pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Has DT gone over to the dark side  (Read 14307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 19, 2012, 19:27 »
0


Poncke

« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2012, 02:20 »
0

« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2012, 05:07 »
0
For me that shows level 0 after 6 months, for you or if I logged out probably 2 years.  Serban has confirmed that they are "experimenting" again so better than average chance this is coming for everyone.  Maybe going on for a while as I had previous got a lower than expected price on a sale.

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_32179

At least IS, FT and 123 give you advance notice of a shafting!!


« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2012, 09:16 »
+2
I feel like iStock set the bar in the industry in terms of how bad we can be treated without leaving the agency.

Now DT is getting the hang of it and tries to push through these "tests" to beautify their bookkeeping. Every other reason to do this could have easily be announced prior to going live IMO.

Not cool.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2012, 09:42 »
0

At least IS, FT and 123 give you advance notice of a shafting!!

I'll give you 123RF, but IS and FT have both shafted us without notice.

« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2012, 11:38 »
0
It gets better - check the comparison that was posted - price cuts on the way across the board - mightn't affect most of you now but be * sure it will.


« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2012, 12:11 »
+1
It gets better - check the comparison that was posted - price cuts on the way across the board - mightn't affect most of you now but be * sure it will.

That's not good. They seem to be very confused over there. I think they change their pricing schemes more than anybody else. I'm sure there is a purpose to it all, but it looks very random. The whole tiered pricing thing is kind of a mess. I feel sorry for their customers. I'm surprised they put up with it.

« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2012, 12:58 »
+1
I saw the comparison of prices posted in that thread, but when I tried looking after logging out, I saw the same prices (I went to check in a browser I don't normally use to avoid any issues with cookies), so either the test is regional or over, or very selective?

I've been having a decent month at DT (after some really bad ones when they messed around with prices earlier in the year), so I hope they don't change that. I still think their pricing scheme must be a huge turnoff for buyers and the reason they're still doing OK most of the time is that for buyers ticked off with iStock, but who don't want a big ticket subscription, they're one of the two choices in the top tier agencies.

If iStock stopped being a total mess or SS figured out how to make Big Stock an effective PAYG arm, I think DT might feel the real effects of this jumble of prices.

« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2012, 13:56 »
+1
If iStock stopped being a total mess or SS figured out how to make Big Stock an effective PAYG arm, I think DT might feel the real effects of this jumble of prices.

I agree. I think their slogan should be... We're Dreamstime and we are OK. Not terrible. I'd say DT's problem is they seem to lack an identity. They just don't have anything they can hang their hat on. They used to pay 50% and had some bragging rights about being a good paying agency. Not anymore though. The tiered pricing model really doesn't allow them to say they are the cheapest, priciest or even the simplest. Their collection isn't the best curated (their weird similar rules), but it also isn't the worst.

If I were them, I'd move back to 50% or at least close to it. Normalize my pricing. I might even move to a one or two sku pricing model and just sell the high res files and maybe a web size. I think if you get the RPD up high enough and earnings up enough, then you could start trying to lure exclusives away from iStock into your own exclusive program.

That's probably too many changes to make it feasible, but they definitely need to try establish some differentiating factor.

« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2012, 15:05 »
+1
I hope this experiment to move more files into the 20% category is dropped pretty soon.

Why not experiment and pay out 80% for the contributors. That is an experiment I would like to participate in.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2012, 18:44 »
0
Seems a little wishy washy.  Somebody needs to make a decision.  Stop screwing around an "do business."

« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2012, 08:05 »
0
I wonder when sites will understand that as they keep cutting my commission percentages, I'll spend less time working with them and they'll make less money?  If they did the opposite and raised commission percentages, it would be a big incentive to spend more time working with microstock.  That would make me more money and the sites more money.  It might be different in other industries where the suppliers have no choice but to accept whatever the agents are offering.  We do have other ways to make money selling images.  There might be a tipping point when the sites pay so little it forces us to start our own site.  Why would they want that to happen?

red

« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2012, 09:27 »
0
If you leave, you will be replaced by 100 other small contributors in a matter of only a few days (not you in particular, but as a general statement).

My thought is that the majority of contributors (at DT at least) have small ports. According to their stats the 15th largest contributor has 13,895 images. Many of those above this level have quit uploading or have large ports on all sites and already have their own sites. With 16 million images and 141,660 photographers total the bulk of their database is populated with small time photogs and illustrators which works to their advantage. New people come and go, may have ports of 50 to 1,000 images (average is 106 images). If those people got mad and left, they would be replaced the next minute with new people finding these sites and unloading photos their friends and family told them were great (and some are). If accepted they make a few bucks but don't take this seriously. These members never read the forums, do no research, probably don't really know what they are being paid per download and will continue to be added to or replaced by newer members.

My opinion has always been that the major sites need to get rid of old, lousy images to make their collections more relevant. If a buyer knows they can find only the best images at one place they will choose that agency over another but now all of them house the same stuff. DT has tried to do that by getting rid of non-sellers but more has to be done. It's also time to eliminate good images that are keyworded improperly. No matter how good they are if no one can find them they are useless. DT tried to allow non-sellers to be rekeyworded by their keymasters but even that didn't work. They've stopped that. A soccer ball isolated on white that hasn't sold in 3 years will not be sold with new keywords when there are 10,000 other soccer balls isolated on white in the database.

The criteria for "best images" will always be controversial and if implemented will make most contributors mad because some of their images will be eliminated. But, bottom line, there are just too many useless images that have to be waded through when looking for something relevant so the only way the agencies can continue to make money, in their minds, is to cut prices. Something else has to be tried, but I have no answers.

« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2012, 09:53 »
0

My opinion has always been that the major sites need to get rid of old, lousy images to make their collections more relevant. If a buyer knows they can find only the best images at one place they will choose that agency over another but now all of them house the same stuff.
I honestly don't think it matters as long as these images are at the back of the searches.  As we all know by the affect that search orders can have on our sales buyers rarely look at more than the first couple of pages.

« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2012, 10:04 »
0
I think trying to be more selective and have a higher quality collection doesn't work because its so subjective.  Also, for every buyer that wants higher quality, there must be lots that want as much choice as possible.  If that wasn't true, the sites wouldn't need such big collections to attract buyers.

They could try rating all images and letting the buyers decide if they want to look at all images or just the higher rated ones.

As for thinking of other ways to make more money other than taking it from us, Getty opened Thinkstock to compete with the micros, why don't they go for some of the higher priced RF and RM market that Getty are making lots of money from?  The big advantage that the microstock sites have is that a lot of their contributors aren't in Getty and would find it hard to get in to their main collection.  So they have a chance to get a higher priced RF and RM collection that's could interest buyers.

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2012, 18:15 »
+4
I wonder when sites will understand that as they keep cutting my commission percentages, I'll spend less time working with them and they'll make less money?  If they did the opposite and raised commission percentages, it would be a big incentive to spend more time working with microstock. 

This is so very true.  I was having this exact conversation with my husband just this morning. 

A year and a half ago I was making plans to expand my studio and increase the complexity and production value of my images.  Now I see absolutely no point in doing that.   

I've hit the wall and income is stagnant or dropping, no matter what or how often I upload.  Other top sellers, many quite a bit more successful than me, are reporting the same thing.

Some of that drop is due to competition, no doubt, but a significant amount of it is due to agencies dropping our royalty percentages - some of them repeatedly. 

It is a huge struggle to find motivation to plan and execute and finance good shoots when there is no chance for growth or progress, but rather an effort to simply slow the decline. 
 

« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2012, 20:19 »
+1
I wonder when sites will understand that as they keep cutting my commission percentages, I'll spend less time working with them and they'll make less money?  If they did the opposite and raised commission percentages, it would be a big incentive to spend more time working with microstock. 

This is so very true.  I was having this exact conversation with my husband just this morning. 

A year and a half ago I was making plans to expand my studio and increase the complexity and production value of my images.  Now I see absolutely no point in doing that.   

