Thanks for all the great feedback positive or not Ii learn a great deal from all of you.

Thank you,
Jonatan

“Now fast forward a decade and I see the same situation taking place between Macro RF and Micro RF. This is even a tougher battle since both models really have the same business framework, the only difference being the price point.”

Same business framework, yes, and lots of the same clients. In addition, I would say that there is a another big difference between how you described macro and micro besides just the price and it includes the license restrictions that are added to a standard micro contract like print run limits and seat licenses for example so they can set the prices lower and attract a buyer who aren’t concerned with needing a large print run limit or removing seat limits. I see and talk to a good number of both buyers.

The traditional RF contract offers more rights for the buyer, thus costing more than a micro license which restricts the buyer from doing certain things if they dont buy an extended license (sort of RM style but that is another thread). Micros added the extended licenses which they upsell to large buyers who require it or when a user has a special usage request and that adds to the cost of the image.

Micro license + EL = Traditional RF and in some cases will cost around the same when you add it all up. So it is about more than price. It is about the rights that a buyer needs to clear and sometimes the peace of mind they need when they add the downloaded file to their digital asset management system. Or maybe it is about the rights that a copyright owner is willing to sell.

obviously more rights will cost you more but their is a distinct difference bw rights you get from traditional RF and micro RF that buyers and sellers are very concerned with. The price is what really hits home for most of us. i have a lot of theories on where i think the EL market is headed based on this. I hope that wasnt a ramble and nice work Jonathan. Love to hear your thoughts.

Microstock is based on a large group of contributing photographers of whom only very few have a professional background. Some even shoot micro as a way to learn (I certainly did). This creates a strong community, as people grow their portfolios together, sharing experiences and tips in forums, on blogs, twitter etc. along the way. It’s also one reason why the minimum quality requirements are lower in microstock. By contrast, the macro market is based on contributors who are already professionals, many with distinguished careers, fully equipped studios and so on. The standards are higher, but the community is limited by comparison. And because microstock is open to anyone, more people will be attracted at least to try it, dabble or be a part-timer, and so microstock is expanding at a rate macro, with its current structure, can’t possibly keep up with. If we’re speaking sheer volume, at least.

I’m not sure how, but I have a feeling this could also be the key to eventually creating a more harmonious relationship between macro and micro. I think there is room for multiple price tiers in stock photography, and life would be better for everyone, if photographers and agencies alike could learn to work together, rather than keep warring and pointing fingers. That being said, there is always a fall-off, when an industry undergoes major change, which the continued growth of microstock is.

I do think we need to approach the organized already existing artists associations and talk about a decrease in fees so more part time or beginner’s can also be part of this communities voice.
Thanks to Lee for all his efforts in this industry on educating the masses and the opportunity to give this concept some legs.

Best,
Jonathan

P.S. You can find me on Twitter under jonathanjross, you have to add the j in the middle. Please join me.

looking in the independent microstock forums, there is a forth tier that many microstock artists fear more, as they now feel threatened by the low commission subscription models, sometimes imposed on existing artists by some agencies.

Istock to their credit seem to be more proactive in closing the gap to the traditional agencies, with the Vetta Collection and their customer pricing, lets hope some of the other big players follow the leader.

As you say microstock is not going away, so rather than another artists association it would also be nice to see one or two of the big associations of digital artists, take stock and move with the times and trends, open up their doors and welcome all styles of digital artists full or part time, rather than being selective, and set affordable affiliate fees that will allow part time artists to be active and included, only then we may have a huge collective voice on all styles and tiers.

David