pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime to start selling prints  (Read 8479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 07, 2009, 09:05 »
0
Dreamstime is going to start selling prints direct from their website

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18853

The short of it is, photographers will be compensated for an image sale at the largest resolution.  There is no opt out as making a print is already within the current licensing terms.  Dreamstime has just made it easier for the buyer to get a print of the image they purchase.


« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2009, 09:07 »
0
I like it! It could give a rise to the RPD.

« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2009, 09:28 »
0
Didn't IS give up on prints because there was so little demand? I've averaged one print sale for every 15K standard licenses.

I find it difficult to believe there's going to be much of a market for DT but I guess it does no harm to try. I think to succeed in print sales you'd need to offer the full range of frames, canvas, block prints, etc. Most people would want to buy a finished article that they could visualise on-screen.

« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2009, 11:23 »
0
As far as I know IS does still offer prints, but its not immediately obvious how you'd go about ordering a print when you're on a photo page.

I've had a grand total of 2 prints made through IS in about 4 years - still  4 times better than the 1/15K if that's in fact the average. :)

I guess the success of the DT program will partly depend on whether they make it easy for people to sign up and just order one print.

« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2009, 11:32 »
0
This is certainly wlecome, but I see limited potential in selling prints in a stock photo site whose main focus is NOT landscape and nature.

Or do people print smiling women with headsets?  :)

« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2009, 11:44 »
0
This is certainly wlecome, but I see limited potential in selling prints in a stock photo site whose main focus is NOT landscape and nature.

Or do people print smiling women with headsets?  :)

The 3 that I sold on IS were all industrial, a couple of power stations and some metal lathe cuttings.  Maybe they ended up adnorning the foyers of businesses in related sectors.

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2009, 11:50 »
0
As far as I know IS does still offer prints, but its not immediately obvious how you'd go about ordering a print when you're on a photo page.

I've had a grand total of 2 prints made through IS in about 4 years - still  4 times better than the 1/15K if that's in fact the average. :)

I guess the success of the DT program will partly depend on whether they make it easy for people to sign up and just order one print.

Agree on all three counts.  I think I have had 3 print sales since the program started, so like one a year.  One of them was just last month, though, so the program is still active.

I hope Dreamstime advertises prints heavily and makes it easy to order them.  Otherwise I imagine it will go the way of istock prints - into the void  :-\

« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2009, 11:52 »
0
I have a number of lanscape and nature images on DT; many of which would make great prints, but I have mixed feelings about DT's move as Id rather do the print end of things through my website and Mpix; where I know the print quality is very good.  
A buyer through subscription could buy a print and I end up getting .35 in royalties which rather sucks, or is that not the case?

WarrenPrice

« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2009, 12:09 »
0
Not being able to Opt Out is another example of shoving it down your throat. 
My art prints sell at another site for much more ... Plus... I get a percentage of the framing and matting fees. 
This is strictly a way for DT to increase revenue at the expense of contributors.

I suppose a buyer could buy a subscription copy and print their own.  But, why then would anyone pay DT for a printed copy?

This whole thing seems to have been rolled out before being fully tested ... much like that key word reporting fiasco. 

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2009, 12:36 »
0
 
A buyer through subscription could buy a print and I end up getting .35 in royalties which rather sucks, or is that not the case?

I hadn't thought of that.  If Dreamstime is getting paid for the print then the contributor should get the relevant % of the total print price. 

« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2009, 12:47 »
0
There is also the question of Stock vs Art photos, if the DT Print Venture becomes successful, I would think they would want to branch a little outside of Stock.

And Yes Lisafx, shouldn't we also get a piece of the action.

« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2009, 12:57 »
0
A buyer through subscription could buy a print and I end up getting .35 in royalties which rather sucks, or is that not the case?

In the announcement thread on DT Achilles writes:

"prices are kept minimal: production costs + RF pricing (maximum size, credits only, levels apply). Contributor royalties & agency share calculation is based on the same formula used for regular downloads."

So you should not be concerned about subs in that context.

« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2009, 14:05 »
0
This is certainly wlecome, but I see limited potential in selling prints in a stock photo site whose main focus is NOT landscape and nature.

Or do people print smiling women with headsets?  :)
However, DTis one site that has always been open to more creative work and I think this is a good step!

« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2009, 14:37 »
0
Istock, the Canadian stock company, was only selling prints in the U.S. last I knew.  They must have a third party that does the print work for them in the U.S. If they sold in Canada they would have to collect retail sales tax and GST, maybe that is why they aren't offered here.

I would dig it if they would let us design prints to sell as prints an not stock photos (adding text, borders and other elements).

« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2009, 15:34 »
0
There are many subjects that could sell prints.  Food photos for restaurants, people images for clinics, isolated apples and pears for nutritionists.  :)

There is a gym near here that used microstock images to decorate their reception (maybe even inside), so it's one way a buyer might prefer a print directly.

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2009, 16:22 »
0
There are many subjects that could sell prints.  Food photos for restaurants, people images for clinics, isolated apples and pears for nutritionists.  :)


Good point.  I was recently visiting a relative in a huge new hospital and the walls had big posters of doctors treating happy patients all over the place.  None I recognized though, so no in-actions.

« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2009, 17:11 »
0
I certainly would not put landscapes on there to be only compensated $10.

« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2009, 17:36 »
0
I certainly would not put landscapes on there to be only compensated $10.

Why not? That's about 10x more than the average most other license sales make and those sales are often being used for expensive advertising campaigns. How much would you think was appropriate for a simple print?


« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2009, 17:44 »
0
This is certainly wlecome, but I see limited potential in selling prints in a stock photo site whose main focus is NOT landscape and nature.

Or do people print smiling women with headsets?  :)

;D lol!

« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2009, 19:57 »
0
I sell my landscapes at the market from $100 to $200 mounted. There is about $60 to $120 margin in that.

The stuff I sell for stock does not get the same attention to detail, does not take ages to get the right shot, and does not cost travel money.

« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2009, 20:35 »
0
litifeta,

I guess it's the same about macro vs micro.  If you are doing well selling prints, you are right - why have them cheap at microstocks? 

DT implemented a simple scheme.  Print sites normally let you set your mark-up - % or $ - so you can set product prices according to your work.  If you have something special or unique, of course you can charge more for it.  But then you don't put that in micros - I don't.

« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2009, 21:11 »
0
I sell my landscapes at the market from $100 to $200 mounted. There is about $60 to $120 margin in that.

The stuff I sell for stock does not get the same attention to detail, does not take ages to get the right shot, and does not cost travel money.

Yes but ... supposedly you would be opening up a marketplace with thousands if not millions more potential customers. If your work is good enough or unique enough then the gains could be huge ... theoretically.

Of course in reality most landscapes only have local appeal and are best sold via the local market to realise best price ... again theoretically. Much more work to do so, much higher costs, admin, etc, etc.

I reckon, if I sold a framed print locally (UK seaside town with lots of tourists), through an established retailer at the going rate, then a $100 sale after costs, taxes, retailer's margin, etc might put about $5-10 in my back bin. Just not worth the hassle.

« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2009, 21:26 »
0
I've raked in about $10 in royalties since the print program started at IS.  Whoopee!  But then again, I don't shoot the kind of stuff most people want on their walls.

« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2009, 08:20 »
0
In general the stock sites don't approve things that people would want on their walls. How many times have we, as a group, complained about images being rejected for "not stock" or "over photoshoped / to artsy / to designed"? The stock sites want themes that apply to concepts or isolations that can be manipulated by designers to create what they want.

The other big part of this will come down to marketing. To my knowledge IS never marketed the concept of coming to them for prints. Designers, in general, are creating an advertisement - not looking for a finished art piece to hang on a wall. If they can market this to people who purchase wall art on a regular basis - like interior designers - then it may work out ok.

« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2009, 08:37 »
0
great news anything that can potentially attract new clients is good :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3198 Views
Last post March 07, 2007, 17:50
by sim
0 Replies
1870 Views
Last post June 07, 2009, 23:26
by Pixart
43 Replies
6999 Views
Last post March 16, 2014, 10:14
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
1433 Views
Last post August 09, 2014, 16:40
by etudiante_rapide
2 Replies
2020 Views
Last post August 22, 2014, 00:48
by kel858

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results