Should they introduce higher priced collections? Yes. Should they do it like iStock did? No.

Quote from: cthoman on September 01, 2012, 14:47

2nd best month of the year.

Congrats Cory.  I am curious where the bulk of your sales are coming from.

Thanks. It's still pretty similar to my halftime report:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/blog-updates/stock-report-halftime/msg264118/#msg264118

Only minus 123RF this month. It's a bit odd that every time I eliminate a site... another one rises up. I'm sure it is just coincidence, but it makes me think.

2nd best month of the year.

As long as a new site has it's act together and is professional and has good commissions I don't see any harm in giving that site a portion of my port to test the waters. Stockami, Toon Vectors and Image Toons are the three new guys that I think have some potential to gain market share in the future. I get your argument about volume and like you I'm not as willing as Cory to dump the big guys. Having said that, I really think the industry is changing. I think smaller vector sites that do it really well will be the salvation of the Illustrators. Eventually we will get the sales from these guys and when we do everyone else's commissions will seem to be no longer worth it. When that happens the "new guys" will have the best vector selection and will get most of the customers too.

The photogs here have convinced me that may not the case with photos. But I am convinced it will happen with illustrations. Clipartof is the proof. They do exactly what I am talking about and they are winning (for themselves and for me). I know CAO doesn't take new contributors but these other guys do. If a couple of these new guys do it well they will get the customers and we as contributors will get paid more.

I definitely agree. It seems like it may take some time for that to happen, but the signs are encouraging that it has a good chance of happening.

Quote from: cthoman on August 29, 2012, 13:54

IS and SS are around $20 for high res files, so I'd put that closer to where the market is or should be. But, the market can probably bear higher prices than that. I'm not sure where the sweet spot is, but I'd put $10 at the minimum...

But we're only getting a small percentage for those sales. Higher prices like that discourage some buyers from buying more often, and the contributor walks away with less than they would for a high-res or vector sale at SF. $20 at istock gets someone a large image and puts $3.40 in an independent artist's pocket. $20 at SF buys 2 of the same size image and puts $10 in the artist's pocket. Why would you want $3.40 instead of $10, in a deal where the buyers gets more and is likely happier in the end and will buy more often?

I'm not sure what your point is. I don't think SS or IS are fair paying agencies either. Maybe my definition is too strict for what I think is fair, but I just don't find that most agencies are set up for the success of their contributors (especially long term).

Quote from: cthoman on August 29, 2012, 11:43

On a side note, I don't consider Stockfresh a fair paying agency. Their prices are too low to have any real earnings potential. Just my opinion though.

Vector prices are very fair at $10 with the contributor getting half of that.

I don't think someone should have to pay $10 for a 350x350px jpg.

What's your ideal price point for large photos or vectors?

IS and SS are around $20 for high res files, so I'd put that closer to where the market is or should be. But, the market can probably bear higher prices than that. I'm not sure where the sweet spot is, but I'd put $10 at the minimum.

Thinking about it from a contributor perspective, let's say you need to make between $3000 and $5000 a month to put you into the middle class in the US. Sites that sell images in the $1 to $10 range (for vectors and rasters) seem to average around a $1 to $2 RPD. That means you'd need to sell 1500 to 5000 images to hit the goal of a middle class salary. That doesn't seem fair and not overly realistic for most contributors.

By converse, selling at $20 apiece and getting 50% would earn you a $10 RPD. Which would mean you would only need to sell 300-500 files a month. I think most contributors would find that a lot easier and manageable to earn a middle class wage by creating stock.

I'm not sure how people can say something is fair when the bar to be modestly successful (middle class wage) on some of these sites is outrageously high.

Yes I am getting worried about the whole microstock buisness. People like Yuri are going sole distributor, Lisa dont seem too happy and Lagereek, is nowhere to be found,  Claridge, a name most here havent even heard about is threatening to leave micro.
I am pretty new here but what is actually going on?

I am a buyer, not a contributor.

I think most of us have realized the limited potential of microstock, so some of us have branched out into other opportunities like our own sites, macro, etc. It's difficult to make a living doing this and few do, so things will probably change or evolve. I don't see the change being drastic though.

On a side note, I don't consider Stockfresh a fair paying agency. Their prices are too low to have any real earnings potential. Just my opinion though.

It really depends on what you are doing. I've done things for free that only take a few minutes, then I've done modifications that take hours. Just try to budget your time on how long you think it is going to take you, and charge based on that.

That sales and marketing budget is monstrous. Looking at these numbers, I guess they couldn't pay contributors 50%.

Where are you getting the 2.57 from?

It was $2.05 + your $.52 average RPD for the total cost of an average sale. I don't know what the average RPD is, but I can't imagine it is over 70 cents. Probably closer to 50 cents (maybe below).

mine is 52 cents
so if you use dirkr's method and Ed's number method we get
52 cents per download / 2.05 rev. per download for SS
25% royalties for me

Shouldn't that be .52 divided by 2.57 or 20%?

As well as Stockfresh, I'm sure FeaturePics hasn't borrowed thousands/millions.  And there's Cutcaster, I remember them saying they weren't going to spend lots of money.  I don't think Mostphotos spent much.  There's probably at least another 10 sites with the same "different" approach.  What do they all have in common?  Very few buyers, low sales and they aren't popular with the majority of contributors.  There's enough already, I think you need to come up with a new and hopefully true difference.

Speak for yourself, some of my best earners are smaller sites, but I did put in some effort/images (I think) to help them grow. It really depends on how many contributors you are trying to pay each month. It's easier to pay one or two a decent amount rather than trying to pay 30,000+. I'd focus on my own images if I were ICP. If you can sell your own images, then it shouldn't be a problem attracting other contributors. Most contributors don't want to dedicate much time or resources to small sites to help them grow anyway, so there probably isn't too much point chasing them at random.

Pretty much all of them.