good for you but I would suggest that its just a random piece of good luck.

I suggest that it's not random or luck but a trend.  CanStockPhoto has been on a slow and steady rise for me for the past few months as well.  Averaging about $6/day on a port of about 800 images.

Optimism only goes so far unless you're one of the few who coast through life on pure luck.

What a jaded view to think that optimism = luck.  I'm optimistic becuase I've worked hard, reached my goals, and all the evidence I've collected so far points to more work equaling more results.  Luck doesn't enter into it.

When I decided to try microstock, I did my homework.  I checked out all the sites, figured out what were the lucrative subjects, what was oversaturated and what topics were underrepresented.  I developed what I believe is a unique style.  And I set a quota... a few hours a day and a few uploads every night.  I'm right where my goal line says I should be right now, and my trend line is pretty straight and upward.  But if I were struggling to hit my goals, you can bet I would have moved on to a different pursuit, and wouldn't be hanging around here moaning about it and ridiculing others for chasing their failed dreams.  What a silly waste of time that would be.

Quote from: stockastic on April 22, 2010, 16:28

Quote from: PowerDroid on April 22, 2010, 14:05

nattering nabobs of negativism...

Don't try to tell me you're old enough to remember the source of that classic quote!   

You must return here with a shrubbery or else you will never pass through this wood alive!

One that looks nice... and not too expensive.

+1, what steve (cascoly) said.

Add to his argument:

- When the world emerges from the current recession, more businesses will form and need to advertise, and those who have been quiet will jump back into full marketing gear, and the need for images will increase dramatically.

- As the undeveloped, or underdeveloped, world sees growth in their small business sectors, those businesses will also look for the most cost-effective ways to advertise and will become big users of microstock.

To macrosaur and the other nattering nabobs of negativism... why do you spend so much of your energies concerning yourself with something you see as dead or dying?  You present yourselves as astute business people, but how smart is it so spend so much of your time and energy kicking what you see as a dead horse, when you could be making more money elsewhere?  

If supply drops and demand remains/increases then contributor value goes up.

I think we're saying the same thing.  SS and other agencies need to keep quality contributors happy.  So cutting commissions would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

Contributors are not powerless. They just haven't been pushed hard enough to push back or go away. I'm guessing both will happen at some point and then contributors will have better leverage.

Again, I think we're on the same page.  But I'm using this argument to say that ultimately commissions can't fall too much -- or if they do they will have to rebound -- because the agencies can't afford to have the best contributors stop uploading.

Are we still talking about Dreamstime dying?  NO WAY!

Mar 1-20, I averaged $20.60/day on DT... about $.024 per image per day.

Apr 1-20, I've averaged $19.60/day on DT... about $.021 per image per day.

That looks like a dip, but April started with Easter and many people have had spring break for some part of the month.

If this is dying, keep on dying, Dreamstime!

I fully agree with all the speculation that we're in a race to the bottom.  But I don't necessarily believe that the bottom is free.  Maybe images will be offered free on some sites, but there will be models for the contributing artists to be paid somehow, either through advertising or agencies paying for contributions up-front.  And the market will level out at a point at which skilled artists will be content with the financial payout, or they'll bolt, which will affect the supply and demand equation and the remaining artists will make more, which would draw more artists in, and the cycle would go on indefinitely.  It just won't ever hit zero.

It just doesn't make sense that masses of people will spend any energy on creating images for zero payout.  Sure, there will be hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't expect anything more than the thrill of sharing their stuff, but with few exceptions, the quality of work generated by a non-paid audience won't satisfy the business world.

As the human story moves forward, we will be communicating visually more and more, and that will increase the demand for effective images.  A crowd-sourced base of contributors working for free won't cut it.  There will always be a demand for talented visual artists -- photographers, illustrators, etc. -- and the best will continue to be compensated well, if not in microstock then via some other model (and no, that won't be macro or RM... those days are gone).   Now is not the time to be scared and cower in the corner.  If you want to be a survivor, get excited about the opportunities coming and be ready to pounce on them.

Sorry, guys, but this is how capitalism works.  When you were in the minority with the skills and the means to take and sell photos, capitalism worked well for you... supply and demand was on your side and you were happy capitalists.  Today, however, technology has allowed many others to practice your craft, and new marketplaces have been set up to allow them to profit from it.  With these changes, the laws of supply and demand have shifted and you have much more competition. Suddenly you think the world has turned against you, when really it is only capitalism running its natural course. 

Some veterans contend that there's no more money to be made here, and maybe that's their reality, but it's not mine.  You have to evolve to survive and thrive in any changing marketplace.  If you refuse to do so, you deserve the results... but if you accept that the rules have changed and look for ways to serve today's and tomorrow's customers, you can do very well for yourself.  It's your choice.

Same problems here this morning.  I contacted tech support, but I can't imagine I'm the only one.  Will report back with the answer I receive.

TBH I don't really give a flying isuck if they take my images.  Yes, I'd make more money and yes, that's the point but when 95% of your job stress comes from one thing and you can successfully avoid that one thing you may want to do that.

Sorry if you've taken any of the comments personally.  You started a blog called Nil to Mil with the stated goal of reaching a million dollars in microstock.  Many people watched your progress with keen interest and naturally found it odd that you would turn a blind eye to, what is for most successful microstockers, the top agency for earning potential.  Yes, it is probably the cause of most of our stress -- their upload process is painful and acceptance ratios can be brutal -- but to give up on them for these reasons is like saying it's difficult to get Wal Mart to sell your widgets so you've convinced yourself to be happy selling them in mom and pop shops or on street corners.  You can't get to "Mil" that way.  But if you're doing this for enjoyment and not to maximize your income, then you're right, do what you enjoy.  Who needs extra stress these days?

BTW...

I hate to say it but the fewer microstock photographers there are, the better my sales will be.  It's actually kind of idiotic to post things that make people want to do this job more.

If this is how you feel, you might want to change the tagline of your blog: "NiltoMil is a microstock blog for photographers looking to make money with their photos and learn more about the stock photography industry."   Maybe something like "Please don't do what I do... we don't need more competition!"  

Because photographers don't need middlemen?

That's a bit like saying an inventor doesn't need Wal-Mart.  He can get by just fine hawking his widget on street corners.  He can keep 100% of his sales!  Yipee!

An incredibly naive notion.  Anyone with business sense understands the value of selling through an agency and how far back you'd be starting if you decided to just sell on your own.  It's nice to think you can keep (close to) 100% of the revenue from a sale, but how are you going to attract customers in the first place?  The agencies provide many services to us, some better than others, and some are more worth the chunks they take from our sales than others.  But unless you're a "name brand" with a lot of customers who chomp at the bit for you to post more images they can buy, you are better off in the agency model.

That's my two cents... or .36 cents after agency commissions.

I need to go learn iStock so I can make an extra $0.50 a month to make up for the loss of this site.

??

If you learned iStock you should make much, much more than an extra $.50 a month.  Sharply_Done recently said it best... those who are successful at microstock, are successful at iStock.  Those who aren't, aren't.  Any ms veterans out there disagree?  Anyone doing this full time disagree?

The good old days = the date the complainer started in microstock, through the date that the individual's growth trend hit its peak.

The bad new days = the date the individual's growth trend hit its peak, through today, due to:
a) the buyers' appetites for "business handshakes" and "everything isolated on white" finally being satiated
b) all those criminal microstock sites sticking it to them! (we knew when we signed those agreements that changes might be made that could adversely affect us, but we didn't think you'd do it!)
c) you signing up