pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Attention Newbies- Key Milestones that Ruin the Microstock Business  (Read 10598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Photodune Reject

« on: March 07, 2017, 19:10 »
+4
The intention of this topic is to educate the newbies so that they dont get the illusion that they can be the next Yuri or quit their day jobs. I will list a few milestones that I feel ruin this once lucrative business-
1.   The sale of iStock thus allowing Getty into the game
2.   Shutterstock going Public and dropping admission test for new artists
These key milestones have had a huge impact on the business to say the least.  I am Interested in hearing more milestones from you all.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 20:11 by Photodune Reject »


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2017, 19:20 »
+4
3. Photodune Reject making the 'Attention Newbies- Key Milestones that Ruin the Microstock Business' thread.

This day will go down in history as the day that nobody new ever signed up for microstock ever again.

Although, on a mildly more serious note... how did one and two ruin this once lucrative business? Did the sale of iStock result in less sales? Is the overall revenue on iStock a shadow of what it was back in 2006? Did Shutterstock going public mean that buyers were falling over each other to leave?

« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2017, 19:55 »
+14
4. The day you are not being able to adapt to a changing industry and setting yourself apart from the masses.

This also applies to pretty much any business.  ;)

« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2017, 22:03 »
+4
It's definitely less lucrative, but I'm not sure it is ruined. I do wonder what happens if more and more people just stop making money. Will contributors leave? Will agencies collapse? Will new ones rise up? Things seem to shift around a lot in micros brief history, so I'm not entirely sure how it will all play out. It could just limp along like it is for a while too.

« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2017, 23:10 »
+7
You could say subs ruined it (although they had a good run)

You could say when the quality of pics went up a lot but the prices didn't ruined things

you could say Stockxpert getting absorbed into Istock/Getty (corrected after my error was pointed out)

You could say the Istock RC

You could say when you started submitting...

I don't think it will all crash and burn and it will probably remain lucrative for the agencies long after it is no longer lucrative for most artists. It will slowly fizzle for most artists as they decide the marginal return for submitting a new image is less than the cost of submitting that image. For many that will be a pretty low return, especially if they can deduct costs or they live in places with lower costs of living or are supported by other means. Even long after it isn't worth submitting new images the vast legacy libraries will continue to sell and there will be enough new stuff from big production places, macro rejects, and enthusiastic newbies to keep it going.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 11:29 by pancaketom »

« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2017, 02:17 »
+3
It's definitely less lucrative, but I'm not sure it is ruined. I do wonder what happens if more and more people just stop making money. Will contributors leave? Will agencies collapse? Will new ones rise up? Things seem to shift around a lot in micros brief history, so I'm not entirely sure how it will all play out. It could just limp along like it is for a while too.
I think the pattern is already there supply growth will continue to outstrip demand growth and it will be harder and harder to make a living...professional photographers/illustrators will diversify and look for other markets/channels to make up a living wage   amateurs will carry on as before accepting lower returns. I think there will be fewer agencies in this market I think it is virtually impossible for a new agency to breakthrough unless there is something really innovative.

« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2017, 04:12 »
+9
The first deactivation day after istock cut below 20% was a milestone for me.  Until then, contributors had a few successful battles with the sites, changing things for the better.  A lot of us deactivated images on that day but most people just carried on uploading.  Some people were venting about the cuts in this forum while they were uploading new images.  That made it clear to me that the problem is us and not the sites.

« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2017, 04:20 »
+4
The first deactivation day after istock cut below 20% was a milestone for me.  Until then, contributors had a few successful battles with the sites, changing things for the better.  A lot of us deactivated images on that day but most people just carried on uploading.  Some people were venting about the cuts in this forum while they were uploading new images.  That made it clear to me that the problem is us and not the sites.
I don't really think the problem is us or them its just inherent in the type of market it is...the cost of entry declines with the relative cost of cameras going down and more people in less affluent countries are more able to access. Was entirely predictable from the start. We see this across all web based industries so why should this be different?

« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2017, 04:42 »
+8
The business isn't ruined. Almost all sites have consistently increased rpd for the last 10 years. SS is suffering recently somewhat from better competition from Adobe and their inappropriate response to it (flood of sub par images) but that's not a problem for contributors as long as we continue to make it clear they wont be digging their way out by dropping our royalties. Hopefully it will result in new innovation.

The only thing going down the toilet is IS under getty's management. Again  only a problem if you keep selling with them and let them drag you down with the sinking ship.

« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2017, 04:42 »
+6
The first deactivation day after istock cut below 20% was a milestone for me.  Until then, contributors had a few successful battles with the sites, changing things for the better.  A lot of us deactivated images on that day but most people just carried on uploading.  Some people were venting about the cuts in this forum while they were uploading new images.  That made it clear to me that the problem is us and not the sites.
I don't really think the problem is us or them its just inherent in the type of market it is...the cost of entry declines with the relative cost of cameras going down and more people in less affluent countries are more able to access. Was entirely predictable from the start. We see this across all web based industries so why should this be different?
Google pay 70% for paid for apps.  I think Apple are similar?  People make apps all over the world.  You don't have to buy expensive cameras and lenses to make apps.  People from less affluent countries can make apps.  Perhaps not as easy as using a camera but the difference between 70% and 15% seems too big.

« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2017, 04:58 »
+2
The first deactivation day after istock cut below 20% was a milestone for me.  Until then, contributors had a few successful battles with the sites, changing things for the better.  A lot of us deactivated images on that day but most people just carried on uploading.  Some people were venting about the cuts in this forum while they were uploading new images.  That made it clear to me that the problem is us and not the sites.
I don't really think the problem is us or them its just inherent in the type of market it is...the cost of entry declines with the relative cost of cameras going down and more people in less affluent countries are more able to access. Was entirely predictable from the start. We see this across all web based industries so why should this be different?
Google pay 70% for paid for apps.  I think Apple are similar?  People make apps all over the world.  You don't have to buy expensive cameras and lenses to make apps.  People from less affluent countries can make apps.  Perhaps not as easy as using a camera but the difference between 70% and 15% seems too big.
I think though the bottom line is that profitability for app designers has gone through the floor...most of them are free I believe. I do agree 15% is too big but its not ultimately what driving the market.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2017, 05:54 »
+4
The first deactivation day after istock cut below 20% was a milestone for me.  Until then, contributors had a few successful battles with the sites, changing things for the better.  A lot of us deactivated images on that day but most people just carried on uploading.  Some people were venting about the cuts in this forum while they were uploading new images.  That made it clear to me that the problem is us and not the sites.
I don't really think the problem is us or them its just inherent in the type of market it is...the cost of entry declines with the relative cost of cameras going down and more people in less affluent countries are more able to access. Was entirely predictable from the start. We see this across all web based industries so why should this be different?
Google pay 70% for paid for apps.  I think Apple are similar?  People make apps all over the world.  You don't have to buy expensive cameras and lenses to make apps.  People from less affluent countries can make apps.  Perhaps not as easy as using a camera but the difference between 70% and 15% seems too big.

But unless you're a jack of all trades, you're going to need to have a team in place, which complicates things slightly. Otherwise, you need to be good at conceptualising, coding, designing and marketing.

Shooting stock is extremely easy comparatively.

And how many apps would you need to sell to make it worthwhile? To make the same amount as my best selling clip, I'd have to sell a 99 cent app 278 times. That clip took me a few days, could I make an app that sells 278 times in three days? To meet my total revenue from stock, I'd need to have over 15 apps that sell 278 times a month... or one app that sells over 4000 times a month.

yes, it can and does happen. You might have a hit on your hands and make ten times that or more... but I don't think the little guys are making that much selling apps. I'd say there's more risk than selling stock, and you need a loads more skills and experience to earn the big bucks. I could be wrong though... I've never sold an app, so I'm just guessing! 

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2017, 08:09 »
+3
Come on, we are missing the most important factor of all - the day that Al Gore invented the Internet, it all started to go wrong...

« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2017, 09:03 »
0
The intention of this topic is to educate the newbies so that they dont get the illusion that they can be the next Yuri or quit their day jobs. I will list a few milestones that I feel ruin this once lucrative business-
1.   The sale of iStock thus allowing Getty into the game
2.   Shutterstock going Public and dropping admission test for new artists
These key milestones have had a huge impact on the business to say the least.  I am Interested in hearing more milestones from you all.

I'm a newbie, what value this information has for me? I joined the game recently and I'm playing by the current rules in the current environment. I think, create, shoot, keyword and upload, try to reach the buyers.
How does thinking about how it was really great for oldtimers help me with my stock?

« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2017, 09:59 »
+2
Apps was just one example, Adsense is as easy to use as making stock images and Google pay 51% for that.  55% for Youtube videos, very easy to do.  I see no good reason why stock image sites can't pay us at least 50%.  They can get away with paying less at the moment but I'm not sure many of us will be providing high quality stock images if the competition keeps increasing and we end up getting to a point where there's no real money to be made.

« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2017, 10:20 »
0
Apps was just one example, Adsense is as easy to use as making stock images and Google pay 51% for that.  55% for Youtube videos, very easy to do.  I see no good reason why stock image sites can't pay us at least 50%.  They can get away with paying less at the moment but I'm not sure many of us will be providing high quality stock images if the competition keeps increasing and we end up getting to a point where there's no real money to be made.

C'mon you see the difference don't you? Google and Apple vs Shutterstock and Istock? Google and Apple don't make the bulk of their revenue from selling apps, adsense or Youtube. In fact I would put app sales at maybe 3% of their overall earnings. They can afford to be generous. I don't disagree that a win/win can exist between agencies and contributors that allows us to make a bit more but comparing them to Google is not realistic.

« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2017, 10:26 »
0
You could say subs ruined it (although they had a good run)

You could say when the quality of pics went up a lot but the prices didn't ruined things

you could say Stockfresh STOCKXPERTgetting absorbed into Istock/Getty

You could say the Istock RC

You could say when you started submitting...

I don't think it will all crash and burn and it will probably remain lucrative for the agencies long after it is no longer lucrative for most artists. It will slowly fizzle for most artists as they decide the marginal return for submitting a new image is less than the cost of submitting that image. For many that will be a pretty low return, especially if they can deduct costs or they live in places with lower costs of living or are supported by other means. Even long after it isn't worth submitting new images the vast legacy libraries will continue to sell and there will be enough new stuff from big production places, macro rejects, and enthusiastic newbies to keep it going.

Or did I miss something?

« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2017, 10:49 »
+3
Google and Apple don't make the bulk of their revenue from selling apps, adsense or Youtube

Oh my, what is it you think the good people at Google do exactly?

Hint: Advertising. Yes, they definitely make the bulk of their revenue from ads (68% AdWords, 21% AdSense). That is their entire business model (and of course includes YouTube).
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 11:28 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2017, 11:23 »
+1
Google and Apple don't make the bulk of their revenue from selling apps, adsense or Youtube

Oh my, what is it you think the good people at Google do exactly?

Hint: Advertising. Yes, they definitely make the bulk of their revenue from ads (68% AdWods, 21% AdSense). That is their entire business model (and of course includes YouTube).

Google is not in the business of advertising. They are in the business of collecting information. They sell your personal information and they have a lot of it. Points for being so naive and condescending at the same time.

Before anyone argues, Google SAYS they make money from advertising. Believe it if you want. They collect more information about you and what you do online than any other organization. They use it to target ads at you sure but that's not all.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 11:28 by memakephoto »

« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2017, 11:26 »
+1
Google and Apple don't make the bulk of their revenue from selling apps, adsense or Youtube

Oh my, what is it you think the good people at Google do exactly?

Hint: Advertising. Yes, they definitely make the bulk of their revenue from ads (68% AdWods, 21% AdSense). That is their entire business model (and of course includes YouTube).

Google is not in the business of advertising. They are in the business of collecting information. They sell your personal information and they have a lot of it. Points for being so naive and condescending at the same time.

So, just to clarify what you're saying: Google DO NOT make the bulk of their revenue from AdSense and AdWords? If you say so.

Of course they collect the information just for fun, stories to tell their grandchildren. Not for advertising purposes.

« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2017, 11:30 »
0
Google and Apple don't make the bulk of their revenue from selling apps, adsense or Youtube

Oh my, what is it you think the good people at Google do exactly?

Hint: Advertising. Yes, they definitely make the bulk of their revenue from ads (68% AdWods, 21% AdSense). That is their entire business model (and of course includes YouTube).

Google is not in the business of advertising. They are in the business of collecting information. They sell your personal information and they have a lot of it. Points for being so naive and condescending at the same time.

So, just to clarify what you're saying: Google DO NOT make the bulk of their revenue from AdSense and AdWords? If you say so.

Of course they collect the information just for fun, stories to tell their grandchildren. Not for advertising purposes.

If you say so. Can you fly in your dreams? Ignorance is bliss isn't it? Do yourself a favor, don't wake up. Flying is much cooler than anything in the real world.

You honestly think they collect the vast amount of data just to advertise better?

« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2017, 11:31 »
+1
You could say subs ruined it (although they had a good run)

You could say when the quality of pics went up a lot but the prices didn't ruined things

you could say Stockfresh STOCKXPERTgetting absorbed into Istock/Getty

You could say the Istock RC

You could say when you started submitting...

I don't think it will all crash and burn and it will probably remain lucrative for the agencies long after it is no longer lucrative for most artists. It will slowly fizzle for most artists as they decide the marginal return for submitting a new image is less than the cost of submitting that image. For many that will be a pretty low return, especially if they can deduct costs or they live in places with lower costs of living or are supported by other means. Even long after it isn't worth submitting new images the vast legacy libraries will continue to sell and there will be enough new stuff from big production places, macro rejects, and enthusiastic newbies to keep it going.

Or did I miss something?



oops you are correct - I fixed it.

« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2017, 11:33 »
+2
If you say so. Can you fly in your dreams? Ignorance is bliss isn't it? Do yourself a favor, don't wake up. Flying is much cooler than anything in the real world.

You honestly think they collect the vast amount of data just to advertise better?

Ah, great, another thread where I have to repeat myself 100 times.

So, you're saying the bulk of Google's revenue DOES NOT come from AdSense and AdWords? Can you please specify what then? Google Cardboard?  :)

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2017, 11:49 »
+3
The intention of this topic is to educate the newbies so that they dont get the illusion that they can be the next Yuri or quit their day jobs. I will list a few milestones that I feel ruin this once lucrative business-
1.   The sale of iStock thus allowing Getty into the game
2.   Shutterstock going Public and dropping admission test for new artists
These key milestones have had a huge impact on the business to say the least.  I am Interested in hearing more milestones from you all.

I'm a newbie, what value this information has for me? I joined the game recently and I'm playing by the current rules in the current environment. I think, create, shoot, keyword and upload, try to reach the buyers.
How does thinking about how it was really great for oldtimers help me with my stock?
Maybe it could stop you from knocking yourself out, but if you'd rather shoot, upload, repeat go ahead: but don't say you weren't warned.
We've had all manner of people in here over the years who firmly believed that they wouldn't hit the wall: so long as they kept shooting, kept up the quality and kept up with trends other factors like increasing competition, unpredictable search algorithms and agencies doing the dirty wouldn't affect them. Usually it did, and very hard.

« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2017, 11:54 »
0
If you say so. Can you fly in your dreams? Ignorance is bliss isn't it? Do yourself a favor, don't wake up. Flying is much cooler than anything in the real world.

You honestly think they collect the vast amount of data just to advertise better?

Ah, great, another thread where I have to repeat myself 100 times.

So, you're saying the bulk of Google's revenue DOES NOT come from AdSense and AdWords? Can you please specify what then? Google Cardboard?  :)

I don't know how it came to this. Increasing difficulty is a good name for you. Do you have to make everything difficult? Perhaps Captain Quibbler would be a better name though.

I said maybe 3% of Google's revenue comes from selling apps Reading Comprehension Man (even better name). I said they are diversified meaning they don't make the bulk of their revenue from any one thing like Youtube or adsense or app sales, unless you think 21% for adsense is the bulk of their revenue. But of course none of that was the point Commander Miss-The-Point. The point was since they make so little of their overall income from app sales they can afford to pay higher royalties than say Shutterstock who does make the bulk of their income from selling media.

I used some big words in that so I expect you will come back with more irrelevant nonsense so i will bid adieu to this thread.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4088 Views
Last post October 25, 2006, 14:17
by asian
30 Replies
9925 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 17:58
by packerguy
55 Replies
10128 Views
Last post November 20, 2012, 07:08
by heywoody
54 Replies
5906 Views
Last post January 23, 2014, 10:32
by Muskoka Imagery
4 Replies
1937 Views
Last post September 05, 2017, 13:44
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results