MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Unsustainable!  (Read 48160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2014, 14:08 »
+2
Photographers who started uploading to the micro agencies devalued their work.


mlwinphoto

« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2014, 14:17 »
+1
My pictures are worth the 38 cents or whatever because I spent the appropriate amount of time/effort to justify that sale.

I don't think buyers consider the amount of effort a photog puts into producing a particular image before they decide to buy.  If it fits their wants/needs better than all the other images out there then they buy.  Some of my low production value images have sold for single sums much greater than my high production value images....you just never know what someone may want and be willing to pay for; at least I don't.  I let the buyer set the value and don't let the time and effort I spent in producing my images factor into it.


« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2014, 14:34 »
0
We can bash all we want here (not directed at your comment, but the discussions in general) but at the end of the day, unless someone innovates something that skews it more towards the shooter, we have to adapt or quit. I hoped (and still hope) that various  Symbiostock-based networks will someday turn into coop-style marketplaces, but only time will tell.

No offense taken. I've pretty much accepted the industry for what it is. I still try to make it better for myself, but I don't think much will change until something drastic happens. There really isn't an anti-Shutterstock to balance things out. I don't mean that as a knock against SS. I just mean if they are the high volume/low value micro king, then who is the low volume/high value king? Most of the nominees would probably be smaller sites like Stocksy, but there isn't really a consensus or threat to draw artists off SS.

I suppose a new player could fill that void or DT, CanStockPhoto, P5 or some other site could move into that role. But, I have my doubts that will happen either. Frankly, I think the biggest catalyst for change at this point would be if SS failed. And by failed, I mean that they stopped making enough money for artists (the pie cut too many times). That doesn't seem imminent either, so I'm strapped in for the long ride.

farbled

« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2014, 15:31 »
+7
it was skewed towards the shooter until microstock came along and devalued the work. believe it or not it's the market sources that devalued the work not the buyers, herein lies the problem, the agencies should have kept pricing up for the benefit of the artists and themselves. the problem now is that certain agencies are keeping prices insanely low for their own benefit and the shareholders of course, while other agencies are dropping theirs or what you would suggest as "adapting" by bringing in subs, none of this is for the benefit of the photographers. we are simply pawns in the corporate game.
Not buying it. MS created new markets for low cost players (buyers and shooters). Nothing was devalued until a pro crunched the numbers and decided it would be viable to sell high quality shots for "pennies on the dollar". They shot themselves (and you apparently) in the foot. If you had of stayed in your own sandbox, the big corporate clients who paid top dollar would've stayed with the GI's of the world instead of buying the same thing for a fraction of the price.

You be a pawn all you want. I'm selling what I choose to sell where I choose to sell it.

farbled

« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2014, 15:36 »
0
No offense taken. I've pretty much accepted the industry for what it is. I still try to make it better for myself, but I don't think much will change until something drastic happens. There really isn't an anti-Shutterstock to balance things out. I don't mean that as a knock against SS. I just mean if they are the high volume/low value micro king, then who is the low volume/high value king? Most of the nominees would probably be smaller sites like Stocksy, but there isn't really a consensus or threat to draw artists off SS.

I suppose a new player could fill that void or DT, CanStockPhoto, P5 or some other site could move into that role. But, I have my doubts that will happen either. Frankly, I think the biggest catalyst for change at this point would be if SS failed. And by failed, I mean that they stopped making enough money for artists (the pie cut too many times). That doesn't seem imminent either, so I'm strapped in for the long ride.
True, and me too (strapped in for a while yet). Luckily I don't rely on MS for anything more than extra money with images I was going to take anyway. Someday I may just go solo or with a small group of similar niche markets. Not there yet though, but its a thought for down the road.

farbled

« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2014, 16:32 »
+4
<snip>
the problem now is that certain agencies are keeping prices insanely low for their own benefit and the shareholders of course...

I assume you're talking about Getty here, hard to compete with "free".

« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2014, 16:46 »
+3
at the current direction it is going it is not sustainable.
From a first world perspective I think you are right...from a developing world perspective the future holds some hope.

The original post was about a store expansion in the US... but we can think a lot about how the world economy is changing and how, instead of just competing with the photographer down the street or across town, you are competing with a person with a camera and a computer in all the developing nations of the world.
So, people from developing countries can't be photographers (just persons with cameras)? 
For your information, current cost of life in some developing countries is not cheap.  And the direction we are going now is not sustainable here either. 
Greetings from the jungle!

shudderstok

« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2014, 21:30 »
-8
<snip>
the problem now is that certain agencies are keeping prices insanely low for their own benefit and the shareholders of course...

I assume you're talking about Getty here, hard to compete with "free".

yes yes yes, noted and accepted 100%. that was after SS gives there images away for advertising for free, albeit you get paid your small amount which is a considerably nice gesture. who else is giving away free images? they all are, this is nothing new in microstock.

glad you brought this up, so now i can rest my case. the agencies are the ones dragging the pricing down as they always have for their own benefit.

it sounds like you started your stock photo career with the micros.

and FYI, pros like us dumped our years of rejects into the micros and instantly made another annual income, we still put our best stuff in the other sandbox. you should do the same thing - that is if you have what it takes to sell your work for more than your self valued 38 cents.


farbled

« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2014, 22:12 »
+6
Ahh personal cheapshots. Nice. My portfolio is right there for everyone to see. Where is yours?

shudderstok

« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2014, 22:39 »
-5
Ahh personal cheapshots. Nice. My portfolio is right there for everyone to see. Where is yours?

not a personal cheap shot at all. but it shows that you have only micro experience. big bark small bite on the forums. nothing wrong with that of course, but the way you talk is very micro know it all. one day you should get around to applying for some of the bigger agencies, it's a little more stringent than three shots and silly questionnaires, and it pays much much better. but then again, some people are only suited to micro, and that is all good too. but please don't all emotional on me and say it's a personal cheap shot, it's not.


farbled

« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2014, 09:37 »
+1
Yes, I can see all the emotion in the responses, we differ on where though. Too funny the personal attack came after I mentioned the big G. 

FYI, if you're really going to call my photographic talents (or lack of) into question without showing your own work, well, in my world we call that being cowardly. But we both know you won't so I'll leave it, especially since it isn't personal when you call my judgement, experience and talent into question simply because I disagree with you. I know where I am on my photographic journey, as does anyone who looks at my website, blog and portfolio.

Back on topic, I will say this however, there is so far only one (lucrative) agency that I'm with where my royalties have not gone down, only up.

« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2014, 10:07 »
0
I am still making a decent living from microstock, and I live in Toronto where cost of living is pretty high. We can speculate all we want about what future holds, but the truth is, no one knows. If you apply common sense to the situation, however, there always will be people needing to legally license images, and if "the pie gets cut too many times" there won't be many people supplying them - and that would force the agencies to increase payouts to photographers to attract new content. It's a self-correcting system.
And yes cost of living in developing countries is rising, and will continue to do so, and even though there are still photographers there that are happy with getting a few hundred dollars a month it will not last long.

farbled

« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2014, 10:16 »
0
I can agree with that.  The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.

« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2014, 10:35 »
+4
I can agree with that.  The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.

For someone who doesn't do it for income there is little incentive to produce a lot of saleable content. Getting image to the point of being saleable is a lot of work. If you don't do this for money, then it's for enjoyment of it, and there is only so much work one can enjoy:) There are not that many people out there that are good photographers capable of producing high quality content both technically and visually and not needing the money. And images do age. You can't keep going just on the content that 5-7 years old - styles, subjects, technology change all the time, you need it fresh to stay competitive.

farbled

« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2014, 11:04 »
0
For someone who doesn't do it for income there is little incentive to produce a lot of saleable content. Getting image to the point of being saleable is a lot of work. If you don't do this for money, then it's for enjoyment of it, and there is only so much work one can enjoy:) There are not that many people out there that are good photographers capable of producing high quality content both technically and visually and not needing the money. And images do age. You can't keep going just on the content that 5-7 years old - styles, subjects, technology change all the time, you need it fresh to stay competitive.

