Its amazing but I used to submit to around 17 agencies and now I am down to 5.  I just wonder where microstock is going?

It more or less seems to be the top tier with perhaps 2 of the middle tier that are doing fine. Not brilliant but where does one go from here?

Selling through ones own website is difficult as you need to market heavily and that takes an aweful lot of time and serious application with marketing.

Any ideas???

Thank you for all your replies which I am finding tends to agree with what I was thinking.
Uploading to 10 is a tedious process with very little or no returns.
I keep looking at the Microstock Poll Results on the right side of the screen and with the exception of two of the middle tier, Dreamstime & DepositPhotos, which I would place in my Top Tier, removing Pond5 and iStock, it definitely looks that I should reduce the 10 to 5 or 6.

It is quite a challenge as I do not include people in any of my submissions and tend to shoot landscape, nature, historic, and bridges.
Why I do not like photographing people is that I once asked 2 people, who I did not know, but were an integral part of an image, to sign a model release, and they demanded money or would not sign unless I 'coughed up' loot.
That put me right off from that moment on.

I do appreciate the Forum here and although I am a newbie on the forum, but an longtime photographer, I find it helpful to keep up with what is happening in the Microstock world and fellow photographers.

I am beginning to question the sense of contributing to 10 agencies. Half of them seem to be a bit stagnant when it comes to sales.

Do most stock photographers submit to this amount of agencies or is 5 perhaps a better idea?

Thank you for the great information and I searched through Ebay etc. to see some of the examples you all mention.
Yes I would like to slowdown a bit instead of clicking away and sorting later. Too easy with digital to do that!
The one problem is getting 120 film processed and it seems that the nearest Lab is 30 miles away but they are slightly too expensive. 35mm film is easier to get processed and scanned. 
I am new on FAA and have not yet taken the Premium membership yet.  I do not know what to think about them as I keep seeing both good feedback and some terrible feedback.
Yes my DSLR is doing the job very nicely for Microstock but there is that other aspect as I mentioned earlier. Tempted to also use a bit of film and was also looking at a Voigtlander Vitoret, the various comments on the internet seems to state that the lenses are excellent. Hmmm, ??

Hello BaldricksTrousers,

I think you are right that using either large or medium format may be an answer.  Many years ago I had and used regularly a Hasselblad & 120 film which I always gave to a Professional Lab to process. The results were always good quality. That was around 1997 - 2001, then I purchased the Nikon D1.
To be honest I miss the old style of photography. It made you think more and take care of exposure etc.
So do you think for Art photography Digital or film, i.e. 120 Film or just stick to the DSLR?
Finding a decent Process Lab is probably going to be a problem. I just could not return to home processing!
I think in some ways looking at film photography is a bit of nostalgia. But it was GREAT!

Thank you for a quick response.
I think you are probably right about the scanning of negatives, and using a smartphone does not appeal.
I always look at the work produced by Brassai and keep remembering the quality of B & W prints.
But perhaps not for microstock agencies these days!!
Just every now and then I think about the enjoyment of using a rangefinder and what it can produce.

Having said that, digital is quicker and perhaps more viable, but it also means I tend to take more takes than needed. With film you tend to slow-down and compose with care, - if that makes sense.