I went two full weeks without a single sale during the first part of the July. I decided a few days ago to upload a handful of files and within two days I have had a half-dozen sales.

Statistically speaking, the difference between 0 and 6 sales is insignificant.  You'd really have to be generating sales in the 100 / day range and do a test to see if a halt in uploading would have a measurable impact.   

FT is my second best selling agency, and I do a pretty good volume there every day.  I can tell you that I took some time off in June and looking back I see no noticeable drop in sales that connect to my absence in any way.

Exactly how is it simply an "opinion" to be questioning the financial stability of a company, referring to questionable, undocumented evidence that people aren't being paid?  Those are allegations, not opinions.

By the way, yelling "FIRE" in a building to create panic would also not be an opinion, and would not be considered free speech.

In fact, spreading lies about a person or organization is called libel and could get you into serious legal trouble.

I find it ironic that after all the discussion here on this forum about how to protect photographer's livelihood against corporate greed, when an action is taken then there are those who oppose that possible protection.

You will find a variety of viewpoints in this forum.  To put it in black and white terms (though there's plenty of gray area in between), there are those here who want to be protected (pro-union) and those who believe in personal responsibility.  The pro-union folks are probably happy with the French government action, while those who believe in the individual prospering or floundering by his own work and ideas are finding this whole idea ludicrous.   I think you know which camp I'm in.

Predatory pricing is what you describe.  A new competitor will price a product or service so low, often taking a loss on it, to take market share from established players.  I believe the notion of taking a loss on the sold item is often what's at question. 

But this idea can't even be applied to microstock.   When we produce images -- photos, illustrations, etc. -- we don't expect the first sale to compensate us for our cost, time, etc.  Of course the individual commissions are far too low to offset our investments.  We know it will take multiple sales to get us to the point of break even and then profit.  If the French government is going to hit microstock with the "predatory pricing" stick, it's applying a measurement that is not applicable.

There certainly needs to be some regulation on what they can serve. 

Certainly regulation is needed for health matters, or protecting endangered species.  The analogy here, I'm sure you understand, is the pricing.

OK, I think we're all agreed that if there's something legally wrong with the agreement, or if actual deception and law breaking is taking place, then justice needs to be served.

BUT... I consider myself an adult.  I read an agreement and accepted it.  I submit to FT under the terms I accepted, and I feel satisfied getting my .38 or whatever per download.  It is an arrangement that works well for me.  If it stopped working well, I am free to no longer participate.  I don't need some governmental body to protect me from the big bad stock agency that wants to stick it to me.  I don't cry to my mom (or government protectors) every night that the big mean world is taking advantage of me.  I participate while it makes sense for me until I feel I'm getting the raw end of a deal, at which point I'll walk away.    This slavery mindset is maddening.  If you don't like it, grow up, take your marbles and go home.

The images you submitted will never sell, at IS at least. 

Almost fully agree.  These are simply not commercially viable subjects, except for the road shot with the streaked lights.  I myself have bought shots like this before.  Shots like that have actual commercial use, but there are so many out there, you'll have to do something unique to stand out.

I've said it a hundred times here, but you're new, so I'll say it again for your benefit.  Quality isn't what will make your stuff sell in microstock.  You've passed the quality test, and now you're in the submitter pool with tens of thousands of people just like you but experienced at this.   A very small handful make decent money at it.  Their secret?  Figuring out subject matter that sells.  First and foremost, try to find niche subjects with decent demand but little competition, or if you can't find those elusive topics and end up covering areas that are oversaturated, you HAVE to tackle the subjects in a very unique way that makes you stand out.

So when you're considering a shoot, first ask yourself, "who will buy this and why."  Imagine a commercial application for the shot.  Sure, somewhere out there could be a calendar publisher who might want your cute llama shot, so that picture might get one sale a year.   Look at your initial 10 photos and be honest... who will buy them and how will they use them?  The only one with any real commercial prospects is the road shot.  It has literal value for articles/products/blogs/etc. about transportation, and it has conceptual value as a symbol for speed/future/progress/etc.  This is the frame of mind you MUST be in if you want to make decent money at this.

So best of luck to you, but the odds are against you.  The good news is that most people never learn the secrets that I just described, so if you heed these words, you'll have a serious leg up on them. 

Haven't seen the ad, but it strikes me as very smart.

If it's true that designers are bailing on iStock in droves, rather than just spending less on micro in general, then the other agencies should be battling it out for those customers.

It's generally taboo to be calling out your competitor by name in an ad, but this is a unique case of much of the market being fed up with one company in particular.  The opportunity is there for someone else to swoop in and lure those frustrated buyers.

But the question I have is... why  BigStock and not Shutterstock?  Granted, I'd rather get a lot more .50 commissions than .38 commissions, but if I were SS management, I'd think that SS would have a better shot at getting these people than BigStock.  Maybe they figure those angry iStock buyers already knew about SS and made their choice to go with iStock over SS long ago, and BigStock might be less known to them and therefore a greater opportunity?

Overall, my sales are about 15% higher today (July 5) than yesterday, but DT sales are about half of yesterday's.  Odd.  Here's hoping you guys are right and some sales just aren't showing up yet.

Quote from: stockmarketer on July 01, 2011, 05:58

Quote from: lagereek on July 01, 2011, 04:56

What does say a lot, it that my earnings from say SS, is going into a 5-figured amount, thanks to the IS mess around with independants.

Do you mean you did nearly 5 figures at SS in June, or is that YTD?

YTD ?  whats that, computer language?  I dont want to give away too much but lets put it this way. In my six years in Micro, I have never seen such a skyrocketting of sales at SS and DT, since almost the very date of IS, throwing independant files right at the back.
Its just too much of coincidence.
Yet! as an independant, Im doing pretty well at IS, might be down about 30% from earlier but still good.

As someone else pointed out, YTD is Year To Date.

I still don't understand what you're saying, aside from SS being up for you.  Still wondering what you meant by "my earnings from say SS, is going into a 5-figured amount."  It sounds like either your year-to-date earnings at SS are approaching $10,000 or that your monthly earnings at SS are approaching $10,000.  Is this what you meant?

Very satisfied with June earnings.

Up just a few dollars over May, but considering June had 30 days vs. May's 31, that's pretty good.

Up nearly 100% vs. May 2010.  (Started doing microstock in 2008.)

I've been in the middle of some of these myself, so I've seen the good and the bad.  Here's how I would see it playing out for contributors...

GOOD: Shareholders want constant growth.  That would make SS management get very aggressive about advertising and bringing in new customers, making enhancements to the site, etc... anything to drive up sales.

BAD: Shareholders want constant growth.   If SS management can't deliver higher revenue by increasing sales, they'll focus on higher profits...  boosting the bottom line by cutting costs such as, you guessed it, contributor royalties. 

SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN:  SS could be set on a warpath to gobble up smaller players and boost their market share to please the shareholders.  This would result in fewer agencies that sell our work, but with less competition, the race to the bottom in pricing could ease up and they could actually increase prices, which could benefit us, assuming royalties aren't cut.