I still believe that bloggers aren't our customers, so we don't technically "lose" money, but in general the attitude of many web users is scary. They could be our customers and we need to work hard to convert them into payers, not thieves.

I've purchased images for my blog, but I could be in the minority. It's hard to say what the majority do though. I was kind of shocked that the woman that wrote the article asked around and came to a consensus that what she was doing was correct. Also, I'd think you would end up on a stock site sooner or later when you were searching for images and just purchase one.

Well, this has been my hunch for a long time now. One of the biggest micro buyers in Scandinavia have reached the end of line with micros. Friday, last week I posted some shots to their Art-buyer/ Art-director,  known him for many years. His immediate question was, are these micro-shots? because we have stopped buying from micro agencis, no more.
Bad thing this, they buy micro shots for clients and by the thousands! Im sure. Whats the reason? well, everything is about quantity rather then quality, too time consuming finding the right shots and bad client-relations, etc,  "so we rather spend the extra for RF, even RM, if need be, you have a dialogue with the agency and get exactly what you want".

So for all these ppl, who are under the belief that agencies should accept everything thrown at them. Do yourself a favour. Think AGAIN! to some extent this is many contributors fault, putting preasure, etc on agencies to accept into their files any old rubbish and completely irrelevant material.
This might just be the tip of the iceberg, just the beginning and more to follow.

best

Interesting news, although he probably isn't buying my kind of files if he prefers macro.

Yes well I have already long back eliminated around 15 blue flames, 20 red flames, etc from the IS files. Thats enough. I needed these files for a specific reason  but to just blindly eliminate files just on pure moral grounds?  well, must say, if morality is that expensive! I dont want none.

LOL. I hear that. Trust me, it wasn't all about moral superiority. I'm not that noble. 

It was more about moving my business/images to better paying sites, although first you actually have to find them. That is a little easier to do on the illustration side. It's strange. It seems like the illustration side has a lot of fair pay sites popping up recently, but the photo side seems to be going in the opposite direction. That's a shame because producing photos seems like a much more expensive operation to run. Maybe, the increased competition cause your work to be devalued.

It does make me wonder if there will be a mass exodus of illustrators at some point. I could definitely see a point where I'm not on any (or very few) sites that sell photography.

Well, majority of other site sells illustrations and graphic design elements for pennies(subscriptions). Its hard for me to participate with those returns knowing i am part of the problem driving down the wages and fair compensation for illustrators and designers alike. Its all relevant to what kind of product you produce. Successful vector files on istock can easily generate over $5,000 in 2 or so years. If you have the skills to create those, why harm the industry by putting it a subscription based site like SS where you are training the buyers that good quality art can be bought on the cheap??

I agree (it is too low), but I don't think iStock's under 20% royalty rate mixed with Thinkstock are any different. So in a way, you are already supporting all of that. Just because you are standing on the shoulders of all the non exclusives that are wallowing in the mud doesn't mean you aren't in the mud too. 

I'm not saying that to be a jerk. I actually applaud your sentiment. I just don't think you can praise iStock for having a higher ground anymore. There are plenty of new agencies for illustrators popping up like Toon Vectors, Image Toons, Drawshop and GL Images that could use your praise and support.

Commission cuts... hmm... I'm not sure how I feel about that. It could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing. I guess I don't have a lot of confidence in contributors either, so it would probably be a bad thing.

Anyone could create a big company, but I still wonder why anyone would want to. I'd much rather have Sean's business than Yuri's. Low overhead, small operation, high profitability.

I can appreciate and applaud Yuri's interest in making a dent in the universe so to speak, but that is an ambition that I don't understand, personally anyway. That's not the kind of life I'd want. I much rather stay low-key, not have to pour tons of money into staff and expenses, and enjoy a low-pressure yet profitable business. I guess it all depends on where you are in your life. Given the opportunity to never have to work again a day in my life, I wouldn't be as motivated as Yuri to want to do something so ambitious, no matter how much I loved the craft. I'd rather spend that time with my family, doing things with my wife and son, traveling, etc.

100% agree.

'My average return on investment is currently about 30 months and I�m the world�s best!'

I'm guessing my return is 3-4 months.  I won't make any claim besides that.

Is that a cost out for time or just expenses? If it's just expenses, then I don't really have any. So, my time to return is zero seconds. Maybe, I'm the world's best? 

Thinly veiled bragging and a riff on Zuckerberg's "Walk in the Woods" : http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/a-walk-in-the-woods-with-mark-zuckerberg/

Of course you want people you can trust to work with, but you don't have to want to go scrapbooking with them.

Are you confessing your secret love for scrapbooking? 

Difference is that Yuri has the resources to make his site top notch rather than ktools or photoshelter.  He also has the brand recognition and portfolio to have a strong likelihood of making it a big success.

He definitely has the resources and has spent time and money to make something unique, but I wouldn't sell any of us short. If anything, Yuri's bar for success is a lot higher than most of ours. Most of us don't need to earn that much or get that many sales to equal the income of our top micro.

I think there is something to be said for offering unique content on your own site. Especially if you have hit a wall with the regular micro sites. You don't have much to lose by focusing your attention and new images exclusively on your own site. I don't know if that is Yuri's game plan, but it seems like a good one (because that is my plan).

I don't see him capturing a significant market share away from the larger sites, but his site could become a major factor in his own earnings. And, I think that is probably all you can really strive for when you open your own site (to make more money for yourself).

Quote from: leaf on July 15, 2012, 02:31

Serban just made a response on Lee's blog here
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html#comment-216679

Was the comment removed, Tyler?  I'm not seeing anything from Serban.

I didn't see them either when I fist looked at it, then I refreshed my browser and they were there. Interesting reply, but I think I'm more confused now.

I'm all for protecting copyright, but I think it is an unnecessary burden on agencies to maintain all the metadata that a contributor stuffs into an image. That data gets stripped out in normal saving processes (multiple sizes, thumbnails, etc.). Even if it was included, most buyers will never look at it or see it anyway. Also, where do you draw the line? Should buyers be required to keep it too? Should Photoshop or other image editors be forced not to remove it either when files are saved?

Since I already gave the serious answer, it's time for the joke answer...

I think everyone should sign up for my affiliate program and replace their Dreamstime links with MyStockVectors links. That will show them.