�.
I'm not doing this for the income, although what I make, I do use for equipment. I also have found the challenge and getting my images out, for profit, to be rewarding. Lucky me I have multiple other sources of income. I'd hate to depend on Microstock, it's just so unreliable and always changing and returns are lower every year.

I also had my own business. Like farm producers, the market is tougher with competition growing and expanding. �

similar to my experience - shareware of the 80s-90s was overtaken by MS windows providing many of the special features our work covered (eg a multitasking app for DOS that let you copy part of your text screen and merge into another doc).  I designed multiplayer online games for 15-20 years before being overtaken by Hollywood blockbusters with budgets in the millions. 

I've been active in stock since the 70's and had some of the first CD royalty free products, soon overtaken by microstock. 

I've always made my living by dancing among the elephants - finding my niche while preserving my life choices - retired, now, MS provides for several 4 wk foreign trips each year

Marketing and business skills are essential in knowing what and how to shoot rather than just shooting something well. The poke and hope approach just won't cut it anymore. Gone are the days of one or two good RM sales covering the cost of a shoot and then some. Nowadays with returns so low it's all about volume, and to maintain volume you need to understand what marketers want today and also be able to anticipate what they might need tomorrow. You have to stay not just on top of trends but also ahead of them. That takes business savvy, not lighting skills.

...and saiboats do great returns!

...a few days later....

..returning...

...to the harbour...

...if you put them into water...

Thanks @Pauws99 and DavidK for your thoughts on marketing. That helps, I really had a different perpective on it and didn't think about marketing this way. Guess it's actually saying a lot about my background but let's not psychologize this

Right, find a niche, do something different. I decided to shoot what I enjoyed the most. I admit that others who depend on the income or feel that earnings are the measure of their value, will have a different viewpoint. [...]

Sounds like a good plan to me. The hard part here is to manage doing sth different AND meeting a market demand at the same time. Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income, it's definitely a factor. Like when the milk price in Europe was so low that farmers spilled their milk on their fields rather than selling it. They didn't only protest against dumping wages but also fought for their self confidence that they felt was under attack by those low prices.

Sorry for the farming interlude, just thought it might be a good example that fit the Stock World, too...? Hard to spill images and footage on fields, though.

[...] In particular for contributors its about market research and placing your product where it will generate most income. Producing fantastic images if there is no demand for them or you are trying to sell them in the wrong place is pointless.[...]

Where would you do market research? It obviously will depend on your products, but like - watching ads on social media and following the trends in your specific niche...is that marketing research already? What else are you doing? Like contacting companies about what images they need? Or even YouTuber-style "Hello, sponsor me"...??

...and saiboats do great returns!

...a few days later....

..returning...

...to the harbour...

...if you put them into water...

AKA a floating hole in the water that you pour money into.

Two happiest days for a boat owner, the day they buy it and the best is the day they sell it. 

I still think I can make some skyline shots from the water? And maybe lighthouses. HA HA, dreamer.

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 17, 2019, 03:04

Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.

" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me.  As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Expenses, since you asked, I don't sell enough on Microstock to pay for the gas or hotel room for a weekend shooting at the races. I do make more on scenery or historic sites going and coming, than I do from sports photos.

I know this is kind of avoiding the true financial side, but I'd have all this gear, cameras and lenses, even if I never uploaded one stock photo. I can rationalize that expense which is  actually ignoring that it's still a real expense? 

For someone who's in this for the money, the perspective is different. Every cost fee and expense is deducted from earnings to find real profit. I'm not doing this for recognition or an ego boost. That leaves hobby. I thinkproducing Microstock images costs me more than I get back.

Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting. 

The cost of your time is really about "opportunity cost" what activity are you forgoing to do that work. If its lying in bed, writing on discussion boards ;-). Its zero. It may be negative if its avoiding on line gaming, visiting bars etc. Or the cost of giving up a career.

The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.

The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.

I suspect that there is little demand in India for images and a very rapidly growing supply so its going to be hard to earn from "indian" focused images. Potentially its a big market and maybe someone who really understands it could do well.

yes i was reading today and he wrote that has not even reached the 500 dollar threshold...probably in october end...so it's probably not even near 350dollar in near a year uploading with 7000 files...and most of his sale are from the wall story between mexico env usa....so when those photos will not be so important the rest of his portfolio is worth like the paper i clean my a....s....after popo.

what make m laugh it's that he is not even humble to say i'm sorry my experiment is a complete failure...he say he's selling something,...ahahah....the problem this zillions of portfolio like that are that they hide good content especially new.

I'd say, yes, it's a cost The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp

for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth

TBH, I don't even see why we should be preoccupied by such mediocre examples, because they are not really a threat to people doing stock seriously.

On one side, the guy complaining about the sales is very likely to abandon pretty fast. Most of his pictures, due to his low skills in photo taking, editing and keywording, won't even be visible.

On the other side, that dear Grossinger seems to miss a lot of points about stock and algorithm. He's focused on volume, on which he's partially true. You need a lot of pictures, indeed, it is a major parameter. In the end, however, he does not understand that he's drowning his statistics and that most of his pictures will go down the rankings pretty fast, once they won't be anymore that "fresh". We can see pretty easily that he's not doing very well: when I search the query "grossinger shutterstock" on Google for last week's results, I can find only two uses of his pictures. It's just a sample, as many websites won't credit photographers nor agencies. In the same time, when I perform the same query for my Shutterstock name, I find three times more uses, while my portfolio on SS is two to three times smaller.

So, to summarize, he's pretty irritating, because he pretends to know everything on stock while being on purpose on a single platform (he posted somewhere else: "Yep, I'm taking and submitting as many images as I can and have little time for other activity. So I don't waste my time on other agencies when I can use that time right here on Shutterstock to submit more images."), offering uninteresting pictures and missing out essential points of market strategy. However, I don't see him as a threat, given he doesn't seem to question himself.

These kind of contributors, however, are much more a threat to Shutterstock, that is hosting non valuable assets on its servers, but I will gladly let these corporate vultures (SS) deal with it, given that, in the end, such examples of newbies won't do me real harm.

My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago.  I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography.   Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.

1) Don't quit your day job quite yet?
2) Don't bank on Microstock income having a long term profitable future.
3) When someone is selling a commodity, price is more important than quality. (that's sad, but true, many of us work very hard at this and we are paid insulting low prices)
4) You are correct, the decline hasn't stopped. Things will get much worse, before they go flat. I keep hoping the decline will stop soon. There is no better.
5) More agencies need to drop out, before we see a leveling off of the market and values.

At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.

I can read and your argument ends with, anyone who disagrees is some kind of rube, as you insult any disagreement. Oh you are so wonderful, in your own mind?  Trying to put people down, so they won't disagree? Rather insulting for someone of your highest caliber and super intelligence above all the rest of us? Can you write without unnecessary preemptive personal attacks?

Right, stock is not an art, it's stock. Making images that buyers want is the game. Niche market, stand out, different, expressive, I agree, and there are so many other ways to say the same. But yes, this is not art, except for the art of making descriptive, useful, or visual statements in images.

I don't know what your cause is, or why you must attack Grossinger, but your arrogance and attitude is totally self serving. He's doing his "thing" you do yours. You don't get to tell me or anyone else how we should run our own business or what we should be doing. If he finds out that numbers aren't the answer, let him figure that out on his own, just like others who shoot goats or ducks or junk yards and haven't discovered, they don't make any sales, because there's no demand.

It's not your job or privileged to be hounding someone you disagree with, he's doing you no harm.

By the way, you miss that many people here and there, took far more than 10 months, even in the "good old days" to make $500. I seem to recall some that are forum regulars on SS that took years. Your constant picking at Grossinger suggests there's some other motivation, because you don't use the same standards for anyone else.

What's the point of your targeted attack and picking at one specific person?

Quote from: trek on July 30, 2019, 10:37

My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago.  I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography.   Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.

1) Don't quit your day job quite yet?
2) Don't bank on Microstock income having a long term profitable future.
3) When someone is selling a commodity, price is more important than quality. (that's sad, but true, many of us work very hard at this and we are paid insulting low prices)
4) You are correct, the decline hasn't stopped. Things will get much worse, before they go flat. I keep hoping the decline will stop soon. There is no better.
5) More agencies need to drop out, before we see a leveling off of the market and values.

Quote from: jonbull on July 29, 2019, 16:49

At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.

I can read and your argument ends with, anyone who disagrees is some kind of rube, as you insult any disagreement. Oh you are so wonderful, in your own mind?  Trying to put people down, so they won't disagree? Rather insulting for someone of your highest caliber and super intelligence above all the rest of us? Can you write without unnecessary preemptive personal attacks?

Right, stock is not an art, it's stock. Making images that buyers want is the game. Niche market, stand out, different, expressive, I agree, and there are so many other ways to say the same. But yes, this is not art, except for the art of making descriptive, useful, or visual statements in images.

I don't know what your cause is, or why you must attack Grossinger, but your arrogance and attitude is totally self serving. He's doing his "thing" you do yours. You don't get to tell me or anyone else how we should run our own business or what we should be doing. If he finds out that numbers aren't the answer, let him figure that out on his own, just like others who shoot goats or ducks or junk yards and haven't discovered, they don't make any sales, because there's no demand.

It's not your job or privileged to be hounding someone you disagree with, he's doing you no harm.

By the way, you miss that many people here and there, took far more than 10 months, even in the "good old days" to make $500. I seem to recall some that are forum regulars on SS that took years. Your constant picking at Grossinger suggests there's some other motivation, because you don't use the same standards for anyone else.

What's the point of your targeted attack and picking at one specific person?

Funny. The irony here is that is a quote from wonderboy himself, not jonbull. So if you ask me you've already answered your own question. Grossinger deserves it.

Hopefully your little hiccup will open your eyes to what Joe is really about.