Everyone's always trying to reinvent the wheel.  We have tried starting our own sites, tried linking them through various means with Symbiostock being the latest.  We have tried a contributors co-op ( Warmpictures was it?).  This stuff has all been done.  I really thought Symbiostock had the best chance.  But at this point it is annoying to hear this suggestions of lets get together and make our own stock site like it wasn't tried and failed already more then once.

I put my heart, soul, and time into several of these ventures and just end up disappointed.   You think a contributor run websites a great idea? Start one yourself, but talk to Dan and Leo first.

This is a very positive development!  So far Adobe is doing everything right.

  I would like to see increased saled numbers tho.  So far I lost SS sales and IS sales but no corresponding jump at FT.

I think the economics for the established sites are very different than the economics for the contributors. There is a lot of demand for images, but the sales might be spread out so thinly and the agencies might take such a big slice of the $ that there isn't enough left for the artists.

Exactly.  The question of whether the sites are still making money is one thing, but it is the experience of most contributors that there is less money in stock then a few years ago, and the trends don't look good for the future.  The more the agencies take to make up for competition amongst themselves,  the less is paid out to us.

nearly half a million a week. Crazy numbers. Which is why the pros are all pushing more into macro or niche agencies or adding exclusive images to the agencies that allow that for better visibilty.

Even more depressing to have files rejected in such a flood. They probably don�t bother to train image editors for consistency. Too many files, who cares what makes it through? Individual files mean nothing.

I agree.  The only thing that will impress their remaining shareholders is numbers of images.  They don't give a thought to image quality or uniqueness.

^^ That's not always true.
People who make a point of buying fair trade may feel good about doing it, but they make the choice primarily out of a sense of fair play, "If I should get paid fairly for what I make/do/provide, so should those who make/do/provide for me."

+100.  Only greedy people think that everyone in the world is motivated by greed as they are.  Greed is wanting the most for yourself and f#@k everybody else.  Some people make decisions on what is best for their communities or society as a whole.  That is altruism and not greed.  Makes me sick when greedy selfish people justify it by saying everybody is the same as them. 

No offence mate but you've got to vent your frustrations somwhere else.

Why?  Everyone else vents them here? 

I simply can't see how that can turn out to be true.   I have a hard time imagining who would even be continuing to submit microstock at all, in years to come.

I still see a lot of good looking stuff coming in from the factories.  None of it original AT ALL, but gives the impression that quality is still coming.  We're getting closer to the time when it will be just excited newbs and big factories. 

Wonder if the factories are feeling the same type of hurt as the individual pros? 

What affect me most, is when they got rid of the canister level and use the year credit level system. With their price raise and all changes, I sold less, and then got less even if I was diamond. And now it's just got worst and worst. But thank that it goes very well on shutterstock, and I think the stability of SS help a lot to succeed with buyers and contributors.

I agree with you and JoAnn.  The cannister changes were when they start losing the goodwill of the contributors,  and Getty never thought about that lots of the contributors were buyers too so the angry sellers took their business to other sites and stopped buying at Istock. Everything was downhill after that.  Lots of people say this and I believe its true.

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 29, 2015, 22:03

Exactly,  Rob.  The only way being indie works is to have images on all the major sites.  If I gave up SS or FT the loss of either would mean giving up 5 figures a year.  That's bad business.

Would it change your mind at all if Shutterstock were to match or beat Adobe's pricing (with the corresponding royalty drops)?

See my post #82 above for the answer to that question. Your question makes it seem like I have any control over what SS or any site does with its prices.  This stuff is out of contributors control. 

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 18:36

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 18:19

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 17:32

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 29, 2015, 15:55

I expect your right about SS sales decreasing, but even if they decrease by 50% they will still be much higher than my istock sales are now.  And istock will be hit by the same issue so expect your IS sales to drop too.

iStock exclusives probably aren't going to be contributing to Adobe.  I'm already doing all I can to stay away from there.  It's nonexclusives who have to decide if they would rather have sales at SS or Adobe.  I'd stay away from Adobe as a SS contributor, it's easy to see what will happen if people don't.

It doesn't really work that way. Pulling my images off Fotolia is not going to equal more sales on Shutterstock. People aren't shopping on one site or another because my images are there. They're choosing a site based on the content of the entire library, the quality of the search engine and the price.

The most important thing for buyers is finding images that will do the job they want. They will go to the site that makes that happen most often. I need to have my images in both places to hedge my bets, but I think Shutterstock still has Fotolia beat on search and content. For the time being, anyway.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.  Your images are part the entire library and our images are the entirety of it.  If your images are on one site and not the other and they are the ones buyers need then buyers will go to that site.  If you produce copycat images then you're right it doesn't matter which sites you're on.  Maybe it won't matter if one or two unique portfolios go to SS and don't go to Adobe but if a lot of contributors do then it will make a difference.  I think we should as individuals take responsibility for what we do.

It's not a contradiction when you consider my portfolio is just a drop in the bucket on any of these sites. I'm just riding the wave. I make the decision where to put my images based on the libraries that are already there. I can't change that fact on my own. It would take more than "a lot" of contributors to move. It would take almost all of them.

It's not going to happen. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, and for many of them, just $25,000 a year is a good living wage. They'll happily undercut you because they don't need the same amount of income.

Exactly,  Rob.  The only way being indie works is to have images on all the major sites.  If I gave up SS or FT the loss of either would mean giving up 5 figures a year.  That's bad business.

Quote from: Microstockphoto on July 29, 2015, 05:22

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 28, 2015, 15:37

Stumbling across random crap is the story of my life! Actually I've had some good sellers like that 

I definitely have some snaps that gave me very good returns, but a planned shoot has better chances of getting winners.

Yep I agree though I've often taken unplanned pics on a planned shoot with success - flexibility is a useful skill I think.

For sure!  Some of my best pics were ideas of me or the models that we did not plan for the shoot.  Gotta leave room for inspiration on the spot.

Try creating images, not just capturing whatever you stumble across.  Be the director.  Plan more.   Put some more thought into "why someone might need this" or "how someone could use this".  If it's too specific, keep moving along. 

Stumbling across random crap is lucrative for stock, only if you have the right eye for it.  Right now, what I'm seeing is a portfolio of what everyone's mom with an iphone shoots.  Keep trying to throw some more ideas at the wall, something is bound to stick... and maybe then you will have found your style or niche.  Best wishes

Best advice I read here in a long time!

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 27, 2015, 12:27

Quote from: Microstockphoto on July 27, 2015, 08:32

It depends on your expectations. If you want to make some pocket money, sure. If you want to feed your family it is not.

This is almost word for word what I was gonna say.  Perfectly summed up.

If your work is of similar quality this is true. Some of us actually feed our family and have paid of the mortgage from one microstock site alone.

I pay bills and feed family from microstock too tho it was NOT my expectation, but lucky surprise to do so well.   But when I started it was easier to do.  Now days just starting out is much harder and much mor competition.