In fact, I'm a photographer. My road to (relatively) high RPD required several moves.
1. Never did I assume that buyers need low prices to purchase.
2. I worked my a** off to build my portfolio on IS starting in 2006, with a vary wide variety of quality imagery of real-life scenes.
3. I put as many images as I could in my E+ collection.
4. Created my files as large as I could to boost the odds of selling larger sizes.
5. Chose to never participate in Partner Program, because why feed the supply of images that will be sold cheaply? Just because it's not sold much doesn't mean it's not worth much.

An Exclusive contributor on IS at 35% royalty rate, selling Medium, E+ files on average, along with some Vettas and Extended licenses, will make what I do. If you have only very small files, or only files that are in the Main or Standard collections, you will make a lower RPD.

On the other hand, the number of sales I've seen has dwindled steadily since 2012. Much has to to do with the Best Match algorithm, adding new images (or not), and a host of other factors. I'm not saying we're in control of our sales numbers, only that we're in control (to some degree) of our RPD.

There is power in pricing, though there is also elasticity of demand.

Yes, they are in the past. But that's what my numbers played out to, and others in my shoes saw (as in past tense) them too. Actually the compulsory Subs didn't surprise me at all. I've been with Getty under other contracts for years and that's their model: they reserve the right to market your work at any price point they see fit as market conditions change. I just do what I can to maximize revenue under whatever contract I'm in.

Also keeping prices unreasonably low are photographers who continue to supply outlets that offer unreasonably low prices....I've been guilty of that myself and am taking steps to 'correct' that.

there will be soon a natural selection because while our fees are stalled or decreasing the cost of life keeps increasing, even and especially in third world countries, so in one way for another many niches it will become impossible to cover the production costs even if you live in Haiti or Bangladesh and your studio is in a bamboo hut.

there's never been less incentives to join a stock agency like today.

I was in traditional stock long before Microstock existed. And while I embraced Micro at it's rise, I also embraced price increases. Since the early 2000's, the market has evolved to settle at "Midstock" wherein prices are higher but affordable, and the predominant license is RF. (And where you can't buy anything worth using for $1 anymore.) Rights Managed can pay better, but sales are rare. The marketplace prefers a fast, (delivered online without negotiations) broad license. And I'm ok with Midstock. I'm ok with the pricing in the $30-$300 range, so long as my cut is at 35% or better. What I'm not ok with is my distributors deciding that they can only compete on price, and pushing customers to Subscriptions that pay me substantially less.

Quote from: Shooterguy on September 14, 2014, 11:14

^@Bobobolinski: My personal belief is that your hope/strategy of lower prices for buyers is a very bad, very damaging approach, for you and the industry, although it can depend on to whom you are selling.
But-- we know that you are selling on a Getty owned-site, so we can assume the buyers are often corporate clients. They have money. Corporations have money. Little mom-and-pop designers, maybe not so much, but Getty sells to businesses with money. You should never assume that lower prices equals more money for you or a healthier marketplace.

All it does is teach buyers that quality and scarcity don't matter, and imagery is a commodity. Never, ever sell your work by competing on price. Creative works should never be marketed on price.

Come on, you work in Microstock and you are complaining about prices being lowered? That's how the entire microstock industry works, pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap.When IS have sales for a day or two, my sales shoot up, therefore I tend to believe that lower prices equal more money, because that is my experience. There is obviously a tipping point where prices can be too low but that is not the case at the moment.

Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.  IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.

and then stock is not for them.
simple as that, and good riddance.

i feel no pity for this kind of "buyers", they all cry about having to pay 10$ for a photo and the next day they're happy wasting 5-600$ for the latest smartphone.

by the way, now that the explosive growth reached its apex, what's next apart new draconian cuts in our fees and even more devalueing of our work ?

it would be time to raise the bar for the agencies and kick out anyone with less than 5000 pics, doubling or tripling the prices, and delete a good 90% of the cr-ap in their archive that doesnt sell anyway.

and finally, we must ask ourselves, is this an industry worth our time and money ?
is there still people valueing our work or we're condemned to beg for 1$ downloads ?

as if there was any certainty that the downloads will keep coming ... things can change overnight in stock, usually for the worse.

Just Check Stocksy check-out process is perfect! Prices in USD, you can use your credit card or paypal. Simple clean and fair pricing. I bet over time they will add Apple Pay as well.  Just Perfect and it's driving me nuts.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2014, 09:33

Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.  IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.

and then stock is not for them.
simple as that, and good riddance.
i feel no pity for this kind of "buyers", they all cry about having to pay 10$ for a photo and the next day they're happy wasting 5-600$ for the latest smartphone.

That's a total non-sequitur. In my time I've voluntarily edited a charity newsletter and a website for a local environmental cause (among others). The charity and the cause not having 10$ for each and every photo has no relevance whatsoever to my personal choice of phone.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 15, 2014, 09:33

Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.

That was a pre Facebook, pre iPhone, pre YouTube world. Once upon a time, when fast internet and digital cameras were new.

Little shops and church groups do not need vanity websites or blogs today. The social media is a much more effective way for them to communicate. And they can get the content they need shared and 'liked' via their 'friends'.

That's not at all the usage I'm talking about.  Churches use images during their services, in powerpoints, and in their flyers.  Small shops advertise in local circulars using images to catch eyes, and even on television sometime.  Students use images in presentations for classes and so do teachers.

Small shops advertise in local circulars using images to catch eyes, and even on television sometime. 

And $8-45 is too much to pay to use an image in a television ad?  What percent of the project do you think that would be?  I bet it's not much.  I just don't see any companies saying "We would love to run this ad but if we have to spend $15 on an image it won't be profitable, now if we could get that image for $3 that would be a different story".

Yes to both, but falls on deaf ears. Stop supplying the parasites that only sell all the same images and only compete on price. That would roughly be anything below the top 15 on the right as a good starting point.

The lowball agencies that are packed with thousands of the identical images, which are fed by the people who are so desperate to make $10 a month (often less), are precisely the problem!

The artists are guilty of driving the value and prices down (thus our own returns) by supporting every tiny place that opens an agency and makes empty promises.  Stop feeding the parasites that bleed the value of our work.

Quote from: Hobostocker on September 14, 2014, 20:40

ow budget buyers had it too easy since the advent of micro, these guys must go out of business.
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.

Also keeping prices unreasonably low are photographers who continue to supply outlets that offer unreasonably low prices....I've been guilty of that myself and am taking steps to 'correct' that.

That's a total non-sequitur. In my time I've voluntarily edited a charity newsletter and a website for a local environmental cause (among others). The charity and the cause not having 10$ for each and every photo has no relevance whatsoever to my personal choice of phone.

ok, good, but charities have no rights to get things they can't afford, they had it easy with microstock so far but it ain't gonna last forever, no serious shooter will keep feeding the agencies if there's no return on investment and if cheap buyers have these needs it should not be our problem, there are billions of CC licenced images on Flickr alone ... newsletters and web sites can be made text-only as far as we're concerned, they can be a charity but we're not.

microstock and subs in particular are the very last step for the stock industry, there will be nothing after subs as they can't get any cheaper than that.

"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images.  "