Lee did a posting today: http://www.microstockdiaries.com/

Will we in a few months, be talking about deleting our portfolios from the agencies with the lowest prices so we preserve the higher prices?

Let's hope!

Just remembered why I'm not at CanStockPhoto

afterthought:

i suppose the only thing to do, which i am doing in 2010, is to give the generic stuff to micro, and go a little for niche to specialized images  and increase my port in RM.
and not even care if there is a horde of new ppl to fill the void or not.
but that's my project for this new year.

i suppose it's easy for me, as i am not dependent on micro stock.
but i sure would like to hear from those who have been .

Great service, but it does make clear why it is a terrible idea to put something into a premium collection on one site (an EVO example from 123rf is used by SpiderPic) and sell it at regular prices elsewhere.

Why on earth would a buyer pay $120 for an image when they can get it for  1/10th of that elsewhere.

It also points out the rotten deal selling large raster versions of a vector for $50 at ClipArtOf when the vector itself can be had for $15 at IS.

For image sizes up to L, the prices are more in line (excepting things like CanStock which is just way too cheap) but at XL and up, the contributor is not really getting that much more at the sites other than IS. From the buyer's point of view, going to FT, BigStock or StockXpert for an XXXL image would be a huge savings.

One more reason, if one were needed, not to put exclusive IS content on Photos.com/JIU or other partner sites for much less money...

as always good advice jsnover.
so not giving micro any larger than 4MP was a good move for me , huh?
i also wonder what some contributors were using as thinking caps for putting same size images that sell for XXcents and expect to sell the same for $XX
. oh well, bad weed i suppose.

thx again jsnover.

amazing service, xpto! waiting for an invite to see what it retrieves for my work. i don't quite understand though...how can 123 list an image at $120, even for a large size? is that why my sales died there?

It's one more reason to remove portfolios from cheap sites!
And one more reason to consider IS exclusivity.

well said Digital66,

i suppose we can safely say in this case, microstock sites persistently pushing for subs are actually doing us a favour (cough cough) by making it a lot easier for us to decide which sites to remove our portfolio.
except for the ones that have a "hold time" (eg BigStock 90 days... ) .

this will certainly help us "spring clean" in prep for IS exclusivity.

yes, it certainly looks like canstock could up their prices!

so, say Yuri,Sean,Avava, etc..quit en masse contributing to any of the Big 6 +_3 that sells pictures for peanuts.  these sites will still have new contributors to fill the void.
and the sites know that.

I don't think is this completely true in the current days.

Two or three years ago, when the quality level in micro was average if a top contributor left it could be replaced by another in a short time because it wasn't very complicated to reach the same quality.

But nowadays, are you expecting that new contributors with point-and-shoot cameras will fill the void created by people that are using Hasseblads/Canon 1Ds MKIII - 5d MKII/ Nikon D3X, with professional lighting equipment, crews of assistants and years of experience in a couple of months?

I don't think it's that easy. In fact, the raise of quality and the very high standards of the Micro nowadays has given a power to the photographers in the Micro that we haven't had before. The question is that we didn't realize that yet.

Although no one is irreplaceable, certain agencies could not survive (or would barely survive) an organized movement of their (10, 20 or 30) top contributors leaving, because many designers would follow their work in other agencies, and a huge crowd of lesser successful photographers would mimic their idols (yes, it's what they are to many). So we would be talking no in 10, 20 or 30 contributors but possibly hundreds.

Considering the current demand of image quality in Micro it takes many months of committed work, huge investment and talent to get to the level of the best. So, in the current moment I don't believe in the argument that "someone will fill your place if you leave" when it comes to the best (and the ones just a step below them).

It's just a question of people getting organized. We all have witnessed how several agencies changed their initial policies after a hint of rebellion among the contributors like FL, IS, SS, StockXpert, Alamy and even the all mighty Getty in the last years. Well, but this is another question.

Quote from: XPTO on January 18, 2010, 19:00

Will we in a few months, be talking about deleting our portfolios from the agencies with the lowest prices so we preserve the higher prices?

Let's hope!

This evolution has been predicted here a couple of years ago. I don't think stock agencies will be very cooperative on scraping by robots, as the reaction of SS to Lookstat showed. But anyways, having this in mind, I already decided not to upload to a couple of new agencies that play the price competition game. I'm always amazed people jumping on bandwagons that give less.

Microstock agencies should be able to block price comparison spiders if they choose to, and I'm amazed they're letting this happen.  Well let me qualify that, they can at least try to block the spiders - it may be technically difficult and turn into a prolonged cat-and-mouse game. 

If the microstocks can't or won't stop this, it's going to change the game, big time.   

I agree with the above.  An accelerated race to the bottom on price is a very bad thing for all of us.  I hope the higher priced agencies - IS, FOT, DT - step up and try to stop this.

It is yet another argument in favor of IS exclusivity, IMO.

On a comforting note, my sales at Canstock (the lowest priced agency listed) are still dismal.  If they don't raise their prices to be more competitive, I may have to pull the plug there.  I already dropped Veer and Crestock.   

When they go to Google, they will find the image and the price reference of exclusive images. With just one price.

I don't really see how you could ever compare most agencies. How much does a credit cost? How many credits do you have to buy? How much does a subscription package cost? Are the images the same size?