I like to think SS's growth is due to great strategic planning.  As more and more images are added to the site, it's only logical that contributors would see their earnings decrease through dilution of their portfolios and increased competition.  How can SS combat that and keep contributors happy at the same? 

photographers have no voice on these matters.
SS is not a "boutique stock agency" where they proudly enlist their famous and expensive photographers with Bio and a form to hire them on assignment.

SS and micros in general are the absolute rock bottom, if a newspaper buys your image you don't even get credited.

i'm reading a lot of stats here and in other sites .. all the indicators are pointing downwards for the whole industry and despite IS downfall is compensated by SS rise how long it's gonna take before it becomes finally unsustainable ?

if new images aren't getting sold multiple times the whole reason to go RF ceases to exist, it's a broken business plan, at least for photographers as the agencies instead are pretty happy about it, they love it ! you work hard, they sell for peanuts and get a 70-80% cut.

...i'm reading a lot of stats here and in other sites .. all the indicators are pointing downwards for the whole industry and despite IS downfall is compensated by SS rise how long it's gonna take before it becomes finally unsustainable?...

I know the "unsustainable" term came into fashion in this business last year when the istock execs started throwing it around, but personally I have yet to see any evidence that microstock as a whole is headed that way. for istock exclusives, sure, I'd say that unsustainable is a good way to put it. I don't see how anyone continues to make a living in a few years by remaining exclusive to istock. But outside of that, I think it's a whole different landscape, one that isn't even dependent on SS or any of the agencies that we've come to know as the staples of he microstock business. Sure things are good at SS. I'm coming off a BME there, beating my previous best month by a few hundred dollars. If that momentum keeps up, I'm happy. If not, I'm also involved in a few agencies that show some serious promise. I think the whole Envato marketplace is blowing up. Just a few days into December, I'm already more than halfway to my November earnings total at Graphic River. iClipart is a new one for me, but it's looking good so far.

My point is that while things may at times become shaky at a few agencies, there are always other agencies picking up the slack. So despite istock pooping the proverbial bed this year, and Fotolia not far behind, my overall earnings are up. And it's sustainable because I'm working on diversifying my portfolio and spreading it around to lots of good agencies and some promising upstart agencies. I'm not doing the same old work I used to do repeatedly, and I'm trying new things. And I'm getting that new work in front of as many people as possible. And to me, it looks to be sustainable.

If your plan is to stick with one failing agency and try to remain sustainable with the same old work, then sure I can see how that seems to be a failing strategy and your outlook on the business seems grim. But like it has always been in the stock business, if you're willing to try new things, explore other options, keep things moving, and changing up your work and how you distribute it, I think there is still plenty of reason to remain optimistic about the future of this business and keeping your income sustainable. Maybe even more than sustainable if you make the right moves.

The business itself is sustainable on it's own. Buyers love microstock, they love the price point, the buying options, etc. Microstock as a business isn't going away. Whether it's sustainable for contributors on an individual basis is a whole other story, one that I think is entirely up to you and how you approach your work, your distribution, etc.