MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Photo Stock Site! www.OnePricePhoto.com  (Read 9774 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 06, 2008, 23:57 »
0
One Price for Vectors or Photos.

Only A Dollar Each. - For Buyers

50% Commission. - For Contributors

newbielink:http://www.OnePricePhoto.com [nonactive]


« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2008, 01:11 »
0
Subarusti, may I be the first to say you are out of your mind. 

One Dollar?

Good luck with that.

helix7

« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2008, 01:28 »
0

This is exactly the sales model that microstock sites should be trying to get away from. Instead, new ones just like it pop up.



« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2008, 03:12 »
0
No thanks.  Too cheap.  I wonder what hatman will make of this ;)

Microstck prices are rising and I don't think many of use will upload to a new site undercutting the others.  Do they pay us for uploading?  That worked for Albumo but I am starting to regret uploading there.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 03:14 by sharpshot »

« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2008, 03:44 »
0
They are a couple of years too late. $5 I would have considered, but $10 is better. The photos sell anyway.

« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2008, 04:11 »
0
Years too late.

With many microstock agencies now paying an average of $2 to $2.50 for a high rez file, this 'dollar a shot' concept won't attract any images from microstock professionals.

And even though prices have risen up to 50% in recent weeks, microstock prices are still underpriced by at least 50%.

Doomed to failure, or doomed to attract only the stuff rejected elsewhere.  Sorry.

« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2008, 04:20 »
0
Well i was going to direct your attention to a thread on dpchallenge.com but it appears to have been removed.

In any case the membership agreement had the word 'istock' in it.  Of course one can't say for sure but perhaps from a copy and paste of part of the legal documents??

I think i prefer to pass
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 04:40 by leaf »

« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2008, 04:48 »
0
Nice looking site though.  Did you program it yourself?

PaulieWalnuts

  • You talkin' to me?
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2008, 06:36 »
0
You'll have a difficult time attracting any contributors that have saleable images at .50 cents commission. You would need to have massive traffic levels to generate enough earnings to get contributors interested. Even then, you'll still have people balking at .50. From what I've seen so far I doubt you have any plan for how to attract buyers.

I'll pass. I'm already shedding underperforming sites.

« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2008, 06:55 »
0
I will pass that  too.
good luck,which I think you will need to attract contributers.

« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2008, 08:48 »
0
They also have a minimum $100 payout level.

« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2008, 09:21 »
0
33 Eurocents per photo and 100$ payout level? No thanks.
Site looks cool and slick though. There are already 9 photos in the nature category: all from RZYMU. 500,000 more to go ;-)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 09:25 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2008, 11:22 »
0
No chance.  I'm reducing the number of sites I submit to, not wasting my time and bandwidth uploading to a site that will never reach a payout.

« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2008, 11:57 »
0

Same here.  Doing my spring cleaning early. :) 
   As far as I'm concerned, this market is closed to newcomers in the low-low-price category.  Sorry.  Next please.

« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2008, 12:07 »
0
Think I'll give it a miss, too.

I've already got too many images with small sites that only sell one or two a month (if I'm lucky), so no hope of a payout from them in my lifetime.

And I can't see this site will attract too many buyers either. I checked the 'Sport and Recreation' category. Only 3 vector images, all of footballs. You've got to get a 'critical mass' before the buyers will come.

Brandon Seidel

  • BrandonSeidel.com
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2008, 13:02 »
0
Not that I am supporting $1 full res image downloads again; and I do not plan to upload to any other new sites until they start pulling some sales.

But, with that said, traditional stock shooters were upset because micro stock pulled images from $100+ an image to $1 (or less).  And now micro stock shooters are upset because new sites pull it back to $1.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

Most sites raise their prices AFTER they get started.  I cant think of 1 major site that did not start the same way.  Now what if they did plan to market and bring in the sales?  Would $.50 be better then $.30?  What about $.25?  Subscription sites allow full res download.  When iStock did start charging for downloads, it was $.25 for full res images.

I like putting myself in the other persons shoes before I start to judge.  Just something to ponder.  I am sure the traditional shooters would be laughing until they passed out on this thread.

With that said, I like the look and feel of the site.  Its simple and clean.  I really do hope you did not rip off another stock photos site.  That has doomed other sites before they even started and is unethical.  Photographers need to be able to trust their agency.

« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2008, 13:27 »
0
The look and feel is neat and slick, simple and clear. But there is NO FTP and no IPTC reading, just a webform to upload + copy/paste.

A new site needs to take the market by shock and awe, that means massive and painless uploads from contributors with a large port. They will never do the painstaking webform-upload with copy/paste.

About subscription and 1$ sites, they have a chance if they play on volume. SS earned 3x as much for me from January 1 till today as DT. It's difficult to sell sand in the Sahara. A new peanuts site is no match for SS.

And by the way, OPP is owned or connected with RZYMU... click on any image now and you see his name. That's very fine with me since he is very generous with his tutorials on this forum. It would be a strong argument to support the site. Is RZYMU in the audience here? ;-)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 13:29 by FlemishDreams »

PaulieWalnuts

  • You talkin' to me?
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2008, 13:34 »
0
Area - I think new sites are going to have an increasingly difficult time entering this market unless they can find a way to attract contributors AND buyers.  And usually the best way to attract contributors is with buyers who are buying. 

I only join sites now that I see some evidence of earnings potential. I have no interest in uploading hundreds of images to make nothing or at best a couple dollars a month. I would rather take all of that time from the weak earners and invest it in shooting and uploading to sites where I know the images will generate at least .50 or more per image per month. Ideally, I want my portfolio generating a few dollars per image per month. Spending time on low/no earning sites detracts from that goal.

I think Albumo really ruffled a lot of feathers. They looked like they had their act together and paid contributors, but then must have run out of money to attract buyers. The place seems dead.

I'm now very selective where I contribute and a nice design is not enough for me to justify spending my time there. I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 13:36 by Nazdravie »

« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2008, 13:35 »
0
Well i was going to direct your attention to a thread on dpchallenge.com but it appears to have been removed.

In any case the membership agreement had the word 'istock' in it.  Of course one can't say for sure but perhaps from a copy and paste of part of the legal documents??

Yep, most of the documents were directly copied and pasted from the iStock's agreements. Not to mention that a few of the clauses they did manage to change are actually invalid under Illinois contract law (the jurisdiction set forth in the agreements). 

It's obvious that the person behind the website didn't have lawyers draft the agreements. My favorite added clause it the bold one that reads, "Digital Stock Co. may at any time reserve this Licence Agreement by updating this posting. By using this Website, a Licensee agrees to be bound by any such changes."

1) The term "Licence Agreement" is used in this clause only, where the rest of the document refers to itself as a "License Agreement". Since License Agreement is a defined term in the contract, this clause's validity comes into question.
2) They meant to say revise, instead they used reserve, which makes the whole clause nonsensical.
3) A clause that allows the terms of the contract to be unilaterally and retroactively changed at will, not to mention without notice or recourse, renders the contract null and void in every jurisdiction I know of in the US.

And that is just one example. A person would have to be crazy to submit images to this site under these contracts, and even crazier to purchase images under that licensing agreement.

« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2008, 13:55 »
0
Update: I just signed up at OPP. They ask all your personal info like name, address, phone. But to be able to upload, you first need to upload a scanned copy of your passport ID.

No way! Those guys coming out of the blue by a poster with his very first post here, with no business track record whatsoever will have all my personal info, a copy of my ID, plus my paypal account email. Great for identity theft.

The site is buggy and the error messages that appear are in Romanian. Me smells another phishing site from the Easteuropean eldorado, and I bet the Illinois address is fake.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 14:04 by FlemishDreams »

Brandon Seidel

  • BrandonSeidel.com
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2008, 14:40 »
0
I do agree that this site does not look very attractive for contributors.  Even more so now.

The funny part is how we take on pricing now.  My comments did not really have much to do with the new site, mainly our reactions.  I am not saying I don't agree.  I do not want to waste time anymore either.

I just think its funny how a new site pops up selling images for $1 and we jump to "thats too low" and "micro stock needs to move higher".  5 years ago, weren't we hearing the same thing?

Thats it.  Just humoring how our tables have turned.

gbcimages

« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2008, 14:55 »
0
Look at the sites that's been around awhile  123,SS,DT and I'm sure others that rob  you with their prices. I'm not saying I'll run off and join  them because I won't. I'm saying the market is saturated with low prices in microstock 

« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2008, 16:46 »
0
thank you but I'm going to have to pass on your offer at this time...

« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2008, 18:18 »
0
One Price for Vectors or Photos.

Only A Dollar Each. - For Buyers

50% Commission. - For Contributors

http://www.OnePricePhoto.com


Now I dont want to be negative but you are asking me to invest my time into your business. (I consider this an investment as even if you had ftp we are likely talking a couple of days work for me, that I could be use elsewhere )

so who are you, that I should do business with you?
what's your experience in microstock / stock / running a business?

why is there no ftp / iptc? (if you have experience then you should know that this is a necessity re: snapvillage or why do you feel that it is not required)

What is your strategy for attracting new contributors? (albumo paid people and still only had limited response)
Are you talking standard stock? or going to encourage certain segments of the market?

What is your strategy for attracting new buyers? (remembering that there are people who will declare you dead if they dont get a sale within a week or two of uploading).  Are you talking marketing? if you're  thinking I'll use the earnings to market have a look at geckostock and other startups. Basically how are you going to convince buyers that you are better than istock? (because how I see it thats you're target market and price won't do it, I am yet to hear of anyone complain about the new pricing at istock)

Why so cheap?  it has been show that price for buyers isn't that important, but it is to contributors, you would likely do better being more expensive.  You also have to combat the idea that if you are that cheap, the images are likely to be rubbish.

Basically if you think putting a couple of lines onto a forum will do make people come running I think you're dreaming, years ago maybe, I think people aren't desperate for new sites to start up and sell their images they're a lot more sceptical.  There has been too many come and go.  Personally there seems to me a much bigger interest in midstock and I dont think you could start up a new microstock without either a lot of money and a good team behind you or strong personal reputation in the industry.

Sorry, I hope you dont take this all the wrong way, but you've done nothing to convince me that you are worth my time and effort, every month or two someone new decides they are going to have the next istock, but with no money or plans behind them beyond a dream that people will come flocking.  I'd really like to know why are you are different from the existing sites and the dozens of other people that knocked up a webpage and say I'm going to make millions with my stock page which dies 6-12 months later?

Regards
Phil





PaulieWalnuts

  • You talkin' to me?
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2008, 18:25 »
0
Phil - very well said.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
5461 Views
Last post December 27, 2006, 20:17
by valhalla
4 Replies
1627 Views
Last post July 04, 2009, 10:06
by lurkertwo
2 Replies
398 Views
Last post April 29, 2013, 15:19
by Simply
15 Replies
1534 Views
Last post July 31, 2013, 19:37
by Batman
3 Replies
342 Views
Last post May 07, 2014, 09:49
by akz

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors