Everyones speciality will be a knowledge of something others don’t know. And the second thing will be your local ability to shoot things that are close to you, cities close to you and all those things that needs a bit more activity. Not just skills in shooting…

Thanks for the honest self appraisal in this post. I, and I’m sure many others, can see my own microstock experiences in what you’re saying. I agree a more thoughtful and quality oriented approach is the way to go now. That is no bad thing as I think most photographers will find this more interesting and rewarding, creatively and financially, in the long run.

cheers
Alex

Great food for thought. I hadn’t thought about the “metrics” angle. That seems like an additional reason to go for quality or quantity as well.

Thanks,

John

Yes, there is a lot of copying of the top-selling photos. The challenge is that when copying a top selling photo you need to make your copy substantially better than the original to have any chance of success. The metrics of a successful photo push it higher up the search results, so buyers need to look past it to choose your copy.

And yes, we do end up with a large number of images all resembling the top sellers. It can be a thorn in the side of the innovators, but in the big picture it’s very Perfect Market (Adam Smith). Suppliers are providing what is in demand, there is tight competition to produce the highest quality product, and buyers have real-time information about what’s available at what price. As the needs of buyers change with changing styles, fashions, age of props, etc then the market will respond accordingly. Photographers have the opportunity to adjust their supply based on exactly what is selling now, rather than what somebody thinks is going to sell in the future. Indeed it’s tough if you want to play in the high-selling, high-competition areas, but each photographer has the same opportunities.

-Lee

I’ve had the exact same experiences myself, so I agree with all your points. Sometimes when I look back I can see why certain images from a shoot were successful when they weren’t the ones I thought would be the heros. But, sometimes I still can’t see why. Sometimes it’s definitely the luck of getting ahead with the algorithms, which is proven when different images from a single shoot stand out at different agencies.

However, I still think it’s a smarter strategy to do lots of research and analysis to figure out which photos will do well and submit fewer but better shots. Uploading every shot from a shoot just because ‘you never can tell’ which photo will stand out is exactly the ‘machine gun approach’ mentioned in the article.

-Lee

Excellent article. As I have no experience in Micro I am wondering if there is a problem with people creating so many similar images to the best selling ones?

Thanks!

John

Great insights on microstock. I’ve had many a conversation with fellow “stockers” regarding this matter..
Something I’d like to add is that there is the fine line of being too critical when considering which new files to post. I revisited an old shoot that I did of a generic coffee cup and decided to post one of those files that I didn’t think would have much demand – boy was I wrong! It’s currently selling on iStock at a 33.3dl/m.
Another point, I’ve had the same image refused by some sites as being “not stockworthy” while other sites accepted it in their collection. And it sold immediately on Istock as a XXXL. Just goes to show you, sometimes we’re at our own and others criticism as to what is worthy of stock.
I’ve had what I thought were “surefire winners” languish while others I “reluctantly” put online, sold way better than expected. Sometimes you just never know.

Rich