|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 120
51
« on: March 11, 2021, 20:26 »
Before I deleted the email, I noticed this.
Briefs are moving home! Soon you will be able to browse briefs and submit your content, all in ESP. And were not stopping there later in the year we will be introducing a new, simpler look to the ESP website, so stay tuned!
Maybe [idle speculation] too many people were opting out of the briefs emails, or ignoring them.
Count me in, I don't even know what "briefs" are.
Those things you wear around your lower regions.
52
« on: March 09, 2021, 12:39 »
...Technical quality has decreased. When I first started 14 years ago the technical quality was very stringent including lists of acceptable DSLRs. Now low quality cell phone photos are fine. ...
'acceptable' dslrs has always been a silly criteria - alamy always had a banned list altho most of my early digitals (ca 2002-2006)were taken w a camera that used floppy disk storage! all the other agencies accepted these (and alamy often did too, which shows just how silly it was - technically images were fine and i suspect the rejects were from metadata. sales were good
Yeah I didn't really agree with the list method but it was their game their rules. Point being, they used to have strict rules for technical quality and don't anymore. Phones are fine. I have the iPhone 12 Pro Max and am underwhelmed by the new raw feature and overall image quality. It's still nowhere even close to the quality of the Nikon D50 I had fifteen years ago.
53
« on: March 09, 2021, 07:31 »
I really appreciate the feedback received so far, keep it coming. It confirms my bias - I think that to make money from stock photography one would be well-advised to buy shares. Dividends for shareholders are more generous than commissions for photographers. When I started ten years ago, the figure old timers would cite was one dollar of return for each photo per year. A portfolio of 1000 high quality photos would yield about 1 thousand dollars per year. I think that in today's market, it is about ten cents per year and the same quality portfolio of 1000 returns $100 per annum.
Hello:
I am preparing an article about stock photography. Those of you who have been in this business for a number of years, do you agree that
-over the years, the quality of stock photo increased tremendously
-Prices and commissions decreased dramatically and out of the millions of stock photographers, very few make a living from stock photography and those who do have highly specialised portfolios
-Would you advise a young photographer to join the industry?
Thank you for your feedback
- Content quality has increased. Technical quality has decreased. When I first started 14 years ago the technical quality was very stringent including lists of acceptable DSLRs. Now low quality cell phone photos are fine.
- Correct
- No. And the reason I say this is profitability and continued decline. Collections are now massive with huge competition while these sites continue to decrease commissions. So it would be difficult to make a profit and even if you did it's likely to decline long term.
$1 per image per year used to be what beginners could expect. Top contributors were earning well over $12 per portfolio image per year and up to $60 PIPY. There's another post on here where a "top contributor" is earning about 50 cents PIPY from SS. If he's submitting to a dozen sites he may be at $.75-$1.00 PIPY total. That's a huge drop from the average ten years ago and still headed downward. And this is why I said no in #3. You'd be getting into this knowing the results won't be good long term. I'm sure a small fraction of people can be successful but for most people the gold rush is long over.
54
« on: March 05, 2021, 13:19 »
I reckon Shutterstock have got their back against a wall now. They can't cut contributor earnings to a meaningful cost-cutting level now less big producers of high quality content finally unlicense or withdraw their ports. Very unlikely they'll be able to raise prices on customers. Their other cost cutting avenues are drying up so contributor earnings is all they have left to savage. Their arrogance is almost certain they'll overreach to protect profits and share value and it's gonna come right back and hit them where it hurts and hard.
They have plenty more slight of hand tweaks they can do to the royalty structure to where you'd have no idea what you're earning. That will be the innovation to offset stalled growth. Interesting that Royalty Free is what microstock invented and it's now probably a big cause of stalled growth. Customers can just keep using the same images over and over for their websites, mailers, financial reports and on and on. After they've been paying for years and have a huge amount of stockpiled images there's really not much of a reason to continue paying the monthly subscription. And I'm sure the massive copyright infringement from free-for-all copying of RF images online isn't helping. I can only hope for an implosion and correction toward more reasonable royalties.
55
« on: March 04, 2021, 18:18 »
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
Right. Some of the sites had content requests along the lines of "attractive elderly couples playing shuffleboard on a cruise ship". So assuming you aren't already going on a cruise with your attractive elderly grandparents and their friends, this would seem to be a difficult, high effort and high cost shoot. Back when RM sites were paying top dollar you could probably quickly break even. Now? I doubt it unless you worked out some special deal for premium non-subscription licensing. Otherwise, it's a lot of pennies, nickles and dimes to turn a profit.
56
« on: March 04, 2021, 18:11 »
I believe that the old stocker are running short of new ideas. They are dreaming of the good old days, when they had the new ideas.
I have plenty of sellable ideas and there are still a lot of gaps in content. What I'm running short of is motivation to create new content due to lack of reasonable and profitable royalties.
57
« on: March 04, 2021, 16:42 »
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
This exact same post could be written 5, 10 or 15 years ago. There was someone somewhere saying the exact same thing about us when we were starting. There is a great quote from Nobel priced writer Ivo Andric who said - Every generation thinks that they are living through crucial events in history, but the truth is history is just repeating itself over and over again.
Yes that's what I'm getting at. Many newcomers, including me 15 years ago, thought at that time that earning anything was great. The old time stockers weren't happy at all. Now a lot of us are the old timers. Every year the income bar gets set lower and the newcomers don't know or care. That's how its always been.
58
« on: March 04, 2021, 15:58 »
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Over the years, how many people used the equipment they already had vs buying new/better equipment because of stock? Better computer, camera, lenses, bag, tripod, etc. I'd bet a large percentage of people bought better gear once they figured out they could earn money. I started with a Nikon D50 and by the time I stopped investing time in stock I was using a Canon 5DMII.
59
« on: March 04, 2021, 14:01 »
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better. It's: - Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
60
« on: March 04, 2021, 11:47 »
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
I think Shutterstock tried to discourage low earners to upload photos with the new commission tier system. To be honest, I'm all for that concept. But the problem is low sales this year with mostly $0.10 subs, unfair video commission tier system and disgustingly low price video subscription. So, I hope more contributors will un-license portfolio there especially those who had been big sellers there.
But they may also be discouraging a lot of people who produce good sellable content.
61
« on: March 04, 2021, 10:52 »
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
62
« on: March 04, 2021, 07:19 »
Didnt watch the whole video but his #1 site is earning $600 from 14,000 photos and 1,600 videos??? I realize cost of living varies all over the world but seems to be an incredible amount of work, time and expense for very little return. Not criticizing his work which clearly is very good but more of the ongoing decline of stock.
I've always kept track of return per image per month. At one time, my return from one micro was $2 PIPM. 14,000 images would have been $28,000US per month. A good RPIPM used to be over $1 for good content. Decent content was .25 to .50. Average was .10 to .25. His is at .04 for good images which is also about what mine is.
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
63
« on: February 09, 2021, 11:06 »
They were hacked last year. 8 Million+ people's data stolen.
Seems like Netflix is buying hacked lists
64
« on: February 09, 2021, 08:13 »
Every time I sign up for a new account I use a unique email address that goes to a catchall email account. Received an advertisement email from Netflix using the unique 123RF address. So looks like 123RF is selling our data. Or maybe hacked?
65
« on: February 08, 2021, 17:29 »
yes just guess to where this is leading!
time to move on!!
Probably continuing to lead to more profits for them and less earnings for contributors.
66
« on: January 29, 2021, 10:40 »
too early to tell - a lot of folks are going to lose bigly - once the ridiculous price starts dropping it will be difficult to even sell as who'll want to buy such a pumped up stock on the way down?. the hedge funds have likely bought on the way up to hedge their losses on the shorts & will be the first to get out - leaving the day traders adrift yet again
https://www.theverge.com/22251427/reddit-gamestop-stock-short-wallstreetbets-robinhood-wall-street
Just an example of how the Internet can change how the world has operated for years. Look what social media has done for us. (no please don't...)  Misinformation and unsubstantiated rumors spreading like wildfire online.
When there's something that I can't find anymore, unless I buy online, I realize that sometimes I miss a good old fashion store that has to pay rent and overhead, but at least they are there and not only cheaper because of the price cutting and race to the bottom.
I've cut way back on online purchasing and now try to buy from local stores as much as possible. It's clear these internet companies have become near monopolies with incredible power over everything including politics, economy and even us as individuals. There used to be a bunch of local electronics stores near me. Now we're down to only Best Buy. If they go out of business what's left? The local mega-mall is quickly becoming a ghost town and that's accelerating from crime and fights breaking out. This is staring to feel like Cyberdyne Systems and Skynet from the Terminator.
67
« on: January 26, 2021, 17:20 »
A while back I said AI would eventually replace the need for contributors. This is a step in that direction. These companies at some point will be able to mostly create their own content and keep a majority of the sales revenue.
68
« on: January 26, 2021, 10:20 »
.....Investing in adding new images would be a complete waste of time for me. Maybe other people aren't experiencing the downward trend.
If we look at new images at various agencies they are mainly submitted by bright-eyed newcomers who believe there is a pot of gold in stock photography.
With pictures from an iPhone...
