Author Topic: about Microstock Golden age (Read 25926 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #75 on:** May 05, 2014, 12:58 »

You can see the change just from the content of MSG. A couple of years ago, there was a lot of discussion about things like getting accepted at agencies, keywording strategies, how the search engines treated you, 'artifacts' at IS, ranking of new images, white balance, etc. Now it's mostly about the latest outrageous partner programs, agencies you'll drop this year, what's new in POD, alternatives to stock, royalty cuts, and speculation on which agency will be the object of the next D-Day.

focus40 · « **Reply #76 on:** May 05, 2014, 15:24 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 04, 2014, 13:27

Quote from: dirkr on May 04, 2014, 12:52
Unique or low-demand content just doesn't fit to the subscription model where you make up the low commission per sale by a higher number of sales.

SS has apparently decided to write off that portion of the microstock market and focus exclusively on high-volume images.

New agencies - that are paying reasonable returns, and not running crazy giveaways or shell games with shadowy 'partners' - will increasingly be getting the new, unusual and creative images. Eventually, that will translate into a competetive advantage for those agencies.

Your second paragraph sums up my feelings quite well. I would love to see new innovative agencies gain ground in a market that is currently hostile toward content creators.

wordplanet · « **Reply #77 on:** May 05, 2014, 15:57 »

I got into microstock very slowly and hesitantly and just as I realized too late that there really was money to be made there, the market started to change. I still feel that it's a good outlet for some of my work including a sprinkling of my travel photography (though I have saved my best for RM and traditional RF) and certainly abstract backgrounds and textures which I love creating and which make me way more on the micros than they would via traditional outlets.

I have no regrets about my foray into microstock. Though I started out with Alamy in the days when a $250+ license was common, about a year before I joined shutterstock and eventually other micros, I found that I learned so much more from shooting micro because the volume of multiple daily sales even with a very small portfolio, taught me so much about what buyers were looking for and I've really enjoyed creating concept shots and experimenting with digital enhancements and the like. It's made me a much better photographer.

I think there are markets for both traditional and microstock and while those markets are continuing to evolve and change, I don't believe either will disappear.

I've been licensing more work lately directly via my Photoshelter site as well as through working directly with calendar companies and other volume publishers am hopeful about what seems to be a resurgence of traditional stock photography - though I'm afraid the golden days there have faded too. I'm hopeful that new traditional stock agencies such as Offset and Stocksy and innovators such as Imagebrief will help that segment grow and plan to apply to some more traditional agencies while continuing to slowly build my micro portfolio on shutterstock and dreamstime where I'm still earning a respectable RPI most months.

wordplanet · « **Reply #78 on:** May 05, 2014, 16:07 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 05, 2014, 12:58

You can see the change just from the content of MSG. A couple of years ago, there was a lot of discussion about things like getting accepted at agencies, keywording strategies, how the search engines treated you, 'artifacts' at IS, ranking of new images, white balance, etc. Now it's mostly about the latest outrageous partner programs, agencies you'll drop this year, what's new in POD, alternatives to stock, royalty cuts, and speculation on which agency will be the object of the next D-Day.

It makes perfect sense to me that those who've learned and grown as photographers by shooting for the micros would begin to branch out into higher paying venues. If you started shooting in 2006 or 2008 or 2010, you should be a better photographer in 2014 and naturally expect to be earning more. Submitting your work to traditional agencies doesn't mean you've given up on the micros, only that as a better photographer you now have more options.

shudderstok · « **Reply #79 on:** May 05, 2014, 20:47 »

Quote from: EmberMike on May 05, 2014, 11:05

Quote from: shudderstok on May 04, 2014, 22:44
sure there is lot's of room. but there are many now that are totally contradicting what they advocated and pontificated several years ago. i won't mention any names here but i seem to recall one fellow who was idolized and deified by far to many, and now only works with "professionals" and now another comes out and says how they have not shot for microstock for a year and a half. i just see a pattern forming so please forgive me. and i do find it interesting how the about face is distancing itself from what was once advocated by many the only way to go. nice to see actually. finally people are starting to realize that microstock is not such a good thing if you are serious about photography/stock photography as a profession.

You're drawing end-result conclusions from things that slowly changed over time. Microstock today isn't what microstock was years ago. When I started in microstock in 2007, it really was the best way to go for me and for a lot of people, especially for emerging artists. I couldn't sell my work anywhere else. And even for established artists, it was a new opportunity to sell images to a different market. It was simpler, there were fewer ways we were getting screwed by agencies, and in general microstock wasn't as bad then as it is today.

You make it sound like people just woke up and realized that this is a bad business, but in reality people are coming to that conclusion after years of change, and mostly the bad kind.

i see where you are going with this and to a point i do agree with you. however this is not an end result conclusion i am making. it was totally predictable from my view point.
it is also not that i think people just woke up, rather i think that most did not even know anything about the very well established stock industry before microstock and the damage that it did to that industry as a whole right up till today.
the buzz word years ago was that microstock will "cannibalize" the stock industry, then itself. we were saying that well before i got into microstock in 2007 and the end result is not far from it.

Ron · « **Reply #80 on:** May 06, 2014, 02:08 »

Why did any pro get involved with Microstock when it was clear from the get-go it would be disruptive to their own business?

shudderstok · « **Reply #81 on:** May 06, 2014, 02:59 »

Quote from: Ron on May 06, 2014, 02:08

Why did any pro get involved with Microstock when it was clear from the get-go it would be disruptive to their own business?

to survive my friend, to survive. as posted above, the cannibalizing effects really took hold of the traditional agencies around 2006/2007 and it turned into one of those remain stubborn and deny the facts (which some of my trad friends did) or jump onto a lifeboat and accept the fact that the stock industry has changed and changed really fast and to accept that the new world order of stock photography is now based on dramatically devalued imagery to where it remains today situations.