pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: a new personal worst  (Read 16074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2012, 14:31 »
0
And my 38 cents for a subs download looks a lot better than the 11 cents I occasionally get for a non-Photo+ XS on IS, if you want to make random comparisons

Not to speak for him, but I took his point to mean that if you buy large credit packs, it's like buying a subs package. Then, was comparing the royalties of the two.


traveler1116

« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2012, 14:38 »
0
...the vast majority of sales at SS are sub sales ...

Just not true. There are many regular (ie non-EL, no extra license goodies) sales at the on-demand, and singles prices where I get $2.85 or $5.70 for the equivalent of an IS XXXL. 1,000 on SS is nothing - I wouldn't take that contributor's experience as in any way typical of life at SS.

And my 38 cents for a subs download looks a lot better than the 11 cents I occasionally get for a non-Photo+ XS on IS, if you want to make random comparisons
I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.  Obviously there are bigger sales on IS and SS than the 9 cent 1 credit XS or a 25 cent sub but this topic was about a 1 credit sale for 9 cents not those other things.  I do find it hard to believe that your experience is so different with subs though, my friend had about 950+ out of 1000 sales being subs, you must be doing something right if you are seeing a near 50-50 ratio between subs and nonsubs.

« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2012, 14:47 »
0
I do find it hard to believe that your experience is so different with subs though, my friend had about 950+ out of 1000 sales being subs, you must be doing something right if you are seeing a near 50-50 ratio between subs and nonsubs.

SS themselves, in their IPO offering, reported that 56% of their income is derived from subscription sales with the other 44% coming from OD's, EL's and SIS (which are also reported to be growing strongly). My own earnings ratio is almost exactly the same.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2012, 15:07 »
0
Indeed, but that info is not transparent to new contributors. The info accessible to new UK contributors is that credits can be bought for "as little as 0.77", which today is $1.19.
And I see that USians can buy credits for 'as low as' $1.04.
Hmmm

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2012, 15:13 »
0

I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.  

I don't see anyone missing your point.  Just disagreeing with it.

Out of curiosity, when did you last sell on SS, if ever?  Unless you have recent experience of other sites than Istock, it is purely hypothetical to you.  For indies, this is a personal and significant issue, not some theoretical debate.  

I agree with Gostwyck, JoAnn, and most other non-exclusives.  I care about the floor, bottom line price I will get for each license sold, and I care even more about monthly income each site brings me.   It is very different to sell on a site where the lowest price you will get for an image sale is .38, vs. .09 (or lower).  Size is fairly irrelevant.  What we are selling in not cans of beans, where size is an important factor.  With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.

traveler1116

« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2012, 15:29 »
0

I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.  

I don't see anyone missing your point.  Just disagreeing with it.

Out of curiosity, when did you last sell on SS, if ever?  Unless you have recent experience of other sites than Istock, it is purely hypothetical to you.  For indies, this is a personal and significant issue, not some theoretical debate.  

I agree with Gostwyck, JoAnn, and most other non-exclusives.  I care about the floor, bottom line price I will get for each license sold, and I care even more about monthly income each site brings me.   It is very different to sell on a site where the lowest price you will get for an image sale is .38, vs. .09 (or lower).  Size is fairly irrelevant.  What we are selling in not cans of beans, where size is an important factor.  With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.
I guess it's been about 2 years now and I didn't sell much there I think it was about 16,000 licenses.  I guess the difference and disagreement is about whether or not the size is relevant.  I think a larger file size is more valuable but if you don't then I can understand how you can call an XS at IS equal to  an XXXL at SS and only look at the royalty received as the important difference.  If I held that viewpoint I'm not sure how I would explain people buying XXXL's or for that matter any size other than tiny?

wut

« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2012, 15:54 »
0
I had a sale for 9 cents today.   

Seriously - has anyone had one for less?

Me too, a couple of days ago. It was pay to go, not a sub. However I'm getting 10c subs quite often.

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2012, 15:57 »
0

 If I held that viewpoint I'm not sure how I would explain people buying XXXL's or for that matter any size other than tiny?

People buy the size they need for the usage they have in mind.    

I am surprised that, having praised Istock for raising prices in the industry, you would be defending .09 royalties, just because the image was purchased at xsmall size.  If you seriously don't see anything wrong with a .09 royalty on a commercial license for an image, then I can see why this discussion has you confused.  

Either that, or you are just deliberately trying to bait anyone who has any criticism whatsoever of Istock.  ;)

traveler1116

« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2012, 16:28 »
0

 If I held that viewpoint I'm not sure how I would explain people buying XXXL's or for that matter any size other than tiny?

People buy the size they need for the usage they have in mind.    

I am surprised that, having praised Istock for raising prices in the industry, you would be defending .09 royalties, just because the image was purchased at xsmall size.  If you seriously don't see anything wrong with a .09 royalty on a commercial license for an image, then I can see why this discussion has you confused.  

Either that, or you are just deliberately trying to bait anyone who has any criticism whatsoever of Istock.  ;)
Exactly then size does make a difference.  I'm not defending 9 cent royalties for XS images at all I'm just saying that 38 cents for an XXXL is worse.  They are both too low.

« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2012, 16:29 »
0
It's funny that SS are increasing the ratio of non-subs sales while istock are encouraging buyers to move to Thinkstock, where we get mostly sub sales.  And I get a lot less for them with Thinkstock.  Some people used to upload smaller sizes only to the subs sites but they would have to leave istock to avoid selling subs on Thinkstock as independents.

« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2012, 17:00 »
0
I think there are some brilliant rationalizations here,  using the new math of 'credits' and the pricing stuctures of these agencies - which are now more complicated than quantum physics - to convince ourselves that getting 9 cents for use of a photo is, actually, just fine.    Because we're selling pixels, not photographs, right?  If someone thinks a 32 pixel wide image is all they need for their web site, then they should pay about 2 cents I guess.  Or are we selling by the photon now?  

And why stop there? Let's be fair with our buyers and let them pay only for actual eyeball contact.  Instead of a commission on the sale, we could collect .001 cents for every hit on their web page.

Let's say we're musicians, selling MP3s through iTunes.  If a buyer has cheap earbuds, he'd get a reduced resolution, low bitrate version for, say, 9 cents.  Only elite snobs with big speakers would pay full price.  It's only fair, right?  And we'd make it up on volume.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 17:31 by stockastic »

« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2012, 17:33 »
0
... With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.

Yeah!!

« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2012, 17:47 »
0
Exactly then size does make a difference.  I'm not defending 9 cent royalties for XS images at all I'm just saying that 38 cents for an XXXL is worse.  They are both too low.

You're comparing subscription with pay as you go and that just isn't apples to apples. For a variety of reasons, subscription buyers download more - I suspect they don't use all they download, bu unlike PAYG, they don't seek a refund when it turns out they didn't use it. Given they have a use it or loose it situation each day, lots of buyers will download rather than not.

So the net is that my download total at a subs site like SS - all the others just have never managed to do the volume thing right, so subs have been more of a pain in the butt - is much, much higher than for a PAYG site like IS. The total income each month, even back in the days before SS had all the single image sales, might be about the same, but the DL total would be a ton higher from the subs site.

I think if you consider that there are n buyers spending y dollars on photos each month for their projects, from the seller's point of view, it doesn't much matter how they spend their dollars beyond what cut of it we get (share of total sales and then what the agencies hand over out of that). It's a mistake to think that if the buyers didn't have subscriptions, you'd get PAYG sales on a 1-for-1 basis instead - they'd buy, but probably fewer images.

wut

« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2012, 18:07 »
0
I think if you consider that there are n buyers spending y dollars on photos each month for their projects, from the seller's point of view, it doesn't much matter how they spend their dollars beyond what cut of it we get (share of total sales and then what the agencies hand over out of that). It's a mistake to think that if the buyers didn't have subscriptions, you'd get PAYG sales on a 1-for-1 basis instead - they'd buy, but probably fewer images.

And what the price of those files is. Let's say we compare 2 credit based agencies (so that we compare apples to apples), one is selling images starting at 1$ and is charging 1-5 credits for a photo DL (S-XXL) and gives contributors 50% (and is about to cut commissions soon anyway). The other it selling images from 1,2$ and charges 1-250 credits for a photo DL (XS-XXXL, E+, V, A), paying 15-45%. Ppl just look at the royalty % they get, which is just so stupid, the equation is missing an essential bit of info. Then there is volume on top of that, that should be included when doing the calculations.

Just 2 real life examples. This IS spitting is getting a bit tiresome. I know, if you get a bad rep it's hard to get rid of it, most of it is justified, but there are many more worse examples out there. In this industry, for most of us, there's really just 2 agencies that can deliver. Well only one if you're exclusive.

traveler1116

« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2012, 18:09 »
0
Ok ok you guys win, looks like this is the wrong place say anything negative about subs.  It feels more and more like it's the wrong place to talk about anything of interest to me, have fun guys.

« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2012, 18:19 »
0

« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2012, 18:29 »
0
Ok ok you guys win, looks like this is the wrong place say anything negative about subs.  It feels more and more like it's the wrong place to talk about anything of interest to me, have fun guys.

Subs suck, so does getting paid under 20%. Like you said above, both royalties are too low.

« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2012, 18:30 »
0
Ok ok you guys win, looks like this is the wrong place say anything negative about subs.  It feels more and more like it's the wrong place to talk about anything of interest to me, have fun guys.

The OP was nothing whatsover to do with subs. It was you who was so determined to manufacture, despite the total irrelevance to the OP, an artificial introduction of the subject. So yes __ it was the wrong place to say anything, negative or positive, about subs.

« Reply #43 on: June 11, 2012, 18:31 »
0
Ok ok you guys win, looks like this is the wrong place say anything negative about subs.  It feels more and more like it's the wrong place to talk about anything of interest to me, have fun guys.

Cheer up! I'm with you! What nobody has said is that... yes... maybe OD sales are good for some in percentage... but if you are exclusive at IS one (any) big size regular (not E+, nor Vetta) IS sale give you 3-6x what you would get with the OD. I agree that having fair percentatges is very important, but selling at acceptable prices is important too.

« Reply #44 on: June 11, 2012, 18:45 »
0
Ok ok you guys win, looks like this is the wrong place say anything negative about subs.  It feels more and more like it's the wrong place to talk about anything of interest to me, have fun guys.

No need to feel that way.  Go ahead and keep posting your thoughts, it makes for an interesting forum.  I don't need to see only posts that agree with me. 

THP Creative

  • THP Creative

« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2012, 20:39 »
0
Back to topic - yep, I've had those 9c sales too sadly, even a 7c one! Luckily they're very few and far between.

grafix04

« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2012, 23:16 »
0

I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.  

I don't see anyone missing your point.  Just disagreeing with it.

Out of curiosity, when did you last sell on SS, if ever?  Unless you have recent experience of other sites than Istock, it is purely hypothetical to you.  For indies, this is a personal and significant issue, not some theoretical debate.  

I agree with Gostwyck, JoAnn, and most other non-exclusives.  I care about the floor, bottom line price I will get for each license sold, and I care even more about monthly income each site brings me.   It is very different to sell on a site where the lowest price you will get for an image sale is .38, vs. .09 (or lower).  Size is fairly irrelevant.  What we are selling in not cans of beans, where size is an important factor.  With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.

You're spot on here.  Usage is usage.  We should be receiving the same high royalty rates for an XS as we do for an XXXL.  Websites should be restricted to use a smaller sized image, but as far as I'm concerned, there should be one price for all sizes under the standard RF license.  Breaking them down in size 'and' price is just another way the agents screw us over.  The only time there should be a difference in the price is under an EL license because they offer extra types of usage.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 23:24 by grafix04 »

« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2012, 02:34 »
0
Is there an easy way to see what an image has sold for at IS without clicking on each sale?   Pages open so slowly for me at IS that I never bother clicking to look at individual sales.

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2012, 03:07 »
0
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit?  Just a little different perspective.

..and it never goes as low as 9 or 6 cents...
Depends how you look at it is what I'm saying.  SS minimum size is equivalent to a 7 credit medium file on IS and the max size is equivalent to a 28 credit P+.  Therefore the vast majority of sales at SS would be the equivalent per credit royalty of between less than 1 cent (25 cents per download on a 28 credit P+) and 5.5 cents (38 cents on a 7 credit medium regular).  Either way they would be lower than anything on IS for an equivalent license.  I'm not saying SS is the worst either I think crestock is still selling subs for 25 cents, it's just that IS even with such a small royalty doesn't look as bad to me as most of the other sites when comparing similar sales. 

ShadySue I'm not sure there are really any number of 2004 credits out there but they offer fairly large discounts to big buyers, down to around 46 cents per credit.

subscription has two points for the contrib: entice buyers into downloading a lot, and get rid of the ultra low commisions coming from web sizes. Thats why it's just screwing the contribs at other sites than SS, because those still have tiny size tiny price regular dls besides subs. Thats means they use those when need a small pic for web, and subs just start to replace regular downloads of larger sizes... but I guess figuring out how a price structure works is beyond many...

« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2012, 03:53 »
0
Is there an easy way to see what an image has sold for at IS without clicking on each sale?   Pages open so slowly for me at IS that I never bother clicking to look at individual sales.


Use Sean's incredibly useful scripts:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
7858 Views
Last post November 03, 2007, 03:08
by leaf
1 Replies
2454 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 23:31
by rjmiz
7 Replies
4541 Views
Last post March 16, 2011, 00:56
by CD123
4 Replies
5555 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 16:36
by icefront
0 Replies
3177 Views
Last post September 02, 2014, 07:37
by Mantis

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors