Well, you can follow the progress of me and many others who went indie. We are not new to stock, but we are new to most agencies. If you are completely new to stock,  you will have to evaluate how much time you have and if you are already shooting at a professional standard.

It is always possible to get in, but certainly will take longer to make reliable money than before.

I was looking at my retire option in a few years and if these stock agencies are around still in 15-20 years and I can build up my profile to the point where I am creating some good money, I am going to use my portfolios as residual income to supplement whatever I have for my retirement (401k, Social Security or whatever). I would not get into Microstock at this point trying to make a living without deep pockets and a ton of resources.

" would not get into Microstock at this point trying to make a living without deep pockets and a ton of resources."

Unless your spouse has a great daytime job lol 

me too! 

It's getting harder and harder to make money. That's been the trend right from the start. Maybe one day things will level off, but so far the growth in stock images online just seems to accelerate which means we all get a smaller and smaller share of the cake.
I've done OK over 10 years but I wouldn't recommend it to people now. I doubt if it will be delivering a worthwhile return a decade from now, even for those with 20,000 images online.

Every time I type what I want to ask about where this industry is headed I erase it for fear of sounding stupid.  So much time, effort and money spent to get better results.  I read the black star rising website and sometimes I think bloggers are detatched from this industry.  All of the "photography is dead" posts and all of the "no it's evolving" replies just seem to be outdated in a matter of months.  It seems dump truck loads of images are coming into the marketplace daily.  Now we have crowd sourcing. 

I am a nobody newby that just wonders whether more images, of better quality, will actually be a winning stratedgy for earning money.  Is it possible that newcomers really are too late ??

Too late was about mid-2007.  That's about when all the financial blogs started telling people that they could make easy money with their point & shoot cameras by submitting to microstock.  Stock has become what it was years ago - a place for photographers to place their images that are not purchased by a client.  This would include TFCD shoots, model test shoots, personal projects, etc.  The days of financing high dollar shoots on spec for stock are over - and have been for years.

That's my take - I'm sure others have different opinions and will tell you something positive like we are on the edge of a breakthrough of some kind.

There is another point.
2 thousand or 20 thousand images doesnt matter much.
It is easy enough to produce 20.000 high quality images. That is if you can produce quality.
But we can.
But it is not easy to produce so many images that can sell well.
That has to do with luck and a feeling for the market.
The last one is the difficult one.

That's true, as long as you are not just producing exactly the same "high commercial value" smiling-girl-businesswoman as everybody else, because even though that genre sells, the market saturation turns them into "low commercial value".  So you need to be original and get a good run before everybody else starts copying you.

It's getting harder and harder to make money. That's been the trend right from the start. Maybe one day things will level off, but so far the growth in stock images online just seems to accelerate which means we all get a smaller and smaller share of the cake.
I've done OK over 10 years but I wouldn't recommend it to people now. I doubt if it will be delivering a worthwhile return a decade from now, even for those with 20,000 images online.

for once i have to agree with you (and that ain't much fun)

Quit what?

Photography is well and booming, better than ever, quality tools more accessible to more people. Quality will always be in demand. All the blogs about camera phones and snapshots are just trivial asides to artistic and creative works, which will always be set apart from mass trends and fads.

I'll never quit taking photos. I love what I do.

What industry?

Microstock? It's doing well and will continue for a long time. It's a marriage of the international communication and available tools to produce images as art and records of events.

If you mean the stock industry as a source of income. It's a historical note. Diluted, devalued and as common as a stick of gum. If someone is looking for the money train, it's left the station and there's not another one coming.

Microstock is a promise, dream of income, and hope. It's an addiction in many ways. Small payments, but if you work hard, volume of sales, you can build a collection, and long term returns.

But that promise was based on a misunderstanding. That was, that it would last forever, at it was. The production has far exceeded any demand. The quality has been elevated above the early production means. The income has dropped in relation to the quantity and quality of competition.

If life was stagnant, and the same for the image market, things would be fine. But massive growth has killed the original system and standards. Web and websize is the future, it's the web that created Microstock. Now it's the future of demand.

The word that people need to understand is CHANGE. Embrace and adjust or you will be left in the past. Some people here did really well in the past. We aren't in the past anymore...

Common sense says quit when the effort and cost of production, doesn't bring the returns to cover expenses. Purely based on profit. Or maybe it's just as simple as, when it stops being interesting, fun or enjoyable, it's time to leave?

Keep your costs down until you start making significant amounts of money.

Assuming that anyone new can ever make "significant amounts of money".

In the 60s and 70s, many people started bands in the basement or garage. Some made it big, became famous and wealthy. Most did not. Many people picked up cameras early in this Century and became photographers for stock distribution. It was a trend and there was a good demand. Some made it big, some more will do the same in the future, most will not.

Thanks for all of the responses.  Very much appreciated.  When i began thinking about this and getting back into photography it was a few dollars per image,  now it is pennies.   It would be an easy decision to make if prices would just find a bottom. 

Top Secret Chemicals? If it was good, I'm be polite and share...

No really, what I meant was Photography itself is fine. More accessible, better equipment, less expensive, opportunities for more people to make good photos easier.

That wasn't related to Microstock or income. That's becoming much more difficult, expensive and competitive. Harder to make reasonable returns on the investment in equipment and time.

Not impossible, just more difficult than five years ago, and before.

"Photography is well and booming, better than ever, "

What are you mixing in your coffee because I need some as well   

Quality in content and subject matter will prevail...those still playing the quantity cards are the ones seeing the huge downfalls.

I am still newish and this has been a great way to supplement my income. I have yet to see if it is sustainable and if it could be my only source of income...in the mean time I am having fun creating and making some extra loot.

1) When it's not fun or profitable anymore
2) For Microstock that would be 2012 

"When does common sense say quit ?? "

i think there is a saying like the best day to start something is today.. i think it is true..

OTOH, having started, knowing when to quit is also valuable

"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run ..."
(from The Gambler by Don Schlitz sung by Kenny Rogers)

Microstock isn't microstock anymore, it's just 'stock'.   The only rational basis for getting in today would be if you think you can become a high-volume producer of extremely commercial images at extremely low cost.  And even then, you're likely to get massive rejections for content unless you somehow find a niche or a spin that hasn't been totally exploited.   The future will only be lower prices and more rejections. 


The only other reason to get in is as a hobby, to learn about photography and get the reinforcement of having your images approved of, and even bought, by other people.  But that will only carry you for a while.

"When does common sense say quit ??"


When your expenses exceed your income   

Common marketing sense tells that the big ones and the small ones( in a niche) will survive. The middle of the road has to find something else or continue for the samurai feeling.

Post production PS is already done in the far east for a few dollarcents a picture.

I go for niche

This is true - possibly better longevity and acceptance ratios BUT when push come to shove people produce the same old stuff cos the same old stuff is what sells.

2004 is not very far after 1999 and I am still selling quite a few of my early IS photos. They are generic and of timeless subjects. I'm not a photographer that shoots models. I do landscape, food, backgrounds and scan in some doodles. Doubtful you could look at them in 15 years and tell me when they were shot. YMMV.

"When does common sense say quit ??"


When your expenses exceed your income   

I agree, and plus 1'd you, but I would also add that you need to factor in your time too.  So I would be more likely to say "When your expenses + time exceed your income". 

Quote from: grapegeek on January 15, 2014, 10:40

2004 is not very far after 1999 and I am still selling quite a few of my early IS photos. They are generic and of timeless subjects. I'm not a photographer that shoots models. I do landscape, food, backgrounds and scan in some doodles. Doubtful you could look at them in 15 years and tell me when they were shot. YMMV.

A lot of my people shots from 2005-2006 still sell well too.  There's a lot of talk about "fashions changing", but if you shoot people in fairly generic clothes they don't change all that much.  How much have polo shirts, t-shirts, jeans, slacks, skirts, blouses, etc. really changed in the last 10 years - or 20 years for that matter - if they are generic and not "trendy"?  Most people I know still have 10 year old clothes in their closets. 

Professionals have dressed the same for a number of decades - nurses, doctors, construction workers, maids, repairmen, etc. Even business suits haven't changed a lot.  Ties and lapels get narrower or wider, but differences withing the mid range and not extreme aren't too noticeable. 

Same deal with hairstyles.  Unless they are "cutting edge" (pardon the pun ) they haven't changed that much over the last decade or so.   

The only photos that are unusable from my early days are the ones depicting technology.  That does change noticeably and fast.  Each year or so I include some newer tech photos, but not a lot, and only as a part of a larger shoot that includes more timeless concepts.

I agree.

at photographer/designer side things might look a bit depressed but

These stock agencies must have an idea what they are doing adding 200k new images a week...

totally agree on that. well plus things change fast;

5 years ago there wasnt a work defination which takes place on networking web sites. recent days brands spending affordable money on these sites and their agencies / PR departments are publishing daily posts and using images, videos to capture followers attention fast. its happening on web and not only on twitter facebook or foursquare, its more and more becoming like famous movie "minority report" kinda thing; news that you might read, ads you might click, updates you want to follow...

at this speed no one can use huge productions for daily, even hourly updates that you post for instance on your brand's facebook page neither you can use same "goooood morning dear customers!" message with some image over and over again...

i think stock agencies are trying to fill this gap with keeping things fresh. While doing that; the sense of circulation makes designers and photographers feel a bit depressed to follow up and create more and more in same time.

the next big thing is Asian stockers flooding the market and you can't compete with their cheap production costs in Vietnam/Indonesia/Philippines.

Well i don't think thats the case either.  An Indonesian won't take your portrait/local/regional/tradinational/daily photo. All effect that may cause is seeing more blackboards and hand gestures againist some invisible screen and that kind weird things. In short mostly low productions and great cliches...

So I see no reason to be afraid of taking steps.

edit: typo

Excellent balloon metaphor, and very sound advice Leo

Thanks. I was bracing myself to get slapped after posting that.

