pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Have DT sales slumped?  (Read 23222 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #75 on: August 01, 2013, 11:00 »
0
http://www.dreamstime.com/new-stock-photos-images

Judging by their latest uploads page it has changed, lots of similars.


Ron

« Reply #76 on: August 01, 2013, 11:17 »
-2
http://www.dreamstime.com/new-stock-photos-images

Judging by their latest uploads page it has changed, lots of similars.
I can always write them an email and ask them if they will accept my flags as individual files

« Reply #77 on: August 01, 2013, 12:53 »
+1
What about levels with this new pricing - is it (as with subs in general now) a level-independent price? I looked at the forum thread and didn't see any info on that.

I wonder if those who wish to purchase higher level images will be motivated to switch to the new image packs? At $6.90 per image (10 image pack) or $8 (5 pack), paying $22.16 for a max resolution level 5 image (using the smallest 30 credit purchase for a 19 credit item) or even $15.08 for a maximum level 2 image looks like a bad deal.

So instead of making $4.52 royalty (30%) on a level 2 maximum size image (using the 30 credit pack price) I'd get $2. And for the level 5 maximum image, I'd make $2 instead of $9.97 (45%)

I'm not a fan of the level system and the horrendous complexity it introduced - seemed to me to be a short term win and not a long term play. However part of the way to "sell" contributors on subs was that it boosted the level of your images for credit sales, something that I think will be eroded by this new pricing option. We already lost the 70 cent subscription royalties a while ago.

I think they'd do better to scrap the whole level system and perhaps replace it with something simpler - two levels if not flat pricing. Otherwise, it seems that the level system only serves to drive up usage of subscriptions, and given the volume of subscriptions at DT, it isn't high enough for us to make any real money, so it's a big lose for contributors.

« Reply #78 on: August 01, 2013, 12:59 »
0
]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:31 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2013, 13:13 »
0
It is likely a subscription in the sense that it will be recurring unless the purchaser decides to break the agreement for future months. I can't see any downside here. My RPD is less than $2.00, so if they are offering me $2.00 commission per DL on these purchases then I will gladly take it.

You might call this more of an "On Demand" plan, per SS. On average, it appears to pay out about the same.


« Reply #80 on: August 01, 2013, 13:23 »
0
]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:31 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #81 on: August 01, 2013, 14:31 »
0
My RPD at DT is less than $2 too, but that's because it's about 50% subscription sales (at 35 cents each).

My last 20 sales there: 12 were 35 cent subs; 17 credit/4/$7.73, 10 cr/5/$6.41, 11 cr/5/$4.16 and so on. There was one credit sale of the 8 below $2 - a 4 credit sale of a level 0 image for $1.20

I'd be a lot worse off if all those credit sales went to $2. I'm sure they'd say that the volume will increase, but that's what they said when they introduced subs and by and large that isn't how it has worked.

Off topic: I had two level 5 sales; one a 10 credit large and the other an 11 credit extra small. I guess that's one of those discounts given to new customers?

« Reply #82 on: August 01, 2013, 14:33 »
0
We just had a BME on DT, but 75% of our earnings came from 25% of our sales, with nice amounts coming from our rising numbers of higher level images.

It would be a pity if those credit buyers changed to the new subs packages. We'll wait and see what happens.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 14:36 by Travelling-light »

« Reply #83 on: August 01, 2013, 15:04 »
0
It is likely a subscription in the sense that it will be recurring unless the purchaser decides to break the agreement for future months. I can't see any downside here. My RPD is less than $2.00, so if they are offering me $2.00 commission per DL on these purchases then I will gladly take it.

You might call this more of an "On Demand" plan, per SS. On average, it appears to pay out about the same.