I've hit the wall and income is stagnant or dropping, no matter what or how often I upload.  Other top sellers, many quite a bit more successful than me, are reporting the same thing.

Some of that drop is due to competition, no doubt, but a significant amount of it is due to agencies dropping our royalty percentages - some of them repeatedly. 

It is a huge struggle to find motivation to plan and execute and finance good shoots when there is no chance for growth or progress, but rather an effort to simply slow the decline.

^^^ So true Lisa. About the only positive thing is that customers are increasingly choosing SS over the agencies that keep cutting our commissions. Maybe there's a cause/effect thing going on there?

« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2012, 09:37 »
0
The criteria for "best images" will always be controversial and if implemented will make most contributors mad because some of their images will be eliminated. But, bottom line, there are just too many useless images that have to be waded through when looking for something relevant so the only way the agencies can continue to make money, in their minds, is to cut prices. Something else has to be tried, but I have no answers.

DT currently sends out a message to contributors that have old images with no sales in 3 years!  Contributors can decide to have these images automatically delete from their port or be offered as a free image!

red

« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2012, 10:03 »
0
Yes, I know, but is 3 years too long? Perhaps it should be a shorter time. Yes, I know that a non-seller is sometimes purchased after a few years but how many non-sellers are purchased more than once or twice after 3 years? DT also allows images to be re-keyworded without any review so if a non-seller sits for 2-1/2 years then the photog pays to have it re-keyworded it can sit for another 3 years. New keywords don't improve image quality and some older images are just not up to snuff.

« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2012, 10:54 »
0
Yes, I know, but is 3 years too long? Perhaps it should be a shorter time. Yes, I know that a non-seller is sometimes purchased after a few years but how many non-sellers are purchased more than once or twice after 3 years? DT also allows images to be re-keyworded without any review so if a non-seller sits for 2-1/2 years then the photog pays to have it re-keyworded it can sit for another 3 years. New keywords don't improve image quality and some older images are just not up to snuff.

It's just a thinly veiled excuse to implement their anti-jackalope policy.  ;D

« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2012, 12:52 »
0
It looks to me like a way to move more images into the 20% commission category and to drop prices - a double whammy for the artist.

As far as "bad" images gumming up the search - they need to seriously combat spam and work on the search engine - instead of showing 20 or more images from the same artist in a row.

« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2012, 11:14 »
0
DT also allows images to be re-keyworded without any review so if a non-seller sits for 2-1/2 years then the photog pays to have it re-keyworded it can sit for another 3 years. New keywords don't improve image quality and some older images are just not up to snuff.


Not any more, they removed the re-keyword option in September: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_32290

« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2012, 14:20 »
0
It looks to me like a way to move more images into the 20% commission category and to drop prices - a double whammy for the artist.

As far as "bad" images gumming up the search - they need to seriously combat spam and work on the search engine - instead of showing 20 or more images from the same artist in a row.

Exactly. That's been their real problem for years. Why they don't recognise that and do something about it is beyond me.

« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2012, 16:40 »
0
At least IS, FT and 123 give you advance notice of a shafting!!


You can't say they didn't give us notice, Serban said "There are more plans scheduled for a great fall..." in his June post (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_31748.  He didn't say it would be great for contributors! :(
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 11:02 by Megastock »

« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2012, 01:48 »
0
I've got a Level 0 image on DT that was downloaded as an EL on SS last week.
On DT's scale its SS sales add up to a Level 3 image. I've got quite a few images that are selling
elsewhere but are dead at DT. Could be search placement or buyer demographics?

"fill her up and check that oil you know it could be the distributor and it could be your coil"
Tom Waits

« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2012, 03:53 »
+1
I've got a Level 0 image on DT that was downloaded as an EL on SS last week.
On DT's scale its SS sales add up to a Level 3 image. I've got quite a few images that are selling
elsewhere but are dead at DT. Could be search placement or buyer demographics?

"fill her up and check that oil you know it could be the distributor and it could be your coil"
Tom Waits

Better Tom Waits reference - "What's he building in there?"  :D

« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2012, 10:11 »
0
The official announcement has now come out about what the change actually is:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_32755

« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2012, 12:44 »
0
I feel like iStock set the bar in the industry in terms of how bad we can be treated without leaving the agency.

Not cool.
clap clap clap (this are aplauses)

im new in stock. I start my way in a more serious way 6 weeks ago and i have now 110 files on DT. In IS i start about 6 months and i have 16 files online. Upload limit is low , the review process is long , and they put problems in everything. Now they refuse my 18 new bach because my custom model release errors but is accept in all other agencies i submit....this put my racio in less that 20%. I made 5 sales IS until now. 5 months with any sale and from 10 weeks until now made 5 sales. They pay me $1.20 total for 5 sales, this is ridiculous. $0,28 in 4 subs but the most impressive is my last sale that give me $0,08 profit. If IS ask me the file for free i offer that for charity , i think....ridiculous ....

At DT in 6 weeks i have more than 110 files online, 4 sales. More than $7 profit . If i was exclusive i have received more than $12 for these and $0,20 per image upload. I cannot say they are a bad agency. I see everyone saying bad of DT and good of IS , for me IS is stolen my files and im let this happen. They pay 15% per sale and put so many problems in reviews that im tired that agency for so little profit. Anyone exclusive at IS is well taken but the others not. They can sell my images like they think better, for me, they even can give my images for free, BUT i refuse $0,08 profit to me, they must have to pay . I am not a charity agency. They make the promotons they think correct but to me they have to pay something. The we go to the forum and put our fellings and problems. A moderator quickly response to question , change the topic place and close it....F*** to IS.  Otherwise DT makes the price up or down like they think better but we always receive the same amount in final commission. I dont think IS is better or more serious agency. I will delete all of my misery 16 files from there, and ofter the $1.20 for free to them charity if they pay 0,08 one more time, because i believe that buyers look in all agencies for files and if i have one file in one agency that is cheaper they buy there. The main difference is what i receive for my work.  Promotions , low prices, and other sh*** just to treat us like kids is what IS is doing.

DT is what it is , but they invest in their contributors (EXClusive) , they pay the uploads (so they have to sell it, right?) and they sell with profit ($3,18 profit my last non-exclusive sale) .For me, Dt is more files online, more quick uploads, same or more sales, and more profit in my 110 files port compared to IS. Better contributor support too.

SS, i think is great, i pass the admission 15 days ago and have 7 files online with one sale. But they are with serious problems in review process. Some people talk about payments problem too.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 13:00 by brmonico »

« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2012, 10:59 »
+3
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2012, 11:19 »
0
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

As Serban would say, "A sale is a sale."
 :-X

« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2012, 11:26 »
+1
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

... and that's a good part of the reason why I haven't uploaded to DT for the best part of 2 years.

An agency can deliver few sales but keep contributors happy by treating them nicely. Alternatively an agency can treat contributors badly but they'll put up with it if they generate decent sales. It seems that DT is attempting to get away with ever-reducing commissions, operating a nonsensical "too similar" rejection policy whilst also ... wait for it ... delivering few sales. Good luck with that.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2012, 11:33 »
0
Dt is the last agency on my priority list. I simply dislike the way they do so I quit upload regally there. I think Serban is even worse than Lobo.
Welcome to the most North Korean agency style on the list.

« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2012, 11:36 »
0

As Serban would say, "A sale is a sale."
 :-X

In which case he can take the $8.57 and I'll have the $25.71 :)

« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2012, 12:59 »
+1
Welcome to the most North Korean agency style on the list.

Yes, Achilles/Serban aka "Dear Leader" has alienated me as well.

The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Says it all.  And that end of the stick is only going to get shorter.  It's early for New Year's resolutions, but I'm determined not to continue lining this guy's pockets by giving him my photos, and be sitting here a year from now talking about how DT paid even lower commissions in 2013.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 14:13 by stockastic »

« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2012, 14:26 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?

Poncke

« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2012, 14:37 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?
I dont know how you can move buyers but you can bring down a company. The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock. But this will never happen. 123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2012, 15:14 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?

The only leverage we have is our choice of who gets our photos.  The cuts will continue because they aren't meeting any serious resistance, and the payoff to the agency is immediate. 

In the short term there is nothing we can do.  In the long run,  we can pull our portfolios from sites that are routinely cutting commissions.  And even if we don't want to do that, we can give new photos only to sites committed to paying reasonable commissions.   

Even if many photographers started taking these steps, the effects wouldn't be evident for a long time.

Speaking only for myself, I'm thinking about pulling my port at DT (because of all the cuts and shell games, and also the 6 month lock-in, and the keyword flagging scammers) and my small port  at IS (because they're crazy).  New photos would go only to SS, Alamy and GL.   I predict that SS will begin cutting commissions in 2013 to satisfy investors' demands for higher profits.   
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 19:53 by stockastic »

« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2012, 16:00 »
0
They are our agents. And if they cant produce dollars, they are not worth while.

I actively pull my port from agencies that dont deliver. I dont let it sit and earn crums.

For one main reason. Then these underperforming agencies are not having me compete with myself on their terms.

But then there is also the "annoy factor".
I will support new and promising agencies with new concepts.
But when an agency begins to smell too greedy and arrogant, the party stops.

In my opinion, its important to not be spread too thinly and sold too cheaply. I can influence that by selecting which agencies I allow to resell my licences.

DT is one agency where the annoy factor has risen, and they do not perform.

But yet, they have some leaway.....

« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2012, 16:03 »
0
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

Pretty accurate description.

« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2012, 17:06 »
+1
Quote
123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

Alas..this unfortunately is the way of micro stock. The biggest problem is that the bulk of microstockers are ordinary people who do this part time and don't seriously care about how much their earnings decrease over time, hence the agencies can do what they want. Its very difficult to change the way an entire industry operates with participants who are non-business part time people...this is what has created the agency monopolies.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2012, 17:15 »
+1
Quote
123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

Alas..this unfortunately is the way of micro stock. The biggest problem is that the bulk of microstockers are ordinary people who do this part time and don't seriously care about how much their earnings decrease over time, hence the agencies can do what they want. Its very difficult to change the way an entire industry operates with participants who are non-business part time people...this is what has created the agency monopolies.

This is so Right On.  Think about how many regular (non-professional) contributors have never heard of or use this forum.  WE -- are only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak. 
What happens here; stays here.   :o :-X

« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2012, 18:06 »
+1
Thats right. But we are those who face the future.

« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2012, 19:29 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?
I dont know how you can move buyers but you can bring down a company. The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock. But this will never happen. 123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

Right^^

« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2012, 20:57 »
0
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.

You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.

They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!

« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2012, 05:12 »
+1
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.

You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.

They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!
Thank goodness for the gostwyck's of this forum that point things like this out :)

« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2012, 11:46 »
0
I see lots of complaints of DT being a low earner and the desire of punishing them for it.  However, from what I can tell the RPD at DT is generally much higher than at most other mid and top tier sites.  Sure, sales are greater at SS, but the RPD is generally MUCH lower.  It seems to me that DT is compensating us more than some of these other sites, but they just aren't getting enough buyers.  Why aren't we trying to bring more people to DT to increase sales rather than trying to punish them?

« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2012, 11:58 »
0
RPD what is that? Return Per Day? or what?

« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2012, 12:01 »
0
RPD what is that? Return Per Day? or what?

Revenue per download

« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2012, 12:15 »
+2
I see lots of complaints of DT being a low earner and the desire of punishing them for it.  However, from what I can tell the RPD at DT is generally much higher than at most other mid and top tier sites.  Sure, sales are greater at SS, but the RPD is generally MUCH lower.  It seems to me that DT is compensating us more than some of these other sites, but they just aren't getting enough buyers.  Why aren't we trying to bring more people to DT to increase sales rather than trying to punish them?

I started with DT in 2004. My Best Month Ever there was November 2006 when the RPD was about half what it was Nov 2012 and I made slightly less in Nov 212. I'd rather have the higher monthly return than the feel good factor of a higher RPD.

People seem to forget that if you make the images more expensive, fewer people buy them. There's a careful tinkering to find the sweet spot where you're maximizing monthly revenue. DT has failed to grow as an agency over time and continues to bump along at the bottom of the top tier. Trumpeting an improved RPD doesn't make up for that

« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2012, 12:21 »
0
There's a careful tinkering to find the sweet spot where you're maximizing monthly revenue. 0

But that spot isn't the same for all images.  Some will make a zillion sales at a low price. Others would make only a few sales, but buyers would pay a lot more to get what they need.  These dumb one-size-fits-all pricing plans are a big reason microstock is ceasing to work.  You can't possibly make money on niche market material, unless it costs you practically nothing to produce. 

Look around in one of the "Everything's $1" stores in the malls.  What sort of products do you see there?  Exactly.

« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2012, 12:52 »
0
There's a careful tinkering to find the sweet spot where you're maximizing monthly revenue. 0

But that spot isn't the same for all images.  Some will make a zillion sales at a low price. Others would make only a few sales, but buyers would pay a lot more to get what they need.  These dumb one-size-fits-all pricing plans are a big reason microstock is ceasing to work.  You can't possibly make money on niche market material, unless it costs you practically nothing to produce....

Reasonable point. And before Getty effed it up by jacking up the prices (and secondarily the editors playing favorites and putting in work from their buddies regardless of whether it fit), the Vetta collection at iStock was designed to be something like this. Images that were oddball, costly to produce or in other ways niche could be encouraged by providing a higher price point.

However, DT hasn't done anything of the sort. There's the same content, no "edited" collections and a pricing scheme that is not producing more money for contributors

Poncke

« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2012, 13:00 »
0
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.

You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.

They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!
Jezus, I am sorry I got you so annoyed. Its just a figure of speech. Stop * on that lemon dude. It just means you need the top contributors to cooperate. I thought it was a normal way in the English language to illustrate something.

Zodra jij je punt over kan brengen in perfect Nederlands mag je me pakken op mijn verkeerd gebruik van de Engelse taal. Ouwe zuurpruim, krijg lekker het heen en weer.

« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2012, 16:36 »
+1
Google translate says that's Dutch and that it means "Once you can bring your point across in perfect Dutch you can catch me on my misuse of the English language. Old sourpuss, get good back and forth." Close enough?

Gostwyck's dry sense of humor sometimes gets a little wetter with a few beers and he can find us annoying :) Try being rude about SS at a time of day when it's late evening in Europe and you might, as I once did, get a point blank blast from both barrels!

Poncke

« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2012, 16:54 »
0
Google translate says that's Dutch and that it means "Once you can bring your point across in perfect Dutch you can catch me on my misuse of the English language. Old sourpuss, get good back and forth." Close enough?

Gostwyck's dry sense of humor sometimes gets a little wetter with a few beers and he can find us annoying :) Try being rude about SS at a time of day when it's late evening in Europe and you might, as I once did, get a point blank blast from both barrels!
Hahaha, lovely, its spot on except for the part in bold. I knew it couldnt be translated into making sense, hence I typed it up. 8)

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2012, 17:55 »
0
Gostwyck's dry sense of humor sometimes gets a little wetter with a few beers and he can find us annoying :) Try being rude about SS at a time of day when it's late evening in Europe and you might, as I once did, get a point blank blast from both barrels!

ROFL!!  Nicely summed up JoAnn!  Thanks for the great laugh ;D

« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2012, 17:53 »
0
I looked at my stats just now and the subs tap has been turned on and credit sales turned off (for me at least) in the grand rotation of things that DT appears to pursue.

16 of my last 20 sales were subs...

« Reply #56 on: December 10, 2012, 18:15 »
0
The number of subs has gone up a lot.  DT seem to be doing all they can to make it harder for me to earn money with them.  Never understood how demotivating me is good for them.  Not much different to istock and we can see how well that works :)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #57 on: December 10, 2012, 18:16 »
0
My FIVE sales this month were all credit sales -- two were Level ZERO.

 :-[


WarrenPrice

« Reply #58 on: December 10, 2012, 18:17 »
0
HAPPY HANUKKAH?
 ??? ???

« Reply #59 on: December 10, 2012, 18:22 »
0
from my ridiculous 18 sales this month 11 were credits

« Reply #60 on: December 11, 2012, 04:36 »
0
I am 50/50 most days.

« Reply #61 on: December 11, 2012, 10:30 »
0
Can someone explain this to me:

On DT  "request payment" page:    

The image id 5418833 with the amount $12.64 has the expiration date on 2012-12-15 10:15:53

So, waiting period is usual for EL sales...
But!
Here is the sale:
Rope & Chain 2    06/16/2008    12/08/2012    n/a     This is a level 2 purchase    50 credits (2010)    $8.85    large    (P-EL)

So, you can see different amount on that EL earning....
Please comment!

« Reply #62 on: December 12, 2012, 19:43 »
0
Level 3 image sells medium size for 12 credits. A few days later the same image, now level 4, sells large size for 10 credits.  I probably wouldn't have noticed except that the same image was involved but seems like it should have been 15 credits for the larger sale - Error? More experiments? Sale prices at contributors expense? 

grafix04

« Reply #63 on: December 12, 2012, 23:29 »
+1
Level 3 image sells medium size for 12 credits. A few days later the same image, now level 4, sells large size for 10 credits.  I probably wouldn't have noticed except that the same image was involved but seems like it should have been 15 credits for the larger sale - Error? More experiments? Sale prices at contributors expense?

Jerks.  Good riddance to them. 

« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2012, 01:44 »
0
I'd contact support and ask. There is no large for 10 credits regardless of image level according to the aboutimages page on DT

« Reply #65 on: December 13, 2012, 02:02 »
0
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.

You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.

They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!
Jezus, I am sorry I got you so annoyed. Its just a figure of speech. Stop * on that lemon dude. It just means you need the top contributors to cooperate. I thought it was a normal way in the English language to illustrate something.

Zodra jij je punt over kan brengen in perfect Nederlands mag je me pakken op mijn verkeerd gebruik van de Engelse taal. Ouwe zuurpruim, krijg lekker het heen en weer.

So you are Dutch? Heineken please ;D ;D

« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2012, 06:15 »
+1
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.

You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.

They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!
Jezus, I am sorry I got you so annoyed. Its just a figure of speech. Stop * on that lemon dude. It just means you need the top contributors to cooperate. I thought it was a normal way in the English language to illustrate something.

It is.

« Reply #67 on: December 13, 2012, 06:28 »
0
Level 3 image sells medium size for 12 credits. A few days later the same image, now level 4, sells large size for 10 credits.  I probably wouldn't have noticed except that the same image was involved but seems like it should have been 15 credits for the larger sale - Error? More experiments? Sale prices at contributors expense?

I wonder how time consuming it is for staff to answer queries from contributors such as these, given that they probaby also spend some time trying to work it out themselves.

« Reply #68 on: December 13, 2012, 10:49 »
0
So today the credit tap is turned on - 13 of the last 20 sales are credit. Just out of curiosity I would love to know how this all-subs then all-credits situation comes about...

« Reply #69 on: December 13, 2012, 11:46 »
0
Level 3 image sells medium size for 12 credits. A few days later the same image, now level 4, sells large size for 10 credits.  I probably wouldn't have noticed except that the same image was involved but seems like it should have been 15 credits for the larger sale - Error? More experiments? Sale prices at contributors expense?


With their last update to price levels they also introduced a kind of promotion scheme for new buyers. See here.

That explains it...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1837 Views
Last post May 20, 2007, 20:08
by rjmiz
16 Replies
8885 Views
Last post August 02, 2010, 20:08
by Suljo
5 Replies
4175 Views
Last post May 26, 2011, 14:28
by DiscreetDuck
7 Replies
3330 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 12:38
by brmonico
11 Replies
3792 Views
Last post March 31, 2016, 06:42
by Melissa22

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle