This is probably a concern for many of us. I've heard some comments on this forum address a concern for the future of microstock, as a result for instance of reviewers getting stricter. I think it is a legitimate concern, even for myself.

What do you believe is in store for the future of microstock? Sincerely positive? negative? In terms of income as well? Tell what you think.

There is definately no bright future for microstock if you look at the Alexastats (www.alexa.com) you can see that in 2006 all major sites had reached a point without significant grow of traffic anymore if you look at 2004 and 2005 the sites had an extremly grow in traffic. No grow of traffic would be no problem if the amount of contributors remain the same but more and more contributors join the ship especially from east europe where the living costs are very low compared to the western world.
Yes price increases would help in first instance but as istock is loosing more and more its leader role which comany will start the price increase and has the might to do so?
Also with every price increase the micros getting more and more uninteresting the point why they are so successful is still the price not the new pictureideas. Most pictures on microstock repeating themself new ideas are very rare as a contributor and a buyer i can assure the only reason i buy microstock is the price all these pictures are done years before if i need new ideas a really modern up-to-date picture language i go elsewhere.
Nevertheless i think you can still make significant money at the micros for the next two years the pricegap between them and the top-agencies is stilll huge so there is room for one or two price increases but in five years its gone for the contributors the only winners will be the agencies in the end - thats for sure!

I myself find it hard to maintain faith in this photography. Many people claim to make at least a few hundred dollars a month in microstock. I bet they had worked a lot for that. A few hundred dollars a month in western countries and especially the urban areas of the U.S. doesn't go very far. Gasoline itself is more than $100 a month per car. In the L.A. area where I live, if you want to live in a decent area, you either have to move far in the suburbs or pay at least $1400 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment. Expenses add up quickly.

Even moreso, I don't like to hear it when other photographers that I know make more money without even putting much effort, like one photographer who gets a few photos on airliners.net for fun, one of his photos there was bought a few times, where he netted several hundred dollars (airliners.net features many photos from professional photographers as well.) Even worse, I must admit I take business administration in my university. Technically, everyone else is starting some kind of business or doing stuff which is netting them hundreds to thousands of dollars for much less work.

Not only that, but in L.A., it seems that almost every photographer owns a camera that is far more expensive than mine, and I own a Nikon D70! If I go to special events, I see TONS of photographers with expensive cameras (Canon IDS Mark II, Canon 5D, etc...) and fat telephoto lenses with big flash units. Many are professional photographers, but even the amateur ones have more expensive equipment. It pisses me off that even many times in these special events, I take photos that are better than theirs, but they are the ones getting hundreds of dollars but I'm just getting jack.

Anyway, I'd like to be optimistic about the future of microstock, but we live in a dynamic time period where outsourcing is an increasing problem, and third world countries are increasingly being competitive with western countries. Its highly likely that people in nonwestern and countries with lower costs of living would be able to supply a lot of the photographs to microstock websites without problem, even if they get diddly squat in terms of western world standards.

I see another threat on the horizon as well. The professional photographer who's pissed off with the lowering return on their traditional stock portfolio, and then finds out about people succeeding in microstock websites through photography magazine articles, and then decides to move their portfolio (which can have upwards of 10,000 photos) to the microstock websites. This is already starting to happen. Your going to get stock photographers with tons of experience and higher quality photos putting their photos on microstock websites, and thus upping the competition for photos. Then its going to happen just like traditional stock nowadays. Competition would be so fierce that sales will be lower per photo, and the photos would have to be in an increasingly higher quality in order to sell frequently. In that way, it will threaten the very notion of dependable residual income.

Sorry for being bitter guys. Microstock is a negative industry where it feels like the microstock agency is the lord and everyone else are peasants. There are certainly people there that are making lots of money on microstock, and probably will continue doing so, but they started earlier. I'd suggest finding a way to not only take more good photos that people will sell, faster, but to also get them up selling as fast. Stock photography is a numbers game and making good money in it depends on both quantity and quality.

Well, even if you sound negative, I think you are very right Dave. DSLR's keep getting cheaper and cheaper, which is good and bad. Good for people like me that were forced to stay with film until just recently (got the D50, couldnt afford the D70). In many cases, like you have seen yourself, the people with more expensive toys arent always the better photographers. That aspect is probably going to get worse (or better, depending on your side of the fence) when companies start to phase out film all together. There will probably be some decent DSLR's in the 300-400 range in the near future.

One question I would like to ask (pose to everyone), what are the other avenues of income for freelance photographers? Microstock will be becoming harder and harder to make a living at, so where do you go? Will gaps form in the industry?

The first idea that I had with photography was to try and make money by selling to nature mags, publishing companies and things like that. Naive, but yeah, I didnt know much at that point. Microstock has been the medium that has taught me about how the photography world works. That being said, I would like to branch out into something different- something that has a better potential for earnings.

I give myself about 2 years before it wont be worth it. A shame as it would be nice to receive a few hundrew every month for the rest of my life.

I agree Dave - the pros will come in soon. We killed marco stock for them so they will kill micro stock for us.

