Quote from: cclapper on May 13, 2012, 07:38

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 05:32

We don't have to guess about that one, it's a hard fact. Even with 2000% price increase (as gostwyck stated), the price is still absurd. Nobody realizes either how much it would cost him to hire a tog or buy from a trad agency, which have lowered prices many times during the MS era, so in reality even the macro prices are to low.

Regarding the prices, IS is the only one going in the right direction. I just hope for more hikes. I really do. And that the competition wakes up and does the same (without any further commission cuts), or else we're all doomed

I don't know why you wish for that. It doesn't mean contributors are going to make any more money. And it does seem at first glance ridiculous to complain about the low price of photos, but if anything else doubled overnight, let's say the price of gas, I'm pretty sure I'd be complaining about it too.

I don't have a problem with prices moving up if I get a larger cut of the pie, but that hasn't been what's happening. The greedy ba$tards raise prices then cut our commissions (or find some other bull$hit way to cheat us out of money, like changing search algorithms, or having a bunch of "credit card fraud" happening, or some other such nonsense.) And istock is the worst. I totally see why buyers are bailing.

I've bolded another important part of my post, it'll make more sense to you now, without a doubt

Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:05

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 09:54

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren!  there is no law against this,

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera,  that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 11:37

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 11:34

Quote from: caspixel on May 13, 2012, 10:05

Quote from: lagereek on May 13, 2012, 09:54

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren!  there is no law against this,

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera,  that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.

Something is wrong with this posts, I never answered it, yet its in my name. Tyler should perhaps have a look?

Exactly. I'm genuinely shocked by the short-sighted attitude being displayed by some posters. Microstock prices aren't too low, it's just that the agency's commissions are too high. Microstock came into being by supplying a 'good enough' product at an affordable price. It exploited a gap in the market that was simply not being catered for by the traditional agencies. History could obviously repeat itself __ then where would we be? (answer: back to 2004)

Fortunately SS don't appear to be as greedy and stupid as many other agencies so the worst case scenario should not happen. SS aren't going away and all these price rises by other agencies are simply gifting them the entire industry.

It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.

And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

It's all pie-in-the-sky. The agencies aren't going to collude in price fixing any more than the contributors are going to form a trade union.

And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 13, 2012, 13:28

And let's remember where micropayment stock agencies came from in the first place, they noticed that image prices were high and images could be sold more cheaply using modern technology. So they moved into that gap. If they all up their prices to $50 for an XS tomorrow then by Tuesday another stock site would have opened up to undercut them and the whole cycle would start again.

1. But then again, macro sites use the same technology and sell images at 20x the price

2. I was talking about 10$ for an XS (might be in another thread, because we're discussing this today in 2 different threads), but the main thing is if this was true, macro sites would have closed their doors at least 6-7 years ago, when they were selling images for 100x the MS price, not 20x like today (on average, I know there are 3$ sales over there, but there are also 4 digit sales;). And if this was true, than IS would be long overtaken by sites like PD, 123RF which are leading the race to the bottom. But they don't even care about them and their 1% market share

Many of us have done this for 6, 7, years, even longer and many of us have earnt a small fortune. Times are changing, at first it was a glass of champaigne, now its white wine and we dont like it, pretty soon its water. Soon we have had our 10 years in this venture and thats that.

Fortunately there is another stock-world outside micro and thats the world of proper stock photography, the way it should be and should be executed, where contributors and agencies work towards long-term goals and where pnny-pinching buyers, cheapskates and scrooges are not welcome.

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 15:01

I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you

It's very simple. The P+, E+ and other prices already exist at iS, so the buyers who stayed there are used to those pricings. But you will also see a lot of posts from people complaining that sales of the files they put in E+ simply collapsed and they regretted having them stuck in there. Whether a file deserves to be at a high or low price point depends on the quality and subject matter. There's no point in trying to make "apple isolated on white" a Vetta file but it might do well at TS.

Quote from: wut on May 13, 2012, 15:01

I really wonder why any of you (who are against price rises) put any files in the P+ or feel wronged for not being able to contribute to A/V etc. Or why do Emeralds+ spend hours if not days to manually go through thousands of files just to find those that are eligible to have their price doubled (XS). That really is contradictory to everything you're saying in this thread. Kindly ask Agencies to introduce a "P-" collection for you

I can see how it looks contradictory.  Personally, I am not against all price rises.  I am against steep ones coming so close together that it alienates buyers and negatively affects my earnings. 

I also see a big difference between putting my P+ images and FT images at prices starting at 2 credits, vs. starting images at 20-50 credit base price - in the microstock model.  Those prices, and even higher, are usual and expected at traditional stock agencies.  Their buyers aren't going to freak out.  But micro buyers still expect micro prices.  Prices of P+ and FT emerald are still in line with what buyers expect from microstock, so there is less resistance.