MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Attention Newbies- Key Milestones that Ruin the Microstock Business  (Read 9737 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.

Photodune Reject

« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2017, 12:02 »
+2
Googles own words on how they make their money-

"We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising."

There was a time, not that long ago, when Northern Light and Ask Jeeves were the default search engines of choice for many people. But within a couple years of its 1998 incorporation, Google went from a burgeoning upstart company to verb status - almost a genericized trademark. How did this happen?

In a word, AdWords. In some respects Google is essentially the world's largest bus shelter, deriving 96% of its revenues from ads. That's what separated a nascent early-2000s Google, known primarily as a search engine, from its competitors. Google's founders realized that if people were going to visit the site and enter a term in the search box, they wouldn't be landing on the subsequent page by accident. Thus they'd be motivated to buy a product from any advertiser sharp enough to place an ad there.

Read more: How Does Google Make Its Money? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2012/what-does-google-actually-make-money-from-goog1121.aspx#ixzz4akr7qI2I
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2017, 12:28 »
+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?  :)

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.
You should probably do a quick google search about your numbers if you're claiming google is "diversified". The vast majority of their revenue is from advertising (Adwords, and Adsense). It's literally their business model.
Now, to tie it together with stock photography, there has been a trend over the last few years of them selling a higher number of of ads for less money per ad. Sound familiar?

JimP

« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2017, 13:27 »
0
10. 125 million images on SS, reviews almost non-existant on IS. FT is left to hold up the standards.

Photodune Reject

« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2017, 13:54 »
+4
10. 125 million images on SS, reviews almost non-existant on IS. FT is left to hold up the standards.

I bet nobody every thought that FT would be the one to hold up the standards in the end!  8)


« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2017, 15:39 »
0
To me the comparison with apps is a more general one. Some very smart people spotted that if they could sell 100s of simple apps for a few cents they could make a lot of money.....other people spotted those preople making $$$ so they piled into the market creating an oversupply.  The profitability and chances of selling mediocre apps  ten declined and only the best now stand any chance of making money. Meanwhile professional programmers and IT experts derided apps as simplistic crap.

« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2017, 19:22 »
+1
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.

I have no illusions I could live off a stock, and even $500 a month would be enough to quit a day job, I simply don't think stock is reliable, too much luck involved.
Anyone that used to live off stock, should consider it luck that they got in early. Every industry, with some kind of technology/learnable skill involved has this tendency, it's just a matter of time.

Photodune Reject

« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2017, 20:21 »
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?
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.

I have no illusions I could live off a stock, and even $500 a month would be enough to quit a day job, I simply don't think stock is reliable, too much luck involved.
Anyone that used to live off stock, should consider it luck that they got in early. Every industry, with some kind of technology/learnable skill involved has this tendency, it's just a matter of time.

I have a friend that makes $70,000 (USD) in Microstock and about $65,000 (USD) in his day time job. He thought about quitting his day to go full time in Microstock- he decided to keep his day job. A wise move in my eyes...

« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2017, 22:27 »
+2
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.

It's not the same. I've made and sold apps. The amount of of work required to make an app is exponentially higher than microstock and the earnings are lower when you factor in the amount of time spent on it. When Apple announced they were taking 30%, developers were pretty angry. Many believe that Apple should only get 10-15% max when you account for how much time and money the developer spends on development and marketing.

Once an image is uploaded, there's is little upkeep required from the contributor. You just wait for it rise up the search results over time. Once an App is upload, there's marketing, constant updates and the fight to stay relevant. Instead of rising up the search results, it does the exact opposite...it falls into irrelevance. That's why the developer gets 70% of paid apps and In-App-Purchases. 99% of Apps don't make any money so 70% of $0 is still $0.

It's much more profitable in Microstock despite the lower royalty rate.

« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2017, 22:32 »
0
I have a friend that makes $70,000 (USD) in Microstock and about $65,000 (USD) in his day time job. He thought about quitting his day to go full time in Microstock- he decided to keep his day job. A wise move in my eyes...

Smart man. I don't think I'll quit my day job even if I make 6-figures in Microstock. Interacting with people in a work environment beats working alone. It's also better to have multiple sources of income instead of one.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 22:38 by Minsc »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2017, 02:17 »
+4
Interacting with people in a work environment beats working alone.

That's what pubs are for! It's just like a dress down Friday with a more casual vibe... and late on Friday afternoon as well, so you don't need to do any work!

« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2017, 02:29 »
0
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.

It's not the same. I've made and sold apps. The amount of of work required to make an app is exponentially higher than microstock and the earnings are lower when you factor in the amount of time spent on it. When Apple announced they were taking 30%, developers were pretty angry. Many believe that Apple should only get 10-15% max when you account for how much time and money the developer spends on development and marketing.

Once an image is uploaded, there's is little upkeep required from the contributor. You just wait for it rise up the search results over time. Once an App is upload, there's marketing, constant updates and the fight to stay relevant. Instead of rising up the search results, it does the exact opposite...it falls into irrelevance. That's why the developer gets 70% of paid apps and In-App-Purchases. 99% of Apps don't make any money so 70% of $0 is still $0.

It's much more profitable in Microstock despite the lower royalty rate.
But AdSense can be used with less work than you have to do for microstock and they pay 51% for that.  The microstock sites might say they have to pay more to host our images but Youtube pay 55% and they have those costs.

« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2017, 13:42 »
+1
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.

It's not the same. I've made and sold apps. The amount of of work required to make an app is exponentially higher than microstock and the earnings are lower when you factor in the amount of time spent on it. When Apple announced they were taking 30%, developers were pretty angry. Many believe that Apple should only get 10-15% max when you account for how much time and money the developer spends on development and marketing.

Once an image is uploaded, there's is little upkeep required from the contributor. You just wait for it rise up the search results over time. Once an App is upload, there's marketing, constant updates and the fight to stay relevant. Instead of rising up the search results, it does the exact opposite...it falls into irrelevance. That's why the developer gets 70% of paid apps and In-App-Purchases. 99% of Apps don't make any money so 70% of $0 is still $0.

It's much more profitable in Microstock despite the lower royalty rate.
But AdSense can be used with less work than you have to do for microstock and they pay 51% for that.  The microstock sites might say they have to pay more to host our images but Youtube pay 55% and they have those costs.
AdSense monetizes youtube videos and requires little to no effort but the work you have to put into making engaging youtube content is far greater than stock photos or video.

« Reply #37 on: March 09, 2017, 14:26 »
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.

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.


The targetted ads are mostly from your browser cookies and Yes, they do make some from selling some (mostly) impersonal data but, I'd be willing to bet their biggest money maker is advertising ... some of these businesses throw millions at advertising per year and google owns the single largest advertising network in the world ... Guessing that means something.

Generally, the data that is revealed to third parties is things like ... what apps they use, when and how they use them, how people use parts of their geographic location ... like ... crap that you'd want if you were an industry leader who wanted to stay on top of the game. You think they'd have this information and then NOT tell Samsung or something that they want the next device to be tailored to a specific set of data that they've collected over the ... what two decades now that they've been around?

I can't find one with revenue broken down (though, I wouldn't really want to try to sift through the myriad of data that I'm sure they have) However, if you'd like to dig into the financial data of Google feel free ...

I just can't see a majority of Google's 20 billion dollar growth last year attributed to stealing our nudes and selling them to the CIA or something.
http://financials.morningstar.com/balance-sheet/bs.html?t=GOOG&region=usa&culture=en-US

« Reply #38 on: March 09, 2017, 18:47 »
0
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.

It's not the same. I've made and sold apps. The amount of of work required to make an app is exponentially higher than microstock and the earnings are lower when you factor in the amount of time spent on it. When Apple announced they were taking 30%, developers were pretty angry. Many believe that Apple should only get 10-15% max when you account for how much time and money the developer spends on development and marketing.

Once an image is uploaded, there's is little upkeep required from the contributor. You just wait for it rise up the search results over time. Once an App is upload, there's marketing, constant updates and the fight to stay relevant. Instead of rising up the search results, it does the exact opposite...it falls into irrelevance. That's why the developer gets 70% of paid apps and In-App-Purchases. 99% of Apps don't make any money so 70% of $0 is still $0.

It's much more profitable in Microstock despite the lower royalty rate.
But AdSense can be used with less work than you have to do for microstock and they pay 51% for that.  The microstock sites might say they have to pay more to host our images but Youtube pay 55% and they have those costs.
AdSense monetizes youtube videos and requires little to no effort but the work you have to put into making engaging youtube content is far greater than stock photos or video.
I disagree, having used AdSense on a blog, it takes very little effort.  A lot of youtube content takes very little effort as well.  Some people make a big production of it but that's not essential to make money.

« Reply #39 on: March 09, 2017, 18:53 »
0
But AdSense can be used with less work than you have to do for microstock and they pay 51% for that.  The microstock sites might say they have to pay more to host our images but Youtube pay 55% and they have those costs.

You still have to get an audience to visit your site on a regular basis, otherwise you'll be making pennies. Microstock agencies does a lot of the marketing work for you.

« Reply #40 on: March 09, 2017, 21:18 »
0
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.

It's not the same. I've made and sold apps. The amount of of work required to make an app is exponentially higher than microstock and the earnings are lower when you factor in the amount of time spent on it. When Apple announced they were taking 30%, developers were pretty angry. Many believe that Apple should only get 10-15% max when you account for how much time and money the developer spends on development and marketing.

Once an image is uploaded, there's is little upkeep required from the contributor. You just wait for it rise up the search results over time. Once an App is upload, there's marketing, constant updates and the fight to stay relevant. Instead of rising up the search results, it does the exact opposite...it falls into irrelevance. That's why the developer gets 70% of paid apps and In-App-Purchases. 99% of Apps don't make any money so 70% of $0 is still $0.

It's much more profitable in Microstock despite the lower royalty rate.
But AdSense can be used with less work than you have to do for microstock and they pay 51% for that.  The microstock sites might say they have to pay more to host our images but Youtube pay 55% and they have those costs.
AdSense monetizes youtube videos and requires little to no effort but the work you have to put into making engaging youtube content is far greater than stock photos or video.
I disagree, having used AdSense on a blog, it takes very little effort.  A lot of youtube content takes very little effort as well.  Some people make a big production of it but that's not essential to make money.

There is a bit of a difference ... new content within only a few hours work will earn a buck or so the first day or so ... then it tapers slowly ... but, you do continue to get those few pennies a day even if you post nothing. Where Microstock, when you stop after only a few hours, you'll probably not even see a quarter per year.

It obviously depends on the quality, and quantity that you put into either but, I'd bet they even out a bit. However, if you monetize on your work using all of the platforms you can, say you recorded an instructional video during a photoshoot that was also for stock or something, then also transcribed it for your blog ... I could see you getting a few days pay out of it, and then the trickle of pennies for however many years you'd like.

« Reply #41 on: March 09, 2017, 22:31 »
+1
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?

I agree with the OP on 1 and 2.  These two events are when the top earning sites became beholden to hedge funds, in one case and shareholders in the other.   Once that happened, the armosphere of collaboration between owners, staff, and artists was replaced by a focus on short term quarterly profits over long term health and growth of the business.  Transferring income from the contributors to the shareholders ( public or private) through royalty cuts and competing based on cheap subs plans rather than higher paying OD, and extended licenses was the quickest way to boost short term balance sheets.

And before someone jumps in saying "SS started out as a subs only site", let me just say that by the time they went public, they had grown to offer good paying on demand sales and very good paying ELs, which made up more than half my income there.

IStock's demise was postponed for the three  years Bruce continued to manage it after the Getty sale, but since he left and two succesdive hedge funds have leveraged it to the hilt, it's been bled dry and hardly anything left for contributors.

Millionstock.com

  • Architecture; Arts; Historic buildings, Landscapes

« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2017, 05:19 »
+6
Entering now in the microstock market means that you have to work hard for hours and hours each day in order to produce high quality pictures....and gain few dollars each day.

For this reason selling pictures TODAY is a complete loss of time! Only agencies are making big money since they have gathered during the years millions and millions of pictures.
Better to concentrate yourself in other activities where you can earn a decent amount of money.

« Reply #43 on: March 13, 2017, 03:25 »
+1
Inventing the internet ruined the internet and the world we live in  :'(

« Reply #44 on: March 13, 2017, 03:45 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2017, 03:48 by Pauws99 »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2017, 15:21 »
0
It's pretty tough out there but there's also new and interesting opportunities that were not available a few years ago, notably:

1. Drones: if you become an expert now you will be way ahead of the game and produce stunning and unique images;
2. Photo request sites like Imagebrief that pay well if you have the right (RM) shot;
3. Sites that allow mobile phone images - see attachment of such sites. This is quite exciting to get those sneaky street photography shots as well as candid lifestyle images.

It's not all doom and gloom, there's opportunities out there.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3847 Views
Last post October 25, 2006, 14:17
by asian
30 Replies
9633 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 17:58
by packerguy
55 Replies
9867 Views
Last post November 20, 2012, 07:08
by heywoody
54 Replies
5604 Views
Last post January 23, 2014, 10:32
by Muskoka Imagery
4 Replies
1855 Views
Last post September 05, 2017, 13:44
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results