christian,  someone else said, or maybe it was you , we all talk and whine, and threaten to leave, but no one does that. why? there is still money to be made.
i mean not me, i am new in micro stock, but for those who have invested so much time and images, it is difficult to decide, like a kid who is angry with daddy; daddy still has the credit card to give the kid, even if the kid hates to stay home.

for the other point, the weird thing is there are more people from trad agencies coming into micro , than the other way around. at least from my own grapevine.
so really, i think the big wigs know that. 

why can we do? we can move to new sites who want to give us a level playing field. like photoshelter . they took on Getty, now where is PS?
it's a mentality that is difficult to change. i think that's what PS said was the cause of their demise.

i really don't think we will win this. look at how many flickr photos are being used on the web. or some other stock photos. ever noticed the out of focus shots used in the financial news? coins were all dirty and the images were truly out of focus. not like the IS reviewers imply.  and lots of on camera flash images being used everywhere.
you cannot tell me this is going to change.

There is a lot of pressure on all markets. I think microstock i still the easiest money in the short-term. Midstock lost significant in the last year. Traditional (RM and RF) lost significant too but i still have very good sales from images that i submitted over five years ago i expect traditional loosing further nevertheless it certainly lasts longer than microstock. A lot of themes are well covered at microstock i wouldn't supply this kind of stuff to traditional agencies (except you can produce significant better qualitiy) but other themes do probably better at traditional agencies.

another day we've been talking with my mate about what's gonna happen with my Microstock "business" when the world's great economical depression they promis so much finally strikes. So he had an idea that many of the businesess that now use traditional agencies' images will be faced to have to use Microstock. I think it's quite plausible.

Quote from: vikavalter on December 05, 2008, 02:25

another day we've been talking with my mate about what's gonna happen with my Microstock "business" when the world's great economical depression they promis so much finally strikes. So he had an idea that many of the businesess that now use traditional agencies' images will be faced to have to use Microstock. I think it's quite plausible.

Without knowledge of the traditional market you can come to this conclusion. But it is actually a very naive kind of view. What could be shifted from traditional to microstock is already by 80-90% done, the rest will mostly remain like it is. Also you simply can't compare the volume (picture-wise) of traditional stock to microstock it is actually just a fraction of the microstock-market, money-wise it is a different story.
So don't bet on it

Correct!!  I wouldnt bet on that at all.

As far as generic stuff, yes I would say Micro house 80-90% of the trad-stuff.
With specialized imagery its a totally diferant story. An RM photographer can get into places and come out with realeases, client/photographer relations, just take a look at some medical, surgery, industrial RM-shots.
The Micro photographer often stands outside ( since hes got no business to be inside ) trying to capture.
With my own hundereds of Fuel and oil-industry, Ive got no competition inside Micro but with the RM, there are a few guys who can seriously compete.
Its a big mistake! thinking Micro will one day be able to compete with RM on all levels, especially very specialized subjects.

Hi All,

 Data sharing is always fun isn't it. Here is a bit of data that shows how many more buyers there are for Micro from the traditional side of Macro RM and RF. In 2007 there were 50 million downloads of the Macro RF license and there were 2-3 million Macro RM sales that same year.
  The amount of buyers out there is a finite number. What that number is is hard to get an exact fix on but I don't think you will find a great deal more buyers coming over from Macro RM or RF the numbers are just not there for Micro.
 According to the stats there are still 50 million left to transfer over from Macro RF but that isn't a great deal of buyers for the numbers Micro needs to keep growing at the rate it has been. There may also be Micro buyers in that 50 million by now.
 That data is from 07' I imagine we have already seen a good part of that other 50 million start to make purchases at Micro sites over the past year so that drops the numbers even lower. The buyers that buy Macro RF are doing it these days for the specific image, that is what our own data on sales changes in Macro RF over the past few years has shown.
 Add a recession right now that is going to be a bad one, first global one to hit and you are looking at losing buyers at all levels of stock. Micro because the small business man is going to be hit hard over the coming year especially trying to finance his company through bank loans that aren't there. Growth in new small business will slow to a creep actually recede for a while.
 Macro because the high end buyers budgets are going to get cut for the time being. We will see photographers from all sectors of our industry hurt by this. I have been a photographer through a recession I guarantee you, the number of dollars spent on advertising will diminish.
 I imagine we will see the price point for Micro continue to increase to offset the slowing in growth. I also see the possibility that Micro might begin to be separated into divisions of pricing and quality very much like Macro RF has done over it's history.
 Lots of changes to come. Make sure you diversify and don't spend money this year unless you make money from it.

Best,
AVAVA

Very interesting discussion.  Thanks Christian and Jonathan for sharing your thoughts.  You are two guys I always listen to because you have the experience of the photography and stock business over the long term.

Speaking for myself, microstock is my first experience of selling stock so my perspective is limited.  What I do know, though, is that history repeats itself and I see no reason to believe microstock will be an exception to that rule...

Hey Noam,

 Good to stay optimistic. Wherever you are. I think you make some very strong points, good to hear the feedback.

Best,
AVAVA

If we, the suppliers stick together.... Could we then determine who lives and who dies?

Are we, the suppliers / contributors, able to decide exactly witch agencies will prosper in the coming years?

If we can agree to terminate a LOT of accounts on specific sites, and focus on sites with a better prining, could we then make the customers follow the images, where ever they go?

At the end of the day, the customers needs certain kinds of images. Isnt it likely that the customer will follow the image, where ever they are?

Does anyone have an opinnion about this?
/Flemming

OK ... devils advocate here ... and no offense to anybody but this is my take ...

In my opinion  - no ... this is all history repeating itself isn't it? These are the arguments the pros used when micro came along and started driving prices down ....

There is a paradigm shift that has happened here - that is, the internet and the digital camera have changed everything - there is no cost barrier to entry except the price of a camera (not too expensive these days), a computer and software... the expense associated with film and developing is gone .... and it has created, quite frankly, Me .... I am not a photogrpaher in the old traditional professional sense - I came to photography because I got a digital point n shoot, enjoyed taking pictures and was surfing and found istock ... and wella .... I now have a fancy digital SLR with lenses and have learned photoshop and even Illustrater ... and, wow, I make a few hundred bucks in pocket money every month selling my pretty mediocre photos but buyers don't seem to care that much and I can really sometimes get lucky and produce what looks like really professional images but why not since I can now take 1,000 photos at no cost except my time and out of 1,000 I gotta get lucky with a few, right?  ... now I never took it terribly seriously because I simply have never had the time and the money is not an issue for me - but how many of istocks top exclusive contributors, just for example, came to the business the same way I did? I can reel of a large list of them quite frankly ... and that's the problem ... technology has changed stock photography forever ... what used to be an exclusive group of pros is now a profession open to every Tom Dick and Hariette, if you will .... I am not saying that you pros are not far better photgraphers than us hobbyist - you clearly are hands down ... it's like apples and oranges ... but in truth the mere fact that I can make money off this tells me that the buyers are not so picky ... given the choice of your photo over mine, all else being equal - they will take yours .... left with the choice of only me ... they will take mine ...

At the end of the day cost is the bottom line for the vast majority of microstock buyers ... micro, like it or not, has created a monster here - the majority of buyers (not all) will not pay a lot anymore for images ... why? because they don't have to ... and they don't have to because if you leave the market because the prices are too low, then Jane Smith who just got a new digital SLR and photoshop CS for her birthday will take your place ....

The more I have watched the industry over the last years the more I believe it is about volume more than anything else ... as I have said previously, micro is walmart and home depot (or B&Q) .... I really don't know if there is room in the middle for a Macy's (or Marks n Sparks) ...

Okay .... someone disagree with me!!

Just a bit anyway.

Better quality stock images cost more to make.
Model fees, MUA, Hair stylist, sets, etc, etc.

Since these types if images cost more to produce, it stands to reason that they should also sell for a higher price.
Therefore, while I agree that the machine gun shooting style of a digital camera has removed the cost of film and processing...
there are these other production costs to consider.

My opinion is that there is and should be a 'mid-stock' category for these images.
IS seems to agree and is making changes to that effect.

No matter what will happen. I do like the idea of Mid-stock. Now lets give IS a chance to get this new model off the ground.