__________________
shutterstock, fotolia , dreamtime , FP
My Blog
Web page

For me microstock is and was means to an end. When I started all I wanted was the following:

1. Money from photography to pay for better equipement.

However after dabbling for about 7 months (working about 1-2 hours a day at it) I feel I have reaped some big time benefits, most of which I never really thought I would garner when I started:

1. My photography skills (composition, using my camera, eye, when/why better or types equipement is useful etc.) have dramatically improved. I look at my first batches and I wonder what I was thinking.

2. Photoshop skills.

3. An understanding of how people actually make money with photography outside of microstock. (agencies, submissions to publications etc.) I would like to attempt to enter into this market, but I'm probably a year or two away.

4. The importance of organization (10 sites) when it comes to stock photography.

So for me it has been win-win. (I do have another job)


As for the future....

I agree with the ominous sentiment that the number of producers will continue to go up and thus the pie will continue to get split into smaller and smaller pieces. (agencies are the only ones making money) However on a more positive note, I also think that eventually the process of getting into microstocks and getting photos approved ( I've seen this happen in 7 months) will gradually get more and more difficult. Quality standards and prices will gradually slide up. SS and BSP standards have gone through the roof since I started.

I think if the quality standards get more strict more people will give up sooner. Thus stemming the tide of the increasing number of people with semi-pro equipment.

The real interesting point for me is when the microstocks meet up with the macro agencies and what the environment looks like. There are far too many variables and I sure as heck can't see where it's all going. Who know's maybe there's another revolution around the corner.

I have no idea how many of you are pros and or do photography for a living, but I would say the key with micro is not to be totally dependent on it. If you're a pro, you're most likely well aware of this.

If you're someone like me, doing it on the side. Enjoy the ride and keep in mind you gain more then money from the process.

__________________
Shutterstock-Fotolia-Dreamstime

I think in order to see where microstock is going, you have to look at both macro and micro - they are two different markets worlds apart.

Microstock is accessible to anyone. Generally, the size requirements are low - 3.2mp 5mp? Quality is subjective based on each agency's requirement. This is the Ford and Chevrolet of the stock world.

You move up to Macro Stock and the requirements are very strict and narrow. This market is not accessible to everyone. Check out Ghetty's list of requirements. You are limited to certain types of camera equipment and all of your files must meet certain size limits and be submitted in TIFF format on CD. Some agencies even require a number of submissions per quarter. These are the elitists - they are the Porsche and Ferrari of the stock world.

Each stock agency type is targeting their own audience and their own buyers. You can't expect to market a Porsche to a guy that can only afford a Chevy. Eventually, you'll lose money trying. This is why Ghetty and iStock can survive together.

You also have to look at the market. Places like DT or IS or BS have a lot of glamour photography that sell really well. Alamy does not accept submissions of photography where glamour is the theme. This rules out the Bobby Deals, the Jamie Duplass' and the Lise Gagne's.

At a traditional RM agency (as opposed to RF Micro Stock), the picture is commissioned to a user for a period of time. That period of time could be a year, 5 years, 10 years, etc. Once that photo is commissioned, it likely is not going to sell again in the future. The "sell the rights" options that a lot of the microstock agencies are starting with are going to compete with the RM concept and have the potential to completely wipe out the RM market. Sure, this will cause a lot of pros to try to move their portfolios over, but in the short time I've been doing this, I've seen more pros complain that their stuff isn't getting accepted by the microstocks because the quality requirements are harder.

They are two different markets selling to two different types of buyers. Sure the requirements will get more strict on microstock sites but it is for the better of EVERYONE involved. The old rule of thumb of the traditional rights managed agency was to expect revenue $1 for every photo in your portfolio held by the agency per year. That means 1,000 photos listed = $1,000. In microstock, I've made at least $3 for every photo in my portfolio for every year. Yeah, the agency is making money and making money off me - but I'm happy as a clam to be able to share in the commission levels of up to 60% whereas some traditional agencies only pay 20%.

Microstock won't go away. License structures may change, commissions may change, prices may change, but the industry itself is here to stay.

Hear hear, ca2hill!

I view microstock as my launching pad into bigger and better things. When I started in September, it was a total fluke...I'm one of those amateurs who saw a link in someone's signature on a message board, and thought I'd give it a whirl. I had no clue what I was doing. The first 10 I submitted to SS were the ONLY 10 photos I had that were large enough, too. Then I promptly forgot I even signed up. LOL A couple months later I remembered, and went back to discover that I'd actually made a few dollars off those images.

The knowledge I have gained since then is far more valuable than the extra few hundred dollars I'm currently bringing home every month. My skills as a photographer and with Photoshop have improved 10 fold, and the way I view the world around me has changed. It's all good. As the quality of the images available on the microstock sites improve, too, so does my desire to improve my own work. Sure, the competition impacts my sales, but as the quality of my images improve, my sales impact the sales of lesser photographers who can't keep up.

In order to be successful with microstock if you're starting out as an amateur, you have to stand out above the rest somehow. For me it was finding a few niches, and specializing in them. That's worked really well as I've worked on improving my overall skills, so I can later succeed in the more competitive areas. Corner the market where you can...just have to find that area.

I have to laugh. After writing the above, I went out to check my numbers for the morning, and discovered that one of the absolute worst images in my gallery just sold again. If a piece of crap like this can continue to sell, there is hope for all.