Musicians get 10-20% typically AFAIK. The rates for stock photographers and photographers with big agencies are typically roughly in the same area I think.

The little agencies and co-ops pay more or profit share but often struggle to survive as businesses. Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?

Also remember that the agencies are increasingly competing with people who want to give their images away for free.

Racephoto, what are you talking about? Observations ARE evidence. So are posts by disgruntled buyers saying they are leaving and for every one who bothers to post there are probably 100 others who pack their tent and leave without saying a word. Maybe there are hundreds of others signing up to replace them. Maybe the overall "spend" from people switching to V/A and away from the non-elite is boosting iStock's profits. I don't know. But I do know that this is the first time in the company's history that quite a number of different buyers have come forward to protest about the service that they are getting.

And why would contributors continuing to upload make buyers less ticked off about having searches flooded with Vetta and Agency? Contributors are uploading everywhere else, too, and some of the top contributors upload a lot more to other sites than they do to iStock.

You're absolutely right that Getty will never let us see its books while it is a private company. But to go on from that to argue that therefore we shouldn't be saying anything because we don't have access to any evidence is just plain wrong. It's exactly like the Church telling people not to speculate about how the solar system works just because the official geocentric model is causing difficulties with the calculations (these observed difficulties aren't evidence of anything, are they?).

It's not just Shutterstock that is up, either. 123 is already up to its monthly average for me, with a third of the month to go. Canstock sales in the last three months have been well above the long-term average (so far, my number of files sold this month is 36% above the total for all of last April).  Sales at both these sites would be more sensitive indicators of movement than Shutterstock, since their markets have been quite small.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, some buyers are not vocal about them leaving.  Those are the kind of buyers that Istock doesn't notice unless them measure falloff (which any right minded company should measure).  Case and point.  My company just opened a Shutterstock account for two reasons: 1. Prices have gotten too high; 2. The site is dysfunctional.  They will use up their credits and transition over to Shutterstock...and we do A LOT of visual management (web, TV, magazine, tradeshow, and brochure advertising).  So this is an example of a buyer QUIETLY transitioning to another supplier.  How many of those are leaving Istock? I bet more than one.  So we cannot just tally up those vocal buyers we must consider the ones who are leaving in silent disagreement.

You know what the irony of that is? Back when prices were those "derisory levels" few contributors were complaining. And it was those "derisory levels" that allowed many people to do microstock full time, because the volume was there. The whole reason microstock worked was because it was about volume and buyers being less discretionary with their spending. That was its success. So yes, the prices were cheap, but the volume of sales often made up for it. Things seemed to have reached a tipping point at iStock . It's moving in the other direction and not even the higher prices are yielding the same returns of a few years ago. And, from what people are reporting, the slack is starting to be picked up at other sites.

... is the correct answer!

but the volume of sales often made up for it.

I think a lot of contributors, regardless of where they submit, are seeing downloads plateau or drop even though they're submitting a ton of new images. Maybe buyer sales volumes are decreasing or sales are being spread across the constant flood of new contributors. For me, price increases have helped to justify continuing to invest time in this. If prices remained the same I probably would have quit a couple years ago because I would have been forced to shoot common objects with a cheap DSLR to stay profitable. And the market is already flooded with common objects. 

I also think a major benefit buyers have received from micro is a significant number of contributors who aren't profitable, or don't even know if they're profitable, and continue to blindly spend more on creating images than they make. They spend $10,000 on equipment and tons more on props and shoots to make $50 or $100 per month. The agency gets their fat percentage, the buyer gets their professional level stock photo cheap, and the contributor loses money on every picture. Contributors can't go on indefinitely doing this because at some point they will run out of money. 

Maybe macro shooters lived fat for a long time on macro prices but micro is too low for the quality of images that are available today. A few years ago buyers were getting a Buick for the price of a Chevy. Now they're getting a Mercedes for the price of a Chevy. Something needs to change with compensation because this current model seems to be, uh... unsustainable. 

If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts

.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.

If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts

.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.

Sorry, I don't accept your premise.  From what I can see, a lot of the posts by independent contributors are quoting irate buyers whose posts are being removed from the Istock forums or buried in locked threads.  

Others are from contributors who are also buyers, and some are from buyers like Caspixel who have just had enough.  

Not to mention the abundance of posts from frightened exclusives frantically trying to convince everybody Istockphoto is not in decline, as if that will make it true.  Those posts are the most pitiful and desperate sounding ones.  So sad.

but micro is too low for the quality of images that are available today.

An excellent post, Mr Walnuts.  This point especially.

Quote from: loop on April 23, 2011, 10:39

If Istock had stuck to mostly just screwing contributors this thread wouldn't be up to 1107 posts

.. almost all of them written not by buyers, but for independent contributors who upload to other sites and that feell angry because istock structure of comissions to non-exclusives.

Well, that's a little true, but the thread was started to report when buyers were fed up with istock and posted their complaints on the istock forum. The posts were then copied and pasted here, because, well, it's easier to read them here, all in one place. And this thread contains a ton of those. And the thing is, since a lot of folks post anonymously, it's sometimes difficult to tell if a poster is a contributor, a buyer, or both. The difference here on this forum is that their opinion, no matter who they are or in what capacity they are interested in microstock, they are welcome.

I'm just saying that there can be 5 or 10 or even 20 buyers posts quoted.... but that's a long shot from a thousand posts. A handful os buyers posts is anecdotal, a thousand would be serious.
And I may be wrong, but I don't think we have many buyers posting here, anonismously or not. Note that some contributors have posted scores of times in this discussion.

Musicians get 10-20% typically AFAIK. The rates for stock photographers and photographers with big agencies are typically roughly in the same area I think.

The little agencies and co-ops pay more or profit share but often struggle to survive as businesses. Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?

Also remember that the agencies are increasingly competing with people who want to give their images away for free.

The musician's agent gets around 10%.  They also pay a business manager and perhaps a lawyer and sometimes all three are combined. 

You can't even begin to compare photographers to musicians.  I have around 25K worth of gear - what does a musician have - a guitar and some leather pants?

Photographers have to pay for everything out of pocket.  Equipment.  Models.  Locations.  Props.  We can get no endorsements to include Doritos and Ford in our product.

Record labels print cd's.  They print merchandise.  They pay publicists.  They produce videos.  They protect artists likeness and their art.

The artists who are smart and talented write their own material.  They get pubishing royalties, and additional royalties every time a song is played on the radio.  No matter how elaborate our productions are, it is purely risk assumed on our part.

I know that at first glance it looks we are similar, but it seems to me that we take all of the risk and foot 100% of the bill, pay extraordinary amounts to our distributors who don't even build a marketing campaign around our own individual work.  They don't assume any responsibility of fraud.  They don't protect our copyrights with full enthusiasm.   They don't really appear to give a cr*p about us individually in any shape or form - but they are certainly happy to take 85% of our creative.  Record labels fiercely protect their artists.

But when they get sick of their artists they just fire them or don't renew the contract.  But maybe that is what IS is trying to do in the first place.

After all, the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" attitude is quite clear.

This is assuming they have this attitude toward all buyers. Maybe they do. Or maybe they've more clearly defined their target buyer criteria and have no problem letting go of the buyers that no longer fit, don't spend much, and complain.

I would find it hard to believe if a big spender showed up in the forums complaining that IS would boot them. I'd think that the most important clients probably have some sort of IS service rep assigned to them who calls on them regularly to make sure they're happy.

ETA: Haha. I just got another ignore. Dummy me. How dare I post anything logical or thought provoking.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth and changing what I said.

Are buyers bailing on IS? 45 pages of people going on about it and not one bit of proof. That was the question. Evidence not, someone says so on the forums, or it's self evident. Not anecdotal personal sales. Heck I don't like the commission change and now that SS has popped back, my IS sales are down like everyone else, plus lower commission. I'm not defending them. Just asking for some moderation in the biased observations and claims.

For every buyer who bothers to come to the forum on IS there are 1000 that are too busy for Bulletin Boards and chat. At the least hundreds who don't know they exist.

Not that we shouldn't talk about it. Not that sales going up on X are anything to prove that they left IS. The whole market is down from the general tone of messages. Now you are saying that it's up because Canstock and 123 are up and attribute this to IS buyers? Because your personal sales are up, then "buyers are bailing" on IS?

Do people really act different and strange during a Full Moon or is it just "common knowledge" easily observed and that's the evidence?  

Do the Moai statues really look longingly out to sea as if waiting for some ancient astronauts to return? Common wisdom.  

Against all evidence people insist that Elvis, Michael Jackson, JFK, Tesla, Marilyn Monroe, Jim Morrison and others are Not Dead! And believe it!

Point is, without evidence, facts and data type evidence, it's just a bunch of people who are unhappy with IS and are expressing their anger and resentment because the agency has dumped on us.

So when someone comes back with something besides, everyone knows, it's common knowledge or I should question the accuracy of some claim, then I'll be convinced that Buyers actually are bailing. I don't know. I haven't seen anything that proves it's true.

Thus the original question? Are they really?

Racephoto, what are you talking about? Observations ARE evidence. So are posts by disgruntled buyers saying they are leaving and for every one who bothers to post there are probably 100 others who pack their tent and leave without saying a word. Maybe there are hundreds of others signing up to replace them. Maybe the overall "spend" from people switching to V/A and away from the non-elite is boosting iStock's profits. I don't know. But I do know that this is the first time in the company's history that quite a number of different buyers have come forward to protest about the service that they are getting.

