MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exciting announcement  (Read 7204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 03, 2016, 15:33 »
+7
You'd think agencies would know by now what a red flag starting an email with "exciting" is to contributors. Everyone got the exciting email from Canstock?


« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2016, 15:44 »
+3
I am excitedly looking for the opt out........

BD

« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2016, 15:48 »
0
I submit to CanStock, but did not get an email. What does it say?

« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2016, 15:51 »
0
Email text: 
We have some exciting announcements to share.

We're pleased to announce we have added 4K and 4K+ download sizes for our footage contributors. We already have over 35,000 clips in our library available for purchase at 4K resolution, with commissions 2x that of our standard HD sizes.

We are also updating our Payout Schedule and Membership Agreement and are including a new revenue stream for image contributors. We're partnering with FreeArt, Inc. a company that will be marketing your content for print and product sales. You will continue to receive 20% of paper print sales as you always have, and will now also make sales on other physical products (e.g. acrylic, metal, canvas, etc.). These are higher-priced retail items with a 10% royalty, which will result in higher commissions (up to $49.90) than most digital image sales.

Additionally, FreeArt will be launching an innovative industry-first "free print" level in which people can receive a smaller-sized art print (e.g. 8x10") for free. To enable this we have created a new minimum $0.25 print commission level to ensure you continue to be compensated for your work, even if it is part of a free print offer. We expect these free prints to generate more attention and sales for larger paid prints and products, ultimately generating more commissions for you.

The site is currently invitation-only, but our contributors have exclusive access. You can use this invitation code: "3hpgvr".

To see the updated Payout Schedule, please click here. To see the updated Membership Agreement, please click here.

Regards,

Can Stock Photo


« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2016, 15:54 »
+30
"These are higher-priced retail items with a 10% royalty, which will result in higher commissions (up to $49.90) than most digital image sales."

There's the golden part.  "We charge more for these things, so we think we can get away paying you a lower percentage, because it still seems like a lot."

« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2016, 16:22 »
+11
25 cents for an 8x10 print is "compensation"?   Maybe... on Bizarro Earth.  On my planet, it's called other things.

I hadn't sold anything on FAA for a while.  But today, I sold 3 sizeable prints and made about $130. 

I'll add CanStock to the list of agencies I'll never have anything to do with.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 16:36 by stockastic »

« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2016, 16:40 »
+11
With a name like "FreeArt, Inc" I don't think they'll be attracting too many paying customers.

« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2016, 16:43 »
+3
The good news just keeps rolling in....

« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2016, 16:50 »
+10
...Edit: Then again, since contributors get paid 25 cents for full sized RF images from most other agencies anyways, I guess it doesn't really matter. The only difference here is we know it is being translated into a print.

This is just not the case. Starting contributors at SS get 25 cents, but "most" agencies do not pay that even for subscriptions. Subscriptions require a commitment to a certain volume per month which is how they get to the lower price per download.

So it does really matter, especially for a contributor who sells prints via another site who now has to compete with a freebie for which they make 25 cents.

CanStock itself pays 25 cents for subscription sales - and when I left them last year it was in part that those sales were an increasing percentage of their tiny volume of sales. All the higher-value sales from their parent company had vanished (what sales there were had been reduced to much lower royalty amounts).

This just amounts to another low-pay deal and doesn't sound to me as if it has any upside for contributors at all.

« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2016, 17:30 »
+10
who writes these stupid announcements? 10 percent the crooks.

« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2016, 17:38 »
+3
who writes these stupid announcements? 10 percent the crooks.

They (another example is ss) think we are idiots we are just cashcows for them.

« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2016, 17:50 »
+15
Where's the opt-out button? If there isn't one, I'm closing my account. There is simply no compelling case to stay.

« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2016, 18:00 »
+4
who writes these stupid announcements? 10 percent the crooks.

They (another example is ss) think we are idiots we are just cashcows for them.

Well tens of thousands of people go along with this stuff so I guess they're useful idiots.

I'm having Deja Vu again. Where have I hard this before? "Let us give your stiff away for free and we promise it will bring in more buyers". Is there one person here who has more sales than they did a year ago? Two years ago? Five years ago? Even though you've increased your portfolios by 25%, 100% or 200%?

I have no problem getting $45 for an 8x10 print selling direct. I would need to sell 180 prints to match selling one regular print. That kind of volume will never happen. Especially for a low volume site like CanStock.

One of these days all of this subscription sh*t is going to burn to a flaming halt. That includes Netflix, Pandora, and all the rest. This stuff can be sustained. It will collapse in on itself.

Isock's pitch sums it up. "Explore millions of royalty-free images, illustrations, videos, and music clips at ridiculously great prices". Why does everything need to be ridiculously low?

</rant>


« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2016, 18:02 »
+1
Duplicate
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 05:59 by PaulieWalnuts »

dbvirago

« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2016, 18:13 »
+5
"To enable this we have created a new minimum $0.25 print commission level to ensure you continue to be compensated for your work, even if it is part of a free print offer."

Even if it's part of a free print offer that we didn't authorize.

"We expect these free prints to generate more attention and sales for larger paid prints and products, ultimately generating more commissions for you."

Not sure where that expectation came from because it has never happened anywhere ever

« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2016, 18:14 »
0
who writes these stupid announcements? 10 percent the crooks.

They (another example is ss) think we are idiots we are just cashcows for them.

Well tens of thousands of people go along with this stuff so I guess they're useful idiots.

I'm having Deja Vu again. Where have I heard this before? "Let us give your stiff away for free
...snip
One of these days all of this subscription sh*t is going to burn to a flaming halt.
...snip
Isock's pitch sums it up. "Explore millions of royalty-free images, illustrations, videos, and music clips at ridiculously great prices" no price.


is this no coincidence that both istock and canstock are based in canada???
is canada where there is a mentality "to give everything away for nothing" ???

25 cents for an 8x10 print is "compensation"?   Maybe... on Bizarro Earth.  On my planet, it's called other things.

I hadn't sold anything on FAA for a while.  But today, I sold 3 sizeable prints and made about $130

i think 500px started the right way too $120 commission, but somewhere along the way , they decided to become a social media like fb with likes, and members just wannabee collecting thumbsup and pokes and a trillion friends with comments like " great port, come look at me portfolio and give me a nice wow " i am not in it for the money-brigade...

stockVid

« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2016, 18:39 »
+4
They've also started selling 4K Video for $50 per clip.

That has to be one of the lowest fixed rates in the industry (after Videohive).

I will not upload to them.

« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2016, 18:53 »
+2
I haven't uploaded to them in at least a year.  I'll have to go in and check to make sure I don't have anything worthwhile in my port.

You just know there will be people selling our 8x10s on Ebay, Etsy, on the streets of NYC.

....
I just deleted anything artsy that might actually have a chance attracting this freebie crowd.  What's left is food and white background stuff.

My minimal print sale on FAA is $6.04 and that is on a card.  8x10 - profit is $15 - $20

These shoddy businesses can't seem to function without giveaways.  I guess its easy when you give away other people's work.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 19:08 by sooner_foto »

« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2016, 19:05 »
0
So can we get the free 8x10 prints for ourselves and get paid for it?  Has any microstock site had success selling prints?  I used to quite like CanStockPhoto but they have fallen back in the last year, new images don't seem to sell, so there's no motivation to upload.  This wont get me uploading again.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2016, 19:35 »
+17
What a horrible e-mail.

Are you reading this, CanStock? Please do. Here's some constructive advice:

- Never, ever start an email for contributors with the words: "exciting announcements". 9 out of 10 times it means "exciting for us, not for contributors". It's like receiving a funeral card in the mail.
- Partnering up with a site that gives away free prints of my artwork is in no way a good business model. It devalues our work and pays us next to nothing. "Innovative industry-first...", seriously? Do you really think we'd fall for that corporate speak? I want an opt-out for this.
- Why are the higher-priced retail items paying only 10%? That's an insultingly low royalty, one the lowest percentages in the industry!
- HD is priced at $50, so 4K is $100? Should be at least $150. In other words, I'm not uploading my 4K versions of my videos. Please consider increasing the prices for 4K.


All in all, another example of how not to talk to contributors.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 19:43 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2016, 20:01 »
+13
I have written to CanStockPhoto for opt out clarification. And told them that 10% on big print sales is unacceptable.  I only make $20-$30 a month there so I will just close my account and they will lose 3500 images. I will post their response when I get it.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 20:20 by Mantis »

k_t_g

  • Made you look!
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2016, 23:27 »
+3
sigh....... Trying to get to the other side of the tunnel and I never get to the other side. Like on an hamster wheel.

But what are you going to do when all stock sites start to go down this road?
Its going to happen sooner or later.

« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2016, 00:37 »
+6
I also sent a requested to have my portfolio removed from the Free Art Inc deal. 

« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2016, 02:15 »
+5
And I sent the request for removal portfolio from the FreeArt . >:(

« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2016, 03:00 »
+5
Isn't 10% royalty the new record?

I wouldn't expect such insulting royalty scheme from an agency generating mere 3% of my microstock revenues.

I was just thinking about uploading some videos to Canstock. Not going to happen, if all the big sellers are paying more for 4K.

PZF

« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2016, 03:01 »
+8
For goodness sake, Canstock - there is a clue in the name FREE art.  That isn't exactly going to draw in paying customers, now, is it? Just undercut.
This stinks.

I used to consider CS fairly fair trade. Now??????

:(

ACS

« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2016, 03:31 »
+8
I had two "exciting" years with Canstock (It took me that long to reach my first payout). Than I closed my account and never looked back!

« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2016, 03:53 »
+4
Just realised that if they start selling 4K footage for $100, at 20% royalty, that makes $20 for us.

$20 for 4K video!!!

You can actually see the number of downloads by each video and the best selling aerial video has been downloaded 7 times in 6 years!!! Go to page 2 and you already see 0 sales on all videos. I can probably sell more aerials through my grandma :D

« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2016, 04:07 »
+2
Selling prints is different to selling an image license.  If you sell those high priced products on zazzle, you might put a 20% profit on them.  If you were doing it through a third party site like CanStockPhoto, they take their cut.  So maybe this isn't quite as bad as it looks?  And the fact is, they are unlikely to sell many anyway, as other sites have failed dismally at this.  So I'm not doing anything at the moment.

They sell so little video that it isn't worth the time uploading and they will never get my 4k clips if they charge that little for them.

« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2016, 04:47 »
+1
If I understand correctly, the 10% on prints is meant to be 10% of the finished end product (including material and printing), so it's not just 10% of the license cost.
Depending on the pricing of those products that might be ok.
But giving away prints for free is not ok, that is just devaluing our assets.
There's a thread on the CS forum now, I asked for the opt out there.
Let's see if there will be an opt out, they're too small to force such changes on us, it's just too easy to delete our accounts there.

« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2016, 04:51 »
+1
Just took a look and that deal is already live, our images are already there and free prints are available.

« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2016, 05:03 »
+1
...One of these days all of this subscription sh*t is going to burn to a flaming halt. That includes Netflix, Pandora, and all the rest. This stuff can be sustained. It will collapse in on itself......
</rant>

The subscription streaming video market has gone a very different way to micro. Now services like netflix are becoming like channels in a cable tv package, just unbundled. So if you want all the content you would like you need to subscribe to Amazon Prime and Netflix, and Disney. They are starting to have to create their own decent content to differentiate themselves in the marketplace.

In short I wish the micro agencies would go the same way as these subscription services and realise that content is king. Stop competing only on price. Start raising prices and offering compensation for exclusive content that will get the best stuff for their libraries instead of all the same stuff as everyone else.

« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2016, 05:37 »
0
Just realised that if they start selling 4K footage for $100, at 20% royalty, that makes $20 for us.

$20 for 4K video!!!

You can actually see the number of downloads by each video and the best selling aerial video has been downloaded 7 times in 6 years!!! Go to page 2 and you already see 0 sales on all videos. I can probably sell more aerials through my grandma :D
All I see is that they charge $50 for 4K videos. Search for "4K" and select footage on the left. The videos have a 4K icon. Click on one and you see $50 for the "HD" option which has a resolution of 4096x2160 pixels. Go figure.

« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2016, 06:59 »
0
Just took a look and that deal is already live, our images are already there and free prints are available.

How did you get in? They don't let me search or see individual images unless I provide my invite code.

« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2016, 07:33 »
0
If I understand correctly, the 10% on prints is meant to be 10% of the finished end product (including material and printing), so it's not just 10% of the license cost.
Depending on the pricing of those products that might be ok.
But giving away prints for free is not ok, that is just devaluing our assets.
There's a thread on the CS forum now, I asked for the opt out there.
Let's see if there will be an opt out, they're too small to force such changes on us, it's just too easy to delete our accounts there.

It seams to me that it is not 10% of the end product, am I wrong? Here is a quote from the new TOS:
Quote
Any payments to Supplier that result from the license or sublicense of a Data File or the purchase of a Product shall be calculated based on the net revenue actually received for such licenses, sublicenses, or purchases (Net Receipts). Net Receipts shall not include shipping and handling charges, promotions, taxes, interest, charges for other items or services sold with the Data Files or Products (e.g. frames, mats, editing, etc), and other fees or charges, or any returned or credited items,

Also, deleting files is not so easy either:
Quote
Within thirty (30) business days after receiving written notice from Supplier to remove any Data Files, Company shall use reasonable efforts to remove such Data Files from the Site, and shall use reasonable efforts......

« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2016, 07:42 »
0
What is the free print any way?  A download?

...

Oh I see:

"Choose your art from millions of images,
and the small size is always free!
($1.99 s&h fee applies. Limit 10 per order.)"

"FreeArt - WHERE THE SMALL SIZE IS ALWAYS FREE!
...and is gallery-level quality!"
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 07:47 by sooner_foto »

Shelma1

« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2016, 07:43 »
+3
UPDATE: SOMEONE POINTED OUT THAT I MADE A MISTAKE. Freeart is NOT run by Pablo Blanes. I must have mistakenly typed "freepik" into the registration search while meaning to type "freeart" early this morning. I apologize profusely. While Blanes is responsible for freepik.com, flaticon.com, photaki and a Spanish version of Freepik, he has nothing to do with freeart.com.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:16 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2016, 07:52 »
+2
I was looking around the site.  Its actually kind of funny to see what pops up as "gallery quality" art - a bunch of stock photos of tomatoes on white for example. 

Then I saw one of my landscapes with these ridiculously low prices:
 6.5" x 11" Free
 9" x 15" $19
 12" x 20" $29
 22" x 37" $69
 40" x 68" $219

Good news is when you delete an image from Canstock it instantly disappears from FreeArt.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 07:57 by sooner_foto »

Shelma1

« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2016, 07:53 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:16 by Shelma1 »

Shelma1

« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2016, 08:01 »
+2
He also owns flaticon.com, which no doubt breaks up icon sets from major stock sites and offers them for free:

http://www.flaticon.com

« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2016, 08:57 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:25 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2016, 09:01 »
+2
Would it surprise any of you to learn that Jose Pablo Sanchez Blanes, who also owns FreePik.com, the site that rips off best-selling vectors and offers them for free while acting as a Shutterstock affiliateand also owns Photakiis  behind Freeart.com?

http://www.register.com/whois.rcmx

Right at the bottom of FreeArt's front page is information about DMCA takedown noticeswhy do you think it's there??????? How much would you bet he's also selling non-Canstock photos he's stolen from the web???

This guy is on a one-man mission to steal, copy and procure every stock image he can get hold of and offer it for free, while getting paid as an affiliate and cutting deals with the agencies who are supposed to be representing us.

He took his information off the FreePik Facebook page after I found him there. He has no information on FreeArt.com about who it's owned bysame on LinkedIn.

This is really terrible, I will need to delete all my work from Canstock if this goes ahead. I would recommend everyone does so before access to your portfolio is given over to these people, they have a large network set up to monetize giving away images for free.


I agree. Let's see if Duncan offers an opt-out. CanStockPhoto isn't big enough for me to worry about. Thankfully I don't upload video there either.  So I would be giving up a few hundred bucks a year.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2016, 09:33 »
+2
I'm telling you in a year or 2 our images will be sold for 5 cents. I really see this happening. We will continue to get "exciting news" emails with lower and lower commissions every couple of months.

I just went through my canstock port and deleted all the good images and left the really old ones - from 2008-2009!
I make about $50 a month from them so it won't kill my income. I value my work more than what they see it as.

« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2016, 10:53 »
0
I'm telling you in a year or 2 our images will be sold for 5 cents. I really see this happening. We will continue to get "exciting news" emails with lower and lower commissions every couple of months.

I just went through my canstock port and deleted all the good images and left the really old ones - from 2008-2009!
I make about $50 a month from them so it won't kill my income. I value my work more than what they see it as.

That's good to know ....we can delete images ourselves.

« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2016, 11:10 »
+8
Hi folks,

I wanted to pop in and hopefully clear up some confusion, as it sounds like there is a lot of unintentional misinformation in this thread. Big thanks to the contributors who emailed the link to ask for clarification.

Below is an update I posted on our forums, to address some of the misunderstandings:

Quote

(Re: confusion on 4K commission & price)
Certainly happy to clarify that is not the case. If you check out the
Payout Schedule linked in the email, youll see the commission for 4k clips is $50 regardless of if they were purchased with credits or not. That is how much you receive. The retail pricing is not finalized yet, but will likely be $100-$150. For clips larger than 4k you receive a $75 commission, again regardless of if they were purchased by credits or not, and they will likely retail for $150-250. Im giving a retail price range since they are new products and well be testing to find the optimum price point.


Regarding the FreeArt offer, I should clarify a few things:

Firstly, everyone should keep in mind that these are referring exclusively to physical prints in which there is labor and very real production costs. Of course coming from the microstock world were not used to thinking in that way, since digital downloads are delivered automatically with very little per-transaction costs. But of course when were talking about a physical metal print (for example), there are very significant production costs for that order.

So I definitely understand how someone might be surprised by a 10% commission for the non-paper prints, but do keep in mind that this is reflective of the fact that they are extremely expensive items to produce, and unlike digital downloads a significant chunk of the sale price is taken up by the physical costs.

Regarding FreeArt specifically, I should clarify that despite its marking-oriented name, the end goal is to drive sales of higher priced products and sizes, for which everyone makes far more money. It should probably go without saying that a business wont last if it only produces free physical prints. Anyone who is familiar with VistaPrint will appreciate how wildly successful a business can be by offering a free price tier to attract customers, who then upgrade to paid tiers.

Regarding the $0.25 minimum commission, while this of course is not a big amount of money, its also very much in line with what people sell their high resolution digital images for every day in the microstock industry. Both through us and up to the largest agency. And while in those cases your images can be used for marketing campaigns and printed up to 500k times, for the print offering were talking about a single 8x10 printed photo. And of course for which there are of course physical costs to make, yet the image itself is sold for nothing.

The business model is doing something innovative, by focusing on physical prints and products, which is largely a new area for microstock contributors and represents a new revenue stream. The business is also trying a unique approach for marketing itself, which is needed in this day of age and if it works out and takes off, would be very lucrative for CanStockPhoto contributors. So we are genuinely excited and hope it does well. I think the vast majority of contributors feel the same way too.

With that said, if you dont want your images to be part of FreeArt, then no problem, you can opt-out from FreeArt by submitting a ticket. But do just keep in mind that youll be opting out of the entire site, and will forgo any of the high commission print offerings. I hope people will give it some time before opting to do that, but its of course totally your decision.

Regards,
Duncan


Lee Torrens posted his own independent summary here, which echoes much of the above.

Also, on a serious note, someone here incorrectly stated that FreeArt is associated with someone who the author states is known for ripping off artist's work. This is absolutely not true. FreeArt has no affiliation whatsoever with this individual, and is no-way connected. The commenter here references a WHOIS showing this, but must have accidentally looked up the wrong domain name, as WHOIS search for freeart.com clearly shows that is not the case. In fact, a keen observer will notice that FreeArt is run by the same people that run Fotosearch - which many contributors know is a highly creditable and agency that has been operating for almost 20 years.

I would hope and expect that people would be outraged if we partnered with someone that has a history of stealing artist's images - but thankfully that is not the case here. We take that very seriously, as I know you all rightfully expect us to.

Regards,
Duncan
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 11:12 by Duncan_CSP »

Shelma1

« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2016, 11:17 »
+3
Correct. I made a mistake:

UPDATE: SOMEONE POINTED OUT THAT I MADE A MISTAKE. Freeart is NOT run by Blanes. I must have mistakenly typed "freepik" into the registration search while meaning to type "freeart" early this morning. I apologize profusely. While Blanes is responsible for freepik.com, flaticon.com, photaki and a Spanish version of Freepik, he has nothing to do with freeart.com.

« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2016, 11:36 »
+1
Thanks Duncan, I will stay opted in and see how it goes.  Not sure about uploading 4k files but if my HD clips sell more, I will do.

« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2016, 12:48 »
+2
Thanks Duncan for coming here to make your case

« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2016, 13:07 »
+2
a lot of sense Duncan. thanks

« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2016, 14:48 »
+5
Thanks Duncan for talking to us direct -a great example to other agencies. This may well be an additional revenue source for some contributors especially those who do not upload to print and product sites like FineArtAmerica and Redbubble. Personally, I requested the opt out as I do upload to them and like the ability to not only set my own mark up but also to change it whenever I like. I didn't want the FreeArt competing with that and certainly not by giving away 10x8 prints for nothing (the 25c I would have received doesn't really compare to $25 or more I would get at FAA).
Credit to Canstock for providing an individual opt out for this deal. Regards, David.

ETA Just received a reply to my support ticket from Duncan -confirming my opt out. Fast work!
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 14:58 by Newsfocus1 »

« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2016, 15:03 »
+1
Makes no sense at all to me.  Comparing a commercial sale to a designer is not the same as selling or giving away artwork to art buyers.

Totally different markets.  The only reason I have some cross over images (images in both stock and fine art) is because of their potential usage for either, but I'm not about to start applying the microstock pricing model to my fine art work.




« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2016, 15:20 »
+4
"...someone might be surprised by a 10% commission for the non-paper prints, but do keep in mind that this is reflective of the fact that they are extremely expensive items to produce, and unlike digital downloads a significant chunk of the sale price is taken up by the physical costs. "

So: in a nutshell, the product can't be produced and sold at a price that would allow paying the contributor enough to be worthwhile.  I guess that's clear enough.  That leaves us with "you'll make it up on volume" and "it will generate interest".   My opinion is that "free" only generates interest in more "free".   
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 15:33 by stockastic »

« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2016, 15:24 »
+6
Big thanks to Duncan for his post but a 10% commission does not work for me.  I'm opting out. 

« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2016, 15:35 »
+3
" they are extremely expensive items to produce"

So expensive that they can offer 10 eight x tens for a nominal shipping fee of $1.69.

My definition of innovative must be entirely different.  The business model of giving it away for free and then hoping people come back and spend money in the future isn't that new - it was invented by Wimpy back back in 1932 in the original Popeye cartoons.

"i'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today"


« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2016, 15:49 »
0
Requested opt out Duncan said he would do it :)

« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2016, 16:02 »
+4
Thank you, Duncan, for the direct answer - very refreshing !

However we have production costs,  too. What about them?


 If some third party takes on a (foolish ) business venture based on high production costs and low, possibly non existant revenue I'd be the fool to participate in that.
Free doesn't generate profit. Free generates more demand for free stuff. Nobody wants to spend money when they can get things  free.


« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2016, 16:33 »
0
snip
The business model of giving it away for free and then hoping people come back and spend money in the future isn't that new - it was invented by Wimpy back back in 1932 in the original Popeye cartoons.

"i'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today"

LOL! Very apropos.

« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2016, 17:26 »
+2
a lot of sense Duncan. thanks

Ditto here, I'm staying opted in and will give it some time. I've been with Canstock since March 2005 and they have a good record of fairness.

« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2016, 22:45 »
+4
I got excited...  Opted out.

« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2016, 01:27 »
+1
I got excited...  Opted out.

ha...you belong to artist-not-friendly now.
 ;)

« Reply #61 on: February 05, 2016, 01:52 »
+2
a lot of sense Duncan. thanks

Ditto here, I'm staying opted in and will give it some time. I've been with Canstock since March 2005 and they have a good record of fairness.

I also appreciate Duncan's explanation.  This deal sounds reasonable to me. I'm not on any of the art sites like FAA, so  I'm happy to stay opted in and look forward to increased income from this additional revenue source.  If all agencies conducted themselves with as much transparency and consideration for the authors I might still be making a living at this.  Thanks Duncan.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 01:56 by PixelBytes »

PZF

« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2016, 03:08 »
+5
Free attracts free and it's there in the name.

Need a nice flower print for a gift for a friend? 8 x 10, maybe with a nice frame, is perfect.
Need some stuff to sell on Ebay etc? 8 x 10 is pretty handy. I'll try a half dozen, for starters.
Need some pics to decorate my new B&B? Ok 8 x 10, even with a frame, isn't huge but - hey - it's not bad and the price is good. I'll have 3 per room......

Sigh................

« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2016, 08:10 »
+4
Duncan opted me out - no problem. I really think there should be an opt-out button - or even and opt-in button so that it's not a default situation. I sell my work on Fine Art America so I don't want to compete with myself on 10% commission.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
4755 Views
Last post August 08, 2009, 17:48
by willie
7 Replies
2068 Views
Last post November 07, 2011, 19:34
by disorderly
31 Replies
7402 Views
Last post May 23, 2013, 10:20
by Jo Ann Snover
81 Replies
8791 Views
Last post January 20, 2015, 15:35
by michaeldb
1 Replies
1234 Views
Last post January 21, 2015, 11:05
by Kenny

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors