Quote from: stocker2011 on August 17, 2025, 22:07

Quote from: AM24 on August 16, 2025, 22:19

Quote from: cobalt on August 16, 2025, 22:12
but unfortunately it does not help bring fairness to the overall stock market.

To get ahead, we have to find new markets.

Quote from: stocker2011 on August 17, 2025, 22:07

Quote from: AM24 on August 16, 2025, 22:19

Quote from: cobalt on August 16, 2025, 22:12
but unfortunately it does not help bring fairness to the overall stock market.

That market has changed so much - those buyers now just want cheap, cheap, cheap. Or make their own via AI and smartphones. The microstock market that I used to sell to back in 2013 to 2020, is largely gone.  The fault also lies within the agencies, of course. But market perception now is that stock photos are not worth very much.

To get ahead, we have to find new markets.

...
But much of the blame still lies with the agencies and the greedy cut they take for selling a 'digital' product. IMO, If they had just a little integrity and cared more for the creatives that supply them with product, the situation would be no way near as dire.

it's not a 'greedy cut' and no need to resort to insults - that's pretty normal in creative industries - when i developed online multi player games it was less, but i still well - it's more that images are a low value commodity with an unlimited source of acceptable content. if you think your images are fine art, you're in the wrong in industry - you need to put in the work AM24 & others have done to work with high end agencies.

at the same time, i'd expect a large cost for agencies is advertising fees - have you tried to sell your images using google et al ? bids for exposure rise fast.

in addition there's the high cost of data storage for many millions of images & bandwidth for many buyers to look at those portfolios, often w no purchase.

... just some balancing thoughts about relative costs

Quote from: cascoly on August 17, 2025, 19:52

Quote from: angelacat on August 17, 2025, 10:53
.
..
"but unfortunately it does not help bring fairness to the overall stock market"  I don't see what fairness has got to do with it.  If someone is very good at what they do - they deserve paying more than someone who makes little effort.

...

buyers don't care whether someone deserves more, but look for images that fit their needs and don't care what effort was made to produce it.  actually some of my best sellers are grab-shots, while more 'deserving' images languish

I was talking about the high end agencies not microstock.   I too have sales from grab shots and shoots where I've really made an effort don't sell. 

Quote from: cascoly on August 17, 2025, 19:46

Quote from: cobalt on August 17, 2025, 06:25
...

Dreamstime has exactly this system, your individual files can move up to 5 levels up.

The problem is - imagine yourself as a buyer, what would you prefer - a complicated place where every image has a different price or a place where all files have the same price and you can just download whatever you need and you know it fits into your budget.

also, on DT why buy a level 5 when you can get a similar lvl1 that is 'good enough' for your needs?

A tier 5 image on Dreamstime not only means it's more expensive, it also means it been used more times so chances of it has already been seen by people is bigger and so less appealing to designers and their clients.

Quote from: MicroVet on August 18, 2025, 20:52
A tier 5 image on Dreamstime not only means it's more expensive, it also means it been used more times so chances of it has already been seen by people is bigger and so less appealing to designers and their clients.

I don't think any microstock buyer cares about that. Brands/companies that care about perceived exclusivity buy from macrostock agencies. From my own experience I sell mostly my lvl 5 images.