pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Big News from DT: Pay Raise Coming, New Image Sizes, & Lots More!!!  (Read 17925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2006, 14:35 »
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.

Mr. Endicott:

You might view this situation as a win-win because you are an exclusive photographer with Dreamstime (which you conveniently forgot to mention), but I doubt that others would want to see subscriptions from SS go to DT.  This might create a subscription plan battle between the two sites, which might lead to lower royalties.  Remember, DT currently gives a 0.50 royalty for subscriptions, which they plan on cutting in half for this new initiative.  So you now have to sell twice as many images (via subscription) just to make the same the same royalties.


eendicott

« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2006, 16:48 »
0
Quote from: GeoPappas link=topic=960.msg7589#msg7589
You might view this situation as a win-win because you are an exclusive photographer with Dreamstime (which you conveniently forgot to mention), but I doubt that others would want to see subscriptions from SS go to DT.  This might create a subscription plan battle between the two sites, which might lead to lower royalties.  Remember, DT currently gives a 0.50 royalty for subscriptions, which they plan on cutting in half for this new initiative.  So you now have to sell twice as many images (via subscription) just to make the same the same royalties.

I didn't "forget to conveniently mention" it.  I said it straight out in my post above when I said "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!"  ;D

What does it matter if you have the same images on all the sites?  The only person this will harm is exclusives like myself...if I were exclusive at Shutterstock.  It makes absolutely no difference to the person who has the same images spread out all over.

« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2006, 18:19 »
0
I didn't "forget to conveniently mention" it.  I said it straight out in my post above when I said "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!"  ;D

You are 100% correct.  I humbly apologize for my mistake.  I must have "conveniently" glossed over that fact  :)

What does it matter if you have the same images on all the sites?  The only person this will harm is exclusives like myself...if I were exclusive at Shutterstock.  It makes absolutely no difference to the person who has the same images spread out all over.

This is where I disagree.  As you stated in another thread (on DT), SS is one of the top paying microstock sites for most photographers.  So removing sales from that site would hurt it, and eventually the photographers associated with it.

I personally think that SS is the best stock site out there.  They accept ANY image, as long as it is technically good.  They don't complain about having "too many" of a certain image, they accept post processed images, they accept fractals, they accept artsy images, they accept editorials.  They don't release announcements willy nilly and upset their contributors.  They have forums where people can actually discuss things.

In other words, SS treats people (up to this point at least) with respect, which I can't say for most other sites.

It is obvious that DT is trying to compete with SS on the subscription front.  While I don't mind competition, I don't think that it should come at the expense of the photographers (by lowering royalties).  It won't do any of us (photographers) any good if SS and DT get into a shooting match and continue to lower prices (and royalties) to try to drive each other into the ground.

« Reply #28 on: December 24, 2006, 14:03 »
0
It looks like they are going to make new Shutter Stock and we'll earn less than before (only $0.25) because mostly designers will buy subscriptions. It will make more traffic, but for DT not for us. We'll have again like on SS, that if you do not upload often, DLs are going down and down.

« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2007, 20:10 »
0
Does anyone here have images as levels 2 and above?  Do you see a trend of reducing sales when they change levels?  With the new rules, many images will soon be level 2 (I'll have one when the new levels go live) and I wonder if this will affect sales, as the image price will be much higher (25-100% increase for a level 2).

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2007, 02:46 »
0
if anything i have experienced the opposite.  I have only one image at level two but it still sells just as much as before.  If someone wants an image it $1.00 extra isn't going to stop them.

Generally i think buyers have enough of an idea in their head of what they want that perhaps only 1 image fits their needs.  Therefore they are willing to pay the measly extra $1.00 to get it.  I know the few times that i was image searching, that i was more than willing to pay a little extra to get what i wanted.

« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2007, 14:58 »
0
Firstly thanks to everyone for not saying "told you so"

Yes I was a very silly only uploading 4mp to DT. I e-mailed support I can resubmit 8mp files using the usual process and delete the original if accepted so I will try that over the next month starting with my best selling images, though that will work against me if I am close to achieving level 2.

Regarding cleaning out the trash I am quite concerned about having any images that have not been DLed after a year deleted. Considering I have a portfolio exposure of 25% that means I could be losing quite a chunk of my portfolio. Fortunately I haven't even been a member there 12 months.

Free images very worth while if its on the front page of a site  that receives visitors (Istock or DT) not so great when it is lost amongst 1,000s of other free images such as at FT. Where you receive credits when a new visitor downloads one of your files these payouts used to be worth something but any of late have been fractions of a cent so I will be clearing out my free images at FT shortly.

« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2007, 13:34 »
0
well... good news... >:(
 so... i stopped to upload images on DT when i heard for these good news.
 i'll wait for "news" appliance, and simply if my income is going to decrease, i intend to delete my whole portfolio. if earnings increase - i'll continue to work with dt. (and to upload images at MINIMUM REQUIRED size.
 

« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2007, 14:07 »
0
why would you do that?  Do you not feel it is worth it to get the large sized downloads at a higher price?

I expect my income to rise from DT after the price increase, but i guess we shall see.

red_moon_rise

« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2007, 15:13 »
0
A word of warning!!

Just make sure you do not misrepresent your exclusivity with DT. I started out on DT for several months and in the beginning I was excusive with them. Then I started to upload to other sites. Long story short I "conviniently" forgot to change my images to nonexclusive status and therefore lost out on my first payout. I was supposedly "lucky" for not having my entire portfolio eliminated (why kill the goose if you can steal the golden eggs without feeding it >:( )

But otherwise DT is one of the sites that give non-exclusives a decent deal. The insentives are not that great for the exclusives.

« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2007, 16:52 »
0
Regarding cleaning out the trash I am quite concerned about having any images that have not been DLed after a year deleted.


I agree whole-heartedly... especially since I just had a couple pix that have been on DT since June 06, that never sold before, just sell this past week. Coming up on 8 months... just because it hasn't sold  YET, doesn't mean it won't.  Why'd they sit so long before selling?   Perhaps a  dozen legitimate reasons...    like, the right customer just happened along and they finally got a view.             ....and a sale.

Do I think some of my stuff is crap?  Yup, and I'd be glad to take it off myself if it wasn't such a pain in the elbow on some sites. I'd be happy to flush my own.  But I don't think I like the idea of them just hitting the delete button at midnight, 12 months.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2007, 16:57 by tgt »

« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2007, 09:51 »
0
I've noticed an increase in sales of "print" sizes over at DT since the increase at IS so I think the market is more price sensitive than frequently thought.

- It will be interesting to see what happens when the changes go into effect.  I personally feel the scales are too complicated with price changes for about 5 sizes and 4 levels. 

- I'm very much against the subscription download feature.  I have several photos which are exclusive to DT because of their higher payout.  The subscription feature defeats that purpose.

- Deleting files after a year is rather ironic when you consider that DT locks up your photos for six months (they wanted a year), because it can take that long for designers to get around to downloading it.   ::)

« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2007, 20:18 »
0
Big issue I think is photographers dont seem to be able to think objectively about their own art.

Basically if the designers do not want to buy the image, it doesn't make it crap art, just a crap "product".

It is no different to any other business. Why would you continue to stock your shop with products that dont sell. You dont! Difference being you (the photographer) are the "supplier" and trying to motivate the shop keeper into justifying the shelf space just in case the market changes and all of a sudden your "products" become popular.

« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2007, 06:35 »
0
Cool... just sold an exclusive simple vector (over 8mb), level one under the new price system -

"Caching" - $2.40  - Yah! ;D

« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2007, 09:24 »
0
Cool... just sold an exclusive simple vector (over 8mb), level one under the new price system -

I thought the new price system takes effect 02/15?

« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2007, 10:15 »
0
Cool... just sold an exclusive simple vector (over 8mb), level one under the new price system -

I thought the new price system takes effect 02/15?

me too

« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2007, 04:25 »
0
why would you do that?  Do you not feel it is worth it to get the large sized downloads at a higher price?

I expect my income to rise from DT after the price increase, but i guess we shall see.

 because in terms of use which is checked for every single one of my pics (and when you forget to check - system says "please read terms of use, and check if you agree" ) i can't remember there was a "detail" that says "photos have to be on site for minimum of 6 months after approving"
 
 there is nothing wrong with  higher price for large sized photos - it's  actually very good. but if you have subscription download for L file for on example 0.25$ - it's not fair to other agencies that i work with (isp, or fl, or f.pics, or StockXpert) - and i can't withdraw my pics from my portfolio, or if i am not interested to sell L files for so small amount of money - to downsize approved files or whatever.
 i believe also that is not legal new rules to apply for older pics.
 but, let me think some more - regarding the fact that english is not my native language, i might misunderstood something, so, it's not my conclusion, - just thinking.

 so, expect number of dl-s to rise, also earnings at the first place, but when more customers buy subscriptions,  older pics are going to sell less than newer - that's my expectation.

« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2007, 07:04 »
0
does anyone know when this new pricing structure kicks in?

« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2007, 07:05 »
0
does anyone know when this new pricing structure kicks in?

They keep saying some day this week.

« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2007, 07:25 »
0
and is there still a slew of people with old credits, cause I am still getting print downloads for both 50 cents and $1.00 right after each other.  I am guessing this is still left overs from the last increase but I am not sure.

« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2007, 10:20 »
0
Hmmm :-)

One more reason to upgrade to a 10 MP Canon Rebel I guess ... and start reshooting my isolations  ::)

All the best,
Michael

« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2007, 12:02 »
0
Now it's passed Feb 15th, but the pricing is still the same, a couple of images qualifies for Level 2 still got paid on Level 1, so are they cancelling the plan to increase price?

« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2007, 13:20 »
0
Now it's passed Feb 15th, but the pricing is still the same, a couple of images qualifies for Level 2 still got paid on Level 1, so are they cancelling the plan to increase price?

No, they have delayed it until next week.  They supposedly ran into some implementation problems.

« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2007, 15:27 »
0
Big issue I think is photographers dont seem to be able to think objectively about their own art.

Basically if the designers do not want to buy the image, it doesn't make it crap art, just a crap "product".

It is no different to any other business. Why would you continue to stock your shop with products that dont sell. You dont! Difference being you (the photographer) are the "supplier" and trying to motivate the shop keeper into justifying the shelf space just in case the market changes and all of a sudden your "products" become popular.

The problem with this statement as it refers to file deletion after a years time of a photo with no sales is that alot of images don't even get viewed within a years time!  It will become more common as more members join the site and contribute pictures.

I think if their concern is server space then the focus should be on upgrading it and not culling approved photos.  The review process is where the image regulation should be concentrated.  As a designer I feel you can never have too many choices in photos!

« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2007, 07:43 »
0
It looks like DT has implemented the new price plan today.

My big question is: How will the 0.25 subscription sales affect other sales?


 

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