istock made its success early on because it motivated people with talent to produce sellable images. For the people that produced those types of images on a consistent basis, the returns were great.
The turning points always happen when the agency starts to abuse its relationship with the contributor and takes more than it deserves. It amazes me to see how clueless the people are that are running these agencies. It probably has to do with the fact that these people think the company's success is directly tied with whatever decisions they themselves make when in fact, they have very little or no impact because its the content and nothing else that is driving the sales.
When that content is all coming from certain areas of the world that is culturally different than the buying market, the buyers will start looking elsewhere.

I thought about this issue back when i started around 2008. I felt microstock is the wild wild (cyber)west with no regulations and lots of opportunities to exploit many loopholes. I didn't worry too much at the time since i only submitted to istock. I only have my files in at 3 top agencies now and don't really put my files elsewhere.

I don't know why, but i don't trust the smaller start-ups as there is no enforceable law that stops them from not reporting sales and I'm not naive enough to think all these agencies are looking out for me at all. Some agencies are literally run by mafia/crooks in my eyes. You better believe that gangsters and the mob are monetizing what they can online...

The bottom for many are all over the place. If bottom for a contributor is moving onto something else or not creating anything new, my bottom from shutterstock happened last year. I've only been there slightly over 3 years and thats just to monetize off the files i made back in 08-09. i probably made less than 20 new vector files sold to microstock in the last 3 years. Most of my sales are from files i had in my istock exclusive days. and since i still make significant money on this, i keep coming back to this forum filled with bearish feelings.

When creating vector works for stock, I find a niche that sells. In creating my files, i spend a lot of time one each file. Probably 1 day worth of work on each submission. I produce commercial stock that gets many downloads and i'm happy because the time i spent is rewarded and the buyers get what they want to see. As the years go by, my talent has gotten better and when i put that talent to use and see no reward for it as my new files disappear never to be found by the buyer, i get discouraged and stop producing for that market. I saw this happen to me on shutterstock on more than 1 occasion last year and decided i no longer wanted to bother with that company. i don't want to be a sucker for a fixed system no matter how many talentless people think otherwise.

I would guess to say they have an agreement with shutterstock that the traffic they bring to SS for new users and downloads gives them a certain commission off the sale.
Everyone wants free stuff but when they see what is available to purchase and if it is right for a project of sorts, they will shell out the money to get that image.
I just searched one query and my image was second on the shutterstock sponsored images that came up. If this avenue is bringing in more sales to me on shutterstock, it's hard for me to complain but I do worry about copying other artists work and trying to keep the sales within that site to take the bigger cut. Thank God I make stuff that's hard to copy.

Jo ann, thanks for this post. I also opted out of this money grab as i have done in the past whenever it mattered. And to the folks that are on the sidelines and saying it doesn't matter, it only is that way because you make it that way.
I think this place is pretty important for getting the news about this industry and if you as a contributor is making any significant income through microstock, this is the place you get your info.
If you really think this isn't going to matter, just do it for the first 3 months. that is enough time for the agency to realize if enough contributors opt out of this deal to make things better for the contributors.

This feels like the true nature of crowdfunding exploitation for the sake of higher profits for the shareholders. It was bound to happen when shutterstock went public and the new boss is wall street.

Letting more contributors in (releasing the floodgates) is bound to have a negative impact on everyone else's download numbers.

I'm just giving a probable scenario. When as a business decision to raise profits, you designate 3 image slots the first 3 pages only to the lowest tiered group to give them the unfair boost over the higher tiered images just for the sake to get more revenue. You would be stupid as a business NOT to do this especially with this new contributor payout scheme. More slots given = happier noobs... more money for SS. Lets just say the images are comparable to mine in quality. Why should they get seen while mine doesn't get a fair chance? This type of stuff isn't accountable but most likely probable. Maybe I am a conspiracy nut to think these thoughts but they make so much sense to me. hehe

While i talk a lot about buyer perception of image value being reduced rather quickly these days, it is interesting to note how much contributors value their time and efforts for the returns these days. Everyone's value of time spent vs rewards gained are different. Where is the bottom that contributors are willing to accept? Its hard for me to see contributors thats been doing this for less than 2 years seeing this as a viable full time prospect unless they have very little options.

