The only reason cheap, and now cheaper, options exist is because we contributors gladly continue to support it. If nobody contributed to SS the company and others wouldn't exist.

It isn't all about SS, though (I realize the thread is). If I search '4K' on P5 and put the price slider at <$99, I get 59,438 results. That's more files than > $99 (56,012). At < $49, there are still 15,451 results.

So your second sentence above is true, but not realistic -- because your first sentence above is even "more true".

Quote from: KB on June 24, 2015, 16:39

As the OP wrote, I also expected this to happen sooner (but am glad that I sold the ones I did at the higher price  ).

However, I stopped uploading 4K content to SS a while ago, because while I have sold some 4K clips as 4K, I have not sold a single one as HD. SS claims that most buyers do not use the HD filter when searching for clips, but my sales anecdotally tell a different story. As long as my 4K clips are going to be filtered out of HD searches, I'm not going to bother uploading them to SS. 

KBm that is a very important consideration. Does this problem exist on P5. I think the problem there is a price filter, where the HD file doesn't get considered if there is higher priced 4k attached even though it could.

As far as I know and can tell, P5's filters work correctly (i.e., they do what I'd expect and don't filter out my 4K clips if someone is looking for an HD clip at or above my HD price).

As the OP wrote, I also expected this to happen sooner (but am glad that I sold the ones I did at the higher price  ).

However, I stopped uploading 4K content to SS a while ago, because while I have sold some 4K clips as 4K, I have not sold a single one as HD. SS claims that most buyers do not use the HD filter when searching for clips, but my sales anecdotally tell a different story. As long as my 4K clips are going to be filtered out of HD searches, I'm not going to bother uploading them to SS. 

Back to the OP:
You'll just have to be careful what you photograph.

If you aim you a camera at a government building or a bridge, you'll be accused of being a terrorist
if you photograph a female, you are a stalker and exploiter of women
if you photograph children, you are definitely a pedophile
if you photograph a homeless person, you are an insensitive clod
if you take a selfie, you must be a narcissist

best, stick to shooting butterflies and birds

This is just as true in the US as in the EU. 

For how long microstock  photography  will continue to exist?  for many years? or it has already a end? someone know?

Yes. microstock ceases to exist on August 29, 2021.

Unfortunately, so does the planet Earth. 

I think it is far from a saturated market. The demand for video content is growing every day at a very fast rate.

It doesn't surprise me that the demand for video content is growing every day at a very fast rate. However, as someone who started as a video contributor long ago, it is equally clear that the supply of video content is also growing every day at a very fast rate. I noticed a clear market saturation in certain areas well over a year ago, based on my drop in sales (relative to my portfolio size).

I think the video market is somewhere around 2012, relative to where the photo market was then. I bet the demand for photo content continues to grow every day at a very fast rate as well, however most individual contributors cannot keep their portfolio growing at a fast enough rate to keep up with the much larger growth rate in supply. The video market isn't there yet, but will be in another year or two (just my own WAG).

I don't like the default prices showing on P5 at all -- I think that does a disservice to contributors. Particularly out of place seems to be the 4K pricing. Here's what I see when I submit a video:

HD clips: $43.60 (all), $59.80 (best-selling)
4K clips: $50.30 (all), $80.30 (best-selling)

$50 4K clips?    And if that's the average price, that means there are a lot of contributors pricing below $50. No wonder I've yet to sell a 4K clip there (not that I've sold many anywhere).

Quote

From the forum:
"We've identified the issue causing the phantom download issue. It's a display issue that isn't impacting royalties in any way. We have a fix that we are hoping to push live as early as EOD (Friday May 29) but more likely early next week. Again, I will repeat; There aren't any royalty related issues attached to this bug. It's 100% a display issue which we will be resolving shortly."

Oh sure... a "display issue"

I am shocked and dismayed by the implication that you don't believe what they say. I mean what has Getty ever done to warrant that mistrust?

Don't bother answering.  No one has time to read a list that long.   

I stopped reading the Alamy Blog after they removed the RSS feed. I guess I'm still stuck in the early 21st century, when RSS was popular. 

Quote from: KB on May 07, 2015, 12:12

Quote from: helloitsme on May 07, 2015, 11:20

Maybe the sales are overwhelming they don't have enough time to process them.  I may see many sales posted suddenly.  Crossing my fingers.

Or maybe other contributors read your glowing reports of how many sales you were getting and uploaded so much content that now yours is just a drop in the proverbial bucket? 

A few days ago i checked and the market place hadn't grown since its opening i remember it was like 150-160k files almost the same as the day it started.
I just went back to check and they have changed the number now it says 10K+ for both libraries,but still i dont think it has changed much.
But seriously do you truly believe that a marketplace that has been open for a month suddenly grew too much as to dilute the sales?
So everyone who contributed there from the start is now an established seller there?Like seriously?

I don't recall saying anything about whether the contributors were established sellers or not, so I'm not sure where that comes from.

So your logic is, the number used to show 150-160K, it now shows 10K+, and you "dont think it has changed much". Like seriously? 

Neither of us has a clue what is really going on there. I just offered what seemed like a possible explanation for helloitsme's sudden drop in sales. It seems logical to me to assume that the pool of buyers hasn't increased significantly in the past month, but the number of files in the marketplace surely has. Perhaps that doesn't explain the sales drop -- of course I honestly don't know.

It could just as easily be that helloitsme was very lucky. One or two buyers perhaps found his port, and continued to buy from it for a few days. When they were done, that was that. Maybe they'll find my port one of these days (I should be so lucky).

Or perhaps you have a better explanation? Let's here it then.

I don't know which comment the OP was referring to, but this is the link to buyer feedback:
http://fineartamerica.com/buyercomments.html

Most comments seem to be very positive, but this one was funny (to me):
I do not want a review
posted by a buyer for two purchases. I'm guessing FAA must ask for a review of every purchase?

There certainly are a few negative ones in the mix.

If you had waited only a few more days, then it would have been an even 5 years between posts. 

But thanks for the blast from the past. This thread contains one of my last posts as an indie, before I was taken in by iStock's "grandfathering" lie. Seems like I've been complaining of dropping sales for 5 years - ha! To put things in perspective, my April 2015 earnings at iStock (not including the yet-to-be-reported Getty & sub sales) was 25% below my April 2010 earnings from all sites.    My portfolio size (which I pretty much stopped adding to during 2013, once it was clear new files were not being seen) is about 5x as big as it was then.

Quote

Your portfolio is about 5x the size of mine, so there's a very good chance that it would act differently from mine.

But to answer your question, Feb '13 happened to be the third-best month of that year for me.  Removing GI sales from the comparison, April 2015 was down 60% as compared with my Feb '13. As a more accurate comparison, compared with the "average" month in 2013, April 2015 was down 55%.

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I appreciated that. Taking that value as a reference I would say that today I'm making the same income as non-exclusive when I was exclusive. I know it is not a real way to compare, but just a way to fool myself. :0)

If you had a lot of income from Vetta or Agency sales, I think it is safe to assume that you are probably better off now as a non-exclusive, than you would be if you had stayed exclusive. If not, then probably about the same income, as you said.