Author Topic: October results (Read 11320 times)

gyllens · « **Reply #25 on:** November 02, 2016, 06:02 »

Quote from: Picone on November 02, 2016, 05:19

Quote from: DrC on November 01, 2016, 13:48
Quote from: stockmarketer on November 01, 2016, 11:59
Terrible month for me. Approx 30% down vs Oct 15 across all the big agencies.

Some folks here are reporting a good October. Is anyone who has been doing this for several years seeing positive results? Of course new microstockers are seeing growth... but I'd like to know how veterans are feeling about the performance of SS, FT, DT, 123 and other top sites. Seems like nothing but falling earnings for everyone with a large port.

I bet that either short portfolios from recent contributors or with huge ports from older contributor with hundreds of new images every month can report good sales.
The first, because they are in the 1st or 2nd commission tier and so, get better placed in search results. The second because they have the ability to flood the library, probably with spam, and be always visible.
I'm an older contributor with a huge port. I don't have the ability to flood the library, because I can produce around 100-200 pictures a month, just like I did when my portfolio wasn't huge. I don't spam neither and I don't even know what you meant by that. My portfolio is not huge because I'm a spammer, it is huge because I've been working hard for ten years. It is easiest to blame someone else for failure.

I have also been there since 2004 also with a huge portfolio and a specialized port of well over 20K files. There is a vast difference between today and yesterday. Yesterdays search algorithm was based on showing new files new content to attract buyers. Todays algorithm is there to be manipulated by the agency to earn more money, less royalty payoyts. Thats business of course but it made it a lot easier to maintain a really good income during the first sort of five or six years. Growing competition matters of course but then again since new uploads hardly gain any exposure its of less impact.
SS still produce even if only a fraction of what it was like but they do. Adobe on the other hand will benefit a selected clientel of photographers/buyers but the overall majority could not survive on any adobe income and the whole of the rest is just pathetic.
I know one member of SS whos portfolio generates $.7000 a month and exactly the same portfolio no more then just over $.1000 at adobe/Ft.

Micro-stock has become a somewhat weird and strange wheeling and dealing business rather then producing great photography.

Picone · « **Reply #26 on:** November 02, 2016, 06:09 »

Yes, Gyllens, I agree completely. It sounds familiar.

exxclusive · « **Reply #27 on:** November 02, 2016, 10:34 »

Quote from: gyllens on November 02, 2016, 06:02

Quote from: Picone on November 02, 2016, 05:19
Quote from: DrC on November 01, 2016, 13:48
Quote from: stockmarketer on November 01, 2016, 11:59
Terrible month for me. Approx 30% down vs Oct 15 across all the big agencies.

Some folks here are reporting a good October. Is anyone who has been doing this for several years seeing positive results? Of course new microstockers are seeing growth... but I'd like to know how veterans are feeling about the performance of SS, FT, DT, 123 and other top sites. Seems like nothing but falling earnings for everyone with a large port.

I bet that either short portfolios from recent contributors or with huge ports from older contributor with hundreds of new images every month can report good sales.
The first, because they are in the 1st or 2nd commission tier and so, get better placed in search results. The second because they have the ability to flood the library, probably with spam, and be always visible.
I'm an older contributor with a huge port. I don't have the ability to flood the library, because I can produce around 100-200 pictures a month, just like I did when my portfolio wasn't huge. I don't spam neither and I don't even know what you meant by that. My portfolio is not huge because I'm a spammer, it is huge because I've been working hard for ten years. It is easiest to blame someone else for failure.

I have also been there since 2004 also with a huge portfolio and a specialized port of well over 20K files. There is a vast difference between today and yesterday. Yesterdays search algorithm was based on showing new files new content to attract buyers. Todays algorithm is there to be manipulated by the agency to earn more money, less royalty payoyts. Thats business of course but it made it a lot easier to maintain a really good income during the first sort of five or six years. Growing competition matters of course but then again since new uploads hardly gain any exposure its of less impact.
SS still produce even if only a fraction of what it was like but they do. Adobe on the other hand will benefit a selected clientel of photographers/buyers but the overall majority could not survive on any adobe income and the whole of the rest is just pathetic.
I know one member of SS whos portfolio generates $.7000 a month and exactly the same portfolio no more then just over $.1000 at adobe/Ft.

Micro-stock has become a somewhat weird and strange wheeling and dealing business rather then producing great photography.

