Although I make my FT living from microstock, I voted for flipping cheeseburgers (actually, you don't flip them once you have added the cheese ).

6 years ago, I would have told them it is difficult, but possible to make a living at microstock.  Now, I don't think it would be for someone just starting out.  The only ones I have seen join and succeed in the past couple of years have been image factories staffed with experienced industry professionals. 

+1

There is still room in the industry, but most of those who would succeed really have better options elsewhere.

Most of those who ask really don't have a good understanding of what's involved and underestimate the input that's required to be successful.

Fotolia is not talking about our commission and our part of subscription... They are pointing their finger in prices...
But, as I said before, we are on "lower price agencies" because of them and their percentag, (Fotolia's 13% and Istock's 15%-19%) that is too small part for us...
We should have 35-50% on FT and IS, then we won't search for an alternative earning...

Exactly - they don't care about the artist - it may well be that 50% of $1 = 50c, and 13% of $2 that they pay = 26c, as may well be the case at FT if you're being paid in $$.   

Really there's nothing that FT has said or done in the last few years that has been in any way in favour of contributors. Its their own revenue that they're worried about now as always.

Folks,

It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions  is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.

By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive. Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours.

Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com

Sorry but wan't Fotolia the site that championed having a free photos section and website dedicated to giving them all away?

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/photoxpress-and-free-photo-strategies.html

I notice that the previously *free* site that Fotolia was running is now a subscription service that guarantees buyers (So now the only free thing about the site is the images that you don't pay contributors commissions for that were previously naively donated):

BEST PRICES GUARANTEED*

The packages that fit your needs, the prices that fit your wallet. PhotoXpress offers the best packages you won't get anywhere else. Guaranteed! If you find a lower price package, we will match it!* Packages start at just $10 dollars. Now that makes better sense!

Obviously you don't want any other site undercutting you because you want to be the lowest in the business GUARANTEED!

For all those asking Chad to name names, don't expect a real answer - this whole policy is already on the wrong side of trade practices legislation in too many jurisdictions to name.

Great to see Pond5 here - I just signed up as a video contributor there & now have my first videos online.

Hoping to see some sales soon

No question... I'd sell too

Well there seems to have been the biggest shift yet overnight. Looks like newer files are doing better, and particularly edstock. In a search for "Berlin" I get 105/200 results from edstock, including many that are full of irrelevant keywords.

Look at this for example, which makes that best match (and isn't even shot in Berlin):



Pick the relevant keywords:
Lifestyles, Horizontal, Outdoors, Tourist, Germany, Museum, Easter, Traditional Culture, Berlin, Season, River, Spree River, Bioreserve, Capital Cities, Human Interest

Ok some thoughts:

1. The best match at Istock has been changing over the last month or so, either intentionally or unintentionally. That is going to have an effect on sales. There were a few days where we had some really unusual results coming up - that's going to have an impact, and was probably especially prominent for the high volume searches.

2. Microstock is maturing, and that is going to be felt at iStock first through being the oldest microstock with the most developed customer base. There will be a point where those with large portfolios just won't be able to achieve growth through further portfolio increases - at best you'll be able to stem losses or reach an equilibrium. Some here realise that, but the question is really where is that point, and what to do about it.

3. The above is exacerbated when there are multiple contributors producing the same "look" in volume - the pie ends up being carved up in different, but overall smaller portions.

4. In some ways what happens at iStock will also happen in other agencies - by virtue of being first to the market. Its just not possible to continue to increase sales long term in excess of the increase in quantity of images supplied.

5. At the moment, old files that became successful at the "peak" are still protected in the best match - if there's any change to that situation, there's some potentially massive falls in store for those that are doing best at the moment. Many popular searches don't have any material from the last 12 months or more.

6. For Yuri specifically: your old material is performing relatively better in the overall search compared to the new material - compare a search for "business" where you get 31/200 in the regular best match. Filter that down to the last 6 months and it goes down to 1/200 or 5/200 if you filter out Vetta, Agency and Exclusive +. Obviously theres both the effects of improving standards from the competition, volume of material with a very similar look and the favouring of Vetta & Agency all working against you in such searches.

Quote from: sharpshot on September 09, 2011, 04:51

It seems that the internet loves one big company that dominates the sector.

This is a very convincing explanation, the most convincing I read so far. People need symbols.

Indeed... unfortunate but true.

Though there's also room for different players to dominate in segments of the market online. So for example the big fish in the US often won't be the same big fish as in Europe.

Sorry but there's some pretty major problems with the terms of your license agreement.

Is there any reason why you don't allow contributors to cancel their licensing arrangements with you?

CLIP PRODUCER transfers to FOOTAGE ONLINE all the non-exclusive use and exploitation rights under copyright and neighboring right without content, time and geographical restrictions. The transfer of rights is to give third parties (customers) use and exploitation rights (license rights) to the MATERIAL.

(also in your FAQ: "Deleting clips in your profile is not possible.")

This clause is worded so that there is no right for contributors to remove content from your site, and basically gives you a blank cheque in terms of how you want to use the material.

Also: your "CLIP-PRODUCER earns 50% of net sales." is very different from earning 50% of the gross - so if you re-distribute through partners the commission will be substantially less.

Also:
CLIP PRODUCER expressly waives his right to be named.

Ie. you want anyone contributing to be completely anonymous.

In its current form I wouldn't touch your site with a 10-foot barge pole.

39261 files as of ten minutes ago.
And like I said over on the iStock forum, try a Best Match search on 'African Elephant'. (Unless I've got a weird geographic bias, there are 7 EdStock pics in the top 20. (Actually, that best match has changed a lot since last night, when 'ED' had even more).

Is there a big market for 'red carpet' images after the event? Usually if I see pics of celebs they are much more 'generic', unless the article is actually about the red carpet event. (But that's in general publications, I don't read celeb mags).

I only see flying "african elephants" near the top of that search... http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622466-an-african-safari.php?st=b6afe6a

Quote from: holgs on September 02, 2011, 16:07

Overall $$ was slightly ahead of July, and about double Aug '10, but seeing as that was changeover month, the stat is still pretty meaningless. About 10% off my BME without factoring in PP and Getty earnings. I increased my portfolio by over 400 images this month so its not a great result, but maybe the effort will be rewarded in coming months.

That's the point. My August was worse than June and July but not much. However, it is worrisome that the new images have not boosted the overall income.

Lately I've noticed that it takes a little bit longer for images to become properly indexed and start getting sales. The search does however heavily favour older files which is a problem.

I´ll run my own test when they hit the store. I don´t think dpreview develops their RAW files with stock photography in mind.

The small Nex5 gives excellent files. I hope the new sensor is even better.

But we will see.

I think dpreview mostly just shoots jpgs unless its a test chart. Somehow they make even the best cameras look average in the sample images they put up.