There are already signs of external search engines that will find images across all microsites. I envisage that this will eventually become the default way that images are searched for - best image at best price. When that day arrives there won't be much point having our images on more than one site. But how far away is it? And which site would be the best, if you choose only one?

Racephoto - the point Averil is making is that if you post your image at two sites, then the buyers will tend to get it from the cheaper one and you shoot yourself in the foot by having it there.

Of course, if they have to pay hundreds for a subscription just to get one photo, they won't go there. And iStock seems to have proven that some buyers are not massively price sensitive.

But it might make sense to put your images on a site that pays a good royalty, if buyers will find it regardless of which site it is on. The credit package (whether subs or ppd) is still an issue of course.

Having your images at ten sites won't help much because the buyers will have an account at the big four (for example). Having them on a cheap site and the big four, yes, we'd be competing with ourselves. One central search will speed up the end of many more small sites that compete only on price.

In fact that's why I cut down to SS and IS and dropped the rest. I won't compete with myself on price, with the smaller sites. And never again on a new cheap site, or help a pay per upload upstart.

Also true, most buyers aren't price sensitive when it comes to a few cents one way or another.

What you are missing here is that you are not competing with yourself on the likes of 123 or CanStockPhoto. Where you compete with yourself is on Fotolia or DT or SS, because they are the sites that sell in quantity and offer cheap rates. Fotolia is the worst because it cheerfully hands over your most popular image at the largest possible size for a handful of pennies. I've just sold another 12 or 18 mp image there for 37c. At least DT is increasing the price for popular files and SS allows you to upload very small sizes without losing money (if you do that at F or DT you cut off the chance of large sales from the PPD model).

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Maybe my fault. I agree. 

That's why I only have my new pictures on SS, IS and Alamy. I did leave some things on BigStock and StockXpert, but nothing new there.

Read what FD wrote. Maybe he said it better and I agree with his views as well.

My main disagreement was that buyers don't only look at price. That's easy enough to see in real life buying habits and just about every reply in this thread. So when Averil asked what one site, I didn't think that it was a simple answer based on price.

Quote from: RacePhoto on September 20, 2010, 00:38

Having your images at ten sites won't help much because the buyers will have an account at the big four (for example). Having them on a cheap site and the big four, yes, we'd be competing with ourselves. One central search will speed up the end of many more small sites that compete only on price.

In fact that's why I cut down to SS and IS and dropped the rest. I won't compete with myself on price, with the smaller sites. And never again on a new cheap site, or help a pay per upload upstart.

Also true, most buyers aren't price sensitive when it comes to a few cents one way or another.

What you are missing here is that you are not competing with yourself on the likes of 123 or CanStockPhoto. Where you compete with yourself is on Fotolia or DT or SS, because they are the sites that sell in quantity and offer cheap rates. Fotolia is the worst because it cheerfully hands over your most popular image at the largest possible size for a handful of pennies. I've just sold another 12 or 18 mp image there for 37c. At least DT is increasing the price for popular files and SS allows you to upload very small sizes without losing money (if you do that at F or DT you cut off the chance of large sales from the PPD model).

I'm more interested in the idea of placing images where contributors get the best return (price/royalty percentage). Why place anywhere else if not necessary?

1 - Because the 50+ % sites don't sell in volume?
2 - Because the more sites you're on, the more gross income?
(with the caveat not to upload to too cheap sites since the external search engines will find out)
(another caveat: being on iStock is not undercutting your other sites since even if your income is lower there, your images are more expensive to buyers)

I guess the limitation is the need for buyers to have accounts/credits at more than one place.

When buyers are comfy at one site and they know the ropes and how to handle the search engine, they won't change easily, certainly not for 1 or 2$ difference. It's also a slight headache to keep several accounts, except for the very large houses. The diversity is also important: you can find faster and better what you want on a site with 10M pictures than at a site with 0.5M. Even if they are cheaper, you will waste more time (= money) to find the right image, if ever.

Commodity is probably more important to a buyer than price, within limits. Of course, if he sees the image he wants at Alamy for 100$ and just clicking the small blue Picscout bullet on it brings him straight to Dreamstime where he just has to pay 4$ for the same image, he might buy it at DT on the spot. When this happens regularly, our buyer might decide to switch to DT for most images. It's worthwhile since he can save 96$ every time. He won't do it for 2$.

In view of this evolution that you brought up (and Picscout is just a beginning), the contributor should not mix his content at hugely different price point sites. You can send your prime content for instance to Alamy, and the lesser images of a shoot or a series to microstock.