Not too surprising. I always assumed this would happen.

It's kind of interesting to see the sheer volume of it (especially thrown on the floor like garbage).  

http://dailydesigndiscoveries.com/post/12668439688/photography-in-abundance-24-hours-of-flickr

PS:  The title of your thread suggests that "we got what we wanted".  When I read it I assumed we were getting a raise at SS.  False advertising!

LOL. I thought it was an SS exclusive program.

I like the Hollywood blockbusters. I think it's cool that comics and cartoons are mainstream now. 

As far as recommendations: If you haven't seen In Bruges, you'd probably like that. Obviously, it's hard to go wrong with any of the HBO series stuff. I just watched Generation Kill and that was pretty good. As far as my favorite Statham movies, I'd probably have to go with the Crank series (because they are insanely stupid).

If anybody gets too frustrated with micros, they can always help sell my vectors:

http://www.mystockvectors.com/affiliate/index.php

I pay more per sale than a lot of micro sites do. I'm just saying... think about it. It could be fun, and all the cool kids are doing it. Not to mention, you might even make some money. And, everybody likes money... or at least, I think they do?

In conclusion, take a break, sell my stuff, and make money.

My best month since 2010 and 2nd best month overall. 

Clipartof - 32%
Shutterstock - 15%
MyStockVectors - 14%
GL - 9%
Dreamstime - 8%
123RF - 7%
Canstock - 7%
Bigstock - 2%
Zazzle - 1%
Toon Vectors - 1%
Yay - 1%
The rest were less than 1%.

I was so close to passing Shutterstock this month. A couple more sales would have done it. Maybe, next month.

Not sure why, but all the talk of alcohol made this pop into my head.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seN7AKSwMFU[/youtube]

See, yet one more positive thing would come out of it. Looks like a win-win situation

The downside could be that it might hasten that tipping point that I think SS is on a collision course with. That point where there is so much content that nobody can sell enough volume to make enough money for it to be worth their effort. It's just a theory though.

The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE (not 50% as in the case of the S-XXL size images) of the credits for each image enlarged, while we share the remaining amount with the image enlargement service provider.

That's pretty cheesy. I'll probably never sell any of these, but it still seems like a bad precedent.

Let me explain- One could argue that the most successful contributors have a strong understanding of their particular target market. This is at least part of the reason they are so successful. I know you do... its obvious by your posts. Likewise, so do Cthoman, Yuri, and SJLocke. Each of you have significant portfolios and each one of you has chosen a different approach as to which sites you choose to market your images for you.

I guess I got dragged back into this. 

While I'm not as successful as those guys (not even remotely close), I agree that you do have to have a unique game plan that works for you. Small agencies can definitely be part of that. I feel lucky to have joined Clipartof (frequent top earner for me) when they were still accepting new contributors. Also, my own site has taught me that small targeted sites can develop quickly. I also realize though that other contributors haven't had these positive experiences with smaller sites, so I can understand the skepticism.

I watch my data and I know my numbers and I have concluded that the future of microstock is not in a few big guys but rather in a bunch of little guys each doing a different niche and doing it really well.

I tend to agree to a certain extent. I think there is an inherent flaw in larger sites' long term sustainability. How do you keep vast amounts of contributors happy and prosperous? I'm not sure you can. That and illustration seems to be an afterthought at some of these larger agencies (even though it sells well). It all definitely makes me think that smaller agencies will be the future (maybe even the present).

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking. But are you saying the lowest contributor rate should be 50%? I totally understand about those agencies saying different things. I'm curious to know if any of the stock sites have been built by contributors?

I think he is saying 50% would be a good starting point. 50% is generally considered a fair rate, and many agencies offer that now. I really don't look at many new agencies to submit to unless they offer that (among other things). I know of a few agencies that were started by microstock contributors, and many contributors run their own personal sites (mine is in my signature). I guess in a way most of microstock was built by artists (as owners, buyers and contributors).