pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Big News from DT: Pay Raise Coming, New Image Sizes, & Lots More!!!  (Read 17924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 19, 2006, 11:33 »
0
1. DT has announced that they are going to be giving a pay raise on 02/15/2007!

The min royalty is still 0.50 cents, but the max royalty has changed from $1.00 to $2.00 (for the lowest level).

2. DT is adding new image sizes as well.  The new sizes are as follows:

Web (800x600)
Medium (up to 5 MP)
Large (up to 8 MP)
Max (> 8 MP)

3. There are also new levels, which are as follows:

Level 1: 0 - 24 DLs
Level 2: 25 - 49 DLs
Level 3: 50 - 99 DLs
Level 4: 100 - 199 DLs
Level 5: > 200 DLs

Image prices are a combination of image size and sales level.

4. Extended Licenses have been reduced to $50.

5. There is now a Free upload section.

For all the details go here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_6421
« Last Edit: December 19, 2006, 11:35 by GeoPappas »


« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2006, 11:37 »
0
hey thanks for the info.  This sounds like good news.

I should get that dreamstime news thing working again :S

« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2006, 11:40 »
0
here are the new commisions




vicu

« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2006, 19:08 »
0
I don't really know if I understand the structure of how things work at DT. Can someone clarify this for me? Here's what I THINK I'm seeing. Tell me if it's right. Okay thanks.

-- Pictures all start at level 1 where the cost and payout is the lowest.
-- If it is a successful picture it will move up to other levels where the cost and payout are more.
-- Most images will eventually reach a higher level given enough time.

Questions:
Do you find that the rate of sales decrease as your image moves through the higher and more expensive levels?

Do you find that there is constant pressure to upload new images in order to compete with the lower priced files?

Do you feel like you will ever reach a point where you can feel secure enough to "retire" on the income from your images (by this I mean reach a point where, say, it pays your mortgage each month), or do you feel that if you ever decide to stop uploading regularly, your income will suffer?

I guess I am attracted to the idea of uploading good useable timeless stock and it being there as an earner in several years. The structure at DT seems to favor newer files because they cost less. Even if the older images are of equal quality the buyer will go with the cheaper one if at all possible. Just because an image is new does not mean that it isn't good.

This is my perspective as a designer and as a photographer. I'm looking for someone to shoot holes in these theories. Tell me how pushing my photos out of favorable price point range is going to be beneficial if I do not want to be a slave to the upload tool.

« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2006, 20:40 »
0
I definitely don't like the 25c earnings for subscription sales.  :(

I asked them in the forum to consider letting people opt out the subs sales.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2006, 21:48 »
0
As most agencies increase the prices of their single image sales, I hope the subscription models take note and increase their price and therefore increase the commission to photographers. I too don't like the 25c commissions, at DT, SS or at CS.

vicu

« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2006, 22:51 »
0
So there are subscriptions too? And you only get 25 cents for those?

I'm really not getting the benefit here. I really want to understand.

« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2006, 01:42 »
0
Has anyone found that submitting a free image every once in a while has boosted portfolio exposure and earnings? I haven't tried that yet.

« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2006, 02:24 »
0
I don't really know if I understand the structure of how things work at DT. Can someone clarify this for me? Here's what I THINK I'm seeing. Tell me if it's right. Okay thanks.

-- Pictures all start at level 1 where the cost and payout is the lowest.
-- If it is a successful picture it will move up to other levels where the cost and payout are more.
-- Most images will eventually reach a higher level given enough time.

Questions:
Do you find that the rate of sales decrease as your image moves through the higher and more expensive levels?

Do you find that there is constant pressure to upload new images in order to compete with the lower priced files?

Do you feel like you will ever reach a point where you can feel secure enough to "retire" on the income from your images (by this I mean reach a point where, say, it pays your mortgage each month), or do you feel that if you ever decide to stop uploading regularly, your income will suffer?

I guess I am attracted to the idea of uploading good useable timeless stock and it being there as an earner in several years. The structure at DT seems to favor newer files because they cost less. Even if the older images are of equal quality the buyer will go with the cheaper one if at all possible. Just because an image is new does not mean that it isn't good.

This is my perspective as a designer and as a photographer. I'm looking for someone to shoot holes in these theories. Tell me how pushing my photos out of favorable price point range is going to be beneficial if I do not want to be a slave to the upload tool.

I have only one image that is currently 'the old' level 2 which is over 100 sales.  I haven't seel the sales drop on that image at all.  I think if a person wants an image, it doesn't matter if they have to pay $1.00 or $3.00 they are going to buy it.  I don't see any sign of sales slowing down after not uploading for a while.  I stopped uploading in april (due to other photography things taking priority) and my income has stayed pretty level since.  I hope to upload a pile in the spring but we shall see what i have time for.  I think it is a very good revenue  and i really like the extra $$ it gives every month.

I think after a given time sales will die off, but i don't know how long that will be.  I don't think you can expect to work for 5 years uploading then 'retire'.  However if you had microstock as a full time job, i think you could be more than satisfied with the wage it paid you (if you were prepared to live for half a year with a meager income).

« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2006, 03:01 »
0
Has anyone found that submitting a free image every once in a while has boosted portfolio exposure and earnings? I haven't tried that yet.

Yes, I've had two on dreamstime and one on istock and it definatly boosted sales and on istock led to several designers adding me to their network.

« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2006, 05:08 »
0
Exactly in the same Situation as Fotografer, 2 at DT and 1 at IS. I agree with him.

« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2006, 05:19 »
0
The News about the Free Section is also very interesting and in addition:
" We will be exceeding 1,000,000 images soon and at that point we will start cleaning up the database. The first ones on this list will be images older than one year with no downloads."
Wow very interesting, that will give a bigger chance for other images, I think this is a good idea, although sometimes images receives Dls after a year..

« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2006, 06:49 »
0
I think it is a great idea to clean the database up and get rid of images more than a year old with no downloads.

It really must be a pain to find stuff.

I noticed Jaimie Duplass has close to 1000 files that have never been downloaded. And most of them are old, just check out the hairstyles.

If you can find that many from one super user, imagine just how much crap there really must be on the system.

« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2006, 07:47 »
0
Yes I believe there is a lot of crap on the microstocksites. I must admit I have crap too on there. However I am willing to get rid of it and am happy when everyone does. Just donated 10 images to the Free Section. They were over a year old with no Dls...

dbvirago

« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2006, 11:01 »
0
I agree it's a good idea and have donated a few. Also checked the new box on some new uploads.

I'll have to see how that goes. My only problem with checking the make it free if rejected box is I tried that with Fotolia, and had the feeling that it increased my rejection rate slightly. Also, I had pix rejected there and put out for free that were accepted and selling elsewhere, so I quit doing it.

vicu

« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2006, 20:09 »
0
I have only one image that is currently 'the old' level 2 which is over 100 sales.  I haven't seel the sales drop on that image at all.  I think if a person wants an image, it doesn't matter if they have to pay $1.00 or $3.00 they are going to buy it.  I don't see any sign of sales slowing down after not uploading for a while.  I stopped uploading in april (due to other photography things taking priority) and my income has stayed pretty level since.  I hope to upload a pile in the spring but we shall see what i have time for.  I think it is a very good revenue  and i really like the extra $$ it gives every month.

So you don't feel the constant influx of newer and cheaper (and presumably of at least equal quality) is pressuring you to constantly upload newer and cheaper?

By retire, I don't literally mean retire. :) I think of it more like leasing a car. At the end of a lease I am left with nothing to show for my efforts (i.e., lease payments). If I put in the commitment to actually purchase the car, and take good care of it, once it is paid off I still have my car. I won't be able to have it forever, but for a while I won't have to make that car payment.

I am attracted to the idea that my photos will continue working for me indefinitely, not just until they are priced out of the competition.

Does that make any sense at all?  :-\

« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2006, 01:27 »
0
no i don't think your images will be pushed out of the market by cheaper better images.  Microstock sites are getting higher prices if nothing else.  Yes there are newer images all the time, but they don't accept that many flower shots for example anymore.  If you have a good selling flower shot now, i think it will keep selling for a while yet.  I also don't think other start up companines that sell images EVEN LOWER are going to make that much difference.  The prices are so low now that i don't think they are going to scare anyone away who is serious about buying an image.

vicu

« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2006, 09:33 »
0
You have very optimistic expectations. :)

Thanks for your input!

« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2006, 10:01 »
0
yep, i'm an optimist :)

vicu

« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2006, 12:51 »
0
Okay, one more question and I'll quit pestering you. Is it reasonable to say that, when comparing payout from site to site, it's best to compare the Level 1 figures for DT? Since most seem to state their bulk of sales occur at that level, or even lower at subscription?


eendicott

« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2006, 13:16 »
0
I guess I don't understand completely what the panic is all about.  I mean, every time an agency changes something everyone panics and runs around thinking the sky is falling.

1) The new prices are going to make us more money as contributors.

2) The only difference between the DT subscription model and the SS subscription model is you will get less of them at DT (which means more money based on #1) and it will attract more customers.

3) The free image section is nothing new to microstocks.  Fotolia and StockXPert have the same thing.  If you don't want to participate then don't.

4) The purging of portfolios will be a blessing to everyone who has ever complained about "too many similars" in that older similars will be removed making room for newer and better stuff (or different similars if that makes sense).

I've calculated that I will need to purge 14% of my portfolio.  Not a big deal - most of those images are of lower quality and if they aren't lower quality, then 1) I know DT is not the right market to sell those images or 2) I have similar images in my portfolio that sell better.

I also have 3 images that have been selling like crazy since I uploaded them.  They haven't made level 2 yet I am anticipating they would have made it early next year anyway.  I'm looking forward to the new levels and making a little more money from them.  The ironic thing is that my best selling image was uploaded last year prior to the price increase from last year.  My second best seller has made me more money than the first simply because of timing (even though it has 10 less downloads).

I think this is a very positive thing for the agency and it's contributors and since I'm exclusive there - I'm betting on it and putting my money where my mouth is!

« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2006, 13:22 »
0
Questions:
Do you find that the rate of sales decrease as your image moves through the higher and more expensive levels?

I don't think that a buyer is going to quibble over $0.50 or $1.00.  If they see an image that will fit their criteria, then I don't think that they are going to reject it because it is $1.00 more.

If there are other images that are very similar to yours, then there might be an issue, but the buyer will probably take into account that your image has had many more sales which means that it likely is a quality image.

Do you find that there is constant pressure to upload new images in order to compete with the lower priced files?

Yes, but I don't think that it has anything to do with the pricing levels of lower priced images.

Do you feel like you will ever reach a point where you can feel secure enough to "retire" on the income from your images (by this I mean reach a point where, say, it pays your mortgage each month), or do you feel that if you ever decide to stop uploading regularly, your income will suffer?

I'm not sure on this one yet.  The industry is too new, and there are too many developments happening every month to try and figure out if an image will allow one to "retire".  And I think that it is pretty common knowledge that you have to keep uploading in order to keep sales at a steady level (otherwise your portfolio gets smaller and smaller, since the database continues to get larger and larger).

« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2006, 13:37 »
0
2) The only difference between the DT subscription model and the SS subscription model is you will get less of them at DT (which means more money based on #1) and it will attract more customers.

I'm not sure about that for two reasons.

(1) The current SS subscription is $159/month for 750 images.  That calculates to 0.21/image (if they download all 750 images).

The current DT subscription is $139.99/month for 300 images.  That calculates to 0.47/image (if they download all 300 images).

SS obviously wins there, since you get a lot more images for your money.

But now DT wants to drop their subscription to $89.99/month for 300 images.  That calculates to 0.30/image (if they download all 300 images).  That is over a 50% reduction in cost and it brings it much closer to the SS model.  I think that  this will mean that there will be an increased amount in subscription downloads.  If you do a direct interpolation, then you are looking at 50% more downloads than before.

(2) The second reason that I think that there will be an increase in DT subscriptions is because it is much easier to download 300 images (10/day) from DT, then it is to download 750 images (25/day) at SS.

SS is basically using the business model that counts on buyers from not being able to take full advantage of the offer.  It is hard to find and download 25 images/day, especially when you have weekends and holidays (and other work to do).

But it will be much easier for buyers to take advantage of the DT deal, since it will be a lot easier to download 10 images/day and therefore take full advantage of the deal that is offered.

I guess time will tell...

eendicott

« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2006, 13:48 »
0
Geopappas more subscriptions would be a win, win, win.

The agency wins because it takes customers from Shutterstock
The contributors win because eventually, they will see similar downloads to what Shutterstock's volume is (and many contributors have expressed how much they favor Shutterstock because of all the downloads they get)
And as you mention, the buyers win because of your examples.

Taking into account the big picture - all of this means more exposure to our portfolios at DT.  As you mention, time will tell.

« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2006, 14:18 »
0
I sure hope you're right, Ed.  The one thing that bothers me about working with SS is their hold on the subscription market.  It would be nice to not have to rely so much on one agency for my income and see it spread around a little more.   

I'm not crazy about the free images program or the removal of images that haven't sold in a year.  I would much rather see a program like IS's dollar bin implemented, so we actually have a chance to earn something before the image is toast.  Sometimes a true gem appears that was overlooked by buyers for some reason, and they sell like crazy when offered for a dollar.  The true duds might only see a sale or two, but even then at least the photographer's work isn't going unrewarded.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1513 Views
Last post December 31, 1969, 19:00
by Istock News
5 Replies
2781 Views
Last post April 05, 2007, 12:24
by ptlee
20 Replies
9917 Views
Last post February 16, 2011, 08:33
by Mantis
14 Replies
2197 Views
Last post April 17, 2013, 12:29
by Leo Blanchette
56 Replies
11173 Views
Last post May 05, 2015, 14:49
by gbalex

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results