Sharply, what site was that?

I'm not tellin'.

Quote from: hd_connelly on May 01, 2008, 16:17
Has anyone seen the Digital Photo Pro article this month about stock photography? (I couldn't find it on the web...sorry)

Not a single mention of iS, SS, DT or any other micro site. It was a very interesting article in some ways, but I was still surprised to see micros completely ignored in the equation. There certainly seems to be some level of industry-wide contempt for these sites and those of us who have submitted to them.

It makes me wish those who have been very successful on both traditional stock sites and the micros (Ron Chapple comes to mind), would be asked how they see things evolving. I think their opinion probably has more merit than folks like Harrington.

Good to hear.  I hope these blogs and magazines keep on ignoring the micros.  They are not targeting buyers, they are targeting contributors.  The micros are already flooded with contributors.  Who wants more? 

Anyone remember what happened when Popphoto ran its "25 cent fortunes" article?  (shudder)

Good point Lisa - the competition is already fierce enough on the micros as it is.

On the other hand, the lack of exclusivity our micro 'club' has is also what makes us so different from many of the traditional stock sites. I wouldn't begin to try to parse whether or not that has helped or hurt them, but I do think that feeling of being in an exclusive club of photographers within a site has also created this attitude of superiority among *some* traditional photographers. I've never had much love for elitism (not directed at your statement Lisa...I'm rambling here) for just that reason. I can also see how micros have hurt those who were 'in' on these sites and wrecked the safety they must have once felt.

I don't see one as better than the other...I see them both as opportunities to earn an income doing what I love and a means to pay my bills. As a designer, I don't see their customer base as being equal - micros opened up stock photo options for those with lower design budgets and I'm sure better designs and happier customers have been the result.

Like I said before...rambling here...but when I first decided to shoot stock photography, I never in my wildest dreams imagined the politics I found in the industry. I try to stay emotionally detached to some degree and not get too caught up, but at times it's a bit of challenge. Reading sharply_done's post makes me feel like some folks would love to brand a big ol' scarlet "micro" on my chest so I can easily be avoided in the future. I hope that's not the case for the majority of traditional sites out there as there is so much talent in the world of microstock and as a photographer, there is good reason to want to market to both worlds.

just my buck fiddy and all the usual caveats.

There are many business examples of situations where one group excludes competitors or restricts entry to the profession/business as a way to keep returns high. It's a great racket for those on the inside as long as they can keep it going.

Taxi cab medallions, fights over nurse midwives and nurse practitioners - a recent one was the dental association fighting specially trained technicians who do fillings and extractions in Alaska where there aren't any dentists in rural areas. Remember the furor over horrible type raised by typographers as desktop publishing took hold. And remember all the huge battles over having reporters type their own stories into systems that could paginate the pages automatically.

The really funny thing is that the people on the inside expect those they've excluded to help them retain their monopoly.

At one point, a then-major-player left one of the micros over some dispute or other, and some forum chat was saying how that was better for everyone who was still there. I argued then, and I still believe, that we were better off with the big players as it helped to bring in more buyers than competing with the big players took away.

I can't be sure, but I think over time the microstock business (or whatever it ends up being called) will grow more and be more successful for all of us if some of those big fish from the trad world come and play. They'll have to can the attitude that they can dump their old rubbish here - some of those Fotolia Infinite collection shots I've been posting about would be good examples of what not to bring. As long as the market grows and gains credibility (no scarlet M for any of us!), I think it could actually do better with these folks participating.

he's a bit precious. all those so called pros are the same.

they need to realise they only survive with their sponsorship from camera companies because of all the sales made to amateurs and semi pros.

without semi pros and amateurs canon and nikon would be dead, and so would the pros.

Quote from: litifeta on May 03, 2008, 01:56
he's a bit precious. all those so called pros are the same.

they need to realise they only survive with their sponsorship from camera companies because of all the sales made to amateurs and semi pros.

without semi pros and amateurs canon and nikon would be dead, and so would the pros.

Nice Point. 

I would just like to point out that reactions against people like Harrington show the same attitude like they do against microstock.   

Regards,
Adelaide

Hi Guys,

I like what one person said to Harrington regarding LO's demise.  See the quote below.

QuoteYou all make me laugh. Answer this question - are microstock photos crap?

If you answer yes, then why you are afraid of microstock? ....

If you answer no that you think microstock photos are not crap your fear is real and your days have numbers. you are victim of technology and you are not good enough to survive. bye bye!

Another person was quoted on Harrington's blog as saying that microstock sites pop up like mushrooms...  well that's true of macrostock agencies too. 

Also some photographers are becoming their own stock agencies and are selling photos directly off their own websites... so I think Harrington is talking out of his a$$.

Let's face it... there will always be a myriad number of ways to sell one's stock photos... the key to being sucessful though in selling photos over the Internet--- whether it's micro, macro or your own website... lies in getting the word out. 

And I think that is why LO probably failed... because they didn't do a good job of promoting themselves.

Cricket

First there was stock photography and lots of photographers hated it and predicted the demise of photography.
Then there was Royalty Free and lots of photographers hated it and predicted the demise of photography.
Now there is Micro and lots of photographers hate it and predict the demise of photography.

What will likely happen with Micro, as happened in the first two instances above, is that the low value producers will be forced out of the market. As the high end stock producers enter the Micro market the amateur will be brushed aside. It happened with regular stock, it happened with RF and it will happen with Micro. Why fiddle with someone with a 8 MP camera submitting a few images per week or month?

Do not at all agree with John Harringtons rather primitive reasoning but do you really think the micro-boat is  unsinkable?

Today contributors with very good portfolios earn very good money in microstock. Demand is exploding and at the same time most images at micros are rather mediocre. This allows top contributors to offset low prices with lots of downloads.

Looking at the current intake of new images for how long will this paradisical situation continue? 1,2 or 3 years? What is going to happen then?

My guess is that this forum will pretty soon discuss exactly the same issues old school pros discuss since years (shrinking return per image, oversupply of images, ...) 

Quote from: Gizeh on May 04, 2008, 19:44
Do not at all agree with John Harringtons rather primitive reasoning but do you really think the micro-boat is  unsinkable?

Not only do I think that the microstock boat is very much sinkable, I think that the sinking of the ship is an inevitability. Just as the sinking of macrostock is also inevitable. It's all part of the cycle. Macro has been on the way out for a long time. Micro is the hot new trend. Eventually, something else will come along to replace micro. Maybe midstock will become the trend, or something we can't even guess at right now.

Just look at the Getty/istock 5-year projections. istock is expected to become an increasingly larger part of the Getty revenue stream, while Getty Images will become a smaller part.

Sure the microstock boat will eventually go the way of macrostock, but not for a long time. I'm thinking more like 7-10 years before we see any decrease.

Quote from: Gizeh on May 04, 2008, 19:44My guess is that this forum will pretty soon discuss exactly the same issues old school pros discuss since years (shrinking return per image, oversupply of images, ...) 

Sure this will definitely happen. I just hope that anyone with enough of an open opinion about new business models and evolutionary sense enough to have tried microstock in the first place will also be the same sort of people to try whatever comes next. We'll have the same option that the traditional guys have now. We can either sit around waxing nostalgic about the good ol' days of microstock, or move on to whatever comes next. We either stay relevant and with the times, or die off like the current breed of macrostock dinosaurs.

For those who can remember...
LUCKYOLIVER was the best moment we lived in the microstock era.
Such friendly people, a fantastic community... such a nice website design, we'll never see it again.
The best often leave first, the predators remain..., unfortunately.

Thank you Bryan Zmijewski!  We remember

After the Microstock Revolution
Posted on 1/10/2008 by Julia Dudnik Stern | Printable Version | Comments (1)

https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=ff520400-218d-4015-a6dd-38188d3604fc&redirect=true

And "Lucky Oliver Shuts Down 2008"  Lucky Oliver Shuts Down
Posted on 4/16/2008 by Julia Dudnik Stern | Printable Version | Comments (0)

https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=daa2ae60-03a8-4d64-9c6a-369cb3c67e7d&redirect=true

Zmijewski's other company, strategy and design consultancy Zurb, has worked with startups as successful as Zazzle and Photobucket. In business since 1998, Zurb was the force behind Lucky Oliver. More certain than Zmijewski's plans for the future is this: "The revolution is over. Now begins the great microstock shakeout."

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on September 02, 2025, 19:13


For those who can remember...
LUCKYOLIVER was the best moment we lived in the microstock era.
Such friendly people, a fantastic community... such a nice website design, we'll never see it again.
The best often leave first, the predators remain..., unfortunately.

Thank you Bryan Zmijewski!  We remember

I had always heard that iS started the microstock "revolution"....how does Lucky Oliver play into that narrative?