What I don't get is... how did they get access to the "full" (non-watermarked) images in the first place?

Unless you are sitting on an untapped resource of excellent images I think anyone now to go from a standing start to becoming a full time "microstocker" would take enormous talent and effort. Better to label yourself a "professional" photographer and cast the net wider I think. From what I've seen if you have the personality for it teaching people to use their cameras is a far more lucrative activity.

Yes, I agree.

While I am relatively new to microstocking (i.e., only 1-2 years) - I have had to "work" really hard to get any kind of income started from it. It at times can kind of be a bit of a grind (keywording, titling, uploading, getting over rejections, taking new pics/videos/etc) - but - I think since it is 'fun' (at least the taking photos/videos/etc part) - keeps me going. There's also the quantity, quality, uniqueness, supply/demand/etc aspects of it which factor into your sales.

I think it would be fantastic to have more than a full-time income from this. But, it will take a bit of work, and I am having a bit of fun along the way.

PPS.

Also, think of it this way. If someone only "took a picture" of "your" picture on the t-shirt, (nothing else, except for your picture that was on the t-shirt), but it was "their" picture that they took - and they then decided to print t-shirts with a picture of "your" picture on it - would you be upset? Or would you be happy with it - because it was "their" picture they took of your picture?

I took one look at their upload interface and said nope.

inteface has changed (very easy), but now they've blocked 'new' people from uploading...

If it is a small fee *per sale*, sure, why not? (I am thinking you mean a small % of the sale?) If so, yes, I would go for that.

I'm impresed. I have 0 sales @ alamy.

19 is good.

Sent you a PM.

Bottomline though - it really comes down to sales. If you can figure out how to make people *profitable sales* (and lots of them), then you'll have a winner.

Very good considerations SuperPhoto.

There's definitely pros on cons about being self-hosted. And in terms of sales it will never be anywhere near as what you can achieve with the help of stock agencies. But I do see it as an interesting alternative to the stock agencies for people who have a certain size of portfolio. Some of the interesting aspects:
- 100% commissions
- Options to sell different licenses (exclusive licenses, TIFF files, RAW files, graded / ungraded video)
- More control to present your portfolio the way you want
- Get to know you customers

If you don't mind SuperPhoto it could be interesting chatting a bit more. Can I get your email?

Quote from: SuperPhoto on August 29, 2018, 23:22

Took a look at your survey.

I think I know what type of project you want to put together (if it's what I think it is, I was thinking of doing the same thing a while back).

Creating a site where you charge a fee to host files (photos/videos) is kind of a good idea - but I think you have a limited market.

The issue I think most photographers/videographers have is they don't know how to market themselves to generate sales - so unless you solve that problem, I don't think charging a subscription fee for photographers/videographers to host their own files will be that appealing. Simply because they don't know how to market it (even though you'll probably promote it that way). So what's the point of *paying* someone to host files for something they already get to do for *free* (portfolios on other sites). Yes, yes - you can say "no agency commission!" - but then the challenge is marketing and making SALES. And most don't really know how to do that on their own. They are photographers/videographers, not marketers.

So the thought process would be 'why should I PAY you money to host, with no sales if I have to do ALL the work in marketing TOO'? And they probably wouldn't buy.

BTW - re: income - do you generate $40,000 USD per month through photography? You had that in your survey question.

My educated guess is there is maybe 1% that do above $5k/month - but - they'd probably be happy with how they are doing things already (letting the agencies promote), so wouldn't really be interested in such a service. Then, maybe 10% that do $1-$2k/month - but again, too much work to promote themselves. And then probably 75% doing from $100-$500/month - but then your service would probably be too expensive (assuming you'd be charging between $30-$50/month) - AND - reaching those people and converting them I think would be a challenge. Unless you have some 'in' (relationship with an agency) - or - some way of reaching that vast majority of photographers/videographers - OR - figuring out how to make them SALES - I think you have a bit of a challenge before you.

Took a look at your survey.

I think I know what type of project you want to put together (if it's what I think it is, I was thinking of doing the same thing a while back).

Creating a site where you charge a fee to host files (photos/videos) is kind of a good idea - but I think you have a limited market.

The issue I think most photographers/videographers have is they don't know how to market themselves to generate sales - so unless you solve that problem, I don't think charging a subscription fee for photographers/videographers to host their own files will be that appealing. Simply because they don't know how to market it (even though you'll probably promote it that way). So what's the point of *paying* someone to host files for something they already get to do for *free* (portfolios on other sites). Yes, yes - you can say "no agency commission!" - but then the challenge is marketing and making SALES. And most don't really know how to do that on their own. They are photographers/videographers, not marketers.

So the thought process would be 'why should I PAY you money to host, with no sales if I have to do ALL the work in marketing TOO'? And they probably wouldn't buy.

BTW - re: income - do you generate $40,000 USD per month through photography? You had that in your survey question.

My educated guess is there is maybe 1% that do above $5k/month - but - they'd probably be happy with how they are doing things already (letting the agencies promote), so wouldn't really be interested in such a service. Then, maybe 10% that do $1-$2k/month - but again, too much work to promote themselves. And then probably 75% doing from $100-$500/month - but then your service would probably be too expensive (assuming you'd be charging between $30-$50/month) - AND - reaching those people and converting them I think would be a challenge. Unless you have some 'in' (relationship with an agency) - or - some way of reaching that vast majority of photographers/videographers - OR - figuring out how to make them SALES - I think you have a bit of a challenge before you.

Market's go in cycles, and tend to be cyclical. Start, go up, way up, plateau, decline, go way down, then start over again.

a) If you mean breaking your contract so you can upload the 1.6k photo to other sites, yeah, not sure if you'd be making a lot of extra work for yourself to maintain the same income. (I.e., dip in %, but increase in sales from other sites).  What types of images do you have? (If you want to PM me, I can look at your porfolio and let you know my thoughts). Depends if it is what is in demand, is your content evergreen, is it unique/difficult for others to duplicate, etc, etc.

b) Second option "risk-free". Become a hard worker (again) - and upload new stuff to the 20-25+ agencies over 6 months. See what kinds of results you get.

While images are of course still in demand (I've purchased licenses myself for various projects),
i) Subscription/inexpensive solutions are very popular. (So less likely to make a $100 usd sale, more like a $1 sale)
ii) Competition is much higher. ("Everyone" has a cellphone and considers themselves a "photographer". Some actually buy a real camera, and then consider themselves "professional"). Plus you are increasingly competing with more and more people from countries where $3 usd/hour is considered a great wage.

So even if your stuff is great, getting found, and getting people to pay high prices will most likely be challenging. Not to say it's not possible - but you need to adapt, figure out what's working *now*, and do that.

Yeah I understand what you said, I'm just wanting to know where was this country where they said they were raising it to 10% and then they only raised it to 5%, and when was this?

Also - recently (in Ontario), the minimum wage was increased from about $11 to $14 (about a 27% increase). However, the cost of regular goods & services (so companies could pay the higher salaries) went up about 40%. On top of that, now since most people are in higher income/tax brackets - they actually pay even more tax than they did before.

So numbers wise - they "make" more gross income. But practicially speaking, they are poorer/worse off than before the wage hike, because their dollar doesn't buy as much, AND, they now pay more taxes overall.

Various local cities with respect to property taxes, and percentages vary. Every 2-3 years, the city will say "to grow/support infrastructure, we need to increase property taxes by _x_ amount". Usually a large percentage. Then a public outcry. Then the city says 'oh, okay, it will only go up by _x_ amount".

Also, something that is popular in Canada is to say that people are getting a "huge" tax break with a home renovation project/whatever the flavor of the year is, usually between $500-$1000. (The real value of that though is actually only about $75-$150 off the 'final' tax bill, because it is pre-tax). But then the CPP contributions (a type of tax), or something else (varies, again) increase by "only" 1% of the total income. People that can't do math, or don't take the time to do it think its a great deal. But 1% of a $30k income (which is a base/minimum wage salary) is $300 in taxes. So the net effect is that taxes have gone up. Of course, if you make more than that, you pay more.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on August 11, 2018, 09:22

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on August 11, 2018, 09:14

Have politicians ever done that?

Cite a higher raise in taxes, then only raise them slightly? Yes, many many times.

(In my example - there was still a 5% raise in taxes. However, how it was "worded" is people think they are "saving" 5%, but the wording is "5% off the original 10%", so it is still a 5% raise. Not a 10% raise.

lol - I guess it works though. Re-read what I wrote - and you'll see there still was a '5%' raise...

Yeah I understand what you said, I'm just wanting to know where was this country where they said they were raising it to 10% and then they only raised it to 5%, and when was this?

It's what mainly politicians do with respect to taxes. "Next month taxes are going up 10%! What? Too High? Sorry, we can't"... <several weeks pass> "After careful consideration, we've realized we can save you 5% on taxes, so it will only go up 5%"...  <applause from audience>

Did they regain my trust completely? No. After all, they deliberately cut our commissions, broke their initial promise and tried to pass it off as a good thing. That means they are either incompetent (i.e. their business plan wasn't sound to begin with) or greedy, or both. The damage is already done and I'll never look the same at them again.

Think about it, they must have discussed different scenarios before implementing the commission cut. Did the backlash really surprise them? I find that hard to believe. Maybe this was part of their cunning masterplan; cut commissions, wait for a backlash and then proceed with new pricing to make us feel heard.

And apparently it works. Contributors are slowly accepting the new situation: SB profits, we lose money but still continue to upload. Well played SB, well played.

Never done wedding photography. Why would you say it is stressful?

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 07, 2018, 08:42

The fact is making money in what can loosely be called "the arts" is mostly very tough and competitive....for short time microstock allowed people to make reasonable money shooting more or less what they pleased when they felt like it. That was never going to last and even now you can still make a few $$$s without working very hard. Things like wedding photography are infinitely more stressful.

I hated wedding shooting. Loved shooting other events though. I worked for a company that assigned memory cards at the start and collected them at the end, it certainly made you a quick study if you wanted a second gig.