And why would contributors continuing to upload make buyers less ticked off about having searches flooded with Vetta and Agency? Contributors are uploading everywhere else, too, and some of the top contributors upload a lot more to other sites than they do to iStock.

You're absolutely right that Getty will never let us see its books while it is a private company. But to go on from that to argue that therefore we shouldn't be saying anything because we don't have access to any evidence is just plain wrong. It's exactly like the Church telling people not to speculate about how the solar system works just because the official geocentric model is causing difficulties with the calculations (these observed difficulties aren't evidence of anything, are they?).

It's not just Shutterstock that is up, either. 123 is already up to its monthly average for me, with a third of the month to go. Canstock sales in the last three months have been well above the long-term average (so far, my number of files sold this month is 36% above the total for all of last April).  Sales at both these sites would be more sensitive indicators of movement than Shutterstock, since their markets have been quite small.

That was funny, a guitar and leather pants? Those went out in the 70s. I still have four drum sets, countless cymbals that cost hundreds each, sticks break, a truck to carry all that crap. Mikes, amps, electronics, stands. People work for years, practice and play and improve and by the way, the agents take a standard 20% off the top, the band gets 80% to divide and pay expenses. You work by driving to the site, setting up for two hours, playing for four hours, tearing down in an hour and drive home. that's 7-8 hours for a lousy $40 or $50 and by the way, the same problems as photography, people willing to play for less to get in the door. Figure maybe $5 an hour before expenses and that doesn't include equipment.

Then there are the equivalent to microstock, Disc Jockeys. Who now have no disks, maybe a laptop and a stack of SD cards, lights, amps and speakers and it takes two people, they charge less and you get some darn nice sounds. But of course live music from professionals is best.

There are still some microstockers shooting P&S, I don't know how many. I see people talking about upgrading their Rebel or T2i of something, so everyone isn't using a 5D with a studio, but the ones making money are doing what you say. Investing in better equipment, lighting, models and all the while, agencies are giving us less commission, less money and competition has increased 10 times in four years. Small wonder sales are down!

You are correct though, and I agree, the agencies don't give a crap about us. But having worked for various booking agents, some who had pretty much the same attitude, it's not much different.

I liked this one best...

A few years ago buyers were getting a Buick for the price of a Chevy. Now they're getting a Mercedes for the price of a Chevy.

Quote from: bunhill on April 23, 2011, 07:25

Musicians get 10-20% typically AFAIK. The rates for stock photographers and photographers with big agencies are typically roughly in the same area I think.

The little agencies and co-ops pay more or profit share but often struggle to survive as businesses. Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?

Also remember that the agencies are increasingly competing with people who want to give their images away for free.

The musician's agent gets around 10%.  They also pay a business manager and perhaps a lawyer and sometimes all three are combined. 

You can't even begin to compare photographers to musicians.  I have around 25K worth of gear - what does a musician have - a guitar and some leather pants?

Photographers have to pay for everything out of pocket.  Equipment.  Models.  Locations.  Props.  We can get no endorsements to include Doritos and Ford in our product.

Record labels print cd's.  They print merchandise.  They pay publicists.  They produce videos.  They protect artists likeness and their art.

The artists who are smart and talented write their own material.  They get pubishing royalties, and additional royalties every time a song is played on the radio.  No matter how elaborate our productions are, it is purely risk assumed on our part.

I know that at first glance it looks we are similar, but it seems to me that we take all of the risk and foot 100% of the bill, pay extraordinary amounts to our distributors who don't even build a marketing campaign around our own individual work.  They don't assume any responsibility of fraud.  They don't protect our copyrights with full enthusiasm.   They don't really appear to give a cr*p about us individually in any shape or form - but they are certainly happy to take 85% of our creative.  Record labels fiercely protect their artists.

But when they get sick of their artists they just fire them or don't renew the contract.  But maybe that is what IS is trying to do in the first place.

At about 200 or 300 photographer's comments coming from about 40-50 photographers. That is precisely my point, thanks for highlighting it.

You are still just making up numbers, so from what I can see you are proving my point that you haven't done your research and don't know what you are talking about:

Before you go throwing around numbers about how many buyers posts are in this thread, you should do your due diligence and count them up.  You don't have to guess.  They're all there in black (or sometimes blue) and white.  

Hint:  There's more than 20 irate buyers quoted in just the first few pages.

I can understand why you want to argue and bicker over who posted what in this thread though, instead of addressing the larger issue that your Big Brother Istock is foundering on the rocks of their own greed and hubris.  People always want to argue semantics when they have missed the larger point.