The payout isn't worth the time invested in my opinion. Maybe it is different for videos and the market is shifting that direction.

This brings up an interesting question. If a person steals an image  and uses as one of his own, whats the likelihood that a significant part of their portfolio is stolen work? Is there a chance it only happened once or twice?

I reported someone from using images almost identical to a couple of mine in various sets i sell online and the agency took the portfolio down quick. But after some time the portfolio is back up online with the offending images gone.

I wish there is a stricter policy regarding theft from the agencies as i feel that once you go the route of benefitting from someone else hard work, you would do it more often than once or twice but then again, i do not know the mind set of these people so I'm just guessing at this point.

stock markets are terrible also.... something like worst 1st week ever on record???

doom and gloom... doom and gloom

What kind of best match system does your site have? I think the key to success in any type of library is the ability to filter out the rubbish and let relevant images be shown better as buyers don't have to wade through garbage.

I would be more inclined to join this venture if you told me that this is a customized search engine you coded. Not a generic one with minimal or no coding done.

If there is no response, i will probably guess the answer for myself.

I have never uploaded to Yay Micro, but I went to have a look at Yay Images to see what they were offering.

They don't offer unlimited downloads, but unlimited streaming for $9.99 a month. The streamed image appears to be hosted on their servers and you can link to it from your blog or other online use:

https://www.yayimages.com/support/13-support/26-what-is-streaming

Are there any limits on the size you can stream? If not, it doesn't take a genius to link to a huge size, do a screen grab and save the image...

The bigger worry, IMO, is the super-low pricing for downloads and the rather ambiguous license terms (such as whether you can use a regular license, not extended, to produce up to 100 products for sale):

https://www.yayimages.com/pricing?backUrl=%2Fterms

Note that you can get 1,000 downloads (with a standard RF license) plus unlimited streaming for $99 a month. I don't see any need to commit to a year to get that price. Contrast that with SS where a one month subscription for up to 750 images is $249. You could argue that the relatively tiny selection at Yay Micro would suggest a lower price.

However, these prices are even worse than they look because you can rollover unused downloads.

Yay's extended license pricing is even worse - you get 100 extended licenses (plus the 1,000 standard) for $499 a month! I'm not sure that anyone would ever buy this - how many buyers need 100 ELs?

https://www.yayimages.com/pro-plan

Note the contradiction between the chart and the text. The chart says 1,000 RF licenses and 100 extended. The text says 900 RF licenses and 100 extended. There is also the rather odd wording "If you are making a product in less than 100 copies, you do NOT need an extended license." This suggests that you can an extended license for a 100-run limit in the standard RF price.

They also say in the support section that you can download images instead of streaming them if the service you use doesn't permit hotlinking

https://www.yayimages.com/support/13-support/29-can-i-download-the-images

So do they make any effort to police this at all?

The other thing I noticed is that you don't see the pixel dimensions of any image when searching - if I'm looking for print uses vs. a blog, that's important information. Perhaps they are assuming that blogging and online uses are primary for them?

With the entry level $9.90 a month, a buyer gets one download and unlimited streaming. If the contributor gets 50 percent and a buyer downloads one image and streams 10, what are the royalties paid for the one download and each stream? I can't find those specifics on the site.

The contract may not require them to do it, but I'd think common decency requires that if they're shuttering Yay Micro, they should pay out any balances to those who wish to leave as a result. And as their payout threshold is in euros but the prices I'm seeing are in US dollars, what exchange rate do they use to convert?

Based on what I can see of Yay Images, I wouldn't contribute images. Trying to get market traction by undercutting other agencies on price seems like a non-starter - a variation of the Dollar Photo Club.

Put in red by me.
I think this would attract buyers that will be selling a lot of stuff to be printed on mugs calendars posters shirts and such... tons of printers that need a lot of images to sell that they cant produce themselves...

looks like his account is back online. But i haven't seen the offending file where he had some of my files inside his...

In 2016, I wish everyone that works at any type of image based agency at all levels (especially senior level) go through mandatory 3 month full time course where they need to produce, upload, keyword and sell images/ vectors/ videos just to see how it is to be a contributor in this industry so that real changes can be made like wage earnings and the perceived value of the commodity they are licensing out.
The hedge fund managers or any other player with real financial stake in this industry must go through this training for 2 years thank you.