Meanwhile, over at Shutterstock...

[meanderingemu]

6 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I cannot disagree when he says in his conclusion: "…I’m probably helping to devalue photography as a paying profession…".

At least, he admits being aware of it…

What strikes me is that it is all about maximizing profits, always. Never about sustainability.

Hey, cutting the rain forest to produce palm oil will maximize your earnings… Oh and hey, Collateralized Debt Obligation will maximize your earnings… Woohoo!

Also, do not forget to purchase my book about how to maximize your earnings (and mine by the way)… 😉

Sigh… 🙃

 

 

have to agree, but we had a similar debate here last week, at the general conclusion was that personal profit was better than social profit, so why is this one different?

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, DavidLyons said:

I have to agree with the last two posts of GI and Olivier. I am sick and tired of reading forums which are full of part time hobbyists telling us how insightful they are about how this industry operates.

 

There used to be successful professional photographers. And there still are successful professional photographers.  It should have become very clear to all over the last few years that very, very few successful professionals still share their knowledge on the forums of crowd-sourced amateur based agencies. The reason is not hard to find.  All professions need to protect the respect for, and value of, their experience and skills.

 

Serious photographers, who need the income to pay their bills, will sell their photos (especially those which require knowledge based access and / or personal style) with strategies which will be closely protected. It has always been like this.  It is common sense.

 

Any aspiring photo professionals take note.  Those claiming to have "the knowledge" on popularist forums and blogs most likely don't.   And any idea they have of making a "profit" from their stock sales should first deduct the time and financial subsidy which derives from their main job income.  Otherwise it is all just nonsense.  Entertaining, but still nonsense.

 

 

 

 

i think there is also another place of Short term profit vs Sustainability in the "how to"  industry (and not talking only stock photo).  People find a recipe that works and want to cash in immediately instead of getting continuous return from working recipe.  What is ironic, is now the "how to" industry is no longer a place to cash in (and i'm sure the How to "how to" is dying economically on most subject), as even those who did are now looking for new source.  

[Brian Yarvin]

In my experience, the stock photo business has no history of "sustainability" at all. It has always gone in waves and success came to those who surfed those waves properly. 

 

 

[meanderingemu]

1 minute ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

Last week? Well, I guess I missed that one.

Sorry if I don't use the right words, I do my best in English but… To me, sustainability does not necessarily mean altruism.

Having a sustainable business is something profitable on a very personal basis for example.

I refuse to participate in the microstock system not only out of respect for photographers in general of course, but also because I want, in a very personal way, to continue to practice photography as a job. How could I ask a client to pay me decently for an assignment work if my photos sold for a few cents on the internet? That would be ridiculous.

But I fully understand that most microstock contributors don't give a damn about professional photographers and have no intention whatsoever of making photography their job, so they have no reason to feel concerned, I agree with you on that.

 

 

 

your english is fine, i probably was snarky.  

 

 

i'm not even sure if the pricing is what will kill MS, as much as the fact that the maintain the low costs they a)open door to everyone and  b)stop caring about the quality of the offering, because that's a cost.    

[DavidLyons]

 

2 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

In my experience, the stock photo business has no history of "sustainability" at all. It has always gone in waves and success came to those who surfed those waves properly. 

 

 

 

Exactly right, Brian.  And the rash, incompetent and inexperienced inevitably get drowned.

 

This ain't no picnic.  This ain't no walk in the park with a camera.  This is 21st Century stock photography. 

 

Man up, folks, or take a stroll in the deep end without the inflatable armbands of the day job  -  then you can come talk to us about how to succeed in stock photography.  That is if you are still breathing. 

 

This market ain't big enough for all of us.

Edited July 2, 2020 by DavidLyons

[John Mitchell]

This argument could go on forever because both sides have valid points to make -- i.e. they are both right to some extent. I think it comes down to "different strokes for different folks" at this point. Personally, I don't like the microstock way of doing things. At my age, it makes me dizzy, so I'll be hanging out here with the dinosaurs, where at least there is the illusion that images are still worth more than ten cents. Canon Vs. Nikon, or Sony Vs. Fuji anyone? 😴

Edited July 2, 2020 by John Mitchell

[Autumn Sky]

amen to words of wisdom by John Mitchell (as usual).   But regardless of which side of fence one sits, you'd have to agree it is interesting and thoughtful take by one of best known and most successful contributors in micro industry today.  This is primary reason why I shared it.  There are others I read recently (PetaPixel, etc.) that are also quite interesting, but I don't want to spam Forum with to many outside links -- you can google if you want.

 

To me it was also interesting BackyardSIlver obviously reads Alamy Forum & was, at least partially, influenced to write this article based on discussion here.

