Great comment, and I agree with most of your points.

Microstock does appear to be raising prices, but with all the Creative Commons options available and the tight competition between microstock agencies, I don’t see it going much higher. Some agencies will, and are already positioning themselves to be ‘premium microstock’, but I expect most will stay where they are to remain price competitive. With the current dynamics, I see downward price pressure, but no real upward pressure.

I don’t agree that the masses have the power. As I see it, ALL the power is with the top four microstock agencies. They pay low commissions – as you pointed out – and the commissions are getting lower, not higher. With no barriers to entry for photographers, there’ll always be someone willing to sell for less, especially those based in countries where production costs are so much lower. The masses actually have no power because they’re disorganized, and effective organization would require every single contributor participate. Given the reward for non-participation is access to the entire buyer market, there’s zero chance of a successful outcome to organized action.

This explains why microstock agencies can take 80%-90% and make photographers do all the research, post processing and keywording.

I agree that microstock contributors, both hobbyists and professionals, have to raise their quality levels quickly in order to survive. There are lots of traditional stock photographers participating in microstock now, with all their experience and equipment. However, it’s not entirely one-sided. Most traditional stock photographers struggle with the technical requirements of microstock agencies, which are much higher than at traditional agencies. Even the companies many of them use to do their post-production and keywording have virtually no understanding of the requirements and dynamics of the microstock market. But yes, in general, microstock is no longer the same opportunity for less-than-professional images that is has been in the past.

I also agree that the income from microstock cannot support you with how you currently create stock photos. You have setup yourself and your business for a completely different market, and the future for this setup looks grim indeed. Microstock is global, so with your setup and being in the states you cannot compete with those in countries where production costs are much lower. Microstock will be very difficult for you through no fault of your own. However, for many other photographers around the world, it’s a very attractive opportunity.

My thoughts are constantly evolving too. I’m learning a lot through interactions such as this. Thanks again for your comments.

-Lee

Just because things are made cheaply in China doesn’t mean it is a good thing for consumers necessarily.

As for the implication that microstock allows for more efficient production and that is has eroded the sustainability of inefficient production (in the stock industry I assume you are referring), you have got to be kidding me!

There are many agencies, buyers and efficient photographers that would argue otherwise. I am surprised you would write something that is so untrue.

The stock photography market wasn’t subject to supply and demand because supply was restricted. Agencies only took the best photographers, which limited supply and kept the price artificially high. Now that the market is open to anyone, price has come down.

Yes, buyers will continue to pay a premium for highly valued imagery. Buyers are part of the market, so while you’re correct in your assertion, we’re both saying the same thing.

Yes, if every microstock agency charged higher prices buyers wouldn’t have any choice, but in a free market it’s up to each seller to determine the price that provides the best return – high sales or high prices. Currently, microstock agencies are getting supply from photographers because images sell well at low prices. If photographers could earn more selling through traditional agencies, don’t you think they would?

Microstock has been ‘good’ for me and other photographers and hobbyists, while certainly ‘not good’ for others. As for whether it’s been ‘good for the photography business’ or not, that’s entirely subjective.

Microstock contributors are not concerned about the selling price as much as the quantity of earnings that come from the agency at the end of the month. This is very different from ‘free’. Yes, when it’s in context, I stand by what I wrote.

You raised a good point about production costs. Microstock has less ability to sustain expensive shoots, and photographers undertaking such ventures are wise to sell such shots in high yield markets. However, people who can produce similar results at lower costs now have an accessible market. It’s the same reason so many of our products are Made in China. They can produce more efficiently, eroding the sustainability of inefficient production. This is what microstock has done to the market, and few buyers, agencies or ‘efficient’ photographers would argue it’s not a ‘good’ thing.

Thanks again for your comments.

-Lee

The stock market was always subject to the laws of supply and demand.

As for the market determining the price, actually, it is the perceived value of the photograph that determines the price. Photo buyers will continue to pay a premium for highly valued imagery.

As for your take on microstock and what it has done to photography in terms of ‘coming full circle’, did it every cross your mind that if every single microstock agency charged higher prices, then buyers wouldn’t have a choice but to pay more, which would mean more money to photographers.

No matter what you say, microstock was never good for the photography industry as it clearly devalued the production costs required to create stock imagery. You can blather on all you like, but this is fact.

As for photographers ‘not being too concerned with the price’, if this was the case, then photographers would GIVE there photos away for FREE. I mean really – do you believe that line you wrote?

If you are going to talk about microstock, then cut the b.s. and call a spade a spade and tell it as it really is.

Out of some 630,000 images and 3400 contributors.

Average account has 186 images.
Mean number of images is 39 in an account.

Accounts with 1,000 or more account for: 41.6% of images and 3.94% of contributors.
Accounts with 100 or less account for: 9.2% of images and 66.56% of contributors.

Top five contributors in percent of total images: 2.1%, 1.12%, 1%, .88%, .73%

This site is probably a good example of a small startup but not so good for the big 5.

fred

From what I hear, some people use subscriptions for building large image banks that they might use at some point in the future. Others, needing a certain theme, will download 10 similar images and afterwards decide on 1 picture for the final project, while the rest get discarded.