MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: leaf on April 01, 2011, 02:49
-
They just posted this on their twitter account
Stay tuned for the latest news. Important announcements to be made soon ...
I wonder what's coming??
edit: Here is the news thread on Dreamstime
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26512 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26512)
-
"Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst".
-
It is 1st April, so...
-
IT's real. New pricing agreement. See the message board. I have no idea if it is good or bad yet.
-
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26512 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26512)
The last paragraph I assume is an April Fools joke!!!!
"Considering the anniversary as well as price increase, we've decided to offer all our imagery free of charge for the day. Designers or simple members will be able to download any images for free, promoting the site to their business partners, associates or friends. This is available only for a 24 hour window on April 1st 2011 and should allow everyone to adjust to the new price structure."
ETA: I've just seen on their facebook page that it isn't a joke but it is the Editors choice images being offered free. Does this mean that we won't get paid for them.?? I have some of my best sellers as editors choice and am not at all happy if it means that everybody is getting them free and I don't get paid for them!!
Can anybody make sense of what this means?
"A new experimental feature, "Choose your price", gets launched today for a limited number of customers. This feature is available for downloads via lightboxes and is consequently targeting volume buyers. Designers will be allowed to set their own pricing for the files they prepare to download. The feature is using an elaborated algorithm that ensures that contributors receive royalties above minimum required (credit-based). The price that is set by the designer will be split between the agency and the contributors according to each file's level and per our royalties chart."
-
fotografer beat me to it...
-
Huch:
Considering the anniversary as well as price increase, we've decided to offer all our imagery free of charge for the day. Designers or simple members will be able to download any images for free, promoting the site to their business partners, associates or friends. This is available only for a 24 hour window on April 1st 2011 and should allow everyone to adjust to the new price structure.
-
looks like a big % jump in prices for xs and small prices for level 1 images
provided it doesn't scare too many customers away I think it looks positive.
I'm sure someone will bring me to my senses though
-
Huch:
Considering the anniversary as well as price increase, we've decided to offer all our imagery free of charge for the day. Designers or simple members will be able to download any images for free, promoting the site to their business partners, associates or friends. This is available only for a 24 hour window on April 1st 2011 and should allow everyone to adjust to the new price structure.
April Fools. Try it :)
-
I'm glad the free giveaway is restricted to editor's choice and is being done without notice, otherwise the thieves would have a field day. Phew!
We still need more info on the experimental feature. I fail to see how having buyers set the price they want to pay can do anything except slash prices but he says the commissions will still be at least the minimum for a given type of sale. Confusing. At least it's only a trial run. Or is this and April Fool, too?
-
Huch:
Considering the anniversary as well as price increase, we've decided to offer all our imagery free of charge for the day. Designers or simple members will be able to download any images for free, promoting the site to their business partners, associates or friends. This is available only for a 24 hour window on April 1st 2011 and should allow everyone to adjust to the new price structure.
If it is some wierd april fools joke I'm sure it won't win any friends.
-
If it is some wierd april fools joke I'm sure it won't win any friends.
It is, I just tried to download an image to see. It won't be popular especially with countries that don't know what April Fool's Day is. Although they are then offering 10% discount.
-
Huch:
Considering the anniversary as well as price increase, we've decided to offer all our imagery free of charge for the day. Designers or simple members will be able to download any images for free, promoting the site to their business partners, associates or friends. This is available only for a 24 hour window on April 1st 2011 and should allow everyone to adjust to the new price structure.
April Fools. Try it :)
:D
-
Here's the new pricing structure
(http://wiki.microstockgroup.com/images/0/01/April_2011_pricing_structure_dreamstime.png)
-
So does this mean roughly this: the prices shifted, so the new level 0 is the previous level 1 prices. So in reality all our pics with any download moved one level up from price perspective?
-
okay the free downloads is april fools joke.
remember when crestock said they bought Getty on april 1 a couple of years ago (I think that was it, maybe slightly different)
-
So does this mean roughly this: the prices shifted, so the new level 0 is the previous level 1 prices. So in reality all our pics with any download moved one level up from price perspective?
Yeah, that is what I get from it. Level 1 images are divided up into 2 groups now. Level 0 and Level 1. All the other levels are the same, although most prices received a credit increase by 2. Level 0 also introduces a new slightly lower royalty rate of 25%
All in all i think this should increase our earnings.
I also really like that Dreamstime makes the table easy to understand and clear about what is being changed / updated.
-
So does this mean roughly this: the prices shifted, so the new level 0 is the previous level 1 prices. So in reality all our pics with any download moved one level up from price perspective?
Apparently (if I'm not a double fool). But it's more than that. The number of credits to buy an image also goes up for various sizes. It should be a very significant boost to earnings, if the designers stay on board. Subscription royalties also go up by 20% (though rather confusingly there they have put the new rate AFTER the old one, instead of the other way round at is is for credit sales.
-
Subscription royalties also go up by 20% (though rather confusingly there they have put the new rate AFTER the old one, instead of the other way round at is is for credit sales.
Is that an increase or is it non exclusive/exclusive?
-
If this is an April fools joke, it's really pathetic. If it isn't an April fools joke, what a crazy time to announce it. Perhaps they do want to change their price structure on April 1st but they could of told us yesterday. I'm not even going to look at it until it's confirmed that this isn't just a joke.
-
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26512[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26512[/url])
The last paragraph I assume is an April Fools joke!!!!
"Considering the anniversary as well as price increase, we've decided to offer all our imagery free of charge for the day. Designers or simple members will be able to download any images for free, promoting the site to their business partners, associates or friends. This is available only for a 24 hour window on April 1st 2011 and should allow everyone to adjust to the new price structure."
ETA: I've just seen on their facebook page that it isn't a joke but it is the Editors choice images being offered free. Does this mean that we won't get paid for them.?? I have some of my best sellers as editors choice and am not at all happy if it means that everybody is getting them free and I don't get paid for them!!
Can anybody make sense of what this means?
"A new experimental feature, "Choose your price", gets launched today for a limited number of customers. This feature is available for downloads via lightboxes and is consequently targeting volume buyers. Designers will be allowed to set their own pricing for the files they prepare to download. The feature is using an elaborated algorithm that ensures that contributors receive royalties above minimum required (credit-based). The price that is set by the designer will be split between the agency and the contributors according to each file's level and per our royalties chart."
It's not a joke they have already started this: http://www.dreamstime.com/free-images_pg1 (http://www.dreamstime.com/free-images_pg1) 173,000+ free images already.
-
And this... Is it serious?
http://blog.dreamstime.com/2011/04/01/today-i-am-approving-all-images_art34815 (http://blog.dreamstime.com/2011/04/01/today-i-am-approving-all-images_art34815)
-
It's not a joke they have already started this: [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/free-images_pg1[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/free-images_pg1[/url]) 173,000+ free images already.
That's just the ordinary free images area from people who are foolish enough to tick the free-if-rejected box when they upload.
-
And this... Is it serious?
[url]http://blog.dreamstime.com/2011/04/01/today-i-am-approving-all-images_art34815[/url] ([url]http://blog.dreamstime.com/2011/04/01/today-i-am-approving-all-images_art34815[/url])
Yes of course it's serious and not just today. All they are saying is that if you are selective about what you upload and the photos are perfect then they will accept them. It's just a tongue in the cheek way of saying it.
-
And this... Is it serious?
[url]http://blog.dreamstime.com/2011/04/01/today-i-am-approving-all-images_art34815[/url] ([url]http://blog.dreamstime.com/2011/04/01/today-i-am-approving-all-images_art34815[/url])
Yes of course it's serious and not just today. All they are saying is that if you are selective about what you upload and the photos are perfect then they will accept them. It's just a tongue in the cheek way of saying it.
I wish this foolish day is over. :-)
Maybe I was confused because they didn't say "...and no similars".....
-
it looks like the free part was the april fools lightbox
http://www.dreamstime.com/april-fools-day-rcollection15635-resi146 (http://www.dreamstime.com/april-fools-day-rcollection15635-resi146)
haha.. ok ok.. maybe not.. just go to Dreamstime (http://www.microstockgroup.com/link/go.php?url=www.dreamstime.com) and try and download one of the free photos on the site.. they are all free today. ;) .. you'll understand.
-
This license represents an exclusive right to use the downloaded image, but such exclusivity will only last for a limited period of time. The buyer can use the image exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license) during the time period selected, and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo.
Dreamstime will disable the image immediately after the buyer acquired this license. The Contributor will be required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he or she may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. The Contributor acknowledges and agrees to provide the buyer with the exclusive right to use the file retrieved using the SR-EL1 or SR-EL3 licenses, for the duration of the selected exclusivity period.
The length of time for the exclusivity period depends on which license is selected. SR-EL1 will grant an exclusive right to use the image for one year. Similarly, SR-EL3 will grant an exclusive right to use the image for three years. At the end of the exclusivity period, the buyer`s license will continue as before, with all of the same rights, except for the right of exclusivity, and the image will again be added to the available library of images on Dreamstime.com and again be made available to all users for purchase. After the end of the exclusivity period, the Contributor will also be free to offer the image for download from other places where the Contributor sells his or her images.
This whole thing is a lie. Unless, the image is a 0 download and loaded exclusively and for the first time on DT, there is no way they can offer exclusivity. Maybe they can call it "Have us remove this image from the site for X years".
-
This license represents an exclusive right to use the downloaded image, but such exclusivity will only last for a limited period of time. The buyer can use the image exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license) during the time period selected, and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo.
Dreamstime will disable the image immediately after the buyer acquired this license. The Contributor will be required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he or she may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. The Contributor acknowledges and agrees to provide the buyer with the exclusive right to use the file retrieved using the SR-EL1 or SR-EL3 licenses, for the duration of the selected exclusivity period.
The length of time for the exclusivity period depends on which license is selected. SR-EL1 will grant an exclusive right to use the image for one year. Similarly, SR-EL3 will grant an exclusive right to use the image for three years. At the end of the exclusivity period, the buyer`s license will continue as before, with all of the same rights, except for the right of exclusivity, and the image will again be added to the available library of images on Dreamstime.com and again be made available to all users for purchase. After the end of the exclusivity period, the Contributor will also be free to offer the image for download from other places where the Contributor sells his or her images.
This whole thing is a lie. Unless, the image is a 0 download and loaded exclusively and for the first time on Dreamstime, there is no way they can offer exclusivity. Maybe they can call it "Have us remove this image from the site for X years".
They are serious about that. It's irrational and could cause them all sorts of legal problems but I'm assured that this part is real. Just not thought out correctly, I suppose. They seem to be mixing up "selling the rights", which can happen at any time in an image's history if the buyer accepts that other people have pre-existing usage rights with "exclusive usage rights" which require full knowledge of the image's history (which isn't available).
-
Maybe someone could query over there how they could be so blatantly wrong in claiming to be able to give exclusivity to someone.
-
I like it! But honestly the new level 0 is only good for buyers.. I guess when a buyer look into a picture (a level 2) try to look at a level 1 (and he would buy that) not the new level 0 (cheaper).. but overall prices have raised a lot, letīs see :)
-
Maybe someone could query over there how they could be so blatantly wrong in claiming to be able to give exclusivity to someone.
Paulcowan is asking that question Sean.
"Is the SR-EL a joke, too? Because you can't sell exclusive usage rights to an image if it has already been sold RF. It's a complete contradiction and is absolutely different from selling the copyright."
-
I wonder if they'll answer. That page looks awfully official to be a "joke".
Now that I read it, "Sell the Rights" is bogus too.
This license represents a full ownership of the downloaded image. The buyer can use it exclusively (exclusivity applies from the moment that the file was downloaded using this license), and include it in any type of design with just a few restrictions: sensitive subjects may still apply and the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo.
The agency will disable the image immediately after the buyer acquired this license. The photographer is required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. The photographer acknowledge and agrees to provide the buyer with full ownership for the file retrieved using the SR-EL license.
You can't promise exclusivity on something sold already, and ownership and copyright of the image does allow one to resell it as a photo or do whatever they like with it. So that's a "joke" too.
Unless "Sell the rights" is only available on non-downloaded exclusive images. Is it?
-
Is that an admin responding?
The new limited licenses allow the same usages and have the same specifications as the regular Sell the rights license. The only difference is that they provide usage rights for a limited period of time. Instead of being lifetime granted, the exclusive usage is granted for one and three years. During this time, the images are withdrawn from all sale venues - as it works with the regular SR-EL. We have had the sell the rights license active and available on our site for four years now. And there have been very many sales of this type.
So, even they seem to be ignorant of the fact that you can't grant exclusivity to anyone for RF work.
The tooltip over SR-EL on an image page says: "Full buyout of the content, images are wholly owned and can be modified and used exclusively in any type of design or product. (restrictions regarding sensitive subjects still apply)."
And that's on an image with downloads.
-
Well, I got my blog post topic for today... :)
http://bit.ly/eA0v5t (http://bit.ly/eA0v5t)
-
ownership and copyright of the image does allow one to resell it as a photo or do whatever they like with it.
It is a sale contract with conditions. That often happens with every other sort of property sale I can think of - including intellectual property where copyright may still exist.
I don't see the problem there but maybe I am missing something.
You can't promise exclusivity on something sold already
My guess would be that the contract makes clear somewhere that this is from now on and that others may already have existing rights to use the image.
-
Looks like an own goal in the April Fool department. The key is their usage of the word "exclusive". Sean's a fast writer.
-
I'm intrigued by this part:
"The Contributor will be required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he or she may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. "
How could a contributor possibly guarantee that this happens? It's dependent on the other agencies responding to their request within that time frame.
-
ownership and copyright of the image does allow one to resell it as a photo or do whatever they like with it.
It is a sale contract with conditions. That often happens with every other sort of property sale I can think of - including intellectual property where copyright may still exist.
I don't see the problem there but maybe I am missing something.
Well, either you're selling ownership and copyright and what goes with that, or you aren't. When I buy a hammer, they don't say "you can't build houses with this". Like I said though, that wasn't really the main problem I saw.
You can't promise exclusivity on something sold already
My guess would be that the contract makes clear somewhere that this is from now on and that others may already have existing rights to use the image.
It doesn't though. The terms say nothing about "from now on".
http://www.dreamstime.com/elterms.php#sr-el (http://www.dreamstime.com/elterms.php#sr-el)
-
Someone on the forum says: As for your statement above, the SR-EL license does NOT transfer copyright, so they are not eligible to resell the image, or claim ownership: "the buyer may not claim that the file was created by him nor resell it as a photo"
What does "ownership" imply, if not a transfer of copyright. What do you get from the word "ownership", that would be more than just a combination of all the other EL offerings?
-
Overall this looks very good to me. Dreamstime is the only site that has announced increase in prices without taking anything away from contributors. When they make more money, we make more money. It feels like more of a partnership.
I will probably give some more thought to submitting some exclusive images there.
I don't quite understand all the details of the new SR-EL license, but I don't sell the rights to any of my images, so I guess it doesn't affect me.
I don't have a problem with the addition of the level 0. It may encourage sales of new, or older undiscovered images. Perhaps we will get fewer deactivation notices. Either way, one sale and they are back to level 1 where we will see an increase in their price.
I expect I will see my income at DT grow this year. Finally something to feel good about!! :)
-
The 'exclusivity' thing is definitely interesting. But I have read questions before on forums where people have been contacted by buyers asking for more or less that - and the buyers have gone ahead with the 'sale' even whilst knowing that others already have an RF license.
What does "ownership" imply, if not a transfer of copyright. What do you get from the word "ownership", that would be more than just a combination of all the other EL offerings?
I guess that's a different question again. I suppose a buyer has to use their judgement and decide whether the contract offers them the sorts of benefits they are looking for. I guess that is partly down to them researching it.
You quite definitely can attach conditions to how content can be used whilst still basically transferring ownership. Then it looks something like a perpetual lease with conditions. But still a 'sale'. I can think of several cases like this involving quite well known work for example.
Also - you can transfer ownership without transferring copyright. Certainly in this jurisdiction. I say this as someone who is in the middle of formally aquiring a body of work. The contract which the law firm has drafted describes the work and then specifically details that it is the transfer of both the physical content AND any copyright.
You have to assume that Dreamstime have talked to their lawyers.
-
I hate April 1st. I too will be glad when it's over. All it does is cause panic and/or confusion. So not funny.
Overall this looks very good to me. Dreamstime is the only site that has announced increase in prices without taking anything away from contributors. When they make more money, we make more money. It feels like more of a partnership.
I will probably give some more thought to submitting some exclusive images there.
I don't quite understand all the details of the new SR-EL license, but I don't sell the rights to any of my images, so I guess it doesn't affect me.
I don't have a problem with the addition of the level 0. It may encourage sales of new, or older undiscovered images. Perhaps we will get fewer deactivation notices. Either way, one sale and they are back to level 1 where we will see an increase in their price.
I expect I will see my income at Dreamstime grow this year. Finally something to feel good about!! :)
It sounds very encouraging. I am hoping that April 2nd doesn't bring the real joke and part 2...the lowering of contributors' royalties. ::)
I have had a couple requests for "sell the rights". Dreamstime suggests $3000, so that's what I ask. No one has been willing to pay, so far. And I haven't submitted any exclusive images yet, but I appreciate that some of you guys are reading it all over and pointing out the issues.
-
I do wonder exactly which parts of this are true and which are jokes. I don't have any SR images (I think?) so that doesn't concern me.
In general I think the level 0 idea is a decent one. I wish they didn't have to drop the commission % AGAIN to an even lower 25% (although istock does put even that into perspective). At least it will be only one sale per image at that level. I'd rather see a lower price with a higher %, but that is my take on it, at least the sub return doesn't drop.
-
I'm intrigued by this part:
"The Contributor will be required to disable the file permanently from all other places where he or she may sell it, as soon as possible after the sale occured, but no longer than 72 hours. "
How could a contributor possibly guarantee that this happens? It's dependent on the other agencies responding to their request within that time frame.
That's why I never tick off "sell the rights" box except very few exclusive images. If I rememeber well for example at Zoonar you must keep your images there for 6 months before deleting.
-
This kind of seems in poor taste even for April fools. Maybe, I'm just losing my sense of humor. ;D
-
Dreamstime down for maintenance.
-
OK, now DT is down. Now, that is funny. ;D
-
I will wait until tomorrow, April 2nd, to make a judgment on this one.
-
OK, now Dreamstime is down. Now, that is funny. ;D
I bet too many people were pissed off at their stupid "free- but not really - but we'll give you 10% off insead" sale - - and whatever else was supposed to be funny that is just causing outrage instead so they took the site down quickly to fix it.
but geez, I'm not even getting a "down for maintenance" message - just a 'unable to connect - problem loading page' error.
-
and now the DT is down so I wonder if you guys caused this?
-
I think what they really meant to accomplishment with the "SR-EL" is something like:
Unlimited Rights EL:
- no restriction on print run
- no restrictions on seat limits
- unlimited items for resale
- unlimited electronic items for resale
etc. The whole notion of "ownership" is foggy at best. Why not have just offered an "all you can eat" EL?
-
I think what they really meant to accomplishment with the "SR-EL" is something like:
Unlimited Rights EL:
- no restriction on print run
- no restrictions on seat limits
- unlimited items for resale
- unlimited electronic items for resale
etc. The whole notion of "ownership" is foggy at best. Why not have just offered an "all you can eat" EL?
Why there is suddently so much fuss about SR-EL on Dreamstime?... They've had that option for years and there's been many sales of that kind - I had one in the early days when removing an image from other sites wasn't a big deal (now I wouldn't do that - selling on too many sites). It looks like you've been sitting behind the tall fence of your little Istock garden for too long and know little about what's going on in a big scary world...;-)
-
Why there is suddently so much fuss about SR-EL on Dreamstime?... They've had that option for years
Exactly. Because I didn't notice it before today :) .
-
A long time ago, April Fool's Day was fun. Then came the internet. Now every clown running a web site feels he needs to cook up some story and tries to make it somewhat confusing so you'll waste time evaluating it, and a little bit worrisome until you do. Gosh my sides just hurt from laughing.
-
Why there is suddently so much fuss about SR-EL on Dreamstime?... They've had that option for years and there's been many sales of that kind - I had one in the early days when removing an image from other sites wasn't a big deal (now I wouldn't do that - selling on too many sites).
Yes. I've had at least one offer to buy SR-EL on DT over the years (maybe 2 offers, I can't remember for sure). I didn't take them up on it because if you figure in the time of removing the image from 7 sites, and the lost revenue from sales on those sites, it just didn't seem worth it.
-
Why there is suddently so much fuss about SR-EL on Dreamstime?...
Because they drew attention to the licensing with their two additional SR licenses.
The issue really doesn't affect contributors. If there ever was a problem arising from it, then the agency would be the one to take the heat.
-
Dreamstime raises prices and cuts commissions (again) is really what they're using a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to say. Where else have I heard that recently??
It may only be going from 30 to 25% for one DL per image, but on DT frequently that's all you get.
Also the new "weekly subscriptions" - what??? Buyers can now sign up for a $45 1-week and download 70 images at subscription prices and therefore bypass the higher prices entirely??
( I'm going by Roberto's summary: http://www.mystockphoto.org/new-levels-features-licenses-at-dreamstime/ (http://www.mystockphoto.org/new-levels-features-licenses-at-dreamstime/) seeing as dreamstime seems to be currently offline. Maybe the detail got mixed up in an April Fools joke gone wrong.)
-
Holger, we arenīt only getting first sales at pictures.. Level 1 and over had increase in price, I think it will be positive.. OK we could have prices raised and no Level 0, which is only good for buyers and for "new pictures" (which Dreamstime seem to reject quite well), now buyers will go to Level 0, when they would go to a 1 instead
March 66 sales (32 1st sales)
-
The people running these sites have ony one goal in mind: tweaking the 'business model' to squeeze out more profit. And they'll be doing this endlessly, forever.
Every business tries to grind its suppliers' margins down to dust. The smart ones know that if they go too far, they'll lose their suppliers. But the microstocks, with millions of images on the shelves and suppliers not really interested in taking them back, have little to worry about. They could sell just what they have now, for years.
What we can expect is for "pricing plans" to get ever more complicated, convoluted and confusing; and for all sorts of "subscription" schemes to be introduced until the whole idea of a "commission" is a thing of the past.
The thing to note about today's announcement from DT is how these things are getting steadily harder to understand and interpret.
-
Well. I still count Dreamstime as one of the most contributor-friendly sites. I can't recall Serban ever shafting us like a couple of other well-known agencies. When he does change the commissions there is always a good bit somewhere else to balance it out. Unless this leads to a huge shift to subscriptions, it should give quite a nice boost to earnings IMHO. And who else is giving us a rise this year?
-
Dreamstime raises prices and cuts commissions (again) is really what they're using a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to say. Where else have I heard that recently??
It may only be going from 30 to 25% for one DL per image, but on Dreamstime frequently that's all you get.
Also the new "weekly subscriptions" - what??? Buyers can now sign up for a $45 1-week and download 70 images at subscription prices and therefore bypass the higher prices entirely??
( I'm going by Roberto's summary: [url]http://www.mystockphoto.org/new-levels-features-licenses-at-dreamstime/[/url] ([url]http://www.mystockphoto.org/new-levels-features-licenses-at-dreamstime/[/url]) seeing as dreamstime seems to be currently offline. Maybe the detail got mixed up in an April Fools joke gone wrong.)
I didn't bother to count all of March's 84 sales, but on the first page, only 60% of sales were level one for me. 20% of sales were level 5. I can't see how I'll lose money on this one.
-
Well. I still count Dreamstime as one of the most contributor-friendly sites. I can't recall Serban ever shafting us like a couple of other well-known agencies. When he does change the commissions there is always a good bit somewhere else to balance it out. Unless this leads to a huge shift to subscriptions, it should give quite a nice boost to earnings IMHO. And who else is giving us a rise this year?
Absolutely, on all counts.
I don't see this as a commission cut at all. Level 0 only applies to images that have NEVER sold, so it will give a boost to new images and to old non-sellers. Dreamstime has been deactivating older non-sellers or donating them for free, so this is an improvement over deactivation or giving them away.
Revenues look to increase overall with this plan. I wish the other sites were half as conscientious as Dreamstime.
(the above is said with the acknowledgment I will soon be eating my words if they follow this up with a commission cut some time this year).
-
hmm just got the email about april fool's, pity it is 9am on the 2nd here ;D
-
Well. I still count Dreamstime as one of the most contributor-friendly sites. I can't recall Serban ever shafting us like a couple of other well-known agencies. When he does change the commissions there is always a good bit somewhere else to balance it out. Unless this leads to a huge shift to subscriptions, it should give quite a nice boost to earnings IMHO. And who else is giving us a rise this year?
They've cut commissions from 50% to 25% in less than 2 years - of course the effect might be that you earn more because the prices are higher, but if the agency is earning more overall, why do they have to cut commissions? Every image ever uploaded is a "level 0" image at some point - just now you get a lower % for its sale.
The weekly subscriptions on the other hand is just insanity. Why would anyone buy credits at Dreamstime anymore? You can buy 52 credits for $50 to download about 5 XL images or buy a 1-week package and download 10 per day for $45 and with no real commitment.
One of the reasons subscriptions haven't been attractive is because the minimum price on most of the agencies was too high for causal buyers (eg. $249 at shutterstock) and the downloads are spread over such a long period that its not a volume most people will use. Neither of these factors are relevant when you bring the price down to about $45 and spread it over only 1 week.
Sorry but these changes are shafting everyone. Of course there's also no way of opting out of subs at Dreamstime, or deleting all your content if you're not happy with the changes because your portfolio is locked in for 6 months.
-
Sorry but these changes are shafting everyone. Of course there's also no way of opting out of subs at Dreamstime, or deleting all your content if you're not happy with the changes because your portfolio is locked in for 6 months.
You have to think it won't work out for them very well either. It's pretty easy to download all 10 in a day. Which could easily mean they'll make very little or lose money on each transaction.
-
Light grey is old prices, dark grey the new ones?
-
Light grey is old prices, dark grey the new ones?
yes!
-
good points Holger and Cthoman!
letīs see how this go this month or maybe the others once buyers must have some old credits
-
Does that new level 0 only apply to images that will be currently uploaded? Because I'm not seeing a change on any of my (200+) files that's never been dl'ed. They're still at level 1.
I'm already physically exhausted today and I don't really want to add brain exhausted to it.
-
Does that new level 0 only apply to images that will be currently uploaded? Because I'm not seeing a change on any of my (200+) files that's never been dl'ed. They're still at level 1.
I'm already physically exhausted today and I don't really want to add brain exhausted to it.
thatīs a good question, guess we will know soon
-
how does the 'levels' thing work ? Is it like the old cannister system as iStockphoto ?
-
how does the 'levels' thing work ? Is it like the old cannister system as iStockphoto ?
Levels is per image. As the image sells more, it goes up levels - and also in price and % commission - from 25 up to 50% with the new system (from a flat 50% a year ago, but the levels take less downloads to move up and cost more credits now). A system I like a lot better than a per supplier system as every image rises on its own if it is worthy (and gets decent placement in the search etc. etc.).
I disagree that DT has never shafted contributors. Dropping from 50% down to 30% for most images was a shafting as far as I could tell. Dropping to 25% isn't good either even if it is only for the first sale. Sure, make level 0 cheaper than all the others, but don't drop our percentage too.
I don't much like all the smoke and mirrors between what a buyer pays and what we get, I wish they would list the actual price the buyer paid for an image along next to our cut. I can't see them doing that though.
-
It's not "smoke and mirrors" it's merely complicated. If you really want smoke and mirrors, look at Fotolia where the purchase price of an image bought on credits is more or less unrelated to the commission actually paid.
-
Does that new level 0 only apply to images that will be currently uploaded? Because I'm not seeing a change on any of my (200+) files that's never been dl'ed. They're still at level 1.
I read somewhere yesterday... can't remember exactly where and don't have time to look at the moment... that it only applies to new images, for now.
-
Well. I still count Dreamstime as one of the most contributor-friendly sites. I can't recall Serban ever shafting us like a couple of other well-known agencies. When he does change the commissions there is always a good bit somewhere else to balance it out. Unless this leads to a huge shift to subscriptions, it should give quite a nice boost to earnings IMHO. And who else is giving us a rise this year?
Absolutely! It's THE site i'll keep promoting to everyone.
I also applaud them for their constant effort to try and keep improving their site; the dynamic search, the geolocations (i first thought that one was a bit unnecesary, but now you can browse stock images through the world map i see how its handy), etc etc etc!
-
Still.
Sales have dropped about 60% in 2 years.
Curious how hey are going to shift that.........................?.
Patrick.
-
Interesting to me that, as far as I can tell from reading this thread, the only people NOT happy about the changes at DT are the ones that don't contribute there.
-
Interesting to me that, as far as I can tell from reading this thread, the only people NOT happy about the changes at Dreamstime are the ones that don't contribute there.
I'm with them from the beginning.... ???
Patrick H.
-
I'm with them from the beginning.... ???
Patrick H.
I thought your complaint was about your overall decline in earnings there. My comment was only referring to the people complaining about this set of price increases.
Are you also upset with the new price changes? If so, can you tell me what the down side is, because it looks good from my perspective.
-
...If so, can you tell me what the down side is, because it looks good from my perspective.
I fit the category of "doesn't contribute there" (any more) but I do find the recent price hikes puzzling. I like the idea of level 0 pricing to encourage buyers to take a chance on a new file, although I don't see why the royalty rate has to be less on the lower priced items.
What I find a puzzle is that the very small sizes of the very popular files will now be a ton more expensive than just about anywhere else. Doesn't that effectively push buyers to go elsewhere for these (except for exclusive to DT files)? IOW, price increases are fine when buyers pay them, but if an XS costs 11 credits at DT but 1 credit at IS and 2 at FT (is emerald 2 or 3 for XS?) I can't imagine people paying such a premium. The larger sizes seem to be closer to what you'd pay at other sites.
Perhaps I'm missing something...
-
if it's not a joke its kind of dumb announcing it on april fools day, when you have made jokes.
a commission cut is a commission cut, regardless of how its wrapped. I dont see a need, makes you wonder how many are level 0 sales, especially when they will be significantly cheaper.
Weekly subscriptions sounds like a disaster about to happen.
Set you own pricing for designers? what? how about some info on this.
I am very dubious of this being good news.
-
Doesn't that effectively push buyers to go elsewhere for these (except for exclusive to Dreamstime files)? IOW, price increases are fine when buyers pay them, but if an XS costs 11 credits at Dreamstime but 1 credit at IS and 2 at Fotolia (is emerald 2 or 3 for XS?)
You are assuming that price is the only criteria a buyer uses for purchasing images from microstock sites. I can tell you from experience, that designers don't troll for the lowest priced images. They usually have an account at one, maybe two sites and buy their images as they need them from the source that was approved by the head of the dept. or business office. Microstock is inexpensive and it doesn't really matter if an image costs less somewhere else. They have a dollar amount they can spend and their purchases are a line item in a list of many other expenses in a yearly budget. Many medium to large corporate image buying departments don't even know about alternate sites. I believe that is why istock is still doing well. They built their name early in the game. Many companies found them first and aren't aware of or don't want to take the time to look elsewhere for what are essentially the same types of images. Large buyers don't analyze prices as much as you think and most are clueless about the inner workings of any site, let alone multiple ones.
-
I wonder with the shift from print to web content and mobile content if XS sales are becoming more and more common. Perhaps this is a way to cash in on that. I certainly have seen IS move to a very high % of XS sales.
or maybe it is pushing people towards subs. Especially the weekly subs? They seem a little cheap, as if I were a designer needing even just a few larger images I'd go for the weekly sub. Also it is a lot easier to imagine someone maxing out a weekly subscription than one for a longer term.
I suppose the proof will be in the sales stats over the next few months.
I agree it is stupid to make any changes on April 1, especially when you are also joking about things too.
-
Large buyers don't analyze prices as much as you think and most are clueless about the inner workings of any site, let alone multiple ones.
Why is everyone so obsessed with "large buyers"? Not all buyers of microstock are large buyers. You seem to be forgetting about how many small buyers purchase microstock. Remember them? The ones who actually helped the microstock industry grow to what it is today. And to many many small buyers, price is very important. I used to purchase strictly at iStock. Now I have accounts at four different agencies because they kept upping the prices (among all the other sh*tty things they did and are doing). I find this price hike at Dreamstime...unfortunate. If I can find the same image cheaper on a different stock site - say 123RF, for instance - that is where I will be buying.
-
I really don't like the cut to 25% commission. That's a real concern because where do they stop? With this and the last commission cut, they have halved their commission for images that haven't sold yet. The cost of running sites must of come down over the years, they are being very selective with their reviews now. I really don't think we deserve another commission cut. Are they going to slice some more off next year? I stopped uploading to DT and this doesn't make me want to start again. Every time prices go up, buyers leave and sales go down. We might make a bit more money but DT will make a lot more form another commission cut. I also don't like the weekly subs, will have to see how that pans out.
-
I'm with them from the beginning.... ???
Patrick H.
I thought your complaint was about your overall decline in earnings there. My comment was only referring to the people complaining about this set of price increases.
Are you also upset with the new price changes? If so, can you tell me what the down side is, because it looks good from my perspective.
I am worried the new weekly subscription packages will drive more buyers to subcription.
Patrick H.
-
As a former DT exclusive, I'll add my 2 cents (which is about all I made from IS last month). DT encourages exclusives in many ways and also encourages growth of microstock photographers. They make it easy for newbies to enter the field and I believe this new pricing is to encourage the newbies by giving them a few more sales but not adding much to the bank account-most newbies are more impressed by seeing the DL then the money most will never collect (many never make it to the minimum payout before quitting). On the other hand, DT recognizes that their "bread and butter" is the established pros and serious amateurs; this new pricing structure is a reward for the established folks as most of them have more than one download per image.
Add me to the camp that is pleased with the general way DT handles their contributors; they are the only one of the big four that I feel really values their contributors. I know most of the DT staff on a first name basis; have exchanged many emails concerning the site with them and posted a few blogs to help the community. On the other hand, I dropped my exclusive in March of this year because I was not making sufficient money from DT; since dropping exclusive, my monthly income has multiplied by 4-5 times but my work load also multiplied by about 10 times (because many of the sites have yet to payoff for all the work). Even though I dropped exclusive at DT; my sales at DT are still within 70% of my former exclusive sales (number images sold and revenue average per download).
-
I have never agreed to sell the rights for an image with DT for many of the reasons already covered here.
The license gives the buyer the impression that they will be using the image exclusively when in fact the file may have sold lots of times on DT and other sites and could be used in future by a competitor of the buyer who has already bought a RF license before the rights sale.
They may have not been caught out yet, but I don't want to be the test case.
-
A year ago, I sold the rights of 1 image on DST. I had not changed the default price, so it was sold at 350 dollars. It was not a popular image, so 350$ was a good deal, and I managed to get it off the other sites very quickly.
However, I was not asked by DST to sell the rights, I was told that the rights were sold, so I realised that - if this had happened to one of my bestsellers, I would NOT have been very pleased at all.
After that day, I changed all my sell-the-rights prices into 2000 dollars.
Now my question is : if a person buys the exclusive use for 1 year, what will the price be? A percentage of my 2000$ ? Or a price fixed by Dreamstime?
I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now. Can this be done in one move? Anyone now how?
-
A year ago, I sold the rights of 1 image on DST. I had not changed the default price, so it was sold at 350 dollars. It was not a popular image, so 350$ was a good deal, and I managed to get it off the other sites very quickly.
However, I was not asked by DST to sell the rights, I was told that the rights were sold, so I realised that - if this had happened to one of my bestsellers, I would NOT have been very pleased at all.
After that day, I changed all my sell-the-rights prices into 2000 dollars.
Now my question is : if a person buys the exclusive use for 1 year, what will the price be? A percentage of my 2000$ ? Or a price fixed by Dreamstime?
I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now. Can this be done in one move? Anyone now how?
I've had to do this Anyka; one image at the time. I asked to have it done by admin but was told it was a DoItYourself process. >:(
ed: ps: I seem to remember that someone wrote a script (or macro) for doing a batch process on Dreamstime. I don't think it was for changing the EL-SR option but it could be done ... I guess.
-
oh help :o
-
You're too fast. I just amended the post. :P
-
Interesting to me that, as far as I can tell from reading this thread, the only people NOT happy about the changes at Dreamstime are the ones that don't contribute there.
Well not a contributor there anymore (because of things like this) but the 1 week sub thing looks pretty bad. 52 credits cost 49.99 but a week long sub deal costs 44.99 for 10 images a day. In one day a sub deal lets you download 100 credits of images (level two images 10 times 10 credits maximum size) so who would buy a credit package? I can't see anything to be happy about with this scheme.
I must be missing something here because this sounds so crazy. The one week plan lets you get up to 700 credits as far as I can tell for $44.99 but a 700 credit package costs $593.22. I can't understand that pricing at all.
-
Are you also upset with the new price changes? If so, can you tell me what the down side is, because it looks good from my perspective.
I think we risk driving buyers away due to higher prices.
I have just one level 5 image. It sold four times in 2010 and 13 times in 2007 (if I remember it right, that's when they started the levels). Of course it is hard to say whether the price was the culprit, or changes in search results, or the arrival of better images in the site. In either case, in both years I made almost the same $ from it.
-
A year ago, I sold the rights of 1 image on DST. I had not changed the default price, so it was sold at 350 dollars. It was not a popular image, so 350$ was a good deal, and I managed to get it off the other sites very quickly.
However, I was not asked by DST to sell the rights, I was told that the rights were sold, so I realised that - if this had happened to one of my bestsellers, I would NOT have been very pleased at all.
After that day, I changed all my sell-the-rights prices into 2000 dollars.
Now my question is : if a person buys the exclusive use for 1 year, what will the price be? A percentage of my 2000$ ? Or a price fixed by Dreamstime?
I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now. Can this be done in one move? Anyone now how?
the default price at the start is 250 dollars. with each download the price creeps ups to 300, 350, and so on. the last record sale of SR-EL is 5100 dollars.. so i guess your $2000 default price is to low :)
-
Are you also upset with the new price changes? If so, can you tell me what the down side is, because it looks good from my perspective.
I think we risk driving buyers away due to higher prices.
I have just one level 5 image. It sold four times in 2010 and 13 times in 2007 (if I remember it right, that's when they started the levels). Of course it is hard to say whether the price was the culprit, or changes in search results, or the arrival of better images in the site. In either case, in both years I made almost the same $ from it.
It's quite likely that buyers will choose a cheaper level for a generic file - an isolated object, for example - but files that have something genuinely different about them should still be very salable at level 5.
-
My level 5 images sell quite well.
-
Ok. I just had an image approved on April 2nd and it's being called a level 1. When does the level 0 kick in? Or was it all a joke?
-
Ok. I just had an image approved on April 2nd and it's being called a level 1. When does the level 0 kick in? Or was it all a joke?
At least week subscriptions are unfortunately reality.
-
Ok. I just had an image approved on April 2nd and it's being called a level 1. When does the level 0 kick in? Or was it all a joke?
It looks like it is in effect. If you logout and surf the site, you'll get the new prices. It said something about for new customers only in the announcement. I'm still not entirely sure what that means. New credits purchased after April 1st? New customers signed up after April 1st? ???
-
I'm not taking this all in very well due to other events pulling on my single brain cell.... but I'm guessing the arrival of Level 0 might explain why I'm suddenly seeing much higher than usual sales on new images,
-
I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now. Can this be done in one move? Anyone now how?
Yes, you can click the Manage Licenses link in your management area http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php (http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php). At the top you can set (or remove) the SR-EL license option/pricing for all images at once...
-
I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now. Can this be done in one move? Anyone now how?
You, you can click the Manage Licenses link in your management area [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php[/url]). At the top you can set (or remove) the SR-EL license option/pricing for all images at once...
Thanks for that tip. I went over to uncheck that option, and I already have it unchecked. Which is odd because I just had a request for sell-the-rights not too long ago (of course, never heard back). I suppose a client can ask, even if that is unchecked.
-
Thanks for that tip. I went over to uncheck that option, and I already have it unchecked. Which is odd because I just had a request for sell-the-rights not too long ago (of course, never heard back). I suppose a client can ask, even if that is unchecked.
You are right, a buyer can still request an SR-EL or RAW if it isn't available... (you are free to decline or not respond)
I think the pricing for these has got a lot more confusing all of a sudden. The fact that the SR-EL1 is only 25% of the SR-EL price makes it pretty unappealing to a non-exclusive if you have your prices set to the minimum or the automatic ones (as low as $250 for the SR-EL). This means you might only get $31 for taking it offline for a year ($250 x 50% royalty x 25%). This is pretty low - I routinely get $12 for one level 5 TIFF sale! If you aren't exclusive the problem is compounded as what isn't selling on DT could be a big seller elsewhere. I think many people have it in the back of their mind that it would be worth pulling an image from other sites to get a few hundred dollars, but those people obviously aren't making hundreds a year from their images in the first place!
Bottom line, non-exclusive and exclusives should both be reviewing their pricing and their decision to make SR-ELs available at all. To me the SR-EL1 pricing is what you need to base your decision on, as it is the lowest of the three... They aren't saying anything about where that image ends up in the searches when it comes back after a year or three, either. On DT I am of the opinion that an older image with low sales gets lost in the search after a while. They should consider an automatic level bump or two if an SR-EL1 or 3 happens... Taking an image offline for 3 years would likely kill it for future sales!
Innovative idea, but it doesn't seem very good for non-exclusives unless you set your prices really high - in which case buyers were probably better off with just a high priced SR-EL in the first place... This does seems good for exclusives, as by definition they aren't doing much with their photos other than selling it on DT anyways.
-
I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now. Can this be done in one move? Anyone now how?
Yes, you can click the Manage Licenses link in your management area [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php[/url]). At the top you can set (or remove) the SR-EL license option/pricing for all images at once...
Thank you VERY much! That really saved my day, literally; I did not look forward to disabling SR-EL on one by one picture.
-
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to DT about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
-
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.
-
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.
Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal.
-
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.
Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal.
What better deal? A Level 0 costs what a Level 1 used to, and everything else is higher across the board for the new customers. Whether you are an old customer or not you have access to the weekly subscription...
-
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.
Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal.
What better deal? A Level 0 costs what a Level 1 used to, and everything else is higher across the board for the new customers. Whether you are an old customer or not you have access to the weekly subscription...
The weekly subscription plan is a joke for contributors (not an April Fool's joke but a JOKE!) We're going to be shafted big time with this new plan. I can see that most sales will be subscription sales in the future and when this happens, I'll be forced to give Dreamstime the boot, just like I did with Fotolia. Shame because I really liked them.
I was excited about the increase in prices initially, thinking this is a step forward in the micro industry and expecting to see other agencies follow suit. My excitement was replaced with disgust when I saw the weekly subscription plan. There is no incentive for the DT buyer to pay as they go anymore. Why would they buy 52 credits for $49.99 when they can get up to 700 credits for just $44.99 under the old pricing structure and 910 credits with the new pricing structure.
I can't help but feel suspicious that they introduced this entire princing structure (which is now suddenly for new customers only) just to sneak in the weekly subscription plan.
Dreamstime was one of my two favourite agents... I can see that changing quite quickly!
Disappointed!
-
I hope it is just a bad luck but I had in two days so many subscription sales as usually in two weeks. It wouldn't be that bad if subscriptions wouldn't make about 80% of my Aprils downloads.
-
I just hope they quickly raise the weekly subscription price if it becomes too popular. Wont it lose them a lot of money if buyers switch to it and max out their downloads? I really don't want to drop DT, so I hope they react quickly if this does go wrong.
-
I don't think any site has ever increased subs prices, what makes them each time more attractive.
-
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.
It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.
Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal.
What better deal? A Level 0 costs what a Level 1 used to, and everything else is higher across the board for the new customers. Whether you are an old customer or not you have access to the weekly subscription...
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what dt are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than ss. The future of microstock, all subs?
-
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?
They aren't still thinking of weekly subscriptions. They have already implemented it, it's a done deal.
-
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?
They aren't still thinking of weekly subscriptions. They have already implemented it, it's a done deal.
Yes I know. It was a figure of speech. I mean, profit instigates most decisions. This will dig deep in to credit purchases, if not eliminate them completely. It just doesn't seem wise, but then again what do I know, I've never known anything about making money in microstock. :)
-
I don't think any site has ever increased subs prices, what makes them each time more attractive.
Shutterstock did. Several times, and once the dust had settled (they saw how it affected download rates) they adjusted contributor compensation to match.
-
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?
They aren't still thinking of weekly subscriptions. They have already implemented it, it's a done deal.
Sorry, I just realised why u thought i didn't realise dt had already implemented it. I meant if it catches on with the other agencies, not with dt.
The more I think about it, the more it's infuriating me. This could be worse news than when they cut the commission. That if I remember was supposed to be for our own good, as they needed more to help expand and take over the microstock world. Well that didn't happen and as far as I can make out they haven't climbed positions and I really doubt we are making more money because of commission cuts. My own earnings fell in every quarter of 2010, and the first quarter of this year is only back to the same level of the first quarter of 2010, of course this is also after adding more images. With weekly subscriptions there may be no end to the slide.
-
I don't think any site has ever increased subs prices, what makes them each time more attractive.
Shutterstock did. Several times, and once the dust had settled (they saw how it affected download rates) they adjusted contributor compensation to match.
Thinkstock has, as well. It's now $50 more expensive than Shutterstock for one month. It used to be the same.
-
I guess they must have "questioned" this before.. I donīt believe they want to ruin their business
-
I guess they must have "questioned" this before.. I donīt believe they want to ruin their business
Maybe they are just following iStock's lead in how to ruin a business.
-
A weekly subscription is a good marketing tactic. Try us out for a week. Then buy a real subscription. But having a weekly subscription available to anyone at any time is just horrible business. A sign of desperation.
What I don't get - if they are trying to be a subscription site, why don't they take all the photos they can get their hands on instead of just a fraction from a series?
-
ah! Seems I wasn't paying attention. I don't know what Dreamstime are thinking of with weekly subscriptions, if it catches on it's going to kill us, unless of course they gain a larger customer base than Shutterstock. The future of microstock, all subs?
Yes, I seemed to have overlooked the weekly subs issue too. I hope it doesn't destroy my income there.
So far I am getting mostly credit sales, still, but people could just be using up their credits before buying a subscription. We should know in a month or so.
-
I won't argue that I know this to be good for contributors, but I'd be interested to see behind the scenes what kind of buyer actually goes for this. It would be a no brainer to buy the weekly sub if you were already going to buy a 50 pack for some specific purchases that used the whole 50 pack. But if you occasionally need images the weekly sub is still hard to take full advantage of. As someone who occasionally buys credit packs for specific purposes, I would not want a sub pack that expired in a week for my $50. I'd rather use the 5-10 credits out of the pack for the image I need today and then have a full year to use up the rest. If you are a blogger and you need small images, the credit pack still gets you a large number of photos (i.e. you aren't taking advantage of the full size anyways) and you don't have to know in advance what you might need.
I have no data to support this conclusion, but I'm optimistic that this will tend to draw sub buyers away from monthly plans or other sites more than it will cause credit buyers to step up to subs. Either you have a need for 70 images a week, or you don't, in my opinion. It takes time to log in and spend the time to grab 10 images a day that you might use in the future... Whether this is good or bad for contributors remains to be seen, but will depend a lot on why buyers are coming to Dreamstime. People will still need credit packs for ELs, which I believe is the main reason people would buy a large credit pack in the first place.
Another way to look at this is to look into what price people are paying for the credits they use to buy your images now. To get a credit value around $0.92 you have to spend about $100 on credits at once. The monthly sub is only $128 - the same argument applies there - why don't people buy the sub for a month instead of a 100 credit pack? If the argument is that the price is so similar everyone will pick subs were valid, then you wouldn't see any credit sales where the buyers spent more than $100 on the credits - yet it happens all the time in my credit sales. For this reason, am I optimistic that there are truly two kinds of buyers... Don't get me wrong, this will surely push some people to buy subs that didn't before. But will they be new buyers, buyers from other sites, monthly sub buyers, or existing credit buyers?
-
^^^ Some very good points Megastock.
I'm pretty sure CanStockPhoto introduced weekly subs packages several years ago. It didn't exactly have the customers falling over each other to buy them though. Probably because 95% of image buyers never knew anything about CanStockPhoto anyway (because they hadn't got the money to do the marketing).
Of course if DT's customers were to switch to weekly subs instead of PPD ... then the biggest loser would undoubtedly be DT themselves. We only make money when they make money.
-
^^^ Some very good points Megastock.
I'm pretty sure CanStockPhoto introduced weekly subs packages several years ago. It didn't exactly have the customers falling over each other to buy them though. Probably because 95% of image buyers never knew anything about CanStockPhoto anyway (because they hadn't got the money to do the marketing).
Of course if Dreamstime's customers were to switch to weekly subs instead of PPD ... then the biggest loser would undoubtedly be Dreamstime themselves. We only make money when they make money.
Except we get paid per sub download, which isn't as much as what they get paid which is per sub package bought, as how many buyers won't download their full quota of 10, 25 or 50 images a day? Those who have credits though would generally use them up. There will definitely be a swing towards subs, but it just depends on how large the swing will be to find out how much we lose.
-
Except we get paid per sub download, which isn't as much as what they get paid which is per sub package bought, as how many buyers won't download their full quota of 10, 25 or 50 images a day? Those who have credits though would generally use them up. There will definitely be a swing towards subs, but it just depends on how large the swing will be to find out how much we lose.
Definitely remains to be seen. It isn't a given that Dreamstime makes more money on a $45 sub package than a $50 credit package - a full payout for 70 exclusive subs is $29.40, a minimum payout on a 50 credit pack for non-exclusive level 0's is $12.50. I realize these aren't equivalent purchases, but neither is saying that a buyer who currently comes to Dreamstime for 4 images suddenly now wants 70 in a week.
I'm trying to figure out who the buyers of 50 credit package are and how this would impact them. People currently buying smaller credit packages likely have a one time or infrequent need for images or they would spend more and get a discount. People who buy 100 credit and larger packs already have a sub option for a similar price, and aren't buying it. So who are the 50 credit pack buyers that will suddenly be flocking to this deal? The one worry would be the buyer who comes for 4 or 5 images and realizes they can get those via the sub and have more left over whether they use them or not - for the same price. Keep in mind, though, that they might have to take two days if they are interested in more than 3 level 5's.
There is the possibility that this draws sub buyers from other sites and both adds revenue as well as driving up levels. Could be my personal pipe dream, though :)
-
You have to ask yourself how many downloads will 52 credits buy under the new pricing structure.
Say a buyer bought this package, they could only purchase two level 1 vector files, or just one level 5 vector, or five extra large level 1 jpegs or 17 extra small level 1 jpegs etc.
The table below is a summary of my sales this year grouped by size and level. The third column shows how many of those type/level images can be bought using the 52 credit package.
For the sake of this little exercise, let's assume that all these downloads were purchased using the 52 credit package and that the buyers bought only 1 type of size/level. This would indicate that for 67% of my sales, the buyer could only purchase 1-5 images with the 52 credit package. In this scenario, the buyer is likely to switch to the weekly subs deal. This is what I'm concerned about. There's not much incentive for most buyers to purchase the 52 credit package.
-
I really dislike subs for obvious reasons. It's the main reason I never bothered to sign up with Shutterstock and the main reason why I dropped fotolia. And now I have major concerns with the weekly subs issue on Dreamstime. I cannot see how it won't lower our earnings.
This is how I responded to Achilles post on the Dreamstime thread....
Achilles wrote:
Weekly subscription plans are new for us too and we`ll be keeping a close eye on them. They don`t jeopardize photographers` royalties since they award the same value per download with the monthly subscription. As opposed to those, the designers will consume weekly subs extensively. That means that royalties paid to photographers are higher percent-wise than for monthly subs. Also, royalties are higher %-wise than for credit-based sales. We estimate royalties to be aprox. 50% from the paid price.Not the least, remember they accelerate the level-pricing for credits. Although cheaper for designers than credit packages, the $ amount required is higher ($45 vs $10) which compensates. It`s a win-win-win situation or at least that was our intention.
Achilles, I have to say the more I look into this new pricing structure, the more it concerns me. I can't see how you don't believe our royalties will be affected here.
It's not as simple as comparing the value per downloads between the monthly and weekly subscriptions. We need to compare the buying power of the weekly subscription to that of the credit package. The shorter the duration of the subscription plan, the more likely that buyers will convert from purchasing credit packages to buying a weekly subs deal. Unless buyers stick to buying XS level 0 images, they don't receive much value with a credit package these days, especially now that prices have gone up. To maximise the value of their credit purchases, they're likely to look for 0 level images and you've reduced our commissions on those from 30% (at least) to 25% so our royalties are likely to be affected here also.
You have stated that royalties are higher percent-wise for weekly subs than for monthly subs but again, that's no comparison because I'd image buyers who buy the monthly plan will stick to the monthly plan, not switching to the weekly. It's more likely that the ones who purchase the weekly subs are those that usually buy credit packages.
You've argued that royalties are higher percentage-wise for subs than for credit sales but that's no real relief because a higher percentage of peanuts is still peanuts. I'm sorry but that's how the average contributor feels about sub sales.
You've stated that sub sales will accelerate the level-pricing for credits. That's true but there's no relief there either because the problem is that higher level images only reduce the buying power of credit package further making the buyer more likely to switch to the subs deal or buying only 0 level images.
No matter which way I look at this, I can only see our royalties and RPD being reduced and long term you're likely to shoot yourselves in the foot (and us in the heart!). I too believe this wasn't your intention. I believe... or at least I'm hoping that you just haven't thought this one through enough and I cannot see a win-win-win here at all. All I can see is a win-lose-lose situation with the only win being granted to the buyer if they switch to the subs plan. I can see how you'd think that the weekly plan will attract subs customers from other agents but at what cost? Losing your current contributors?
I'm really trying hard to put a positive spin on this new pricing structure because I don't want to see one of my favourites bomb out, but I just can't see anything good about it.
-
I don't think any site has ever increased subs prices, what makes them each time more attractive.
Shutterstock did. Several times, and once the dust had settled (they saw how it affected download rates) they adjusted contributor compensation to match.
Sorry, I was not referring to Shutterstock or others that are (basically) subs. My point is that sites like Dreamstime and Fotolia increase image cost for credits while subs are frozen, making the latter more attractive. The relative increase of subs in these sites are a clear trend to me.
edited to correct mistyping (aging! :D)
-
yes this new plan working? for me guess not, have less than half I used to have and for a 0.38$ RPD use to be close to 1$
-
You have to ask yourself how many downloads will 52 credits buy under the new pricing structure.
Say a buyer bought this package, they could only purchase two level 1 vector files, or just one level 5 vector, or five extra large level 1 jpegs or 17 extra small level 1 jpegs etc.
The table below is a summary of my sales this year grouped by size and level. The third column shows how many of those type/level images can be bought using the 52 credit package.
For the sake of this little exercise, let's assume that all these downloads were purchased using the 52 credit package and that the buyers bought only 1 type of size/level. This would indicate that for 67% of my sales, the buyer could only purchase 1-5 images with the 52 credit package. In this scenario, the buyer is likely to switch to the weekly subs deal. This is what I'm concerned about. There's not much incentive for most buyers to purchase the 52 credit package.
You are assuming that the buyer is ready to max out the package in the first week, which is surely true for some, and not others. There is lots of incentive to buy credits if you don't know what you need them for yet, and just have a short term need to buy an image. I see credit sales with 100 and 200 credit packs all the time - and there are monthly subs cheaper than a 200 pack.
Still, I'm as interested as anyone is whether these new packs will cannibalize sales from credits or not.
-
I don't know about the weekly sub, but I do worry that they are a bit cheap for what one could get, and the likelihood of maxing out a weekly subscription is higher than a monthly one. Actually if they max it out, that is good for us (and DT will change things quickly). If they just buy that instead of a 50 pack because they need 2 big images and that is all they get - that is bad for us.
In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales. One is XS for 1 credit and .29 - no big deal, the other is a Tiff - 11 credits and 3.17. It would have been 3.80 or so under the old scheme. I suppose the next sale will be for more if it isn't a sub though. I still think they could have kept it at 30%, or made level 0 for 0 or 1 sale at 30%. Both images were uploaded in the last 6 months.
-
In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales.
What color swirlly icon represents the level 0?
-
In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales.
What color swirlly icon represents the level 0?
Kind of a bronze color:
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/site-img/icon_level0.gif)
-
In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales.
What color swirlly icon represents the level 0?
Kind of a bronze color:
([url]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/site-img/icon_level0.gif[/url])
Ah. Thanks. Will keep my eye out for them. None so far today.
-
Ah. Thanks. Will keep my eye out for them. None so far today.
I'm very interested in the value of the level 0 purchases. Anyone using these just signed up, presumably may know about the weekly sub, and picks credits or not. I've had two such sales so far, and both were with credits - and both appeared to be via 13 credit packs based on the value I received. So they aren't all buying sub plans yet! I have not seen any level 0 subs yet. I don't think there would be any way to tell if it was a weekly sub unless a level 0 is purchased. All that said, the absence of level 0 sub purchases could just mean that people who buy subs pick more expensive images since they don't really cost more. But the two I sold were both editorial, and don't have much else to pick from (i.e. location specific).
-
Ah. Thanks. Will keep my eye out for them. None so far today.
I'm very interested in the value of the level 0 purchases. Anyone using these just signed up, presumably may know about the weekly sub, and picks credits or not. I've had two such sales so far, and both were with credits - and both appeared to be via 13 credit packs based on the value I received. So they aren't all buying sub plans yet! I have not seen any level 0 subs yet. I don't think there would be any way to tell if it was a weekly sub unless a level 0 is purchased. All that said, the absence of level 0 sub purchases could just mean that people who buy subs pick more expensive images since they don't really cost more. But the two I sold were both editorial, and don't have much else to pick from (i.e. location specific).
Noticed few seconds ago a Level 0 sub sale days ago..
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IVimtNC4BRs/TZ4-fS1ubLI/AAAAAAAAAlE/KBhCWGa7X-Q/s1600/level0.png)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kZAej7AnUUE/TZ4_WpkUpdI/AAAAAAAAAlM/JGx_D_pXt5Y/s1600/level02.png)
-
I've had several Level 0 sales but RPD is holding steady. Noticed that Subscriptions sale did not seem to change ... Level 0 Sub was 35 cents. I guess that stayed the same?