MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Onepixel is now open for business!  (Read 4011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 11, 2018, 13:20 »
0
Onepixel is now open for business! :D


« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2018, 14:37 »
+25
Just for those who missed the earlier discussion on this "agency"

http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-news/onepixel-stock-new-agencyhelp/msg517299/#msg517299

$1 for a full size image. It's even worse than the Dollar Photo Club. Tossers

nobody

« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2018, 15:47 »
0
Onepixel is now open for business! :D

did they pay you  8)


« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2018, 16:03 »
+14
Onepixel is now open for business! :D

Lets hope they go out of business as quickly too  ;D

« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2018, 16:48 »
+2
Unfortunate that this kind of "bloodsuckers" appear from time to time....

« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2018, 17:35 »
0
Quote
Why should I contribute to Onepixel ?

More income for Onepixel Contributors
Onepixel only sources content from a much lower number of stock contributors than other platforms, which is why the extra income generated by each Onepixel Contributor will be significantly higher.

Contributors who are approved early receive better indexation and promotion in the collection.

Industry standard commissions - 35%


They are new but they already treat stockers like tools with 0 IQ. They must think they are extremely smart. Tossers indeed...
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 17:37 by stockman11 »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2018, 10:30 »
+4
HUH?  :o

Onepixel only sources content from a much lower number of stock contributors than other platforms, which is why the extra income generated by each Onepixel Contributor will be significantly higher.

Because only so many people are desperate enough to take 35c for a download? And I ask myself why would less contributors be significantly higher? The part that would make more income would be more customers, and that's where this will  eventually fail. Less choices for buyers from less contributors means less sales...

Doesn't matter if this is "the next big thing" for some willing victims, I'm not even going to consider them. I continue to stick to my policy. I will not support parasites.  >:(

« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2018, 12:19 »
+4
Just for those who missed the earlier discussion on this "agency"

http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-news/onepixel-stock-new-agencyhelp/msg517299/#msg517299

$1 for a full size image. It's even worse than the Dollar Photo Club. Tossers


I hoped that it was 1 pixel for 1 $

« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2018, 13:40 »
0
they are in a desperate need for contents, and has contacted me again.

Quote
I understand your time is precious, and we respect that. We made the upload really easy and fast, in few hours the work will be done.
Weare not offering an upfront payment, but are inviting you to join a very selected collection, where the profits will be shared among few Contributors only.
We are about to launch, it would be great to be able to display also your images. We gathered the very best of the Stock production.

« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2018, 16:15 »
+5
So they want premium contributors, but instead of premium prices or at least regular ones, they are racing to the bottom. That's double devaluation. Congratulations to their team for such a brilliant idea I guess.

« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2018, 09:11 »
+2
they are in a desperate need for contents, and has contacted me again.

Quote
I understand your time is precious, and we respect that. We made the upload really easy and fast, in few hours the work will be done.
Weare not offering an upfront payment, but are inviting you to join a very selected collection, where the profits will be shared among few Contributors only.
We are about to launch, it would be great to be able to display also your images. We gathered the very best of the Stock production.
and again, but this time this was Chad "THE CHAD" Bridwell who contacted me.

I asked if he was the one behind the Dollar Photo Club, this was the answer:
Quote
Yes  part of the team is very experienced people in that market. We all have learnt from our mistakes so it can only be better. Best artists are already on Onepixel, you will not regret it if you join.
I still don't understand the difference between Onepixel with 1$ for image and DPC with the same price.


« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2018, 11:06 »
0
I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. I know SS has extended sales but those have all but gone away for me. Just my thoughts.

« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2018, 11:19 »
+6
I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. I know SS has extended sales but those have all but gone away for me. Just my thoughts.

1. 38 cents is the least you'll ever get paid at Shutterstock. 35 cents is the highest you'll ever get paid at OnePixel.
2. When you have a 38 cents sale at SS, clients have a subscription which leads to more sales for you and other contributors.
3. It's a huge devaluation of stock photos!

In my opinion not a sustainable way to push this industry forward. It ensures that photographers get paid close to nothing for their work, for their crew, models, location, gear, etc.

« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2018, 11:42 »
0
Jacoblund you may be correct . I do know when a customer buys your image that customer will never buy that image again , anywhere. I have always wondered and maybe you have numbers on this. How much do people shop around for image prices. I know for myself when I am looking for ideas and inspiration on sites I get very bored and lose interest fast at looking at pages and pages of images. Do buyers do the same, I am guessing they do. We all want instant gratification. That is why Amazon works so well. Find your item and leave, sometimes price high or low is not a factor?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2018, 12:00 »
+2
I still don't understand the difference between Onepixel with 1$ for image and DPC with the same price.

The name!  ;D

« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2018, 12:04 »
0
I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. I know SS has extended sales but those have all but gone away for me. Just my thoughts.

1. 38 cents is the least you'll ever get paid at Shutterstock. 35 cents is the highest you'll ever get paid at OnePixel.
2. When you have a 38 cents sale at SS, clients have a subscription which leads to more sales for you and other contributors.
3. It's a huge devaluation of stock photos!

In my opinion not a sustainable way to push this industry forward. It ensures that photographers get paid close to nothing for their work, for their crew, models, location, gear, etc.

Not so.
"$26.25 (or 26.25) when their content is licensed for $75 (or for 75) with an Extended License."
That's more than most extended licenses at Shutterstock.

« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2018, 12:08 »
0
So they do pay more than 35cents an image. About the same as SS. Thanks,


« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2018, 12:19 »
+2
So they do pay more than 35cents an image. About the same as SS. Thanks,

It's worse than Dollar Photo Club, they paid $40 for extended licenses.

« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2018, 12:51 »
0
They just throw dust in the eyes of contributors with the ELs and actually try to sell $1 On Demand images.
I hope they disappear from the market very soon and lose their investments!

« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2018, 12:57 »
+4
I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. ...

The amount of money you receive is a lousy way to compare two business transactions to see which one is better - it omits a bunch of factors that may make a huge difference to you over time. A money difference.

First, you need to be sure the same rights are being sold for the two compared amounts - more rights should result in higher income for you.

Second, you need to look at the overall deal for the buyer in both cases. If a buyer pays $5 in one case and $499 in the other and you get 38 cents for each, you got a much worse deal in the second example. It's highly likely (and it was this way before microstock) that in a business that charges buyers $499 to license an image that you'll see overall lower numbers of images licensed. The market will be smaller at those high prices.

Third, what volume commitment, if any, comes with a particular price. If two buyers pay $1 to license an image at different agencies, it matters - to contributors - whether their $1 price came with no commitments at all or only as part of a volume deal. If the buyer can just buy a single image for $1 (and you get 38 cents), you're much worse off than if that price only occurs if they commit to buy a true monthly subscription (i.e. a use-it-or-lose-it deal) of 250 images. While it may be someone else's images that get licensed this month, over many months, the fact that the buyer only gets a deal if they're a volume purchaser benefits the contributor community (excluding the spammy, schlocky, repetitive portfolios, but that's OK as they deserve to be ignored).

Fourth, how many different entities are getting a share of the buyer's money - just you and the agency, or you, a distributor or partner, plus the agency. In an era of low price deals, adding in more entities to those taking a share makes it hard for the business to succeed (and if an agency fails, all your work uploading their is wasted even if you get paid before they go belly up). IMO distributor arrangements are almost always lousy deals for the contributor, especially from any smaller/newer agencies

Understanding who benefits and who is shortchanged by the various agency arrangements is important if you plan to build a portfolio and continue to sell it for a few years. Top tip: if an agency email says they have "exciting news", you're about to get hosed :)

« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2018, 13:08 »
0
one more "pearl" from them:
Quote
Markets have changed and free sites are getting more and more downloads and are a threat to our business.

We think there is a long tail of customers who are using  free who can be happy to pay for top  images if it is reasonably priced and such people are many . This is who we target . Also we want to keep amount of contributors low in order to increase revenues for each of them . You will always keep your revenue with others, Onepixel will be a new revenue stream .
and for my business the threat is the agencies who are going to sell my work for less then others to customers who want free images, but agree to pay a negligible amount to license top images.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 15:00 by f9photos »

« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2018, 03:48 »
+2
To me the mechanics are pretty simple.

Let's say you choose to support OnePixel. OnePixel gets more content to sell -> Which can lead to more customers -> Which can lead to a bigger market share.

