Author Topic: FP test changes on pricing and commission! (Read 30726 times)

madelaide · « **Reply #50 on:** June 04, 2009, 22:40 »

They are paying 80c to $1 for each of those images, for a minimum of 20 and 15 images respectively. It's less than credits anywhere, but it's more than any subs.

Phil · « **Reply #51 on:** June 04, 2009, 22:54 »

just trying to clarify

# 1500px max size - $3
# 2400px max size - $5
# 4800 max size - $7
# 6400 max size - $10
# 8000 max size - $15
# 9600 max size - $20

is that pixels area? (ie 4800 = 4.8 megapixels)

null · « **Reply #52 on:** June 04, 2009, 23:02 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 04, 2009, 22:40

They are paying 80c to $1 for each of those images, for a minimum of 20 and 15 images respectively. It's less than credits anywhere, but it's more than any subs.

Apart from all these pricing issues, the main issue is still sales. I really don't care if a sub is 1$ or 0.7$ as long as there is volume. I'm already at 40.05$ at SS today. And I'm still at 0$ at FP since April's payout. If FP converts to just another microstosck site, it should think about its USP. Your idea of setting up a different account for "gold images" only sounds good.

Elena · « **Reply #53 on:** June 05, 2009, 00:28 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on June 04, 2009, 23:02

Quote from: madelaide on June 04, 2009, 22:40
They are paying 80c to $1 for each of those images, for a minimum of 20 and 15 images respectively. It's less than credits anywhere, but it's more than any subs.

Apart from all these pricing issues, the main issue is still sales. I really don't care if a sub is 1$ or 0.7$ as long as there is volume. I'm already at 40.05$ at SS today. And I'm still at 0$ at FP since April's payout. If FP converts to just another microstosck site, it should think about its USP. Your idea of setting up a different account for "gold images" only sounds good.

"If FP converts to just another microstosck site" - seems like a micro-stock portfolio with "no-sense" prices is qualified to be as "different".
Come on...
I believed the point has been made.
Yes! NOW it IS "another microstock" with weired pricing.
And it should be changed.
FeaturePics is sending (believe you or not) payments every month, and the all efforts are about to increase the number of payments.
"40.05$ at SS today." - you just proved my points.
The same images but different terms and conditions for buyers.

rene · « **Reply #54 on:** June 05, 2009, 02:55 »

Quote from: Eco on June 04, 2009, 01:45

Please Elena. Can we have a limit on the size of images available as subscription downloads. If not I will have to remove all my XXL images from FP and replace them with down sized versions.

+1
But I'll delete for sure but I'm not sure to re-upload later.

Milinz · « **Reply #55 on:** June 05, 2009, 03:31 »

Well if you don't like to sell on FP your microstock images despite you are selling that same images on other micros then you may leave. It is not point for FP in having authors who wish only money at no matter what will happen in the future to agencies which sell their microstock images for much more money than on micros...

FP has very good chances to be very near Veer if this plan succeed. I follow very carefully what is happening and I see that differentiation on products is very good to have if you want to take part of market and buyers from other competitors.

FP will have several product groups in firstly introduced plan with 2 main categories and product groups:
1. Very competitive standard category with microstock images.
2. Very competitive mid-stock (more traditional) category for wealthy buyers who don't wish to buy from microstock.

So, FP starts to be something else - not 'just one more microstock' it starts to be very competitive stock images agency with products for all kinds of buyers!

So, please stop that whining about 30 cents per dollar and go create something.

Let FP crew to do what they should do - represent our images on the best possible ways and make money for them and for us!

m@m · « **Reply #56 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:07 »

BRAVO! Milinz, well said.

madelaide · « **Reply #57 on:** June 05, 2009, 15:02 »

Quote from: Phil on June 04, 2009, 22:54

is that pixels area? (ie 4800 = 4.8 megapixels)

No, it's maximum size (a 4800x3600 image, for instance).

Phil · « **Reply #58 on:** June 05, 2009, 23:14 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 05, 2009, 15:02

Quote from: Phil on June 04, 2009, 22:54
is that pixels area? (ie 4800 = 4.8 megapixels)
No, it's maximum size (a 4800x3600 image, for instance).

thanks,

thats a huge difference between sizes. oh well as long they dont actually resize the image down so that my 4750 pixel image can only be downloaded at 2400 max (like snap did)

Phil

Pixart · « **Reply #59 on:** June 06, 2009, 00:22 »

I've had 2 sales there this week and that's the first time since, well... ever.

donding · « **Reply #60 on:** June 08, 2009, 09:34 »

Any one wonder why they aren't including a 3800px max size?? My Nikon D200 only takes 3800...something..max size. It seems they are missing that size in between the 2400 and the 4800 size. I was surprised to see nobody questioned that. I just posted the same question on the Featurepics forum..so hopefully they will consider it for all.

null · « **Reply #61 on:** June 08, 2009, 09:57 »

Quote from: donding on June 08, 2009, 09:34

Any one wonder why they aren't including a 3800px max size?? My Nikon D200 only takes 3800...something..max size. It seems they are missing that size in between the 2400 and the 4800 size.

Yes their sizes are very weird and they left the popular 10MP cams out with 3872-3888 pix longest size. If I ever upload to FP again, it will be downsized to 2400 longest side. That would mean a fourth format apart from original, 6MP for SS and 49MB upsized for Alamy. I'm not sure if I will do that, just for FP. Now that FP is changing to just another microstock site and left its original project, I will probably delete my port there. I need to concentrate on sites that sell like iStock.

Milinz · « **Reply #62 on:** June 08, 2009, 10:07 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on June 08, 2009, 09:57

Quote from: donding on June 08, 2009, 09:34
Any one wonder why they aren't including a 3800px max size?? My Nikon D200 only takes 3800...something..max size. It seems they are missing that size in between the 2400 and the 4800 size.

Yes their sizes are very weird and they left the popular 10MP cams out with 3872-3888 pix longest size. If I ever upload to FP again, it will be downsized to 2400 longest side. That would mean a fourth format apart from original, 6MP for SS and 49MB upsized for Alamy. I'm not sure if I will do that, just for FP. Now that FP is changing to just another microstock site and left its original project, I will probably delete my port there. I need to concentrate on sites that sell like iStock.

Again you are not right ;-)

10mp images should be around $7-$10.

BTW, there is nothing wrong wiht original concept of featurepics. They are just facing reality and showing it that if you are microstock photographer you should have your images listed as microstock images.

Mid-stock is still live there as well as RM...

The only what is changed are prices of microstock images (which drop down) and microstock photographers commission (which is still very high fair 50%)...

So, 20% on istock is better choice? Good luck then!

DanP68 · « **Reply #63 on:** June 08, 2009, 12:48 »

Quote from: Elena on June 05, 2009, 00:28

Quote from: FlemishDreams on June 04, 2009, 23:02
Quote from: madelaide on June 04, 2009, 22:40
They are paying 80c to $1 for each of those images, for a minimum of 20 and 15 images respectively. It's less than credits anywhere, but it's more than any subs.

Apart from all these pricing issues, the main issue is still sales. I really don't care if a sub is 1$ or 0.7$ as long as there is volume. I'm already at 40.05$ at SS today. And I'm still at 0$ at FP since April's payout. If FP converts to just another microstosck site, it should think about its USP. Your idea of setting up a different account for "gold images" only sounds good.

"If FP converts to just another microstosck site" - seems like a micro-stock portfolio with "no-sense" prices is qualified to be as "different".
Come on...
I believed the point has been made.
Yes! NOW it IS "another microstock" with weired pricing.
And it should be changed.
FeaturePics is sending (believe you or not) payments every month, and the all efforts are about to increase the number of payments.
"40.05$ at SS today." - you just proved my points.
The same images but different terms and conditions for buyers.

According to Flemish's scoreboard, it's 40.05 to 0 in favor of SS today so you have some catching up to do. In my year at FP, I earned $9, none of which I ever saw since it was nowhere near payout. Over the same time period I made 4 figures at Dreamstime, 4 figures at iStock, and 4 figures at Shutterstock.

Ironic when you think about it. Judging by the amount of contributors who have given up at FP after only making $5 or $10 over a year or two, I would assume FP has made a tidy sum by keeping 100% of the commissions on these non-paid out accounts. Suddenly that 70% commission doesn't sound like such a great deal.

FP, Yay, MostPhotos, Albumo, and on and on. So many promises, so little results.

dirkr · « **Reply #64 on:** June 08, 2009, 17:34 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 08, 2009, 10:07

10mp images should be around $7-$10.

Who says so???

Istock charges 12 Credits for my 8 Mpx files, depending on Credit package that can be up to 18 $.

At FT those files go as XL, thats 6 Credits. Or for higher ranked contributors it can be 12 Credits, that would be (in Europe) 12 €.

At DT depending on image level prices for that size can go up to 20$.

The same files sell via StockXpert as PPD on Photos.com for higher prices (admittedly not often...).

I sell the same files in German Midstock sites for prices between 15€ and 50€ for full size (again, not the same number of sales as on SS but they do sell).

So why do you believe the only way to go is to drive prices down?

I do not believe in the fairy tale of the customer who checks all sites before making a purchase just to save a few dollars.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #65 on:** June 08, 2009, 18:52 »

I was considering uploading. Hope this confusion settles on the side of no Subs ... or, at least some sensible controls on what is available via sub prices.

I'm on hold.

madelaide · « **Reply #66 on:** June 08, 2009, 19:16 »

I would suggest that you guys voice your opinions at FP forum.

http://www.featureimage.com/forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=506

null · « **Reply #67 on:** June 09, 2009, 03:40 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 08, 2009, 19:16

I would suggest that you guys voice your opinions at FP forum.

I lost my password again so I won't bother to write there. Why do they need to have a different pwd for the site and the forum? You and Milinz are doing a great job filling up the FP forum as I saw so I just limit myself to make photos and take your advice when the dust is settled there

Sure Istock is bad and FP is great, but I can only observe that Istock made me twice as much money since April as FP ever did in 2 years and with only 1/4 of my port. I'm just following the money

Milinz · « **Reply #68 on:** June 09, 2009, 22:00 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on June 09, 2009, 03:40

Quote from: madelaide on June 08, 2009, 19:16
I would suggest that you guys voice your opinions at FP forum.

I lost my password again so I won't bother to write there. Why do they need to have a different pwd for the site and the forum? You and Milinz are doing a great job filling up the FP forum as I saw so I just limit myself to make photos and take your advice when the dust is settled there

Sure Istock is bad and FP is great, but I can only observe that Istock made me twice as much money since April as FP ever did in 2 years and with only 1/4 of my port. I'm just following the money

Yes... Well... I really don't care about that anymore...

madelaide · « **Reply #69 on:** July 08, 2009, 16:48 »

Discussion about sizes vs prices is going on at FP. If you want to voice your opinion:

http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=523

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #70 on:** July 09, 2009, 07:28 »

FP has a new pricing plan and it is working! Sold images last night after sitting silent for months. I do think they are on to someting and big changes in opinions of FP will soon follow. I am uploading more today.

-Larry

sharpshot · « **Reply #71 on:** July 09, 2009, 08:41 »

I haven't sold anything there since May. Perhaps their buyer doesn't like me anymore

graficallyminded · « **Reply #72 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:02 »

I just posted this on the FP forum, but I'll also post it here as well.

These new image sizes/prices seem a little whacked. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

An 8 megapixel digital camera creates a file with pixel dimensions of 3504 x 2336 - that means the most we can make is $5 on the image, before the revenue split. Even on images that are 8-13 megapixels...same price? That leaves me a little confused. It definitely doesn't follow the trends of the industry. You guys need to reexamine this, because obviously a customer is getting a lot more image size for the money if the photographer shot it using a 12.7 megapixel camera, as compared to an 8 megapixel camera. Even the Canon 5D which is Even photoshop raster (jpeg) graphics never usually get larger than 25 megapixels. The 9600 max size - $20 seems a bit high. How many images are there even on the site that are this length on the longest side?

Here are some pixel dimensions of cameras that are widely used. All of these are going to be priced at $5 according to the current standards.
Canon 20D (8 mp) 3504 x 2336
Canon 5D (12.7 mp) 4368 x 2112
Nikon D700 (12 mp) 4356 x 2832 = All of these images will sell for $5 according to this pricing plan.

Canon 5dmk2(21 mp) 5616 x 3744 = $7 image sales. Are you serious? Let's all go out and upgrade to a 21 megapixel camera body just so that we can make $1 more per image sale, after commissions.

I don't give a flying crap about exclusivity. I don't do it, and never will. Most contributors aren't going to enter images into midstock rates if they have to be exclusive. Perhaps a better idea would be to make another option, like Panthermedia. Different percentage cuts on exclusive images vs images also offered at the other micros. I believe they offer 50% for exclusive midstock images, and 30% on those same images that are also being sold elsewhere.

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #73 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:10 »

Quote from: graficallyminded on July 09, 2009, 09:02

I just posted this on the FP forum, but I'll also post it here as well.

These new image sizes/prices seem a little whacked. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

An 8 megapixel digital camera creates a file with pixel dimensions of 3504 x 2336 - that means the most we can make is $5 on the image, before the revenue split. Even on images that are 8-13 megapixels...same price? That leaves me a little confused. It definitely doesn't follow the trends of the industry. You guys need to reexamine this, because obviously a customer is getting a lot more image size for the money if the photographer shot it using a 12.7 megapixel camera, as compared to an 8 megapixel camera. Even the Canon 5D which is Even photoshop raster (jpeg) graphics never usually get larger than 25 megapixels. The 9600 max size - $20 seems a bit high. How many images are there even on the site that are this length on the longest side?

Here are some pixel dimensions of cameras that are widely used. All of these are going to be priced at $5 according to the current standards.
Canon 20D (8 mp) 3504 x 2336
Canon 5D (12.7 mp) 4368 x 2112
Nikon D700 (12 mp) 4356 x 2832 = All of these images will sell for $5 according to this pricing plan.

Canon 5dmk2(21 mp) 5616 x 3744 = $7 image sales. Are you serious? Let's all go out and upgrade to a 21 megapixel camera body just so that we can make $1 more per image sale, after commissions.

I don't give a flying crap about exclusivity. I don't do it, and never will. Most contributors aren't going to enter images into midstock rates if they have to be exclusive. Perhaps a better idea would be to make another option, like Panthermedia. Different percentage cuts on exclusive images vs images also offered at the other micros. I believe they offer 50% for exclusive midstock images, and 30% on those same images that are also being sold elsewhere.

I just copied the price break down for one image and your prices above look to be off a bit.

-Larry

Size (w x h) in pixels Price
under subscription(*) $0.25
800 x 533 (0.4MP) under plan(*) $0.80
1000 x 667 (0.7MP) under plan(*) $1.00
1500 x 1000 (1.5MP) $3.00
2400 x 1600 (3.8MP) $5.00
3072x2048 (6.3MP) original size $7.00

madelaide · « **Reply #74 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:13 »

graficallyminded,

There are propositions in the thread that maybe you haven't seen. This is what Elena proposed based on comments I made in another thread:

Quote

I used Adelaide suggestion for the original size:
http://files.featurepics.com/images/pricing.jpg
1 - 5 - $3;
5 -7 - $5;
7 - 10 - $7;
10 - 15 - $10;
15 - 20 - $15;
more - $25;

A 21MPix would therefore sell for $25. In a previous proposition (which perhaps is currently implemented), it would cost $10:

Quote

Images will be priced automatically as:
1500px max size - $3
2400px max size - $5
4800 max size - $7
6400 max size - $10
8000 max size - $15
9600 max size - $20

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: FP test changes on pricing and commission! (Read 30726 times)

madelaide

Phil

null

Elena

rene

Milinz

m@m

madelaide

Phil

Pixart

donding

null

Milinz

DanP68

dirkr

WarrenPrice

madelaide

null

Milinz

madelaide

Lcjtripod

sharpshot

graficallyminded

Lcjtripod

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors