MicrostockGroup

I have this theory and am curious what others think. Has microstock been around long enough now that most designers private collection of images has gotten large enough that they don't need to sign up for subscriptions or do individual downloads very often?

I don't think it would look too cool for a graphic designer to design a pamphlet, magazine, or website for a client using all the same images that the previous client(s) received.

Depends on the image  But I agree.

What I find interesting is the flood of "Collection Sets" of good quality stuff on CD or DVD available on eBay and Amazon.  My boss bought one on Amazon for $50 that had 250 great landscapes at 11"x17" 300 dpi resolution.  The publisher is from Malaysia.

I think a lot of people came flocking to microstock thinking it was a gold mine, discovered it was actual work (not money for nothing), so they're dumping their stuff for pennies.

I saw something similar happen with web scripts about 4 years ago where the market got flooded by cheap packages from India and Malaysia which killed the market.

I do some freelance programming jobs on the side through a couple of internet sites and I'm seeing tons of requests in the graphics section of the sites for custom photos and footage that is selling extremely cheap.  And people are selling it, including all resale rights for next to nothing.  Pretty disheartening.

While I don't doubt that designers stockpile their downloaded images you will find that Stockpiling images for extended periods of time is typically prohibited in the EULA of the various subscription based agencies.

Quite impossible to enforce, I would say.

Regards,
Adelaide

@chumley.  i am sorry to say this but i completely disagree with this statement you make.

" We just have to accept that that is the state of the market at this time, not really anything you can do to change it."

this is a race to the bottom.  i hope you will step out of the race and try to change this predicament.

I should have maybe explained some more.

i think the quality of microstock is good at most levels, its just the direction of pricing which scares me and why I referred to a "race to the bottom."  This is where you keep devaluing your content and agencies will compete with one another by offering the cheapest deal to attract buyers.  This is a death spiral and one that can be changed.  This is really bad for mass of photographers who supply the agencies with their material.   I also understand the supply argument which others may use against this.

You said, "I cannot control this market it is worth multi millions of dollars and this cannot be stopped by photographers. When RF came on the scene the RM shooters said the same thing. Don't add to the problem you will destroy the market. Well the market exploded and more money was made by stock than ever before."

I think that photographers can definitely change the direction that microstock is taking i.e. 30c EL and 20/25c per download.  This might be a hokey comparision but it is like someone who contributes to a political campaign either their time, money or vote.  If you think you can't change things, then nothing will change.  If you believe you can mobilize people and make change, you will and people will have to take notice.  Someone in another post wrote, I believe that we are all pebbles but together we are a mountain.  I couldn't agree more. MOBILIZE AND MAKE CHANGE.  As a photographer, you have ALL the power you need.  You decide what you want to shoot, where you want to upload, who you want to work with and how much you want to get paid for your work.  You should be in control.  I think that is CRAZY to accept the really low payouts but I could be wrong.  Maybe the excitement of seeing a couple of downloads of your images on a site that pays you 25c is worth more than the actual work it went into producing.  Even if you are selling 500 bucks worth a month you are still devaluing your hard work and making it tougher on others and thus leading to a race to the bottom for everyone. 

I think micro has been good for the industry.  i think it is the licensing agencies who keep undercutting themselves to attract buyers at your expense are not good for it.  Not to bring it back to Cutcaster, but that is why we are trying to place the control back in the sellers hands at Cutcaster. 

I think you can fix it by mobilizing and realizing that you and your friends have a ton of power to make changes.  You make the decisions at the end of the day and can define the change.  Buyers will go to where there are relevant, fresh and authentic photos. These guys have large budgets.  They are getting a free lunch at some of these other places at your expense and time. 

I know I am just one opinion and still learning.  Iam not right and you are not wrong but I think we can both agree that there is a ton of change to come. I hope I can help change it for the better with you and others. Lets figure out a way to mobilize people together.

Yeah, they were called Getty.


I make 40% at iStock, btw...

You didn't mention how the next "someone with deep pockets" in going to help us all raise prices and keep market share while fending off the subscription sites and not having their wallet as first priority.  That's what I was interested in.