Now after a while competitors will have to fight back for that market share. So what do they do? They lower their prices. Agencies are not going to take that loss - so they lower contributor commissions.

Who looses? We do.

Only way we win (or at least maintain status quo) is by not allowing price dumping like that by simply not letting them sell our content.

On a side note: Yes 38 cents from a sub sale at Shutterstock might not be much - but more than 60% of our revenue from SS comes from enhanced licenses, on demand, or single sales.

« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2018, 04:22 »
+2
To me the mechanics are pretty simple.

Let's say you choose to support OnePixel. OnePixel gets more content to sell -> Which can lead to more customers -> Which can lead to a bigger market share.

Now after a while competitors will have to fight back for that market share. So what do they do? They lower their prices. Agencies are not going to take that loss - so they lower contributor commissions.

Who looses? We do.

Only way we win (or at least maintain status quo) is by not allowing price dumping like that by simply not letting them sell our content.

On a side note: Yes 38 cents from a sub sale at Shutterstock might not be much - but more than 60% of our revenue from SS comes from enhanced licenses, on demand, or single sales.

There is more than one market even within agencies, they compete at all levels. The agencies are not the problem, they are not our competitors, contributors are, and there is no getting around the fact that they will hunt out every penny they can until it becomes unsustainable.  If you are a premium supplier it will not affect you, if not you're screwed and you might as well take every penny from anywhere and everywhere.

« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2018, 07:46 »
0
sorry, misread something
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 07:53 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2018, 07:50 »
0
Good things about the site:
The b*lls to use the fact that next to no one has signed up to them as a selling point

Bad things about the site:
Everything else.

« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2018, 16:06 »
+1
The name of the game get played only between 3 agencies in still images and vectors, and 4/5 in the footage department. Everything else is noise and wasting time. Trust me with more that half a million $ net revenue in the last 8 years I know what I am talking about........The small agencies are really no competition for the big ones. Every second you loose with one of them you are loosing precious time that would bring you larger profits if you spent that times on the big boys.

To me the mechanics are pretty simple.

Let's say you choose to support OnePixel. OnePixel gets more content to sell -> Which can lead to more customers -> Which can lead to a bigger market share.

Now after a while competitors will have to fight back for that market share. So what do they do? They lower their prices. Agencies are not going to take that loss - so they lower contributor commissions.

Who looses? We do.

Only way we win (or at least maintain status quo) is by not allowing price dumping like that by simply not letting them sell our content.

On a side note: Yes 38 cents from a sub sale at Shutterstock might not be much - but more than 60% of our revenue from SS comes from enhanced licenses, on demand, or single sales.

There is more than one market even within agencies, they compete at all levels. The agencies are not the problem, they are not our competitors, contributors are, and there is no getting around the fact that they will hunt out every penny they can until it becomes unsustainable.  If you are a premium supplier it will not affect you, if not you're screwed and you might as well take every penny from anywhere and everywhere.

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2018, 18:22 »
0
The name of the game get played only between 3 agencies in still images and vectors, and 4/5 in the footage department. Everything else is noise and wasting time. Trust me with more that half a million $ net revenue in the last 8 years I know what I am talking about........The small agencies are really no competition for the big ones. Every second you loose with one of them you are loosing precious time that would bring you larger profits if you spent that times on the big boys.

but who are your top 3?  I get about 2/3 from ss and adobe & canva split the other 1/3 w dribbles from others, yet canva  never makes it above the top 10 on the list


« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2018, 20:36 »
0
The name of the game get played only between 3 agencies in still images and vectors, and 4/5 in the footage department. Everything else is noise and wasting time. Trust me with more that half a million $ net revenue in the last 8 years I know what I am talking about........The small agencies are really no competition for the big ones. Every second you loose with one of them you are loosing precious time that would bring you larger profits if you spent that times on the big boys.

To me the mechanics are pretty simple.

Let's say you choose to support OnePixel. OnePixel gets more content to sell -> Which can lead to more customers -> Which can lead to a bigger market share.

Now after a while competitors will have to fight back for that market share. So what do they do? They lower their prices. Agencies are not going to take that loss - so they lower contributor commissions.

Who looses? We do.

Only way we win (or at least maintain status quo) is by not allowing price dumping like that by simply not letting them sell our content.

On a side note: Yes 38 cents from a sub sale at Shutterstock might not be much - but more than 60% of our revenue from SS comes from enhanced licenses, on demand, or single sales.

There is more than one market even within agencies, they compete at all levels. The agencies are not the problem, they are not our competitors, contributors are, and there is no getting around the fact that they will hunt out every penny they can until it becomes unsustainable.  If you are a premium supplier it will not affect you, if not you're screwed and you might as well take every penny from anywhere and everywhere.

I have good percentage of my income from this "noise and wasting time" agencies and the upload to most of them is as easy as drag and drop the files in FTP. Where i spent a lot of time was iStock, i spent hours and days to iStock selecting keywords and synonyms with checkboxes one by one...and now where is iStock. Canva also could be assumed as "noise and wasting time" in its first days, but now is on the top. Finally of course there are so many agencies to which should not upload, but the things are not just black or white, there are many midtones which bring some income and those midtones blended all together can bring good income.

« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2018, 12:27 »
+1
So anyone here who joined this website?

« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2018, 10:21 »
+2
The fact that in their official corporate communication they cannot formulate a proper sentence in English automatically disqualifies them for me. 

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2018, 13:46 »
0
their terms say you assert you have any possible releases for ALL images you upload ad must supply them on request - which means, exterior shots, automobile and other trademarked designs, etc that most agencies accept could make you vulnerable - they never replied to my request for clarification. 

« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2018, 14:53 »
0
their terms say you assert you have any possible releases for ALL images you upload ad must supply them on request - which means, exterior shots, automobile and other trademarked designs, etc that most agencies accept could make you vulnerable - they never replied to my request for clarification.

Most photographers are broke and no one is going to sue a broke photographer.

« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2018, 21:34 »
0
Most photographers are broke and no one is going to sue a broke photographer.

First, I would never want to use that as my business strategy...

Second, not all of us are broke.  Personally I have a very tidy nest egg that I would not want to lose through carelessness...

« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2018, 03:14 »
0
So anyone here who joined this website?

I would recommend anyone who is thinking of uploading should speak to Chad before deciding to trust them with your portfolio.

I'll leave it at that.

Stefan Dahl

  • Formerly known as Uber Images

« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2018, 04:23 »
+8
I have had a couple phone conversations with one of their recruting partners. She was trying to get us to contribute at the site.

First of all, I pointed out too her the very bad revenue. She claimed it was market standard.

We run a very successful stock business with huge numbers of sales, from which we can make detailed statistics that actually gives a broad view on the market.

Her statement is not true. We sell loads of expensive licenses at Shutterstock every day ranging from 20$ to 120$ REVENUE!!!

Beside that we sell lots and lots of files on Adobe on normal subscriptions with 0,99$

Again her statement is not true!



The worst thing though was that she was lying to us about the business structure. I asked straight up if Chad Bridwell had anything to do with Onepixel. I had information that stating he was. She said "no no no, I know Chad but he had nothing to do with Onepixel".


What happened next was that she sent us a draft of the licenses and terms, which included a link to a www somewhere in the plain text. There we could read that Chad Bridwell was part of the business.


Partners who straight up lie is something we all should avoid.


Beside that selling 1$ files will attract all the customers who do not want to pay the correct price for any given license im pretty convinced.


Let's all support the good guys in the business instead. There's plenty of them, where good quality lead to lots of sales.

Best
Stefan Dahl


« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2018, 05:18 »
0
I have had a couple phone conversations with one of their recruting partners...
Yup, you're getting the idea. Sounds like Chad has found some peas to get into this particular pod with him. Let's hope it dies on the vine.

« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2018, 05:34 »
0
Who is Chad Bridwell?
Did I miss something


nobody

« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2018, 05:41 »
+4
Whenever a business states --"It's market standards for prices. " Run like hell!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
9619 Views
Last post October 27, 2007, 12:00
by snem
4 Replies
3326 Views
Last post April 14, 2009, 11:52
by batman
11 Replies
1964 Views
Last post March 19, 2014, 12:46
by lisafx
34 Replies
5329 Views
Last post December 07, 2018, 08:25
by panicAttack
7 Replies
167 Views
Last post Today at 12:02
by HalfFull

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors