MicrostockGroup

To read forums on many of the sites, the industry appears to be at a turning point - over-saturated libraries, low image views, poor communication, search (keyword) issues, redundancy, inspection overload, low return on investment... these are just some of the symptoms. Change is on the horizon. Some sites appear healthier than others, but it all depends on who you ask. There are a lot of smart people here - If you could be the microstock GOD for a day - what would you do for the industry to revitalize it, to give it a permanent fix?

Here's a radical one: Forced exclusivity across the board! - Contributors have to pick a favorite and put all of their eggs in that basket. Think about what that would do - Sites would become known for their images, their unique contributors and the culture that grows there. The cream will rise to the top, along with the compensation... ?

What would you do?

How about only allowing 10 images per contributor per week on each site? Contributors would be forced to submit only the cream of their images, and the standards would go through the roof. Approval time would be minimal, and the sites would not need as many approvers, giving more cash to spend on advertising. The top contributors would really be the best artists, not the most productive.

Oh, and all my images come first in every search.

Maybe it would sound to harsh to some of us, but I would delete all images that didn't sell in last two years. and I would make something like TinEye to search every microstock site. This way, all duplicated images in one agency would be detected and deleted, and most image thieves would be detected and destroyed before they make big damage.

Outlaw subscription sites.

Set the minimum commission on any site to 50% - for non-exclusive files.

Change all subs plans to include size into the pricing, increase the price point (at all sites) to a minimum payout of 1$ for subs for the smallest size, a minimum price of 5$ for the smallest size for PPD.

True what you say about who is kicking up a fuss on the forums - but you guys must be feeling it in your bottom line too, and worry about where it is going.

Level all these get-rich-quick sites that have forced stock to 25 cents by offering 5 million unsearchable photos. Let someone new come in and do a better job.  Maybe someone who will make a serious investment in properly keywording and categorizing their image stock.

The current microstock business model is just a web site hooked to a big database. Submitters provide the content and the keywording.  Subscribers pay a monthly fee to build up their own archives; once they have enough they quit buying.   Your only investment is in "screeners" that give you enough quality to sell full-size (even upsized) images.  The business runs itself - for a couple of years, then it hits a wall.

I wonder if anyone running a microstock will ever read any of this.j They're all busy trying to make deals to sell their businesses before the profits go over a cliff.

Abolish categories - absolutely - it's a huge waste of time.   Submitters should not have to do anything but FTP, and please don't make me check an "I accept the license terms" for every image.  Just accept my IPTC data, including my "suggested" keywords.

These are great suggestions!  I agree with both. 

I would also tighten up standards across the board so that the sites aren't choked with crappy to mediocre images that will not likely ever get sales.

I would have every site include titles and descriptions in the search relevance like Dreamstime does.   

And I would have each site weight keywords like Fotolia does. 

I would make fotolia rework their esoteric categories.  Or at least put a miscellaneous option in the conceptual category list.

Weighted keywords are a good idea, and I like the idea of cleaning all the crap images off the sites except that would mean all mine would be deleted 

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that the current microstock sites really can't change or evolve very much, because they have too many old images to clean up.   Or maybe I should say that they can't do that cleanup without spending a lot of money.

I think a second generation of stock sellers will come along and will invest in their own keywording/categorizing/indexing. They'll do it themselves, it will make sense, be consistent, and they'll be able to charge more for the images.

I would remove all submitter-specific information from all images when they are submitted and replace that information with a simple identification number. Then all images would be reviewed, searched on, and sold according to one thing only: Their value to buyers.

The merit of each image, image by image. Why on earth should anything else matter?

I would allow the XS or S to still sell cheap - but all other larger sizes cost more. I often buy small and try them in my designs, present to clients and then once it is nailed down, then I go buy the selected image again at the large size. I hate designing with the watermark in place, so I spend the extra few bucks.

revamp pricing
50% commissions (sites can afford it if images cost more)
No subs
Limited keywords
strict and professional reviews

And as michaeldb said - let the image stand alone - a great image should be allowed to sell regardless of who shot it. It should show up in the search. But the buyer should be able to visit the shooters portfolio and bookmark it for future purchases.