MicrostockGroup

It's impossible to know how well this particular spider-site actually works because it's in 'closed beta' and I doubt the service will ever be free.   So how will we really know if we're getting hurt?

or it could finally be sinking in with buyers that the ones with the lowest prices do not always have the best images.
we already see a slight shift in some of the top sites both getting more strict and pickier to get new ideas and doing away with the same old same old, even to the wrath of some old top sellers.
perharps there was a growing sense of complacency from the top sellers that they don't need to change with the changing demographics and the new decade.

more so, trends change, and what was cool last ten years is now old hat or passe, or blase at worst, to a growing generation that has not been weaned on shopping where the cheap stuff is.

lastly, i know i am for one saving  the better images for where the price are higher and i am not going to placate to the sites that continue to plan on giving away my work. and i am sure i am not the only one thinking like this.

The good selection part is the fault of the contributors. If the site was cheapest and had a bunch of crap then buyers are getting what they're paying for.

amen . one heart again to PW

The cheap agencies don't make enough money from sales to undertake effective marketing, usually I think because they were absurdly under-funded from the start. So many seem to think that they can start a 'stock agency' from their bedroom with a few $K's in savings or borrowed from family.

That may be changing. If stuff like Picscout catches on with buyers that's instant free advertising through the world's highest traffic search engine. But does Picscout or Spiderpic have any marketing money?

True for most of them but Crestock must of spent loads on marketing.  I often saw big adverts for them in design magazines.  It still didn't get them in to the top 6, perhaps because they were more strict with rejections and paid us less for subs, reducing the size of their collection.

They even got that good looking guy with the great smile to do all those videos for them!  Or maybe that wasn't about marketing to buyers...

When I notice that I have more sales on the cheapest small sites, but also less in total earnings, I will remove my portfolio from " the cheapest" sites...
If someone really  need my photo, he would pay little bit more, micro prices are still low everywhere...

So,  we saw what happening with small sites (LuckyOliver,etc.), they can't struggle with big marketing such as  of SS,IS,DT...

For survival should be more money for investing in  promotion, that mean:  for higher earnings should be higher prices...

Cheap agencies risk also "departures" of photographers...

Some artists look at this as if "its bound to happen" I see it as "YOU, the artist, are letting it happen"

All you have to do is leave those sites that are treating the artists like dirt and under pricing your work. The only reason why these sites are successful is because the artists are contributing to them. If you REALLY value your artwork and you REALLY want to make it alive out of this mess, YOU have to make a choice and stand up for your values.

I find it interesting that ClipartOf is listed as one of the most expensive. We give the artists control over their pricing. What does that mean? That means that the artists price their images at what THEY think they are worth. They can change their prices at any time, with the minimum being $10 and the changes take effect IMMEDIATELY. An artist can price at a $10/11/12/13/14 tier if they want.

SpiderPic is NOT going to take over the world. Eventually customers are going to catch on that there is missing and important information. Its a trick, a gimmick.

One thing that they leave out is the license terms. ClipartOf for example seems really expenses, but we dont have any tricky extended licenses with an extreme difference between the displayed image price and the extended license price, or with super fine print that is too confusing for customers. There is ONE straight up, TRUE royalty-free license, no bull. Period. So yes, customers ARE willing to pay for the no-nonsense license that IS cheaper than most extended licenses. I, in fact, today heard directly from a customer that she will never license from anyone else due to the confusion and legal issues that arose from an "extended license" that she misunderstood. I often hear "thank you for being straight up and simple!" from our customers.

These "extended licenses" are confusing the customers! They end up paying the cheapest licenses, then get in trouble for not being able to read or understand the endless fine print and using the image in the wrong manner.

In the end, the customers want a fast, friendly and honest service. Extended licenses and "fake" cheap pricing are not honest and are misleading.

Jamie Voetsch
ClipartOf.com
All about the artists!

I'd never have imagined otherwise.