I have only been participating in microstock for a few months now, so perhaps this is a foolish question....perhaps it has been answered before, and, if so....sorry.

I understand the need for microstock and the supply of quality images to smaller (or larger) companies that may not be able to (or want to) afford macrostock prices for images.  But, I presume the premise must be that people that use microstock still 'need' the image for a purpose.  So....sure, they may not want to, or be able to, spend $200-$400 for a single image, but surely, since they need the image for something that is likely going to be used to generate revenue for themselves, they would be willing to pay more than $0.25-$5.00 per image. 

Rather than compete to lower prices, as seems to be the case nowadays, I would have thought the microstocks would be increasing prices, giving a portion of the increase to the contributor, and keeping the rest for themselves.  More for us and a lot more for them.

I find it hard to believe that someone who 'needs' an image would not be willing to pay $5.00, $10.00, $15.00 rather than the much higher macro prices.  And the small percentage that would not be willing to, I would think, are probably not needing hundreds of images for clients and the loss in download volume would more than be made up for by the increased revenue per download. 

Is it really true that someone who needs an image would be willing to pay $0.25 but not $5.00.

Like, I said, I am new at this and this isn't a complaint so much as a serious question....I am trying to understand how the current pricing structure came to be and just don't get it.

I don't know....any business, even on  a shoestring budget, should be able to afford a few hundred dollars for an advertising campaign or brochure that is intended to bring in revenue.  If they can't afford that then how can they possibly get a business going.  And if they really can't....I don't see that merchants of other low priced  business necessities lowering prices because the budget doesn't fit. They still have to buy pencils, notebooks, ledgers etc for the normal price.   And wouldn't revenue from people that can afford $10 photos, which have got to be more numerous than businesses who can't afford that, make up for losing the sales of those that can't afford it.

All i am saying is that the micros all seem to be trying to undercut each other and would probably make more by raising prices a bit....if the others followed in suit.

Also, aren't a lot of the buyers web designers etc who just keep the profit from the lower photo prices?  If someone has hired a graphic artist or web designer surely they can afford $10 photos?

Rather than compete to lower prices, as seems to be the case nowadays, I would have thought the microstocks would be increasing prices, giving a portion of the increase to the contributor, and keeping the rest for themselves.  More for us and a lot more for them.

This is exactly why I'm happy with istock.