Is there common sense in this business? 

Well i didnt intend to write something aggressive. Everything should be taken in moderation. This business as well.

What i meant was; market share of stock images has no sign of going into a recession. In fact the way stock agencies work shows the expansion of system.

In my humble opinion; If someone (talented and smart enough) looking for a full-time investment, it possibly would work out in long term. In the other hand if someone looking for part-time, quick and easy money for short-time that would be a big fail indeed.

And those who already in this business shouldnt be depressed as well. One of the oldest profession of human kind was "writing" and yet its still a profession It wont vanish suddenly. Since it will require creativity and knowledge to do so it's going to evaluate only. People still do earn money by writing whether book, journal or blog. And I don't think they are afraid of rising populations ability to read and write

"Thanks. I was bracing myself to get slapped after posting that."

I wont slap you Leo but I have a large pin to pop your balloon...

It's a thoroughly distorted market where the middleman has gained total control.  When a middleman is adding little value while charging excessive markup, 'disintermediation' should occur.  But the physical nature of this market (i.e. the internet) has so far prevented buyers and suppliers from making direct contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

It's a thoroughly distorted market where the middleman has gained total control.  When a middleman is adding little value while charging excessive markup, 'disintermediation' should occur.  But the physical nature of this market (i.e. the internet) has so far prevented buyers and suppliers from making direct contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

What a good post! and how true. I can not even think of any other business with the exception of the automotive industry where the middleman has gained so much power.
One could ofcourse argue that without them there would not be any micro industry.

""the middleman has gained so much power.""

I have thought for a while that symbiostock and stocksy could force a shift in the opposite direction for agencies. Stealing contributors from the big 4 would not take much.  Symbiostock almost hit the nail but lacks the front end web page, advertising and image screeners.  Stocksy has it but has a style and a self limiting mindset that keeps it from gaining a lot of great contributors.  Perhaps a mainstream (contractual) 60/40 partnership could derail the current middleman model and cause the masses of contributors to jump ship.  It just seems that in the crowded arena of agencies a massive need still exist for the right one.  No agency has hit the bullseye yet and any agency that sells all or part of itself or devalues itself with partner programs is just cashing in.

Everyone loves SS, but they decided to give profits to investors.  Everyone hates IS, but they actually pay better than SS (at least I think, 15%vs 25 cents).  IS could have been king had it not stumbled it's way through the last few years like crack addicts doing brain surgery with a machette.  I believe there is a massive need for the right agency.

With that said,  Shutterstock traded it's profits for a one time sale of 1/2 the company. A well known photographer left one agency and went exclusive to another and then started a crowd sourcing business. Another well known  (and highly respected) photographer changed his direction also.  This all indicates that those with insight see some kind of writing on the wall,  maybe it is a big sign that reads  "CASH IN NOW".  But maybe that could lead to stability.  I imagine that world famous photographer has a smaller staff now or will shortly.

Everyone loves SS, but they decided to give profits to investors. 

How? No dividends have been paid and neither is there a date for when that situation might change.

On the contrary SS have been using investors' money to expand their own operation as well as ours.

I can tell you why people love SS.

Shutterstock raised payouts ( a while ago, but has not lowered it since).
Income is predictable, if you work harder you can earn more.
Shutterstock is predictable.
The shutterstock site is easy to use.
Shutterstock doesnt lie.

Contrary to
Being lied to, being preyed on, being manipulated and abused with every message you recieved in the mail.

There is just so much difference.
It really is like the good guys and the bad guys.

Me neither. But I respect them.

I don't think the SS flotation indicated anything negative about the market from the agency's point of view. There's no reason why they shouldn't keep building their market - the problem is purely for the suppliers. If there are four times as many of us next year and we are all making half as much as we did, then that would mean the agency had doubled its earnings.
Falling earnings for suppliers actually benefit the agencies, who hang on to money longer before having to pay out.

Downloads per image on SS have actually risen from from 1.094 downloads per image in 2011 to 1.169 downloads per image in 2013.
While Revenue per download for Shutterstock SSTK rose from  $2.10 in 2011 to  $2.35 in 2013. 

It is telling how long term contributors with more experience, better equipment and often times better content are seeing revenue decreases while at the same time Revenue per download @ SSTK rose by $.25 cents.

It is also telling that many long term contributors are complaining about experiencing large drops when they should be seeing an increase in sales per image uploaded. 
                                                    Three Months Ended September 30,       
                                                                   2011      2013
Number of paid downloads                           14.8      25.4
Revenue per download                              $ 2.10   $ 2.35
Images in our collection (end of period)        16.2      29.7

                                                                  Three Months Ended September 30,       
Images in our collection (end of period)        16.2      29.7
Number of paid downloads                           14.8      25.4
                                                                  1.094   1.169

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1874040

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499

"Common sense tells me to quit when working on my illustrations no longer generates enough income to justify the hours I spend on it."

If that was the case for my images I would have stopped a long time ago...