Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 10:45

I meant prices not royalties, my bad. And you're right it is silly to suggest that (but I did it by mistake). But to touch that subject, all of them start cutting it once the become big. And before they become big they don't really bring us any money, so it doesn't really matter, make a difference until they start bringing in serious cash. Just look at 123RF and their utterly, utterly appalling moves...

Which small agencies became big and cut rates? And how can you say "all of them"? I'm sorry, but you're just completely making things up now. I'm with 21 agencies and the only ones that have cut my rate are istock, fotolia, and 123RF. And istock and fotolia haven't been small for a very long time. They were big for a long time before they cut their pay rates.

There is no precedent to suggest that any small company will cut their rates if/when they become big.

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 11:40

I don't know what to say except for you're being naive if you believe there will be no further cuts from the small agencies, when/if they'll become big. But looking at the market at this moment, none of the small agencies are going to become big anytime soon.

Well then I'll just enjoy my naivet� for now and continue to expect that few (if any) small agencies will cut rates. Like I said before, there is no precedent for a small agency becoming big and cutting rates. The top 4 existed pretty much since the beginning of microstock, istock being the start of all this. They were never small, so to use those companies as examples of companies that got big and cut rates is ridiculous.

And there are small companies that are getting big, and not cutting rates. I consider GraphicRiver big (I earn more there every month than I do at Fotolia or istock) and they increased rates. Look at DepositPhotos. They didn't exist a few years ago. Now they're a major player. As a historical reference, look at StockXpert. They always paid 50%, when they were small, when they got big, and even after Jupiter acquired them and became part of a huge company. They only fell apart when Getty acquired Jupiter. GraphicLeftovers is also rapidly growing.

You've got such a negative and shortsighted view of this business. Small companies are becoming big, you just refuse to acknowledge it.  None of these growing companies are cutting rates. I don't get what the benefit is to viewing everything in microstock in terms of what a few loser companies did. There is a lot of good growth happening, lots of companies sticking to their promised pay rates and prices, and very little of what you describe regarding cuts and lack of innovation. It's a wonder you even bother with microstock at all with such a negative outlook on things.

Quote from: helix7 on February 28, 2012, 13:11

Show me one example of a company started in the last 5 years that grew to any significant notoriety and then cut rates.

Wouldn't one of them need to grown past "we sell for less" / "We pay artists less" which is where they started? Of course they can't cut when they are already at the bottom!

I'd ask how many agencies that started in the past five years have gone out of business. The new ones can't race to the bottom, they started there and are fueling the erosion of sales and value of our products.

Lets all upload to the top 25 sites, so we can compete with ourselves at the lowest level possible, making everything worthless and ordinary... at the lowest commissions and lowest prices. That's ridiculous.

Whether people pick the top two, top four or top six, the point I'd make is, supporting the small ones is cutting your own throat, by competing against yourself at the places that pay best (bottom line) and advertise. All the new sites can offer is the same collections for less, which dilutes the marketplace with cheap copies. And we are providing those cheap copies! 

Quote from: wut on February 28, 2012, 12:40

What are you talking about, lol? GL big player because you earn there more than at some of the big 4 agencies. DP and Stockexpert major players? WOW! You must be living in some different reality, really. It's about market share not some contributor's earnings, feelings and opinions. You're measuring the importance and size of an agency on totally subjective and individual basis. They don't count in the real world (as in the industry, market...)

I don't know about you, but it is all about my earnings for me. I don't really care how much market share an agency has. In fact, I'd prefer they were smaller and actually do things like represent listen and take care of their contributors. You know like an agent should.  

Have anyone specific in mind? Or is that hypothetical?

I just got off the phone with the owner of a small agency (small by most standards but mid-tier in my opinion). Try getting an exec on the line with any of the top 4.

I tend to agree with Wut, that chances are good that if some of the small agencies hit it big, they will start messing with royalties.  As I see it, 123RF didn't try lowering royalties until they made it into the Big 4 (however briefly). 

I also still remember when Istock had been around for 5 years or so, and SS for at least 2 years and FT was the newest kid on the block (no, they haven't all been around the same amount of time).  Originally, FT were extremely responsive and accommodating. There was a lot of give and take with the contributor community.  Over time, I think we were viewed and treated by the big sites, less as partners and more as a necessary evil.  Our opinions were no longer welcome as they introduced subs, and later lowered royalties.   

However, seeing that some sites will do this when they get successful doesn't make me want to limit my options to those successful sites, who have already proven they will lower commissions.  It makes me want to broaden my options and upload to the smaller sites.   Yes, its slightly more work to upload to more sites, but a very small price to pay to keep some checks and balances on the big sites. 

I am extremely glad I joined Veer, Depositphoto, and Photodune.  Together they account for several hundred dollars a month I would not otherwise have, plus an insurance policy against falling royalties at the larger sites.   

I find it hard to swallow when the sites which we helped become successful, in turn thank us for our support by cutting our royalties and then utilizing that money to stick it to us further via newly ramped up sites sporting niceties such as best match disease.

While I agree with much of what Racephoto says, it leads to the conclusion that we don't need any new agencies. In fact we DO need those new agencies in order to prevent the existing ones from becoming a small group of monopolies. That would eventually make the business model unsustainable for most contributors.

Most of those low earners will eventually fail but a very few will thrive and rise up to the middle and top tiers. I wish I knew which ones!