Probably less of a pot of gold and more like a carrot hanging from a stick. A long time ago I was hoping this all would reach bottom. I've realized what these companies have known all along. There is no bottom. There will always be newcomers who get the euphoric rush from realizing their work is good enough for someone to spend money on even if it's a penny. In the 1990s earnings were thousands of dollars per sale, 2000's hundreds of dollars, 2010's dollars, and now 2020's pennies. The newcomers will at some point experience lower income from "the wall" and also these companies reducing their commissions. They will probably become disgruntled and stop submitting or leave. Doesn't matter. There's a never ending supply of newcomers who don't bother reading contracts and are willing to accept anything. Look at the free sites where contributors are thrilled someone has downloaded or liked their work. Likes are the new currency.
69
« on: January 24, 2021, 08:45 »
I'm currently making more from POD than from microstock.
Any good POD sites to recommend in particular?
MS generates a decent income for me, but nothing to write home about. It helps to buy some kick ass new camera gear every year and pay some bills. I'm a hobbyist-level stock photographer (portfolio size is currently under 3,000 photos).
Buy a new camera with microstock income for me, that impossible. My newer camera is a Canon 60D, the other a Canon XT. And i'm ok with those old cameras, because if i try to do some photos in the street some thief is probably would robbed to me. In some places police could take my camera and take it. In Caracas, Venezuela people with cameras have to be very alert, or go in big groups. When i go to street i use Canon XT. In my house for making some studio photos i use Canon 60D.
Between the declining income and the fact that micro sites have lowered submission quality standards, I don't think it's worth upgrading. Anyone who has a DSLR from the past 15 years should be fine. That's unfortunate you have to work in fear. I travel for photography and have run into these situations here in the USA. Mostly in major cities in areas that are known for higher crime. And with all of the 2020 problems I now carry pepper spray and a heavy monopod. I'm now focusing more on beaches than cities. Usually more happy people there who don't want to rob or harm me. :-) If you do want to get a new camera you may want to consider small mirrorless like a Sony a6600. DSLR quality images and the body and lenses are very compact. When walking with a DSLR and large backpack, I've found it draws a lot of attention. When using my Sony a6300 I can use a tiny bag and it draws almost no attention.
70
« on: January 22, 2021, 23:58 »
Haahahaha. Yeah I'm sure 2020 was tough. Billionaire Jon Oringer must have had a difficult time deciding on if he wanted a gold plated Rolls Royce or Bugatti.
I can imagine the execs sitting in the conference room. "Hey team, 2020 was really tough. Covid cut back my trips to my Cayman vacation house and the cost of private jet fuel went up. So what do you think about resetting contributor commissions every year to make it easier on us? Haaaaaahahahaaha. Hey intern, I need more bourban and the Hors d'oeuvres are running low."
71
« on: January 22, 2021, 23:31 »
I wonder how people make thousands of $ per month, when microstock is supossed to downhill. 
I'm sure there quite a few. But they're probably shooting topics that are an expensive investment and have tens of thousands of files. The return on investment used to be easy to justify. These days it must take a long time to break even on a shoot if at all.
72
« on: January 22, 2021, 11:05 »
My micro earnings used to be in the thousands of dollars per month. Now I earn enough for a family of four dinner at McDonalds. And I'm not talking the fancy stuff. Dollar menu.
Same here thousands per month and now peanuts. Unbelievable change!
To be fair, I cut my portfolio down to about a third in 2015 and moved the other two thirds out of micro. However, my return per image per month used to be about $2. That was consistent for years until it started dropping in 2012 and continued trending downward over the next few years. My micro RPIPM is now at about 15 cents and still trending down. So I'd need to have a 25,000 image portfolio just to break even with what I was earning almost ten years ago with 2,000 images. So I'm leaving my reduced port in micro but not adding anything new. Investing in adding new images would be a complete waste of time for me. Maybe other people aren't experiencing the downward trend.
73
« on: January 21, 2021, 22:33 »
My micro earnings used to be in the thousands of dollars per month. Now I earn enough for a family of four dinner at McDonalds. And I'm not talking the fancy stuff. Dollar menu.
74
« on: January 12, 2021, 07:31 »
Havent used it but wondering if pricing is adjustable or you're forced to accept their pricing. The pricing is very low which also usually means the earnings are very low.
75
« on: January 11, 2021, 23:50 »
So far 100K has been invested so we are planning on giving the big boys a run for their money.
100K doesn't sound overly big boy. I think Shutterstock spent something like $40 million a year in marketing to attract buyers. Why would buyers use your company over the dozens of others already out there? What's your plan for attracting buyers? Do you have some sort of innovative business model? Forgive me for being a bit punchy, but you sound just like the dozens of other people over the years whose plan is just to "build a stock site" and we never hear from them again.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
