MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Big News from DT: Pay Raise Coming, New Image Sizes, & Lots More!!!  (Read 17193 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.

« 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?

Dreamstime News

« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2007, 08:10 »
0
Starting Feb. 27, we have two new levels for images. The pricing levels were updated, read more here...

« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2007, 09:02 »
0
so i suppose this is 'suppsed' to start today then??

let me know when you get a 'new priced' download - i haven't seen any

« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2007, 12:56 »
0
Interesting that prices and commissions at DT seem to have crept upwards.  Same thing happened at IS.  Makes sense - start off cheap, then once the business is established start to increase pricing to more realistic levels.

For contributing photographers this is good news - microstock images are underpriced and prices should increase gradually over the next couple of years.  It's similar to the internet thing back in the 1990's etc - most of the new players went bust, leaving the larger businesses to capitalise on the customer base and increase prices.

This is another reason why agencies are becoming more selective, both in accepting new photographers AND in being more fussy in the image inspection process.

It will become very important for all contributing photographers to submit only the best quality - the days of the holiday snapper being accepted by the top agencies are numbered.

« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2007, 14:21 »
0
I got a download today and it was just the typical $1

« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2007, 14:31 »
0
From Achilles Post this aft:

"This will be the part that will happen tomorrow, i.e. the new prices.
At this time (and for all credits acquired until tomorrow) it will cost 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 credits, depending on its number of downloads.

To answer your question in a different way, the 12 MP resolution assures you the highest royalties possible. :)"

I actually got a few downloads today... wonder if it's the rush before price hike!

« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2007, 15:55 »
0
All I can say is that I don't like the new prices. 

A 4000x4000pix illustration was dld today at DT for a mere 50c for me (I used to get $1 for that size).  I made the same 50c by selling it at StockXpert, but the buyer bought a 693x693pix. 

I will hate subscription sales...

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2007, 16:48 »
0
if they downloaded the large version you should have gotten $2.00

I am guessing that was the web version??

*****
sorry for the confusion - the two topics are now merged.  The old thread and the new one that the dreamstime news things started.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 16:53 by leaf »

« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2007, 16:51 »
0
or, if it says maximum, this is what i am guessing happened.

It seems that some users still have left over credits from the days of old.  When they use these they can download a high res image for 50 cents.  I have had a couple of these the last couple weeks.  Today when things switched over to the new system, downloads from today and previous days are labeled as maximum or small downloads depending on whether they were high-res or web downloads.

So i am guess you got a high-res download using old credits - that is now labeled 'maximum'

« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2007, 17:51 »
0
Yes, it was the maximum.

I want my other 50c!  :(

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2007, 18:15 »
0
Hmm. Thats odd. You only got .50c for this?
02/27/2007 (maximum, RF, $1.00)

I got 2 sales today at $1 each for maximum.

« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2007, 18:24 »
0
Kngkyle,

Maybe it was a level 2 or higher image in your case?  Images should be redistributed in the new levels.  Or maybe new credits?

I went to the image's earnings, an it says:

02/27/2007 13:35  Member download  Level 1  1 credit (old)  $0.50  maximum  (RF)

So Leaf's diagnosis is correct.  Old credit, humpf!

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2007, 19:47 »
0
Kngkyle,

Maybe it was a level 2 or higher image in your case?  Images should be redistributed in the new levels.  Or maybe new credits?

I went to the image's earnings, an it says:

02/27/2007 13:35  Member download  Level 1  1 credit (old)  $0.50  maximum  (RF)

So Leaf's diagnosis is correct.  Old credit, humpf!

Regards,
Adelaide

Nope, it was this images first download. It was a 5000x4000 illustration.

« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2007, 03:58 »
0
I know the price increase had been delayed didn't realize it they had set a new date certainly explains why yesterday was my best day at DT ever 13 Dls and an XL sale my first ever at DT. I presume the XLicence price reduction was permanent.

Hopefully BigStock won't wait too long before increasing their prices (pity I submitted all those 4mp photos there when I had 8mp versions :'()

« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2007, 09:36 »
0
yeah, looks like the new pricing is well under way.  I got a small download of a level 2 (over 25 downloads) image today and received $1.00 :)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 09:38 by leaf »

« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2007, 14:02 »
0
I think the added subscription plan may actually help sales here on the basis that purchasers of the plan will most likely be agencies & companies with a budget and the individual purchases will be more often from entreprenuers and the average person with the need of a photo.  I also think that having your portfolio exposed to more than one
subscription plan will be a benefit the same way having your portfolio exposed to more than one "pay for each download at a time" plan.

This type of industry is still too new for DT & SS to take all the potential subscriber business! Besides, my portfolio varies between the two sites based on what's been accepted.  This alone will atract various buyers to each site!

Hope I'm right!  :)

« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2007, 14:31 »
0
I hope the subscription will get the images up to level 2 and higher faster. Up to now for me the max number of sales on an single image is 7

Olga

« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2007, 16:10 »
0
I hope the subscription will get the images up to level 2 and higher faster.

But what help will it make if most sales become subscription ones?  That's my fear.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #67 on: February 28, 2007, 16:14 »
0
So far, my sales in dollars are three times as high in dollars on SS as on DT. If subscribtion sales can help closing that gap, my income will obviously increase. The market is far from saturated yet, so I don't worry   :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1423 Views
Last post December 31, 1969, 19:00
by Istock News
5 Replies
2681 Views
Last post April 05, 2007, 12:24
by ptlee
20 Replies
9598 Views
Last post February 16, 2011, 08:33
by Mantis
14 Replies
1971 Views
Last post April 17, 2013, 12:29
by Leo Blanchette
56 Replies
10462 Views
Last post May 05, 2015, 14:49
by gbalex

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results