 

btw re SS -- got up today, let's see how I did -- wow,  5 downloads overnight?  and then -- 10,10,10,12,15 cents. 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Autumn Sky

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

amen to words of wisdom by John Mitchell (as usual).   But regardless of which side of fence one sits, you'd have to agree it is interesting and thoughtful take by one of best known and most successful contributors in micro industry today.  This is primary reason why I shared it.  There are others I read recently (PetaPixel, etc.) that are also quite interesting, but I don't want to spam Forum with to many outside links -- you can google if you want.

 

To me it was also interesting BackyardSIlver obviously reads Alamy Forum & was, at least partially, influenced to write this article based on discussion here.

 

btw re SS -- got up today, let's see how I did -- wow,  5 downloads overnight?  and then -- 10,10,10,12,15 cents. 

 

 

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really more of a wiseguy than a wise guy. 😉

[John Mitchell]

23 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

amen to words of wisdom by John Mitchell (as usual).   But regardless of which side of fence one sits, you'd have to agree it is interesting and thoughtful take by one of best known and most successful contributors in micro industry today.  This is primary reason why I shared it.  There are others I read recently (PetaPixel, etc.) that are also quite interesting, but I don't want to spam Forum with to many outside links -- you can google if you want.

 

To me it was also interesting BackyardSIlver obviously reads Alamy Forum & was, at least partially, influenced to write this article based on discussion here.

 

btw re SS -- got up today, let's see how I did -- wow,  5 downloads overnight?  and then -- 10,10,10,12,15 cents. 

 

 

I remember when you could buy a cup of coffee (with free refills) for 15 cents if that's any consolation. 🍮

[giphotostock]

On 02/07/2020 at 04:42, DavidLyons said:

Those claiming to have "the knowledge" on popularist forums and blogs most likely don't.   

 

And any idea they have of making a "profit" from their stock sales should first deduct the time and financial subsidy which derives from their main job income.  Otherwise it is all just nonsense.  Entertaining, but still nonsense.

 

Well, I think most of them are actually well-meaning people. They are nice, they are freely sharing what they know.

 

That's the thing, people do not know what they do not know, by definition.

 

It is probably one of the unintended consequences of democratic internet. A voice of an expert gets drowned among that of non-experts, particularly if the former attract large followings...

 

GI

[Brasilnut]

On 04/07/2020 at 09:29, Olivier Parent said:

 

Talking about BackyardSilver specifically, he is sharing what he knows for:

website subscription = $4.99 / month

1 eBook = $9.99

2 eBooks (bundle) = $14.99

Nice, well-meaning people freely sharing what they know? 😂

 

He still gives a lot of information away for free. The rest he hopes to recover some of his costs, which is reasonable since he's not running a charity 

[geogphotos]

5 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

 

He still gives a lot of information away for free. The rest he hopes to recover some of his costs, which is reasonable since he's not running a charity 

 

 

Please let me know where to send my invoice to you for all the help over the years.😀

Edited July 29, 2020 by geogphotos

[Colblimp]

On 29/07/2020 at 12:58, Brasilnut said:

 

He still gives a lot of information away for free. The rest he hopes to recover some of his costs, which is reasonable since he's not running a charity 

I'll save everyone some money - people doing things - that's all you need to know.  A lot of information for free - don't make me laugh 🤣

[giphotostock]

On 01/07/2020 at 00:21, giphotostock said:

40 "downloads" total. Average $3.65 per sale.

There we some $0.10, but there was a large number of sales that were more than previous standard $0.33.

If anybody still cares, here's the statistics for our images over at SS over the past 6 month, after the new commission structure was introduced.

images: 50

downloads: 229

total net: $122

 

These translate to:

$0.53 net per download

$20 net per month

$4.9 net per image per year

 

The last number is >20x of what Alamy brings. However, we do have very different images at Alamy (mostly "stock-worthy images we can shoot on our walks, drives, and travels") versus produced-for-a-market images at SS. Granted, the latter require more effort per image than the former, but not 20x more effort.

 

As always, disclaimers: one-contributor results are not statistically representative, it depends on the specific images, and your mileage may vary.

 

GI

[Colblimp]

1 hour ago, giphotostock said:

If anybody still cares, here's the statistics for our images over at SS over the past 6 month, after the new commission structure was introduced.

images: 50

downloads: 229

total net: $122

 

These translate to:

$0.53 net per download

$20 net per month

$4.9 net per image per year

 

The last number is >20x of what Alamy brings. However, we do have very different images at Alamy (mostly "stock-worthy images we can shoot on our walks, drives, and travels") versus produced-for-a-market images at SS. Granted, the latter require more effort per image than the former, but not 20x more effort.

 

As always, disclaimers: one-contributor results are not statistically representative, it depends on the specific images, and your mileage may vary.

 

GI

Those figures just confirm I need to stay the hell away from SS.  Thanks. 👍

[MizBrown]

Total for January and February:  4 item(s) totalling $71.27 gross.  Net to me $35.63 unless one or more was a distributor sale.  

 

My guess is taking better care with composition of photos for Alamy would help sell more of them.  Putting in more effort, say.

 

 

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, giphotostock said:

$4.9 net per image per year

Thanks. I'm also finding revenue / image is higher on SS than Alamy, but not as good as that. The type of images that sell on SS are different though, so my comparisons aren't like for like.

 

Mark

Edited February 21, 2021 by M.Chapman

[Reimar]

Over the last running year, all three (AS, SS, and Alamy) produced about the same income ($1600) for me.  Portfolios are about the same.  A far cry from my halcyon days, but better than 1/3 the income with just Alamy.

[MizBrown]

On 17/06/2020 at 23:39, giphotostock said:

 

Thanks for sharing buyer's perspective.

 

 

So what has changed from "long time ago"? Is your (or dedicated photo researcher's) time required to find absolute cheap photos suddenly become free? Stock images (ie images shot on a speculation that they may sell one day) are maybe devalued but people's time working on a funded (commercial) project could not be much less than $15/hour?

 

Um, have you looked at the legal push/pull with internships?   Some states have ruled that if the person doesn't do work in his/her college major field of study, they must be paid minimum wage at least for doing clerical work (court case involving a California newspaper which used interns for clerical work).   It would not surprise me hugely that kids interested in breaking into photojournalism or advertising would be willing to work for a resume builder.   Get a bunch of unpaid interns in over the summer and have them screen photos for upcoming social media promotions, and photos that might work for various categories in the future.  

 

The pattern there would be like people who screen unsolicited submissions in publishing -- they say quickly what won't work and pass what might work to the more expensive help. 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by MizBrown
close paran.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Reimar said:

Over the last running year, all three (AS, SS, and Alamy) produced about the same income ($1600) for me.  Portfolios are about the same.  A far cry from my halcyon days, but better than 1/3 the income with just Alamy.

 

I've left a couple of dozen old video clips "over there" (wish I could put them here instead). I used to get an OK amount when one of them licensed. However, since the recent changes, I'm getting a pittance. After a couple of video sales, I'd usually have enough in the kitty for a payout. Now it could literally take a couple of years to reach the minimum threshold of $35.

[Reimar]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I've left a couple of dozen old video clips "over there" (wish I could put them here instead). I used to get an OK amount when one of them licensed. However, since the recent changes, I'm getting a pittance. After a couple of video sales, I'd usually have enough in the kitty for a payout. Now it could literally take a couple of years to reach the minimum threshold of $35.

Yes, it's a sad state of affairs and things are going downhill fast over there.  While SS was the best of the three over the last running year, lately my income there is about half the other sites. 

[John Mitchell]

20 hours ago, Reimar said:

Yes, it's a sad state of affairs and things are going downhill fast over there.  While SS was the best of the three over the last running year, lately my income there is about half the other sites. 

 

I think that SS has made a very big mistake, on a lot of different levels.

[Reimar]

Yes, their new commission structure really hit photographers hard.  But their tolerance of thieves with stolen portfolios really gets my goat.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Reimar said:

Yes, their new commission structure really hit photographers hard.  But their tolerance of thieves with stolen portfolios really gets my goat.

 

I wasn't aware of that. I don't check their forum often.

[Joseph Clemson]

16 hours ago, Reimar said:

Yes, their new commission structure really hit photographers hard.  But their tolerance of thieves with stolen portfolios really gets my goat.

 

They made me laugh and cry last week when they proudly announced that, since I had sold 10 video licences since January. I was now entitled to the princely rate of 20% (up from 15%). The only trouble is that nearly all my sales at SS are via a subscription clippack which nets me a grand total of 35 cents (up from 26 cents) per sale. 

 

You'll not be surprised to hear I'm in the process of deleting my SS video portfolio and growing my exclusive collection at P5 which pays 60% on a retail price you set yourself.  Sales are only occasional but at least they give me a feeling of satisfaction, rather than the feeling of being utterly exploited, indeed shafted, one gets at SS.

 

Alamy, if you are listening, I would rejoice to be able to shoot new comercial and editorial video and to be able to place it here. Even at a 50% commission rate, the occasional sale would feel like bliss compared to what has been experienced at SS.

 

The sad thing is that even with what they are doing, SS are retaining some contributors who can't afford to lose more revneue by shifting, and also gaining newcomers who know no better. I do hope the SS contagion doesn't spread further. Removing my content from them is a small, but important drop, in a large ocean towards discouraging other agencies from following suit.