pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: FP test changes on pricing and commission!  (Read 25657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

m@m

« on: May 31, 2009, 22:21 »
0
Featurepics unveils their new test pricing and commission structure today, it seems that allot of changes are going to be happening there, the new structure may bring lots of sales to the site and its contributors, very interesting, check it out guys, it looks like a new chapter for FP.

http://featureimage.com/FP-Test/account/updates.aspx
« Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 22:23 by m@m »


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2009, 01:37 »
0
I wouldn't mind this if I could still sell my microstock photos at full size for $10.  Most of them will be cut to $5.  There are low sales there and I don't see that changing much.  I tried cutting my prices before and it made no difference.  If someone is willing to pay $7, they will pay $10.  Several other site have no problems selling at more than $10.

I will give it another 6 months and hope this works but if my earnings fall, I will leave.

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2009, 02:49 »
0
Well I've said a number of times with them that would accept a commision decrease if it means more marketing, so I'm hopeful.

Personally its good to see them making changes and being a dynamic. I expect it will take a while before much is seen, but hopefully it would be good. If not I'm not losing a lot.

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2009, 04:29 »
0
I always liked Featurepics. Someone will say that easy upload system and helpful staff aren't important if sales are low, but I think those things are important. When you need about one minute to submit some 15-20 files, than I don't see the reason for leaving the site. You never know when will some agency introduce something that will totally change the situation in microstock field and bring that agency up.

m@m

« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2009, 09:41 »
0
My sentiments exactly, Whitechild, this move could turn out to be good all around.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2009, 10:30 »
0
I'm assuming that the mid stock are alright as long as they aren't listed on micro stock....now my question is what if they are on Alamy? Are they still considered exclusive to featurepics and can you list them as such?

Milinz

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2009, 10:47 »
0
I'm assuming that the mid stock are alright as long as they aren't listed on micro stock....now my question is what if they are on Alamy? Are they still considered exclusive to featurepics and can you list them as such?

Alamy is not microstock... So, that is out of question that is to be considered as any kind of problem if you have listed images there or even on some other big sites as Gettyimages, Veer (not marketplace) or Fotosearch (but Canstockphoto EXCLUDED)...

[EDIT] Only what I am not so sure is how it will be handled in situation when your images on Alamy are sold under their subscriptions...
I am sure that such images (gold derivates and mid-stock) will be included in future affiliating with other mid-stock sites under some circumstances and additional licences with tweaked commissions for authors.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 10:51 by Milinz »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2009, 11:26 »
0
I'm assuming that the mid stock are alright as long as they aren't listed on micro stock....now my question is what if they are on Alamy? Are they still considered exclusive to featurepics and can you list them as such?

Alamy is not microstock... So, that is out of question that is to be considered as any kind of problem if you have listed images there or even on some other big sites as Gettyimages, Veer (not marketplace) or Fotosearch (but Canstockphoto EXCLUDED)...

[EDIT] Only what I am not so sure is how it will be handled in situation when your images on Alamy are sold under their subscriptions...
I am sure that such images (gold derivates and mid-stock) will be included in future affiliating with other mid-stock sites under some circumstances and additional licences with tweaked commissions for authors.


Thanks for the info Milinz. Maybe what I'll do is delete the non sellers on alamy and put them on featurepics. I just haven't had luck with Alamy and hopefully I will with featurepics once this is started. That's the reason I went to micro stock. I've only sold one on there and that was last year and my share....well 29.95. Long ways from the $200.00 payout...lol. When are they planning to let us begin this? I know I looked today and they don't have the new stuff on the portfolio page yet.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2009, 11:31 »
0
Another question...is Most Photos considered microstock or mid stock... I just started uploading there in the last week and haven't sold anything.

« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2009, 11:48 »
0
Thanks for the info Milinz. Maybe what I'll do is delete the non sellers on alamy and put them on featurepics. I just haven't had luck with Alamy and hopefully I will with featurepics once this is started. That's the reason I went to micro stock. I've only sold one on there and that was last year and my share....well 29.95. Long ways from the $200.00 payout...lol. When are they planning to let us begin this? I know I looked today and they don't have the new stuff on the portfolio page yet.


Wow.. Seems like it is not clear, that
http://featureimage.com/FP-Test/
IS THE VERSION where you can make these changes.
Please login there and go to "Manage portfolio".

Review Mid Stock Images - a list of images you listed for >$15. You need to move them into the mid-stock or micro-sock categories.
Review Gold Images - we preselected just a few, so the list can be empty
Submit Gold - a place where you can submit your gold images.

It is very difficult to go through the entire portfolio, that is why we marked all images <=$15 as standard,
>$15 - you need select the category (standard or mid-stock)
Thank you!

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2009, 11:51 »
0
Thanks for the info Milinz. Maybe what I'll do is delete the non sellers on alamy and put them on featurepics. I just haven't had luck with Alamy and hopefully I will with featurepics once this is started. That's the reason I went to micro stock. I've only sold one on there and that was last year and my share....well 29.95. Long ways from the $200.00 payout...lol. When are they planning to let us begin this? I know I looked today and they don't have the new stuff on the portfolio page yet.


Wow.. Seems like it is not clear, that
http://featureimage.com/FP-Test/
IS THE VERSION where you can make these changes.
Please login there and go to "Manage portfolio".

Review Mid Stock Images - a list of images you listed for >$15. You need to move them into the mid-stock or micro-sock categories.
Review Gold Images - we preselected just a few, so the list can be empty
Submit Gold - a place where you can submit your gold images.

It is very difficult to go through the entire portfolio, that is why we marked all images <=$15 as standard,
>$15 - you need select the category (standard or mid-stock)
Thank you!


That's Elena...I'll go there now

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2009, 12:02 »
0
Elena.......when I go to Manage Portfolio....it is still the same. There is no place to go change the catagory to micro or mid stock or submit for gold images. All I have on ther right now is micro stock..is this why I don't see the option's???

I'm sorry I keep asking, but I just don't see the same layout that appears on the
http://featureimage.com/FP-Test/account/updates.aspx

« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2009, 12:10 »
0
http://featureimage.com/FP-Test/
IS THE VERSION where you can make these changes.
Please login there and go to "Manage portfolio".


Login doesn't seem to work for me on this test site.  It works fine for me on the real site.

m@m

« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2009, 12:14 »
0
Same here ???

« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2009, 12:22 »
0
am checking...

« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2009, 12:36 »
0
fixed.

« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2009, 18:39 »
0
Looks to me like the one actually good feature of FeaturePics (setting your own price) is basically gone. 

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2009, 19:22 »
0
Elena...I hope you're still out there...just uploaded 79 exclusive pics and it won't let me save them.....what's the deal??

« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2009, 20:06 »
0
Looks to me like the one actually good feature of FeaturePics (setting your own price) is basically gone. 
Nope!!!
You will be able to set YOUR OWN PRICE for mid-stock images ($30-$100).
But... if you are offering your images for $0.20 somewhere -
what is the point to price them more than $15 at FP?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2009, 20:07 »
0
Now I've gone in under the regular way and did a few....then went in under the new way and tryed to submit as gold...well I put the number in and it says it belongs to a different author.

« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2009, 20:09 »
0
Now I've gone in under the regular way and did a few....then went in under the new way and tryed to submit as gold...well I put the number in and it says it belongs to a different author.
oops, give me the ref number... please

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2009, 20:11 »
0
Now I've gone in under the regular way and did a few....then went in under the new way and tryed to submit as gold...well I put the number in and it says it belongs to a different author.
oops, give me the ref number... please

I2200184
Heh I'm trying hard....just can't seem to get it to work.

« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2009, 20:20 »
0
Now I've gone in under the regular way and did a few....then went in under the new way and tryed to submit as gold...well I put the number in and it says it belongs to a different author.
oops, give me the ref number... please

I2200184
Heh I'm trying hard....just can't seem to get it to work.
Ok, Ok,...
I need to change the wording...
This image has not accepted yet.
We are trying to "categorize" the published (obviously "accepted") images.



« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2009, 20:30 »
0
Nope!!!  You will be able to set YOUR OWN PRICE for mid-stock images ($30-$100).
But... if you are offering your images for $0.20 somewhere -
what is the point to price them more than $15 at FP?

I don't offer my images for .20 - think about how Dreamstime works.  I sell more and the rates go up.  I can have images priced over $10 for a buyer there pretty easily.  With FeaturePics I've always had to do my own marketing - so why not get more of the profit when I do much more of the work?

The only thing is - that's a more unique business model.  I guess we'll see how this plays out now.


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2009, 20:32 »
0
Now I've gone in under the regular way and did a few....then went in under the new way and tryed to submit as gold...well I put the number in and it says it belongs to a different author.
oops, give me the ref number... please

I2200184
Heh I'm trying hard....just can't seem to get it to work.
Ok, Ok,...
I need to change the wording...
This image has not accepted yet.
We are trying to "categorize" the published (obviously "accepted") images.




Thnaks..that explains it

« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2009, 20:48 »
0
Now I've gone in under the regular way and did a few....then went in under the new way and tryed to submit as gold...well I put the number in and it says it belongs to a different author.

oops, give me the ref number... please


I2200184
Heh I'm trying hard....just can't seem to get it to work.

Ok, Ok,...
I need to change the wording...
This image has not accepted yet.
We are trying to "categorize" the published (obviously "accepted") images.





Thnaks..that explains it

I answered your question at:
http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=1928&#1928

Will ask our technical write to address this issue....
Thanks a lot!

« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2009, 20:56 »
0
Nope!!!  You will be able to set YOUR OWN PRICE for mid-stock images ($30-$100).
But... if you are offering your images for $0.20 somewhere -
what is the point to price them more than $15 at FP?

I don't offer my images for .20 - think about how Dreamstime works.  I sell more and the rates go up.  I can have images priced over $10 for a buyer there pretty easily.  With FeaturePics I've always had to do my own marketing - so why not get more of the profit when I do much more of the work?

The only thing is - that's a more unique business model.  I guess we'll see how this plays out now.



"so why not get more of the profit when I do much more of the work?" - I believe it is an excellent point.
Let's think how we can "award" Authors for "more of the work".

I just want to be sure - you would like to set your own prices disregarding of "misro-stock" presense. Correct?
And you would like to do your own marketing to sell your images for the price you have listed.

It is possible...

Let's keep it in our "THINK"/"TODO" list.

« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2009, 18:24 »
0
I don't mind the fixed prices for microstock images, but I don't like the subscription at all.  They are considering setting a size limit for subs, but I still don't like it.  I hope they will keep the opt out option.

Milinz

« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2009, 05:13 »
0
I don't mind the fixed prices for microstock images, but I don't like the subscription at all.  They are considering setting a size limit for subs, but I still don't like it.  I hope they will keep the opt out option.


I really don't believe that opt-out button will be available from subscriptions... Maybe only some file size limit - but that also is questionable since subs are meant to be just an way to marketing (advertise) FP more than in passed times...

« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2009, 10:42 »
0
Millinz,

That would be disappointing, as in the past FP always let us opt out from changes - and subscription is a very dramatic change. 

« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2009, 11:03 »
0
With FeaturePics I've always had to do my own marketing - so why not get more of the profit when I do much more of the work?

I just don't grasp it all. With all these changes (SS included), I feel more and more like an accountant than as a photogapher. I built my site around FP too, with all links to FP. Now FP as we knew it is gone, apparently because the business model failed, it is just another stock site with subscription. I don't have time to go over all my port and re-price it so in effect, all my shots will fall back on 5$. The worst is I will have to redo my site and put all links to DT.

« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2009, 11:08 »
0
Flemish,

I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.

Milinz

« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2009, 13:10 »
0
Ok... What do you think about subscription per credit?

Look at veer marketplace how they solved that... Interesting solution ;-)

« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2009, 14:05 »
0
Flemish,

I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.
We have this discussion to make the right decisions.
If we don't care of Authors' opinion - we would release the version 3 days ago.
"another stock site with subscription." - wait a minute! We are making these changes to present mid-stock and gold in a better way. Now these images are lost!
And we are missleading clients with the prices. "Missleading" is a very soft word for the situation when we ask buyers to pay $50 for the images that they can buy for $0.20.
Do you think it is OK to continue to full clients?
We have many Authors who really don't want to sell on micro-stock (all images or some of them).
Do you think it is OK to list their images for the same price?
Do you think it is OK to continue the practice that doesn't work?

Milinz

« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2009, 14:19 »
0
Flemish,

I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.
We have this discussion to make the right decisions.
If we don't care of Authors' opinion - we would release the version 3 days ago.
"another stock site with subscription." - wait a minute! We are making these changes to present mid-stock and gold in a better way. Now these images are lost!
And we are missleading clients with the prices. "Missleading" is a very soft word for the situation when we ask buyers to pay $50 for the images that they can buy for $0.20.
Do you think it is OK to continue to full clients?
We have many Authors who really don't want to sell on micro-stock (all images or some of them).
Do you think it is OK to list their images for the same price?
Do you think it is OK to continue the practice that doesn't work?


Elena,

These questions with answer are SPOT ON!

I'd like to see answers from fellow authors due to I support you 100%


« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2009, 14:41 »
0
Flemish,

I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.
We have this discussion to make the right decisions.
If we don't care of Authors' opinion - we would release the version 3 days ago.
"another stock site with subscription." - wait a minute! We are making these changes to present mid-stock and gold in a better way. Now these images are lost!
And we are missleading clients with the prices. "Missleading" is a very soft word for the situation when we ask buyers to pay $50 for the images that they can buy for $0.20.
Do you think it is OK to continue to full clients?
We have many Authors who really don't want to sell on micro-stock (all images or some of them).
Do you think it is OK to list their images for the same price?
Do you think it is OK to continue the practice that doesn't work?


Elena,
These questions with answer are SPOT ON!
I'd like to see answers from fellow authors due to I support you 100%
Do not support "me", support "us".
Everybody who received at least one payment earned more than me.

Yes, we need to stop paying bank fees for very small transactions. They add "-" to FP earnings.
We need to give our clients very clear answer regarding prices.
We need to eliminate a lot of functions that distract everybody.
We need to stop "it doesn't work for me but I want the site as is".

subs - it is very easy to "eliminate". It would take 2 seconds.
But do we know the answer now?
Probably nobody will pay $1000 for a plan, but everybody will know that it is an option.

« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2009, 15:11 »
0
Flemish,

I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.
We have this discussion to make the right decisions.
If we don't care of Authors' opinion - we would release the version 3 days ago.
"another stock site with subscription." - wait a minute! We are making these changes to present mid-stock and gold in a better way. Now these images are lost!
And we are missleading clients with the prices. "Missleading" is a very soft word for the situation when we ask buyers to pay $50 for the images that they can buy for $0.20.
Do you think it is OK to continue to full clients?
We have many Authors who really don't want to sell on micro-stock (all images or some of them).
Do you think it is OK to list their images for the same price?
Do you think it is OK to continue the practice that doesn't work?

Elena, is this answer directed towards me?

« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2009, 15:25 »
0
Flemish,

I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.
We have this discussion to make the right decisions.
If we don't care of Authors' opinion - we would release the version 3 days ago.
"another stock site with subscription." - wait a minute! We are making these changes to present mid-stock and gold in a better way. Now these images are lost!
And we are missleading clients with the prices. "Missleading" is a very soft word for the situation when we ask buyers to pay $50 for the images that they can buy for $0.20.
Do you think it is OK to continue to full clients?
We have many Authors who really don't want to sell on micro-stock (all images or some of them).
Do you think it is OK to list their images for the same price?
Do you think it is OK to continue the practice that doesn't work?

Elena, is this answer directed towards me?

Adelaide, no these questions are for everybody.
Sorry, if I clicked "Quote". I am trying to do 1000 things at once:)

« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2009, 15:30 »
0
Ok, Elena, it's just that I was confused.  :)

« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2009, 19:05 »
0
I posted the following on the FP forum, but I think it makes sense to include it here as well:


Elena,

I can't say I like what I see.
I recently joined FP because I wanted to support the site due to two facts:

- 70% commission. It is great when a agency cares for the authors and pays out a high percentage.
- Pricing. I do not care too much that I can set my own prices, but it allows me to NOT take part in any kind of price war.

With these announcements you are taking away those advantages of your site.

First: Why do you need to reduce commissions??? That is very very disappointing.
Second: The proposed pricing for "standard" would even be ok, but the sizes are looking strange. "Max Size 4800, 6400, 8000, 9600" ??? What kind of pictures do you expect here? Like we all gonna buy Hasselblad from now on?
Third: I do not believe in the price sensitivity of customers as it is implied by this new scheme. The distinction between "standard" and "Mid-stock" is a bit strange - as well as asking authors to guarantee that they don't offer these images at "micros". What defines a microstock site in that context? Will you give a list of sites? Or a minimum price that must be achieved?
I believe that distinction is a very bad idea...

Last but not least: I don't think the industry needs another low-priced subscription site. All you will do is take away customers from existing subscription sites. Why should I support that?
Why not try a better subscription model? Educate buyers! A subscription is nothing else than a volume rebate with some special terms. So if you give buyers a subscription for e.g. 10 images a day for 500$ a month, that is less than 2$ per image. If you give them away full size, assuming a reasonable price of 10$ for a full size image, that would still be a discount of 80%. That is enough. And you could probably still pay contributors 2$ per sub download...

As said before, these changes as proposed are not what I wanted to see when I joined a few weeks ago.
It took me some time to upload my port here and I would be sorry if I had to remove it again.

Best Regards,
Dirk

« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2009, 20:14 »
0
I posted the following on the FP forum, but I think it makes sense to include it here as well:


Elena,

I can't say I like what I see.
I recently joined FP because I wanted to support the site due to two facts:

- 70% commission. It is great when a agency cares for the authors and pays out a high percentage.
- Pricing. I do not care too much that I can set my own prices, but it allows me to NOT take part in any kind of price war.

With these announcements you are taking away those advantages of your site.

First: Why do you need to reduce commissions??? That is very very disappointing.
Second: The proposed pricing for "standard" would even be ok, but the sizes are looking strange. "Max Size 4800, 6400, 8000, 9600" ??? What kind of pictures do you expect here? Like we all gonna buy Hasselblad from now on?
Third: I do not believe in the price sensitivity of customers as it is implied by this new scheme. The distinction between "standard" and "Mid-stock" is a bit strange - as well as asking authors to guarantee that they don't offer these images at "micros". What defines a microstock site in that context? Will you give a list of sites? Or a minimum price that must be achieved?
I believe that distinction is a very bad idea...

Last but not least: I don't think the industry needs another low-priced subscription site. All you will do is take away customers from existing subscription sites. Why should I support that?
Why not try a better subscription model? Educate buyers! A subscription is nothing else than a volume rebate with some special terms. So if you give buyers a subscription for e.g. 10 images a day for 500$ a month, that is less than 2$ per image. If you give them away full size, assuming a reasonable price of 10$ for a full size image, that would still be a discount of 80%. That is enough. And you could probably still pay contributors 2$ per sub download...

As said before, these changes as proposed are not what I wanted to see when I joined a few weeks ago.
It took me some time to upload my port here and I would be sorry if I had to remove it again.

Best Regards,
Dirk

Hello Dirk,
I have answered all questions at:
http://www.featureimage.com/Forum/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=513

Regarding the commission:

1. First of all we have referrals.
It is -3%.
27% for FP.

For each credit card transaction you are paying 30 cents+ percentage of the amount.
Let's say that after $1 purchase FP has a negative balance.
Approximately %15-%18 are our bank fees only (average per month)

2. Second:
we are offering buyers 25% discount behalf of FeturePics.
$1 - $0.70 - $0.25  -  bank fees =??? -  again, you have a negative balance of 10%

If we want to continue serving our FP community - we need to be sure we are able to do that.

« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2009, 21:30 »
0
I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.

But she has a point: can you afford (morally and commercially) to offer your images with subscription prices on site A, and claim it's a gold image on another one? I never uploaded really to Alamy for the same reason, as it was the consensus a couple of years ago you shouldn't offer the same images on nanostock and on Alamy. Since then, I observed that consensus has been broken.

The second point is how to decide about "gold images". Often we observe that shots we didn't think high of ourselves become good sellers. My latest sale at FP was of an image I found rather documentary, and that was rejected at a few sites as LCV. The good thing about FP (amongst many others) was that it never rejected for LCV. This is a flaw of the LCV-thinking at the major stock sites. You will miss the customers of the long tail. So how to decide about "gold images"?

What FP has to do is think what kind of audience it wants to serve. Might it be that becoming a copy of the existing sites as to content is doomed to fail since that market has been taken already. The blonde beautiful overwhite girl in an IKEA kitchen, the glittery multi-ethnic business teams, those still are the majority of sales in general. Sites that wanted something different, like the Photoshelter collection, failed. Maybe there is no viable market for the long tail.

My feeling in this is that FP tries to play too much on the price competition level, and not enough on the content level, and that goes for many other sites too.

« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2009, 21:33 »
0
I believe that, if you ask Elena to set higher prices for your images, so they don't fall in the microstock range, she will do it.

But she has a point: can you afford (morally and commercially) to offer your images with subscription prices on site A, and claim it's a gold image on another one?

I hadn't observed when I replied to you that the midtsock and the gold collections were both for non-microstock images only.  I don't mix them either, and I even have two separate accounts in FP for that reason.

« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2009, 22:03 »
0
The blonde beautiful overwhite girl in an IKEA kitchen, the glittery multi-ethnic business teams, those still are the majority of sales in general. Sites that wanted something different, like the Photoshelter collection, failed. Maybe there is no viable market for the long tail....
My feeling in this is that FP tries to play too much on the price competition level, and not enough on the content level
"The blonde beautiful overwhite girl in an IKEA kitchen, the glittery multi-ethnic business teams"  - I don't see a lot of them in the "sold" list.
More illustrations...
A few projects "illustrations on demand" with very good results
"not enough on the content level" - I certanly agree with this one.

« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2009, 22:33 »
0
"not enough on the content level"
I want to follow this one.
It is a very common situation when "original content" images have terrible descriptions.
"What is up?"
"abstract"
"No!"
"above"
"my dream"
etc etc.
Authors who provide "multi-ethnic business teams" images - they understand the rules.

« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2009, 01:45 »
0
I will go against the stream here. I personally think the proposed changes is a positive move for FP. Based on my experience on FP for more than three years it is clear that the old model was a failure. In fact I still have to see a MS site where you can set your own prices that is a success. The reason is quite clear. A customer do a search and found images ranging in price from $1 to $30 or more on the same page with no apparent criteria to justify the difference in price. If I was a buyer this will frustrate and confuse me.

I also don't like subscriptions, but it seems like subscriptions is a fact of life for MS sites if they want to make it in this competitive industry. I just really wish every stock site will follow the example of Fotolia to limit the size of the images available for subscription download. Fotolia is the only stock site which offers subscriptions to which I upload my XXL images.  I downsize my images for all the other MS sites which allow maximum size downloads as subscriptions. In this way I miss out on the higher prices of large image sizes sold as per image sales.  The limited size of images available as subscriptions is also a good incentive for buyers to buy individual images at higher prices.

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.    
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 01:50 by Eco »

« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2009, 11:36 »
0
We have been discussing ideas in FP forum.  There has been a suggestion of no subs and a bigger discount for big buyers instead.

I am ok with the volume plan they have now, which limits images to 1000pix.

Milinz

« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2009, 19:09 »
0
We have been discussing ideas in FP forum.  There has been a suggestion of no subs and a bigger discount for big buyers instead.

I am ok with the volume plan they have now, which limits images to 1000pix.

Well, I am NOT OK with such plan due to I NEED SALES - not peannuts!

« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2009, 22:27 »
0
More illustrations...
A few projects "illustrations on demand" with very good results
"not enough on the content level" - I certanly agree with this one.

Well illustrations are a total different game. A photo is faster to make and to edit than a good illustration. An illustration is also more free as to concepts that can be pictured. If a contributor has a mixed port of illustrations and photos, the RPI of illustrations will almost always be much higher.

« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2009, 22:34 »
0
I am ok with the volume plan they have now, which limits images to 1000pix.

If only all (semi-) subscription sites would limit the size for subscription sales, it would be easier to live with subscriptions. One can ask what volume downloaders will do with many hundreds of maximal size pictures? Stockpiling or worse. 1000px images are large enough for banners, sidebars and articles, and even for moderate print.

« Reply #50 on: June 04, 2009, 22:40 »
0
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.

« Reply #51 on: June 04, 2009, 22:54 »
0
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)

« Reply #52 on: June 04, 2009, 23:02 »
0
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.

« Reply #53 on: June 05, 2009, 00:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #54 on: June 05, 2009, 02:55 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
BRAVO! Milinz, well said.  :D

« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2009, 15:02 »
0
is that pixels area? (ie 4800 = 4.8 megapixels)
No, it's maximum size (a 4800x3600 image, for instance).

« Reply #58 on: June 05, 2009, 23:14 »
0
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

« Reply #59 on: June 06, 2009, 00:22 »
0
I've had 2 sales there this week and that's the first time since, well... ever.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #60 on: June 08, 2009, 09:34 »
0
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.

« Reply #61 on: June 08, 2009, 09:57 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 12:52 by DanP68 »

« Reply #64 on: June 08, 2009, 17:34 »
0
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 »
0
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.


« Reply #66 on: June 08, 2009, 19:16 »
0
I would suggest that you guys voice your opinions at FP forum.

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

« Reply #67 on: June 09, 2009, 03:40 »
0
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 :P

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 »
0
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 :P

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...

« Reply #69 on: July 08, 2009, 16:48 »
0
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

« Reply #70 on: July 09, 2009, 07:28 »
0
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

« Reply #71 on: July 09, 2009, 08:41 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #73 on: July 09, 2009, 09:10 »
0



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   

« Reply #74 on: July 09, 2009, 09:13 »
0
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



graficallyminded

« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2009, 10:55 »
0
That looks MUCH better.  Thanks, I hadn't seen this newly proposed pricing.  The only pricing I saw was from the UPDATE section on the website.

« Reply #76 on: July 09, 2009, 15:56 »
0
It seems Elena won't make any changes right now.   :(

But it's important that we voice our opinion, so changes may happen.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4399 Views
Last post November 29, 2006, 13:41
by dbvirago
8 Replies
6989 Views
Last post February 15, 2008, 18:00
by Phil
6 Replies
8349 Views
Last post December 15, 2008, 08:08
by Karimala
11 Replies
6002 Views
Last post March 06, 2009, 10:47
by ljupco
62 Replies
25332 Views
Last post May 13, 2009, 16:47
by litifeta

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors