Interesting. I'll have to take a look at it. I have trouble discounting anything new anymore. It's amazing how things take off and/or evolve.

I have the Intuos 3 in the 6 x 11 size

I've got one of those too (6x8). It's fun to use, but I still prefer drawing with a mouse. To each his own, you never know until you try it out, all that, etc.

Yes, Ktools. Why charge more? And how do I know what's the right amount? Other stock sites are all over the place with pricing. I know I don't want to sell too cheap or it won't be taken seriously...but what's the balance between too expensive and reasonably affordable. I would like to be on the more affordable side of things.

I would say $10 is on the low end for high res files, and $30+ is on the high end in micro. There are sites that charge less than $10 for high res files, but that doesn't seem like a very good model for attracting "happy" contributors. I would shoot for the $15 to $20 range. That's around where I charge on my site now and that is around where I look for prices for my files on other sites. As a small site, you will get less sales and customers, so you want to make those sales count.

Also, think about what you want to earn, and how many sales will it take per month at that price point. At $6 a sale, it would take 5.5 sales a day or 166 sales a month to earn $1000. That's a decent amount of sales for a small site. By comparison at $20, it would only take 50 a month or 1.5 a day. That's still good sales performance, but a much lower bar.

Just food for thought. Good luck with the site.

I'm not seeing that at all with SS. I feel like SS hit its peak in 2009 and has been in a slow decline since. They have mitigated that decline by offering alternate buying options, but still a decline in overall sales (probably stable or little growth in overall revenue). I actually think they will start to decline "for real" when they run out of new pricing schemes to inflate their numbers.

Everybody has their own results though.

Not to pick on Shutterstock because some of the other companies had similar stories. IStock moved their prices around several times, so it deceptive looked like the company was growing rapidly. Then, they and other companies started making mistakes by toying with their numbers. Well, at least, mistakes from the contributors point of view.

don�t remember but I guess this article wasn�t published in MSG, take a look, quite interesting, comments also

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/05/16/shutterstocks-ipo-plans/

Those numbers don't seem to add up. They seem to suggest they are paying about 33% ($58 mil of $178 mil). 33% of $3 would be about $1 per sale. That seems way too high (at least compared to what I get). Maybe, affiliates account for the extra, but that doesn't seem to make sense either.

^^^ I agree with you.  I think there's a few reasons why most of us hit an earnings wall but not being able to keep changing what we upload is probably the biggest factor.  It's so easy to have a small diverse portfolio but it gets harder the longer you do this.  But I do think that if the commission cuts hadn't happened, I would feel more inclined to put the hours in to microstock and work on constantly changing my style.  Not knowing how much the sites are going to be paying in 5 years time has destroyed my long term plans with microstock and now I'm looking at other ways to make money from photography.

I think this is true. We can always diversify what we are doing and improve our numbers in stock, but there is that problem of fighting an uphill battle. An agency can easily wipe out a whole years worth of growth with a few percentage point change. Then there is the question of whether it is right to get 20%-30& of the royalties that average out to $1 or $2. I looked at my iStock numbers at their peak and thought... if they would have paid me 50% then, I probably would not have bothered with the other agencies. They would have seemed cheap and insignificant. Obviously, that didn't happen, so I spread out to various agencies and undercut IS, myself, and pretty much everybody else. I guess I find it more frustrating than not being rich that I have something valuable and profitable that gets wasted because it keeps getting thrown in the bargain bin or trash.

Don't worry about the reeky one. When his sales are, going badly the sites are, STUPID. When! anyone else's sales are going, badly it's their own fault.

LOL. I actually think both are true. The agencies are stupid because they could be earning more with better terms/prices and happier contributors. And, we are stupid for letting them get away with not doing it. I look at my numbers each month, and think that there is no real reason why I shouldn't be earning twice as much as I am. Move a few percentage points and some prices, and it wouldn't take much (even at half sales).

"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."

Well, that is reassuring. I'm totally convinced now.  

Haven't most of us had a nice boost with SS this year?  The only sites that are really down for me are istock and FT.  That doesn't mean either of them are doing badly, unfortunately we don't have access to all the numbers.  There's a lot of guessing here but really isn't that all it is?  As I'm hardly producing any new microsotck images, I'm actually surprised how well my  earnings have held up.  And there's always lots of complaining about low sales in summer.  It gets worse every year because more people hit the wall and join the complainers.  

If there's still a slump after October, the fat lady can start singing but at the moment, I don't think there's any sign of her.

I tend to agree. I haven't been uploading at the majors either (for about 2 years) and things have been fairly stable. I am uploading elsewhere though, and things have been growing there. I'd say it's a mix of good and bad, but my expectations/standards have probably changed (they are higher) more than the industry actually has. If anything I would say micro isn't changing fast enough to meet the evolving needs. Maybe, that is why you see some buyers and contributors going back to traditional stock.

Quote from: StockBottom on August 14, 2012, 10:29

sorry but nowadays you either sell on Getty (RF or RM) or you will just make peanuts with the other agencies.

micros : they're a good place where you can dump and sell images that don't fit or sell on Getty...

Huh. So I guess all of the people who make a living in microstock have somehow managed to convince the bill and tax collectors to accept peanuts as payment.

Yeah, but it's hard to get the peanuts in the envelopes. 

I don't think the microstock model is flawed, I think the greedy, rat ba$tard agencies are flawed. They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value. That's not how the microstock model started out. Even the first images I ever submitted as a noob had value and sold. And as my photography improved, they sold better and better. It's some of the agencies that are supposed to be representing us that are changing the model to suit their own greedy pockets. 

I agree. I think as contributors (maybe buyers as well) demand more from their agencies, they'll get more out of them.

I hadn't seen that. And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

I was kind of curious about that too. Most of the info on it seemed a little light on details.

80% might look unfair but if they spend 100 to make 120 to me it looks fair, there are very very few companies around
making net profits above 30%, you guys forget that with their 80% fee they have to pay ALL the costs and the taxes, which
in canada are at least 20-25%.

Umm... I have to pay those taxes too. Self-Employment is a rough tax.