Simple question? Do you think the other Micros should introduce higher prices "collections" like istock did? Would it drive away customers from that Agency? Or would it rather boost revenue for the Photoq as well as for the Agency? Would it broaden diversity in the collection and make a Agency more "unique"? Or just a cunfusing thing for customers?

Interested to hear opinions 

Should they introduce higher priced collections? Yes. Should they do it like iStock did? No.

We have one site that, even with a pretty low rpd, manages to generate the most income for (most) contributors, has the simplest royalty structure out there and the most transparent pricing structures - coincidence??

1. SS is ny far not my best earner
2. Shutterstock has various pricing options and license types, not just subs.
3. On SS I only grow through ODD and extended licenses. The Sub sales I get remain stable in number since years.
4. I continue to read that lots of istock Vetta contributors have high revenues with few high quality and creative images. I cannot compare their income to top SS contributors though.

Yeah, I'm not aware of higher priced images (doesn't mean there aren't) - I believe these are higher priced licences that can be applied to any image.  The point here though is about what is good for business from the site's perspective and what SS do seems to work better than the competition and also works best for most producers. Hell, even when they introduced the photo challenge thing they did it in a very simple effective fashion, unlike some I could mention.

No they didn't. All images are priced the same. The only thing that changes the price at SS is the volume you are buying or the license you need.

It is quite clear that the majority of buyers prefer all images priced the same and it is probably the greatest factor in SS's success.

You are right. The images are priced the same. I guess I meant higher price points and not higher priced collections or images. Really though, it is trying to accomplish the same thing... Trying to get your customers to spend more per image. Which they did pretty successfully by looking at their IPO statement.

No.
Different prices for different buyers are fine (e.g. subs, on demand, single...).
Different prices for different collections are confusing.

Unless perhaps if they introduce totally new collections... such as an editorial but non necessarily newsworthy collection (removing people and logos from a busy street is ridiculous).

Personally I am very happy with the Photo+ at istock as well as with the double price at Fotolia. So I voted for "Yes" and I would like to see my work more valued. Also, I think that if the Agencies do not give more incentive to the Contributors to produce more creative content they will run into a dead end: too much volume of the same stuff and a stalling amount of sales increase the cost of business until a point is reached where it isn`t profitable anymore...but I?m just guessing around.

I think it needs to be very clear to buyers why images command a higher price - I don't know what "more creative content" means, but I can see that an image on a plane with 20 models would cost more to produce than an isolated apple. Given some of the utter rubbish that iStock has imported into Agency from Getty, it is even less clear than it ever was why items are priced the way they are.

As someone I know said, "I like cash" isn't a business strategy, and Getty's drive for cash has muddied the waters on iStock from a buyer's perspective. For those who enjoy the higher priced sales, that's fine while it lasts, but I can't see long term success coming out of what iStock's doing these days. DT seems to be as lost as ever with its multi-tier pricing and I can't see anyone would want to emulate what they've done.

The other issue for any high price collection, is I'd think it would have to be image exclusive - you can't have it selling for less elsewhere. Other than possibly SS, who would you trust with an expensive-to-produce exclusive image in a new high price collection?

Quote from: velocicarpo on September 04, 2012, 17:14

Personally I am very happy with the Photo+ at istock as well as with the double price at Fotolia. So I voted for "Yes" and I would like to see my work more valued. Also, I think that if the Agencies do not give more incentive to the Contributors to produce more creative content they will run into a dead end: too much volume of the same stuff and a stalling amount of sales increase the cost of business until a point is reached where it isn`t profitable anymore...but I?m just guessing around.

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?

Who sells more truffles and diamonds? Walmart or Harrods? Which of them sells more tins of baked beans (and makes much more money)?

So... do you shop for Diamonds at Walmart? 

Quote from: gostwyck on September 04, 2012, 17:50

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?

I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

We can only give contributors' points of view. I can't see why the smart agencies would bother.

Quote from: gostwyck on September 04, 2012, 17:50

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?

I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

It seems to me that you are totally missing the original concept of microstock. You are not alone it that misplaced view either. Amazingly Istock have forgotten that simple premise too __ and yet they claim to have invented it. Microstock is about cheap images, all priced the same, hopefully selling in high volumes. If you divert from that then you risk losing customers to 'proper' microstock agencies like Shutterstock. Istock could probably have benefited with Vetta (alone) if they had not been too greedy, raised the prices too far too fast, introduced lots of other collections with numerous other price points and then spiked the default sort order with over-priced images. They blew it. Forever. By default SS will inherit Istock's empire.

Quote from: gostwyck on September 04, 2012, 18:43

Quote from: velocicarpo on September 04, 2012, 17:57

Quote from: gostwyck on September 04, 2012, 17:50

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?

I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

It seems to me that you are totally missing the original concept of microstock. You are not alone it that misplaced view either. Amazingly Istock have forgotten that simple premise too __ and yet they claim to have invented it. Microstock is about cheap images, all priced the same, hopefully selling in high volumes. If you divert from that then you risk losing customers to 'proper' microstock agencies like Shutterstock. Istock could probably have benefited with Vetta (alone) if they had not been too greedy, raised the prices too far too fast, introduced lots of other collections with numerous other price points and then spiked the default sort order with over-priced images. They blew it. Forever. By default SS will inherit Istock's empire.

Yeah, sure.

So who do you think will be the winner in microstock ... and why?

Quote from: gostwyck on September 04, 2012, 20:07

So who do you think will be the winner in microstock ... and why?

It's still a race? From where I'm sitting, this thing looked over and done with a while ago.

Maybe not: seems SS has dropped in the Poll from 100% last week/month to 92.8%. Didn't note the other stats to identify the winners/losers,but wasn't DP marginally above DT for a time?