I know a lot of people are going to attack me for saying this but unless you look at microstock as a hobby you must be crazy to keep doing it. The ROI just doesn't make sense. Don't fool yourself, it's not a business, it's a hobby. Don't look at how much money you make per month. Look at how much money on average a single image makes during let's say first 2 years on SS and then compare that with the average cost to produce an image in your portfolio (equipment, traveling, model releases, etc). I bet for 90% of contributors, the ROI is negative or very very small, especially if you live in North America/ Europe with higher cost of living. If you live in Southeast Asia or South America, the ROI may stay positive for a few more years (maybe until SS library crosses 1 Billion images and trust me it will cross that milestone very soon).

Pauws99 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 02, 2016, 10:43 »

But I suspect its only a small percentage that ever did it as a full time career but for many of them it does work. You can't really judge whether others are crazy they can do their own sums.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #29 on:** November 02, 2016, 11:21 »

Quote from: exxclusive on November 02, 2016, 10:34

Quote from: gyllens on November 02, 2016, 06:02
Quote from: Picone on November 02, 2016, 05:19
Quote from: DrC on November 01, 2016, 13:48
Quote from: stockmarketer on November 01, 2016, 11:59
Terrible month for me. Approx 30% down vs Oct 15 across all the big agencies.

Some folks here are reporting a good October. Is anyone who has been doing this for several years seeing positive results? Of course new microstockers are seeing growth... but I'd like to know how veterans are feeling about the performance of SS, FT, DT, 123 and other top sites. Seems like nothing but falling earnings for everyone with a large port.

I bet that either short portfolios from recent contributors or with huge ports from older contributor with hundreds of new images every month can report good sales.
The first, because they are in the 1st or 2nd commission tier and so, get better placed in search results. The second because they have the ability to flood the library, probably with spam, and be always visible.
I'm an older contributor with a huge port. I don't have the ability to flood the library, because I can produce around 100-200 pictures a month, just like I did when my portfolio wasn't huge. I don't spam neither and I don't even know what you meant by that. My portfolio is not huge because I'm a spammer, it is huge because I've been working hard for ten years. It is easiest to blame someone else for failure.

I have also been there since 2004 also with a huge portfolio and a specialized port of well over 20K files. There is a vast difference between today and yesterday. Yesterdays search algorithm was based on showing new files new content to attract buyers. Todays algorithm is there to be manipulated by the agency to earn more money, less royalty payoyts. Thats business of course but it made it a lot easier to maintain a really good income during the first sort of five or six years. Growing competition matters of course but then again since new uploads hardly gain any exposure its of less impact.
SS still produce even if only a fraction of what it was like but they do. Adobe on the other hand will benefit a selected clientel of photographers/buyers but the overall majority could not survive on any adobe income and the whole of the rest is just pathetic.
I know one member of SS whos portfolio generates $.7000 a month and exactly the same portfolio no more then just over $.1000 at adobe/Ft.

Micro-stock has become a somewhat weird and strange wheeling and dealing business rather then producing great photography.

I know a lot of people are going to attack me for saying this but unless you look at microstock as a hobby you must be crazy to keep doing it. The ROI just doesn't make sense. Don't fool yourself, it's not a business, it's a hobby. Don't look at how much money you make per month. Look at how much money on average a single image makes during let's say first 2 years on SS and then compare that with the average cost to produce an image in your portfolio (equipment, traveling, model releases, etc). I bet for 90% of contributors, the ROI is negative or very very small, especially if you live in North America/ Europe with higher cost of living. If you live in Southeast Asia or South America, the ROI may stay positive for a few more years (maybe until SS library crosses 1 Billion images and trust me it will cross that milestone very soon).

Even if I have a different primary job, I'm paying taxes on the profit made from microstock, after applying all deductions my accountant considers possible. And I am still walking home with twice the minimum wage in a wealthy us state, from a port made of fewer than 1,000 assets.

I'm still failing to see any sales throttling or de-prioritization of my images. My income has in fact grown steadily, even years after reaching top tier on SS or gold on FT. I am not spamming, being able to create only about 3-4 images a week (or even less, when I'm not in the mood)
Actually, since two years, Microstock continues to pay for my kid's college fees on an expensive out of state university.

I don't take anything for granted and I consider myself blessed by this unexpected hefty bonus.

More than 4 years after I started this journey, I'm still a happy camper!

AnTiImAgeX · « **Reply #30 on:** November 02, 2016, 11:43 »

I started on JAN, 2016. My October was the best for me every agency. But SS was not to be as expected.

Giveme5 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 02, 2016, 11:58 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on November 02, 2016, 11:21

Quote from: exxclusive on November 02, 2016, 10:34
Quote from: gyllens on November 02, 2016, 06:02
Quote from: Picone on November 02, 2016, 05:19
Quote from: DrC on November 01, 2016, 13:48
Quote from: stockmarketer on November 01, 2016, 11:59
Terrible month for me. Approx 30% down vs Oct 15 across all the big agencies.

Some folks here are reporting a good October. Is anyone who has been doing this for several years seeing positive results? Of course new microstockers are seeing growth... but I'd like to know how veterans are feeling about the performance of SS, FT, DT, 123 and other top sites. Seems like nothing but falling earnings for everyone with a large port.

I bet that either short portfolios from recent contributors or with huge ports from older contributor with hundreds of new images every month can report good sales.
The first, because they are in the 1st or 2nd commission tier and so, get better placed in search results. The second because they have the ability to flood the library, probably with spam, and be always visible.
I'm an older contributor with a huge port. I don't have the ability to flood the library, because I can produce around 100-200 pictures a month, just like I did when my portfolio wasn't huge. I don't spam neither and I don't even know what you meant by that. My portfolio is not huge because I'm a spammer, it is huge because I've been working hard for ten years. It is easiest to blame someone else for failure.

I have also been there since 2004 also with a huge portfolio and a specialized port of well over 20K files. There is a vast difference between today and yesterday. Yesterdays search algorithm was based on showing new files new content to attract buyers. Todays algorithm is there to be manipulated by the agency to earn more money, less royalty payoyts. Thats business of course but it made it a lot easier to maintain a really good income during the first sort of five or six years. Growing competition matters of course but then again since new uploads hardly gain any exposure its of less impact.
SS still produce even if only a fraction of what it was like but they do. Adobe on the other hand will benefit a selected clientel of photographers/buyers but the overall majority could not survive on any adobe income and the whole of the rest is just pathetic.
I know one member of SS whos portfolio generates $.7000 a month and exactly the same portfolio no more then just over $.1000 at adobe/Ft.

Micro-stock has become a somewhat weird and strange wheeling and dealing business rather then producing great photography.

I know a lot of people are going to attack me for saying this but unless you look at microstock as a hobby you must be crazy to keep doing it. The ROI just doesn't make sense. Don't fool yourself, it's not a business, it's a hobby. Don't look at how much money you make per month. Look at how much money on average a single image makes during let's say first 2 years on SS and then compare that with the average cost to produce an image in your portfolio (equipment, traveling, model releases, etc). I bet for 90% of contributors, the ROI is negative or very very small, especially if you live in North America/ Europe with higher cost of living. If you live in Southeast Asia or South America, the ROI may stay positive for a few more years (maybe until SS library crosses 1 Billion images and trust me it will cross that milestone very soon).

Even if I have a different primary job, I'm paying taxes on the profit made from microstock, after applying all deductions my accountant considers possible. And I am still walking home with twice the minimum wage in a wealthy us state, from a port made of less than 1,000 assets.

I'm still failing to see any sales throttling or de-prioritization of my images. My income has in fact grown steadily, even years after reaching top tier on SS or gold on FT. I am not spamming, being able to create only about 3-4 images a week (or even less, when I'm not in the mood)
Actually, since two years, Microstock continues to pay for my kid's college fees on an expensive out of state university.

I don't take anything for granted and I consider myself blessed by this unexpected hefty bonus.

More than 4 years after I started this journey, I'm still a happy camper!

In the same boat as you are Zero Talent! 5 plus years and still making gains! Already saved enough for my daughter's college fund thus got a new car with my earnings this year!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #32 on:** November 02, 2016, 14:20 »

Quote from: gyllens on November 02, 2016, 06:02

I have also been there since 2004 also with a huge portfolio and a specialized port of well over 20K files. There is a vast difference between today and yesterday. Yesterdays search algorithm was based on showing new files new content to attract buyers. Todays algorithm is there to be manipulated by the agency to earn more money, less royalty payoyts. Thats business of course but it made it a lot easier to maintain a really good income during the first sort of five or six years. Growing competition matters of course but then again since new uploads hardly gain any exposure its of less impact.
SS still produce even if only a fraction of what it was like but they do. Adobe on the other hand will benefit a selected clientel of photographers/buyers but the overall majority could not survive on any adobe income and the whole of the rest is just pathetic.
I know one member of SS whos portfolio generates $.7000 a month and exactly the same portfolio no more then just over $.1000 at adobe/Ft.

Micro-stock has become a somewhat weird and strange wheeling and dealing business rather then producing great photography.

wow over 20K files..!!! i would not even make that in a lifetime.
but i get what you mean gyllens, as most of the top earners of this age have ALOT of files too.
as sean pointed out, "one good file, or a hundred not so good file" ... will earn you money in
microstock.
it's like the golden M, ...
it's the reality of the business.

but today the supply has gone way off the summit, and where you live makes a lot of difference
... 1K in US or UK won't even make a dent in your household , while 1C in another country
means you have enough to pay for your child's education, get them married, finance a grand reception.

but if paying for your equipment means it is fine working in microstock,
i guess , i say i did fine.
... even with a fraction of not 20K files.

but those days are gone when you can quit your job and do micro and be a happy camper.
most happy campers in ss are because our old files are paying their keep, while new files get little
worthwhile effort.

at least this is in my case, i see no reason why i would delete my ss account as my old files
are earning 80% of their keep.
but i won't waste my time uploading anymore as 20% of new files in the past 3 years are not even
earning 10% of my monthly income.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #33 on:** November 02, 2016, 16:20 »

Quote from: gyllens on November 02, 2016, 06:02

Quote from: Picone on November 02, 2016, 05:19
Quote from: DrC on November 01, 2016, 13:48
Quote from: stockmarketer on November 01, 2016, 11:59
Terrible month for me. Approx 30% down vs Oct 15 across all the big agencies.

Some folks here are reporting a good October. Is anyone who has been doing this for several years seeing positive results? Of course new microstockers are seeing growth... but I'd like to know how veterans are feeling about the performance of SS, FT, DT, 123 and other top sites. Seems like nothing but falling earnings for everyone with a large port.

I bet that either short portfolios from recent contributors or with huge ports from older contributor with hundreds of new images every month can report good sales.
The first, because they are in the 1st or 2nd commission tier and so, get better placed in search results. The second because they have the ability to flood the library, probably with spam, and be always visible.
I'm an older contributor with a huge port. I don't have the ability to flood the library, because I can produce around 100-200 pictures a month, just like I did when my portfolio wasn't huge. I don't spam neither and I don't even know what you meant by that. My portfolio is not huge because I'm a spammer, it is huge because I've been working hard for ten years. It is easiest to blame someone else for failure.

I have also been there since 2004 also with a huge portfolio and a specialized port of well over 20K files. There is a vast difference between today and yesterday. Yesterdays search algorithm was based on showing new files new content to attract buyers. Todays algorithm is there to be manipulated by the agency to earn more money, less royalty payoyts. Thats business of course but it made it a lot easier to maintain a really good income during the first sort of five or six years. Growing competition matters of course but then again since new uploads hardly gain any exposure its of less impact.
SS still produce even if only a fraction of what it was like but they do. Adobe on the other hand will benefit a selected clientel of photographers/buyers but the overall majority could not survive on any adobe income and the whole of the rest is just pathetic.
I know one member of SS whos portfolio generates $.7000 a month and exactly the same portfolio no more then just over $.1000 at adobe/Ft.

Micro-stock has become a somewhat weird and strange wheeling and dealing business rather then producing great photography.

It never was about great photography, never!

Everybody here knows or should know that what sells on FT isn't the same as what sells on SS. I still make the most on SS, more on IS then FT. Somebody with different files might make more on FT and less on SS. We can't generalize based on personal collections and content, and then tell others how they should think or what to expect.

My SS sales are rather flat for years, even though I add new content. Some months are better some drop. I could draw a straight line at the average, and see peaks and vallys. Overall a straight line. Adding new files is what keeps the line flat instead of downward slope.

I don't expect to pay for a car or the mortgage with chump change pay for downloads. I do pay for cameras, equipment and lenses. I use those for my real photography.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: October results (Read 11320 times)

gyllens

Picone

exxclusive

Pauws99

Zero Talent

AnTiImAgeX

Giveme5

etudiante_rapide

YadaYadaYada

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors