MicrostockGroup

Ok, I'll let you off  I know what you mean though.

It depends on your definition of "high."  After all, you've gotta sell a lotta pictures at 33 cents each in order to make any money.  For example, so far this month I've had 28 sales resulting in a whopping $11.39*.  That's just plain wrong!     Ya know how many sales it takes to get that amount of money at AllYouCanStock.com?  THREE!

Don't get me wrong - I'm honored to be a SS contributor, and I appreciate the steady volume, which I don't get (yet) at AYCS.  But I'm definitely not a fan of subscription sales.  I think it devalues our work.  But the truth is that it's just the simple law of supply and demand at work here.  If I were to delete my SS portfolio, it would have the same lasting effect as withdrawing my finger from a glass of water.   

(*In case you're doing the math, there was one on-demand sale for $2.48.)

Because SS sells images like crazy.  It's been my top earner for over six years now.  IS never came remotely close to bringing in the number of downloads or the money.

Out of respect for contributors, they really need to up prices.

why ? they do not want to go on IS path.... Like in any other thriving business ...small price but huge volumes....

SS has become by far my best earner despite the fact i have half of images compared with other agencies.

Why do people keep bleating on about "SS sells at just 25/33c"? My average sale at SS this month is over 70c and that figure has been steadily rising for the last 3 years.

Without the context of volume such statements are utterly meaningless. Nowadays I sell roughly 4x more images at SS than I do on Istock. Yes, I get paid about 2x more per sale at Istock but do they produce the volume? No __ nowhere near. That's why my portfolio makes more than twice as much money on SS.

In June 2010 I had a sale at Istock that netted me just 5c. Yes honestly, see here;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/5c-royalty-at-istock/

But do people go on about "Istock sells at just 5c"? No. Why not?

They do: when low sales happen, they often get mentioned both over on the iStock forums and here.
If these are genuinely old credits, fair enough - but there can hardly be that many of these flying around.
What I believe is wrong is that new credits are being sold at well below the published rate for big buyers, but this isn't visible to us plebs, who sign up on the basis of the prices which are visible. (Same on Alamy, of course - pics are being sold at way below the rack rate for big buyers.)

What people do go on about is the %age earned by contributors. Yes, it's insulting at 15% for many indies at iStock; and probably Yuri is about the indie earning 20%. Plus many/most of us aren't getting the %age we were promised ("grandfathered in") before the bombshell.

But how do you know what percentage your flat rate of 25c - 38c is of a subscription payment? And it seems from the earnings schedule that the maximum you can ever get at SS is 30%.

So what you're (not 'you', Gostwyck, in particular) really saying is that SS is good because it sells your very high quality (nowadays) images at very low prices so you get more sales? Some keen iStockers say the same about TS.  

I know that not all who submit to SS get good volumes of sales, like anywhere else. However, I accept that people will say as they find, and that's fine. Except that for the past few months those who aren't doing so well there, with only one or two exceptions, seem a bit intimidated to admit that on here.

Don't interpret the above as an apologia for iStock or a demonisation of SS. It's neither.

Exactly. Oringer has always taken a slow and scientific approach to increases on image prices, testing customer resistance for several months before fully implementing changes. It is in sharp contrast to Istock's recklessness and greed ... and there will be only one winner.

I believe many microstockers need to 'reset' their expectations of monthly/yearly increases. Yes, it was great for the first few years when the market was finding its own level, images prices soared each year and we could double the sizes of our portfolios ... but now things are different. Microstock has become a mature market and is highly competitive both for agencies and individual contributors. Increases in income from here on in will have to be hard won by talent, investment and graft rather than being simply handed out annually by the agencies via ever-increasing prices. Better get used to it because that's how it's going to be.

Low price + high sales volume is what defined the microstock model. As iStock gradually pushed its way out of microstock into the non-existent midstock category people started looking at price per sale rather than total earnings. Price-per-sale it a trad-stock way of thinking.

One of the reasons I went with the PP was that when you get down to basics, the arguments against it are the same as the arguments against the entire microstock model and it seemed irrational to be willing to sell images at $250 per monthly subscription on SS but to be unwilling to sell them for $250 per subscription on TS.

It is worth noting that from the buyer's perspective, a purchase from the SS subscription involves spending $250, while a purchase from iS, using the smallest available credit pack is probably less than 10% of that. So from one point of view, it can be argued that iS is devaluing images more than SS is.

From the microstocker's perspective, what matters is not the return on individual sales, or even the percentage commission, it is the bottom line at the end of the month. That is what got us into this game in the first place.

I wasn't talking about a "rise."  I was talking about a "raise."  When I started there in 2005, contributors earned 20 cents per subscription sale.  Then they raised it to 25 cents, then 30 cents, and then they implemented the tiered system with a max of 38 cents.  Used to be we could expect a raise every year, but we haven't had one since the economy tanked.

All together now.... "you say 'tomayto'; I say 'tomahto'.... you say potayto; I say potahto..." 

I agree very much with your post Gostwyck.