Jeremy's article is excellent, although it misses some key points.  For instance the argument that microstock itself is unsustainable was never made by Thompson.  The real argument was that the rise in commission percentages was an unsustainable model.  Someone should point that out to him, though I doubt he wants to acknowledge it.  It is a much better story for traditional photographers if the angle is that microstock itself is unsustainable.

That said the last few years, and this last month in particular, has convinced me that microstock is not worthy of my support.  Contributor rights don't exist in any meaningful form, the growth of images in microstock out-paces the ability for me to produce my own images and sustain growth, and prices remain ridiculously low across the board.  Fwiw I never felt the argument from the traditionals was wrong - that we were undercutting the industry and would all suffer for it.  But microstock was my only realistic path to stock photography at the time, and it produced a nice income for me.  I guess I hoped the industry would mature as my ability improved.

I think the time has come for many of us to simply move on.  I'm sure 99.9% won't move on, and will continue to feed an industry which abuses us with increasing frequency.  But after I reload my images from IS to the other agencies when my exclusivity expires, I will be producing for other markets.

It's not apples to oranges. It never was. Just look at the istock HotShots newsletter. Nearly every time I look at that thing, I think "The istock images are better than the Getty images!"

That said, I do disagree that microstock is undercutting anything. It's simply fulfilling a need based on market demand, and given the proliferation of more affordable pro-sumer digital photography equipment, software, computers, etc., the value of a stock image isn't what it used to be. Not because of microstock. Just because the market has changed and expanded in many different ways.

But microstock and traditional RF stock are not operating on two different platforms. They are most certainly competing head-to-head and microstock is certainly benefiting from customers reassessing the value of stock images and what they are willing to pay for them, and moving their business accordingly.

Helix, though I generally am in strong agreement with you, I don't believe the existence of microstock is in any way a statement of what free markets will pay for imagery.  Actually that argument has long been a pet peeve of mine.  Perhaps the ultimate version of the free market is the stock market - a highly liquid and ever-changing opinion on the worth of individual companies and the indexes of those companies.

Microstock on the other hand is simply a take-it-or-leave-it price point, which often is the same or similar for wildly different products.  It doesn't matter if you are Joe Snapshot uploading pictures from his vacation taken on a point-and-shoot, or someone using the best digital camera known to man, multiple models, high quality lighting expertly applied, and an excellent concept.  The price to any buyer is still a few dollars.  There is no market saying, "Hey that picture from Yuri is darn good.  It's worth $200, not $2."  There is no market saying, "That $2 snap shot is probably worth 50 cents, or $2.50, or whatever."  You don't like the price the microstock agency is asking?  Then you go to the next microstock agency and find that the same image is available for a similar price, if not exactly the same price.  We can fret about iStock being several dollars more expensive than some other site, but in the end it's not really a big difference.  

To say microstock is a "market statement" about what images should cost, is like saying people sharing files on the old Napster was a statement that music should be free of charge.  If you offer excellent images for a ridiculously low price point, of course buyers will jump at the offer.  It isn't a free market so much as it is a fire sale, run by agencies which have convinced a sourced crowd to learn as much as they possibly can about photography and produce images for very small royalties.  

In my opinion microstock pricing made a lot of sense when they were accepting vacation snapshots and selling them for $1 or less.  The skill level required to produce the image was in line with the royalty.  While royalties have grown substantially since the early days, they are still microstock royalties after all.  Yet the skill level required to get images accepted, let alone have them meet success, is well beyond the original intention.  We've taught an entire generation of buyers that images of pristine quality can be bought for a few dollars.  This is why I feel we have undercut our ability to sell images in the future.  We are stuck in the vicious circle of always needing equipment upgrades, and talent upgrades, just to tread water while competing for one dollar bills.  It's not for me anymore.

Quote from: pet_chia on October 13, 2010, 12:27

It's tough to make an honest buck when the monetary foundation of the entire economy is dishonest.

I've been saying that a while now! It's nice to see someone else sees this too.

Neither is that the point of RM nor has it been gotten rid of.