pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Dreamstime dying?  (Read 67812 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2010, 14:50 »
0
My sales have been on the rise lately, and I have a small oddball portfolio on DT. I requested a payout last week, and they did it promptly. They're still my favorite agency.

Pat


« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2010, 15:28 »
0
Oct 09     $1.24     
Nov 09    $1.26    
Dec 09    $1.27
Jan 10    $1.00
Feb 10    $1.84
Mar 10    $1.53

« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2010, 16:38 »
0
My sales have been on the rise lately, and I have a small oddball portfolio on DT. I requested a payout last week, and they did it promptly. They're still my favorite agency.

Pat

Very good.
By the way Dreamstime link doesn't work.

Kone

« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2010, 16:45 »
0
Oct 09     $1.24     
Nov 09    $1.26    
Dec 09    $1.27
Jan 10    $1.00
Feb 10    $1.84
Mar 10    $1.53

Thanks.
Are you having more and more $0.26, $0.35 and $0.70 lately? (probably not, your RPD is OK)

« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2010, 16:51 »
0
About 30% of my sales are subs this month, one at 70c, but then there were some good credit sales, such as one earning me US$6.

But I still wished I could opt out from subs.  :-\

« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2010, 16:53 »
0
About 30% of my sales are subs this month, one at 70c, but then there were some good credit sales, such as one earning me US$6.

But I still wished I could opt out from subs.  :-\

Yea, they don't have that option

lisafx

« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2010, 17:22 »
0
The subs on DT don't bother me so much, especially since they implemented the graduated scale for subs of different levels.  I have had sub sales as high as $1.25 there.  I wish all the sites would do something similar rather than the all-you-can eat buffet.

« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2010, 20:43 »
0
The subs on DT don't bother me so much, especially since they implemented the graduated scale for subs of different levels.  I have had sub sales as high as $1.25 there.  I wish all the sites would do something similar rather than the all-you-can eat buffet.

Yes. Subs or non-subs, it doesn't bother me at all. My RPD has been going up but if it were not I would not care, as long as my monthly revenues increase. That's what matters to me. And I think it is good of Achilles to periodically explain his position on and strategy for subs. So far, I think, he has been correct in his predictions.

« Reply #58 on: March 28, 2010, 02:09 »
0
The subs on DT don't bother me so much, especially since they implemented the graduated scale for subs of different levels.  I have had sub sales as high as $1.25 there.  I wish all the sites would do something similar rather than the all-you-can eat buffet.

I wish there would be a size limit on subs. At the moment, large sizes of level 5 images are far too expensive, and I noticed a trend towards XS downloads for level 4-5 images (9 credits for xsmall).
I have the suspicion that former credit buyers switched to subscription (even for 1-2 months) since they can grab the maximum size of the higher level images for peanuts.

For instance, a custom credits pack of 129$ gives 139 credits, or 15 xsmall level 5 images.
For the same sum as a subs package 1 month 10 downloads per day, a buyer has 300 downloads or 100 downloads (level 5 count as 3 subs downloads) at maximum size.

This seems to be a pervert side effect of the level system that can be exploited easily by clever buyers: limiting themselves to level 5 images (which are exceptional or unique), they can have 6 times more of those images at maximum size than at xsmall size credit sales.  ???

Refs: http://www.dreamstime.com/credits and http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18104

KB

« Reply #59 on: March 28, 2010, 11:26 »
0
I wish there would be a size limit on subs.

100% agree.

I posted a message on DT's forum quite a while back, asking if DT couldn't consider limiting the size of sub sales.

The thread was removed within an hour, with no warning or notice. I said nothing at all negative or derogatory, it was simply a suggestion.

That was the last post I made (or shall ever make) on their forum.  ;D

« Reply #60 on: March 28, 2010, 11:34 »
0
The subs on DT don't bother me so much, especially since they implemented the graduated scale for subs of different levels.  I have had sub sales as high as $1.25 there.  I wish all the sites would do something similar rather than the all-you-can eat buffet.

I wish there would be a size limit on subs. At the moment, large sizes of level 5 images are far too expensive, and I noticed a trend towards XS downloads for level 4-5 images (9 credits for xsmall).
I have the suspicion that former credit buyers switched to subscription (even for 1-2 months) since they can grab the maximum size of the higher level images for peanuts.

For instance, a custom credits pack of 129$ gives 139 credits, or 15 xsmall level 5 images.
For the same sum as a subs package 1 month 10 downloads per day, a buyer has 300 downloads or 100 downloads (level 5 count as 3 subs downloads) at maximum size.

This seems to be a pervert side effect of the level system that can be exploited easily by clever buyers: limiting themselves to level 5 images (which are exceptional or unique), they can have 6 times more of those images at maximum size than at xsmall size credit sales.  ???

Refs: http://www.dreamstime.com/credits and http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18104


I am surprised that some people go to such detail! Well done.

I am a bit confused now.
Does it mean that if a customer purchases a monthly package (let's assume they download 300 images), they would pay $129, but Dreamstime gets $0.43 per image for maximum-size level five. So this explains my subscription-maximum-level two $0.30. But how do you explain subscription-maximum-level four $0.70 (in my case) or how Lisa got $1.25 for her image sold, is it level five? Are you saying that the agency limits customers to download a maximum of 3 images max-size?

Did I just confuse you?

Kone

« Reply #61 on: March 28, 2010, 12:05 »
0
I wish there would be a size limit on subs.

100% agree.

I posted a message on DT's forum quite a while back, asking if DT couldn't consider limiting the size of sub sales.

The thread was removed within an hour, with no warning or notice. I said nothing at all negative or derogatory, it was simply a suggestion.

That was the last post I made (or shall ever make) on their forum.  ;D

I don't start threads or post very often but what you are saying is the partly reason that I almost never visit agency forums

« Reply #62 on: March 28, 2010, 12:29 »
0
...I posted a message on DT's forum quite a while back, asking if DT couldn't consider limiting the size of sub sales.

The thread was removed within an hour, with no warning or notice. I said nothing at all negative or derogatory, it was simply a suggestion.

That was the last post I made (or shall ever make) on their forum.  ;D

This agency behavior (in general) will keep on going in the future - sadly.

Competition leaves less and less room for generous commission cuts for the photographers and the running costs for the agencies are just going up (more staff/reviewers/offices and disk space/servers etc. - cost probably increasing faster than their sales - if sales even grow!!!). So for them it's a necessary move to grind down any amounts they can save (moving those costs onto the contributors) to stay in the game.

While it's easier for them now to predict future costs and prepare (by adjusting prices) they can maintain their own salaries but naturally the individual contributor will make less and less. There is no way around it.

In 5 years, each of the top 3 agencies will have maybe 200.000 or 300.000 contributors pumping content to their libraries. By that time Yuri is long gone somewhere on his own yacht, only shooting custom projects and that's it. The full-time Micro-shooter will be an extinct species then.

It used to be a real good money maker but now it's going to destroy itself (for the contributors).

« Reply #63 on: March 28, 2010, 21:25 »
0
I am surprised that some people go to such detail! Well done.

Some buyers can count.

Does it mean that if a customer purchases a monthly package (let's assume they download 300 images), they would pay $129, but Dreamstime gets $0.43 per image for maximum-size level five. So this explains my subscription-maximum-level two $0.30. But how do you explain subscription-maximum-level four $0.70 (in my case) or how Lisa got $1.25 for her image sold, is it level five? Are you saying that the agency limits customers to download a maximum of 3 images max-size?

First of all, this simulation is done from a buyers' viewpoint. A buyer doesn't care who gets what commission and whether the scheme is viable or not for the agency in the long run. He wants value for money and he just has to look at http://www.dreamstime.com/credits and use his brain.

A sub sale of a level 5 image counts for 3 downloads (any size) an a sub sale of a level 4 image counts for 2 downloads (any size). See here: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18104. With the 129$ subs package (10 downloads per day), a buyer can download 2 max size level 5s per day, and 2 max size level 4s (3+3+2+2=10). In a credit package, a small size level 4 is 9 credits, and a small size level 5 image is 11 credits.

A custom credit package of 129.27$ (http://www.dreamstime.com/credits, fill in 129$, click "calculate") gives 139 credits. Those 139$ give you 14 images, half of it level 4, half level 5, at small size.
(7x9) + (7x11) = 63 + 77 = 140 credits.
This means that after 4 days only, a subs buyer breaks even, compared with a custom credit buyer.
Subs: 4days x 4dl = 16 images (maximum).
Credits: 14 images (small).

Now a months has 30 days, which is more than 4. Imagine the subs buyer only buys 4 days per week, there are still 17 days left he buys. His profit is huge. Not to mention he has access to the max sizes and in the credits hypothesis, he would only have small. Of course, this scheme has a few assumptions: the buyer needs high-impact images on a regular basis. His needs may vary, so he can buy by credits 2/3 of the year, and switch to subs (even for 1 month) when the need is there.

It's all just simple math and correct me if I'm wrong. It is not site defamation, since DT must be aware too of this perverse effect of the level system combined with subs.

----------------

About subs threads being blocked on DT, this is a perfect commercial decision. The DT forum is accessible to buyers too, and they do read it. Disgruntled threads about subs might scare them off or make them worried about the future of that program, especially when they are subs buyers or considering becoming it. It would be counterproductive to the marketing efforts of DT.
On a site forum, we have to present a uniform professional positive face to (potential) customers. I would never post a message like this on the DT forum since it might awaken sleeping dogs (customers). We have a common goal with the agency, and that is sales.
Customers don't read these independent forums, unless they are contributors themselves, so we can digress a bit...
« Last Edit: March 28, 2010, 21:49 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #64 on: March 28, 2010, 22:53 »
0
I am surprised that some people go to such detail! Well done.

Some buyers can count.

Does it mean that if a customer purchases a monthly package (let's assume they download 300 images), they would pay $129, but Dreamstime gets $0.43 per image for maximum-size level five. So this explains my subscription-maximum-level two $0.30. But how do you explain subscription-maximum-level four $0.70 (in my case) or how Lisa got $1.25 for her image sold, is it level five? Are you saying that the agency limits customers to download a maximum of 3 images max-size?

First of all, this simulation is done from a buyers' viewpoint. A buyer doesn't care who gets what commission and whether the scheme is viable or not for the agency in the long run. He wants value for money and he just has to look at http://www.dreamstime.com/credits and use his brain.

A sub sale of a level 5 image counts for 3 downloads (any size) an a sub sale of a level 4 image counts for 2 downloads (any size). See here: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18104. With the 129$ subs package (10 downloads per day), a buyer can download 2 max size level 5s per day, and 2 max size level 4s (3+3+2+2=10). In a credit package, a small size level 4 is 9 credits, and a small size level 5 image is 11 credits.

A custom credit package of 129.27$ (http://www.dreamstime.com/credits, fill in 129$, click "calculate") gives 139 credits. Those 139$ give you 14 images, half of it level 4, half level 5, at small size.
(7x9) + (7x11) = 63 + 77 = 140 credits.
This means that after 4 days only, a subs buyer breaks even, compared with a custom credit buyer.
Subs: 4days x 4dl = 16 images (maximum).
Credits: 14 images (small).

Now a months has 30 days, which is more than 4. Imagine the subs buyer only buys 4 days per week, there are still 17 days left he buys. His profit is huge. Not to mention he has access to the max sizes and in the credits hypothesis, he would only have small. Of course, this scheme has a few assumptions: the buyer needs high-impact images on a regular basis. His needs may vary, so he can buy by credits 2/3 of the year, and switch to subs (even for 1 month) when the need is there.

It's all just simple math and correct me if I'm wrong. It is not site defamation, since DT must be aware too of this perverse effect of the level system combined with subs.

----------------

About subs threads being blocked on DT, this is a perfect commercial decision. The DT forum is accessible to buyers too, and they do read it. Disgruntled threads about subs might scare them off or make them worried about the future of that program, especially when they are subs buyers or considering becoming it. It would be counterproductive to the marketing efforts of DT.
On a site forum, we have to present a uniform professional positive face to (potential) customers. I would never post a message like this on the DT forum since it might awaken sleeping dogs (customers). We have a common goal with the agency, and that is sales.
Customers don't read these independent forums, unless they are contributors themselves, so we can digress a bit...


I have no idea what you are talking about.
No, just kidding, thanks for details on this. LOL

Maybe you should modify this post (delete).

Kone

« Reply #65 on: March 29, 2010, 10:23 »
0
Maybe you should modify this post (delete).
Sure, after you quoted it entirely.  ;D

« Reply #66 on: March 29, 2010, 13:30 »
0
I still don't see the point in all the "details"  ???  We get paid like authors; if Tom Clancy gets paid $million from writing a book, does he care how much came from the sales of hardbacks and how much from paperbacks?

As long as my sales at DT continue to rise as they have since subs changes, I think I would be foolish to worry about exactly how each sales was made. I would be better off spending my time trying to make better images :D

« Reply #67 on: March 29, 2010, 13:49 »
0
I still don't see the point in all the "details"  ???  We get paid like authors; if Tom Clancy gets paid $million from writing a book, does he care how much came from the sales of hardbacks and how much from paperbacks?

As long as my sales at DT continue to rise as they have since subs changes, I think I would be foolish to worry about exactly how each sales was made. I would be better off spending my time trying to make better images :D

Here's someone doing something right.  Hard to question the logic of someone whose numbers are this good... by that I mean ratio of uploads to sales... check out his rank info.  Clearly he gets it that time is better spent giving customers more of what they want vs. wasting time trying to figure out how they bought it.

« Reply #68 on: March 29, 2010, 14:40 »
0
I still don't see the point in all the "details"  ???  We get paid like authors; if Tom Clancy gets paid $million from writing a book, does he care how much came from the sales of hardbacks and how much from paperbacks?

As long as my sales at DT continue to rise as they have since subs changes, I think I would be foolish to worry about exactly how each sales was made. I would be better off spending my time trying to make better images :D

That is true also, however, as I said earlier I would like to find the reason why my sales have gone down. If I find out that Dreamstime is the reason for my decline, I will put them down in my priority list and make another agency as my favorite,  for example FT. They were way behind DT, but now they are in third place as my favorite instead of DT. The better one is the one that sells more. I look through their photos and I try to take photos of those images that I think would sell well though that agency. It is still good to know a little bit of everything, it can only help you it can't hurt you.

Kone

« Reply #69 on: March 29, 2010, 15:00 »
0
I look through their photos and I try to take photos of those images that I think would sell well though that agency. It is still good to know a little bit of everything, it can only help you it can't hurt you.

I've found that while certain styles or subject matter sell slightly better on one site over another, by and large a good seller one one site will at worst be a decent seller on another.  (One thing I keep in mind is that many FT buyers tend to be European, so subject matter that is uniquely American may not be big sellers on FT.)   

However, overanalysis of this stuff CAN be counterproductive if it's hurting your productivity of new images.  Just generate what you feel are marketable images, upload them to all the sites, and accept that results may vary slightly from site to site.  I'm all for researching the market and against "feed the beast" mentality... but too much overthinking and too little actual creation of new pics won't help you meet your goals.

« Reply #70 on: March 29, 2010, 15:54 »
0
I've found that while certain styles or subject matter sell slightly better on one site over another, by and large a good seller one one site will at worst be a decent seller on another.  (One thing I keep in mind is that many FT buyers tend to be European, so subject matter that is uniquely American may not be big sellers on FT.)   

However, overanalysis of this stuff CAN be counterproductive if it's hurting your productivity of new images.  Just generate what you feel are marketable images, upload them to all the sites, and accept that results may vary slightly from site to site.  I'm all for researching the market and against "feed the beast" mentality... but too much overthinking and too little actual creation of new pics won't help you meet your goals.

Thanks for reply.

That is absolutely true, I found that out too, as many others have. But if I knew that before I upload my images, it could help generate money quicker.
Don't worry, I won't go overboard, I am working right now and periodically checking forum.

« Reply #71 on: March 29, 2010, 17:47 »
0

I've found that while certain styles or subject matter sell slightly better on one site over another, by and large a good seller one one site will at worst be a decent seller on another.  (One thing I keep in mind is that many FT buyers tend to be European, so subject matter that is uniquely American may not be big sellers on FT.)   

However, overanalysis of this stuff CAN be counterproductive if it's hurting your productivity of new images.  Just generate what you feel are marketable images, upload them to all the sites, and accept that results may vary slightly from site to site.  I'm all for researching the market and against "feed the beast" mentality... but too much overthinking and too little actual creation of new pics won't help you meet your goals.

Well spoken PowerDroid.
Yes, I too noticed that images that DT reviewers (or at least a certain one) reject over "poor composition" or "no stock potential" (lol, like that reviewer actually foresees the latter...excuse while I laugh my a off..)
those same images sold well with FT and even IS.

Also, yes, FT is in fact more Euro, and certain images that are dead with DT sell well with FT, and vice versa.
Yet a third thing I noticed at DT is that the oldest and older images tend to be selling, while the newest seem to be not located ( the mind boggles),
whereas at FT, you get a dl almost instantly within days of the image being approved.

For that, I think FT is more "fair" about what images are being "found" by the search .
or at least, I am guessing this must explain why newest images sell fastest  on FT, while DT seems to take
weeks.. months.. whatever.

any speculations  from experts here why this may be so?

« Reply #72 on: March 30, 2010, 14:00 »
0
I still don't see the point in all the "details"  ???
I was talking from the viewpoint of a buyer (doing the math), offering some possible explanation as why there seemed to be an increase in subs. Probably, DT is very aware of this high-level images trap. As a contributor, total revenue is indeed the most important as the SS case shows. Subs are a can of worms, but DT didn't open it. Others did.

« Reply #73 on: March 31, 2010, 00:40 »
0
March was 50% of February for me.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #74 on: April 01, 2010, 19:59 »
0
Really sad for me ... RPD=$.50.  Tangie has posted a blog article about "how the search engine works."  It pretty much spells out why I get such a low rating.   :'(

PS:  123rf sales were four times better than DT.  I have really pissed somebody off.   :P
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 20:01 by WarrenPrice »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
77 Replies
22723 Views
Last post November 12, 2013, 17:50
by robynmac
252 Replies
55003 Views
Last post February 16, 2016, 10:44
by jonbull
Veer dying ?

Started by Julied83 « 1 2  All » Veer

37 Replies
12917 Views
Last post February 04, 2016, 08:30
by ssviluppo
16 Replies
3522 Views
Last post November 22, 2015, 05:43
by mojaric
13 Replies
3135 Views
Last post May 03, 2019, 02:01
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle