MicrostockGroup

Very, very interesting indeed!  mind, it doesnt surprise me at all and you know its gone so far now, its so messed up that its a hopeless job, there isnt a remedy for it and impossible to patch up.
It surprises me that they couldnt see this coming, sooner or later?

I completely agree Dan.  Eliminating the DL numbers would reduce or eliminate two problems - the self perpetuating best sellers (and difficulty selling new images) and also a lot of the copying of best sellers.  It would make it easier for both buyers and producers to think for themselves!

Ahhh...but you did lose savings.  Unless your CD's outpaced the 4-6% inflation we have all been swallowing to purchase groceries, or put gas in our tanks, or heat/cool our homes, then you indeed did lose money.  But according to the government, once you subtract out food and energy inflation is quite tame.  Too bad real people can't subtract out food and energy.   

Yes there is.  This is off topic, but look into Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPs).  They guarantee a return above the core inflation rate, pay a nice little divdend, and they are almost as safe as a CD.  You can get a low cost, diversified TIPs fund from Vanguard.  Many other large mutual fund companies have them.  They aren't very tax efficient, but for someone who wants to avoid the stock market, TIPs are about as good as it gets.

Please remember, the official inflation figures from which the inflation "protection" is calculated are highly suspect.  They are discussed in detail at this website: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts.  To make a long story short, governments have a very strong motivation to under-report the rate of inflation.  The less they have to pay out to widows and orphans (as it were) and for indexed pensions and other expenditures which are supposed to keep up with the rate of inflation, the more money they have for themselves and for their cronies.  Throughout history, inflation (whose technical definition is an increase in the money supply) has been a racket used by governments to swindle workers and savers and benefit the powerful and well-connected.  It was true in the ancient world and it is true right now in Europe, America, Japan and China.

To make a feeble effort to bend this to the topic at hand, this is probably the real reason behind the slump.  Inflation has eroded really profitable businesses and individuals' personal wealth and diverted real wealth into the hands of those with power.  When there is a less fizzy economy then businesses suffer, advertising agencies suffer, and the poor schleps who provide stock materials to those agencies suffer.  More and more wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the government (virtually nationalizing housing, mortgage and banking industries, manufacturing, oil industry, etc.) and they simply don't need a diversity of visual materials to advertise their "services".  You have no choice but to accept government "services" so they have no real need for a lot of exciting and artistic images to sell what they do.  Their sales pitch is a simple "Do as we say - OR ELSE."

Sorry to be a downer!  But IMHO your best chance to survive and prosper is to first understand what you're up against so you can formulate a plan to based on facts and not on fantasies.

If the talk around here is to be believed there is certainly an across the board slowdown.  Where there seems to be some debate is the cause.  Could be summer slump, worldwide economic slowdown, market saturation/competition, or any combination of the above. 

I agree with your last assessment BT.  Markets tend to self correct.  I can see a lot of image producers becoming disillusioned soon and slowing down, or completely ceasing image production.  Personally I'm doing pretty well, but even so I have little to no desire to keep feeding images to my agency for ever diminishing returns.  I can't imagine how it feels for the noob who has an 80%+ rejection rate and just wants to reach his/her first payout sometime in the next few years.

What is this thing about anti-newbies. Not all newbies get 80+% rejection. Can not a newbie also get
20% rejection ? Or even 40% Istock rejection ?  Or is all newbie painted with broad brush in this narrowminded
mentality here?

BT, not offended. We all in same boat . I understand the emotional here. If there is a slump it is not 100% due to newbie taking a piece of pie but also other factors too obvious . Over saturation, subscription, low price, etc etcetc.
But buyers still need pictures . If slump was evident , only question is where are pictures taken ?
Flickr? Theft of derivative? Cd compilation? Torrents ?
But the mood here point only to blame rejection and higher rate of stupid reviewers.
I am not convinced stupid reviewers are what agencies enjoy to hire.
The agency know there is already over supply of pictures. As they say, there are no stupid pictures, only stupid photographers.

I too, being newbies , wish more people quit. Oldtimers especially, because so much better for me,
and you, and whoever stay. Of course, it is my self interest too. The more people think microstock stink
the better for me too. My piece of pie is bigger.  So no, not offended. Just only reading with much interest.
Thank you for pointing out. I point out too, no offense felt by me. Only happy the air is focused to reality.

We ask question Slump of Sale. We like to know what causation of slump.
Maybe too, buyers sick of same stupid pictures that stupid photographers make. Why back to Yuri on Yay?
Maybe clones are not welcome. Maybe buyers sick of copycats.  But yes, still enough copycats
submission new stuff.
So what? More copycats of old stale stuff mean better chance for you or me who try to find other stuff to shoot.
Only problem, I say before, find me on page 100, to 1001.
So stupid old stale picture still sell more. So stale old picture get me approval. Why I am so stupid to make new idea if reviewer is going to prefer stale picture and same concept?
If they want stale hamburger? Why we try not to accept the reality.
Until best seller drop from view, we make stale hamburger.

Hope my explanation understood.

It's not anti-newbies. It's usually fact.

All stock newbies have different levels of experience and for the first few months will have different acceptance rates. 

The "I have a Point & Shoot camera and never heard of Photoshop" newbies will probably be in the 0-20% range.

The "I just got my first DSLR and do some photo editing" stock newbies are probably in the 20-40% range.

The "I've had a DSLR for a couple years and know a little Photoshop" newbies are probably in the 40-70% range.

The "I'm an advanced photographer/web designer/photoshop pro who works for an advertising agency" stock newbies might be in the 70% and up range.

Obviously this varies. Is this fairly accurate for Istock based on your experience and acceptance rate?

^   Standards were quite different when Lise started.   Things are different today.

Lefty, everyone is your competitor in this game. It doesn't matter a * what they think of you or me or newbies or old-times. What we try to do on this forum is try to understand what is happening in our marketplace.

If you want to kick the old-timers, go and take sales off them by outclassing them. Newbie or not, that will get you their respect (but not their love).