Well, I do enjoy taking photos, and my wife enjoys the cooking and staging. So it's work I'm doing anyway, almost every evening and weekend. I like to think that my images are good enough straight out of the camera usually (I crop and maybe adjust exposure sometimes) and they usually get accepted and sell well. I also try and build my own sites although that seems to take me a lot longer than simply uploading them to other places. It seems to work for me, as I said earlier in this string, the effort is worth the reward.

The area(s) I feel I need to grow into are more along lines of concept staging and getting better at lighting.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2014, 12:22 »
0
I can agree with that.  The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.

Just curious, since you don't do this for the money and feel that 38 cents is a fair return for your images based on the time and effort you put into production, are you charging 38 cents for the images on your website/Symbiostock site?  And, if not, why not?

farbled

« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2014, 12:35 »
+2
I can agree with that.  The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.

Just curious, since you don't do this for the money and feel that 38 cents is a fair return for your images based on the time and effort you put into production, are you charging 38 cents for the images on your website/Symbiostock site?  And, if not, why not?

Good question. Actually, no, I charge more on my own site.  I charge around what I believe the stock agencies charge for my images, not what they pay me in commission. Don't get me wrong, I would love to make more money per download from my photos. However, we either accept what the agencies offer us or we leave. I've left some and stayed with others. I am also working to improve my shooting so that eventually I do move up to higher paying, RM sites and leave my current crop of stuff on MS. I don't feel like I'm there yet, but its something to aim for.

To qualify, I don't do this solely for the money, but the money is handy and I do use it. I do this for a great many reasons, money being only a part of it. I never thought that MS would be a full time sustainable career for me like it is for others, so I treat it more as a hobby. I have great respect for those who can and do.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2014, 12:39 »
0
I can agree with that.  The only caveat is that there are a lot of shooters like me that don't do it for a full time income or because we need the money, so it may take longer than it would otherwise. Plus there is no real incentive to remove images unless the agencies do something that require it, so there should always be high quality images around. I could be wrong though.

Just curious, since you don't do this for the money and feel that 38 cents is a fair return for your images based on the time and effort you put into production, are you charging 38 cents for the images on your website/Symbiostock site?  And, if not, why not?

Good question. Actually, no, I charge more on my own site.  I charge around what I believe the stock agencies charge for my images, not what they pay me in commission. Don't get me wrong, I would love to make more money per download from my photos. However, we either accept what the agencies offer us or we leave. I've left some and stayed with others. I am also working to improve my shooting so that eventually I do move up to higher paying, RM sites and leave my current crop of stuff on MS. I don't feel like I'm there yet, but its something to aim for.

To qualify, I don't do this solely for the money, but the money is handy and I do use it. I do this for a great many reasons, money being only a part of it. I never thought that MS would be a full time sustainable career for me like it is for others, so I treat it more as a hobby. I have great respect for those who can and do.

Good answer.....end of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

shudderstok

« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2014, 15:22 »
-6
Yes, I can see all the emotion in the responses, we differ on where though. Too funny the personal attack came after I mentioned the big G. 

FYI, if you're really going to call my photographic talents (or lack of) into question without showing your own work, well, in my world we call that being cowardly. But we both know you won't so I'll leave it, especially since it isn't personal when you call my judgement, experience and talent into question simply because I disagree with you. I know where I am on my photographic journey, as does anyone who looks at my website, blog and portfolio.

Back on topic, I will say this however, there is so far only one (lucrative) agency that I'm with where my royalties have not gone down, only up.

what is with you and this personal attack thing? i have already told you it was not a personal attack, do i really need to keep treating you with kid gloves and repeat this in every reply? and i don't ever recall once calling you on your photographic talents or as you say lack of < your words not mine. the topic at hand was "unsustainable" and i simply stated if you wanted to make more then apply to bigger agencies. your lack of experience does show however in your jumping to conclusions about personal attacks and you personal insecurities about your own abilities. we all crawl before we learn to walk, and it took time so don't drag me into where you are at in your abilities please, we all grow and get better, and we all started somewhere. as for not showing my work, which you deem "cowardly" - this is actually more of a privacy thing and professional thing, i trust you understand.
as for your work, i won't judge it at all, but if you did send it to some other large agencies, real editors would. and if you are not at that level yet so be it, as mentioned some people are only suited to microstock but maybe one day you will hone your skills and develop further as part of your "photographic journey", this is not anything to feel bad about, hell you even admit you don't do this full time, maybe one day you will. i on the other hand do, and probably have many more years experience doing this. either way, good luck and peace out man.

as mlwinphoto said "end of discussion as far as I'm concerned"

Ron

« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2014, 15:29 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2014, 15:44 by Ron »

farbled

« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2014, 15:49 »
0
Yes, I can see all the emotion in the responses, we differ on where though. Too funny the personal attack came after I mentioned the big G. 

FYI, if you're really going to call my photographic talents (or lack of) into question without showing your own work, well, in my world we call that being cowardly. But we both know you won't so I'll leave it, especially since it isn't personal when you call my judgement, experience and talent into question simply because I disagree with you. I know where I am on my photographic journey, as does anyone who looks at my website, blog and portfolio.

Back on topic, I will say this however, there is so far only one (lucrative) agency that I'm with where my royalties have not gone down, only up.

what is with you and this personal attack thing? i have already told you it was not a personal attack, do i really need to keep treating you with kid gloves and repeat this in every reply? and i don't ever recall once calling you on your photographic talents or as you say lack of < your words not mine. the topic at hand was "unsustainable" and i simply stated if you wanted to make more then apply to bigger agencies. your lack of experience does show however in your jumping to conclusions about personal attacks and you personal insecurities about your own abilities. we all crawl before we learn to walk, and it took time so don't drag me into where you are at in your abilities please, we all grow and get better, and we all started somewhere. as for not showing my work, which you deem "cowardly" - this is actually more of a privacy thing and professional thing, i trust you understand.
as for your work, i won't judge it at all, but if you did send it to some other large agencies, real editors would. and if you are not at that level yet so be it, as mentioned some people are only suited to microstock but maybe one day you will hone your skills and develop further as part of your "photographic journey", this is not anything to feel bad about, hell you even admit you don't do this full time, maybe one day you will. i on the other hand do, and probably have many more years experience doing this. either way, good luck and peace out man.

as mlwinphoto said "end of discussion as far as I'm concerned"
I had to quote it for posterity. Thanks for a good laugh and good luck to you too.

« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2014, 15:54 »
+8
I don't think you can say someone lacks experience and not expect them to take it a little personally. It's not the worst insult, but it discounts any prior work they've put in and it definitely seems insulting. Just my two cents.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2014, 07:07 »
-1
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !

--> supply vs demand.


« Reply #48 on: April 14, 2014, 08:37 »
+1
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !

--> supply vs demand.

Sites still have to attract their vendors, so it isn't that simple. If you can't sell high volumes with lower royalty rates, contributors may lose interest. People follow the money.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #49 on: April 14, 2014, 08:45 »
0
if selling digital images is becoming more difficult the agencies will be forced to pay us less, not more !

--> supply vs demand.

Sites still have to attract their vendors, so it isn't that simple. If you can't sell high volumes with lower royalty rates, contributors may lose interest. People follow the money.

yes of course, but at the moment suppliers are dime a dozen and it's a buyers' market, at least regarding cheap buyers who can't afford macro or midstock.





 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
46 Replies
13485 Views
Last post October 09, 2012, 19:05
by lisafx

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors