $200 - but I only had about 600 images there, so this would be about $330 for 1000 images
- 123rf: $75
- deposit: $75
- Dreamstime: $50

It was a lot of fun back then because you were motivated by the ranking systems. Unfortunately, Shutterstock had an upper limit of $10,000 and that was reached very quickly.
I definitely wouldn't want to miss that time. It was great!

f8 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 21, 2024, 12:14 »

Back in the day.... Oh boy, where do I begin?

Traditional stock was very competitive and you really had to have skills to get in. Shooting on transparency slides took skill with no room for error, none. It was very expensive to shoot. You had to be a true professional with consistent quality to get into any agency, big or small. Being rejected was normal. It took me a few attempts to get into an agency. If you did get accepted into an agency then you had to go through the acceptance that 90%-95% of you work was rejected by an editor which again was normal. If you made it to this point it was a very rewarding career.

Then came along microstock which was full of amateur hacks that were self applauding and part of some special group or in their words a community. They were convinced that selling photos for pennies in volume was the future. Look where that got them. There would be forums filled on topics of rejection and crying because they got rejected. If you will, consider microstock to be the 'woke' of photography. Everybody gets a prize for showing up. I joined microstock with all of my rejected images from the likes of The Image Bank and Tony Stone Images (both got bought out by Getty) and my Getty Images rejects. This in turn turned into another rewarding source of income, not a career. The logic of microstock was not sustainable in any way, and the results show in todays market. If one spoke like this years ago, which I did, then you were a bitter old trad as the cool kids would say. Alas, experience won out and I can now say "I told you so". What did they expect with a shotgun approach for selling photos with a zero barrier to entry and zero editing?

At the end of the day, I'd prefer to go back to the old ways of getting rejected to build your own skill level to hopefully be able to compete with equal talent levels in creating images. Today your work gets lost in the zillions of mediocre crap that does sell based on an algorithm provided your metadata is good. I currently get 98% of my work accepted unless something wonky goes on in the process. I have some seriously crap images that I upload and they sell like crazy, whereas in the old days I would not have even considered submitting the image and let an editor review it.

I am glad I had my career when I did. I still shoot as it's an old habit. I still travel pretty much full time but I am now an incidental photographer as opposed to working it hard to create great content. It is no longer worth the time or expense to be gung ho about it. I no longer pack all the gear to travel and shoot. I no longer am in a rush to edit and do the post production to submit. Each and every agency is about profit for them with no real concern for the content producer. In effect we are all expendable and no photographers absence will break any agency no matter how inflated your ego is.

Asthebelltolls · « **Reply #27 on:** April 21, 2024, 14:59 »

The last two comments from Wilm and F8 describe an experience similar to mine. I started 14 years ago, enjoyed some success before the SS and the rest of the industry clawed back commissions. Agencies that lured me into the game promising "the more you contribute, the more you'll earn". I was naive. This wasn't a partnership with companies, as some of them suggested when I first signed up. It was a dictatorship. They were and will always be in complete control from the moment you submit your first image. If you're ok with that then carry on. If not and you're a skilled photographer/videographer, then find other ways of achieving success and gratification with your skills.

Big Money · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2024, 17:21 »

In 2009 I use to check my sales every 30 min--- like being addicted to a drug. Than as the years went on I would check hourly. Than only after the day was over. Now I check on the last day of the month and really don't care anymore. My addiction is over sadly....

yuriy · « **Reply #29 on:** April 21, 2024, 21:36 »

just want to chime in and say i appreciate all the responses, nice to know many of you did well even if only for a short while. really wish i got into it when the getting was good but i feel every market has its golden era so maybe i'll catch something else.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #30 on:** April 22, 2024, 11:08 »

Quote from: Big Money on April 21, 2024, 17:21

In 2009 I use to check my sales every 30 min--- like being addicted to a drug. Than as the years went on I would check hourly. Than only after the day was over. Now I check on the last day of the month and really don't care anymore. My addiction is over sadly....

Good One! I check in the morning when I boot the computer. At this point, right after I check how I did on Draft Kings.

But yes, once a day is enough for me now and I should know better than to waste time looking on weekends.