I just got called a “parasite of the stock industry” and I was told to “wake up”. Well, isn’t that special?

It’s still hard for me to believe how many bitter feelings are still being held about microstock by those who have been in the stock business for decades. I’m not sure the Rights Managed photobanks will ever forgive it. Microstock strikes a very painful nerve with most rights managed photographers. I can understand where they’re coming from, but it’s been a good 6 years that microstock has been in the limelight. I don’t think rights managed will ever go away totally, but its definitely on the decline. But don’t blame microstock – blame technology and it’s advancement. You can get an 8mp DSLR used for $200 right now in the US. That’s less than the cost of an ipod or iphone, and we all know how many of those are in people’s pockets.

A lot of credit has to be given to those traditional stock shooters that have either embraced microstock, or at least given it some respect and consideration.  Guys like Jack Hollingsworth and John Lund.  Not everyone is a hater, thankfully.  Check out their amazing blogs.

Heck, if I could license all of my work at prices ranging from $100-10,000+ per license, I most definitely would.  Unfortunately, I had my start in microstock, and I’ve been playing the “bulk sales” game ever since.  If you’re a rights managed stock photographer and are still maintaining your sales, that’s incredible – keep up the good work.  All the best to you.  I’m not knocking that side of the business at all.

All I’m saying… is that the creative fields change yearly, if not monthly.  If you can’t roll with the punches, and the changes of the market (the same as in any other field) then you’re going to be left behind.  Just because some of us choose to sell micro, doesn’t mean we’re giving stuff away for free.  The prices of microstock are, in many case on the increase.  The price wars will continue to go on between the newer and upcoming agencies.  But you can trust me on this: you will never see my giving my work away for free.  It’s one thing to give stuff away.  We all do it, you almost have to nowadays just to get hits to your website.  Free advice, free tutorials, etc.  It helps one another out, and one hand washes the other as in all things.

Different strokes for different folks, is all I’m saying.  I’m done ranting, time for me to get back to work.  Happy shooting!

I hear this a lot from those looking into microstock to earn a full time living.  Questions like this come up frequently on microstock forums, twitter and facebook.  How many images will I need?  What can I make hourly?  Is building up a sizable microstock portfolio even worth the effort? Read the rest of this entry »

I just feel like ranting this fine morning.

Has microstock devalued the industry? Sure it has. What once was a $500 photo sale has now turned into a $5 or even 50 cent photo sale.  But in general, the internet as well as digital photography have devalued the industry.  There are even websites being set up where people are posting links to our images, to download for free. One idiot buys them, and then shares them with the rest of the dishonest people that actually take part in the plundering and looting.  There’s really no stopping it, either.  There are contributors that can live comfortably off of a microstock income in many countries around the world.  Do you think these ones give a crap about devaluing the stock industry? Definitely not; they’re probably making a better living than they ever could before.

Traditional and old school photographers can sit around and whine about how much it sucks, or they can adapt to market trends.  Or, stay out of stock altogether.  Sure there’s still a market for macro stock, mid-stock, and rights managed. I personally dabble in a little of each.  Yes it’s nice when I make a photo sale for $400, but honestly if I relied just on those types of sales I wouldn’t be making enough to pay the bills.  Those sales for myself are few and far in between, compared to microstock sales, which are steady and in general, pretty reliable. Overall, the numbers for the rights managed and macro stocks are on the decline.  Getty was smart to acquire istockphoto (and they even recently bought stockxpert from Jupiter) so obviously they are trying to gain back their market share whatever ways possible.

Stock is only just one tiny corner of this incredible industry.  I started as a graphic designer, and even in that field it’s the same way.  You can focus on all sorts of corners of the creative industry…just pick one you enjoy doing the most, and obviously one you can pay the bills with.  If you can juggle a variety of things without trying to heat 6 pans on 4 burners, then go for it.  There are a lot of ways to make money in this business.  We can’t change how the market is, but we can fortunately pick and choose which areas we want to try and compete in.

It never ceases to amaze me…lately whenever I’m traveling every soccer mom, teenager, and senior citizen is rocking a DSLR of some sort.  If not a DSLR, then a state of the art point and shoot.  The technology is here, and it’s getting cheaper.  It’s so available, there is going to be a lot of competition in the future.  Thankfully for us there is a heck of a lot more to know in this business than just buying a camera and pressing the shutter.  BUT then comes the internet and google…where you can learn anything you want in a matter of minutes.  Maybe we’re all screwed

How long do you personally feel this microstock wave will last? A lot changes have happened in this business.  Agencies have come and gone, and there have been some buyouts and mergers.  I’ve been selling microstock for just 4 years now (EDIT 02-13-12: 7 year now) and there have been changes galore.  The question is…how long will this microstock wave last? Will it continue the way it is for years to come, or will it eventually get to the point where it’s not even worth the time?  What do you guys think?  If anyone is reading this – I’d love to hear your predictions.

There was recently a discussion regarding different pricing of the same images on through different websites at Microstock Diaries.

Many of the industry’s best have posted their viewpoints.  Here is how I personally feel…

It’s a proven fact that when products or services are priced higher, some buyers think they are getting something “better” or of “higher quality”. Many times this isn’t even the case. A generic product could even be identical, only in different packaging. Is Tylenol going out of business, just because CVS sells the same thing in a generic form? It doesn’t seem like they are. The product could probably even be manufactured in the same plant. Many times, manufacturers only want you to think you’re getting less when you purchase the same product for a lesser price. In actuality, many are identical – even if the product is packaged or marketed in a different way. Paul Mitchell hair care products come to mind. The CEO gets on TV and in commercials he testifies that it isn’t genuine Paul Mitchell, if you find the product being sold in a grocery store. In fact, it is – and I know many professional hairdressers that will attest to that. Want to know the difference? About $10-20 per bottle, depending on what salon is selling it.

If a buyer wants to be choosy and shop around, they will. If they are willing to spend extra money on photos from agencies that offer better guarantees, or a different user experience, then let them. I don’t see anything unethical about that. Product pricing is the same in all markets, it’s just all about the brand label many times that determines the pricing. Even if it’s the same exact product. Designer clothes are sold at outrageous prices, and sometimes the quality is even lower than that of the cheaper department stores’ clothing lines.