MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Attention Newbies- Key Milestones that Ruin the Microstock Business  (Read 9738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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