http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38865

That's sure great for everybody who was involved.

On the other hand, I begin to understand why macrostock pro-photographers are so angry about the microstock business. Mixed emotions here....

It's a combination of two photos. The photographer of the face didn't even get a credit. He probably got an EL. I'm sure the Photoshop artist got a whole lot more. They don't work for pennies.

There's always two sides to a story, but then that wouldn't make sensational press headlines would it!

And the other side is?

Images from 6MP cameras are still presented as 1600x1200 (less than 2MP). Size do matter, but I don't think that they've understood that.

I had a BME in May. I also had BME at SS, IS and FT the same month. Still, I don't think this is going well. Although payments for credit sales are going up, payments for subscriptions are not, at least not if we look at the whole picture.

Most (all?) of the agencies introducing subs the last 12 months have told us the reason is they lose sales if they don't have it. Surprise, surprise. I'm sure there are Mercedes Benz dealers whole lose sales because they don't sell Volkswagens or Mazdas.

It looks to me that most agencies want to offer all services at all price levels. They want to have all the images that the others have, plus a lot that are exclusive to them. They also want to sell at the highest price possible, paying as little as possible to the suppliers. All this is similar to any other business. The big difference here is that, in this case, any costs that the suppliers (us) may have, is not a part of the equation. We are just supposed to deliver, regardless if we gain or lose money on this.

And we do. Since this is so much fun, and a great lifestyle and that can't be measured in dollars or euros or pounds, or can it?

When one of my "partners" in this reduces the prices of my photos so that he can make more money, I'm not sure if I can consider him a partner anymore. I am of course free to withdraw my portfolio, but I did actually invest a lot of time, effort and money uploading those photos, an investment I had hope would return some profits in the long run. Those profits are now sinking, not so much because of competition from other photographers, although that's also a part of it, but because there's a price war going on between agencies selling identical products.

We're obviously at the bottom end of the food chain here, and that is something I'm ready to accept. What is harder to accept, is that the agencies feel free to change the terms at their own will, just like land owners did with small farmers renting land in the medieval ages.

The western civilization hasn't developed much the last 1,000 years, has it?

How do you tell if a DL was a Sub?  I've looked through the site and can't seem to figure out how to tell a regular DL form a Sub?  Someone please tell me!

Just look at the statistics page for each image. There are different symbols for credit and subs sales.

Since Fotolia has jumped on the subscription bandwagon as well, I found it interesting to have a look at what has happened at DT after they did the same. I've used one image as example, which isn't fair of course, but it's still a good example what can happen when customers have the possibility to buy images for next to nothing.

The image in question is a vector, which represent some of my most profitable objects. Here's the sales development:



So far this year, the total of all sales combined is less than each of the two last sales of 2007. Each of those sales generated 20 times as much as a subscription sale at DT. What I fear will happen now after all the major agencies have joined the subs, is that they will start competing on price. It's a stupid thing to do, but so far, none of them have shown much intelligence.

There's only one place to send the bill for a price-war: to the contributors. I'm not going to accept that. I will still keep my microstock accounts alive for the time being, and upload a few images each month, but my main emphasis will be on macrostock. I may not gain much to start with, rather the opposite actually, but I see this as an investment in future sales.

I'm considering uploading RM only to macrostock, leaving the option open to go exclusive at IS for RF content, if they maintain a healthier view on subscriptions. Time will show.

Just to illustrate how things are developing in total at DT for me, here are my sales statistics:



My portfolio at DT has increased with more than 50% the last 12 months, and the quality of my photos is much better than a year ago.

I use Featurepics for that, since

1. They accept most of what I upload
2. I can set my own prices
3. I get 70%
4. I can have my micro as well as my macro portfolio there

Very bad news. I have a BME at FT this month, and it's way ahead of DT, which is sinking, partly because of the low subs earnings. Now, they will go down together.

Time to think RM.

Oh, not FT, I meant DT!

and MP, from Micro or Most?

thank you!
 

Yes, you can at FT. You can also sell them as macro at Alamy.

You have been what? Away? No, I wouldn't know. I've been away   

Mine is a few grains of rice. That's about what I can afford to buy for my microstock earnings   

I still think shutterstock has one of the best systems.

The question is: best for who?

I had my last BME at SS in May 2007. Now, I have almost twice the portfolio and better photos, but I'm not even close to those sales. At the same time, sales at other agencies, particularly FT, IS and StockXpert, are soaring.