Well, your RPD is based on current credit AND sub sales, so if the credit buyers move to this new plan you still have the sub sales bringing you down to lower overall RPD.  Whether this is good or bad will greatly depend on whether they draw from credit buyers or subscription buyers...  As JSNOVER says, if you cut your credit sales to $2 each, this will definitely decrease revenue.  My RPD on credit sales over 9 sales in the last two days totaled $55, and would be $18 if purchased under the new plan.  On the flip side, if someone goes from a sub plan to a 10 pack, that is hundreds of sub sales that won't happen (assuming they made SOME use of their subscription) - and the counter argument on DT is that you won't rise through the levels quickly due to subs :(

Sadly, I see this as having a lot more appeal to a credit buyer than a sub buyer.  Who is currently buying 750 images a month, with 25 max in a day that actually only needs 5 or 10 files a month?  If it draws in current non-buyers, that is good for everyone...

« Reply #84 on: August 01, 2013, 15:09 »
0
Second BMY for me on DT in July.

I too hate seeing my level 5 images sell as subs but this month a continued increase in the volume of sales kept me on track.

After a terrible drop off some months back am seeing sales and income growth there again. I haven't added anything new there in a while and had started adding fewer files there than I would on SS and iS to avoid my images competing with each other for levels, but may add a couple of similars (different angles of the same item - not too similar) going forward given the new pricing paradigm there now. Last year I saw RPD's some months of $3-4.29, this year I'm averaging $2, so I need to sell 1.5-2x more just to stay even. I have a lot of level 4 and 5 images so the sub sales are hurting my bottom line - not sure what effect the new credit packs will have. Will have to see going forward - it could increase RPD if it means less subs.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned with my monthly net and my RPI rather than my RPD since a high RPD with low sales volume can earn me less than a low RPD with high sales volume - but the RPD was a fair indicator of how I was moving up in terms of percentage of high level files. Now, the lower RPD is more a reflection of a large increase in sub sales rather than a falling RPI. So, it's really not as useful an indicator anymore.

Discouraged by pricing but somewhat encouraged by overall growth there.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 15:19 by wordplanet »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #85 on: August 02, 2013, 20:52 »
+2
What about levels with this new pricing - is it (as with subs in general now) a level-independent price? I looked at the forum thread and didn't see any info on that.

I wonder if those who wish to purchase higher level images will be motivated to switch to the new image packs? At $6.90 per image (10 image pack) or $8 (5 pack), paying $22.16 for a max resolution level 5 image (using the smallest 30 credit purchase for a 19 credit item) or even $15.08 for a maximum level 2 image looks like a bad deal.

So instead of making $4.52 royalty (30%) on a level 2 maximum size image (using the 30 credit pack price) I'd get $2. And for the level 5 maximum image, I'd make $2 instead of $9.97 (45%)

I'm not a fan of the level system and the horrendous complexity it introduced - seemed to me to be a short term win and not a long term play. However part of the way to "sell" contributors on subs was that it boosted the level of your images for credit sales, something that I think will be eroded by this new pricing option. We already lost the 70 cent subscription royalties a while ago.

I think they'd do better to scrap the whole level system and perhaps replace it with something simpler - two levels if not flat pricing. Otherwise, it seems that the level system only serves to drive up usage of subscriptions, and given the volume of subscriptions at DT, it isn't high enough for us to make any real money, so it's a big lose for contributors.

Trying something radical here.  Disabling my upper level images.  They seem to sell only as subscription any way.  At least they won't compete with Sub Sales at SS ... where they often sell as On Demand.
Might even make a few 15% sales at iStock.   ;D

cuppacoffee

« Reply #86 on: August 02, 2013, 22:17 »
+7
Do you really think that if a buyer takes the time to find the image they need on one site that they look at other sites to see if the same image is cheaper? I'm not trying to be a wise a$$ but asking this as a hypothetical. I'm wondering if anyone has evidence that this is a common practice - checking multiple sites for the same image just to get it at a cheaper price? If you only offer your images at one site will the buyer come looking for you or will you miss out on the buyers that only buy from one site?

I've worked at large places that buy microstock and they buy images in bulk from the company that they have an account with. I'm talking about the typical stock images that everyone in their soul considers beneath them - the simple money-makers, not the art images. I'm talking isolated apples, autumn leaves, sheep in a pen or the neighbors dog.

It takes too much time to search every site for the same image at a lower price and frankly the buyers don't even know where else to look. I'm talking about institutional buyers. The business office says, "here is where we have an account so this is where you will buy your images - this place has millions of images so you won't need to go elsewhere." Too often we think of a buyer as one lone person and that is the type of buyer we don't want. I'll take the big company buyers. And, yes, they are out there.

The company I worked for bought images for coupon flyers, newspaper sale inserts, national and regional ads, and they bought in bulk - the dreaded subscription buyer. But bulk is the key word. These printed vehicles came out once a month or even once a week so many, many images were needed. They produced tons of newspaper ad inserts for clients like grocery, hardware, garden, farm and discount stores but never bought extended licenses because they never exceeded the total print run numbers required before a license was needed. In all honesty, they wouldn't have bought a license anyway because the only one reading the fine print was the business office, not the actual buyers. We all know that the purchase of extended licenses isn't policed by the stock agencies anyway.

They bought images of great looking food for the grocery ads, both isolated fruits and vegetables and fancy meal shots, landscape images for the front pages to spruce up seasonal clearance sales (we're having our Spring sale so we need a photo of tulips and robins), cows and horses to include with the farm implements, dogs and cats in the pet food ads, kids playing with Christmas toys for the holiday ads, etc. Again, they bought a lot of images and never took the time to purchase from sites other than those that the business manager approved.

Perhaps a buyer who only buys a few images and who has done their research would even know that there are more than 1 or 2 different sites that sell stock images at different prices. They might take the time to compare but trying to influence them to buy your images (not you in particular but "you" as a whomever) at the site where they sell for a higher price is impossible. I know for a fact that the buyers I'm talking about don't know the names of the photogs and illustrators producing the images, or care. As far as they know all the images come from the same person. They are after a commodity. They are not after a particular style. They buy images from multiple contributors, not multiple images from one contributor.

No disrespect, I'm just passing my experience on. I'm sure that these types of buyers are not the only ones out there are but they are common and they are the type of buyers for whom the subscription was invented. I don't think that they will come to you unless you are unique, have a special style, offer images of a niche that aren't produced by anyone else. If you were that good, you would have your own site and perhaps not be selling via the microstock route. I may be wrong.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 23:53 by cuppacoffee »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #87 on: August 03, 2013, 07:50 »
0
@Cuppacoffee; I don't have the answers.  I was being partly facetious.  I do know that by disabling upper level images, no one will be purchasing a Level 4 maximum for 35 cents.  It is just too hard to sit by doing nothing while Achilles continues with the smoke and mirrors, reducing our revenue and the RPD -- my RPD for the last 2 months was 58 cents and 86 cents.  The revenue numbers were also terrible.

I try not to post about DT.  My credibility is questionable.  I've been banned from the forum for more than two years (must be permanently?)  for voicing my opinion a bit loudly.

I know I have always been a pain in the a$$ for Serbin.  Perhaps more people should have been?


« Reply #88 on: August 03, 2013, 08:20 »
0
...
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 01:37 by Grandpa »

cuppacoffee

« Reply #89 on: August 03, 2013, 08:54 »
0
Warren, I wasn't responding to you in particular and not just talking about DT. I was just thinking out loud and trying to provide one reason for subs and how subs have lead to the proliferation of more and more and more images being accepted on all the sites. Most micro forums are useless and are usually full of new people saying silly things just to hear themselves talk and usually with incorrect information for other newcomers.

That forum post was from 2010 and I don't think that they have the time to monitor each person's accounts as closely as they used to. Since then, the search algorithm has changed many times. I also know that once a ban is instituted it can't be undone unless you request it. I was "banned" because I hit the stupid "link your account to google plus" button by mistake. I emailed and asked them to turn it off in my account and they said that the forum ban was an automatic thing that happened because of a push of a tech button and not as a punishment. I have no doubt they banned you for posts they don't like but these days it seems that those people are just reprimanded in the forum, not banned. There have been some doozies there lately.

I have no answers and just wanted to say that the subs are awful everywhere but seem to be the way microstock is headed. I hate them too and my biggest beef with all the sites is that they accept so many images that shouldn't be there in the first place. It dilutes the search results for the really good images. I have this conspiracy theory that anyone new who submits images is accepted in the hopes that they will provide a few that might sell and then go away and never collect their earnings. How many have appeared and disappeared after they find out that microstock is not a social site but a money making business for the serious? Looking at the latest images accepted I see a definite loosening of quality control.

Again Warren, no offense, you are a sweetheart and the world needs more of those.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2013, 08:58 by cuppacoffee »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #90 on: August 03, 2013, 09:28 »
0
Absolutely no offense taken, cuppacoffee.  I have the greatest respect for you and your ability to express a point without offending.  I hope I didn't sound too defensive.  Mine is an experiment.  I doubt that I have enough images to create any definitive answer.  Just felt it necessary to "do something."

« Reply #91 on: August 04, 2013, 05:24 »
0
About the levels system, on other sites RPD increases with overall base price increases due to liftetime / last year sales which will favour the guy with 1000s of images.  DT's approach gives the small guy as much chance as the big guy to increase RPD.  SS still wins with the combination of high volume, actually quite a relatively decent OD return and very nice SODs and ELs but sites like FT and 123 have volumes in the DT ballpark with universally pathetic RPD.

« Reply #92 on: August 04, 2013, 07:56 »
0
Due to the levels system I had a nice little pick up the second half of July.  I was $50 up from June (where I normally am given my port size).  For me, a $50 swing at DT is fairly big....others' mileage may vary.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #93 on: August 04, 2013, 10:46 »
0
About the levels system, on other sites RPD increases with overall base price increases due to liftetime / last year sales which will favour the guy with 1000s of images.  DT's approach gives the small guy as much chance as the big guy to increase RPD.  SS still wins with the combination of high volume, actually quite a relatively decent OD return and very nice SODs and ELs but sites like FT and 123 have volumes in the DT ballpark with universally pathetic RPD.

I have a good idea of how it is supposed to work, Woody.  I'm saying it hasn't worked that way for me -- and obviously a few others.
I don't use FT nor 123.  They were even more smoke and mirrors.


lisafx

« Reply #94 on: August 04, 2013, 12:12 »
+3
This new subs plan strikes me as a step in the right direction.  If we could get all sub royalties up to around $2 instead of an average of .30 or so, that would be great. 

I do understand the worries about taking away from higher priced credit sales.  It will be interesting to see how it pans out. 

Bottom line for me is that only DT and SS seem to be innovating in what they offer customers without hosing contributors at the same time.  I give them props for that. 

« Reply #95 on: August 04, 2013, 17:19 »
+2

Bottom line for me is that only DT and SS seem to be innovating in what they offer customers without hosing contributors at the same time.  I give them props for that.

+1

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #96 on: August 08, 2013, 16:18 »
0
Well I have probably made around $5 in about 6 months. I used to get much more than that in just 1 month when I first joined. It's absolutely dire to say the least.

« Reply #97 on: September 03, 2013, 16:26 »
0
Hate that they are now selling tiffs as subs but on the other hand I had my BME there in August so I guess the volume is making up for the level 4 and 5 sales that are now subs. Still annoyed about the subs  even if I'm actually making more now. It just seems like they're giving away the store.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #98 on: September 05, 2013, 05:36 »
+1
As my sales are more and more every month on Shutterstock, they are less and less on Dreamstime.
I have (20%) more file on DT than on SS, and the files that I have sold on DT are generally files rejected by SS (and other sites).
Probably they sell because you can find them only on DT?
My best sellers on SS not only have no or few sales on DT but they have no or few views too.
Never understood why

« Reply #99 on: September 05, 2013, 05:57 »
0
My sales at DT for August were the second highest in 2 years but with a terrible RPD so earnings didn't reflect it as it ended up an average month for earnings.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
6205 Views
Last post February 28, 2007, 16:06
by madelaide
38 Replies
20359 Views
Last post August 15, 2009, 10:53
by The3dStudioDotCom
1 Replies
5551 Views
Last post February 01, 2011, 06:50
by Duncan_CSP
1 Replies
4460 Views
Last post December 27, 2012, 15:44
by Microbius
11 Replies
10113 Views
Last post February 05, 2021, 14:43
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle